<html>
<body>
<font size=3><br><br>
Greetings!<br><br>
I am writing to share my new interview with Robert R. Bryan, lead
attorney<br>
for Mumia Abu-Jamal. In this interview he responds to the recent
move<br>
from the Philadelphia DA requesting that the entire Third Circuit
Court<br>
recuse itself from Mumia's case.<br><br>
While this move is quite "over the top," it strongly suggests
that the DA<br>
is afraid the Third Circuit will be fair in considering the issues<br>
regarding a new trial. So, this is very exciting and gives us
reason for<br>
hope, but at the same time, if the DA's request is successful,
Mumia's<br>
case could be moved to a more conservative court where he'll have
less<br>
chance of getting a new trial.<br><br>
Clearly, the time for action is now, and I hope you enjoy my new
interview<br>
that I just conducted on Monday. Please spread this interview
around as<br>
much as possible.<br><br>
Sincerely,<br>
Hans Bennett<br>
Insubordination.blogspot.com<br>
<a href="http://hbjournalist1.googlepages.com/ms" eudora="autourl">
http://hbjournalist1.googlepages.com/ms<br><br>
<br>
</a>
<a href="http://phillyimc.org/en/2007/04/38699.shtml" eudora="autourl">
http://phillyimc.org/en/2007/04/38699.shtml<br><br>
</a>Abu-Jamal Attorney Responds to Philly DA<br>
----Is the DA afraid the Third Circuit will grant a new trial?<br><br>
Hans Bennett interviews Abu-Jamal attorney Robert R. Bryan<br><br>
As reported in two recent Associated Press articles,<br>
(<a href="http://cbs3.com/topstories/local_story_096132154.html" eudora="autourl">
http://cbs3.com/topstories/local_story_096132154.html</a>)
<br>
(<a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/16/america/NA-GEN-US-Mumia-Abu-Jamal.php" eudora="autourl">
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/16/america/NA-GEN-US-Mumia-Abu-Jamal.php</a>
)<br>
the Philadelphia District Attorney has filed a motion asking the
entire<br>
3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to recuse itself from Black
death-row<br>
journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal's case on grounds that Gov. Ed Rendell,
whose<br>
wife serves on the court, was district attorney during Abu-Jamal's
1982<br>
trial. The DA argues that if the court rules unfavorably for
Abu-Jamal,<br>
the defendant could then argue that the ruling was a result of bias
from<br>
the court, and as the Associated Press wrote, the DA allegedly
"wants to<br>
leave Abu-Jamal no grounds for any future appeal."<br><br>
Assistant District Attorney Hugh J. Burns Jr. wrote in his motion
that<br>
since "Mr. Rendell was the elected district attorney at the time
in<br>
question, and so would have been responsible for the supposed
'routine'<br>
racially discriminatory practices of Philadelphia prosecutors,
Abu-Jamal's<br>
accusations necessarily implicate Mr. Rendell personally,"<br><br>
This request followed the March 22 announcement that Abu-Jamal would
have<br>
oral arguments in Philadelphia on May 17, where the court will
consider<br>
four different issues that have already been certified for appeal.
<br>
Supporters have already begun organizing a mass-demonstration in<br>
Philadelphia on May 17, and many feel that the DA's request is
actually<br>
designed 1) to delay the oral arguments and 2) to move Abu-Jamal's case
to<br>
a more conservative circuit that will be less sympathetic to the
issues<br>
being presented for a new trial.<br><br>
Abu-Jamal's attorney, Robert R, Bryan, strongly opposed this move by
the<br>
District Attorney and filed his response with the court on April
13.<br><br>
In this interview (conducted on April 16), Bryan responds to this
recent<br>
move from the DA and provides background on the issues being considered
on<br>
May 17.<br><br>
San Francisco attorney Robert R. Bryan has appeared as chief counsel
in<br>
numerous murder cases and specializes in death-penalty litigation. He is
a<br>
member of the bar of the United States Supreme Court, California,
New<br>
York, Alabama, various federal courts, and is the former Chair of
the<br>
National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, Washington, DC.<br><br>
Mumia Abu-Jamal first began writing Mr. Bryan in 1986 and in 1991
formally<br>
asked him to take his case. The attorney had to decline at that time
due<br>
to a full schedule of other capital case commitments. In 2003 Mr.
Bryan<br>
was again approached, and finally agreed to become lead counsel for
Mr.<br>
Abu-Jamal. He can be contacted via email:<br>
RobertRBryan@aol.com<br><br>
<br>
Hans Bennett: Last week, you filed a response to the DA's request to
have<br>
the 3rd Circuit Court recuse itself? What's this all
about?<br><br>
Robert R. Bryan: I was surprised that the Philadelphia District
Attorney<br>
actually asked for the disqualification of every judge on the U.S.
Court<br>
of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This seems really over the
top. On<br>
Friday, April 13, I filed a response aggressively opposing this effort
by<br>
the DA. One of my concerns is that the prosecution not be allowed to
use<br>
this ploy to delay oral argument which is set for May 17.<br><br>
Mumia has been locked up for over a quarter of a century and on death
row<br>
for 24. This day for oral arguments has been a long time coming and
we do<br>
not want justice delayed. That is the bottom line. Also, I
feel that<br>
this court can be fair. The grounds presented by the DA for<br>
disqualification of every judge are baseless and absurd.<br><br>
I have been doing death penalty work for three decades and this is a
novel<br>
approach. Of course, in some cases a judge might not be fair and
must be<br>
disqualified. An example would be when I reopened in New Jersey
the<br>
Hauptmann-Lindbergh Trial of the Century on behalf of Anna Hauptmann,
the<br>
widow of Richard Hauptmann. He was executed in 1936 for the
kidnap-murder<br>
of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr.; that was long before I was born. In
the<br>
1980s I uncovered evidence suppressed by the government establishing
that<br>
Mr. Hauptmann was in fact innocent. We were litigating the case in
the<br>
U.S. District Court, Newark. I asked for the recusal of the
judge<br>
assigned to the case in the belief he could not be fair because his
father<br>
had been involved in the initial 1932 Lindbergh kidnap investigation as
a<br>
police chief.<br><br>
Recusal is statutorily required where a judge has a personal bias or<br>
prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed facts,
or<br>
where there is the appearance of impropriety. However, I do not see
those<br>
conditions in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, where the DA wants to<br>
disqualify not just one judge, but rather the entire court.<br><br>
Bennett: Has the three-judge panel even been selected yet?<br><br>
Bryan: No. We do not at this point know whom the three judges will
be to<br>
hear and decide the case. For the District Attorney to be asking
for<br>
disqualification under the circumstances seems absurd.<br><br>
Bennett: In December 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals shocked many by<br>
agreeing to consider two claims not "certified for appeal" by
Judge Yohn<br>
in 2001. Do you think the DA is threatened by the 3rd Circuit
because<br>
they may fairly consider the issues and grant your client a new
trial?<br><br>
Bryan: The prosecution seems intent on doing just about anything to
avoid<br>
that result: a new trial not riddled with racism. The DA's effort
seems<br>
not only for the purpose of delaying the May 17 oral argument, but is
also<br>
a transparent attempt to maneuver the case into being heard by
really<br>
conservative judges from other circuits. This court, the Third
Circuit,<br>
has a reputation for being fair and evenhanded, much more than some of
the<br>
other courts. That is all Mumia and I want—fairness.<br><br>
The United States is divided into different circuits. This
particular<br>
circuit is known for being just, particularly when there have been<br>
constitutional abuses and has been willing to grant relief. It is
clear<br>
what the DA is trying to do. The prosecution wants Mumia's case out
of<br>
the Third Circuit and heard instead by judges from elsewhere who are
more<br>
conservative and less concerned about constitutional violations,<br>
particularly with death penalty cases such as this.<br><br>
A word of caution. Being in the Third Circuit certainly does
not<br>
guarantee a favorable outcome. What Mumia and I want is that his
case be<br>
fairly heard and adjudged. If that occurs then we have a good
chance of<br>
being granted a new trial, since the constitutional violations are
so<br>
egregious. Racism and unfairness are threads that have run through
this<br>
case since the beginning.<br><br>
Bennett: In 2003 a state court ruled against considering court<br>
stenographer Terry Maurer-Carter's affidavit. Since this time, have
you<br>
been able to include her affidavit in the current federal appeal,
despite<br>
the state ruling?<br><br>
Bryan: Ms. Maurer-Carter came forward in August, 2001 with startling
new<br>
evidence. She revealed that during the 1982 trial she overheard
Judge<br>
Albert Sabo state, in reference to Mumia, that he was going to help
"fry<br>
the n----r." Her sworn declaration was immediately filed in
the U.S.<br>
District Court. Three weeks later on September 17, 2001, a motion
was<br>
filed federally in an effort to expand the judicial bias claim,
contending<br>
that the newly discovered evidence established the judge "was
racially<br>
prejudiced" against Mumia. The evidence also was submitted to
the state<br>
court, and then as part of a petition I filed March 8, 2004 in the
United<br>
States Supreme Court. The issue we presented was whether it is<br>
permissible under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments for a
judge<br>
to preside over a capital murder trial in which he was overheard
stating<br>
in reference to the accused that he was going to help "fry the
n----r." <br>
Just quoting those horrible words of Judge Sabo sends chills down my<br>
spine.<br><br>
Bennett: You have included her statement in your current 3rd Circuit<br>
appeal, in particular regarding the fourth issue being considered:
Judge<br>
Sabo's unfairness at the 1995 PCRA evidentiary hearings.<br><br>
Bryan: Yes. We have four issues in this case and this one concerns
Judge<br>
Sabo's bias, not at the 1982 trial, but during the 1995
post-conviction<br>
(PCRA) evidentiary hearing. I am stuck with that limitation since
the<br>
lawyers previously on the case did not as a matter of law accuse
Judge<br>
Sabo of bias at the trial. The judge who was deciding whether or
not to<br>
grant a new trial in 1995 was the same person who presided over the
1982<br>
trial in which my client was convicted and sentenced to death.
Judge Yohn<br>
assumed as part of his federal rulings in 2001, that in denying
relief<br>
Judge Sabo was impartial and fair. Now we know that was not
true. When<br>
it came to Mumia Abu-Jamal, Judge Sabo made a bigoted remark that he
was<br>
intent on seeing my client "fry", to be executed. The
constitutional<br>
principles of due process, fundamental fairness, and equal protection
of<br>
the law had taken a holiday from his courtroom. As you know, Mumia
has<br>
been on death row ever since the trial.<br><br>
Aside from the numerous violations of my client's constitutional
rights<br>
detailed in our briefs, we also have this evidence that Judge Sabo said
he<br>
was going to help the prosecution kill my client, referring to him in
the<br>
most racist and despicable manner imaginable.<br><br>
Sabo's "fry the n----r" comment is interrelated with what we
are arguing<br>
on May 17, but it is not the sole basis of the argument that Judge
Sabo<br>
was unfair at the 1995 hearing. But it is now part of it and we put
it in<br>
because it was raised shortly following discovery, and was presented
to<br>
the U.S. District Court. So I feel it is legitimately there before
the<br>
Court of Appeals.<br><br>
As you know, I have litigated numerous death penalty cases around
the<br>
country for three decades. Back when I was trying many cases in
the<br>
South, I went before some very racist judges. One even jailed me
three<br>
days for contempt of court for challenging his racism and bias. <br>
Incidentally, my client was cleared—acquitted of murder and all
related<br>
charges. With all the racism I have witnessed, never have I been
before<br>
someone who was so arrogant about his or her racism as to just openly
talk<br>
about it. Mumia's case occurred not in the South, but in
Philadelphia,<br>
which, aside from the police department, is a sophisticated
city. Yet,<br>
in this case Judge Sabo refers to Mumia as a "n----r" and
boasts about<br>
helping the prosecution ensure that he is executed. This is the
big<br>
gorilla in the room that must be addressed; it cannot be
ignored.<br><br>
Hans: It's remarkable that Judge Pamela Dembe ruled in 2001 that
even if<br>
Maurer-Carter was correct, it simply does not matter. She said that
since<br>
it "was a jury trial, as long as the presiding judge's rulings
were<br>
legally correct, claims as to what might have motivated or animated
those<br>
rulings are not relevant."<br><br>
Bryan: I feel that as a matter of law Judge Dembe was wrong, and
of<br>
course rejecting that she employed faulty judgment. The subsequent
ruling<br>
by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which I took to the United State<br>
Supreme Court, was likewise based upon illogical reasoning.
Nevertheless,<br>
as I mentioned earlier, this issue was also presented during the
same<br>
period in the U.S. District Court. The sworn declaration of
Terri<br>
Maurer-Carter was promptly filed federally.<br><br>
It is interesting that Ms. Maurer-Carter's husband was a police
officer<br>
and she an official court stenographer who has received awards for
the<br>
excellence for her court-reporting work. She is just a normal
person, not<br>
political, but what Ms. Maurer-Carter overheard really bothered
her. I<br>
have great respect for her, that she had the courage to come forward
with<br>
this information. Ms. Maurer-Carter could have remained silent and
stayed<br>
out of this, and she and her family would certainly feel safer at
night.<br><br>
Bennett: Do you have an estimate of you how long it will take for the
3rd<br>
Circuit Court to make the ruling on a new trial?<br><br>
Bryan: It is difficult to say. The court has a goal of having an
internal<br>
draft decision within 60 days following assignment or all
supplemental<br>
briefing. Yet, if a judge on the panel wishes to concur or dissent,
he or<br>
she should submit the opinion within 45 days after a second judge's<br>
approval of the majority decision. These are only targets the court
sets<br>
for itself so it could reach a decision much quicker, or longer. I
hope<br>
to have a ruling before the end of the summer, but that depends upon
what<br>
happens internally with the court; it could be sometime in the
fall. I do<br>
not think it will sit on this case for a long time. This is a court
not<br>
known to procrastinate and hold up the wheels of justice.<br><br>
Bennett: What rulings could the court make?<br><br>
Bryan: I will give you the two extremes of what might happen: (1) If
the<br>
court decides that Mumia deserves a new trial, the judges might order
a<br>
retrial. (2) If the court rules against us on everything, it we
would be<br>
looking down the barrel of an execution and need to petition the
United<br>
States Supreme Court. Of course, there are various rulings the
court<br>
could make between these two extremes, such as sending the case back to
a<br>
lower court for further hearings, only ordering a retrial on the issues
of<br>
life or death, etc.<br><br>
The issues in this case are of great constitutional importance.
In<br>
addition to the work by associate counsel Professor Judith L. Ritter
and<br>
me, there has been support from highly respected legal
organizations. The<br>
NAACP Legal Defense Fund has written a friend of the court brief on
the<br>
"racism-in-jury-selection" issue. There was also a brief
filed by the<br>
National Lawyers Guild, which has been joined by the National
Conference<br>
of Black Lawyers, International Association of Democratic Lawyers,
Charles<br>
Hamilton Houston Institute of Race and Justice at Harvard Law School,
the<br>
Southern Center for Human Rights, and the National Jury Project.
That is<br>
quite a list of human rights-oriented organizations arguing that this
case<br>
cries for a new and fair trial not riddled with racism, as it was<br>
initially.<br><br>
Bennett: What can supporters around the world do to best aid your
battle<br>
in the courts?<br><br>
Bryan: People need to openly express their concern for human rights,<br>
opposition to the death penalty, and demand what we are after in
this<br>
case: a completely new trial, at the conclusion of that trial, my
client<br>
could go home to his family. That is the bottom line, and that is
what's<br>
driving me and the legal team: Mumia's ultimate freedom.<br><br>
That being said, I consider it very important that people's voices
are<br>
heard in many ways, like peacefully demonstrating, writing letters
to<br>
newspaper editors, op-ed pieces, news articles. It is really like
what<br>
you, Hans, are doing: just getting the word out publicly about
the<br>
injustices that have occurred in this case—letting the facts speak
for<br>
themselves. That is what people can do. Of course we need
financial<br>
support for the legal effort, and there is a fund strictly for the
legal<br>
defense, the Committee To Save Mumia Abu-Jamal (see below).<br><br>
The big thing is that people's voices are heard. I was in
Berlin,<br>
Germany, in January and spoke to an audience of well over two
thousand<br>
people. The audience's boisterous reaction to my remarks was<br>
overwhelming—they recognized the importance of Mumia to the cause of<br>
people's basic rights. There is also much activism in many
other<br>
countries, such as France, England, Spain, Italy. Mumia Abu-Jamal
has<br>
become a worldwide symbol in the struggle against the death penalty,
and<br>
against human rights abuses.<br><br>
When arrested Mumia was a prominent journalist who was known as the
Voice<br>
of the Voiceless, because he spoke out against governmental abuses
and<br>
corruption. The authorities thought when they prosecuted and put
him on<br>
death row, they would silence him. Ironically he is heard by more
people<br>
today through radio and print than he was when free. Mumia does not
write<br>
about himself, but rather about big issues like women's rights,
racism,<br>
wrongs committed by the U.S. and other governments in Iraq, how we
treat<br>
prisoners at places like Guantanamo, the education of young people,
and<br>
poverty.<br><br>
The Philadelphia District Attorney's goal is to kill Mumia, to see him
put<br>
in the death chamber, strapped down, and murdered in the name of the law.
<br>
The hope of the state is to silence Mumia once and for all.<br><br>
We all need to understand that the racism and unfairness continues
through<br>
the present and we are trying to change that.<br><br>
Bennett: Anything else to add?<br><br>
Bryan: The Batson issue, which concerns racism in jury selection, is
very<br>
important. It was not just in my client's case, but it was actually
the<br>
modus operandi of lawyers in the District Attorney's Office to
remove<br>
people from the jury who were black and poor. This rendered the
trial<br>
unfair. The U.S. Supreme Court as well as the U.S. Circuit Court
of<br>
Appeals have spoken on this issue, ruling that this type of behavior
by<br>
prosecutors is constitutionally unacceptable.<br><br>
Bennett: How long have you and Mumia known each other?<br><br>
Bryan: Mumia started writing me in 1986 and we eventually got to know
each<br>
other, but I had to turn down the case because I was too busy with
other<br>
death penalty work. When he came back to me just over four years
ago, I<br>
could not say no, because it was too important and he needed
help.<br><br>
Mumia has reminded me that what we are all doing is far bigger that
just<br>
his case. It relates to everyone on death row, and is about
people<br>
everywhere who are unfairly treated, political prisoners around the
globe.<br>
We need to bear in mind that a victory for Mumia Abu-Jamal will
help<br>
other people. That is Mumia's concern. He hopes that what we
are doing<br>
in his case will help other death row inmates, and put a spotlight on
the<br>
things wrong with legal systems everywhere. The racism needs to
be<br>
exposed, brought out to the light of day, and changed. We are
about<br>
making change for a lot of people.<br><br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
To contribute to the legal defense of Mumia, checks should be made
payable<br>
to the "National Lawyers Guild Foundation." The NLG
Foundation is a<br>
tax-exempt, nonprofit charitable organization under Internal Revenue
Code<br>
Section 501(c)(3). Donations should be mailed to: Committee To Save
Mumia<br>
Abu-Jamal, P.O. Box 2012, New York, NY 10159.<br><br>
The four issues being considered are:<br><br>
#1. Whether the penalty phase of Mumia's trial violated the
legal<br>
precedent set by the US Supreme Court's 1988 Mills v. Maryland ruling.
<br>
This issue was grounds for Yohn's overturning the death sentence in
2001<br>
and is now being appealed by the DA. Yohn ruled that sentencing
forms<br>
used by jurors and Judge Sabo's instructions to the jury were confusing.
<br>
Subsequently, jurors mistakenly believed that they had to
unanimously<br>
agree on any mitigating circumstances in order to be considered as<br>
weighing against a death sentence.<br><br>
#2. "Certified for appeal" by Yohn in 2001, the Batson
claim addresses<br>
the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to exclude Blacks
from<br>
Mumia's jury. In 1986, the US Supreme Court ruled in Batson v.
Kentucky<br>
that a defendant deserves a new trial if it can be proved that jurors
were<br>
excluded on the grounds of race.<br><br>
At Mumia's trial, Prosecutor McGill used 11 of his 15 peremptory<br>
challenges to remove black jurors that were otherwise acceptable.
While<br>
Philadelphia is 44% black, Abu-Jamal's jury was composed of ten whites
and<br>
only two blacks. From 1977-1986, when current Pennsylvania governor
Ed<br>
Rendell was Philadelphia's DA, the evidence of racism is striking:
from<br>
1977-86, the Philadelphia DA struck 58% of black jurors, but only 22%
of<br>
white jurors.<br><br>
#3. The legality of McGill's statement to the jury minimizing
the<br>
seriousness of a verdict of guilt: "if you find the Defendant guilty
of<br>
course there would be appeal after appeal and perhaps there could be
a<br>
reversal of the case, or whatever, so that may not be
final."<br><br>
In 1986 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled against McGill in
another<br>
case (Commonwealth v. Baker) on the same grounds. When Mumia
addressed<br>
this same issue in his 1989 appeal with the State Supreme Court,
the<br>
court reversed its decision on the legality of such a
statement—ruling<br>
against the claim for a mistrial.<br><br>
Incredibly, just one year later, in the very next case involving
this<br>
issue (Commonwealth v. Beasley), the State Supreme Court flip-flopped
and<br>
restored the precedent. However, this would not affect the ruling
against<br>
Mumia, because the court ruled that this precedent would only apply
in<br>
"future trials."<br><br>
#4. The fairness of Mumia's 1995-97 PCRA hearings when the
retired,<br>
74-year-old Judge Sabo was called back specifically for the hearing.
<br>
Besides the obvious unfairness of recalling the exact same judge to
rule<br>
on his fairness in the original 1982 trial, his actual PCRA bias has
been<br>
extensively documented.<br><br>
During the 1995 hearings, the mainstream Philadelphia Inquirer wrote
that<br>
the "behavior of the judge … gave the impression, damaging in the
extreme,<br>
of undue haste and hostility toward the defense's case." Concluding
the<br>
PCRA hearing, Sabo rejected all evidence and every witness presented
by<br>
the defense as not being credible. Therefore, Sabo upheld all of
the<br>
facts and procedures of the original trial as being correct.<br><br>
For more information, visit
<a href="http://www.mumia.org/" eudora="autourl">www.mumia.org</a>. For
the latest on Abu-Jamal<br>
from the independent media, check out Bennett's new "Voice of
the<br>
Voiceless" series on Abu-Jamal being published in the months leading
up to<br>
the oral arguments at:
<a href="http://hbjournalist1.googlepages.com/ms" eudora="autourl">
http://hbjournalist1.googlepages.com/ms<br><br>
</a>Hans Bennett (insubordination.blogspot.com) is a
Philadelphia-based<br>
photojournalist who has been documenting the movement to free Mumia
and<br>
all political prisoners for more than 5 years<br><br>
<br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">The Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br>
(415) 863-9977<br>
</font><font size=3>
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.freedomarchives.org</a></font></body>
</html>