>>> james withrow writes
I'd like to comment on the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal and then in a second e-mail (later today) address the methods and beliefs of his supporters.
Gar Lipow and Paul Henry Rosenberg have put on this listserver a compilation of factual problems with the trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal. I'm not going to dispute any of the evidence they presented. In fact, I believe most, maybe all, of it is true. I just disagree with the analysis presented of what those facts mean.
The narrative that the prosecution presented is that Officer Faulkner stopped Mumia's brother in the 1300 block of Locust at about 3am. Abu-Jamal was passing by in his cab and witnessed this detention. He then got out of his cab with his gun in his hand and shot Officer Faulkner. Faulkner returned fire and shot Abu-Jamal.
Faulkner died from his wounds. Abu-Jamal was taken to the hospital and a bullet removed from his body was traced to Faulkner's gun. A gun registered to Abu-Jamal was found in his hands and police forensics experts matched the bullet in Faulkner's body to Abu-Jamal's gun. (The report of the coroner is probably the biggest issue to overcome for those on my side of this issue and it raises the most doubt. Given the lack of other evidence about a third shooter, I personally think the coroner made a mistake.)
Given this evidence, the reasonable interpretation to make is that Abu-Jamal got out of his cab with the intention of harming the police officer and then shot him. That's first degree murder. ------------------ Charles: Might be second degree because the time is short, i.e. little deliberation. First degree murder is "cold blooded"murder i.e. with deliberation. Second degree murder is "hot blooded"murder. Also, there might be self-defense or defense of another as a defense. Self-defense is a full defense to a murder charge. ___________
It's not the prosecution's job to disprove all other possible interpretations of what happened. If there are other interpretations, the defense has the duty to raise them. It's not up to the jury to theorize. Abu-Jamal decided not to put any evidence forward in his defense. That's his right. But then the jury has only the evidence from the prosecution to go by. __________ Charles: The burden of proof is on the prosecution and never leaves it, i.e. the burden never shifts to the defense in a criminal trial. The burden in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt, the strictest standard there is. The defense has no burden to prove anything. Of course, the defense often puts on evidence that tends to raise a reasonable doubt. _____________
The appellate judges looking into this case will have to decide how important the prosecution's witnesses were to the conviction. I wouldn't have believed them myself. The sort of people hanging around the 1300 Block of Locust at 3am don't make very good witnesses. (It's a time and place that Diogenes could skip if he ever came to Philadelphia.) And if a gun goes off on that block, I'm sure several people will flee the area no matter what connection they had with any criminal acts. __________ Charles: If you wouldn't believe the prosecution witnesses, then as a juror you would have a duty to acquit, because there is no way you could believe the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if you don't believe the prosecution witnesses. ______________
The cries of "due process!" that Mumia's supporters are insisting on are misplaced. Always remember that any due process rights you insist on Mumia getting will be used tomorrow by Chiquita and Microsoft. It's far too easy for ciminals-- corporations or individuals-- to break the law and get away with it. The last thing we need are more rights for the accused. ___________
Charles: The last sentence sounds like Mister Injustice Rehnquist. Agree that corporations shouldn't have rights of a person. But there is not any big problem at all of corporations being convicted of crimes. It is very rare. And then rarely does anyone go to jail. Corporate criminals having too many rights is a non-argument for cutting back on due process rights of accuseds. There are frequent cases of innocents on death row and in prison, with their innocence definite. That type of case is on 60 Minutes about every two months. If 60 Minutes is finding them, there are 30 times more that they don't find. _____________
Besides which, Mumia is drowning in due process as it is. The right to a fair trial also extends to the prosecution. ______________
Charles: This is an error. The Constituton gives no "right" of fair trial to the state. The Bill of Rights are ONLY rights of individuals vis-a-vis the state. The state has no rights in the Bill of Rights.
Due process includes the right to a competent defense. As I recall there were defects in Mumia's attorney's performance. There was some evidence that the prosecution and the police tampered with witnesses. This would also violate Mumia's due process rights. That he has a lot of appeals now would not become "drowning in due process" as they would not make up for the earlier defects in due process. _______________
After a jury reaches its verdict, the judicial system frowns upon re-entering the case. A different line of defense-- that he had good cause to go to the aid of his brother, for instance, or that he shot the officer in a rage (and therefore not in a premeditated state) or that some unknown third party actually did it-- is deemed too late. Due process says the case is settled unless the core of evidence the jury based their judgement on is later found in error. I doubt that an appellate court will see it that way. ____________ Charles: The issues you mention are not due process issues, but a principle of the necessity of finality of judgements. If self-defense was not raised at trial it goes to the competence of his defense. ____________
Besides the legal distinction of guilty or not guilty, there's also the real life distinction of guilty or innocent to consider. If Mumia and his supporters wanted to press the case of his innocence, rather than the legal strategy that he deserves a new trial, I'd be more likely to want to do something about his situation. If there were some other explanation for the events that night, Mumia needs to speak up. His silence may be his legal right, but it doesn't make him look innocent.
__________
Charles: They are saying he is innocent, i.e. he didn't do it. But the only way to raise that now is to get a new trial. In other words, seeking a new trial does not conflict with a claim that he didn't do it or was innocent in the lay sense. Mumia has given another explanation for the events. He says he didn't do it and was framed because he was a very public political radical.
Charles Brown
Detroit