Judge Thayer who gave the death penalty to Sacco and Venzetti is famous for having boasted, “Did you see what I did to those anarchistic bastards?” Even though a lot of people think S&V were guilty few doubt that prejudice played a strong role in the conduct of their trial. In other words, the mere fact that the verdict may have been justified does not negate the reality that it was also badly tainted. Sacco and Vanzetti have as a result enjoyed something of an historial halo effect even if they were thugs. I’m not endorsing said effect, just noting its existence.
Looks like something similar was in the works for Mumia Abu-Jamal. Judge Sabo, who Cecil criticizes in his column is heard to have said in regards to Mumia’s sentencing, “Yeah, and I’m going to help them fry the nigger.” Frankly, I think Mumia was guilty but this sh** is way out of line. A new trial might very well be in order.
When you start looking at the source of quotes like these you find they end up coming from the defense. The Mumiacs turn it into legend and believe every word.
Cecil’s column is rather bare bones, and skirts a lot of issues that have actually been addressed. When discussing the death penalty, Cecil comments about the lack of premeditation, but avoid the fact that Mumia had to stand over Faulkner’s body and shoot him three times in the face. Little details like that led to a death penalty conviction.
What does shooting three times have to do with premeditation? It sounds quite plausible to me that a person might fire thrice while still in hot blood.
I think it’s the “standing over the body” and shooting that likely had more influence on the judge/jury.
It’s quite common to fire more than once when in “fear of your life”. But generally, you stop firing when the other person falls down, because a fallen body is usually not perceived as a threat any more. But walking over to the body, standing over it, and firing 3 more shots into the face – that would sound rather calm & collected to a judge/jury.
P.S. I don’t think that there was much question that the last 3 shots were fired while the body was laying on the ground, and from a gun right above it. The scientific evidence can show that fairly well. (The defense lawyer did argue that there was not enough proof that the defendant was the one who had fired the gun.)
I’m sorry, but AIUSA is way wrong on this one, to claim to have “painstakingly researched” and be “impartial” when they never even contacted the Philly DA office says to me that there is an agenda at work.
I think that showing indications that a judge is partial is a valid reason to ask for a new trial - which is the purpose of AI’s research.
I read it and don’t find it devastating at all. For example, one of the things they says is " Does AIUSA address anything that specific officers did to make Jamal’s trial unfair? Well, no." Yet there are several examples of testimony to that effect on this page.
Much of the evidence turns into a “he said”/“she said” contest, with the defense trying to discredit the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution trying to discredit the witnesses that dispute the prosecution’s account.
After reading the “rebuttal” of the AIUSA document, I have not changed my mind. I think that he deserves a new trial, and that bringing up his teenage political statements in the death penalty phase was irrelevant.
If it were true, that would be the right thing to do. Trouble is, the defense has tried this before with several other false implications about Judge Sabo.
Gee, I’d say the not contacting the PDA was pretty devastating to their claim of impartiality. Especially since all of their complaints are straight out of the Mumia lawyer’s playbook (Note these lawyers have since been fired.
Actually no, there’s a lot of innuendo and stuff worthy of JFK conspiracist, but not much specific. Some of it is absurd, for example, they give strong hints that one of the witnesses is not actually dead! :eek: Come ON! IS this the black helicoptor for the left wing?
I find it amusingf to see them hinting at such a coverup, since it was rather humiliating to the defense to find out their star witness (Veronica Jones) was caught in yet another lie/inconsistancy.
Most of these other issues were brought up in Mumia’s appeal to the supreme court, and they were foudn so wanting for facts that the court unanimously voted against the need for a new trial.
These are guys who usually can’t agree on anything!
That is what happens in a trial. Trying to present one side of it later on is hardly “impartial”. Most of those complaints listed in the page you cited have some good answers, but you would not know that from the “fair and impartial” AIUSA article.
Mumia’s going to get a new sentencing phase, which is where the political statements came up. There was nothign wrong with his trial otherwise and several Supreme court justices, state and Federal, have made that clear.
As for bringing up Mumia’s history, well guess what, nobody forced Mumia to take the stand to tel the jury what a sweet guy he was. This is why most lawyers will tell you not to get on the stand to be your own character witness. It was perfectly legal to bring up those issues.
The black cult massacred in the 1985 firebomb fiasco?
Bolding mine. Pardon me, but something seems missing here. We have being pulled over, and an ensuing scuffle. Is a scuffle a normal part of the process? The wording implies so.
Mumia’s brother was puled over for driving the wrong way down a one-way street. He was pulled over. Witnesses say that Mumia’s brother took a swing at Faulkner, hitting him in the face. Faulkner bopped him with a club, flashlight or fist, its unclear which. But hit him no more that three times according to witnesses. Whatever it was it left a small single cut on his ear. Witnesses say it was over very quickly and he was subdued well before Mumia arriived to open fire.
William Cook (Mumia’s brother) pled guilty to assaulting a police oficer.
Thanks, but that comment was actually meant as a nitpick on the wording. It jumps straight from being pulled over to the ensuing scuffle, making it sound like that’s a normal part of the process. At no time in being pulled over have I ever engaged in a scuffle. I guess that’s what I’m doing wrong.
