[Ppnews] Courtroom audio of Mumia's May 17 hearing!

[Political Prisoner News]

For the first time, Journalists for Mumia presents the courtroom audio from
Mumia Abu-Jamal's May 17 oral arguments before the US Third Circuit Court
of Appeals. The full, unedited audio is presented as well as several short
feature blurbs.


COURTROOM AUDIO: Mumia Abu-Jamal’s May 17 Oral Arguments

Presented by Journalists for Mumia Abu-Jamal
(Abu-Jamal-News.com)

On May 17, 2007, a three-judge panel from the United States Third Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral arguments in Philadelphia
on four different issues regarding the fairness of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s
original 1982 trial. Robert R. Bryan, lead counsel for Abu-Jamal, joined by
his associate, Professor Judith L Ritter, and Christina Swarns of the NAACP
Legal Defense Fund, argued that Abu-Jamal’s trial was tainted with racist
jury selection, confusing and wrong jury instructions on the death penalty,
prosecutorial misconduct regarding a false argument to the jury at the
guilt phase, and the bias of the trial judge at a 1995 hearing whom a
court
stenographer overheard boasting in 1982 that he was going to help the
prosecution “fry the nigger.” The National Lawyers Guild also submitted
amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefing on the issues of judicial bias
and false prosecutorial argument.

Because of the limited time, not all of the issues were discussed, even
though they were thoroughly covered in briefing filed by Bryan and Ritter
on behalf of Abu-Jamal. At the outset of oral argument, Deputy District
Attorney Hugh Burns addressed three issues: 1) He argued for reinstating
the death penalty, in his appeal of Judge Yohn’s 2001 decision regarding
the death penalty. 2) He argued in defense of prosecutor Joseph McGill’s
false argument to the jury: “If you find the Defendant guilty of course
there would be appeal after appeal and perhaps there could be a reversal
of the case, or whatever, so that may not be final,” implying the trial
was not final. 3) Addressing the Batson racism-in-jury-selection claim,
Burns argued in defense of McGill’s use of 10 of 15 peremptory challenges
to strike black jurors.

For the defense, Ritter addressed the issue of the death penalty, which is
based on the Mills v. Maryland precedent. In December, 2001, U.S. District
Court Judge William Yohn ruled that sentencing forms used by jurors and
Judge Sabo's instructions to the jury were confusing and contrary to the
law. Jurors were mistakenly led to believe that they had to unanimously
agree on any mitigating circumstance in order to consider it as weighing
against a death verdict.

Lead attorney Robert R. Bryan and Christina Swarns of the NAACP Legal
Defense Fund focused on the racial discrimination in jury selection issue.
In 1986, the US Supreme Court ruled in Batson v. Kentucky that a defendant
deserves a new trial if it can be proved that jurors were excluded on the
grounds of race. Most importantly, Batson significantly lowered the
defendant's burden of proof.

Lead attorney Robert R. Bryan can contacted via email: RobertRBryan at aol.com

THE MAY 17, 2007 AUDIO

The audio is available in both MP3 and Real Player formats. The unedited,
complete audio is available for listening, but it has also been broken up
into both chapters and short excerpts for your convenience.

Listen to the unedited, complete 2 hr. 15 min MP3 file

http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/17mayfull.mp3

Or you can download the files in Real Player format:

http://againstthecrimeofsilence.de/News/2007-05-17-1.ra

http://againstthecrimeofsilence.de/News/2007-05-17-2.ra



CHAPTER ONE: DA Prosecutor Hugh Burns

FULL CHAPTER: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DA.mp3

---PART ONE: Death Penalty: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DAdp.mp3
Deputy DA Hugh Burns argues that Abu-Jamal’s death sentence remain in force
by appealing the December, 2001 decision by U.S. District Court Judge
William Yohn. Citing the 1988 Mills v. Maryland precedent, Yohn ruled that
sentencing forms used by jurors and Judge Sabo's instructions to the jury
were confusing. Subsequently, jurors mistakenly believed that they had to
unanimously agree on any mitigating circumstances in order to consider them
as weighing against a death sentence. However, since the prosecution
appealed, the death judgment remains in effect with Abu-Jamal continuing to
be on death row.

PART TWO: “Appeal after Appeal”: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DA2.mp3
Burns addresses the legality of McGill's statement to Mumia’s jury
minimizing the seriousness of a verdict of guilt: “If you find the
Defendant guilty of course there would be appeal after appeal and perhaps
there could be a reversal of the case, or whatever, so that may not be
final.”

PART THREE: Batson: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DAbatson.mp3
“Certified for appeal” by Yohn in 2001, the Batson claim addresses the
prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to exclude Blacks from
Abu-Jamal’s jury. In 1986, the US Supreme Court ruled in Batson v. Kentucky
that a defendant deserves a new trial if it can be proved that jurors were
excluded on the grounds of race. Most importantly, Batson significantly
lowered the defendant's burden of proof.

SHORT EXCERPTS:
Marching Up San Juan Hill? (13:25):
http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DAsjhill.mp3
Judge Ambro challenges DA Burns’ argument for re-instating the death
penalty, and compares Burns’ effort to “marching up San Juan Hill” (ie. a
losing battle).

You Don’t Deny That McGill’s Statements Were Inappropriate? (18:30):
http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DAdenial.mp3
Judge Cowen asks DA Burns about 1982 Prosecutor Joseph McGill’s statement
to the jury (at both guilt and penalty phases) that Abu-Jamal would have
“appeal after appeal,” which served to lessen the gravity of a guilty
verdict and death sentence. Judge Cowen asks: “You don’t deny that the
statements made by the Assistant Prosecutor were inappropriate for the
summation, do you?” Burns answers: “I do deny that, yes.”

A Violation of the Bill of Rights? (21:30):
http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DArights.mp3
Judge Cowen addresses the Caldwell case, which DA Burns cites in defense of
McGill’s false “appeal after appeal” statement. Judge Cowen forcefully asks
DA Burns about the constitutionality of 1982 Prosecutor Joseph McGill’s
“appeal after appeal” statement, asking “Isn’t Caldwell also about the
rights established by the Bill of Rights? Part of the Bill of Rights is to
have a fair trial.” He then specifically asks if McGill’s statement was “a
denial of one of the rights secured by the Bill of Rights?”

Jenny Dawley (30:00): http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DAdawley.mp3
Jenny Dawley was a black juror who was not granted a leave to take her sick
cat to the veterinarian. When she subsequently violated the court ruling by
leaving to take her cat to the veterinarian, she was removed from the jury.
When DA Burns cites Dawley to argue that there was no racist jury
selection, Judge Ambro said “I don’t think that really helps you.”

Batson Prima Facie (48:30): http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DAprimaf.mp3
Burns argues that the State Supreme Court was “reasonable” in denying
Abu-Jamal’s Batson claim, and seems to be rebuked by Judge Ambro, who
emphasizes the low burden of proof, at the “prima facie” level of
evaluating the Batson claim.


CHAPTER TWO: Judith Ritter

Judith Ritter Unedited (52:00): http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/JR.mp3
Professor Judith L. Ritter, Robert R. Bryan’s associate, argues on behalf
of Abu-Jamal, and specifically addresses the “Mills” issue. In December,
2001 U.S. District Court Judge William Yohn affirmed Abu-Jamal's guilt
judgment but overturned the death sentence. Citing the 1988 Mills v.
Maryland precedent, Yohn ruled that sentencing forms used by jurors and
Judge Albert Sabo's instructions to the jury were confusing and violated
the U.S. Constitution. Jurors were led to believe that they had to
unanimously agree on any mitigating circumstance in order to consider it
as weighing against a death verdict.

*Unfortunately the audio quality of the second half of Ritter’s
presentation is poor. It can be heard via Real Player instead.

SHORT EXCERPT: Verdict Form: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/JRvform.mp3
Judith Ritter argues that the verdict form was confusing.

CHAPTER THREE: Robert R. Bryan

Robert R. Bryan Unedited (1:03:00):
http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/RRB.mp3
This is the complete, unedited version of the argument of Abu-Jamal’s lead
attorney, Robert R. Bryan, where his focus is on the Batson issue.
Unfortunately, the first 10 minutes of audio is poor quality, but it is
included here just in case. To remedy this problem, either 1) Listen to the
next segment, which does not include the bad 10 minutes, or 2) Listen via
Real Player from the file available at the top of the page.

Robert R. Bryan, Edited, Good Quality:
http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/RRBgood.mp3
For this selection, the first 10 minutes of Robert R. Bryan’s presentation
have been removed, so that all of this is high-quality audio.

SHORT EXCERPT: Peremptory Strikes:
http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/RRBstrikes.mp3
Addressing the Batson claim, Robert R. Bryan gives several examples where
prosecutor McGill’s justification for striking black jurors contradicts his
treatment of potential white jurors.

*Also, listen to Robert R. Bryan’s closing argument below.

CHAPTER FOUR: Christina Swarns of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund

Full Unedited 21 Minute Presentation: (1:34:30):
http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/LDF.mp3
Christina Swarns of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund addresses the Batson
claim. In their amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief supporting the
Batson claim, http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=957
the Legal Defense Fund concludes that it is an “abundantly clear
 prima
facie case of discrimination.” The LDF cites a survey of homicide cases DA
McGill tried from Sept., 1981 to Oct., 1983, showing that “the odds that
Mr. McGill would peremptorily challenge an African-American potential
juror were 8.47 times greater than for non-black jurors.”

SHORT EXCERPTS:

Introduction (1:34:30): http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/LDFintro.mp3
Christina Swarns begins.

McMahon Videotape: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/LDFmcmahon.mp3
Citing several different reasons that Abu-Jamal’s case fits within the
Batson framework, she contextualizes these facts with the infamous McMahon
videotape that trained Philadelphia prosecutors to exclude black jurors.

March 18, 1982 Hearing: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/LDFjackson.mp3
Christina Swarns discusses the March 18, 1982 hearing where defense
attorney Anthony Jackson expresses his fear that the DA will exclude black
jurors in Abu-Jamal’s trial, saying: “They always do. They always do.”

Jury Veneer Pool: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/LDFveneer.mp3
Swarns responds to the DA’s argument that because the racial composition of
the overall potential jury pool is unknown, Mumia cannot prove racist jury
selection. She cites a precedent which states that while those statistics
are helpful, they are not necessary for a successful Batson claim.

CHAPTER FIVE: Hugh Burns Makes Closing Argument

Full, Unedited Rebuttal: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DArebuttal.mp3
Burns makes his concluding argument to the Judges.

SHORT EXCERPT:

March 18, 1982 Hearing: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/march18.mp3
In this dialogue between Burns and the judges, Burns argues that Anthony
Jackson’s March 18, 1982 statement about racist jury selection actually
helps the DA’s case. In this argument, Burns is strongly challenged by
Judge Ambro.

----ROBERT R. BRYAN MAKES CLOSING ARGUMENT:

Full, Unedited Rebuttal: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/RRBclosing.mp3
In these closing remarks, lead attorney Robert R. Bryan asks rhetorically
how Abu-Jamal’s case can be the exception to the rule during a period in
Philadelphia when racist jury selection was so widespread by the District
Attorney in all murder cases tried both before and after that of his
client. Citing cases, he said “We have bookends here. We have case, after
case, after case in which race was used in jury selection. . . . that
discrimination was at work.”

----
Listen to interviews with several observers of the May 17 oral arguments
http://phillyimc.org/en/2007/05/39663.shtml


For more information, please visit the new Journalists for Mumia Abu-Jamal
website: http://Abu-Jamal-News.com

Also contact:

International Concerned Family & Friends of MAJ
P.O. Box 19709
Philadelphia, PA 19143
Phone - 215-476-8812/ Fax - 215-476-6180
E-mail - icffmaj at aol.com




Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/ppnews_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20070824/ab2c08f8/attachment.html