In Black America; National Association of Black Journalists, Mumia-Abu-Jamal Case, Part 3

Thanks for watching! From the Longhorn Radio Network, the University of Texas at Austin, this is in Black America. So when you talk about evidence, when you talk about witnesses changing their story, you've got to look a little deeper, you've got to look into motivation, you've got to look

into promises made, benefits conferred for that quote evidence. So cab driver Chopra changed his story, but he told the police that night, the first thing he said to arriving officer Giordano, first thing, the guy ran away, the guy ran away, MuMia was laying on the sidewalk, pleading. Another witness who saw someone run away was a prostitute named Veronica Jones. She also told the police that she saw someone run away, but when she took the stand, she denied she ever told the police that, even though it's an unofficial interview report. Why did she change her story? Lent wine glass chief defense attorney from MuMia Abu Jamal. Last August, the National Association of Black Journalists held his 20th Annual National

Conference in Philadelphia. Founded on December 12, 1975, NABJ is the largest minority journalist organization in the world. The organization was created to unify African American journalists, bring recognition to their achievement in the newsrooms of America, and to bring about a better understanding between black and white media. When the more than 2,500 working journalists, media professionals, and students arrived at the host hotel, they were met with demonstrators. The protest sent around NABJ's involvement or the lack thereof with MuMia Abu Jamal case. According to Abu Jamal, a former president of the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists has been sentenced to death for the 1981 killing of Philadelphia Police Officer. I'm John L. Hanson Jr. and welcome to another edition of In Black America. This week, the National Association of Black Journalists and the MuMia Abu Jamal case part 3 in Black America.

That's how evidence is generated. And now that's cited as, quote, testimony that's worthy of belief. A third person, Deborah Kerdanski, who looked out of her hotel window and saw someone run was never produced a trial. Why? Because MuMia's attorney never attempted to contact her before the trial. But he did attempt to contact her during the trial in a remarkable episode. He used the judges' chambers while the jury sat waiting to telephone her.

And he asked her she would come to court and tell the story of the shooter running away. And what did she say? She said to him, I don't like black people. I was sexually assaulted by a black male once, and I don't want to help you. According to accounts of the December 9, 1981 incident, Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner stopped a green Volkswagen on Locust Street, just east of 13th Street, located in a red light district of night clubs and bars. Mr. Abu Jamal was working as a cab driver when he came upon the officer beating his brother, William Cook. When he went to assist his brother, Officer Faulkner shot him in his chest. Responding officers found a dying Faulkner and Mr. Abu Jamal sitting nearby on a curb in a pool of blood. Some reports state that three witnesses identified Abu Jamal as the killer. Others say four witnesses saw a third man shoot Officer Faulkner, then run away.

From June 1, 1995, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Rich signed a death warrant for Abu Jamal execution. Mameer Abu Jamal now sits on death row after winning a stay of the original execution date, August 17, 1975. He also seeks a new trial at the time of this production. At the 20th Annual National Conference of the National Association of Black Journalists, the controversy surrounding this case was so intense that protesters demonstrated outside the host hotel and then some inside the hotel. The subject was the topic of a heated conversation at the Annual Business Meeting. In this week's program, we conclude the panel discussion on the case of Mameer Abu Jamal, who has been sentenced to death for the 1981 killing of Officer Daniel Faulkner. So she never appeared to testify, only one person did, desi Hightower. And he said he saw the shooter run away after he heard shots.

But he was alone, and so he was readily disbelieved. So you must look at what happened here in terms of the evidence. Mameer was not able to put his witnesses on. The police were able to manipulate witnesses into changing their story and indeed they did. And so none of this was adequately presented at the trial. Oh, and the four witnesses who Mr. Miguel points out, yes, he says one was the prostitute with 38 arrests, three pending charges when she testified, already in prison up in Massachusetts. First time she told the police, I think the gun was in the right hand, the second time three days later. She said no, the left hand, the third time she testified, she decided to give it up and said, I don't know what aunt. In his other three witnesses, never saw the prostitute on that street corner where she said she was.

One of them, Mr. Chaubert, the cab driver, knew her, and he pulled this cab up, he didn't see her. Another witness said she was down half a block in front of a cleaning establishment. Now we're near the shooting. So this is the kind of evidence. Three of those four had criminal records. One, the cab driver had quite a criminal record. He threw a Molotov cocktail into a public school here in Philadelphia for pay. He was convicted of arson. After Mr. Miguel argued, Judge Sabo decided that the jury shouldn't hear that because it didn't go, it didn't reflect on his ability to tell the truth, even though he was then on probation. So we've cited 19 separate episodes that occurred during this trial and on the appeal that warrant a new trial. When Mumi Abu Jamal went to trial in June and July of 1982, he had no investigator and that was stated on the record.

He had no pathologist and he needed one because the star witness for the prosecution, the prostitute, testified about the position Mr. Jamal was in when he was shot, which a pathologist now, the assistant current of New York City, says, was medically impossible. He couldn't have been in that position. She was flat wrong. As a matter of fact, our position is she fabricated her testimony. But he had no pathologist. He had no firearms expert. And we put on a firearms expert this time to testify about these weapons and let me say this about the gun. The important fact is that the coroner said the bullet was a 44 caliber bullet and he put it in an official report. And you cannot fire a 44 caliber bullet with a 38 caliber gun. Is the coroner right or was there police laboratory right? Well, there's conflict between the two. But the fact of the matter is the jury was never told of that conflict.

Mr. McGill called the coroner to the stand and never asked him that question. And Moomey's attorney didn't know enough because he hadn't read the medical examiner's report even raised it. So the jury never heard of that conflict. If they had, they might have found reasonable doubt right then and there. But more importantly, the gun was recovered. Mr. Jamal's gun. Since it was his gun, licensed to him. He had been robbed twice as a cab driver. He had a gun for his own protection. It was a legal weapon. And it was a 38. But it was never matched to any of the bullets that were found at the scene. Never, never matched. And the police lab expert who testified said, I could not match any of these bullets, including the bullet recovered from the officer's body to Mr. Jamal's gun because that bullet was so degraded that it was impossible to make a match.

But let me say this to you. They cite the fact that five of the cartridges were empty or had been fired at Mr. Jamal's gun. But they don't tell you that at most there were only three bullets that were fired by the assailant because it only three bullets were recovered at the scene. I'm being told time is up. I just want to finish with this one on the confession. That alone requires a new trial. The prosecution brought on two witnesses who 64 days after the event said they remembered suddenly that Mr. Jamal had confessed in the hospital. For 64 days, they told no one. And they remembered it after he filed a complaint against the police. But the officer who was with Mr. Jamal that night, who had arrested him and had him in custody, officer Wakeshall had filed an official report that night saying the male Negro made

no comments. Did you ever hear that? The answer is no. The jury never heard it because Mr. Wakeshall was quote on vacation and unavailable. We now know because Mr. Wakeshall testified 10 days ago for the first time, although he was quote on vacation, he was right here in the city of Philadelphia and within 15 minutes of the courthouse. But the prosecutor refused to try to bring him in. So key evidence which would have rebutted the so-called confession was never put into trial. The evidence on the gun was never adequately put into trial. The evidence on the confession was never put into trial. The eyewitnesses were given benefits. Some eyewitness testimony was suppressed. A lot of it was never produced. This is not a trial that meets any standard of due process. Mumya Abu Jamal is entitled to a new trial.

So that the question of innocence or guilt may rightly be judged by a jury that's fairly selected, not one in which the prosecution removes 11 of 15 African Americans who were qualified to sit on that jury. Thank you. Thank you very much and thank you to all of the panelists. In this portion, we'll allow the panelists to go back and forth if they wish and then we'll also take questions from the audience. If any of you, please, by the way, if all of you would put on your Lavalier mics, send them fairly high up and still speak very directly because I'm told in the last panel discussion people had difficulty hearing. This portion is going to be fairly free-ranging as it relates to the panel members. I'm just going to allow them to go back and forth so if any of you would like to raise

a question with the other, please feel free to do so. And if not, then we'll take questions from the audience. Let's go right to the audience. I think one thing I'll do, though, is moderate, there are two questions I'd like to ask to Mr. McGill and Mr. Wineglass. First to Mr. McGill, why was the information about Lemia's Black Panther Party membership raised during the sentencing phase? There have been allegations that that was an indication that it was a political trial and that it had no relevance to what he may or may not have done in December of 1981. Mr. Jamal, during the course of the sentencing phase, I feel better if I stand up in the middle.

You can come here if you'd like. During the sentencing phase, Mr. Jamal read a four to five page document which basically was an indictment of the system, accusations that the police were out there to kill him and if they couldn't do it out in the street, they would do it in court, that the police had brought out to kill move members, that his attorney was in a conspiracy with the judge and me to convict him. He just went on and on about the fact that the police themselves were out to kill him and his fellow supporters. Now, also there were about 25, perhaps less, character witnesses that testified at trial. With all of this being stated by the defense, on cross-examination, I did not focus on his association, but he did in his responses to my questions.

What I was attempting to do was focus on the statement that he had written, which was a quote from Amal Sayhtong, political power grows out of a barrel of a gun. And given this and the fact that he had stated that, I asked him about that and if he in fact still adopted it. So about all power to the people, to rebut his statements, both at sentencing as well as his good character testimony, had he not gone into what he had with this four-page statement, it would not have been used. He then insisted, in fact, he stopped me from asking questions. He says, no, I'm not going to answer this question. Let me read the whole article, and first I said, well, your honor, I like to ask the questions, but he was really writing the show in many respects, Mr. Jamal, that was, at least he believed

he was. And he then stated, and then I said fine, judge, let him read the article. So he read the whole article, which basically was a summary of his article, or excuse me, this is a summary of the Black Panther problems at that time, their decisions to defend themselves against police, their decisions to be proficient in the use of firearms, he brought all of that up. This business about the Black Panther Party came up to an inflammatory hearing phase. In fact, I think it was one of the bail hearings. I was reading over some of my old clips within the last month. I mean, there was questioning of people who came in to testify them, who may as should be granted bail. One was a state senator named Milton Street, the other was a state representative named David Richardson. The prosecutors office questioned both of them about their Black Panther Party membership. This was months before the trial.

So, you know, I just want to put that out. Well, let me respond to that point. We're really talking about a different issue, assuming that everything Mr. Washington says is accurate. The issue is not that. The issue is whether the Black Panther Association, in as much as how it was introduced before the jury, and whether or not that is not consistent with the law at that time. You've been wine glass? Yeah. What I failed to see about raising the question of whether or not when Mr. Jamal was sixteen years old, twelve years before this episode. He had quoted Chairman Mao Zitong, which incidentally Ronald Reagan frequently did as well. That political power goes out of the barrel of a gun. What that has to do? What is the relevance of that? To the issue of whether or not twelve years later, he had witnessed a police officer beating his brother, which the prosecution witnesses testified to, with a flashlight causing a

deep gash in the side of his head, the flashlight was found on the sidewalk. What that has to do with that particular episode, unless what you're trying to say to a jury, which is made up mostly of elderly white jurors, that this man is a militant, and therefore because he's a militant, he should get the death penalty. One thing that you haven't been told, this case was undefended. There was not an effective lawyer in that room. There were no expert witnesses, needed witnesses were never called. You know what the jury did when they went out to deliberate? They came back and they asked the judge to be re-instructed on manslaughter. This vicious crime that you've heard about, when the jurors in an undefended case, which you are told is so compelling, they came back, they wanted to know instructions on manslaughter.

That's how weak the case was, but in the penalty phase, the prosecution realizing they had a weak case, then purposely put into evidence Mr. Jamal's political background, and a quote he made when he was 16 years old, 12 years earlier, in order to prejudice him in front of that elderly uptight jury to demonstrate that he was a militant, and therefore should get the death penalty because of his politics. Joe, I think we also ought to focus in on some of these comments that are being made, and at least hear a response from me on that since I was there. The ineffectiveness of counsel, this business about his not being defended is a bunch of hogwash. Tony Jackson did an incredibly good job in an incredibly difficult situation because Lumi Abu Jamal, just as you saw in your videos, he took control.

He refused to allow this man to do his own job, dictated the witnesses, decided what was going on, wanted to defend himself, and when, because of his conduct and his behavior, because he ejected from that, reacted to that, you must look at the individual at the time, both on the time of the facts and the time of the trial, and Tony Jackson despite everything that his client tried to do, cross-examined each and every witness very thoroughly and went through all the appropriate ways, despite Jamal's demand that he ask no questions, attempting I think to create error. So what we had again, and I think all of you ladies and gentlemen should know this, in this system of justice, if a defendant decides to destroy himself in his behavior and in his approach, whether he's just quitting because he doesn't like the system or refuses to recognize

the judge or the law or wants John African to be seated, which he did, beside him instead of a lawyer, if he insists on doing all of this, you cannot rightly expect an individual 13 years later to claim, ah, my counsel was ineffective. If anything, for someone who is so much of a strong character, that doesn't seem to do him justice. A question for Linne Glass, a two-part question that would actually be better directed to the trial attorney, which you are not, and so if you don't want to answer, we'll just go to the floor. Two-part question, why didn't Mamiya state his innocence or give his side of the story at the trial, and why wasn't his brother a question at the trial, presumably his brother was there and would have a version of the story?

I'll answer both of those questions quickly, first, there's been a myth that's been promulgated here that Mamiya never did claim his innocence. If you look at the trial record, you will see that the first opportunity he had to address the jury was during the penalty phase, and he did read a statement to the jury, and he told that jury not once, but twice. I am innocent of these charges. I've heard it said many times, why didn't he ever claim his innocence? The trial record reflects that he did, he did it to the jury in front of the jury, and he said it twice. Secondly, why wasn't his brother called? I had an opportunity recently to meet with his brother's attorney. His brother was also charged. He was charged with an assault on the officer because witnesses claim that his brother had

punched the officer in the altercation, and the officer then drew his flashlight and was beating the brother as Mr. Jamal drove up. So he was charged with an assault on the officer, and he faced the possibility of being charged as a co-conspirator or an accessory in the murder of the officer. So he had a fifth amendment right not to testify, and he was advised by his attorney not to testify, not to appear as a witness, and not to testify. And so that's what happened with respect to the brother. With respect to the brother, if I may also add that this, he pled guilty, pled guilty to simple assault and resisting arrest. He was given a probationary sentence before the trial, which meant that his trial was not going to take place after Mr. Jamal's trial.

So to that extent, one really extends reasoning when they say he had a fifth amendment right. You have a fifth amendment right if you are charged with a crime, or if there is some basis to believe that there is some criminal activity. Yes, I wanted him to take that stand for the defense. Yes, I wanted to cross examine to determine whether or not the highly coincidental action that took place at 4 a.m. was not a conspiracy. I have no evidence of that. We're hoping that someday, somewhere down the line, a longer article is written that explains the whole process of what happened in the first trial and the appeal. But we haven't seen that kind of reporting yet. Could I ask Mr. Wineglass a question? Would you tell me why there were fire-fired casings in Mr. Jamal's weapon? That is an issue that will be addressed in the new trial.

As I pointed out, all we're doing at this point is showing the errors that occurred in the first trial. There are many issues which I didn't go into at all, which will be part of the defense in the new trial. But Joe, when you said that there was evidence here connecting that gun to the bullet that was found in officer Faulkner, I must say that your own experts said they could not match that bullet to the gun. They said that. I explained to you what I meant and what he said and also to all to hear. What they have said is because the projectile was so damaged, they could not make a 100% match to that specific weapon. But what they have said is, number one, it was a 38 caliber. Number two, it was, it had the same kind of, not kind. The same rifling characteristics, the SA, a rightward twist, which your expert said, there

were millions of guns in Philadelphia that were 38 caliber with a rightward twist. Let me finish it by Ken. Number one, not just a rightward twist. We're talking about rifling characteristics, the size and nature of them. They were the same from his gun, which was certainly different from Danny Faulkner's gun. Also the same kind of projectile, which was used there, was a federal type projectile, which matches the four type of federal casings, which were in the particular weapon. Also keep in mind, there was evidence that those five casings in Jamal's gun were fired absolutely 100% from that weapon. Attorney Joseph McGill, former Philadelphia District Attorney, and prosecutor at Bamiya at Bujamal's 1982 trial. If you have a question or comment or suggestions asked the future in Black America programs, write us.

Also let us know what radio station you heard us over. Views and opinions expressed on this program are not necessarily those of this station or the University of Texas at Austin. We have the opportunity again for a production assistant, Chris Paulson, and IBA technical producer, David Alvarez. I'm John L. Hanson, Jr. Thank you for joining us today, and please join us again next week. Cassette copies of this program are available and may be purchased by writing in Black America cassettes, Communication Building B, UT Austin, Austin, Texas 78712. From the University of Texas at Austin, this is the Longhorn Radio Network. I'm John L. Hanson, Jr. Join me this week on in Black America. I ask again, how did they get fired if he didn't do it?

There was no test of a recent firing, which could have been done. That can't be done. There was no way you can get a recent firing test known, certainly not at that time in 1982. The National Association of Black Journalists and Amir Abu Jamar case Part 3 this week on in Black America.