MUMIA FACT SHEET (FAQs).Dec3.2012 (downloadable version for printing!)
This fact sheet was written by coordinators of EMAJ and periodically vetted by Mumia’s attorneys, journalists and others supportive of Mumia’s struggle. For suggested changes or corrections, please contact email@example.com.
Who is Mumia Abu-Jamal?
Mumia Abu-Jamal is an African-American writer, journalist and revolutionary activist. He is author of six books and hundreds of columns and articles, who was released after surviving a grueling 30 years on Pennsylvania’s death row. He is now confined with a term of “Life-without-parole,” in the Mahanoy State-Correctional Center, in Frackville, PA.
The justness of this life sentence, as well as his earlier death sentence, have long been contested by lawyers and human rights groups worldwide. In 2011, Archbishop Desmond Tutu has called for his “immediate release.” Throughout his decades on death row, his demand for a new trial and freedom was supported by heads of state from France to South Africa, by Nobel Laureates Nelson Mandela, Toni Morrison, Desmond Tutu, by the European Parliament, by distinguished human rights organizations like Amnesty International, city governments from Detroit to San Francisco to Paris, France, scholars, religious leaders, artists, scientists, the Congressional Black Caucus and other members of U.S. Congress, the NAACP, labor unions, and by countless thousands who cherish democratic and human rights the world over.
Why was Mumia Placed on Pennsylvania’s Death Row?
In 1982, during a time still under the influence of the corrupt and violent police regime of Mayor Frank Rizzo, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office headed by Ed Rendell (later serving as Governor of Pennsylvania) secured a conviction and death sentence in a jury trial, which lasted only three weeks, claiming that Mumia had murdered Philadelphia police officer, Daniel Faulkner, on December 9, 1981.
What was the District Attorney’s Argument?
Philadelphia prosecutors argued, and still claim, that Mumia, while working as taxi-driver in downtown Philadelphia and who also carried a gun in his taxi due to past robberies he had suffered as cab driver, came across his brother who had been stopped by Officer Faulkner. Prosecutors argue that Mumia ran across a parking lot into the street where Faulkner was, pulled his gun and shot Faulkner in the back, and that, even though Mumia too had been wounded by a shot from Faulkner, he then stood over Faulkner, straddling his body, and shot him several times point blank in the face, as Faulkner lay on the sidewalk.
What do Mumia’s Supporters Say About the Crime?
There is no dispute that Mumia was wounded as he approached the crime scene where his brother also was. After Mumia was shot the details are unclear. It is clear that after police apprehended Mumia and while in transit to the hospital, he was beaten severely by the police. Many of those who believe Mumia is innocent claim that it is most likely that the shooter was a fourth person at the crime scene (beyond Mumia, his brother, and Faulkner), who was riding with the brother in his car and about whom jurors heard nothing at trial. Patrick O’Conner’s book, The Framing of Mumia offers the most reasoned account for that claim. Other supporters have no opinion about Mumia’s innocence, but nevertheless unite in viewing Mumia’s 1982 trial as a travesty of justice, and affirm, with Amnesty International’s 2000 case study, “that justice would best be served by a new trial.”
What do Mumia’s Critics Say About Him and the Crime?
Mumia’s critics who routinely tag him as “cop killer,” and who are led by the Philadelphia lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police and a web site with a Board of Directors that includes Faulkner family members, former Philly Police Chief, John Timoney, and Mumia’s original prosecutor Joe McGill, have charged the following: (a) that the prosecutors’ argument mentioned above is an open and shut case which subsequent appeals’ rulings have simply confirmed, (b) that supporters of Mumia – whether Amnesty International or others in Philadelphia, the nation or abroad – are simply uninformed about the case against Mumia, (c) that Mumia as a former Black Panther and revolutionary journalist was just waiting for a chance to kill a cop, (d) that Mumia’s writings and notoriety are a mode of torture for the slain officer’s widow, Maureen Faulkner, who is being denied “closure,” (e) that all the arguments made by Mumia’s attorneys and supporters are based on “myths.”
What have Mumia’s Attorneys Argued?
By 1999, Mumia’s attorneys had filed appeals at all levels of state and federal courts, arguing 29 claims showing violations of Mumia’s constitutional right to a fair trial. Many of those were discussed and confirmed also in the Amnesty International 2000 study of Mumia’s case, A Life in the Balance: The Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. The most prominent of these claims focused on the original trial judge’s racial bias, the failure of police to do minimal forensic tests, racial bias in jury selection, providing Mumia with only ineffective and under-resourced defense counsel, rushing trial proceedings, denying Mumia right of self-defense, giving inadequate instructions to the jury about mitigating circumstances, and the prosecutors making of venomous closing arguments to the jury.
After 1999, Mumia’s attorneys were allowed by the federal courts to focus largely on only four areas:
(a) in relation to sentencing, whether the jury verdict form along with the judge’s instructions to the jury mislead the jury in violation of Supreme Court case law.
(b) in relation to conviction and sentencing, whether racial bias in jury selection existed to an extent tending to produce an inherently biased jury and therefore an unfair trial;
(c) in relation to conviction, whether the prosecutor improperly attempted to reduce jurors’ sense of responsibility by telling them that a guilty verdict would be subsequently vetted and subject to repeated appeals but that a not guilty verdict could not be reviewed; and,
(d) in relation to the post-conviction review hearings in 1995-1996, whether the presiding Judge Sabo, who had also presided at the trial, demonstrated unacceptable bias in his conduct.
Also in the years following 1999, Mumia’s attorneys tried to get judicial review of (a) an affidavit by a court stenographer that Judge Sabo said in a court anteroom about his role in the case, “yeah, and I’m going to help them fry the nigger” (b) witnesses who now recant their testimony given at trial who say they were pressured by police into denying the presence of a fourth fleeing person at the scene and into naming Mumia the shooter, (c) a confession by another man who claimed to have been the actual shooter, and (d) the failure of both defense attorneys and prosecutors to present for review to any jury or judge the first photos taken at the crime scene (the Polakoff photos). Only police photos taken slightly later, and with significant differences from the Polakoff photos, were used at trial.
Where Does the Legal Case Stand Now?
In 2011, as a result of years of movement work and legal argument, prosecutors relented and agreed to take Mumia off death row, with a sentence of “Life in Prison Without Parole (LPWP).” They apparently did not want to take the alternative route allowed by District Federal Judge Yohn in 2001, which said that if prosecutors still wanted execution they had to hold a new penalty hearing. The risks of many points of evidence in Mumia’s favor would in all likelihood come to the surface in such a hearing. So prosecutors reluctantly chose the route of LPWP.
Mumia did not go, directly, from death row to general population for the Life sentence. He was forced to serve 50 days in “the hole” in “administrative custody,” i.e. “solitary confinement. Like the thousands – hundreds of thousands – suffering that cruelty, Mumia’s conditions there were onerous, “worse than death row,” he commented. Again, it was the people’s movement pressure that broke him out of solitary confinement, so that he could be in general population. After 30 years, he is able to see and touch his family and friends, and see more fully the U.S. mass incarceration system built up dramatically during his time of confinement.
In August 2012, prosecutors have another move against Mumia. They issued a clandestine order to lock-in the sentence of Mumia to “Life in Prison Without Parole (LPWP).” This was done in clear violation of Mumia’s rights, since neither Mumia nor his attorneys were told in advance, and Mumia was not present at the new sentencing – all as stipulated by Pennsylvania and U.S. law.
If allowed his right to be present at the sentencing, Mumia and his attorneys would surely have argued that LPWP on top of 30 years on death row, constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment.” Some federal judges in the U.S., even Supreme Court justices, have supported this position when referencing other prisoners who spent 25-years on death row. Moreover, Mumia has begun to relate his own legal struggle in the courts against his clandestine sentencing, to the cases of many others who argue that solitary confinement, long term incarceration on death row, as well as LWP in itself, constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” and should not be maintained in the U.S.
Over all the years, Mumia’s requests for a new trial were denied by each reviewing court, and each of those courts regularly stayed away from consideration of the new information that would constitute exculpating evidence.
In 2010, a petition was filed in Philadephia’s Court of Common Pleas asking for a new trial based upon a newly released report from the National Academies of Science that found flaws in many forms of forensic evidence. That petition was also denied, as wan an appeal of it.
What Grounds Do Supporters Cite When Claiming Mumia’s Innocence?
Supporters draw from, and usually combine, four kinds of argument:
(1) Procedurally and legally, no one should be denied innocence until a constitutional and fair trial has been provided. With the long list of distinguished jurists and human rights analyses that decry the many violations at trial, Mumia’s guilt remains unestablished.
(2) Those who know Mumia, his character, beliefs, principles and career development and convictions, argue it is inconceivable that Mumia could be guilty of the cold-blooded murder of Officer Faulkner.
(3) The fourth person at the crime scene, who was riding in the car with Mumia’s brother and who fled the crime scene (a fact never heard or considered by the jury) was also known by his acquaintances to be harboring rancor, grievances and a temper under conditions of widespread and frequent police violence suffered by him and other citizens in 1970s and 1980s Philadelphia. Freeman as shooter has never been seriously considered by courts, but that he was the shooter is more plausible than believing Mumia to be. (In 1985, Freeman was found dead in a Northeast Philly lot, reportedly hand-cuffed, naked and gagged, with a drug needle jabbed in his arm.)
(4) During and after the time of Mumia’s arrest, trial and conviction, police were often convicted of corrupt procedures and of fabricating the guilt of defendants – all of which makes plausible that Mumia, too, was “framed,” especially since he had so long been routinely singled out by police and authorities for his reporting on police violence in Philadelphia. It is known, for example, that in 1981, police and prosecutors framed four other men: two of the four were acquitted in trials, one in 1982 and one after spending 1,375 days on death row; the other two men sent nearly 20 years in prison for murder before released on DNA evidence and confessions by the real killers.
Why Have Mumia’s Appeals Failed to Bring Him Relief?
Three factors are often pointed to:
(1) New laws of judicial review, passed during both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies, protect state decision-making on death penalty cases from thorough scrutiny by higher courts at the Federal level.
(2) The Philadelphia and Pennsylvania criminal justice systems – from police officers on the street, to District Attorney Seth Williams, Mayor Michael Nutter, and Governor Ed Rendell (the Philadelphia D.A. during Mumia’s 1982 trial), to elected justices on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court who are supported by the Fraternal Order of Police – all of these, maintain an intense and unquestioned advocacy and application of the death penalty and routinely convey their beliefs to decision-makers in power.
(3) An exceptional politics of judicial review seems at work in Mumia’s case when courts repeatedly rule against Mumia, especially when those same courts have found in favor of identical appeals by other death row inmates. This has been analyzed in detail as “The Mumia Exception” by award-winning journalist, Linn Washington, Jr. of the Philadelphia Tribune, also Professor of Journalism, Temple University. (Washington’s essential article is available at the EMAJ web site.)
Why is Mumia’s Particular Case and Struggle So Important? (After all, there are so many others on US death rows – over 3,200 – and thousands have suffered similar violations of due process?)
(1) Mumia’s Humanity. Mumia is a human being, with a family and a network of family and friends who value his life. His case and struggle is important, first of all, because of the threat to the life and dignity he bears simply as human being. He is a husband, father and grandfather who, despite his isolation from his own family has maintained an extraordinary sense of humane care and advocacy for many others.
(2) Mumia’s Writings are Remarkably Inclusive. With hundreds of columns, prison radio commentaries, six books, and essays in venues as distinct from one another as the homeless Street News to Forbes Magazine, to the Yale Law Review, Mumia has foregrounded the struggle of many peoples. These have included advocacy, at times, even for prison guards and police, but especially for persons who routinely are rendered voiceless – whether they are African-American, Latino/a, Asian-American, Native American, Arab-American, white American, or the often detained from immigrant populations today.
(3) Mumia’s Notoriety. Mumia’s skillful journalistic writings regularly reach both national and worldwide audiences – in Europe and throughout many sites of the global South – and this notoriety has made him a human face and story of US death row and its prisons. In the context of the namelessness and dehumanization suffered by most death row inmates and prisoners, the notoriety of his story and struggle is an important way of keeping national and international pressure on US incarceration and execution practices.
(4) Mumia’s Case as “Primer.” Mumia’s case is frequently cited as offering a “primer” on the many problems that attend US criminal justice systems in the US: runaway prison construction and mass incarceration, police use of excessive force, prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, inadequate defense counsel for poor defendants, excessively long sentences, race, class and gender impacts on imprisonment and execution in the US.
(5) Mumia’s Case Links Issues: For many, Mumia’s political analyses “connect the dots,” stimulating valuable reflection on connections between US mass incarceration, the US military industrial complex and its wars abroad (covert and overt), US economic policies, the so-called “drug war” and “war on terror” – all of which bring to the fore issues of empire and of the coloniality of power at work in US policies. Most recently, he has addressed the tragedy in Haiti, the struggle for health care in the U.S., and the war in Afghanistan – all with unusual clarity, acumen and artistic skill.
(6) Mumia in Pennsylvania. As confined among the 225 men and women on death row in Pennsylvania (nicknamed “the Texas of the North” for having the largest number on death row among northerly US states), organizing around Mumia’s case is a way to challenge a criminal justice and judicial system in Pennsylvania and Philadelphia that has routinely been found corrupted by racialized and adversarial politics. The struggle for Mumia, thus, takes the struggle for political justice in the U.S. to one of the most hotly contested sites in the nation.
How Can I Stay Informed and Involved?
The best way is to consult frequently the key web sites on Mumia’s case. Bookmark them now! EMAJ maintains a web site of its own at http://www.emajonline.com. But other web sites are also essential for keeping you informed about the broader national and international movement. The EMAJ site and others, particularly of the Free Mumia Coalition in New York City, should be consulted (http://www.freemumia.com/. Nearly all the other sites are given under “LINKS” at the EMAJ site. Follow us at Facebook, search “Educators for Mumia Abu-Jamal.” Follow us on Twitter @emajonline.com.
And send Mumia some “love and solidarity” at Mumia Abu-Jamal, SCI-Mahanoy, #AM8335, 301 Morea Road, Frackville, PA 17932