The Third Circuit has just affirmed the district court decision, which upheld the conviction but vacated the death penalty. "As the District Court noted, the 'Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may conduct a new sentencing hearing ... or shall sentence [Abu-Jamal] to life imprisonment.'"
Judge Ambro dissents, arguing in favor of "remand[ing] for the District Court to complete an analysis of the remaining steps of the Batson [race-based peremptory strike] claim, starting at step two, where the burden shifts to the Commonwealth to 'come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors.' If the Commonwealth does so, the Court should proceed to step three and assess whether the reason(s) given are valid or pretextual in determining, on the basis of the evidence presented, whether purposeful discrimination did occur."
I haven't followed this case carefully, and thus have no opinion to express; but it's prominent enough that the news struck me as worth noting. Thanks to reader Hugh Greentree for the pointer.
If someone actually think he is innocent, rather than jumping on the bandwagon because he can reprsent whatever cause you have, then perhaps you need to re-think things.
I mean, if the officers shocked him with electrodes until he confessed despite screaming out every time, "I want a lawyer and I won't talk until you give me one," whether he was, in fact, "so guilty," is besides the point when we ask whether to overturn his conviction.
Form matters even when the substance is obvious, because form needs to be there when the substance is less obvious.
I'm curious as to why you think he is "so guilty?" I haven't followed the case that closely. I know that the family of the slain officer believe firmly that he is guilty. I'm not sure how that makes him any more guilty than the fact that many people involved are convinced he is innocent makes him any less guilty.
But, mostly I'll second Sean M. The point isn't whether or not he is guilty, the point is whether we have a system set up to railroad people or give them justice. If we railroad a guilty person, that's not justice.
Aside from his original conviction and failed appeals, what is your basis for knowing that Mumia Abu-Jamal is "so guilty"? In other words, we do know from DNA evidence that trials sometimes wrongly convict, so, aside from his conviction, how do you know he is "so guilty"?
Assuming arguendo that he is guilty, why are his supporters idiots? Is every single item in the body of proposed evidence casting doubt on his guilt transparently flawed or fraudulent? In other words, can you establish that any intelligent person, presented with each and every thus-far proposed reason to question Mumia Abu-Jamal's guilt, would conclude that each such proposed reason is utterly without merit?
Assuming arguendo that his supporters are idiots, in what way are they useful?
Isn't it possible that one or more persons who think that he is innocent, or at least not guilty-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt, have that view based on having seen or heard some proposed reasons to question the verdict, and not because he "reprsents" some cause?
Can't we please keep this discussion on the legal case, and avoid making ad hominem attacks on those who do not share our views?
The point is that so many people claimed with vigor that he was innocent despite very good evidence that he was guilty as sin. Outrageously, in 2002, the Paris City Council conferred honorary citizen status on Jamal, and in 2006 the city named a street after him.
So what can we say about all of the "innocence" claims now so many people love to tout about how our criminal justice system is a "sham" - sure there may be some truth to some of those claims, but the Mumia case suggests a healthy dose of skepticism is in order with these claims of innocence.
"Honestly, perhaps Pennsylvania should just let it go at this point."
What about justice? I suspect Officer Faulkner's family doesn't see it your way 3L.
--> "This guy is so much guilty"
I fixed it for ya.
One said points to eye witness testimony, but the other side can explain why eye witness testimony is very problematic (especially at night).
The same kind of issue arises in the case of Leonard Peltier.
The same kind of issues arise in the non-murder conviction of Libby.
That's your opinion.
The prosecution has to know damn well that no jury in the city will sentence him to death thanks to the last 23 years of the media making him some sort of celebrity. The prosecution wouldn't have spent the last seven years slugging out at the appeals court level if they thought they could simply win another death sentence.
The prosecutor will probably petition for en banc rehearing and their is a slight chance it might be granted seeing there was a dissent and this is a fairly popular case in Philadelphia, the seat of the Third Circuit. But, my guess is en banc will be denied and cert will almost certainly be denied.
I think at that point the prosecution will "cut bait" and let the sentence become life in prison. No sense in further bolstering his celebrity status with a new sentencing hearing, and if successful at getting another death sentence; more state appeals, and another crack at federal habeus.
It's time to let Mumia waste away as a second rate liberal cause for the rest of his natural life.
For a conservative look at this, I suggest Stuart Taylor Jr.'s article about Mumia's conviction, http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/mumia/guilty.html
An excerpt: "Jamal was prejudiced by police misconduct and probably rampant police perjury; ineffective and underfunded defense lawyering; inappropriate prosecution arguments to the jury; egregiously bad judging by the notoriously biased, pro-prosecution Albert Sabo of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas; and questionable voir dire stratagems that forced Jamal to face an 83 percent white jury (ten whites, two blacks) in a 40 percent black city.
Due to this toxic combination of factors, the jury that convicted and condemned Jamal in 1982 lacked some important evidence, including a police report strongly supporting Jamal's claim that his "confession" was a complete fabrication, cemented by perjured prosecution testimony.
There is also evidence -- much of which the jury did not have -- suggesting that all three of the prosecution's eyewitnesses changed their stories to conform to the prosecution's theory of the crime between their initial police "interviews" and their testimony at trial, and that the police sought to stifle exculpatory evidence."
Others may second-guess the original verdict for reasons listed in Wikipedia's Mumia Abu-Jamal article under the heading "Post-trial developments" or the heading "State appeals," which appears directly below that.
Sorry I wasn't clear enough about the second-guessers I was referring to. I specifically meant the liberal contingent, including the buttinsky city of Paree.
That was my argument. You can respond, but try not to re-frame it.
I don't know anything about whether or not Mumia is guilty, and I suspect most of the people here who claim they do are just demonstrating their preexisting biases.
But what if Obama, (who under the tutelage of Rev. Wright learned that blacks are unfairly locked up in disproportionate numbers) becomes president and pardons him (along with all other blacks in prison)???
A.K. Spam LA: I remain agnostic on the questions surrounding Mumia Abu-Jamal, but I do appreciate your URL, here linked, to Stuart Taylor Jr.'s article about Mumia's conviction.
Truth Seeker: Those convicted of possessing freebase "crack" cocaine are punished much longer than those convicted of possessing non-freebase cocaine. Blacks tend to use the freebase and non-blacks tend to use the non-freebase type of cocaine. This and other evidence leads some reasonable people to believe that "blacks are unfairly locked up in disproportionate numbers" in the United States. Assuming arguendo that Barack Obama shares this belief, is there any evidence that he has any intention of pardoning black convicts? Given that Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted in a Pennsylvania court, does the president have the authority to pardon him?
And Truth Seeker, seek the truth by reading the Constitution - the President can't pardon Mumia because he was convicted under state law, not federal law.
I wish people would be able to focus on the problems with our criminal justice system without having to turn a killer like Mumia into a celebrity. After twenty years, the actual conviction in this case has been upheld on every appeal. Despite the problems with the way the police and the prosecution handled the case, it does not change the facts that Mumia was wounded, found at the scene of the crime, and had a revolver with five empty shells in it. It should be possible to focus on the problems with criminal prosecutions and the death penalty without pretending that a convicted cop-killer is an innocent political prisoner.
I'm astounded by the commenters who are willing to express so much faith in the accuracy of the conviction.
Here are the facts of the case, which have not been seriously disputed: Mumia was found at the scene, with a bullet in him. Two guns were found at the scene, one was Officer Faulkners gun, that was the source of the bullet in Mumia. The other gun found at the scene was Mumia's gun that he legally purchased and was registered in his own name. That was the source of the 4 bullets in Officer Faulkner, including one shot right between the officers eyes fired at close range. The police arrived at the scene within one minute of Officer Faulkner's last radio call.
I am astounded by commenters who are willing to express any doubt about Mumia's guilt. Except for truthers of course, you aren't a truther are you?
I say drop the appeal and let him rot in prison, he'll never be executed anyway. I hope he lives to be 95, mentally sharp till the end, rotting in prison.
Please tell us how you have come to know that Mumia's gun was the source of the bullets in Officer Faulkner.
Sure, eyewitness testimony can be problematic - but three eyewitnesses?
MICHAEL SCANLAN (was 60 feet from the shooting with an unobstructed view): "Then the guy running across the street pulled out a pistol and started shooting at the Officer. He fired while he was running at the officer once, and the officer fell down. Then he stood over the officer and fired three or four more shots point blank at the officer on the ground." (12/9/81, 4:24 AM) Scanlan repeated these words while testifying. When asked if he thought the shots hit the officer he said, "Yes sir. I could see that one hit the officer in the face. Because his body jerked, his whole body jerked. (N.T. 6/25/82, 8.8)
ROBERT CHOBERT (was sitting in his cab 15 feet from the shooting with an unobstructed view): "I looked up and I saw this black male stand over the cop and shoot him a couple more times. Then I saw the black male start running towards 12th Street. He didn't get far, maybe thirty or thirty-five steps and then he fell. They got him. The cops got him and stuck him in the back of a wagon." (12/9/81, 4:25 AM)
CYNTHIA WHITE (was 30 feet from the shooting with an unobstructed view): "They (Faulkner and Jamal's brother, William Cook) got to the front of the car. Another guy came running out of the parking lot on Locust Street. He had a gun in his hand. He fired at the gun at the Police Officer about four or five times. The Police Officer fell to the ground. I started screaming. The guy who shot the Police Officer was sitting on the curb. The police handcuffed the man who was sitting on the curb, the man who shot the Officer." (12/9/81, 4:15 AM)
ALBERT MAGILTON (was 60 feet away from the shooting, but turned away as the first shot was fired to avoid being struck by a passing car): "I noticed a guy walking from the parking lot across the street. I turned around and next thing I know is, I heard some shots. I looked and saw the officer on the ground. The police had him [Jamal] on the ground. Then they placed him in the back of one of the wagons." (12/9/81)
I skimmed the (very long) op yesterday, and it does seem to me that a Batson challenge during voir dire might have fared better, either before the trial court or on appeal.
Given that, and the other issues that Stuart Taylor identifies, I think it's a wise choice not to execute the guy, in what appears to've been a heat-of-passion crime (he found the cop in an altercation with his relative).
The heat-of-passion argument might have been a good one but Mumia didn't bring it up at trial. Instead he argued mistaken identity even though he was arrested next to the dying cop with a (literally) smoking gun at his feet and with a bullet from the cop in him.
Why he made such an unbelievable argument is known only to him - and he acted as his own attorney.
Also, all these protestations of innocence are nothing more than an attempt to get that second bite of the apple during which he would switch to that argument and get out on time served even if convicted of manslaughter.
The key fact: Mumia has never said he didn't shoot the cop.
I have a novel solution to this problem...quit using crack cocaine.
Like the other guy said, he has never denied shooting Officer Faulkner. Plus, how about his comment right afterwards "I shot the motherfucker and hope he dies." Plus, he was shot by Faulkner in self-defense and was found sitting right next to him. If you or anyone else want to think he is innocent or that he was a victim of a conspiracy, then fine. I feel sorry for you. (By the way, to think Mumia is being framed is to also think that the cops don't care about who "really" killed their cohort)
Look, Mumia's story is just like that famous quote about the Duke lacrosse thing, "the facts were wrong, but the narrative was right."
And, by the way Seraquon, it wasn't the Philly police that ordered that helicopter to drop C-4 on the Move compound, it was the mayor of Philadelphia Wilson Goode, the African-American mayor.
(As you can tell, I am from Philly)
The Third Circuit merely took a page from the Ninth Circuit, affirm the verdict to keep the killer in prison, while striking the death penalty to prevent the state from executing him.
But the snark aside, I actually read the opinion and tend to agree with it. Taking the Third Circuit at its word, it does appear that the jury may have been confused about whether it had to be unananimous in finding mitigation. Off the top of my head (and posting before going into work), I could not remember if this kind of error is subject to a Brecht harmfulness analysis or not--and I note the Third Circuit did not do one. Assuming this kind of instructional error is not subject to a Brecht analysis, then, unfortunately for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the decision appears to be correct.
I guess the Supreme Court must have ruled later that Batson would be retroactive, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
Funny how some people make that mistake, isn't it?
In the 1982 trial, the prosecution Firearms Examiner, Anthony Paul, was asked if the bullet removed from Officer Faulkner's brain was consistent with having been fired from a Charter Arms .38 caliber revolver (the type of gun owned by Jamal and found next to him at the scene). Paul states that it is.
Paul: "It's possible to say that it [the bullet which killed Officer Faulkner] was fired from a revolver with that type of rifling, with the Charter Arms type of rifling."
N.T. 6/23/82, 6.110
Later at trial, defense attorney Anthony Jackson asks Anthony Paul if the general rifling characteristics etched of the bullet removed from Officer Faulkner's brain matched the pattern found in the barrel of Jamal's gun. Mr. Paul states that they clearly do match Jamal's gun.
"The general characteristics being part of the eight lands and grooves and a right hand direction of twist, you have a part of that [bullet] still exposed with sufficient quantity to be able to say that a firearm rifled with eight lands and grooves with a right hand direction of twist discharged that projectile."
N.T. 6/23/82, 6.168
Also the defense refuses to do their own ballistic tests. Why?
In July 1995, Assistant District Attorney Joey Grant asked Fassnacht:
Grant: "Well, you have opined that since you didn't have a chance to look at the evidence, test the evidence [in 1981], all you did was read a report. Well, we [now] have what you didn't have in 1981. Would you be willing to try a hand at it now?"
Fassnacht: "Would I be willing to reexamine this evidence? No, I wouldn't"
N.T. 8/2/95, 150
and
ADA Grant: "In any event, no matter whether that explains it or not, you know from your own expertise that this is in no way close to being a .44 caliber bullet, don't you?"
Mr. Fassnacht replies, "Yes."
N.T. 8/2/95, 158
So you want me to overlook the obvious and believe in things that can't be explained. It turns out everyone involved is guilty except Abu Jamal and his brother. Have I got a bridge to sell you.
The general rule is that if a new decision is published when the case is on direct review then the new decision applies in his case (subject of course to normal rules of waiver, plain error etc). Because SCOTUS denied cert in 1990, his case was still on direct review and Batson would apply to his case.
I also want to second (or third or fourth) Sean M's point. The issue really isn't whether or not he is guilty. It is whether his rights were violated. With that said, I think the 3rd Circuit got it right. The Batson claim seems like it should fail but the instructions at the penalty phase were flawed.
DaveN: it does appear that the jury may have been confused about whether it had to be unananimous in finding mitigation
I certainly would've read the language on that form to mean that we had to be unanimous on each mitigating circumstance.
Mumia was clearly an idiot to try representing himself in a capital case (I'd forgotten he did that), and it may very well have gotten him life in prison, not to mention a long span on death row.
Must re-read the Batson portion of the opinion to understand how he could've made a contemporaneous Batson challenge 4 years before Batson ... I plainly did not follow that part very well in my skim.
Just that circumstantial evidence in the case, which is undisputed, is enough to convict Mumia beyond any resonable doubt.
Suppose that as Mumia approached, Officer Faulkner shot Mumia without warning, and Mumia retaliated.
How does that explain the gunshot right between the eyes at close range? That still makes it murder. We could also suppose Martians did it, but that wouldn't make it so.
The the physical and circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, and to say "your evidence is not enough to convict Mumia beyond any reasonable doubt." is just sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'I can't hear you'. I don't know what kind of standard you think is needed for a conviction, but it wouldn't be outrageous to convict Mumia just based on the fact that his gun was found at the crime scene, even if he wasn't there with it. But he was there with it and Faulkner identified Mumia as the shooter, with his own bullet. And that is the clincher, Faulkner was there and he knew who was shooting at him.
Smokey: It's not my version, it's Stuart Taylor Jr.'s version.
Kazinski: "Faulkner was there and he knew who was shooting at him." That is definitely possible, or even probable. But how about: "Faulkner was there and, in the dark, pre-dawn morning, saw a black man with dreadlocks approaching, panicked, and fired his weapon at Mumia." It's plausible. Even if Mumia fired "the gunshot right between the eyes at close range" (which Mumia probably did, but why did the witnesses originally say that the murderer ran away?) that's still not enough to call it murder; there are other elements to the crime of murder besides killing someone. What was Mumia's state of mind at the time?
If Faulkner shot Mumia first then why in 1995 did Mumia introduce two alibi eyewitnesses who testified otherwise?
He won't actually be executed one way or another so they should just let him rot.
Thank you for the link. But you left out the central quote:That's the crucial point.
I don't care if Mummia gets the death penalty or life in prison. I care only that he's guilty of murder. And I'm convinced of that.
Also, at the end of your link it's mentioned that the article was produced by "an affiliate publication of Court TV." So they have a good reason to fan the flames, no?
There just isn't anything that anyone can say to you to prove Mumia's guilt, is there?
That's all I need to know that you're not arguing here in good faith.
Let's face it folks, Mumia did it. Michael Moore, of all people, thinks he did, for crying out loud.
(and IMHO, he should die for it).
Thanks for all the information everyone, does someone have more information on the argument that a 44 committed the murder and Mummia's gun being a 38?
That is great and I totally respect your opinion and all that, but unfortunately Mumia is going to spend the rest of is life in prison and the only question is: is it going to be in general population or death row. Not a lot of wiggle room there.
And for your information the only speculation that a .44 committed the murder rather than a .38 was based on the coronor looking at the entrance wound, which is pretty hard to eyeball. Not much substance to hang your hat on.
All the witnesses on the scene said that they saw a man, or possibly a woman, running away. That clearly wasn't Mumia, who was wounded and immobile, and much taller than the descriptions. The one with the best view said that a short person (clearly not Mumia, although with a similar Afro) stood over the downed cop and fired several shots in his face, then ran away at least 100 feet. (However, this account is not entirely consistent with the other known facts, making it likely that under stress he became confused and attributed Mumia running up to the scene to a shorter person, who probably popped out of the car and ran away. The key question is whether that's all the short person did, or whether he picked up the wounded Mumia's gun and emptied it into the cop's face.) Rather than track down this fourth person, the investigators persuaded the witnesses to change their stories.
Overall, there's a high probability that Mumia was guilty at least of firing one shot at the cop, but a near certainty that the investigators procured false testimony to firm up the 1st degree murder case. "Guilty but framed."
Those who live in Philadelphia, even those who are against the death penalty and think that there were errors made at trial, do not generally doubt Abu Jamal's guilt.
Also, I will be shocked if the Commonwealth agrees to surrender on the capital punishment issue. That issue remains, as they say, a whole nother ball of wax apart from the guilt issue.
Why didn't William Cook testify on his brother's behalf???
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.