Erneute juristische Abweisung gegen Mumia Abu-Jamal - Freiheit ist die einzige Lösung

Pennsylvanias Superior Court hat Mumia Abu-Jamals Eingabe um Neues Verfahren abgelehnt +++ Weg in die nächst höhere Instanz eröffnet

Der seit 43 (!) Jahren in den USA gefangene afroamerikanische Journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal setzt auch auf juristischer Ebene den Kampf um Freiheit fort.

Vor einigen Tagen hat der Pennsylvania Superior Court in den USA Mumia Abu-Jamals Eingabe um ein Neues Verfahren abgelehnt. Diese hatte Mumia mit seinen Anwält*innen nach der juristisch haltlosen Entscheidung von Richterin Clemons von Ende März 2023 eingereicht (siehe dazu).

War Richterin Clemons Begründung zur Abweisung in Ton und Stil bereits haarsträubend sprunghaft und juristisch ungenau, gelang es dem nächst höher gelegenen Pennsylvania Superior Court, diesen Eindruck noch zu steigern.

In einem Update (siehe weiter unten) berichtet Noelle Hanrahan von Prison Radio über diese Vorgänge, verlinkt die Entscheidung im Wortlaut und geht detailliert auf die juristischen Details ein, die hier in Frage stehen: Vorenthaltung entlastenden Materials, Beeinflussung von Zeug*innen und Rassismus in der Juryauswahl in Mumia Abu-Jamals ursprünglichen Verfahren von 1982.

Gegen diese erneute Abweisung haben Mumia und sein Verteidigungstermin nun Widerspruch beim Pennsylvania Surpreme Court eingelegt.

Eine dt. Übersetzung der Nachricht von Neolle Hanrahan liegt hoffentlich bald vor.

Aktive Mumia Unterstützer*innen sind von dieser Entscheidung nicht überrascht worden. Schließlich hat sich die Justiz von Pennsylvania mit Händen und Füßen gegen das 2018 von die von Richter Tucker bewilligte und seitdem verhinderte Anhörung zu schweren Verfahrensfehlern gesträubt.

Maureen Faulkner, Witwe des 1981 gestorbenen Polizeibeamten Daniel Faulkner und Sprecherin der Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) sagte bereits nach der Entscheidung von Richter Tucker sinngemäß, dass Mumia frei käme, sollte er jemals eine faire Anhörung in einem Gerichtssaal haben. Ziel der FOP sei es, dies für alle Zeiten zu verhindern.

Sie wollen Mumia mit Tod durch Einkerkerung (Death By Incarceration = DBI; entspricht dem Urteil "Life Without Parole" = LWOP) umbringen, da sie mit der Todesstrafe 2011 endgültig gescheitert sind.

Die Solidaritätsbewegung für Mumia Abu-Jamal ist sich dieser Haltung seitens der FOP und Justiz sehr bewußt. Derzeit gibt es zahlreiche Treffen und Anläufe zu neuen Initiativen, auch in Deutschland.

Es folgt der Originaltext von Noelle Hanrahan:

PA Superior Court Rejects Mumia Abu-Jamal Petition for a New Trial

"Law is politics, by other means." David Kairys, Temple Law Professor

Mumia Abu-Jamal’s petition for relief on his 1st degree murder conviction was rejected by the PA Superior court on September 10th, 2024.

An appeal will be filed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court by his attorneys Judith Ritter (Widener Law Professor), Sam Spital (Legal Defense Fund) and Bret Grote (Abolitionist Law Center).

The three judge Superior Court panel; President Judge Jack Panella (Democrat), Victor Stabile (Republican), President Judge Emeritus John Bender a (Republican); issued a 23 pg ruling upholding Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Lucretia Clemon’s refusal to grant an evidentiary hearing.

The court affirmed Clemons’ opinion that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims before it due to procedural bars. The two issues were constitutional violations in jury selection (a Batson claim) and suppression of evidence favorable to the accused (a Brady claim). To quote the court “the [suppressed] letter was not impeachment material or exculpatory” and the voir dire notes “do not show improper motivations to strike jurors.”

Pennsylvania Superior Court Justices 2023.

Let’s unpack what that means.

What is the actual evidence the Superior Court is dismissing? Here is a list of the new evidence found buried in storage closet No. 17 in the basement of the DA’s office, and turned over in 2021.

    • Alleged “eye witness” Robert Chobert’s handwritten note to Assistant District Attorney (ADA) Joseph McGill after the trial demanding “his money” that was promised to him.

    • Detailed memos tracking of “eyewitness” Cynthia White’s cases and notices for Joseph McGill (ADA) to be consulted when they are called.

    • Handwritten voir dire notes from Joseph McGill (ADA) detailing the impermissible strike pattern targeting eligible black jurors over white jurors.

The Superior court called this document “not exculpatory.” In lay terms that means not favorable to the defendant. They further stated that while the District Attorney’s office should have turned over this evidence, the fact that they buried it for 34 years did not harm Mumia.

The problem with that argument is that Chobert was demanding money post-trial from the prosecutor: it is a smoking gun. The PCRA court and the Superior court had an obligation to find out why Chobert was asking for money. What was required was a hearing to ask Chobert under oath. To quote the Superior Court panel “the only evidence Petitioner put forward is Chobert’s letter, in which the witness asked the prosecutor about money he believed he was owed. It is entirely speculative to assume, as Petitioner does, that the letter proves McGill promised Chobert money in exchange for his testimony.”

Further, the court itself speculates that the money owed could have been the $5 a day Chobert was allowed in witness fees. They also cannot assume that McGill was potentially telling the truth in his affidavit when he says Chobert wanted to be paid for missing work.

The DA buried this letter for 34 years for a reason: it is damning and damaging to their key "eyewitness," Robert Chobert.

The court had an obligation to instruct the lower court to conduct an evidentiary hearing and get Chobert and McGill up on the stand under oath. What was needed here, and what the PA Supreme Court should rule for on appeal, is that there needs to be a credibility determination, an evaluation of Chobert's and McGill's contradictory statements, answers in open court, and vigorous cross examination. That is what the law should require.

Judge Clemmons and now the Superior Court have deliberately avoided the elephant in the room: the lack of credibility of Assistant District Attorney Joseph McGill and the questionable “eyewitness” Robert Chobert.

McGill’s affidavit submitted to the court in Nov. 2019 itself raises key contradictions that would have been systematically exposed by Mumia’s attorneys if he testified in an evidentiary hearing. Robert Chobert, the main “eyewitness” also would have been subjected to rigorous questioning.

Racial Bias in Jury Selection: Batson Issues
A few points to understand about the “Batson” issues, firstly, the racial bias in jury selection. The court acknowledges that McGill’s voir dire notes taken when selecting the jury “should have been disclosed earlier.” Yet, they go on to state that they do not show any evidence of improper motivation. Certainly, granting an evidentiary hearing and getting McGill up on the stand could shed light on his motivations.

2ndly, the Superior Court misses the point of the skillful arguments in the brief put forth by Mumia’s attorneys (Spital, Ritter, and Grote). McGill's notes specifically reveal how McGill dismissed black jurors who were similarly situated in favor of white jurors. The right to sit on a jury, the right to have a fair trial is compromised if people are removed because of their race. These handwritten notes by McGill were buried and kept from Mumia’s lawyers. By the superior courts own admission, they should have been turned over 37 years ago.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Batson states that even if one juror was removed improperly it is a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights and requires a new trial. Batson's clear upholding of due process is a powerful precedent that Pennsylvania courts are using PCRA procedural bars to ignore. In foreclosing an evidentiary hearing to question McGill, the Superior Court relies on the PCRA statute that says a claim is waived if not brought up during a previous hearing. Specifically the lower court and the Superior Court stated that Mumia’s counsel had the opportunity in 1995, in front of Sabo, to call McGill to the stand and examine him, and did not exercise "due diligence" and when they failed to call him as a witness.

Link to: COURT DECISION - Commonwealth v Abu-Jamal, Sept 10, 2024

The elephant in the room is racism.

“I am going to help them fry the n---word”
Original trial court Judge Albert Sabo said this in front of court clerk Terri Maurer Carter and fellow Common Pleas Court judge Richard Kline during the first week of Mumia’s 1982 trial. Philadelphia PCRA Court Judge Pamela Dembe actually said that she had reviewed all of Albert Sabo's rulings and even if this statement was true, that those rulings were not tainted by his racism, ie his statement was not material.

Photos from the Philadelphia Bulletin that prove Robert “I was on probation, did not have a license to drive a cab, and threw a Molotov cocktail into a school for pay” Chobert was not parked at the scene of the shooting. Chobert could not have witnessed the shooting. He was NOT parked directly behind the officer’s car as he claimed to be. The answer is: because the PCRA (Post Conviction Relief Act) allows the dismissal of this critical evidence because this evidence the photos were not brough to the court within 60 days of discovery and time bared. see The Pedro Polakoff photos

Philadelphia ADA Jack McMahon made the policy clear in a 1986 training tape stating that getting “a competent, fair and impartial jury. Well, that's ridiculous,'…“You don't want smart people. But if you're sitting down and you're going to take Blacks, you want older Blacks." See this Assistant District Attorney Jack McMahon prosecution training tape about removing Black people from Philadelphia Juries! McMahon's training tape commissioned by DA Ron Castille took place after Mumia's trial, and after Batson was decided. The theory is that you have to tie the racism demonstrated in this tape to the actual case, by knowing the motivation of ADA Joseph McGill. Ah that is why the voir dire notes are crucial.

Compare what you have just read with Judge Clemons’ stated position on racism in America. There is a dramatic disconnect between what we know happens in the courts and these comments: Common Pleas Court Judge Lucretia Clemons'

What Must Be Done

We must work strategically, consistently, and with the knowledge that it will get much more difficult as we get closer to freedom. We must demand Mumia's freedom and to demand an end to death by incarceration (DBI). Some work is case specific, and some work is class specific. But it all must be done and there is room for new brilliant and robust initiatives.

Just this week, Abolitionist Law Center's Executive Director Robert Saleem Holbrook, was at the White House demanding Biden exercise Executive Clemency for Leonard Peltier and others.

Take a moment to read Robert Saleem Holbrook's poignant and timely op-ed in the Philadelphia Public Citizen 9-20-24 describing the White House briefing he and others delivered this week.

I will close this sobering message with the note that we continue.
We believe in Freedom. And we will not rest until all of our people are home.

When We Fight, We Win,
When We Survive, We Win
When We Love, We Win

Noelle Hanrahan, Esq. P.I.
Legal Director, Prison Radio
The Redwood Justice Fund