|
.jpg)
Recent Similar ArticlesGovernment:
|
New essay on Mumia: The Crucial Hearing of May 17
by
Linn Washington, Jr. | 05.15.2007
This new article from veteran Philadelphia journalist Linn Washington, Jr. appeared on the "Educators for Mumia" website: www.emajonline.com Linn Washington Jr. will be speaking at EMAJ's teach-in on Wednesday and at Friday's Journalist for Mumia event. Linn Washington Jr. will be speaking at the "Educators for Mumia" teach-in on Wednesday: http://www.emajonline.com/index.php?action=4&content_id=168 and at Friday's "Journalist for Mumia" event: http://phillyimc.org/en/2007/05/39568.shtml "The Crucial Hearing of May 17th" An August 8, 1995 newspaper headline about Philadelphia Judge Albert Sabo presiding during a critical appeal hearing for death row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal carried this headline: “Hangman judge holding hearings to decide on new trial.” Sabo’s then widely known pro-police/pro-prosecution bias on the bench was not the stunning aspect with this headline for a news article about the hearings for an inmate convicted of killing a Philadelphia policeman. The stunning aspect is that this headline ran in one of America’s most conservative, law-&-order newspapers – the Washington Times. Sabo’s pro-prosecution/pro-police bias during that 1995 appeals hearing was so blatant that it drew stinging criticism from columnists and editorial writers across the nation, including many with published records of being openly hostile to Abu-Jamal’s claims of innocence. One staunchly anti-Abu-Jamal Philadelphia columnist demanded in July 1995 that Sabo step down from presiding at the then pending appeal hearings because he could not provide “an assumption of objectivity and credibility.” On Thursday, May 17th, the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hold a hearing on the Abu-Jamal case, where this court headquartered in Philadelphia will examine alleged misconduct by Sabo and the trial prosecutor. One interesting aspect of this federal appeal hearing is that the Third Circuit took the unusual step of placing Sabo’s alleged bias during that ’95 hearing into the appeal process despite Sabo’s antics not being an item certified for appeal by the federal judge who ruled on Abu-Jamal’s appeal a few years ago. Groups from the NAACP to Amnesty International have criticized Abu-Jamal’s death sentence as the product of an unfair trial, a contention rejected by his detractors including Philadelphia’s DA’s Office and Philly’s police union, the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police). Sabo’s actions during the 1982 trial contribute to the internationally held belief that Abu-Jamal did not receive a fair trial. This belief in Abu-Jamal receiving an unfair trial lead the French city of St. Denis last year to name a street after Abu-Jamal honoring his struggle for a fair trial. The US Congress, along with Philadelphia City Council and Pa’s State Senate last year approved resolutions castigating the St. Denis street naming. “The purpose of the judge in the proceeding is to remain fair and impartial. The bias of [Sabo] affected his ability to adjudicate those proceedings in a fair and impartial manner,” said former Pa death row inmate Harold Wilson in a pro-Abu-Jamal statement released a few days ago. Wilson is the sixth person released from Pa’s death row and the 122nd person in America to leave death row – where he languished for more than 16-years. Wilson’s November 2005 release from death row resulted from misconduct by a Philadelphia prosecutor and later discovered DNA evidence. Since Wilson’s release, his anti-death penalty activism has included demanding a new trial for Abu-Jamal, a man who helped him prepare the appeals that produced his release from death row. Opponents of Abu-Jamal sternly reject all allegations of bias by Sabo or any Pa judge hearing this case. Pa courts up to the State Supreme Court have consistently upheld Abu-Jamal’s conviction. False allegations of bias against Sabo “diverts attention for the real criminal, Mumia Abu-Jamal,” states an account critical of Amnesty International’s 2000 report on the case co-authored by local media personality Michael Smerconish. An August 13, 1995 Philadelphia Inquirer editorial blasted Sabo for his “injudicious conduct” that included “ridiculing, interrupting and generally feeding the worst suspicions of Abu-Jamal’s supporters.” Sabo’s antics undermined his duty “to ensure that justice was done” that Inquirer editorial concluded. Despite this widespread and unusual news media criticism, the Pa Supreme Court rejected it as independent verification of judicial misconduct. Pa’s Supreme Court ruled that Sabo was legally impartial when that Court upheld Abu-Jamal’s death sentence for a second time in October 1998. “The opinions of a handful of journalists do not, however, persuade us that Judge Sabo [evidenced] an inability to preside impartially,” the Court’s ’98 opinion declared. In a March 1988 ruling addressing judicial impartiality in a murder case involving a former Pa State Trooper who killed a woman inside a judge’s office located in western Pa, the Court found misconduct. The Court found that one statement from the judge during ex-Trooper’s trial, questioning one aspect of a defense witnesses’ testimony, “was extremely prejudicial” to the defendant. The Supreme Court ruled that the ex-Trooper was “entitled to a new trial.” Exactly one year later, the Pa Supreme Court upheld Abu-Jamal’s death sentence for the first time in a ruling rejecting claims of Sabo improprieties during the 1982 trial far more numerous than the one incident during that Trooper’s trial. The Philly DA’s Office vigorously objected to defense requests that Sabo not preside over the 1995 hearing where a central appeal item was Sabo’s bias during the 1982 trial. The DA’s Office also objected to requests that former Philly DA and now Pa Supreme Court Justice Ronald Castille not participate in the deliberations for Abu-Jamal’s post-’95 appeal because Castille opposed Abu-Jamal’s previous appeals as DA. Castille rejected those ’96 recusal requests, contending Judicial Ethics provisions did not apply to him. Castille’s rejection additionally stated that it was unfair to criticize him for receiving campaign support from the FOP when four other members of Pa’s Supreme Court also received FOP support. Five members of the seven-member Court had received FOP campaign contributions, Castille noted. Yet, earlier this year, the Philly DA’s Office asked the entire Third Circuit to step aside. The DA contended that since Gov. Rendell’s wife is a 3rd Circuit judge and a jury discrimination practice during Ed Rendell’s tenure as Philly DA is an appeal item, having that Court hear the appeal would breach the ethical mandate of appearance of impropriety by judges. The 3rd Circuit rejected the DA’s request yet Judge Rendell and a few other judges stepped aside. Harold Wilson says the antics of the DA’s Office and Sabo sabotaged any semblance of Abu-Jamal’s constitutional right to a fair trial. “A biased judge, coupled with a prosecutor’s office that has a long and documented history of misconduct relating to issues of racism was a recipe for disaster,” Wilson said. “Grant [Abu-Jamal] a new trial so he can be afforded his rights as a citizen of this country…” Discrimination in jury selection by the prosecutor is another element that led the Pa Supreme Court to grant a new trial for Wilson. The Pa Supreme Court rejects all jury selection discrimination claims from Abu-Jamal but this claim is a central aspect of the Third Circuit hearing. The prosecutor during Abu-Jamal’s trial used 11 of 15 challenges to keep blacks off the jury. Scholarly research documents that this prosecutor struck blacks 74 percent of the time during a time frame from 1977-1986 compared to 25 percent for whites. Research also documents that the Philly DA’s Office struck black jurors 58 percent of the time compared to only 22 percent for whites during that ’77-’86 time frame. “The “study” is the product of a well-known anti-death penalty law professor…and it’s a crock,” stated that critique co-authored by Michael Smerconsish. “There was nothing wrong with the jury…” The Third Circuit, in a series of rulings released during the past few years, has criticized Philly prosecutors for discriminatory jury selection practices. Further, Third Circuit rulings have criticized the Pa Supreme Court for misapplying US Supreme Court standards on jury discrimination. For example, a February 2005 ruling by conservative Third Circuit Judge Samuel Alito, now a US Supreme Court Justice, criticized a Philly prosecutor and the Pa Supreme Court. “[T]he explanations given by the state trial and appellate courts, were all contrary to Batson, or at least represented unreasonable application of that precedent,” Alito’s opinion stated noting the Batson decision, the US Supreme Court’s controlling ruling on discriminatory jury selection. Abu-Jamal opponents say since the prosecutor in his case didn’t exclude all black jurors and Abu-Jamal did exclude black jurors, the discrimination claim is without merit. The May 17th hearing could produce a new trial or set the stage for the execution of Abu-Jamal, know worldwide for his criticisms of injustices. German citizen Victor Grossman is typical of Abu-Jamal’s far flung support. Grossman is an American born, Harvard graduate who’s lived in Germany since 1952 when he served in the US Army.
|
|
© 1999–2008 Philadelphia Independent Media Center |
|
Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by PhillyIMC.
|
Comments
striking balck jurors in the late 70's
Submitted by milo (not verified) on Sun, 05/20/2007 - 3:28amthe contentions against the statistic that 58%of black jurors were struck in the time mentioned as compared to 22% of white jurors seem to be stating that either the statistic is erroneous or that the aim of the statistic is biased or disadvantageous to the contenders in what it may possibly signify.
therefore, i must ask the author if the statistics are comprehensive or erroneous.
if they are not, then it would then seem to me that those who disagree with the statistic gatherer's aim are simply trying to limit what a certain set of truthful numbers may mean to those who must judge and apply their meaning. this kind of practice has no place in either the courts or a social forum.
statistics, if truthfully gathered, can be interpreted in many ways, depending on the situation and with what other statistics they are presented in conjunction.
Post new comment