Mumia Abu-Jamal

[Bean]

Guilty.

[Needs2know]

I can see now that the real issue here is…Did he actually recieve a fair trial. Other than a few absolute fanactics the only argument I have seen in his favor is that he perhaps was not granted all of his rights under the law. So did he get a fair trial?

I’m also interested in the West Memphis 3 case. I brought up a thread yesterday in Questions that was posted back in February. Looks to me like those guys should get another chance to defend themselves too, if this guy should. Actually that case looks an awful lot more like a railroad than this one does.

Needs2Know

[Arnold_Winkelried]

Glitch, I notice that I never responded to this point in your first post.

Jamal was found at the crime scene having been hit once by Officer Faulkner. Ballistic tests showed that the shot that hit Officer Faulkner in the back was at very close range (2 feet IIRC). The bullet which hit Jamal, which was shown to be from Faulkner’s gun, was from the same range.

To avoid the “single sentence” accusation, I will quote the Amnesty International linked to above.

The prosecution maintained that Officer Faulkner turned and fired at Abu-Jamal as he fell to the ground after being shot. Therefore, the entry of the bullet into Abu-Jamal should have been on a level or upward trajectory. However, according to the medical records, the overall pathway of the bullet was downwards. During trial, the doctor who removed the bullet from Abu-Jamal (who admitted his lack of forensic expertise) was asked why the bullet would be “unnecessarily lowered in its trajectory” and speculated that “ricochet” and “tumble” were the explanation.

In 1992, an expert forensic pathologist employed by Abu-Jamal’s defence team examined the medical records and concluded:

“…For these reasons, there appears to be no reasons to postulate a ricochet to explain a downward course through the body. Rather, it is likely that the bullet had a downward course through the body because of the relative positions of Mr. Jamal and the shooter. Consistent relative positions include a standing shooter firing down on a prone Mr. Jamal, or a standing shooter firing horizontally at Mr. Jamal while Mr. Jamal was bent over at the waist.”

Neither of these postures is consistent with the prosecution’s theory. The forensic pathologist also concluded that “since I disagree with both the Medical Examiner’s findings with respect to the cause of death and Dr. Coletta’s postulation of a possible ‘ricochet’…Mr. Jamal’s defense required, and would have been well served by, the testimony of a qualified forensic pathologist.”

From what I’ve read about the case, I am convinced that the first trial was unfair and did not present enough evidence for a death penalty conviction.

[Arnold_Winkelried]

But wait, there’s more!

Re-reading this, I realize that I still forgot to rebut a couple of points.

Glitch (in his first post) said

The gun found laying next to Jamal at the scene was matched to the bullets that killed Officer Faulkner.

By matched, I assume you mean that it uses the same caliber? I never saw any evidence that the gun was matched to the bullets by a ballistic test.

The jury

From another of Glitch’s posts:

On the contrary, unlike most individuals accused of first-degree murder, the allegedly bias court afforded Mumia Abu-Jamal the opportunity to personally select his own jury. The court record reveals that Mr. Jamal was granted complete control of the questions to be asked of each prospective juror and that he was permitted to personally determined how each of his 20 preemptory challenges was used.

The “unlike most individuals” can be explained because Mumia Abu-Jamal was acting as his own attorney during jury selection, which most individuals don’t. Also note that he was only acting as his own attorney during part of the jury selection so the statement that he “was granted complete control of the questions to be asked of each prospective juror” is not quite true. Please read in one of my previous posts the seemingly unfair treatment by the judge of the one juror that was selected while Mumia Abu-Jamal was conducting his own defense.

The jury that was originally seated at the 1982 trial was nearly a perfect reflection of the racial make up of Philadelphia at that time.

The Amnesty International report says *The jury eventually selected (including the four alternate jurors) consisted of two blacks and 14 whites. The population of Philadelphia at the time of the trial was 40 per cent African American; a jury racially representative of the community could thus have been expected to include at least five black members.*I’m not sure from that how one can deduce a “perfect reflection.”

Further details regarding the jury from the Amnesty International report:

The prosecution used 11 out of its 15 peremptory strikes to remove African Americans from the jury. In 1986, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Batson v. Kentucky that the removal of potential jurors must be “race neutral”. …

One year after the Batson ruling, the Assistant District Attorney for Philadelphia made a training videotape for the city’s prosecutors. On the video, he describes how to select a jury more likely to convict, including the removal of potential black jurors: “Let’s face it, the blacks from the low-income areas are less likely to convict. There’s a resentment to law enforcement… You don’t want those guys on your jury… If you get a white teacher in a black school who’s sick of these guys, that may be the one to accept.”

The video also instructed the trainee prosecutors on how to hide the racial motivation for the rejection of prospective jurors in order to avoid successful claims of racial discrimination from defence lawyers. The tape did not become public until 1997.

and concerning Jenni Dawley, the black juror that was selected while Mumia Abu-Jamal was conducting his own defense:

Dawley requested, before the trial started, that she be allowed to take her sick cat to the veterinarian during the evening, thereby not disrupting the court proceedings. Judge Sabo denied this request without informing the defence. Juror Dawley was dismissed from the jury when she failed to abide by the Court’s instruction. … Jennie Dawley was replaced by a white alternate juror, Robert Courchain. On at least five occasions during jury selection, Courchain stated that, although he would try, he might be unable to set aside his bias in the case. For example, he stated: “unconsciously I don’t think I could be fair to both sides.” The defence sought the removal of Courchain “for cause” (i.e. that he was incapable of deliberating impartially), but Judge Sabo denied the request. As Jackson had previously used the one peremptory strike available to him at this point he was unable to prevent Courchain from becoming an alternate juror.