|
Although
Mumia's attorneys are struggling heroically through
legal means to win him a new trial, new repressive laws
make it virtually impossible for death row inmates to
win appeals. This is why Mumia's attorneys are urging
the people's movement to raise the level of activity to
free him. With the impending federal Habeas Corpus
appeal, Mumia Abu-Jamal's supporters are now hoping that
justice might finally be served in the federal courts.
Since 1978, federal judges have been responsible for
reversing 40% of all death sentences in the United
States. These numbers are enticing, especially given the
lack of justice, the appalling record on race, and the
mistreatment of Mumia Abu-Jamal in the racist
Pennsylvania state courts. Federal judges exist outside
of the "old boy network" of the Pennsylvania courts and
are not beholden to outside influences in the same way
that the state judges are. With all of this in mind it
could be easy to become complacent in our own endeavors
to see Mumia freed, and optimistic in the federal
court's role in the administration of justice. It cannot
be emphasized enough however, that these attitudes are
dangerous and could mean death for Mumia if we allow
them to go unchallenged. The idea that justice can be
found in the federal courts, especially in relation to
capital cases, comes from a time now past. The federal
appeals process in the last several years has undergone
an attack by the pro-death penalty forces whose goal is
to see an increased number of executions in a shorter
period of time. The erosion of the appeals process can
be traced to April, 1996 when Congress passed into law
the "Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996 (EDPA)" in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City
bombing. Although heralded as an attempt to battle
domestic terrorism by giving the government, courts and
police authorities expanded powers of repression, one of
the central elements of the law was a measure calling
for historic restrictions on habeas corpus - the rights
of prisoners to appeal their convictions and sentences
in federal courts. Although advocates for this law
attempted to characterize the restrictions as mere
reforms, in reality habeas corpus was gutted along with
the ability of federal judges to overturn the death
sentences handed down by the state courts. Historically,
habeas corpus protections emerged from the period of
reconstruction following the Civil War. The Habeas
Corpus Act of 1867 was designed to give newly freed
African Americans federal protection from states that
would use the criminal justice system to manipulate and
coerce them back to the plantations they had left
behind. These protections have played an important role
over the past decade, and have allowed many inmates
falsely sentenced to death to establish their innocence,
or illustrate violations of their constitutional rights.
History is chock full of examples of citizens who have
been falsely sentenced to death. On October 21, 1993,
The Dallas Morning News published an article on the
House Subcommittee's report that Texas and 16 other
states were condemning innocent men to death. The report
listed five Texas inmates who had been wrongfully
convicted and sentenced to death. "Randell Dale Adams
was wrongfully convicted for killing a police officer in
Dallas, but he was released in 1989 when documents were
discovered that proved prosecutors withheld favorable
evidence. Clarence Brandley was wrongfully convicted of
killing a white teenager in Conroe. The Court of
Criminal Appeals reversed his conviction after it was
discovered the Texas Rangers instructed the witnesses to
commit perjury." Years later another man confessed to
murdering the teenager. "Vernon McManus was convicted
[of] Murder-for-hire. He was released after it was
discovered that his trial attorney was dating Mrs.
McManus during the trial and subsequently married
[her]... John Skelton was released in 1990 when the
Court of Criminal Appeals found the evidence was
insufficient to prove the case against him." (Jerry Lee
Hogue, http://www.lampofhope.org/tdrj7k.html) The report
cited racial prejudice, official misconduct, withholding
favorable evidence, shoddy legal representation,
inadequate post-trial review of innocent claims, and the
politicization of the clemency process as factors
associated with wrongful convictions. The report went on
to state that ".a substantial number of death row
prisoners are indeed innocent." The EDPA altered the
federal appeals process in several ways. First, it
limited the time in which death row inmates have to file
their petitions in the federal courts to 180 days after
the finality of their state sentences. Because it often
takes years to put together a successful appeal, this
new law creates a situation in which the wrongfully
convicted are put to death without an opportunity to
sufficiently investigate or collect the necessary
evidence to prove their innocence. In the case of Andrew
Mitchell, it took attorneys 11 years to collect the
evidence that proved Mitchell's innocence. It took the
attorneys for Clarence Brandley 9 years to prove his
innocence. If the EDPA had existed then Mitchell and
Brandley would both be dead. The EDPA also requires the
federal courts to assume that findings of fact by the
state courts are true. This is the most dangerous
element of the EDPA in relation to Mumia's case. In his
state court proceedings ruled over by Judge Albert Sabo,
Mumia was barred from presenting significant evidence of
police and prosecutorial misconduct, of eyewitness
testimony, and of forensic evidence. This evidence is
absolutely crucial in proving Mumia's innocence, as well
as in illustrating the FOP and Philadelphia conspiracy
to see Mumia put to death. While federal courts in the
past were able to consider the evidence of a case while
evaluating an appeal, under the EDPA they are not
supposed to look at the evidence and are to assume that
the state court's findings are true. In order for a
federal court to question the "presumed correctness" of
a state court, the defendant must now "rebut the
presumption of correctness by clear and convincing
evidence." Clear and convincing evidence places the
burden of proof on the defendant. For Mumia to be
granted a hearing on the state court's denial of his
rights, he must now essentially prove his innocence
first. The EDPA limits defendants to no more than one
review by a federal court, and requires the lower
federal court to grant a "certificate of appealability"
before the defendant can appeal to a higher federal
court. This is designed to rush death row inmates
through the appeals process and into the execution
chamber. The habeas corpus "reforms" brought about by
the Effective Death Penalty Act are currently being
challenged in the Supreme Court by Bobby Joe Williams, a
death row inmate. The case was argued on October 4,
1999. Although it is hard to predict when the Supreme
Court will issue its decision on this case, it is
expected to be before the end of the year and is sure to
have a profound effect on Mumia's case. His attorneys
have stated that they are hopeful by virtue of the
questions that were asked by several of the justices,
including Justice Ginsberg and Justice Kennedy that the
Supreme Court has taken a dim view of the arguments that
were proffered to eviscerate the protections of federal
habeas corpus. Should the Supreme Court uphold the EDPA
habeas "reforms", then it seems unlikely that Mumia will
find justice in the federal courts. Such a decision
would render federal court appeals virtually moot. The
conspiracy to execute Mumia Abu-Jamal is of such a large
scale, that to place our hope for his release in the
same corrupt, racist, political machine that has held
him captive for eighteen years is to sentence him to
death. The Fraternal Order of Police has extended their
hand into every pocket and are working overtime to
silence Mumia's voice, to keep the truth from coming
out, and overall to ensure that Mumia does not survive.
The FOP has been at the center of Mumia's case from the
beginning, and continues to drive Mumia towards the
death chamber at an alarming speed. The police officers
that fabricated Mumia's confession were tied to the FOP.
The officers who intimidated, threatened and coerced
witnesses to remain silent or give false testimony were
associated with the FOP. Judge Sabo, who presided over
nearly all of Mumia's state court appearances, was a
member of the FOP. Five out of seven of the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court justices who denied a new trial for Mumia
in the state courts had been endorsed by the FOP in
their campaigns for positions in the high court. In a
November 10, 1999 article that appeared in the Village
Voice, it is reported that the Pennsylvania state senate
rejected a moratorium on executions in Pennsylvania.
Even more striking was the senate's refusal to order a
study of whether the death penalty was being
administered fairly. This is particularly shocking given
the fact that it occurred in a state where both the
Philadelphia and Pennsylvania Bar Associations have
called for moratoriums on capital punishment until such
a time as it can be "administered in a fair and
impartial manner." The Pennsylvania Bar Association
noted that "Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
statistics raise a serious concern that people of color
and men are sentenced to death at a rate which
substantially exceeds the rate at which Caucasians and
women are sentenced to death." The Village Voice went on
to report that five abolitionists went to meet with
Joseph Loeper, the senate's Republican Majority Leader
to gather more information about the Republican-led
defeat of the amendment. When questioned about his vote,
the Reverend Jeffrey Garis, a minister in the Brethren
in Christ Church, quoted Loeper as saying, "The second
factor was Mumia. Governor Ridge had just signed a
warrant for him, and his case is a significant issue for
many of us in the suburbs of Philadelphia." "Loeper's
remarks unnerved Garis, who had observed a large plaque
festooning a wall in the senator's office. It was a
commendation from the Fraternal Order of Police."
(Village Voice) As a movement, we must be clear that
these are the forces working against us, controlling the
media, and undermining our efforts. Without a broad,
large scale people's campaign Mumia will never find
justice in the courts and will never be freed. We must
continue to organize, demonstrate, and raise our voices
in anger over the injustice that Mumia has faced. If we
allow them to execute our brother, friend and ally it
will have far-reaching ramifications that will effect
all of us, and every issue that we fight for. It will
reinforce, and cement what we already know: that truth
has no place in this country, that justice does not
exist, and through repression, tyranny and violence the
state will attempt to ignore and silence our voices.
Mumia has always fought for the oppressed, the
powerless, and the voiceless. He is on death row for all
of us. Those of us on the outside must be there for him
as well. We cannot let them kill Mumia Abu-Jamal!!!
Issued by National People's Campaign .
West Coast: 2489 Mission St., Room 28, San Francisco, CA
94110 (415) 821-6545 web:
www.actionsf.org
email:
npc@actionsf.org
Seattle:
1218 E. Cherry St., Seattle 98122 (206) 325-0085
Research & analysis by Josh Trentor |
