MUMIA ABU-JAMAL is an African-American writer and journalist who has spent the last 24 years on Pennsylvania’s death row. His demand for justice and a new trial is supported by heads of state from France to South Africa, by Nobel Laureates, the European Parliament, 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, and by countless thousands who cherish democratic and human rights the world over.
Since the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, Jamal’s journalistic skills, historical analysis and eloquent pen have only confirmed his reputation as “voice of the voiceless.” With judicious historical insight and pointed probing of the issues, he continues to question and enlighten his readers through scores of columns, illuminating such issues as U.S. empire, terrorism, poverty, the U.S. support of Pakistan during the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. war and occupation of Iraq, and so much more. (See the “
Mumia Index” on this site.) His columns and essays continue to find place in scholarly books as well as in the street newspapers of the homeless.
Working people have expressed their support for Jamal through their leading regional, national and international trade union bodies. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union closed down West coast ports for the day of April 24, 1999, to support Mumia’s bid for a new trial.
Jamal’s books and over 500 published columns have been adopted as resource material for the teaching and inspiration of a growing number of students, youth, and educators who have come to see their futures as intimately tied to the outcome of this case. The 1982 trial that convicted Jamal of killing Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner has been challenged by leading legal analysts and scholars, from Stuart Taylor writing in the prestigious American Lawyer magazine, to Per Walsoe of the Supreme Court of Denmark, to Amnesty International which issued a special report in February 2000, claiming that “justice would best be served by the granting of a new trial…” to Jamal.
While Jamal has worked while confined as an advocate for so many others, he has maintained his own innocence from the beginning, and does so in ever clearer and more emphatic tones to the present day. His attorneys have presented compelling evidence that key witnesses were intimidated or coerced to provide false testimony, that a purported “confession” by Mumia was likely fabricated by police, and that vital evidence pointing to his innocence was withheld from the defense. A key eyewitness has now recanted critical court testimony she gave under police intimidation and which was used against Jamal.
The confused and flagrantly-biased character of the prosecutors’ case against Mumia has only mushroomed over the years: yet another affidavit has been offered that casts doubt on the original witnesses’ claims that Mumia had confessed to the murder; another man now has even stepped forward to claim that he is the one who killed the officer Mumia was convicted of killing; and a court stenographer swears in another affidavit that she heard Mumia’s original judge, Albert Sabo, say during a court recess, “Yeah, and I’m gonna help ’em fry the nigger.” (Up to the time of his death just a few years ago, Judge Sabo maintained he had been racially unbiased throughout Mumia’s trial.)
Jamal was forced to appeal his conviction before this same judge who had sentenced him to death in 1982. Judge Sabo was notorious for presiding over capital cases resulting in 33 people being sentenced to death (all but two, people of color), more than twice the number of any sitting judge in the United States.
So confused and biased is the case against Mumia that a U.S. District Judge finally had to acknowledge just one of the problems of Mumia’s conviction, and in 1999 he thus vacated the death sentence against Mumia. The prosecution, however, with the help of police unions like the Fraternal Order of Police, are still working tirelessly and vigorously to see that he is executed. Mumia remains on death row while the prosecution appeals the suspension of a death sentence. Meanwhile, Mumia’s attorneys press on to gain an overturning of the judgment of guilt against Mumia toward the end of achieving his freedom. His life still hangs in the balance, with death just a few callous and cruel decisions away.
WE EDUCATORS ARE UNITED IN SAYING NO TO JAMAL’S EXECUTION. We invite you to study this web site, explore the case and the issues – for Mumia’s sake and that of so many others on U.S. death row.
■ Jamal has long been a POLITICAL TARGET as a prominent journalist critic of police brutality and racism in Philadelphia since the days of Mayor Frank Rizzo.
■ Jamal is made more vulnerable by sweeping JUDGMENTS AGAINST DISSENTERS as “terrorists,” and he has become less protected today, as many progressive activists in post-9/11 USA turn more of their attention and energy toward the war in Iraq, tensions in the Middle East and general surveillance issues in the U.S.
■ Jamal’s life is increasingly put at risk because even in post-9/11 USA he remains a vigorous critic of POLICE REPRESSION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE. Whether writing about the outrage of torture at the Guantánamo Base detention center, or in the jails and lockups of Brooklyn, New York, and Austin, Texas, Mumia’s as “voice for the voiceless” puts him at ever greater risk.
■ Jamal has challenged the present political priorities of SPENDING MORE FOR WAR AND PRISONS THAN FOR EDUCATION. The youth who increasingly rally to Mumia’s cause in the name of justice and fair play know that we build jailhouse cell blocks more rapidly than schoolhouse classrooms.
AS EDUCATORS, IN PENNSYLVANIA, ACROSS THE UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD, WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THE EXECUTION OF MUMIA ABU-JAMAL. While there are those who believe Mumia is innocent and should be FREED NOW, and others who have no opinion about his innocence, we are all united in viewing Mumia’s 1982 trial as a travesty of justice, and affirm that he MUST have a NEW TRIAL!
Last Update: Jun 15, 2009
Lawyer's Update (Robert Bryan, September 4, 2006)
[Received: September 3, 2006]
Dear Friends:
On October 4, 2006, our Reply Brief in response to the briefs submitted by the district attorney will be filed on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
Philadelphia
. This is pursuant to a September 1 court order.
We continue to aggressively pursue relief for Mr. Abu-Jamal. On July 20, Professor Judith L. Ritter, associate counsel, and I filed a lengthy opening brief supported by voluminous exhibits. A week later NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., through Christine Swarns filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief. A separate amicus curiae brief was filed for the National Lawyers Guild by Jill Soffiyah Elijah of the Harvard Law School, Professor Zachary Wolfe of George Washington University Law School, and Heidi Boghosian, its Executive Director. They were joined by the National Conference of Black Lawyers, International Association of Democratic Lawyers, Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice of Harvard Law School, Southern Center for Human Rights, and the National Jury Project. These amicus briefs greatly strengthen our quest to protect the constitutional rights of Mr. Abu-Jamal and secure a reversal.
This case concerns my client's right to a fair trial, and the struggle against the death penalty and the political repression of an outspoken journalist. Racism and politics are threads that have run through this case since his 1981 arrest. The issues under consideration by the court are complex and of great significance under the United States Constitution, include:
- Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied the right to due process of law and a fair trial under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments because of the prosecutor's "appeal after appeal" argument that called upon the jurors to disregard the right to the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, and err on the side of guilt.
- Whether the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from sitting on the jury violated Mr. Abu-Jamal's right to due process and equal protection of the law under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and contravened the prohibition against racism in jury selection held in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
- Whether the verdict form and jury instructions thatresulted in the death penalty deprived Mr. Abu-Jamal of rights guaranteed by theEighth and Fourteenth Amendments to due process of law, equal protection of thelaw, and not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and violatedMills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988), since the judge precludedjurors from considering any mitigating evidence unless they all agreed on theexistence of a particular special circumstance.
- Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied due process and equal protection of the law under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments during post-conviction proceedings as a result of the bias of Judge Albert F. Sabo which included the statement that he was going to "help'em fry the nigger".
The case continues to move rapidly. Once the briefing phase is complete, we will present oral argument before a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals. I will notify you when a date is eventually set.
Our purpose is to win this life-and-death struggle, gain a new and fair trial, and see our client walk out of jail a free person. However, Mr. Abu-Jamal remains in great danger. We must redouble our efforts to prevent his execution.
Thank you for your concern in this campaign for justice.
With best wishes,
Robert R. Bryan
=============
Law Offices of Robert R. Bryan
2088 Union Street, Suite 4
San Francisco, California 94123
