<html>
<body>
<font size=3><br>
<img src="http://journalstar.com/resources/images/front-logo.gif" width=300 height=60 alt="JournalStar.com">
<br>
<hr>
<a href="http://journalstar.com/articles/2009/06/28/opinion/columns/doc4a47e7a34afbf318552393.txt" eudora="autourl">
http://journalstar.com/articles/2009/06/28/opinion/columns/doc4a47e7a34afbf318552393.txt<br>
</a></font><h1><b>Local View: Heart of justice is
missing</b></h1><font size=3>By NAN GRAF<br>
Sunday, Jun 28, 2009 - 11:55:28 pm CDT<br><br>
A recent Nebraska Supreme Court decision denied former Omaha Black
Panther leader Ed Poindexter the right to a new trial (June 19) and
ignored violations of his rights that were often recorded in memos by
longtime FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and his agents or by Omaha Police
Department reports. Of course, these recorded materials served as tips to
investigate before Poindexter’s legal team handed over volumes of
documentation to the court.<br><br>
Poindexter’s arrest in August of 1970 for the suspected murder of an
Omaha policeman, Officer Larry Minard Sr., and his short 1971 trial,
along with fellow Panther leader Mondo we Langa (formerly David Rice),
made front-page headlines in Omaha from the time of their arrest to their
conviction. In fact, activists and journalists who have studied this
ongoing injustice claim the two men were convicted by headline.<br><br>
In April 1971, Poindexter and we Langa were convicted of first-degree
murder and sentenced to life in prison. Now men in their 60s, they’re
still at the Nebraska State Penitentiary, partly because they refuse to
say they’re sorry for a crime they didn’t commit and thus don’t qualify
for commutation or parole. They’ve always maintained their innocence, but
learned early on that innocence isn’t enough.<br><br>
Support of their cause to win justice has come from Amnesty International
in the United States and in Europe. On April 18, 1999, Amnesty
International at a General Meeting in Minneapolis passed a resolution
calling for the immediate release of Ed Poindexter, Mondo we Langa and
other political prisoners.<br><br>
I’ve followed this case since 1970 and have researched and written
articles about it since 1974. In the summer of 1981, I took an eight-week
graduate seminar on human rights and discrimination in the political
science department at the University of Iowa. My project for the summer
was to study the topic of political prisoners in the United
States.<br><br>
For my 35-page seminary paper, I focused on three incarcerated black
leaders known worldwide (if not here in Lincoln) as political prisoners:
Ed Poindexter, Geronimo Pratt (of California) and Mondo we Langa. At the
time, I had access to 350 pages of FBI COINTELPRO memos, released through
the Freedom of Information Act, that demonstrated how FBI Director Hoover
orchestrated urban police departments into action against
blacks.<br><br>
In a memo dated Aug. 26, 1967, Hoover urged FBI agents to “discredit”
black leaders and their groups. Memos dated March 17, 1970, and Aug. 24,
1970, specifically targeted Poindexter and we Langa by way of
discrediting and disinformation (Hoover’s coinage for plain old lying) in
an effort to dismantle their leadership. In the 1990s, the British
Broadcasting Company produced a documentary on Ed Poindexter, Geronimo
Pratt and Mondo we Langa that is available on DVD.<br><br>
When I, as a lay person (not a lawyer), first read the Nebraska Supreme
Court’s 22-page printed response to Ed Poindexter’s October 2008 filing,
it seemed to me a superficial treatment of serious issues that would
result in preserving the status quo rather than correcting
injustices.<br><br>
I realize that both British and American law is built on precedent, that
is, on cases that precede a current case. So there is limited opportunity
for progressive thought or change. This partially explains why our legal
culture took so long to grow away from the infamous 1857 Dred Scott case
that essentially meant blacks have no rights whites need to respect.
(Privileged racists in control of judicial and legislative branches
explain the rest of what happened.)<br><br>
With this recent Nebraska ruling, it’s as if the court cast blind eyes
upon the failures of Poindexter’s early defense attorneys and upon the
misconduct of prosecuting attorneys. In addition, the court abandoned
consideration of injustices against Poindexter inherent in the FBI’s 911
memo (dated Oct. 13, 1970). Omaha’s Assistant Chief of Police, Glenn
Gates, in this memo advises withholding evidence until after Poindexter’s
April 1971 trial, evidence the police figured might help the defendant.
The 911 memo offers all kinds of possibilities to explore, both subtle
and overt.<br><br>
Credibility of the state’s witness? It mattered not. Lying under oath?
Conflicting testimonies? These moral questions fester like open
wounds.<br><br>
The court’s recurrent refrain of agreement with shallow district court
opinions predictably leads into this conclusion on the last page of the
printed text: “We affirm the judgment of the district court denying
Poindexter’s motion for postconviction relief.”<br><br>
What I brought back home with me to Lincoln after the 1981 seminar on
human rights and discrimination at the University of Iowa is that
political prisoners seldom get justice in their own backyards. Nearly
every nation in the world incarcerates political prisoners. It’s a
universal problem that could be solved, though, by courts throughout the
world.<br><br>
It is especially disappointing that only the veneer of justice and not
the heart of it emerges now from the Nebraska Supreme Court.<br><br>
Nan Graf is a retired professor living in Lincoln.<br><br>
<br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>