[Pnews] Mumia Abu Jamal's Action for New Appeal Rights
ppnews at freedomarchives.org
Mon Dec 24 10:17:56 EST 2018
MumiaNYC-owner at yahoogroups.com
*Mumia Abu Jamal's Action for New Appeal Rights*
By Rachel Wolkenstein, December 21, 2018
On December 3, 2018, Judge Tucker closed the record in Mumia’s pending
action and said he would issue a decision at a later date, stating that
reaching a decision was complicated and difficult.
Only four days later Judge Tucker re-opened the legal argument and
ordered both Mumia’s lawyers and the DA to submit memoranda of law
regarding the relevance of Cannon 3C of Judicial Conduct to the issues
in Mumia’s case and as set forth in /Williams v Pennsylvania/, 136 S.
Ct. 1899 (2016).
This is about whether and to what extent the judicial ethical rules
requiring recusal when there is an /appearance/ of judicial bias or
impartiality are relevant to Mumia’s case. And to what extent these
rules fit with the “objective” fact standard set in /Williams v.
Pa/. Remember, /Williams/ states that judicial bias and conflict of
interest violate a defendant’s due process rights on appeal when it is
established a judge had a previous “personal, significant involvement in
a critical prosecutorial decision” in the same case. The /Williams
/decision was a more specific application of the more general legal
principles requiring due process on appeal and that the appearance of
judicial bias requires recusal. This judicial ethical standard is not
generally applied. The history of Castille as DA and then as PA Supreme
Court justice is evidence of this.
Those new legal briefs were filed on December 17.
Mumia’s lawyers already raised this issue in the two amended PCRA
petitions, and it was argued by Sam Spital of the NAACP Legal Defense
Fund in the court proceeding on October 29. The relevant facts are based
on the documents released by the prosecution and are the same facts and
documents that underlie the /Williams /argument: Castille’s bias in
trying to get capital defendants who were convicted as “police killers”
executed as quickly as possible.
Mumia’s lawyers are using the same “new evidence” to argue two closely
related legal theories to make the case that Castille should have
recused himself, and his failure to do so violated Mumia’s due process
right to an unbiased appeal process. Since Mumia didn’t get this
unbiased appeal process, he is entitled to new rights of appeal before
another panel of PA justices.
The factual evidence is the letter from Castille to then Governor Robert
Casey urging him to set an example and sign execution warrants for
“police killers.” There is also supporting evidence including Castille’s
communication with State Senator Fisher to change the law compelling the
governor to sign death warrants, etc.
The new filing attaches the full transcript of the October 29 court
hearing and cites Judge Tucker’s favorable comments that they consider
to be supportive. (The last ten pages of the transcript have a blank
stripe from top to bottom, which was in the printout from the Clerk of
the Court. All attempts to get these legal filings from Mumia’s lawyers
Mumia’s lawyers’ legal brief does not include any reference to or quotes
of the public statements Castille made that show his bias, including
those the U.S. Supreme Court included in the /Williams/ decision or the
supporting arguments in the briefs filed in Mumia’s 1996 and 2002
Also notable is the argument made in opposition to the DA, that the bias
Castille had in criminal cases applies only to a “narrow category of
cases.” They conclude their brief stating, “Mr. Castille as DA, chose to
single out a narrow category of cases—and only one narrow category of
cases—to which he implored the Governor to send a ‘clear and dramatic
message.’ A reasonable observer could question Justice Castille’s
impartiality with respect to that narrow category of cases, not to any
other category of cases in which Justice Castille had only “tangential
contact when he was the DA.” (p.9 of the memo of law)
In my opinion, the argument of Castille’s bias to those convicted as
“police killers” should not have been made into an argument that
implicitly (at a minimum) is that Castille was not biased against those
other than “police killers.” This is a disservice to Mumia and other
prisoners who are challenging judicial misconduct.
We will see what Judge Tucker does. In any event there will be an
appeal, by DA Krasner if Judge Tucker rules in favor of Mumia and by
Mumia if there is a denial of his PCRA petition.
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the PPnews