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
"SAMPLE LETTER FOR WRITING REPS ABOUT MUMIA (Dec. 10, 2006)
[SPECIAL ADVISORY: Use phone or fax to contact your Representative, since emails receive low priority, and regular mail must pass long "terrorist clearance procedures." For more on the politics of contacting Congress, see the Electronic Frontier Foundation here.]
SAMPLE LETTER BELOW:
Representative _________________
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
Dear Representative ____________________:
On December 6, 2006, you followed the lead of 15 co-sponsors from Pennsylvania (and one from New Mexico) and voted to support House Resolution 1082, “Condemning the decision by the city of St. Denis, France, to name a street in honor of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted murderer of Philadelphia Police Officer Danny Faulkner.”
I can only guess that you did not have enough accurate information about this case, and merely followed a political crowd that unthinkingly wanted to take a stand against alleged “cop-killers.” While it seems nearly ludicrous and presumptuous that the U.S. Congress would try to pressure a foreign city over who it names its streets for, my biggest concern is the injustice that this does to Abu-Jamal’s presently active struggle to confirm his innocence while he is vulnerable to a death sentence.
Are you aware of the following points:
1. Contrary to the Resolution you voted for, not all of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s appeals have been exhausted. In fact, by voting for this Resolution, “non-binding” as it may technically be, you have inserted legislators into an active and unresolved Federal judicial case. Abu-Jamal’s case is currently before the Unites States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
2. Contrary to the Resolution you voted for, the idea that Abu-Jamal had a trial by a “jury of his peers” is one of the most roundly contested matters presently before the Court of Appeals. In fact, Abu-Jamal’s claim that his jury was unfairly constituted due to prosecution’s inappropriate use of preemptory challenges against potential black jurors, was officially certified as appealable by U.S. Federal District Judge, William Yohn. Moreover, the Third Circuit Court has also agreed that it will hear arguments on precisely this question of the racially-biased jury selection process. In short, there does not yet exist a legal basis for the Resolution’s claim that Abu-Jamal had a “trial by his peers.”
3. The Resolution you voted for omits reference to the fact that the Third Circuit has also agreed to hear arguments on two other open matters: (a) Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied due process and equal protection of the law during a post-conviction hearing because of the bias and racism of his Judge, Albert F. Sabo, who was overheard during the trial commenting that he was “going to help'em fry the nigger;” and (b) Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied the right to due process of law and a fair trial because of the prosecutor’s “appeal-after-appeal” argument, which encouraged the jury to disregard the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, and err on the side of guilt. The fact that these additional arguments on such important matters are yet to be heard makes all the more egregious the Resolution’s intervention in the judicial process.
4. Contrary to the Resolution you voted for, not even the prosecutor’s own account of Police Officer Faulkner’s murder claims that “Abu-Jamal struck Officer Faulkner four times in the back with his gun.” No one has claimed that on either side. While this may seem a minor error of description, the careless use of it in a prominent clause of the Resolution shows a callous disregard of the facts in the case. Apparently, neither the authors of the Resolution nor its signers have investigated the facts of the case carefully.
5. Contrary to the Resolution you voted for, the naming of a street for Mumia Abu-Jamal is not “an affront to law enforcement officers across the Nation.” What would be an affront to all peoples of conscience, and should be to all lovers of justice in law enforcement, would be to presume as guilty a man not proven to be so. St. Denis’ street naming was, in part, rooted in its respect for Abu-Jamal’s struggle to let all the truth be told about his case so that he can make the case for his innocence.
6. The Resolution you voted for omits reference to the national and worldwide respect that exists for Mr. Abu-Jamal’s own struggle for justice, and for his writings on behalf of others. This respect is rooted in careful analyses of Abu-Jamal’s trial and appeal processes, which have been skewed by an often flagrant racial and political bias in Philadelphia and
Pennsylvania . I recommend that you and your staff read, as just one example, a study by Amnesty International, The Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal: A Life in the Balance, which concluded, “justice would best be served by the granting of a new trial.” Moreover, legal scholar Stuart Taylor, writing in The American Lawyer, after interviewing scholars on both sides of the case, concluded that he was joining the “Save Mumia movement, here and now.” Even though
Taylor dislikes Abu-Jamal’s and his supporters’ radical politics, he writes that “Jamal’s trial was grotesquely unfair and his sentence hearing clearly unconstitutional.” These are just two voices among many distinguished jurists and persons of conscience worldwide who have spoken up for Abu-Jamal’s behalf.
You can take steps to redress the mistake and the injustice worked by House Resolution 1082. First, study up on the case, and you will see how weak the Resolution’s case is. Second, caucus with your 31 Representative colleagues who voted against the resolution, in order to learn from their views on the case. Third, work toward drafting a counter resolution, one that would rescind the action of condemning
St. Denis, for honoring Abu-Jamal.
Sincerely,
