Vol. 74/No. 45      November 29, 2010

In 1982, following a trial riddled with racist prejudice and police intimidation, Abu-Jamal was found guilty. The prosecution had pressed to keep as many Blacks as possible off the jury, using peremptory challenges to remove 11 of the 14 Black prospective jurors.

Since the trial, many of the witnesses presented by the prosecution against Abu-Jamal have recanted their testimony, saying that they were threatened by the police with imprisonment on outstanding charges if they did not incriminate him.

Prior to the trial, a court stenographer overheard Judge Albert Sabo saying, “I’m going to help them fry the nigger.” Sabo, who was infamous for having sentenced the most people to death of any judge in the country at the time, imposed the death penalty on Abu-Jamal.

Since his arrest in 1981, Abu-Jamal and supporters of his defense have fought against the death sentence and for his freedom, explaining the frame-up nature of his conviction.

The current hearing before the U.S. Appeals Court for the Third Circuit concerns the judge’s instructions to the jury in Abu-Jamal’s original trial. In 2002 U.S. District Court Judge William Yohn had ruled that these instructions made it more difficult for the jurors to decide against the death penalty. This victory for Abu-Jamal was upheld by the appeals court in 2008.

The Philadelphia district attorney appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, rather than setting a new trial for Abu-Jamal where he would be able to present new evidence.

In February 2010 the Supreme Court sent this decision back to the appeals court “for further consideration.”

Actions in defense of Abu-Jamal over the last 28 years have fluctuated in size and often have dovetailed with other struggles against the death penalty, police brutality, and frame-ups.  
 
New revelations of cop frame-ups
A general trend has been toward growing opposition to the death penalty. In recent years, hundreds of people sentenced to death have been proven not guilty, either as a result of DNA testing or other new evidence, or exposure of cop frame-ups.

In Philadelphia over the past few months there have been numerous revelations of cop brutality and frame-ups—including people arrested or beaten because they protested against police abuse of others.

On November 4 a lawsuit was filed challenging thousands of unconstitutional “stop and frisk” cop operations aimed particularly at the city’s Black and Latino residents.

Widespread publicity has been focused on the cop beating and frame-up in September of Askia Sabur, who was brutalized while he was standing outside a Chinese takeout restaurant waiting for his food. The cop assault was captured on video and has been viewed by more than 10,000 people on the Internet.

Abdus Sabur, the father of Askia Sabur, attended the rally for Abu-Jamal. “People all over the world are listening to what is happening here today,” he told the Militant. “Along with many others, we are asking for the release of Mumia Abu-Jamal.”

Abu-Jamal’s defense campaign has also been affected by shifts in political and legal emphasis and a number of changes in attorneys.

On November 5, days before the appeals court hearing, lead defense attorney Robert Bryan was removed from the case on Abu-Jamal’s request. In 2001 Abu-Jamal dismissed lead attorney Leonard Weinglass. This move was accompanied by a shift away from focusing on the prosecution’s failure to prove Abu-Jamal’s guilt and the unconstitutionality of his trial. New defense arguments, instead, aimed at proving Abu-Jamal’s innocence based on a declaration by Arnold Beverly, who said he was hired by corrupt police officers working for the mafia to kill Daniel Faulkner, the cop Mumia was convicted of killing.

Abu-Jamal is the victim of a relentless frame-up by the Philadelphia cops and prosecutors. Since his arrest, he has faced a systematic, well-financed countercampaign organized by the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and backed by Democratic and Republican politicians, such as current Pennsylvania governor Edward Rendell, who was Philadelphia district attorney when Abu-Jamal was framed.

These forces seek to maintain Abu-Jamal’s unjust conviction and put him to death.

Coverage in the Philadelphia media the day after the appeals court hearing did not focus on the arguments at the hearing, nor on the large protest in the street. Instead they reported on a press conference organized at the FOP headquarters with the wives of a number of cops who have been shot. Faulkner’s widow made an emotional appeal for speedy enforcement of the death penalty.

The November 9 rally on behalf of Abu-Jamal was one of the largest such actions held in Philadelphia in years.

“We now see a new generation coming out to organize for Mumia Abu-Jamal that wasn’t even born when this fight started,” Pam Africa, a leader of the International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal, told the Militant.

Janet Post contributed to this article.
 
 
Related articles:
After denial, Troy Davis appeal goes to high court  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home