Socialist Action /May 2002
Courts Ignore Proof of Mumia's Innocence
By JEFF MACKLER
Federal District Court Judge William H. Yohn's Dec. 18 decision to overturn
the 1982 death sentence imposed on Mumia Abu-Jamal was a product of the
worldwide movement in Mumia's defense. The political price of killing Mumia,
an innocent man serving his 20th year on Pennsylvania's death row for a
murder he did not commit, has become at least for the moment, too high to
pay.
Judge Yohn was forced to vacate the death penalty sentence imposed by
the Pennsylvania state court presided over by the racist "hanging judge"
Albert Sabo, who had sentenced more people to death than any sitting judge
in the country. Yohn's decision was front-page and prime-time news in the
major media across the country. The San Francisco Chronicle banner headline
read: "Reprieve for Mumia."
Twenty years of struggle forced Yohn to rule that Judge Sabo's sentencing
instructions had violated Mumia's fundamental constitutional rights. The
decision effectively rejected the decisions of the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court, which had approved Sabo's execution order, as it did the signing
of two warrants for Mumia's execution by the former governor, Thomas Ridge,
now U.S. homeland security director.
But Judge Yohn's 272-page decision upheld Mumia's original frame-up murder
conviction. Citing spurious legal technicalities and "facts" that
have long been refuted by the defense, he ignored the mountain of evidence
proving Mumia's innocence as well as the myriad of constitutional violations
in Mumia's case.
Yohn's decision relied heavily on the infamous 1996 Anti-Terrorism and
Effective Penalty Act (AEDPA), which severely restricts the rights of defendants
to introduce new evidence proving their innocence.
Yohn, citing the AEDPA, ruled that federal court judges are not in the
business of determining the facts of a case-only the constitutional issues.
Yohn ruled that Sabo's "finding of fact," even though contradicted
by a mass of evidence provided by the defense proving that the prosecution's
key eyewitnesses had lied, had to be upheld.
In a separate 30-page decision, Yohn rejected consideration of the amended
federal brief presented by Mumia's new attorneys, Marlene Kamish and Elliot
Grossman. This brief included the affidavit of the confessed killer, Arnold
Beverly, that he, not Mumia Abu-Jamal, had killed Philadelphia Police Officer
Daniel Faulkner on Dec. 9, 1981.
The validity of Beverly's confession was affirmed by leading lie detector
expert Dr. Charles Honts but Yohn ruled that even if Beverly was "credible,"
the evidence was submitted beyond the one-year statutory deadline. Mumia's
attorneys effectively refuted this statutory argument-but to no avail. Thus,
Yohn's ruling was based on the brief of the previous legal team, which did
not include vital new evidence further exonerating Mumia.
Pennsylvania officials are still seeking Mumia's execution by lethal
injection. They have appealed Yohn's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
If the state is successful, Mumia may still be executed. If they are not,
Mumia's tormentors can still seek the death penalty before a new jury in
a new sentencing hearing.
This jury will be instructed that they must decide between only two alternatives,
death or life imprisonment. But Mumia's attorneys have stated that they
will exercise their right to introduce all evidence "mitigating"
the death sentence. This includes the Beverly confession (by having Arnold
Beverly take the stand in person) and the evidence that Philadelphia police
were complicit in Faulkner's murder.
It will also include the new evidence in the recent affidavit of Evette
Williams, who was imprisoned in the same jail with the prosecution's chief
eyewitness against Mumia, Cynthia White. Williams states that White confided
to her that she had lied about seeing Mumia at the murder scene.
White lied, according to Williams, because the police threatened her
with a long prison sentence based on numerous outstanding warrants for her
arrest in several states.
White, a prostitute who had previously collaborated with corrupt Philadelphia
police, had 38 convictions. She since has disappeared, with the police claiming
she is dead. Mumia's attorneys have challenged this assertion of White's
death and have submitted evidence refuting it.
Additional evidence has been presented by private investigator Michael
Levine, who states that the prosecution's other eyewitness, cabdriver Robert
Chobert, told him that he too lied about seeing Mumia at the scene of the
murder.
With Mumia's frame-up unraveling, the prosecution has shown no inclination
to allow this kind of testimony to be presented before any jury. Similarly,
the various state and federal judges who have been confronted with the same
evidence have refused to consider it, citing one or another spurious legal
doctrines wherein credible witnesses and innocent people are irrelevant
in regard to the present functioning of the criminal "justice"
system.
After 20 years of state insistence that Mumia's trial was in perfect
order, a crack has been opened in the solid wall of official denial that
Mumia's rights were violated. Mumia's attorneys have appealed Yohn's decision
at the federal level. But they also continue to pursue Mumia's freedom in
the state courts, where all new evidence must first be presented and litigated
Yohn has made any appeal extremely difficult. Utilizing the provisions
of the reactionary AEDPA, he refused to grant a "certificate of appealability"
in regard to 28 of the 29 points presented by Mumia's original attorneys
and he has rejected any consideration of the amended briefs submitted by
the new legal team.
Yohn granted the right of appeal with regard to only "point 16,"
dealing with the prosecution's use of its preemptory challenges to remove
11 Black jurors. While Yohn ruled that Mumia's rights were not violated
in regard to this point, there are now several cases that closely resemble
Mumia's in which federal courts have reversed convictions where racist jury
selection was demonstrated.
Mumia's defense team will ask the Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, to
consider all 29 points in Mumia's appeal, including the full amended appeal
brief that contains the Beverly confession.
In the end, Mumia's life rests in the power of human rights fighters
and working people the world over rather than in the "good will"
or "adherence to the truth" of whatever judge is assigned to the
case. Absent the enormous movement that has already been constructed, Mumia
would have perished long ago at the hands of a state power intent on scapegoating
Mumia and millions more for the social disintegration that is a daily feature
of capitalist society.
Yohn has consciously and at least temporarily removed the death penalty
issue because it has been an important factor that has helped to mobilize
support for Mumia's defense. The Philadelphia Inquirer echoed Yohn's thinking
in an editorial stating that Mumia "is in the right prison but the
wrong wing"-that is, death row.
Undoubtedly, Yohn's decision comes at a time when both the worldwide
and U.S. opposition to the racist death penalty is on the rise. The abolition
of the racist and classist death penalty in most of the world has been a
victory for all working people. Contrary to the political pundits who speculate
that Yohn's ruling will cut the ground out from under Mumia's supporters,
it is clear that support for Mumia's freedom extends far beyond those whose
support is limited to the death penalty issue.
For further information contact, in Philadelphia, the International Concerned
Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal, (215) 476-8812. In San Francisco,
call the Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal, (415) 695-7745.
Jeff Mackler is a national coordinator of the fight to free Mumia
Abu-Jamal.
Socialist Action /May 2002 |