Then you’re living in your own thread as well, as there’s several posters here who are substantively objecting to an attorney representing the interests of a murderer who are not talking about lobbying groups.
Do you assume that every post in this thread is directed to you?
Isn’t the starting assumption that no racial bias existed, and the onus is on anyone making the counter argument to provide some basis for that assertion? Not a single court was persuaded that bias existed after a parade of appeals, whack-a-doo witnesses, and other assorted nonsense. What evidence is required to prove this negative exactly?
I’m from Philly. I’ve read the trial transcript and countless analyses. There is simply no basis for playing the race card, nothing that anyone buys beyond that tribe of idiots in Hollywood who helped make this scumbag a cause célèbre and knee-jerkers who find it axiomatic that a black guy could not have received a fair trial. This is really frustrating to those of us who have been subjected to endless nonsense from outsiders who “know better.” (Not you, by the way.)
The allegation should have some basis. This one did not. Seriously, how can I prove this negative to you? Adegbile and his office and all their “Free Mumia” associations alleged outrageous things that had no basis in fact. No court was persuaded. Not a single aspect of any proceeding was overturned, save the generous decision regarding the jury instructions on the penalty. Adegbile and his gang, with no obligation to do so, pursued an incendiary strategy that alleged a discriminatory jury, among other things. Their decision to pursue this at the expense of other people they could have helped is their decision to own. Well, he owns it.
I think the “starting point” that no racial issues can be assumed in a case of a black man murdering a white cop in 1981 is to ignore an elephant in the room. Seriously, it almost makes me laugh to simply assume that race had no bearing on the case at all.
Again, if you can share more of why you believe the appeal was frivolous, I’m all ears. But you seem to be starting from the point that any appeal is frivolous, while I’m more willing to let courts hear cases that challenge the government to uphold the fairness of the justice system.
I was thinking that a summary of what the NAACP’s case was might be useful. What was the basis of their claims? Sure, they lost in the end, but that doesn’t necessarily mean their case was baseless.
They disagreed with the Third Circuit’s decision that racial discrimination in jury selection had not been demonstrated, in the absence of facts regarding the race of all the potential jurors on the panel and the race of all those stricken. They did not find the “this could well have been a jury selected with a bias against blacks, despite no evidence to support such an assertion in this instance” argument persuasive. Neither did the federal appeals court who had to consider it.
On top of that, I find it difficult to believe ANYONE could have become familiar with the evidence in this case and concluded that any jury could have come up with a different verdict. So, IMO, even if one finds their argument had merit (I don’t), Adegbile and his cronies deliberately decided the best use of their limited resources in testing this argument was in the defense of a clearly guilty scumbag. Why didn’t they pick any of a thousand other convicted black felons in Philly’s system, who were processed through the same DA’s office? They chose Mumia, a convicted cop killer, and their judgment in that is a reflection on them and their values.
The problem with this is that the answer could easily have been “all of the above”. Just because that guy was guilty as sin does not mean his civil rights were not violated, that there was no racial discrimination involved and that the race card was not justified.
One of the three judges who heard the Batson motions disagreed with the majority, who ruled that Abu Jamal failed to make a prima facie case. It seems – but I can’t quite nail down the precise words – that the majority believed the Abu Jamal should have made a contemporaneous objection to the prosecution using 12 of 13 peremptory strikes against prospective black jurors.
Again, I can’t dispute that any fair-minded jury would almost certainly find him guilty of murder. But it seems to me that keeping racism out of the jury selection process is an important goal, too. But it is important to note that the case wasn’t laughed out of court for being without any basis. It’s a very detailed decision.
http://www.naacpldf.org/files/case_issue/Third%20Circuit%202008%20(00024718).PDF
I think that’s right. He did not indicate he was persuaded that there was evidence of a racial basis for striking jurors, but he did think a case had been made that Mumia at least objected contemporaneously, which is key to such a claim. It’s silly, I think–that a questionnaire distributed to all jurors should have been inferred to be an objection, despite the fact that no objection was actually made. Regardless, there was no finding that bias occurred.
There was a plethora of Soviet writings from the 1980’s talking about how the failings were not failings at all, but features.* De ja vu* all over again.
Then you would declare open season on white cops. Declaring that even if there is absolutely no evidence of racial bias a conviction of a black man for murdering a white cop is by default invalid is flat out insane.
I’m curious- in your mind, why did Adegbile and his “gang” (or is it “cronies”?) work so hard to defend someone who was supposedly so indefensible?
Was it actually Adegbile who made the decision? I can’t tell by reading the wiki article. How much did the fact that it was a death penalty case play into the decision to take the case, do we know?
Defects either of character or of judgment. That’s why he is unfit to head the Civil Rights division, as explained.
Regards,
Shodan
I am disgusted that there are enough voters out there who would penalize a senator for voting to confirm him that a majority of them were afraid to.
NOTHING can be assumed. From either perspective.
One side or the other may have the burden of proof, but one way or the other, evidence, not assumptions, must rule. That’s the only way we have fairness in the justice system.
I know. Isn’t it just awful when people expect their representatives to do what they want?
Regards,
Shodan
It’s awful when the people want their representatives to do awful things.
I’m not sure what the “race card” means in this context. You’ve used the phrase several times in this thread. If this guy is not guilty, it is not hard to imagine that race played some role in his conviction. If he is guilty, race still probably plays a role in discussions of this case.
What is a “race card” and why shouldn’t it be played?
I don’t know the facts of the case, but I don’t think you can just walk in here and declare that.
And justice is not just about guilt or innocence.
What if there’s actual racism involved? You know, like there is sometimes?
Again, if you think there’s no possible racism in this case, that’s fine, but you can’t just declare that. You have to make your case.
You might even hire a lawyer to make the case for you. Would that be okay?