[Ppnews] New Mumia essay by J Patrick O'Connor
Political Prisoner News
ppnews at freedomarchives.org
Thu Apr 2 10:24:01 EDT 2009
In denying Abu-Jamal’s Batson claim, the Third
Circuit’s ruling created new law by placing new
restrictions on a defendant’s ability to file a
Batson claim. The Third Circuit, in effect,
tampered with and undermined a long-established Supreme Court ruling.
------------------------------
<http://www.phillyimc.org/en/mumia-abu-jamal%E2%80%99s-last-chance-justice>http://www.phillyimc.org/en/mumia-abu-jamal%E2%80%99s-last-chance-justice
Mumia Abu-Jamal’s Last Chance for Justice
By J. Patrick O’Connor
Since his conviction in 1982 for the murder of
Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner,
Mumia Abu-Jamal, through his numerous books,
essays and radio commentaries, has become the
face of the anti-death penalty movement in the
United States and an international cause célèbre.
Paris, for example, made him an honorary citizen
in 2003, bestowing the honor for the first time
since Pablo Picasso received it in 1971.
Abu-Jamal’s case has been politically charged
from the beginning. As Amnesty International
established in its 2000 pamphlet entitled “The
Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal: A Life in the Balance,”
his tortuous appeal process has been fraught with
“judicial machinations.” Claims that won the day
in other cases were repeatedly denied him, first
by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 1989 and
subsequently by a Federal District Court in 2001
where the judge overturned his death sentence but
left in place in his conviction – and Abu-Jamal
on death row – pending further appeals.
The latest example of what has become known as
“the Mumia exception” occurred in March of 2008
when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, in a sharply divided 2-1 decision,
turned down Abu-Jamal’s appeal for a new trial
based on the claim that the prosecutor – through
his use of peremptory challenges – purged
otherwise qualified blacks from his jury. In
1986, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its
landmark Batson decision, ruling that racial
discrimination in jury selection is
unconstitutional and merits the harmed defendant a new trial.
In a nutshell, the Third Circuit majority denied
Abu-Jamal’s Batson claim on a technicality of its
own invention, not on its merits, ruling that his
claim failed because he was not able to establish
the racial composition of the entire jury pool at
his 1982 trial. In issuing its ruling, the court,
incredibly, ignored its own previous opposite
rulings in the Holloway v. Horn in 2004 and
Brinson v. Vaughn in 2005 where it specifically
ruled it was not required for the defendants in
those cases to establish such data.
Abu-Jamal’s final opportunity for judicial relief
is now before the U.S. Supreme Court in the form
of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. On
February 4, the high court docketed and accepted
that filing. According to Abu-Jamal’s lead
attorney, Robert Bryan of San Francisco, “The
central issue in this case is racism in jury
selection. The prosecution systematically removed
people from sitting on the trial jury purely
because of the color of their skin, that is, being black.”
Joseph McGill, the prosecutor at Abu-Jamal’s
trial, has stipulated in previous appeal
proceedings that he used 10 of the 15 peremptory
challenges he exercised to exclude blacks from
the jury – a strike rate of 66.67 percent against
potential black jurors. Such a high strike rate
is in itself an extremely strong inference of
discrimination. The result was that – in a city
with a black population of over 40 percent in
1982 – only three of the 12 jurors impaneled were
black. As Third Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro
pointedly stated in his dissent, “It is my belief
that the 66.67 percent strike rate, without
reference to the total venire [jury pool], can
stand on its own for the purpose of raising an inference of discrimination.”
During last year’s term, the U.S. Supreme Court
expanded its 1986 Batson ruling to warrant a new
trial if a minority defendant could show the
inference of racial bias in the prosecutor’s
peremptory exclusion of one juror. Under Batson,
the defense needed to show an inference – i.e., a
pattern – of racial bias in the overall jury
selection process. Ironically, the Supreme
Court’s 7-2 decision strengthening and expanding
Batson’s reach was written by Justice Samuel
Alito, most recently of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
As a result, there is something more than a
remote possibility that the Supreme Court will
agree to grant Abu-Jamal’s writ. In denying
Abu-Jamal’s Batson claim, the Third Circuit’s
ruling created new law by placing new
restrictions on a defendant’s ability to file a
Batson claim. The Third Circuit, in effect,
tampered with and undermined a long-established Supreme Court ruling.
A Writ of Certiorari is a decision by the Supreme
Court to hear an appeal from a lower court.
Supreme Court justices rarely give a reason why
they accept or deny Cert. Although all nine
justices are involved in considering Cert
Petitions, it takes only four justices to grant a
Writ of Certiorari, even if five justices are
against it. This is known as “the rule of four.”
If the Supreme Court were to grant Cert on
Abu-Jamal’s Batson claim, one clean, simple
option for it would be to remand the case to
federal district court for the Batson hearing
both the Federal District Court in 2001 and the
Third Circuit in 2008 should have ordered. Such a
hearing would, in all probability except for “the
Mumia exception,” lead to a new trial for
Abu-Jamal. A new trial, considering the utter
travesty of justice his original trial
represented, would set him free. If Certiorari is
denied, Abu-Jamal – now 54 – will, barring the
most unlikely intervention by a future governor
of Pennsylvania, spend the rest of his life in prison.
--J. Patrick O’Connor is the editor of Crime
Magazine
(<http://www.crimemagazine.com/>www.crimemagazine.com)
and the author of The Framing of Mumia Abu-Jamal,
published by Lawrence Hill Books in 2008.
FROM THE 'JOURNALISTS FOR MUMIA' WEBSITE:
**New articles on O'Connor's book by
<http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/07/03/18513195.php>Carolina
Saldaña,
<http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/06/27/18511611.php>Linn
Washington Jr.,
<http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/06/can-the-media-continue-to-ignore-the-framing-of-mumia-abu-jamal>Hans
Bennett, and radio shows
<http://lawanddisorder.org/2008/06/29/law-and-disorder-june-30-2008/>Law
and Disorder, <http://www.voxunion.com/?p=71>Jazz
and Justice, and
<http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/07/19/18517826.php>KOWA**
VIDEO interview with J. Patrick O'Connor:
(WATCH PARTS
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsh8fxS0S3k>1,
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J6EYVC5hME>2,
and <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2nm5T0nMSw>3)
On May 1, the day of the book's release, AJN
interviewed O'Connor at Philadelphia City Hall.
The next day, The Framing of Mumia Abu-Jamal was
featured in The NY Times:
<http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/05/01/18496220.php>"Book
Asserts Black Reporter Didn't Kill White Officer in '81."
<http://www.abu-jamal-news.com/article.php?name=framing4>Read
our exclusive interview from April, focusing on
the frame-up, Kenneth Freeman, the March 27 court
ruling, and Frank Rizzo's legacy.
O’Connor argues that the actual shooter was
Kenneth Freeman and he criticizes the media, who
“bought into the prosecution’s story line early
on and has never been able to see this case for
what it is: a framing of an innocent and peace
loving man.” For more on
<http://www.ipgbook.com/showbook.cfm?bookid=1556527446&userid=3F711707-803F-2B7A-708FD8627CED70E2>“The
Framing of Mumia Abu-Jamal” we are featuring an
<http://www.abu-jamal-news.com/article.php?name=framing1>excerpt,
a
<http://www.abu-jamal-news.com/article.php?name=framing3>previous
interview,
<http://www.abu-jamal-news.com/article.php?name=framing2>O’Connor’s
review of “Murdered By Mumia,” and
<http://www.abu-jamal-news.com/article.php?name=framing5>his
response to the March 27 ruling.
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/20090402/e0bb0fc1/attachment.htm>
More information about the PPnews
mailing list