In Black America; National Association of Black Journalists, Mumia Abu-Jamal Case, Part 2

N From the Longhorn Radio Network, the University of Texas at Austin, this is in Black America. The case of Mamiya Abu Jamal is both a journalist dream and a journalistic nightmare. This case is not complicated, but it is in fact convoluted.

In many ways, there are some very thin parallels to the Rodney King case in that what was unusual about Rodney King was not the police beating, but his capture on videotape. And in many ways, the case of Mamiya Abu Jamal is not unusual for the allegations of misconduct by police prosecutors and the court system, what is unusual is the international attention on these allegations. This case, I think, from a journalistic point of view, is very fascinating because essentially what you have are some undisputed facts. There's a gun, there's eye witnesses, and there's a confession. What is disputed is the interpretation of these facts. Lynn Washington, editor, the Philadelphia new observer, newspaper. This past summer, the National Association of Black Journalists held his 20th Annual National Convention in Philadelphia. More than 2,500 students, working journalists and media professionals, met to celebrate

two decades of momentum. On December 12, 1975, NABJ is the largest minority journalist organization in the world. NABJ 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. What began with only 44 members in the beginning, with no operating staff, capital, or national office, now has grown to over 3,000 members and an operating budget in excess of $500,000. When members arrived at this year's convention, they were met with demonstrators. The protest sent around NABJ's involvement, or the lack thereof, with the Mamiya Abu Jamar case. 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 Mamiya Abu Jamar case, part 2, in Black America.

In Mamiya's first trial, the system worked as it does in cases involving the poor, involving blacks, involving politically radicals, which is, it doesn't work too well. Who is Mamiya Abu Jamar? Well, let me start by telling you who he is not. He is not a monster, as his opponents have characterized him. Nor is he a rabid cop-hater. As you've heard from that commentary, he took up the defense of the police officer's charge in the Rodney King meeting. But on the other side, Mamiya is not the mythical or mythological super reporter that many of his supporters pretend. Mamiya was not the only person covering police brutality or poverty. He was one of the best, but not the only one. And certainly, he's not one of the nation's leading black leaders.

On December 9, 1981, 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. At Moore Jamar's brother, William Cook, got out of his car and subsequently got into a fight with officer Faulkner. Abu Jamar, who was driving a cab at the time, came upon the struggle, ran towards the officer, and shot him in the back. Officer Faulkner spun around, drew his weapon, and shot Abu Jamar on the chest, according to the prosecution's case. Responding officers found a dying Faulkner and Abu Jamar sitting nearby on the curb in a pool of blood. Three witnesses identified Abu Jamar as the killer. On June 1, 1995, a death warrant was signed by Governor Tom Ridge. Mamiya Abu Jamar now sits on Pennsylvania's death row after winning a stay of the original execution date, August 17, 1995.

He also seeks a new trial at the time of this production. In this week's program, Lynn Washington, editor with the Philadelphia new observer newspaper, gives some insight into what some say is a political prisoner. Mamiya is intelligent, he's articulate, he's sensitive. Mamiya was an excellent radio reporter gifted with a rich baritone voice in an oral understanding of both sound and silence. Mamiya was aggressive in his reporting seeking depth and balance. Mamiya had a concern about the have-nots and a commitment to make their stories known. Today, Mamiya is an extraordinarily gifted writer returning to his roots of journalism, which is writing as he indicated in the interview where he started on a Black Panther Party paper. But I don't want to limit who Mamiya is to what he does because all of us are a lot more than

just what we do as a profession. Mamiya is a man with a family and yes, Mamiya is a man with flaws. I once interviewed him at Huntington, which is unanimously called the Council of Death. And I said, what's it like to live on Death Road? And he paused for a moment and he says, Mesostophaly said that hell is any place out of the sight of God. I would suggest that hell is any place out of the sight of your family and your maid. This case, the case of Mamiya Abu Jamal, which brings us here today, is literally riddled with first amendment issues. Prison authorities throughout his incarceration have denied Mamiya even the basics of writing. He's been denied a typewriter on the allegation that it is a security risk, yet he could have a television or a radio. Now, of course,

again, doing an interview, he says, if I really wanted a weapon, I could take the screen out of the TV, break it and slash anybody's throat that I want. He's been denied access to information. There was a case that he tried himself unsuccessfully back in the late 80s where he wanted to get a newspaper. I think it was called the revolutionary worker. And prison authorities said, no, you can't have this because it is left-wing and it will be disruptive. Well, on Death Road in Pennsylvania, the inmates are isolated from the general population and they're basically kept in their cells 23 to 24 hours or 22 to 23 hours a day. So where's the disruption? But through the course of this proceeding, particularly at the administrative level, prison authorities testified and, yes, they grudgingly acknowledged that some inmates were receiving white races, hate literature and others were receiving pornography. But Mr. Mumiya Abu Jamal could not

receive a revolutionary leftist newspaper. Mumiya has been the target of vicious censorship, which should concern all journalists and civil libertarians. Last year, National Public Radio was slated to broadcast a series of his commentaries, not about his case, but about his views of life on Death Road. What makes Mumiya extraordinary is because he is articulate. Unlike so many people that end up on Death Road who are semi-literate or mentally deficient, Mumiya can rap. Mumiya has insight. And who better to talk about life on Death Road than somebody who lives here? New Gendrich? Give me a break! Earlier this year, when his boat was going towards publication,

there was another censorship effort. There was efforts to block it. There were calls made both officially and unofficially. You know the kind like, if you run this boat, we're going to bomb your house. Of course, nobody took responsibility for it. But those things have happened. There are other first amendment issues included in this case. I think two of which concerned us as journalists. One being superficial reporting and the other being exclusionary reporting. When I say superficial reporting, you say, how can that be? We got reporting all over the world about this case. I would suggest with all due respect to the reporting which I feel has gotten better in the last year and the last months. But we're getting a lot of sizzle folks and not a lot of state. There's a whole bunch of issues here that really haven't been explored. I had a little show and tell up here. One of the aspects of the case, again, the facts and how the facts

are interpreted it, there's an issue of what type of bullet actually killed officer Faulkner. And I'd like to just give a little footnote reference here. Whoever shot officer Faulkner is a very vicious crime. I want to put myself on a record with that because there's a tendency that when you try to talk about the other side of the coin, somehow you're lumped in as being a supporter. And I've been there. Just trying to do my job and somehow I'm painted with an ugly tarbrush. But one of the issues about this is that who ever shot this officer, the medical examiner and his initial report, not his official report, but his initial report said it was a 44 caliber. So as you see, this is a 44 caliber hollow coin, 240 grains, dirty hairy weapon. Momea carried a 38 special, and as the prosecution said, it was loaded with plus p ammunition,

which is a hot load. This is a 38 special plus p, either a 95 grain bullet or 110 grain bullet, half the size of this. Stick this down inside of it. Does that say that Momea is innocent? No, that says that these sort of things should have been litigated at the trial, but we're not. The Supreme Court, as we all know, rejected his appeal. A few months later, they rendered a decision in the case called Dawson versus Delaware. Dawson was a white racist in Delaware. He escaped one on the crime spree, ended up killing somebody. They wanted to bring in the fact that he was a member of the Aryan brotherhood, and they did it, and we in Rinc was said, that filates his rights. So they granted him a new trial. So Momea read this and said, hmm, let me make a re-application, could you hear my case? And they said, no, not once but twice. But interestingly enough,

the Delaware Supreme Court's opinion that was avoided by the US Supreme Court, rested in part on one case, Commonwealth versus Abu Jamal. Over top of the US Supreme Court, Washington, D.C. is chiseled the words, equal justice under law. I was submitted in this case. There hasn't been equal justice under the law. Len Washington, editor, the Philadelphia new observer, newspaper. Also present during the pound discussion on the Momea Abu Jamal case at NABJ's 20th National Convention was Attorney Joseph McGill. Mr. McGill was the Philadelphia District Attorney who prosecuted Abu Jamal in 1982. I'm here for a very narrow issue, and yet a very important issue, and that's the fairness of the trial and the sentencing hearing, which ended in the conviction and sentence to death of Momea Abu Jamal. I am not here to discuss the pros and cons of the death penalty, nor am I here to discuss the value of a human life or the talent of Mr. Jamal, which I can see. What I am here for and what I want

you to please listen to, as I know that you will, is to discuss aspects of the case. Even before I start that, based upon those particular videos and writings that you heard and the voice of Mr. Jamal, I will point out that I'm also here to focus in on the death of Daniel Faulkner, slash police officer, and the life of Momea Abu Jamal on death row. I am also not here to discuss the First Amendment issue. After hearing the undoubtedly sonorous and actually beautiful voice of Mr. Jamal, I will point out to all of you, and I appreciate Mr. Washington's remarks,

that there is a voice that will never be heard again since December the 9th of 1981. That voice is a voice of an individual police officer who was honored in various ways for what he did for the city of Philadelphia before that night. He will not write, he will not think, he will not be able to do anything in life, let alone on death row. So the viciousness of the act that took away the life of a human being police officer in this city must not be forgotten. And if I may use a word that Mr. Washington said in paraphrasing something else, what is hell? Well, perhaps hell is being a widow of a police officer when every day you don't know whether they're coming back, and on December 9th, 1981, Marine Faulkner didn't know, and her husband

never did come back. I just state that to let all know since we are focusing on both issues, that this is so important an issue because there is life on both sides, one that many supporters wish to preserve the other that has been lost forever. Ladies and gentlemen, I suggest that we take a look at the fairness of the trial at this junction. I will point out to you that the evidence as I have often been quoted as saying was indeed overwhelming. I would suggest to all of you that it is almost beyond belief to imagine a conspiracy so wide and so deep as to manage to get all of this evidence in some fashion improperly together to convict this man. There are reports coming out that there is somehow a conspiracy to

get him because he in some way would continue to oppose the police and on his political build. I suggest to you that every one of you and some of you may have relatives at our police officer that trivializes the death of the police officer and trivializes the work and commitment of the police department who is interested in investigating and conducting a killer of a fellow police officer not getting somebody because he has political views that may at one time been rather loud and boosters. In this particular case you had four eyewitnesses. You had two eyewitnesses that on the scene identified Mr. Jamal before he was taken away in the car. You don't have a situation like OJ Simpson where you don't have any eyewitnesses or any weapon or any circumstantial

evidence beyond those very clear and somewhat dubious blood aspects. You certainly have no admission. So if one were to attempt to in some way parallel the two cases you could see that there is no parallel. What we have are four eyewitnesses who themselves come from different walks of life. Indeed one was a prostitute. This was 4 a.m. at 13th and Locust. Another one was a cab driver. Another one and two other males by the way were in different ways and didn't even know each other at that time. When you have a situation where you see somebody shoot somebody and then take off and you don't see them and you see them in a lineup maybe five or ten days later. This were individuals that saw it, stayed there and pointed the defendant out who never left. All four. Two of them on the scene ID, one identifying Mr. Jamal as running across the street,

something that was never denied by anyone. But that same person also followed through and said that he had his arm raised and sat down here in the curve. Let us look at the weapon. Another thing always missing in so many of these other cases. A weapon that conceitedly by the defense by Mr. Wineglass belonged to Mr. Jamal. The weapon had five casings and it fired. Something that you may have read falsely. It was presented and perhaps at least the articles that I had read indicated that there were no tests done on this particular weapon. Well, there were tests done on this weapon. This weapon which was conceitedly Mr. Jamal's had five fired casings from that weapon which were determined to be fired from that weapon. Casings are when the projectile shoots and the casing remains. What doesn't eject

in his revolver that stayed in five fired, consistent with the number of shots that the eyewitnesses testified to. The projectile which was at 38, not this little notation on a coroner's report, that the coroner now and then has never stood behind. You can eyeball projectile that was exploded plus P explodes. You can eyeball that. You need equipment and the people that had the equipment used it, the people that were interested in finding the police officers killer used that equipment to determine that it was at 38. And they could determine certain characteristics of it, unlike what was stated by Mr. Fashinoff. Certain rifling characteristics were similar to those that were fired from that weapon. And also, whether the gun was fired, there was dirt and powder fouling in the five chambers which indicated that it was fired. There is no way of telling, no way of telling that a gun was fired recently or in any kind of a time period. So that certainly could not have

been found. And then you had the admissions. Ladies and gentlemen, that evidence with the admissions, the eyewitnesses and the weapon is so compelling. How many cases do you have one of those components, let alone three? Having trialled over 150 jury trials in my life, and I'm well aware of the tremendous experience and success of Mr. Wineglass, I can tell you I rarely had a case that had all of those components together. The fairness of this trial, let us look at this, ineffectiveness of counsel. You must realize that in the direct, the particular avenue of appeal that the defense must do in order to get him out is to demonstrate certain things such as that the counsel was ineffective. Other things such as that there would be after discovered evidence. Another point would be that there would be some kind of major constitutional violation by the

parties involved, myself, the defense counsel who was there or the judge. If you don't, if you can't go against the facts and the law and they're all against, you go after the players, go after the players. But I do not begrudge in any way an aggressive effort because I'm in a defense attorney also to tempt, to find a way to do the best thing you can for the client. But I tell all of you the evidence is overwhelming and the trial was fair. But you know what happened in this and you saw some of those clips and I know a lot of you, if not all of you, were watching. Those clips of Mr. Jamal tell you a little bit perhaps about the personality, about the defiance, about the individual who had a commitment to his beliefs, no matter what. He indicated that he was just overwhelmed with anger, although that's not the words he used, when the 1981 sentencing of those that he got to appreciate the move members. You remember him saying that on the video.

And you also remember that that was 1981. This happened in December, 1981. The Mr. Jamal that you see that tape was 1989 and that you hear and that you read, he is not the one that is being convicted and sentenced. It's the Mr. Jamal that performed that act in his frame of mind in 1981 when he observed his brother interacting with the Philadelphia police officer. That perhaps should be looked at. It is so difficult sometimes to realize the context, the context of the facts which underlie the conviction. I do have a number of other points, but like most, I guess, lawyers, or at least some lawyers, I've gone past my time and I hope that I may be able to raise them perhaps in some rebuttal of what I'm anticipating Mr. Wineglass may say and perhaps any questions. Thank you very much. Concluding this portion of the discussion, we will hear from Leonard Wine

Colass who is now the chief defense lawyer from Amia Abu Jamal. Mr. Wineglass. I want to thank the membership on behalf of Amia for allowing us this opportunity to explore questions relating to his case. I should point out at the outset that I'm not here alone, however. I'm joined by colleagues Rachel Wolkenstein, Valerie West and Pamela Africa who've been assisting me and assisting me very ably in this case. Let me get right to the issue that's been presented here by the prosecutor in the original trial. I was not the defense attorney there. The question of whether or not the evidence, the quote evidence against Mr. Jamal was so compelling. Just briefly reviewing it, the evidence was made up of three component parts, eyewitness testimony, a weapon and an alleged admission. On the eyewitness testimony,

first Mr. Jamal was shot at the scene. He was found in a pool of blood by the officers who arrived within minutes. But for separate people, other witnesses who were not together standing in four different places on that street and one in a hotel above it all told the police that night or within a week that an individual ran from the scene after the shooting. All of them had that person running on the same side of the street, south side of Locust, and now we know all of them have that person running in the same direction, East. Either four people were hallucinating about the very same event or in fact the shooter did run away. Was that presented a trial?

It was not. It was not presented a trial because two of these individuals, one of the witnesses that Mr. McGill refers to, a cab driver by the name of Trevor, said that he made a mistake when he told the police that night at the scene that the shooter ran away. He said it was a mistake. And when he took the stand to testify, he retracted his statement and said the shooter did not run away, but the shooter fell down right where Mr. Jamal was found. We now know as a result of a hearing yesterday. After 14 years, this man, this cab driver was called back yesterday and for the first time revealed what really was going through his mind. He was driving a cab that night without a license and he is still driving without a license.

And he testified that he was assured by Mr. McGill presumably before he testified that the district attorney would look into the problem he was having with his license. The net wine glass chief defense attorney from Amir Abu Jamal. Next week, we will conclude this panel discussion. If you have a question or comment or suggestions asked to 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. Until we have the opportunity again for a production assistant Chris Paulson and IBA technical producer David Alvarez. I'm John L Hansen 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. That's 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 Hansen Jr. Join me this week on in Black America. So the viciousness of the act that took away the life of a human being police officer in their city must not be forgotten. The National Association of Black Journalists and the Mamiya Abu Jamar case Part 2 this week on in Black America.