- From: Steve Bloom (…)
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003
MUMIA IN GROWING DANGER:
WHERE HIS CASE STANDS NOW
- Confronted with a growing movement to abolish the death penalty, exposed repeatedly by revolutionary journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal for its racism, hypocrisy and brutality, the U.S. legal system is coalescing to assert its threatened right to kill people it deems dangerous.
- The courts have been doing this drop by drop: a denial of oral arguments here, a rejection of amicus briefs there. While each decision has been seemingly insignificant, taken together they form a gathering ice-storm for Mumia.
- However, two recent court decisions concerning Mumia’s case have turned the frozen drops into a squall. The first is the decision on 8 October by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to deny a hearing of the new evidence of Mumia’s innocence and the racist bias of the trial judge, Albert Sabo. The second is a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the application of the precedent upon which Mumia’s death sentence was overturned by Federal District Judge William Yohn, Jr., in December 2001.
- Two major cases from the 20th century form a precedent for what’s going on now in the courts with Mumia: (1) Sacco and Vanzetti, who were railroaded to the electric chair over a seven-year period by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts because: (a) they were anarchists and Italians; and (b) to assert its authority despite the gigantic working-class movement which sprang up in their defense; (2) Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, who were legally murdered by the U.S. government because of the radical movement they represented, even though that same government knew at the time that they were not the ‘atom spies’ it alleged.
- More recent was the case of Shaka Sankofa, who in 2000 was the target of a death warrant signed by the governor of Texas then, George W. Bush. Shaka Sankofa was a self-educated, politically aware Black prisoner. From jail, he wrote, spoke and gained a following. But his rights to procedural due process were violated from the time of his arrest. As a result, evidence of his innocence never was heard at his trial. Afterward, the appellate courts repeatedly refused to consider Shaka’s petitions on these matters, citing timeliness and other technicalities.
- A worldwide movement arose to save Shaka, but it was too little and too late against the determination of the Texas authorities to silence him forever.
- The decision by the Pennsylvania court was not unexpected. This is the same court which reversed its own precedent in the 1980’s in order to deny Mumia’s first, direct appeal, and then re-reversed itself a year later in another case. It’s also the same court which used two different standards to weigh evidence in denying Mumia’s second appeal in 1998.
- Participating in the decision was Justice Ronald Castille, who as Philadelphia County D.A. in the 1980’s had signed off on all the briefs filed against Mumia’s first appeal. Castille’s signature also is on a videotape produced by his own office instructing newly-hired prosecutors how to remove Black people from juries without giving the appearance of racism.
- The Pennsylvania court’s decision had two parts. The first upheld a decision by Common Pleas Judge Pamela Dembe to deny a hearing of the substantial evidence of Mumia’s innocence: a confession to the crime by a man named Arnold Beverly; declarations by Mumia himself and his brother, who was also at the scene; and affadavits by investigators and informants which support Mumia’s story and impeach the testimony of prosecution witnesses.
- Judge Dembe and the Supreme Court did not judge the evidence on its merits. Rather they dismissed it as ‘untimely’; that is, it wasn’t filed within the time limits prescribed by the Pennsylvania Legislature. The Legislature, however, did permit exceptions to its requirements, but Dembe and the justices refused to apply them to the evidence of innocence in this life-or-death case.
- Therefore, in the eyes of the Pennsylvania courts, an innocent person can be legally murdered if he or she filed evidence of innocence ‘too late’. Further, all the new evidence of Mumia’s innocence becomes non-existent in the eyes of the courts. This is not only true for the Pennsylvania courts, but the federal courts, too. The terms of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996(AEDPA) bar, with few exceptions, the federal courts from examining evidence which has already been looked at–or ignored–by state courts.
The second part of the decision upheld Judge Dembe’s refusal to consider the affadavit of Terri Maurer-Carter, a veteran court reporter who declared that she overheard Judge Sabo state during Mumia’s trial in 1982 that he was going to help the prosecution ‘fry the n___’.
- Judge Dembe had conceded that the Maurer-Carter declaration may be timely, but said it was the job of the Supreme Court to look at it, not hers. The Supreme Court then turned around and ignored it on the grounds that the issue of racism had already been argued in Mumia’s 1998 appeal. Not really. What had been litigated then was Judge Sabo’s general prejudice against Mumia arising from the judge’s previous job as Undersheriff of Philadelphia County and his long-time membership in the Fraternal Order of Police. Sabo’s race bias was treated as a side issue, illustrated in the overwhelmingly racist pattern of his death sentences.
- The Maurer-Carter affadavit, however, puts Sabo’s racism in the center of a large, white-framed picture. There, for all to see, is the trial judge not only promising to aid the prosecution, but also vowing to help execute Mumia because he is Black.
- Moreover, the picture holds many more people. Earlier this year a commission appointed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court itself recommended a moratorium on death penalties in part because they were applied in a racist manner.
- But the court blew all this off. It wouldn’t consider content. It ignored its own commission. It acted in fact as if Chief Justice Taney, who wrote in his Dred Scott opinion that a Black person ‘has no rights which a white man is bound to respect’, had arisen from his grave and taken a seat of honor on its bench in Harrisburg.
- Separately, in an illustration of how the system is moving to murder Mumia, Federal Judge Yohn had earlier refused to hear Maurer-Carter because he said that Sabo’s race bias had not been already litigated in the state courts.
- The second decision was by the U.S. Supreme Court reviewing the application of its Mills v. Maryland decision in another Pennsylvania case, Banks v. Horn. The significance of this for Mumia is that both cases were cited as precedents by Judge Yohn in throwing out Mumia’s death sentence.
- The Mills decision of 1988 overturned a Maryland requirement that jurors had to be unanimous in finding a mitigating circumstance before they could vote against a death penalty. For many years Pennsylvania used vaguely-worded jury instructions which could have led jurors to believe the same thing. As a result of Mills, at least six Pennsylvania prisoners, including Mumia, have had their death sentences overturned.
- At issue in the Banks review is whether Mills can be applied retroactively, and to what extent. According to legal journalist Rick Halperin, the Supreme Court could decide that Mills cannot be applied retroactively. In that event all prisoners whose direct appeals to the Pennaylvania state courts were completed before Mills was decided, including Mr. Banks, would be out of luck. Or the court could also apply Mills retroactively, but find that the Pennsylvania courts acted ‘reasonably’ in its application. In that case all death row prisoners who have made Mills claims, including Mumia, could have their death sentences put back.
- Finally, the Supreme Court could uphold the overturning of Mr. Banks’ death sentence, but this seems unlikely since the justices voted to examine the case in the first place. The Supreme Court, in fact, accepts for review only about 2% of the cases which come before it. More threatening for Mumia is the fact the two Luzerne County prosecutors who argued against Banks were joined at the court by two attorneys from the Philadelphia D.A.’s office.
- Shining outside Mumia’s case is a ray of hope. Last spring the U.S. Supreme Court decided an appeal of Thomas Joe Miller-El. Miller-El, also from Texas like Shaka, had asked the Supreme Court to reverse the Federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ rejection of his request for a certificate of appealability. Such a certificate is permission under AEDPA for a prisoner to appeal further a claim which had been rejected by a lower Federal District Court. He had previously petitioned the Fifth Circuit for such a certificate to pursue his claim that his rights under the Batson v. Kentucky decision were violated in the racist jury selection process at his original trial.
- The Supreme Court ruled for Miller-El, 8-1. Moreover, in making its ruling the court closely examined the jury selection at Miller-El’s trial. While Mumia already has such a certificate for his Batson claim, the fact that the Supreme Court looked at the jury selection process in the way that it did indicates some unease on this question by the authorities.
- Perhaps the growing movement against the death penalty is pushing them this way. By contrast, in 1987 Justice Powell expressed the same unease during the arguments in McCleskey v. Kemp when he said: ‘This evidence of racism is overwhelming, it’s not refuted, but what are we supposed to do, declare the whole system unconstitutional?’ But Powell ruled against the death-row prisoner anyway, and McCleskey was later executed by the state of Georgia.
- The Miller-El ray of hope, however, will be dissipated without a movement which threatens the stability of a system which wants to kill Mumia to show the Black and working-class people who listen to him that it’s still the boss. Mumia would have been murdered by the state many years ago if it had not been for a globe-spanning chorus of voices and militant actions to protest the injustice done to him. In particular Judge Yohn never would have thrown out Mumia’s death sentence if it had not been for the support of hundreds of thousands of people. Thomas Joe Miller-El himself, much less known than Mumia, nevertheless has organized support which has pushed his case through the courts
- Join the campaign to free Mumia. Abolish the death penalty.
- New York Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition
- (212) 330-8029 or www.freemumia.com
- October 2003
- Von: „Steve Bloom“ <icffmaj@aol.com.>
- Betreff: FW: !!!MUMIA UPDATE!!
- Datum: Freitag, 24. Oktober 2003
- —–Original Message—–
- From: Litestar01(….)]
- Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003
- MUMIA UPDATE
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has denied Mumia Abu Jamal’s appeal under
- the vicious and ludicrus basis that the appeal was filed „untimely“, in
- other words „too late“. That may not seem like such a big deal to anybody
- that is not sitting in a jail cell or facing execution, but IT IS A BIG DEAL
- to MOVE, and anybody with the slightest sense of justice, fairness has to be
- as OUTRAGED as MOVE is. We are not outraged simply because of our closeness
- and committment to Mumia, we are outraged that ANY judge has the gaul, the
- audacity to tell people that a CONFESSION by a man who ADMITS to killing
- Daniel Faulkner and a sworn statement from a stenogragher that the trial
- judge stated he was going to „help them fry the nigger“ can be dismissed for
- ANY reason. Understand, neither Judge Pamela Dembe (the Common Pleas Court
- judge who heard Mumia’s appeal) OR The PA. Supreme Court is addressing these
- COMPELLING ISSUES, they are talking about TIME, PROCEDURE. What about an
- innocent man’s LIFE. Mumia is still alive, he is still in prison sitting on
- death row, HOW can it be „untimely“, too late, to bring forth evidence of
- his innocence, HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? MOVE ain’t talking about legality,
- were talking about what’s RIGHT. What these officials are telling people
- very clearly is that they don’t give a damn about the facts or Mumia’s
- innocence, they only care about KILLING MUMIA REGARDLESS OF THE FACTS AND
- HIS INNOCENCE.
- Is that acceptable to people, because it AIN’T acceptable to MOVE. JOHN
- AFRICA taught us that legal is NOT synonamous with RIGHT, because you can be
- legal and be wrong, but you can NOT be right and be wrong-LONG LIVE JOHN
- AFRICA! On top of all that, people should be aware that The PA. Supreme
- Court is LYING when it says that the issue of Sabo’s bias and racism (which
- is evidenced by his remark that he is going to „help them fry the nigger“)
- was ALREADY RULED ON, because even tho the issue of Sabo’s bias was raised
- generally and ruled on by the court in 1998, Sabo’s statement, the PROOF of
- his bias, was not introduced to the court until 2001, THREE YEARS LATER,
- and The PA. Supreme Court refused to address Sabo’s statement. They said
- that this would amount to „reopening previous litigation“. Common Pleas
- Court Judge Pamela Dembe dismissed Sabo’s statement by saying that even if
- the statement is true, there is NO PROOF that Sabo evidenced racist bias in
- his actual decisons. Apparently she didn’t take into account that Sabo
- excluded most Blacks from the jury; removed Mumia from his own death penalty
- trial; refused Mumias demand to have the cop who reported that Mumia said
- NOTHING come into court to dispute Faulkner’s partner’s testimony that Mumia
- CONFESSED to the killing; dismissed Veronica Jones‘ SWORN testimony that
- Cynthia White, the only witness to identify Mumia as the shooter, was NOT
- even at the scene when the shooting took place and that cops offered
- Veronica the „same deal“ as they gave Cynthia White if Veronica would lie
- under oath that she too saw Mumia shoot Faulkner and many other OBVIOUS
- actions by Sabo that CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED his bias and racism. These
- officials are hellbent on KILLING Mumia and they’re trying to cover their
- viciousness with the cloak of legality because they know that legality has
- NOTHING AT ALL to do with JUSTICE or what is RIGHT: legality is very simply
- WHATEVER THEY SAY IT IS. Thanks to JOHN AFRICA, MOVE ain’t confused by this
- trick, and you shouldn’t be either. The U.S. Supreme Court is now on the
- verge of overturning a ruling that will make it even EASIER for them to KILL
- Mumia and many others. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the
- „Mills vs. Maryland“ decision which struck down the statute requiring a
- unanimous decision by jurors for finding mitigating circumstances that would
- allow for a sentence other than a death sentence. The Mills doctrine was
- applied to Mumia’s case when Judge Yohn overturned Mumia’s death sentence
- because Judge Sabo LIED to the jury in Mumias trial, he told them they must
- reach a UNANIMOUS decision in order to find mitigating circumstances and NOT
- sentence Mumia to death. Review of the Mills doctrine can lead to it being
- overturned and a third death warrant being issued for Mumia as well as death
- warrants being issued for numerous (as many as 30) other people on death
- row. It is urgent- MORE NOW THAN EVER BEFORE- for people to make their
- voices heard, to strengthen the peoples‘ position against these officials‘
- ever-increasing thirst for blood at the expense of OUR lives. The legal team
- will handle legal arguments, but the PEOPLE MUST handle the pressure that’s
- necessary to force these officials to BACK-OFF of Mumia and RELEASE him.
- The fact is, Mumia’s release will NOT come thru a legal argument. Legal
- arguments are the vehicles the courts can use to release Mumia when pressure
- FORCES them to do it, but legal arguments alone are NOT ENOUGH, legal
- arguments WITHOUT THE PRESSURE from people committed to JUSTICE will only
- lead to business as usual and a fast track to execution for Mumia and plenty
- of others. It is CLEAR that these officials are not concerned about the
- facts or justice, but we MUST be.
- For more information and to get involved, you can caontact us at 215
- 476-8812 or icffmaj@aol.com