"Mumia" dodges the death penalty

[Perknose]

So if it's so straightforward, where did the doubt from the left originate?

Don Vito gave a good account of why, but omitted the behavior of the presiding judge, who got even more criticism when he again presided over the 1995 appeal.

A wide number of news media sources reported about and/or commented on Sabo’s antics during the ’95 hearing, including The New York Times, the Associated Press, the American Lawyer Magazine and Philadelphia’s two daily newspapers.

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.

However, I followed this case closely, and there is zero doubt in my mind that Mumia was guilty.

Nevertheless, Judge Sabo often did not display unbiased "judicial temperament", either during the 1982 trial or the 1995 appeal:

Judge Sabo, a retired member of the Fraternal Order of Police, has sent more people to death row than any judge in the state. In the current hearing he has been openly contemptuous of the defense.

"Objection is over-ruled, whatever it was," the judge told Mr. Abu-Jamal's lead lawyer, Leonard I. Weinglass, a veteran of some of the most politically charged trials of recent decades, including that of the Chicago Eight after the 1968 Democratic Convention.

Judge Sabo has sustained virtually every prosecution objection while shooting down almost every defense objection. At one point, when Mr. Weinglass asked for a four-minute recess to locate a crucial witness, Judge Sabo, looking at his watch, said, "It's ten-twenty-eight-and-a-half. You have until 10:30."

On Wednesday, the first day of the hearing, Judge Sabo turned his back and walked out of the courtroom as another defense lawyer, Rachel H. Wolkenstein, was addressing him about a legal issue. He came back a few minutes later, saying that he could not hear because of the noise coming from the street, where a large group of Mr. Abu-Jamal's supporters were chanting, "Free Mumia now."

As to why it became a cause celebre, along the way, some not un-serious questions were raised about the prosecution's case.

At his 1982 trial, the prosecution said Mr. Abu-Jamal had shot Officer Faulkner in the back and then stood over him and shot him in the face. The officer got off one shot before he died. Officer Faulkner's partner and a security guard said Mr. Abu-Jamal shouted out a confession as he was carried into the hospital.

But defense lawyers say that is a lie, and the officer who was escorting Mr. Abu-Jamal at the time wrote in his report that the "negro male" had said nothing. The officer was on vacation during Mr. Abu-Jamal's first trial and did not testify. The defense plans to call him for Mr. Abu-Jamal's hearing, which could last another week or more. [Btw, the revelation of this confession didn't happen until two months after it supposedly happened!]

One of the most important disputes over the truth of that bloody morning involves the caliber of the fatal bullet that was removed from Officer Faulkner's head. A preliminary autopsy report recorded it as a .44-caliber, but police ballistic experts later said it was "consistent" with a .38, the same kind that Mr. Abu-Jamal carried in his gun.

Mr. Weinglass said that the jury was never informed about the autopsy report and that the police also never tested the .38-caliber pistol found at the scene to determine if it had been recently fired.

Anthony E. Jackson was Mr. Abu-Jamal's original court-appointed lawyer. And the other day, he testified that he had failed to call important witnesses and had been given too little money by the court to conduct an adequate investigation.

He said he was given less than $2,000 for an investigator, ballistics expert, a pathologist and a photographer, adding the ballistics expert did no tests on the weapons because, "I did not have enough funds for him to do tests or appear in court."

I'd like to once again add that I was finally convinced of this guy's guilt beyond any true shadow of a doubt. The physical and eye-witness evidence at the scene is simply overwhelming.

But Infohawk, you asked why such controversy and doubt could have even ensued, so I hope between Don Vito and I you now know some reasons as to why.

 

[Perknose]

One strong source of why I know Abu-Jamal was guilty is that I live near and worked in Philly, and a long time Philadelphia Inquirer columnist and book author, whom I trusted and respected for his journalistic integrity named Steve Lopez thorougly investigated the case.

He began fully willing to admit this guy's innocence, but became convinced by the facts that he was guilty, and he wrote about it in detail and at length in a long series of articles in the Inquirer.

Here's a later excerpt of his view:

Reasonable people can disagree about various aspects of Abu-Jamal's case, including ballistics reports that were or were not done, evidence and testimony that was or was not admitted, and whether, even conceding his guilt, Abu-Jamal should be put to death. But Joseph McGill, who has prosecuted roughly 125 homicide cases, calls it "the strongest I ever had." And no one can dispute this crowning absurdity: the only two people who know exactly what happened on Dec. 9, 1981, have refused to utter a single word of explanation. One is Abu-Jamal. The other is his brother Billy Cook, whose only known comment on the subject in nearly 19 years was made at the scene of the murder: "I ain't got nothing to do with this."

 

[Craig234]

I've forgotten too much about this case to discuss his guilt, but I'll say the left can sometimes adopt an even asininely wrong cause.

For an example, the shooting of Oscar Grant by a BART Police officer accidentally grabbing his gun instead of taser was tragic, but the protesters went far further.

This happens to both side politically - a legitimate concern, say about prosecution excesses, gets misapplied to a situation it doesn't apply to.

Similarly, Republicans can get hyper-sensitive and misapply their worries - see their making some weird hero of David Koresh to attack Janet Reno.