Mumia At The Crossroads in the Age of Obama April 03, 2010
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
EMAJ Response to Professor Levitt in NYTimes (4.22.2008)

EMAJ RESPONSE TO NEW YORK TIMES COLUMN ON MUMIA

 Longer Version (901 words)

 As university professors who seek to apply scientific analysis to social phenomena for the purpose of understanding and explaining the workings of society, its institutions, and its problems, we were alarmed by the imprecision with which Professor Steven Levitts approached a discussion of the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, one of the most contested death penalty cases in 20th Century U.S. history, in his article, “Think Twice Before You Wear Your ‘Free Mumia’ T-shirt” (April 22, 2008). The case of Mumia Abu-Jamal merits deeper scrutiny than that afforded it by Professor Levitts because the life of a man is at stake; because the transcript of the original trial points unequivocally to countless constitutional rights violations; and most importantly because the constitutional violations in this case are not aberrant, but rather are an endemic feature of our criminal justice system. The violations that Abu-Jamal’s case exemplify, such as judicial misconduct, discrimination in jury selection, and police corruption and tampering with evidence to obtain a conviction, account for the exponential and disproportionate incarceration of African Americans in the United States over the last 30 years, making the issue of black incarceration one of the gravest civil rights problems of our time. 

Yet, with little to no knowledge of the case - by his own admission - Professor Levitts calls into question the edifice of Abu-Jamal’s defense on grounds that the Hollywood celebrities and students whom he believes to be the base of Abu-Jamal’s supporters (and whom he seemingly disdains) are not fit legal experts. Ironically, Professor Levitts urges his readers to find a compelling and ‘factual’ account of the case in a highly questionable book, Murdered by Mumia, co-written by Michael Smerconish, a conservative Philadelphia radio talk-show host, and Maureen Faulkner. Ms. Faulkner is the widow of the slain police officer, Daniel Faulkner, whom Mumia Abu-Jamal was accused of killing in 1982. In a recent Today Show interview with the authors, even the mainstream talk show host Matt Lauer challenged the authors saying that the emotional search for resolution in this book by Ms. Faulkner while understandable is incompatible with an objective analysis of the circumstances that led to the killing of Officer Faulkner. Not surprisingly, the book inaccurately renders the facts of the case and omits others.

That same Today Show news segment on the case also aired a series of photographs taken at the scene of the crime where Officer Faulkner was killed that clearly show police mishandling key evidence and contradict the evidence assembled by the prosecution against Abu-Jamal. The photos were discovered by researcher Dr. Michael Schiffmann of the University of Heidelberg , and taken by free lance photographer Pedro Polokoff who offered them to police and prosecutors at Abu-Jamal’s 1982 trial. However, these were never considered at the trial and were unknown to Abu-Jamal's defense team, until very recently.

While the civil and constitutional rights violations in Abu Jumal’s case are many, two are especially consequential in the legal world. The first violation concerns the deliberate exclusion of African Americans by the prosecution during the jury selection process. In a city where 40% of the population was black at the time of the trial, only one black juror survived the jury selection process, leading Amnesty International to report that jurors were accorded different treatment from the court on account of race. The practice of discrimination in jury selection was publicly exposed in Philadelphia in 1987 when a training videotape on how to select a jury likely to convict was leaked to the press. The tape was made by the Assistant Attorney General of Philadelphia and was used to instruct prosecutors on how to remove African Americans from the jury pool.

The second major violation concerns judicial bias and misconduct during the original trial. In addition to a report by a court stenographer accusing the presiding judge of making a racist remark in court against Abu-Jamal, the judge’s previous 16-year affiliation with law enforcement as under-sheriff of Philadelphia County meant that he had a conflict of interest and therefore could not render an impartial ruling in a case involving the shooting of a police officer. Yet, Judge Sabo refused to recuse himself from the case.

All this is just to scratch the surface of the constitutional violations suffered by Abu-Jamal. In a recent ruling on the case by the Third Circuit Court, the dissenting Judge Thomas Ambro acknowledges the unequal application of the law in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. He writes that the decision to deny Abu-Jamal the famous “Batson” claim of discrimination in jury selection “goes against the grain of our prior actions…I see no reason why we should not afford Abu-Jamal the courtesy of our precedents.” 

Unfortunately, Professor Levitts seems to think he need not do any research into these matters, and has also never learned of the hundreds of researching scholars who support Abu-Jamal. Instead, Levitts breezily references one of the most emotionally charged and personally invested publications in the marketplace today. 

To be sure, the death of Ms. Faulkner’s husband was a travesty, and she has every right to her free expression of opinion. It must be stressed, however, that neither the truth about her husband’s death nor the fight for due process for Mumia Abu-Jamal is well-served by the quick opinions that Levitts lobs into the blogosphere. As an academic, Levitts should have done better, and the New York Times should publish better in analyzing Abu-Jamal’s important case.

Tameka Cage, University of Pittsburgh *Johanna Fernandez, Baruch College * Mark Lewis Taylor, Princeton Theological Seminary* Co-Coordinators of Educators for Mumia Abu-Jamal (EMAJ). http://emajonline.com/ *Institutions listed for identification purposes only. 

Shorter version (785words) 

A

 

 

 

 

 

s university professors, we were alarmed by the imprecision with which Professor Steven Levitts approached a discussion of the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, one of the most contested death penalty cases in 20th Century U.S. history, in his article, “Think Twice Before You Wear Your ‘Free Mumia’ T-shirt” (22 April, 2008). Abu-Jamal’s case merits deeper scrutiny than that afforded it by Professor Levitts because a man’s life is at stake; because the transcript of the original trial points unequivocally to countless constitutional rights violations; and most importantly because the constitutional violations in this case are not aberrant, but rather are an endemic feature of our criminal justice system. 

 

The violations in Abu-Jamal’s case, such as judicial misconduct, discrimination in jury selection, police corruption and tampering with evidence, are responsible for the disproportionate incarceration of African Americans in the over the last 30 years, and make issues of black incarceration the gravest of civil rights problems in our time. 

 

Yet, with little to no knowledge of the case - by his own admission - Professor Levitts calls into question the edifice of Abu-Jamal’s defense on grounds that the Hollywood celebrities and students, whom he believes to be the base of Abu-Jamal’s supporters (and whom he seemingly disdains), are not fit legal experts. 

 

Ironically, Professor Levitts urges his readers to find a compelling and ‘factual’ account of the case in a highly questionable book, Murdered by Mumia, co-written by Michael Smerconish, a conservative Philadelphia radio talk-show host, and Maureen Faulkner. Ms. Faulkner is the widow of the slain police officer, Daniel Faulkner, whom Abu-Jamal was accused of killing in 1982. In a recent Today Show interview with the authors, even the mainstream talk show host Matt Lauer challenged the authors saying that the emotional search for resolution in Ms. Faulkner’s book, while understandable, is incompatible with an objective analysis of the circumstances that led to Officer Faulkner’s murder. Not surprisingly, the book inaccurately renders the facts of the case and omits others.

 

That same Today Show news segment on the case also aired a series of photographs taken at the scene of the crime where Officer Faulkner was killed that clearly show police mishandling key evidence and contradict the evidence assembled by the prosecution against Abu-Jamal. These photos were never considered at the trial and were unknown to Abu-Jamal's defense team, until very recently.

 

While the civil and constitutional rights violations in Abu Jumal’s case are many, two are especially consequential in the legal world. The first violation concerns the deliberate exclusion of African Americans by the prosecution during the jury selection process. The practice of discrimination in jury selection was publicly exposed in Philadelphia in 1987 when a training videotape on how to select a jury likely to convict was leaked to the press. The tape was made by the Assistant Attorney General of Philadelphia and was used to instruct prosecutors on how to remove African Americans from the jury pool.

 

The second major violation concerns judicial bias and misconduct during the original trial. In addition to a report by a court stenographer accusing the presiding judge of making a racist remark against Abu-Jamal, the judge’s previous 16-year affiliation with law enforcement as under-sheriff of Philadelphia County meant that he had a conflict of interest in a case involving the shooting of a police officer. Yet, Judge Sabo refused to recuse himself from the case.

 

All this is just to scratch the surface of the constitutional violations suffered by Abu-Jamal. In a recent ruling on the case by the Third Circuit Court, the dissenting Judge Thomas Ambro acknowledges the unequal application of the law in the case of Abu-Jamal. He writes that the decision to deny Abu-Jamal the famous “Batson” claim of discrimination in jury selection “goes against the grain of our prior actions…I see no reason why we should not afford Abu-Jamal the courtesy of our precedents.”

e

Unfortunately, Professor Levitts seems to think he need not do any research into these matters, and has also never learned of the hundreds of researching scholars who support Abu-Jamal. Instead, Levitts breezily references one of the most emotionally charged and personally invested publications in the marketplace today. 

 

To be sure, the death of Ms. Faulkner’s husband was a travesty, and she has her right to free expression. It must be stressed, however, that neither the truth about her husband’s death nor the fight for due process for Abu-Jamal is well-served by the quick opinions that Levitts lobs into the blogosphere. As an academic, Levitts should have done better, and the New York Times should publish better in analyzing Abu-Jamal’s important case.

Tameka Cage, University of Pittsburgh * Johanna Fernandez, Baruch College * Mark Lewis Taylor, Princeton Theological Seminary* Co-Coordinators of Educators for Mumia Abu-Jamal (EMAJ). http://emajonline.com/ -*Institutions listed for identification purposes only.