Supreme Court denies review

Struggle intensifies to FREE MUMIA

By Betsey Piette

Reaction to the Supreme Court’s denial on April 6 of a new trial for Mumia Abu-Jamal based on charges of racism in his 1982 court proceedings was swift and wide-spread.

Mumia Abu-Jamal

Members of International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal and their supporters quickly took to the internet and airwaves to get out word about the impact of this decision and call for meetings to organize the next stage in the struggle to win justice for this world-renowned political prisoner still sitting on Pennsylvania’s death row.

Regular programming at WBAI New York was preempted on April 9 for a special broadcast featuring Pam Africa, coordinator of ICFFMAJ; Linn Washington Jr., Philadelphia Tribune columnist and Temple University professor of journalism; and Vincent Southerland, assistant counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

Hosted by Suzanne Ross of the N.Y. Free Mumia Coalition, the program also aired a live interview with Abu-Jamal by Noelle Hanrahan of the Prison Radio Project. (www.prisonradio.org)

On two days’ notice, standing-room- only crowd attends New York emergency meeting for Mumia. WW photo: Joe Yuskaitis

Asked about the Supreme Court’s denial of his appeal, Abu-Jamal stated, “If it is the Batson issue, then it shows that precedent means nothing; that the law is politics by other means; and that the Constitution means nothing; that a fair jury means nothing.

“It’s been three decades. When I was at the pre-trial hearing before Judge Sabo and he denied the motion, I knew then that he wasn’t working with the Constitution. It did surprise me. It really shocked me because I’d read the cases, and I knew what the law was.

“I knew what the law books said the law was. I learned then that they’re not going by that kind of law and apparently they’re not going by that kind of law now. If you read Batson and you read my case it’s almost as if you’re in two different universes, and in fact you are.”

Abu-Jamal continued, “There have always been different rules for Black people. If you read Batson, what will surprise people who have never done so, is it has nothing to do with the accused, the defendant, the personal trial. Batson, in its own terms, says it protects the rights of those people who are allegedly American citizens who are denied the right to serve as jurors.

“That’s what it says. But how does it do that when it allows people to be removed after Batson became law for spurious reasons? Batson can be bested and beaten by exactly the way the D.A. said it could–by lying–and getting up and saying, ‘No, we didn’t have any racist reason.’ Listen to the D.A. training video tape by Jack McMann [1986] and if that doesn’t tell you all you need to know you’re either deaf, dumb or blind.”

The ‘Mumia exception’

Vincent Southerland explained what the Supreme Court’s decision was about—that Abu-Jamal was challenging the discriminatory selection of jurors during his 1982 trial and that he was basing that challenge on a number of facts that happened during the course of that trial.

Southerland said, “Before a trial begins, both the defense and prosecutor have an opportunity to choose jurors they feel would be fair and impartial. Both have the opportunity to question and strike jurors based on whether or not they feel the jurors would be suitable.

“You cannot select jurors based on race,” Southerland stressed. “There cannot be any racial indication in the jury selection process. If there is, there’s a remedy to challenge that process. A case called Batson v. Kentucky [U.S. Supreme Court] essentially gave attorneys the ability to question whether or not other attorneys were using their strikes for racist reasons.”

In Abu-Jamal’s case, the prosecutor used 11 of his 15 strikes to remove Black jurors from the jury. In the end, Abu-Jamal’s case was tried before a jury of ten whites and two Blacks. On top of the strikes made by prosecutors, there was also a well-documented culture of discrimination by the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office.

Throughout the early 1980s and late 1990s a disproportionate number of African Americans were struck from capital case juries. A training tape by head D.A. Jack McMann, released in 1986, explained how to be discriminatory in jury selection, how to strike Black jurors and how to hide that fact from the judge.

“While the tape was not produced at the time of Mr. Abu-Jamal’s trial, we felt it was indicative of the long-standing history of discrimination by the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office in jury selection at that time,” Southerland noted.

“Despite all the evidence that attorneys for Mr. Abu-Jamal brought to the court’s attention, the Supreme Court decided that they did not want to hear his challenge to jury selection in this case. So that avenue of legal attack has been foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision not to even review the case.”

Southerland also spoke about the tremendous effect this ruling will have for those convicted of crimes throughout the state of Pennsylvania and across the country. “What the court did by declining to review his case was give an indication as to what level of evidence you need to prove discrimination. In this case, despite overwhelming evidence, despite the overwhelming taint of race throughout the trial, the Supreme Court decided not to even look at it.”

Abu-Jamal’s attorney, Robert R. Bryan, is going to seek a rehearing in the Supreme Court on the Batson issue. “The chances of the court granting rehearing are not great at all, but it is certainly a viable avenue to bring to the court’s attention that discrimination occurred during the jury selection,” said Southerland.

Linn Washington Jr. stated that in the past the U.S. Supreme Court has not acted fairly in Mumia’s case, just as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not and definitely the lower courts have not. Washington noted, “In this particular case, with the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals essentially creating new standards for what must be proven before you can proceed with a jury discrimination claim, this ruling conflicts with previous rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in other circuits; it was a case very ripe for appeal. However, this case has been impacted with race and politics all along, so I think the court made a political decision and didn’t proceed forward with it.”

Washington gave other examples of the contradictory treatment Abu-Jamal has received relative to other court rulings. He referred to these examples when the courts either ignore or alter their previous law as the “Mumia exception.”

“In 1986, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said it was illegal for a prosecutor to tell the jury, ‘Don’t worry about your verdict because the inmate will have appeal after appeal.’ This ruling occurred in a case tried by the same prosecutor who tried Abu-Jamal and before the same judge who presided over his case,” Washington noted. “But when Mumia’s case came up before this same court in 1989, they changed their ruling, and then in 1991 they changed it back in another case.

“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court made a ruling denying an appeal in Mumia’s case in March 1989 regarding his First Amendment right of association and his right to make a statement before the jury. In February 1989 they had made a ruling in a case saying that particular right was of such ancient origin that, when violated, a new trial was automatic. But 28 days later they totally changed it around saying that right doesn’t apply in capital murder cases.”

Pam Africa pointed out, “‘These judges do not have the right to do wrong,’ quoting MOVE leader John Africa. Why do we have to respect what these judges are doing when they break their own laws? The whole world is watching, and a lot of people are in shock about what is happening here.

“Mumia is alive today because of the power of the people,” Africa stated. “Yesterday, a guard told an imprisoned MOVE member that Mumia was found dead in his cell. I called the prison asking to hear from Mumia, and people all over the world called Governor Rendell’s office demanding that he be allowed to call his family. In 45 minutes we received a call from him. This shows the power of the people.

“District attorneys, judges, lawyers and even police have been intimidated in this case–anyone who stands up against the FOP,” she continued. “We are dealing with a situation of governmental terrorism, enforced by organized crime–the Fraternal Order of Police. We must end terrorism at home before we dare think about terrorism abroad. There should be a civil rights investigation into this case immediately.”

On Saturday, April 11, organizing meetings were held in New York City and Philadelphia to galvanize supporters around the case. Nearly 60 people braved rainy weather to gather at a meeting at the Abiding Truth Ministries Church in West Philadelphia sponsored by ICFFMAJ. Later that day in New York, a standing-room crowd of about 150, overwhelmingly Black people, attended an emergency meeting at the Solidarity Center called by the N.Y. Free Mumia Coalition.

Both events took up a new petition campaign at www.Millions4Mumia.org and www.IACenter.org addressed to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. asking for action in the 28-year-old case. The Justice Department just overturned the 2008 conviction of former Alaska Senator Stevens because of prosecutorial misconduct in his case. The petition for Mumia notes that the prosecution in his case also withheld information critical to the defense arguments for acquittal. The petition notes that while Abu-Jamal is not a U.S. senator of great wealth and power, he is a Black man revered around the world for his courage, clarity and commitment and deserves no less than Senator Stevens.

---