|
Page 2
(AT 9:45 A.M. COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE INTO THE COURTROOM.)
(AT 9:58 A.M. THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY ENTERED INTO THE COURTROOM.)
(AT 10:07 A.M. THE DEFENDANT ENTERED INTO THE COURTROOM AND THERE WAS A CONFERENCE WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
(AT 10:17 A.M. THE JURY WAS SEATED IN THE BOX.)
(AT 10:18 A.M. THE COURT WAS CONVENED, ALL PARTIES PRESENT.)
THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, YOU HAVE FOUND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, AND YOUR VERDICT HAS BEEN RECORDED.
WE ARE NOW GOING TO HOLD A SENTENCING HEARING DURING WHICH COUNSEL MAY PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS AND YOU WILL DECIDE WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS TO BE SENTENCED TO DEATH OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT.
WHETHER YOU SENTENCE THE DEFENDANT TO DEATH OR TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT WILL DEPEND UPON WHAT, IF ANY, AGGRAVATING OR MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES YOU FIND ARE PRESENT IN THIS CASE.
LOOSELY SPEAKING, AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES ARE CIRCUMSTANCES CONCERNING THE KILLING AND THE KILLER WHICH MAKE A FIRST DEGREE MURDER CASE EITHER MORE SERIOUS OR LESS SERIOUS. THE CRIMES CODE DEFINES MORE PRECISELY WHAT CONSTITUTES AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, ALTHOUGH I WILL GIVE YOU DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS LATER IN THIS HEARING, I WILL TELL YOU NOW
THAT AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE PROVED BY THE COMMONWEALTH BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT WHILE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE PROVED BY THE DEFENDANT BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.
MR. McGILL, ARE YOU READY TO PROCEED?
MR. McGILL: YES, YOUR HONOR, IF IT PLEASE THE COURT.
YOUR HONOR, THE COMMONWEALTH'S WITNESS
WILL BE MISS PAT BEATO.
PATRICIA BEATO, (SWORN)
DIRECT EXAMINATION
MR.. McGILL: MAY I PROCEED YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: YES.
- 3
BY MR. McGILL:
Q. IS THAT BEATO OR BEATTO
A. BEATO.
Q. MISS BEATO, WHERE ARE YOU CURRENTLY EMPLOYED?
A. PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, PERSONNEL,
Q. ARE YOU CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. AND ARE YOU FAMILIAR TO WHEN THOSE ENTRIES ARE
MADE N REFERENCE TO THE RECORDS THAT ARE KEPT?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. HAVE YOU, PURSUANT TO A SUBPOENA, MA'AM, BROUGHT THE RECORDS THAT I HAVE REQUESTED TO COURT TODAY?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. AND JUST GIVE US THE NAME OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THOSE PERSONNEL RECORDS?
A. DANIEL J. FAULKNER
MR., MCGILL: MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS?
THE COURT: YES,
(WHEREUPON THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPROACHES
THE WITNESS BENCH.)
BY MR. McGILL:
Q. WOULD YOU PLACE IT UP HERE FOR A SECOND?
(WHEREUPON THE WITNESS PLACES HER
-4-
PERSONNEL FILE ON THE WITNESS BENCH FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OBSERVATION,)
NOW, MISS BEATO, DOES IT INDICATE THE EMPLOYMENT OF --
A. YES, SIR.
Q. AND WHAT WAS THE EMPLOYMENT OF THAT PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL?
A. THE POSITION WAS THAT OF A POLICE OFFICER, AND WHEN DID HE HAVE HIS APPOINTMENT DATE (WHEREUPON THE WITNESS EXAMINES THE FILE,)
A, 5/31/76,
Q. AND WHEN WAS THE LAST DATE THAT HE WAS SERVICED
A. 12/9/81,
Q. AS PART OF THESE PERSONNEL RECORDS, ARE THERE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS?
A. COMMENDATIONS, COMMENDATORY LETTERS AND MERITS,
Q. WHAT ARE THEY?
A. THEY ARE LETTERS THAT PEOPLE WRITE IN COMMENDING HIM FOR A JOB THAT HE DID AND MERITS FOR A SPECIFIC ARREST THAT HE MADE.
Q. WOULD YOU INDICATE HOW MANY DOCUMENTS THERE ARE
- 5
(WHEREUPON THE WITNESS EXAMINES THE FILE.)
A. SEVEN.
Q. AND DURING THE COURSE OF THESE PARTICULAR DOCUMENTS, YOU INDICATED THERE WERE SEVERAL MERIT INDICATIONS?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. AND WHO, IN EXPERIENCE, COULD TELL US -- WHO DETERMINES THE MERIT STATUS?
A. THE POLICE COMMISSIONER,
MR. MCGILL: (EXAMINING THE PORTFOLIO)
EXCUSE ME WHILE I FIND THIS.
( LATER)
BY MR. McGILL:
Q. YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE NOTATIONS ON HIS RECORD, HIS PERFORMANCE OF EITHER SATISFACTORY OR UNSATISFACTORY
Q. PERFORMANCE RATINGS?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. WOULD YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE RATINGS?
(WHEREUPON THE WITNESS EXAMINES THE RATINGS,)
Q. WOULD IT BE ACCURATE TO SAY, MA'AM, THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS REFLECT AT ALL TIMES THAT HE WAS A POLICE OFFICER, THE PERFORMANCE RATING WAS SATISFACTORY?
6
A. YES, SIR.
Q. AND AT NO TIME WAS THERE AN UNSATISFACTORY RATING?
A. THAT'S RIGHT, SIR.
Q. AND IS IT ALSO ACCURATE THAT ON 12/9/8I THE REASON FOR HIS - FOR DETERMINATION OR SEPARATION, - EXCUSE ME, THAT'S THE CORRECT WORD; SEPARATION WAS A SERVICE CONNECTED DEATH?
A. YES, SIR.
MR. McGILL: CROSS-EXAMINE?
MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, MAY I HAVE THE RECORD AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE RECORD, PLEASE?
THE COURT: SURE,
(WHEREUPON THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY PRESENTS
THE PERSONNEL RECORD TO COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE
WHO EXAMINES IT AT I0:25 A.M.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. JACKSON:
Q. MISS BEATO, IS THAT THE COMPLETE PERSONNEL RECORD OF OFFICER FAULKNER?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. IS THERE WELL, THERE IS AN INDICATION THAT ON
7
11/15/79 THERE WAS A TRANSFER OF OFFICER FAULKNER TO THE SIXTH DISTRICT.
MR. JACKSON: PERHAPS -- YOUR HONOR, MAY APPROACH THE WITNESS?
THE COURT: YES.
(WHEREUPON; COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE APPROACHES THE WITNESS BOX.)
BY MR. JACKSON:
Q. AGAIN THE QUESTION IS: 11/15/791 THERE WAS A TRANSFER OF OFFICER FAULKNER TO THE SIXTH DISTRICT. IS THAT CORRECT?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. I NOTE, AND CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, IN OCTOBER THERE WAS A REQUEST MADE FOR HIM TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE SIXTH DISTRICT AND THAT WAS DENIED?
A. NO, SIR, IT DOES NOT.
Q. FINE, CORRECT ME PLEASE?
A. COMMISSIONER O'NEILL FELT HIM DESERVING OF IT AND APPROVED THE ASSIGNMENT ON 11/14/79.
Q. FINE,
A. I THINK IT SAYS UP HERE -- (INDICATING BY POINTING ON THE DOCUMENT) -- "DUE TO THE LACK OF MAN POWER THAT IS WHY HIS COMMANDING OFFICER DENIED THE
- 8
REQUEST, BUT COMMISSIONER O'NEILL CHANGED IT ON THE BACK."
Q. WOULD THE DISCIPLINARY RECORD OF OFFICER FAULKNER BE INCLUDED IN THIS?
A. YES. HE HAD NO DISCIPLINARY RECORD.
MR. JACKSON: FINE THANK YOU VERY MUCH, HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.
MR. McGILL: THANK YOU, MA'AM.
DOES THE COURT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
THE COURT: NO.
(WHEREUPON THE WITNESS WAS EXCUSED AND SEQUESTERED.)
MR. McGILL: YOUR HONOR, THE COMMONWEALTH WOULD MOVE TO INCORPORATE ALL OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRIAL INTO THIS HEARING AT THIS TIME AND THEN REST FOR THE SENTENCING HEARING.
MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, WITH YOUR APPROVAL THE DEFENSE WOULD CALL MUMIA ABU-JAMAL.
THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THE STAND? (WHEREUPON THE DEFENDANT APPROACHES THE BAR OF THE COURT.)
_ 9
BY THE COURT CRIER: (TO DEFENDANT AT THE BAR OF THE COURT:)
Q. WOULD YOU STATE YOUR FULL NAME FOR THE RECORD PLEASE?
A. MUMIA ABU-JAMAL.
(AT 10:34 A.M. THE DEFENDANT WAS AFFIRMED OF RECORD,)
DEFENDANT JAMAL: I WOULD LIKE TO READ A STATEMENT,
THE COURT: MR. JACKSON, DO YOU WANT TO QUESTION HIM?
MR. JACKSON: MR. JAMAL WOULD HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY TO THE COURT.
DEFENDANT JAMAL: I WOULD.
THE COURT: FINE.
DEFENDANT JAMAL: TODAY'S DECISION COMES AS NO SURPRISE, IN FACT, MANY WILL REMEMBER THAT I SAID THIS WOULD HAPPEN LAST WEEK WHEN JOHN AFRICA PREDICTED AND PROPHESIED THIS JURY DECISION. WANT
EVERYONE TO KNOW IT CAME AFTER A LEGAL TRAINED LAWYER WAS IMPOSED UPON ME AGAINST MY WILL. A LEGAL TRAINED LAWYER: WHOSE INTERESTS WERE CLEARLY NOT MY OWN. A LEGAL.
- 10
TRAINED LAWYER NAMED TONY JACKSON, A MAN WHO KNEW HE WAS INADEQUATE TO THE TASK AND CHOSE TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTION OF THIS BLACK-ROBED CONSPIRATOR.- ALBERT SABO, EVEN IF IT MEANT IGNORING MY
DIRECTIONS.
TO QUOTE JOHN AFRICA, "WHEN A LAWYER CHOOSES TO FOLLOW THE CONDITIONS OF THE COURT, HE COMPROMISES HIS OBLIGATION TO HIS CLIENT, IT WAS A LEGAL, TRAINED LAWYER WHO FOLLOWED SABO'S
DIRECTION. NOT TO INTRODUCE THE TESTIMONY OF POLICEMAN GARY WAKSHUL A COP WHO ACCORDING TO HIS STATEMENT OF 12-9-82, ARRESTED
ME CARRIED ME TO A WAGON ACCOMPANIED ME TO JEFFERSON HOSPITAL, GUARDED ME AND RETURNED TO HOMICIDE LATER THAT MORNING TO MAKE A STATEMENT, ACCORDING TO WAKSHUL, QUOTE, "WE STAYED WITH
THE MALE AT JEFFERSON UNTIL WE WERE RELIEVED. DURING THIS TIME, THE NEGRO MALE MADE NO COMMENTS. " (UNQUOTE). ACCORDING TO WAKSHUL'S STATEMENT OF FEB, THE 11TH 1982, OVER 2 MONTHS
LATER, WAKSHUL
RECALLS "OH, YEAH -- JAMAL SAID: "I SHOT HIM I HOPE THE M.F.ER DIES. DID HE CONSIDER THAT A COMMENT" ACCORDING TO SABO, WAKSHUL IS ON
- 11
VACATION SO DESPITE THE FACT HIS TESTIMONY IS DIRECTLY LINKED TO A SUPPOSED CONFESSION HE WOULD NOT BE CALLED IN TO TESTIFY, HOW CONVENIENT! IT WAS A LEGAL, TRAINED LAWYER WHO TOLD THE JURY
"YOU HAVE HEARD ALL THE EVIDENCE" -- KNOWING THAT WASN'T SO. THE JURY HEARD MERELY WHAT SABO ALLOWED -- NOTHING MORE. MANY JURORS WERE TOLD I WOULD CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES MAKE
OPENING AND CLOSING ARGUMENTS AND EXPLORE EVIDENCE, WHAT THEY ALSO HEARD WAS I WOULD ACT AS MY OWN ATTORNEY, MY OWN LAWYER. WHAT THEY SAW WAS A MAN SILENCED GAGGED BY JUDICIAL DEGREE, SO
WHAT THEY HEARD WAS NOTHING.
A MAN ORDERED NOT TO FIGHT FOR HIS LIFE. EVERY SO-CALLED "RIGHT" WAS DECEITFULLY STOLEN FROM ME BY SABO. MY DEMAND THAT THE DEFENSE ASSISTANCE OF MY CHOICE, JOHN AFRICA BE ALLOWED
TO SIT AT THE DEFENSE TABLE WAS REPEATEDLY DENIED. WHILE MEANWHILE, IN A CITY HALL COURTROOM JUST 4 FLOORS DIRECTLY ABOVE, A MAN CHARGED WITH MURDER SITS WITH HIS LAWYER AND HIS FATHER WHO
JUST HAPPENS TO BE A PHILADELPHIA POLICEMAN. THE MAN, WHITE WAS CHARGED WITH BEATING A BLACK MAN--TO
- 12
DEATH AND CAME TO COURT TO HAVE HIS BAIL REVOKED, AFTER BEING FREE FOR SEVERAL WEEKS. HIS BAIL WAS REVOKED AFTER A PUBLIC OUTCRY IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY ABOUT THE GRANTING OF BAIL AT ALL. OF
COURSE, MY BAIL A RANSOM OF $250,0000,00 WAS REVOKED ONE DAY AFTER IT WAS ISSUED. FOR ONE DEFENDANT EVERYTHING IS GRANTED. FOR ANOTHER EVERYTHING IS DENIED.
BUT, ISN'T JUSTICE BLIND, EQUAL IN IT IS APPLICATION? DID WINSTON SEE THROUGH IT?
DID CORNELL WARREN (SIC) -- CORNELL WARREN WAS
A -- (INAUDIBLE) -- TO GIVE JUSTICE TO PHILADELPHIA,
DOES IT MATTER WHETHER A WHITE MAN IS CHARGED WITH KILLING A BLACK! MAN OR A BLACK MAN IS CHARGED WITH KILLING A WHITE MAN? AS FOR JUSTICE WHEN THE PROSECUTOR REPRESENTS THE COMMONWEALTH THE
JUDGE REPRESENTS THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE COURT-APPOINTED LAWYER IS PAID
AND SUPPORTED BY THE COMMONWEALTH WHO FOLLOWS
THE WISHES OF THE DEFENDANT THE MAN CHARGED WITH THE CRIME? IF THE COURT-APPOINTED LAWYER IGNORES, OR GOES AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE MAN HE IS CHARGED WITH REPRESENTING WHOSE WISHES DOES HE
FOLLOW?
- 13
WHO DOES HE TRULY REPRESENT OR WORK FOR? TO AGAIN QUOTE JOHN AFRICA, WHEN YOU JUDGES HANG A PERSON PUT A PERSON IN AN ELECTRIC CHAIR, GAS A PERSON SHOOT A PERSON TO DEATH FOR A CRIME YOU
ALL DIDN'T SEE THAT PERSON COMMIT YOU AIN'T SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF CRIME OF THE SO-CALLED CRIMINAL OR THE VICTIM. YOU'VE CAUSED A BURDEN FOR THE MOTHER THAT IS NOW WITHOUT A SON THE WIFE
THAT IS NOW WITHOUT A HUSBAND THE DAUGHTER THAT IS NOW WITHOUT A FATHER AND SOCIETY FOR PUTTING FAITH IN THIS GODDAMNING PROCEDURE, FOR IT IS THE SYSTEM THAT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIMES OF ALL
THAT IS CRIMINAL, ALL CRIMES ARE COMMITTED WITHIN THE SYSTEM NOT WITHOUT BECAUSE THE INFLUENCE OF THAT IGNORANT BLACK BOY YOU JUDGES GASSED TO DEATH, POOR WHITE BOY YOU JUDGES SHOT TO DEATH,
UNAWARE PUERTO RICAN BOY, GIRL, ADULT YOU JUDGES
ELECTROCUTED TO DEATH CAME STRAIGHT FROM YOU JUDGES, YOUR BOSSES, THEIR CRIMES. IN SHORT, THIS SYSTEM.
A QUOTATION BY JOHN AFRICA
AM INNOCENT OF THESE CHARGES THAT I HAVE BEEN CHARGED OF AND CONVICTED OF AND DESPITE THE CONNIVANCE OF SABO McGILL AND JACKSON TO DENY ME
- 14
MY SO-CALLED RIGHTS TO REPRESENT MYSELF, TO ASSISTANCE OF MY CHOICE TO PERSONALLY SELECT A JURY WHO IS TOTALLY OF MY PEERS TO CROSS-EXAMINE, WITNESSES, AND TO MAKE BOTH OPENING AND CLOSING
ARGUMENTS, I AM STILL INNOCENT OF THESE CHARGES.
ACCORDING TO YOUR SO-CALLED LAW, I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE MY INNOCENCE. BUT IN FACT, I DID HAVE TO BY DISPROVING THE COMMONWEALTH IS CASE. I AM INNOCENT DESPITE WHAT YOU 12 PEOPLE THINK AND
THE TRUTH SHALL SET ME FREE.
THIS JURY IS NOT COMPOSED OF MY PEERS, FOR THOSE CLOSEST TO MY LIFE EXPERIENCES WERE INTENTIONALLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY EXCLUDED, PEREMPTORILY EXCUSED. ONLY THOSE PROSECUTION PRONE, SOME WHO
BEGAN WITH A FIXED OPINION OF GUILT, SOME RELATED TO CITY POLICE MOSTLY WHITE, MOSTLY MALE REMAIN. MAY THEY ONE DAY BE SO
FAIRLY JUDGED.
LONG LIVE JOHN AFRICA!! FOR HIS ASSISTANCE IN THIS FIGHT FOR MY LIFE !! IT IS JOHN AFRICA WHO HAS STRENGTHENED ME, AIDE ME, AND GUIDED ME, AND LOVED ME! COULD JOHN AFRICA HAVE DONE
WORSE THAN THIS WORTHLESS SELLOUT AND SHYSTER WHO
- 15
PROMISED MUCH AND DELIVERED NOTHING? COULD HE HAVE DONE WORSE THAN TONY JACKSON?
IT WAS JOHN AFRICA'S INFLUENCE THAT THIS COURT FEARED AND HIS ASSISTANCE THAT THIS COURT REQUESTED AND DENIED AS IF IT, WERE UNFAIR TO HAVE HIM HELP ME FIGHT FOR MY LIFE. IT IS HIS
PROTECTION THAT REMAINS DESPITE THIS COURT'S RESISTANCE AND OPINION.
ON DECEMBER THE 9TH, 1981, THE POLICE ATTEMPTED TO EXECUTE ME IN THE STREET. THIS TRIAL IS A RESULT OF THEIR FAILURE TO DO SO, JUST AS POLICE TRIED TO KILL MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF THE
FAMILY AFRICA ON AUGUST THE 8TH,1978, THEY FAILED AND HENCE A SO-CALLED TRIAL WAS CONDUCTED TO COMPLETE THE EXECUTION. BUT LONG LIVE JOHN AFRICA FOR OUR CONTINUED SURVIVAL!
THIS DECISION TODAY PROVES NEITHER MY GUILT NOR MY INNOCENCE. IT PROVES MERELY THAT THE SYSTEM IS FINISHED. BABYLON IS FALLING LONG LIVE MOVE LONG LIVE JOHN AFRICA!
(THERE WAS A CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE AND THE DEFENDANT.)
- 16
MR. JACKSON: I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.
MR. McGILL: MAY I PROCEED, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: GO AHEAD.
MR. McGILL: PERHAPS IT WOULD BE BETTER, YOUR HONOR, IF I WOULD STAND OVER HERE AND DIRECT MY COMMENTS TO HIM
THE COURT: I DON'T CARE.
MR. McGILL: IT SEEMS KIND OF SILLY IF TURN TO THE RIGHT.
(WHEREUPON THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY STANDS AT THE WITNESS BOX DIRECTING HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION TO THE DEFENDANT.)
MR. McGILL: I WILL NOT BE THAT LONG LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE SEE YOU AT SIDE-BAR FOR JUST ONE MOMENT,' PLEASE? (THE FOLLOWING COLLOQUY OCCURRED AT SIDE-BAR.)
MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, I KNOW, OF COURSE, I AM ANTICIPATING I BELIEVE MR. MCGILL HAS A NUMBER OF NEWSPAPER ARTICLES AND PUBLICATIONS AND PERHAPS OTHER QUOTATIONS. I WOULD
- 17
OBJECT TO THE AUTHORITY PURPORTEDLY ATTRIBUTED OR IF ATTRIBUTED TO THE DEFENDANT THEY ARE NOT AUTHENTICATED OR WITHOUT AUTHENTIFICATION AND WITHOUT ANY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OR
TRUTH BUT SIMPLY TO THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF, I WOULD OBJECT TO THE QUESTIONING IN THAT EVEN IF HE ASKED THE QUESTION IT DID YOU SAY SO-AND-SO," WHATEVER HIS ANSWER IS OR IS GOING TO BE IT
IS ALREADY PREJUDICED THE MINDS AND INFLAME THE JURY AND I WOULD OBJECT TO THE READING OF ANYTHING THAT IS PURPORTED TO BE FROM THE DEFENDANT.
MR. McGILL: THIS IS A SENTENCING HEARING, JUDGE.
THE COURT: YES.
MR. McGILL: AND ANY KIND OF A STATEMENT THAT IS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT THE PURPOSE OF THE AUTHENTIFICATION, I WOULD AUTHENTICATE IT IS WHAT THE DEFENDANT WOULD SAY THE ACTIONS THAT WOULD
RESULT OR -- STRIKE THAT -
ACTUALLY WHAT THE DEFENDANT WOULD SAY BECAUSE OF -- OR THAT HE WOULD ADOPT IT OR NOT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE ENTIRELY UP TO THE DETERMINING FACTORS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE
18
EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE. I THINK HE HAS OPENED UP AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF DOORS. I CAN'T BEGIN TO COUNT THEM IN THE STATEMENT INCLUDING THE INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONY OR THE
INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS AND QUOTING OF PEOPLE JOHN AFRICA AMONG OTHERS. THERE ARE SO MANY DOORS OPEN JUDGE THAT REALLY--
THE COURT: I REALIZE THAT
MR. JACKSON: WELL, THAT IS HIS PREROGATIVE TO PROJECT OR NOT TO PROJECT BUT -- AND TO GO INTO THAT BUT AN UNAUTHENTICATED DOCUMENT - THE COURT: YOU KNEW THAT MR. ABU-JAMAL HAD THE STATEMENT
PREPARED AND YOU KNEW THAT HE WAS GOING TO READ IT REGARDLESS WHETHER THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OBJECTED OR NOT SO IT SEEMS IN POINT THAT I WILL ALLOW HIM TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM,
GO AHEAD.
(THE ABOVE CONCLUDED THE SIDE-BAR CONFERENCE.)
(IN OPEN COURT)
MR. McGILL: MR. JACKSON DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT STATEMENT THAT HE READ?
19
MR. JACKSON: NO, I DON'T,
MR. McGILL: OKAY,
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. McGILL;
Q. MR. JAMAL, WHAT WAS THE FIRST QUOTE YOU MADE THAT JOHN AFRICA HAD STATED - I THINK THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ON YOUR FIRST PAGE?
A. WHY DON'T YOU ASK THE STENOGRAPHER?
Q. DO YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU; THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU READ?
A. I SURE DO,
Q. WOULD YOU TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND TELL ME WHAT THAT SAYS?
A. I SAID, WHY DON'T YOU ASK THE STENOGRAPHER?
Q. WELL, IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR REASON WHY YOU DON'T WANT TO RESPOND TO MY QUESTION, SIR?
(NO ANSWER)
Q. LET ME TRY SOMETHING ELSE, THEN.
WHAT IS THE REASON YOU DID NOT STAND WHEN JUDGE SABO CAME INTO THE COURTROOM.
MR. JACKSON: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED,
DEFENDANT ABU-JAMAL: BECAUSE JUDGE SABO
- 20 -
DESERVES NO HONOR FROM ME OR ANYONE ELSE IN THIS COURTROOM BECAUSE HE OPERATES -- BECAUSE OF THE FORCE, NOT BECAUSE OF RIGHT.
(WHEREUPON THE DEFENDANT STANDS UP AT DEFENSE COUNSEL'S TABLE.)
BECAUSE, HE IS AN EXECUTIONER. BECAUSE, HE IS A HANGMAN; THAT IS WHY.
BY MR. McGILL:
Q. YOU ARE NOT AN EXECUTIONER?
A. NO.
(WHEREUPON THE DEFENDANT SITS AT DEFENSE COUNSEL'S TABLE.)
ARE YOU?
Q. MR. JAMAL, LET ME ASK YOU IF YOU CAN RECALL SAYING
SOMETHING SOMETIME AGO AND PERHAPS IT MIGHT RING A BELL
AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE AN EXECUTIONER OR ENDORSE
SUCH ACTIONS.
"BLACK BROTHERS AND SISTERS - AND ORGANIZATIONS
WHICH WOULD NOT COMMIT THEMSELVES BEFORE ARE RELATING TO US BLACK PEOPLE THAT THEY ARE FACING -- WE ARE FACING THE REALITY THAT THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY HAS BEEN FACING WHICH IS
NOW, LISTEN TO THIS QUOTE. YOU'VE OFTEN BEEN
- 21
QUOTED SAYING THIS:
"POLITICAL POWER GROWS OUT OF THE BARREL-OF-.A GUN
DO YOU REMEMBER SAYING THAT, SIR?
A. I REMEMBER WRITING THAT. THAT'S A QUOTATION FROM MAO-TSE-TUNG.
Q. THERE IS ALSO A QUOTE
A. LET ME RESPOND IF I MAY?
Q. WELL, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION,
A. LET ME RESPOND FULLY. I WAS NOT FINISHED YOU CONTINUED.
Q. ALL RIGHT, CONTINUE.
A. THANK YOU.
Q. CONTINUE TO RESPOND, THEN, PLEASE, SIR.
A. THAT WAS A QUOTATION FROM MAO-TSE-TUNG OF THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT POLITICAL POWER GROWS OUT OF THE BARREL OF A GUN OR ELSE AMERICA WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY. IT IS
AMERICA WHO HAS SEIZED POLITICAL POWER FROM THE INDIAN RACE, NOT BY GOD, NOT BY CHRISTIANITY NOT BY GOODNESS BUT BY THE BARREL OF A GUN.
Q. DO YOU RECALL MAKING THAT QUOTE, MR. JAMAL, TO ACEL MOORE?
- 22
A. I RECALL QUOTING MAO TSE-TUNG TO ACEL MOORE ABOUT 12 TO 15 YEARS AGO.
Q. DO YOU RECALL SAYING: "ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE"
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A. "ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE".
Q. YES.
A. YES. (NODS HEAD AFFIRMATIVELY.)
Q. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR ACTIONS AS WELL AS
YOUR PHILOSOPHY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE QUOTE:
"POLITICAL POWER GROWS OUT OF THE BARREL OF A GUN
A. I BELIEVE THAT AMERICA HAS PROVEN THAT QUOTE TO BE TRUE.
Q. DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT: "THE PANTHER PARTY IS AN UNCOMPROMISING PARTY, IT FACES REALITY
A. (NODS HEAD AFFIRMATIVELY.) YES. WHY DON'T YOU LET ME LOOK AT THE ARTICLE SO I CAN LOOK AT IT IN ITS FULL CONTEXT, AS LONG AS YOU'RE QUOTING?
Q. I'D BE VERY GLAD TO GIVE YOU THE ARTICLE. I AM ASHAMED -- I'M KIND OF SORRY YOU DIDN'T GIVE ME YOUR
- 23
STATEMENT BEFORE.
A. WELL, YOU CAN'T HAVE EVERYTHING I HAVE.
Q. HERE IS YOUR STATEMENT SIR. DO YOU RECALL SAYING THIS WHEN YOU HAD THE NAME, WEST COOK?
A . WELL, LET ME LOOK AT IT.
(WHEREUPON THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY PRESENTS THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE TO THE DEFENDANT WHO EXAMINES SAME.)
I WOULD LIKE TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE IF YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION?
MR. McGILL: GO RIGHT AHEAD.
DEFENDANT JAMAL: OKAY.
DO YOU HAVE THE CONTINUATION, PAGE 12, COLUMN 1?
MR. McGILL: HERE IS THE UNDERLINED AREA WHERE: "THE PANTHER PARTY IS AN UNCOMPROMISING PARTY, IT FACES REALITY"
(WHEREUPON THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY-PRESENTS THE SECOND PORTION OF THE ARTICLE TO THE DEFENDANT.)
DEFENDANT JAMAL: THIS IS SUNDAY MORNING,
- 24
JANUARY 4TH, 1970, THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER. IT'S A PICTURE OF WEST COOK, COMMUNICATION SECRETARY FOR THE PHILADELPHIA CHAPTER, BLACK PANTHER PARTY,
BY MR. McGILL:
Q. IS THAT YOU?
A. THAT WAS MY NAME WHEN I WAS BORN.
Q. WELL, IS THAT YOU IN THAT PICTURE?
A. THAT IS A PICTURE OF ME 12 YEARS AGO,
IT SAYS:
"HIS ORGANIZATION IS DOING WHAT THE CHURCHES ARE SUPPOSED TO DO.-,-CHAPTER OFFICE IS AT 1928 COLUMBIA AVE. PROTEST KILLINGS BY POLICE. HEADQUARTERS COLD, BUT ISSUES ARE HOT FOR BLACK
PANTHERS. By ACEL MOORE OF THE INQUIRER STAFF.
THE WALLS IN THE STOREFRONT HEADQUARTERS AT 1928 COLUMBIA AVE. ARE PAINTED BLACK AND PLASTERED WITH REVOLUTIONARY POSTERS. THE FACES ARE DARK AND DETERMINED. BLACK MEN AND WOMEN BUNDLED IN
COATS AND JACKETS AGAINST THE COLD OF THE UNHEATED INTERIOR ARE BUSY WITH-. TELEPHONES PAPERWORK OR HUDDLING IN EARNEST CONFERENCE
AND BARELY TAKE TIME TO ACKNOWLEDGE NEW ARRIVALS OR
DEPARTURES. WHEN THEY DO, THE STANDARD SALUTATION IS A
- 25
SLOGAN, "ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE,"
IT WAS BUSY BEFORE AT THE PHILADELPHIA CHAPTER HEADQUARTERS OF THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY, IT'S BUSIER NOW.
'SINCE THE MURDERS,' SAYS WEST COOK, CHAPTER COMMUNICATIONS SECRETARY, 'BLACK BROTHERS AND SISTERS AND ORGANIZATIONS WHICH WOULDN'T COMMIT THEMSELVES BEFORE ARE RELATING TO US. BLACK PEOPLE
ARE FACING THE REALITY THAT THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY HAS BEEN FACING POLITICAL POWER GROWS OUT OF THE BARREL OF A GUN,"
Q. SO THAT IS A QUOTE, ISN'T IT?
A. "POLITICAL POWER GROWS OUT OF THE BARREL OF A GUN,"
MR. JAMAL, IS THAT A QUOTE OR IS IT NOT?
A. CAN I FINISH READING?
Q. WELL, IS IT A QUOTE OR ISN'T IT?
A. CAN I FINISH READING IT?
Q. WELL, WILL YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION?
A. DIDN'T I ASK IF I COULD READ THIS IN ITS ENTIRETY?
Q. WILL YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION? ARE THERE QUOTATION MARKS THERE?
MR. JACKSON; YOUR HONOR -- YOUR HONOR -
- 26 -
YOUR HONOR --
A. WILL YOU STOP INTERRUPTING ME?
MR., JACKSON; HE ALREADY AGREED TO LET HIM READ IT.
MAY HE READ IT?
A. IF YOU WANT TO GO OVER IT AFTER I FINISH, THAT'S
OKAY.
MR. MCGILL: WOULD YOUR HONOR RULE?
THE COURT: LET HIM READ IT.
MR., McGILL; OKAY.
DEFENDANT JAMAL; "SINCE THE MURDERS," SAYS WEST COOK, CHAPTER COMMUNICATION SECRETARY, "BLACK BROTHERS AND SISTERS AND ORGANIZATIONS WHICH WOULDN'T COMMIT THEMSELVES
BEFORE ARE
RELATING TO US, BLACK PEOPLE ARE FACING THE REALITY THAT THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY HAS BEEN FACING: POLITICAL POWER GROWS OUT OF THE BARREL
OF A GUN,
MURDERS A CALCULATED DESIGN OF GENOCIDE AND A NATIONAL PLOT TO DESTROY THE PARTY LEADERSHIP IS WHAT THE PANTHERS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS CALL A BLOODY TWO YEAR HISTORY OF POLICE RAIDS AND
SHOOTOUTS, THE PANTHERS SAY 28 PARTY MEMBERS
27
HAVE DIED IN POLICE GUNFIRE DURING THAT PERIOD TWO LAST MONTH.
POLICE WHO HAVE HAD OFFICERS KILLED AND WOUNDED BY PANTHER GUNFIRE DENY THERE IS A PLOT.
POLICE HAVE BEEN SHOT AT THEY SAY SIMPLY AND THEY HAVE SHOT BACK.
NEVERTHELESS, THE GUN BATTLES AND ARRESTS OF PANTHER LEADERS HAVE CONVINCED THE BLACK PANTHERS THAT IT IS A PARTY UNDER SIEGE.
ALTHOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN NO SHOOTOUTS BETWEEN PHILADELPHIA PANTHERS AND POLICE, COOK WHO RANKS BEHIND DEFENSE CAPT. REGGIE SCHELL AND SISTER LOVE, A YOUNG WOMAN WHO IS FIELD LIEUTENANT IN
THE PHILADELPHIA LEADERSHIP SAYS THERE COULD HAVE BEEN,
ON SEPTEMBER THE 28TH, THE FBI ARRESTED SCHELL ON A CHARGE OF POSSESSION OF A STOLEN GOVERNMENT WEAPON AFTER ALLEGING FINDING A LOADED MARINE M-14 RIFLE IN HIS ROOM AND CITY POLICE RAIDED
THE PARTY HEADQUARTERS CONFISCATING SOME OFFICE EQUIPMENT.
THEY WOULD HAVE SHOT US THEN, COOK RECENTLY TOLD A VISITOR TO THE HEADQUARTERS SPEAKING WITH
- 28
DELIBERATE CONVICTION 'EXCEPT WE WERE ALL OUT IN THE COMMUNITY WORKING AT THE TIME,'
THERE WERE NO VISIBLE WEAPONS IN THE HEADQUARTERS, BUT WE CAN'T HOPE TO EXIST HE SAID WITHOUT SOME KIND OF PROTECTION.
REFERRING FREQUENTLY TO THE PARTY'S NEWSPAPER, THE BLACK PANTHER, WEST STRESSED THE AIM OF THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY OF HELPING BLACK AMERICANS GAIN A SENSE OF DIGNITY AND OF THE PARTY'S
INSISTANCE ON SELF-DEFENSE.
THERE ARE 26 RULES OUTLINING THE BLACK PANTHER NEWSPAPER FOR PARTY MEMBERS, ONE OF THEM STIPULATES THAT NO PARTY MEMBER WILL USE, POINT OR FIRE A WEAPON OF ANY KIND UNNECESSARILY OR
ACCIDENTALLY HURT ANYONE, ANOTHER RULE HOWEVER, STATES THAT ALL PANTHERS MUST LEARN TO OPERATE AND SERVICE WEAPONS CORRECTLY.
GENOCIDE IS COMING TO THE FOREFRONT UNDER THE NIXON AGNEW AND MITCHELL REGIME SAYS WEST, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT is. THE PANTHER PARTY IS AN UNCOMPROMISING PARTY. IT FACES REALITY.
IN PHILADELPHIA AT LEAST THE PANTHER HAVE BEEN MORE SOCIALLY ACTIVIST THAN MILITANT. THEIR
- 29
RHETORIC FREQUENT REFERENCES TO POLICEMEN AS 'FACIST PIGS,'
AND A 'RACIST, CAPITALISTIC AMERICAN SOCIETY HAS BEEN ANGRIER THAN THEIR
ACTIONS.
LIKE OTHER PANTHER CHAPTERS, THE PHILADELPHIA
BLACK PANTHER PARTY HAS ESTABLISHED A FREE BREAKFAST PROGRAM FOR NEEDY CHILDREN,
COOK ESTIMATES THAT THE PHILADELPHIA PANTHERS FEED ABOUT 80 CHILDREN DAILY. THE
NUMBER FLUCTUATES SOME -- AT TWO CENTERS, 1916 W, COLUMBIA AVENUE AND AT THE
HOUSTON COMMUNITY CENTER, 8TH ST. AND SNYDER AVES
PENNSYLVANIA BLACK PANTHER PARTY MEMBERS HAVE ALSO INITIATED BREAKFAST PROGRAMS IN HARRISBURG AND IN READING. THE FOOD IS OBTAINED PRIMARILY FROM DONATIONS BY MERCHANTS IN "BLACK GHETTO
AREAS BUT COOK DENIES CHARGES WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE ACCUSING THE PANTHERS OF INTIMIDATION. THE DONATIONS HE SAID ARE VOLUNTARY.
BY MR. McGILL:
Q. MR. JAMAL, LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN, SIR.
IF I MAY--
MR. McGILL: IF I MAY ASK A QUESTION
JUDGE?
WAS THAT OR WAS THAT NOT A QUOTE THAT YOU MADE
TO
- 30
ACEL MOORE?
A. THAT WAS A QUOTE FROM MAO TSE-TUNG,
Q. IS THAT ONE THAT YOU HAVE
ADOPTED?
A. SAY AGAIN?
Q. HAVE YOU ADOPTED THAT AS YOUR
PHILOSOPHY THEORY?
A. N0, I
HAVE NOT ADOPTED THAT, I REPEATED THAT.
Q. LET ME ASK YOU, MR. JAMAL, WHEN YOU WERE BEFORE THIS
COURT, I BELIEVE IT WAS YESTERDAY, YOU SAID: "THE SYSTEM IS FINISHED," IS THAT
CORRECT?
A. THAT'S CORRECT,
Q. DURING THE COURSE OF THIS
TRIAL, SEVERAL TIMES, SIR. YOU CONTINUOUSLY SAID, "THAT RULINGS WENT ONE WAY OR
THE OTHER AND THEY WOULD GO AGAINST YOU AT TIMES."
YOU
WOULD THEN SAY, "RULINGS ARE NOT TO MY SATISFACTION,"
AND THEN, YOU WOULD GO ON AND ON AND ON AND ON, IS THAT
ACCURATE?
A. WHAT DID I
SAY, "GOING ON AND ON AND ON," ARE YOU QUOTING ME NOW?
Q. WELL, DID YOU NOT CONTINUE TO
COMPLAIN --
A. WHAT DID I
SAY?
Q. -- ARGUE AND
CONTINUALLY --
A. WHAT DID I
SAY?
Q. -- ABOUT IT?
- 31 -
MR. JAMAL, DO YOU RECALL THOSE, SIR
A. I SAID, WHAT DID I SAY?
Q. MR. JAMAL, DID YOU OR DID YOU
NOT ARE YOU GOING TO JUST KEEP ON ASKING QUESTIONS LIKE YOU DID TO JUDGE SABO,
AND CONSTANTLY PLAYING WITH WORDS
A. I, M NOT PLAYING WITH WORDS, I WANT YOU TO ASK ME
-- YOU SAID, I WAS GOING ON AND ON AND ON, AND I SAID TO YOU, WHAT DID I SAY;
THAT'S ALL, DID YOU NOT CONTINUALLY QUESTION JUDGE SABO AND DISAGREE WITH HIS
RULINGS CONTINUALLY AFTER HE ORDERED YOU AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN IS
THAT CORRECT?
A. (NO ANSWER)
Q. OR, IS IT NOT?
A. DID I DISAGREE MOST
CERTAINLY I DISAGREED WITH HIS RULINGS.
Q. DO YOU RECALL IN FRONT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
MCDERMOTT WHO HAD AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THIS COURT THAT YOUR COUNSEL CONTINUE TO
REPRESENT YOU THAT YOU SHOUTED TO HIM AS HE WALKED OUT, MCDERMOTT, GET BACK
HERE,"
DO YOU REMEMBER SAYING
THAT
A. N0, (SHAKES HEAD
NEGATIVELY,)
- 32 -
A. I SAID, "MCDERMOTT, WHERE ARE YOU
GOING?"
Q. JUST LIKE THAT? "McDERMOTT, WHERE ARE
YOU GOING?"
A. I SAID, "MCDERMOTT, WHERE ARE YOU
GOING?" HE WASN'T AS CLOSE AS YOU ARE TO ME, I'M SORRY.
Q. THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON YOU WANTED TO
KNOW WHERE HE WAS GOING?
A. BECAUSE, HE GOT UP AND WALKED AWAY
WHILE I WAS TRYING TO ADDRESS MAN HIM. BECAUSE, I WAS TRYING TO MAKE A
POINT, THIS MAN COULD NOT DEFEND MY LIFE, THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW WELL
HE IS DEFENDING ME.
Q. MR. JAMAL, ON APRIL THE 29TH, 1982, DO
YOU RECALL BEING IN FRONT OF JUDGE RIBNER? A. YES.
Q. AND DO YOU RECALL OVER ABOUT TWO OR THREE ACTUAL
PAGES OF TESTIMONY SAYING SUCH THINGS AS AND
THIS WAS IN
COURT OPEN COURT:
"I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU THINK,
GO TO HELL. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU AFRAID OF? WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU AFRAID OF
BASTARD?"
DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT TO JUDGE RIBNER? A. SURE DO.
(NODS HEAD AFFIRMATIVELY.) MR., McGILL: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER ,JUDGE.
33
MR. JACKSON: MR.
JAMAL DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER?
DEFENDANT JAMAL: (SHAKING HEAD NEGATIVELY)
No. (WAVING OF THE HAND AWAY.) MR. JACKSON: THE DEFENSE WOULD REST YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: MEMBERS OF THE JURY YOU MUST NOW DECIDE
WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS TO BE SENTENCED TO DEATH -
MR. JACKSON: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR, MAY
SEE YOU AT SIDE-BAR?
THE COURT: I'M SORRY; I'M SORRY.
MR. JACKSON: YES. THE COURT:
YOU'RE RIGHT.
MR. JACKSON: MAY I PROCEED, YOUR
HONOR?
THE COURT: GO AHEAD. MR. JACKSON:
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN YOU ARE OF COURSE NOW AT THE JUNCTURE WHERE YOU MUST DECIDE
WHETHER MR. JAMAL SHOULD RECEIVE LIFE IMPRISONMENT OR THE IMPOSITION OF THE
DEATH PENALTY ALTHOUGH HIS HONOR, JUDGE SABO, IS IN DEED THE JUDGE OF THE LAW,
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY--I
- 34
HAVE A RIGHT TO
COMMENT ON THE LAW. THE LAW AS IS GIVEN BY JUDGE SABO IS THE LAW THAT YOU MUST
FOLLOW. IN THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA AS HIS HONOR JUDGE SABO, HAS INDICATED TO
YOU EARLIER THE METHOD BY WHICH OR THE GUIDE BY WHICH YOU ARE TO FOLLOW IN
DETERMINING WHETHER LIFE IMPRISONMENT SHOULD BE IMPOSED OR THE DEATH PENALTY
SAYS IN EFFECT THAT THERE ARE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
MEANING THE PRESENCE OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THE
IMPOSITION OF DEATH WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, ALTHOUGH I CAN'T PRESUME WHAT THE
COMMONWEALTH WILL PRESENT TO YOU IN TERMS OF ITS ARGUMENT THE VERY FIRST
PARAGRAPH OF OUR AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES READS: 'THE VICTIM WAS A FIREMAN,
PEACE OFFICER OR PUBLIC SERVANT.
CONCERNED IN OFFICIAL
DETENTION AS DEFINED IN 18 PA SECTION 5121, RELATING TO ESCAPE WHO IS KILLED IN
THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES.
I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE
COMMONWEALTH WILL SUGGEST TO YOU THAT OFFICER FAULKNER WAS A PEACE OFFICER.
ALTHOUGH THE LEGISLATORS THE
- 35
PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATORS, HAS NOT
SPECIFICALLY INDICATED THAT INDEED A POLICE OFFICER IS A PERSON OR THE STATUS OF
A PERSON FOR WHICH YOU ARE TO DECIDE THAT AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST. SO
THAT YOU ARE LEFT WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE IF IN FACT IT WAS THE
RESPONSIBILITY THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATORS TO INCLUDE POLICE OFFICERS IN THIS
SECTION. THEY DID NOT SPECIFICALLY INDICATE POLICE OFFICERS BUT I WOULD ASSUME
THE COMMONWEALTH IS GOING TO ARGUE THAT THIS IS WHAT THEY MEANT IF THEY MEANT
POLICE OFFICERS, WHY DIDN'T THEY SAY POLICE OFFICERS? IT'S NOT A DECISION THAT I
CAN MAKE FOR YOU, I'LL BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION AS A MATTER I THINK YOU NEED
TO CONSIDER,
THE COMMONWEALTH ALSO HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
PROVING THAT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, ALTHOUGH YOU HAVE MADE YOUR DECISION
THIS IS NOT THE OPPORTUNITY THIS IS NOT THE MOMENT FOR ME TO NOW BE CRITICAL OF
THAT DECISION BUT TO MOVE ON. THERE ARE ALSO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THESE
LEGISLATORS POINT OUT AND INDICATE
- 36
THAT YOU MUST CONSIDER IF THESE
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST. THEN, YOU ARE TO WEIGH THEM AGAINST THE
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE
LEGISLATORS HAVE NOT, HAVE NOT SUFFICIENTLY PRESENTED GUIDELINES FOR YOU TO
WEIGH THE AGGRAVATING VERSUS THE MITIGATING. WHAT DO I MEAN BY THAT? DOES IT
TAKE ONE AGGRAVATING TO OFFSET TWO MITIGATING OR DOES IT TAKE THREE MITIGATING
TO OFFSET ONE OR TWO AGGRAVATING? THE LEGISLATORS HAVE NOT DECIDED THAT. THEY
SIMPLY -- THE LEGISLATORS SIMPLY SAID THAT YOU ARE TO WEIGH THEM, HOW MUCH
WEIGHT IS GIVEN TO A KILLING OF A PEACE OFFICER? HOW MUCH WEIGHT IS TO BE GIVEN
TO THE AGE OF THE DEFENDANT? HOW MUCH WEIGHT IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE LACK OF THE
CRIMINAL HISTORY OF THE DEFENDANT? HOW MUCH WEIGHT IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE FAMILY
OF THE DEFENDANT? HOW MUCH WEIGHT IS TO BE GIVEN TO HIS PRIOR EMPLOYMENT
HISTORY?
NOW WHY DO I SAY HOW MUCH WEIGHT IS TO BE GIVEN
TO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES? THE LEGISLATORS, AGAIN MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES,
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL INCLUDE THE
- 37
FOLLOWING:
NUMBER ONE, "THE DEFENDANT HAS NO SIGNIFICANT HISTORY OF
PRIOR CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS."
I ASSURE YOU IF THERE WERE, MR. McGILL CERTAINLY WOULD
HAVE TOLD YOU THERE WERE PRIOR SIGNIFICANT CONVICTIONS. THERE ARE NONE. "THE
DEFENDANT WAS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF EXTREME MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE IT
THAT SECTION DOES NOT MEAN THAT SOMEONE WAS MENTALLY ILL. IT SUGGESTS BY YOUR
VERDICT THAT YOU MUST ASSUME THAT AS A RESULT OF OFFICER FAULKNER'S BEATING
WILLIAM COOK, YOU FELT THAT MR. JAMAL CAME TO THE RESCUE OF HIS BROTHER. IF THAT
IS INDEED YOUR ASSUMPTION THE QUESTION THEN WOULD BE WAS THAT CIRCUMSTANCE
SUFFICIENT TO PROVOKE ANGER FEAR TO SUCH AN EXTENT-THAT THE OFFENSE OCCURRED.
YOU MUST DECIDE THEN, NOT BY REASONABLE DOUBT MIND YOU, AS HIS HONOR JUDGE
SABO, HAS INDICATED TO YOU THAT THE DEFENSE MUST NOT PROVE ITS MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BUT BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE,
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE IS NOT THE
- 38
SAME TYPE OF
PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT HIS HONOR, JUDGE SABO WILL INSTRUCT YOU ON THAT.
WE GO ON TO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. THE AGE OF THE
DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME. THAT IS A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT YOU MUST
CONSIDER, WHETHER THE PERSON WAS OBVIOUSLY AN ADULT AND THERE IS A FACTOR FOR
YOU TO ASSUME THAT SOMEONE WHO is 25, 26, 27, THE AGE AT THE
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME SHOULD RECEIVE THE SAME PENALTY AS
SOMEONE WHO IS 18, OR SOMEONE WHO IS 50 OR 60 OR 70, FOR THAT MATTER. IT IS A
FACTOR THAT YOU MUST CONSIDER.
THESE MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT I'M INDICATING TO YOU ARE NOT THINGS THAT YOU MAY OR MAY NOT
CONSIDER; YOU MUST CONSIDER, YOU MUST CONSIDER THESE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES AS SUGGESTED BY THE
COMMONWEALTH.
ANOTHER MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE WAS STRIKE THAT I'M
SORRY.
ANY EVIDENCE OF MITIGATION CONCERNING THE CHARACTER AND
RECORD OF THE DEFENDANT AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS DEFENSE. WHAT DOES THAT
- 39
MEAN?
GENERALLY SPEAKING, YOU HEARD CHARACTER WITNESSES
TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF MR. JAMAL. THE COMMONWEALTH HAS JUST HAD MR. JAMAL TO READ
A STATEMENT THAT HE HAD GIVEN PERHAPS 12 YEARS AGO AND MR. JAMAL INDICATED THAT
HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY. WHEN HE FURTHER INDICATED THAT HE
WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE BLACK COMMUNITY THAT IS NOT A CONCERN UNFORTUNATELY OF A
LOT OF PEOPLE. BY AND LARGE THE CONCERN, THE INTEREST IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY IS
LEFT WITH THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY. BLACK
PERSONS. BLACK PERSONS WHO ARE NOT AT ALL INTIMIDATED BY WHAT THE SYSTEM HAS
FORCED UPON THEM.
I'M NOT HERE TO GIVE YOU A HISTORY
LESSON OR RACIAL PREJUDICE. I'M NOT GOING TO PRESENT YOU WITH A HISTORY OF BIAS
OR THE RACIAL SLURS THE BLACK PERSONS HAD TO ENDURE IN THIS COUNTRY, MANY OF
YOU, I AM SURE, ARE ALREADY AWARE OF THAT. THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF GROUPS IN
MY LIFETIME BEFORE MY LIFETIME WHO HAVE ATTEMPTED TO ASSIST BLACK PEOPLE IN THE
BLACK COMMUNITY
- 40
BECAUSE THERE HAS
BEEN NOT JUST A SEEMING INDIFFERENCE, BUT A REAL INDIFFERENCE TO THE PROBLEMS
THAT PLAGUE THE BLACK COMMUNITY FOR SOME TIME IN THE PAST AT LEAST THE WHITE
COMMUNITY HAS SIMPLY BEEN AFRAID OF THE WORDS BLACK PANTHER. THAT WAS SEEMINGLY
AN ATTITUDE OF THE WHITE PEOPLE. IT WAS ALMOST AS IF IT WAS KU KLUX KLAN, THE
BLACK PEOPLE.
BUT, WHAT IS IT? HOW MUCH DO YOU REALLY
KNOW ABOUT THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY? SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY REPEAT AS MR. McGILL
ASKED MR. JAMAL, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY REPEAT WHAT SOMEONE ELSE - MAO TSE-TUNG MAY
HAVE SAID SOMETIME AGO CAN WE DENY THAT POLITICAL POWER IN AMERICA WAS A RESULT
OF A GUN?
WE KNOW THAT WE FOUGHT GREAT BRITAIN WE KNOW
THAT WE FOUGHT INDIANS, AND WE FOUGHT AND WE FOUGHT AND WE FOUGHT. AND, WE'RE
STILL FIGHTING IN THIS WORLD, DOES THAT IN AND OF ITSELF INDICATE THAT MR. JAMAL IS ABDICATING VIOLENCE? I THINK NOT THE
ARTICLE WENT ON TO STATE THAT THE BLACK PANTHER, ALONG WITH MR. JAMAL, FED 80
BLACK KIDS
- 41
DAILY: CAN ANY OF
YOU -- AND I DON'T SAY THIS IN CRITICISM -- BUT CAN ANY OF YOU SAY THAT YOU FED
80 BLACK KIDS EACH DAY? THOSE BLACK KIDS NEEDED TO BE FED.
SO, THE REALITY OF THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY THE REALITY OF
MR. JAMAL'S INTEREST THE REALITY OF MR. JAMAL'S ACTIVITIES PRESENTED TO YOU NOW
FOR WHICH YOU ARE TO JUDGE WHETHER OR NOT THIS MAN IS TO RECEIVE THE PENALTY OR
LIFE
IMPRISONMENT. ONE OF THE INTERESTING THINGS THAT
THE
LEGISLATORS HAVE INDICATED IS THAT IF IN FACT
SOMEONE IS A FIREMAN A PEACE OFFICER OR SOMEONE WHO IS CONCERNED IN DETENTION OF
OFFENDERS AND IF YOU KILL THOSE INDIVIDUALS THOSE THREE TYPES OF PERSONS, THEN
THE DEATH PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED, WELL, WHAT HAPPENS IF YOUR OCCUPATION IS
SOMETHING ELSE? WHY NOT LAWYERS? OR JUDGES? OR TELEPHONE LINEMEN SECRETARIES
HOSPITAL WORKERS RETIRED PERSONS? DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOUR LIFE IS NOT WORTH AS
MUCH AS A POLICE OFFICER?
I AM SUGGESTING TO YOU THAT WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT IF
THAT IS THE AGGRAVATING
- 42 CIRCUMSTANCE UPON WHICH YOU ARE TO IMPOSE DEATH
WHY IS IT THAT SOMEONE THE LEGISLATORS HAVE DECIDED WELL
THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT IF YOU KILL THEM, YOU'RE TO GET THE DEATH PENALTY BUT
IF YOU DON'T KILL -- IF YOU KILL SOMEBODY ELSE WELL THEN THAT IS NOT AN
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE, THEY DON'T EVEN SAY THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE, THE
MAYOR OF THE CITY, OR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. JUST CERTAIN STATUS OF
PEOPLE SO THAT MEANS THAT SOMEONE HAS DECIDED A SOME PEOPLE HAVE DECIDED THAT
THERE ARE CERTAIN PEOPLE IN THIS COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA THAT IF YOU KILL
THEM OR YOU'RE CONVICTED OF KILLING THEM THAT WE IRE GOING TO IMPOSE DEATH
BECAUSE THAT IS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE. IS THAT FAIR? IS THAT FAIR TO YOU?
IS THAT FAIR TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA? IS IT FAIR TO THE DEFENDANT?
OFTENTIMES WHEN WE GET TO THE STAGE OF THE SENTENCING
HEARING MANY PEOPLE -- PERHAPS MANY AMONG YOU AS WELL SIMPLY AS A RESULT OF YOUR
VOIR DIRE INDICATIONS THAT YOU HAVE NO MORAL RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES THAT WOULD
PREVENT YOU FROM
- 43
IMPOSING THE
DEATH PENALTY IN AN APPROPRIATE CASE,
IN THE APPROPRIATE
CASE. MANY OF YOU MAY - I KNOW SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT THE DEATH PENALTY ACTS
AS A DETERRENT THAT IS -- WELL. IF WE IMPOSE DEATH ON SOMEONE THEN THAT
WILL SEND SIGNALS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY THROUGHOUT THE STATE THAT IF YOU DO
CERTAIN THINGS THAT YOU WILL BE GIVEN THE DEATH PENALTY. NOW, THINK ABOUT THAT.
How MANY PEOPLE DO YOU THINK WHEN THEY'RE COMMITTING CRIMES THINK ABOUT NUMBER
ONE, BEING CAUGHT AND NUMBER TWO BEING CONVICTED AND NUMBER THREE GIVEN THE
DEATH SENTENCE? DO YOU REALLY THINK THERE IS A RATIONAL DECISION THAT IS BEING
MADE THAT BEFORE I DO THIS, AM I GOING TO BE KILLED? DOES THAT ACT AS A
DETERRENT? STATISTICS SAY NO.
THE DEATH PENALTY, OF
COURSE, HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED SINCE 1972 AS ADMINISTERED IT'S BEEN
RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SO UP UNTIL 1972 THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED IN
AMERICA UNCONSTITUTIONALLY, SO NOW YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO DO SOMETHING THAT
PEOPLE HAD DONE FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS THINKING THAT IT WAS RIGHT TO
- 44
KILL SOMEONE. AND
NOW, LATER ON THE COURT SAID THAT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IT WAS WRONG, IT WAS
WRONG. WRONG.
IN PENNSYLVANIA WHEN OF COURSE WE
HAVE NOT HAD A DEATH SINCE PERHAPS 1962, 1963, BUT AGAIN BECAUSE THE DEATH
PENALTY AS IT IS BEEN ADMINISTERED NOT JUST IN PENNSYLVANIA, BUT THROUGHOUT THE
UNITED STATES WAS DECLARED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SO WE'RE NOW STILL WAITING FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPOSE DEATH
AND CARRY OUT DEATH IN THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA.
WE TALK ABOUT FIRST DEGREE MURDER. HIS
HONOR, JUDGE SABO GAVE YOU INSTRUCTIONS WHEN YOU DELIBERATED AS TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELEMENTS OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER. ONE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS
IS PREMEDITATION MEANING THINK
ABOUT IT. DELIBERATION,
DISCUSSING YOU THINK ABOUT IT, DISCUSS IT.
LET ME ASK YOU, AS 12 MEMBERS, 12 PEOPLE, WHEN YOU RETIRE
TO THE SENTENCING HEARING, WHAT DO YOU DO? YOU GO BACK AND YOU DISCUSS THE
- 45
TERMINATION OF
HIS LIFE. THAT'S WHAT YOU GOING TO DO. THE STATE HAS SAID THAT'S WHAT HE HAS
DONE WHEN HE COMMITTED FIRST DEGREE MURDER. YOU'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND DISCUSS
WHETHER OR NOT HE LIVES OR DIES. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THINK
ABOUT HIS FAMILY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THINK ABOUT THE
PROVOCATION,
CAN YOU SAY, YOUR ACTIONS -- AGAIN, I'M NOT
CRITICIZING, I'M SIMPLY -- I SIMPLY WANT YOU TO BE AWARE AND TO CONSIDER YOUR
SITUATION THAT YOU'RE IN -- CAN YOU SAY THAT YOUR DIRECTED ACTIONS ARE NOT
CONSISTENT WITH THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE INDEED CONVICTED OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER
WHEN YOU'RE SAYING IT'S A PREMEDITATED ACT IT'S A DELIBERATE ACT. THAT IS
IN EFFECT WHAT YOU'LL BE DOING. YOU'LL BE COMMITTING AND CONDONING FIRST
DEGREE.
McGILL: OBJECTION,
THE COURT: OBJECTION MR. JACKSON,
PLEASE
MR. JACKSON: I SAY THE COURT: PLEASE,
MR. JACKSON, YES, YOUR HONOR,
-
46
AGAIN WITH REGARD
TO THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH SENTENCE AS A DETERRENT, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF
YOU HAVE EVER SEEN AN EXECUTION I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE IN THIS COURTROOM
HAS SEEN AN EXECUTION. WHY BECAUSE, EXECUTIONS ARE CARRIED OUT IN SECRET. HOW
CAN A SECRET EXECUTION ACT AS A DETERRENT UPON PERSONS WHO HAVE NEVER SEEN IT
CARRIED OUT? IT JUST WON'T HAPPEN. IT'S A LEGAL FALLACY, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE
TELL OURSELVES IN ORDER TO WRETCH VENGEANCE FOR CRIMES THAT ARE COMMITTED.
OFFICER FAULKNER CANNOT BE BROUGHT BACK NO MATTER WHAT
IT IS THAT YOU DO; NO MATTER WHAT IT IS THAT YOU THINK; NO MATTER WHAT IT IS
THAT YOU WANT TO DO. HIS LIFE IS NOW GONE AND THERE IS NO WAY THAT YOU CAN DO
ANYTHING TO BRING THAT LIFE BACK.
SHOULD VENGEANCE BE YOURS? OR.- SHOULD VENGEANCE
BE GOD'S? I ASK YOU THAT IN JUSTICE'S NAME.
YOU KNOW ONE OF THE THINGS THAT OCCURS- TO ME WHEN WE
GET AGAIN TO THE STAGE OF THE DEATH PENALTY IS ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT I'M SUGGESTING - 47
TO YOU THAT THE
DEATH PENALTY IS UNWARRANTED IN THIS CASE OF COURSE, AND YOU BY AGAIN YOUR VOIR
DIRE PROMISES INDICATED YOU HAVE NO MORAL PHILOSOPHICAL SCRUPLES THAT WOULD
PREVENT YOU FROM IMPOSING THE DEATH SENTENCE -- BUT, AT THE SAME TIME JUST
CONSIDER IN THE WESTERN WORLD IN FRANCE, THERE IS NO DEATH PENALTY GREAT BRITAIN
THERE IS NO DEATH PENALTY. SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES NO DEATH PENALTY. HOLLAND NO
DEATH PENALTY.
WHERE DO THEY HAVE THE DEATH PENALTY? IRAQ, IRAN,
AFGHANISTAN
MR. McGILL: OBJECTION YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: YOU'RE GOING A LITTLE TOO FAR, MR.
JACKSON.
MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, IT'S A FACT
THE COURT: YOU'RE GOING A LITTLE TOO FAR, AL RIGHT.
MR. JACKSON: NEVERTHELESS -
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
COURT CRIER: (TO THE AUDIENCE)
QUIET
MR. JACKSON: MY INDICATION TO YOU IS TO
CONSIDER ALTHOUGH YOU MUST FOLLOW THE ORDER OF
- 48
THE
COURT BY VIRTUE OF THE PROMISES THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN THE COURT, I ASK YOU AT THIS
MOMENT WHETHER IN FACT YOU'RE GOING TO FEEL SATISFIED AND COMFORTABLE MAKING THE
DECISION THAT THE COMMONWEALTH WOULD ASK YOU TO MAKE, RENDERING THE DEATH
PENALTY.
I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT ALTHOUGH WE STILL
HAVE THE DEATH PENALTY OR PROVISIONS FOR THE DEATH PENALTY IN PENNSYLVANIA WILL
YOU ONE DAY WONDER IF IN FACT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT SAYS WELL.. FOR
WHATEVER REASONS WHATEVER REASONS THE PROVISIONS OF THE DEATH PENALTY AS IT IS
ADMINISTERED DOESN'T CONSTITUTE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT? IS IT GOING TO BE
CONSTITUTIONAL? ISN'T THAT WHY ONE DAY SOMETHING CAN BE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL
AND THE VERY NEXT DAY ID IT'S NOT?
SO, YOU'RE BEING ASKED AT THIS VERY MOMENT
TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT IT IS ALL RIGHT TO KILL MR. JAMAL.
MR. McGILL: OBJECTION,
MR. JACKSON: OR, MAYBE TOMORROW IMPOSE THE
DEATH PENALTY AND FORGIVE HIM. IMPOSE THE
- 49
DEATH PENALTY
TODAY AND POSSIBLY TOMORROW OR THE NEXT DAY THE LAW MIGHT BE CHANGED.
MR. McGILL: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: YES, IF IT'S CHANGED THEN IT
WILL TAKE CARE OF ITSELF.
PLEASE, TRY NOT TO BE SO PERSONALLY
INVOLVED IN THAT PHASE.
MR. JACKSON: YES, YOUR HONOR.
COURT CRIER: (TO THE AUDIENCE) QUIET,
PLEASE.
MR. JACKSON: WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE? THE
ALTERNATIVE OBVIOUSLY IS LIFE IMPRISONMENT. YOU READ, YOU HEAR YOU THINK PRESUME
SOMEONE WHO IS GIVEN LIFE SENTENCE WILL BE OUT IN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF YEARS.
DON'T BELIEVE EVERY THING THAT YOU HEAR AND SAY ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE GIVEN LIFE
SENTENCE AND ARE OUT IN A FEW YEARS, IT HAPPENS IN SOME FEW CASES. JUST SOME FEW
CASES. SOME ISOLATED CASES THAT SOMEONE BRINGS TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT THE PRESS
FOR ONE; REASON OR ANOTHER DECIDES THAT THEY ARE
GOING TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION.
THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE
GIVEN LIFE SENTENCES
- 50
A LOT OF TIME. A
LOT OF TIME. DO THEY SERVE LIFE SENTENCES? DO THEY SERVE OUT THEIR TIME UNTIL
THEY DIE? THERE ARE SOME PERSONS WHO DO THAT.
WHAT IS
LIFE IMPRISONMENT? LIFE IMPRISON MEANT IS A LIFE IN A CAGE. THAT'S WHAT IT IS,
IT'S NO EASY WAY. THERE IS NO PRETTY WAY OF SAYING IT.
MR. McGILL: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
MR. JACKSON: IT'S LIFE IN A CELL. YOU CAN CALL A CELL A
CAGE! YOU CAN CALL A CELL A BOX; YOU CAN CALL IT WHAT YOU WILL, THIS IS
ARGUMENT, COUNSEL.
MR. McGILL: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
THE COURT: PLEASE, MUCH TOO FAR,
MR. JACKSON: BEFORE OR DURING THE TIME
THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES CONSIDER, IS THERE SOME COMPELLING REASON, SOME COMPELLING REASON
WHY YOU MUST IN THIS CASE IMPOSE DEATH BECAUSE THE INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS KILLED WAS
A
- 51
POLICE OFFICER AS
OPPOSED TO -- SUPPOSE HE WAS A LAWYER THAT WAS KILLED? SUPPOSE IT WAS AN OFFICE
WORKER OR A HOSPITAL WORKER RETIRED PERSON? IS THERE SOME REASON -- IS SOCIETY
SO COMPELLING THAT SOCIETY SAYS YES IN CERTAIN
KINDS OF
CASES THERE ARE SOME LIVES THAT ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHER LIVES TO SUCH AN
EXTENT THAT WE RE GOING TO TAKE ANOTHER LIFE, AM SUGGESTING TO YOU THAT THAT
SITUATION DOES NOT EXIST IN THIS CASE. ALSO UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE
HISTORICALLY IN AMERICA, IN PENNSYLVANIA AND IN PHILADELPHIA, THE DEATH PENALTY
HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON CERTAIN CLASSES OF PEOPLE; POOR PEOPLE BLACK PEOPLE AND MEN.
MR. JAMAL FITS THOSE CATEGORIES. STATISTICS -- THIS IS NOT TONY JACKSON TELLING
YOU -- STATISTICS YOU WILL SEE THAT THE GREATER PERCENTAGE OF THOSE PERSONS
KILLED FOR THE DEATH PENALTY IMPOSED HAVE
BEEN BLACK
PEOPLE POOR PEOPLE AND MEN. BLACK MEN WHO ARE POOR. DO YOU JUST WANT TO ADD TO
THAT STATISTIC. I WOULD HOPE NOT.
CONSIDER THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES CONSIDER THEM
FULLY. I'M SUGGESTING TO YOU THAT
- 52
THE MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT I HAVE SUGGESTED TO YOU THE LEGISLATORS HAVE INDICATED
THAT YOU MUST CONSIDER IT. IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE BOUND TO ACCEPT JUST AS
YOU IRE BOUND TO ACCEPT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COURT. JUST QUOTE AGAIN FROM THE
STATUTE:
"THE VERDICT MUST BE A SENTENCE OF DEATH IF THE
JURY UNANIMOUSLY FINDS AT LEAST ONE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE SPECIFIED IN
SUBSECTION D" AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS TALKING TO YOU ABOUT AN AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE AND NO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, UNDERSTAND THAT. AGAIN IF YOU FIND
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND NO MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES YOU ARE PERMITTED TO IMPOSE THE DEATH
PENALTY.
I AM SUGGESTING TO YOU AT LEAST FOUR MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES, IT GOES ON.
"OR, IF THE JURY UNANIMOUSLY FINDS THAT ONE OR MORE
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH OUTWEIGH ANY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE THE VERDICT
MUST BE A SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN ALL OTHER CASES."
I'M SAYING TO YOU THAT THE LEGISLATORS
- 53
ALTHOUGH IT HAS NOT SPECIFICALLY AND ENTIRELY GIVEN YOU
GUIDELINES -- I THINK THE LEGISLATORS HAVE SAID WE DON IT REALLY KNOW HOW YOU
WEIGH,. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES AGAINST MITIGATING BUT IF YOU FIND THERE ARE
INDEED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT OUTWEIGH THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES THEN
YOU WOULD BE DOING YOUR DUTY TO IMPOSE LIFE IMPRISONMENT.
I ASK YOU LADIES AND GENTLEMEN
(WHEREUPON THERE WAS AN EXTENDED PAUSE WHILE COUNSEL DRINKS
WATER AND COMPOSES HIS EMOTIONS.)
I ASK YOU AT THIS
MOMENT BEFORE MR. McGILL ADDRESSES YOU AGAIN IS THERE SOME COMPELLING REASON?
THANK YOU.
(AT 11:24 A.M. COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE
CONCLUDED HIS CLOSING ARGUMENT TO THE JURY.)
MR. McGILL: YOUR HONOR MAY I HAVE FIVE MINUTES?
THE COURT: SURE.
COURT CRIER: EVERYONE REMAIN SEATED WHILE THE JURY
LEAVES THE ROOM,
- 54
(AT 11:24 A.M. THE COURT WAS RECESSED.)
(AT THE SAME TIME THE DEFENDANT WAS TAKEN TO THE SHERIFF'S
CELLROOM FOR BATHROOM PRIVILEGES AND RETURNED AT 11:38 A.M.)
(AT 11:39 A.M. THE JURY WAS SEATED IN THE BOX, THE COURT
BEING RECONVENED, ALL PARTIES PRESENT.)
MR. McGILL: YOUR HONOR, MAY I PROCEED?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. McGILL: MR. JACKSON.
GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'LL BE SPEAKING TO
YOU AND THIS WILL REALLY BE THE LAST TIME YOU'LL BE SPOKEN TO BY EITHER COUNSEL.
FOLLOWING ME WILL BE THE COURT WHO WILL GIVE YOU BRIEF INSTRUCTIONS AND THEN YOU
WILL GO OUT AND DELIBERATE, THERE WILL BE NO EXTENSIVE TIME PERIOD BEFORE THAT
TIME.
I BETTER NOT GIVE YOU A TIME PERIOD AS TO
THE AMOUNT OF TIME BECAUSE I'VE ALREADY BEEN WRONG, A COUPLE OF TIMES, SO I JUST
BETTER STAY AWAY FROM THAT, BUT, I WILL TRY AT BEST TO KEEP IT WITHIN SAY 45
MINUTES A HALF HOUR, 45 MINUTES:
- 55
MAYBE WITHIN THAT
TIME, POSSIBLY.
ALL RIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THE
PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING AS YOU CLEARLY KNOW IS TO DETERMINE THE SENTENCE FOR
THIS DEFENDANT.
YOU'VE HEARD A NUMBER OF THINGS, YOU HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY HEAR THIS DEFENDANT WHO CHOSE TO TESTIFY HE DIDN'T
HAVE TO BUT HE DID, YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY OF SEEING THE PERSON, THE TYPE OF
PERSON HE IS AND HOW HE IS. THAT WAY YOU AGAIN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REFLECT
BACK UPON THE INCIDENT THE EVENTS AT THE TIME.
NOW,
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF SENTENCING IS
AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. THAT IS IT. I'M NOT GOING TO COME UP
WITH PHILOSOPHY OR THE STATUTES OR WHATEVER, EXCEPT PERHAPS ON ONE OR TWO
CIRCUMSTANCES, AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO REBUT SOMETHING THAT MR. JACKSON SAID.
BUT.- OTHER THAN THAT WHAT YOU IRE CONCERNED ABOUT IS JUST THAT, AGGRAVATING AND
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE EFFECT OF EITHER.
BECAUSE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN WHAT WE ARE
DEALING WITH NOW AND WHO WE ARE DEALING WITH NOW IS
56
A CONVICTED MURDERER. THIS MAN IS NO
LONGER PRESUMED INNOCENT. THIS MAN OVER HERE -- (INDICATING BY POINTING) -- IS A
KILLER, YOU'RE LOOKING AND HAVE HEARD A KILLER. THAT'S WHO WE'RE DEALING WITH.
THIS IS NOT A TRIAL THIS IS A SENTENCING HEARING.
NOW,
TO WHAT EXTENT WHEN WE REVIEW THIS HAS THIS KILLER MERITED ONE OR THE OTHER TYPE
OF SENTENCE?
THE LAW IS WHAT YOU MUST BE GUIDED BY AND
BEG YOU TO CONSIDER THAT. THAT IS WHAT ALL OF US HAVE TO BE GUIDED BY. YOU MUST
CONCERN YOUR SELF WITH THE TENETS OF LAW THE SPECIFIC CATEGORIES AND THEN LISTEN
TO THE INSTRUCTIONS. VERY BRIEFLY, YOU WILL HAVE EITHER TWO SITUATIONS TO
CONCERN YOURSELF WITH.
ONE WOULD BE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT EXIST AND NO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. ACTUALLY, I SAID TWO -- YOU CAN HAVE
THREE. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND NO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. SO UP HERE WE
HAVE AGGRAVATING AND NO MITIGATING
(WHEREUPON THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY ILLUSTRATES
- 57
WITH HIS ARMS AS
A SCALE,)
ANOTHER TIME, YOU CAN HAVE NO AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND
MITIGATING. SO, IT WOULD BE LIKE THIS. (AGAIN, ILLUSTRATING.)
NOW, IN BETWEEN IS THE BALANCING STAGE WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE
AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING IN WHICH OUT BALANCES OR OUTWEIGHS EACH OTHER, DOES
THE AGGRAVATING OUTWEIGH THE MITIGATING? DOES THE MITIGATING OUTWEIGH THE
AGGRAVATING?
THAT ONE AREA THERE. (AGAIN, INDICATING)
SO I WOULD SAY TO YOU., THEN THAT IN EITHER OF THE
SITUATIONS WHERE YOU WOULD FIND AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES ONE OR MORE AND NO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
THEN THE PENALTY OF DEATH WOULD BE MANDATED BY LAW. THE OTHER SITUATION, WE
WOULD HAVE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES BUT THE
AGGRAVATING CIRCUM STANCES OUTWEIGH: THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES,
(INDICATING) WHETHER IT BE ONE OR MORE AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES OR ONE OR MORE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, EITHER WAY IF
THE,-AGGRAVATING OUTWEIGHS THE MITIGATING THEN THE
LAW REQUIRES THE DEATH PENALTY. THAT BASICALLY IS ONLY UNDER
- 58
THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT YOU CAN IMPOSE IT. BUT, IF YOU FIND THOSE FACTS IT IS
MANDATED BY THE STATUTE IT'S REALLY NOT A QUESTION OF DISCRETION BUT THOSE FACTS
MUST BE FOUND. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN IN TERMS OF FACTS WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH
-- BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT BE DEALING WITH PHILOSOPHY AND I'LL NOT GO INTO THAT.
WE'RE DEALING WITH THE REAL FACTS. WE'RE DEALING WITH FACTS ON DECEMBER THE 9TH,
1981 AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SURROUND THAT PARTICULAR INCIDENT. WE'RE DEALING
WITH FACTS OF EVIDENCE WHICH HAVE BEEN PRESENTED BEFORE YOU. WHAT KIND OF
EVIDENCE NOT WHAT KIND OF SPECULATION BUT EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE HEARD ON EITHER
SIDE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT THIS AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES.
YOU HAVE HEARD SUCH THINGS AS AGE AS A MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE. YOU HAVE HEARD CHARACTER AS A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE. YOU HAVE
HAD SOME SORT OF AN EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE OR EMOTIONAL FEELING. YOU HEARD
NOTHING AT ALL LADIES AND GENTLEMEN IN REFERENCE TO TESTIMONY AS TO ANY KIND OF
EMOTIONAL FEELING ON THE DEFENDANT IS PART
- 59
BECAUSE HE HAS AS IS HIS ABSOLUTE RIGHT HE DID NOT
CHOOSE TO TAKE THE STAND AND TESTIFY WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE, SO, AS A
RESULT, THAT REALLY IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER BECAUSE IT'S JUST
NOT IN THE RECORD.
AND YOU HEARD FROM WHAT THE EVIDENCE WAS AT TRIAL
EXACTLY WHAT THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE, IN TERMS OF THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
YOU MUST CONSIDER THIS. THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD BE OF A POLICE
OFFICER BEING KILLED DURING THE COURSE OF DUTY. RIGHT IN THE LINE OF DUTY.
THERE COULD BE ALSO ANOTHER AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE TO
THE EXTENT THAT ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL NAMELY WILLIAM COOK, WAS IN FACT POSSIBLY, OR
COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN INJURED AS A RESULT OF THIS DEFENDANT IS SHOOTING SINCE
HE WAS NEAR BY. THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE BUT I JUST
PUT THAT ASIDE AND DEAL WITH THE MAIN ONE AND THAT IS A POLICE OFFICER IN THE
LINE OF DUTY.
BECAUSE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THAT IS WHAT WERE
TALKING ABOUT AND IN WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS CLEARLY ON. AND I WILL READ
THIS SINCE
60
MR. JACKSON DIDN'T MENTION
SOMETHING ABOUT THE PEACE OFFICER IN CASE THERE IS ANY DOUBT IN ANY OF YOUR
MINDS:
"THE PEACE OFFICER IS ANY PERSON WHO BY VIRTUE OF HIS
OFFICE OR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT IS VESTED BY LAW WITH A DUTY TO MAINTAIN PUBLIC
ORDER OR TO MAKE ARRESTS FOR OFFENSES, IT LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT IS A
POLICE OFFICER. SO, IT IS CLEAR THAT IS ONE OF THE AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES POLICE OFFICER IN THE LINE OF DUTY.
NOW, YOU MIGHT ASK YOURSELF -- AS A MATTER OF FACT, MR.
JACKSON ASKED YOU TOO., IN SO MANY WORDS WHY COULDN'T IT BE SOMEBODY ELSE? WHAT
ABOUT A LAWYER OR A LABORER OR AN INSURANCE SALESMAN OR SOMEBODY LIKE THAT? WHY
DOES IT HAVE TO BE A POLICE OFFICER? YOU MAY ASK YOURSELF WHY.
WELL, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT DANIEL FAULKNER
HIMSELF AT THE SAME AGE AS HE WAS 26 YEARS OF AGE ACTUALLY YOUNGER THAN THIS,
DEFENDANT IS NOW THAT MAN IF HE WERE OFF DUTY OR IF HE WERE NOT A POLICE OFFICER
AND DID THE
- 61 EXACT SAME THING AS WHAT OCCURRED ON DECEMBER THE 9TH, FOR
SOME REASON WAS TALKING TO WILLIAM COOK OR SOMETHING, AND THEN THE DEFENDANT
CAME OVER AND SHOT HIM AS VICIOUSLY AS YOU HEARD THE TESTIMONY WITH THAT SAME
WEAPON AND THAT SAME REPEATED FASHION THERE WOULD BE NO AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE, YOU WOULD ASK YOURSELF WHY? SAME VICIOUS ACT, BUT WHY?
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'LL POINT OUT TO YOU WHAT WE MUST
CONSIDER IS THE LAW AS IT IS, THE LAW AS SET OUT BY THE LEGISLATORS WHICH IS THE
LAW OF THE AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE PURPOSE BEHIND THE
LAW TO DETERMINE WHY IS THIS SUCH AN IMPORTANT AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE? IT WAS
ASKED BY THE DEFENSE.
I WILL ATTEMPT TO RESPOND.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS SIMPLY THIS IT'S ALL CALLED
LAW AND ORDER. THAT IS WHY THAT IS SO IMPORTANT THAT AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE,
LAW AND ORDER. AND, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THIS IS WHAT THIS TRIAL IS ALL ABOUT
MORE THAN ANY OTHER TRIAL I HAVE EVER SEEN AND CERTAINLY MORE THAN ANY OTHER I
HAVE BEEN, BECAUSE YOU YOURSELF,
62
HAVE SEEN YOU
HAVE HEARD THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON AND YOU HAVE HEARD TESTIMONY OF THINGS THAT
ARE GOING ON AS TO WHAT IS LAWFUL AND WHAT IS NOT LAWFUL AND ACTIONS.
ARROGANCE,- REACTIONS AGAINST THE LAW, LAW AND ORDER.
SO LADIES AND GENTLEMEN WE THEN WILL SIMPLY MAKE THE RE-
SPONSE AT LEAST ASK YOURSELVES THE QUESTION ARE WE GOING TO LIVE IN A SOCIETY
WITH LAW AND ORDER AND ARE WE GOING TO ENFORCE THE LAWS CONSISTENT WITH THE
INTENTION OF LAW
AND ORDER OR ARE WE GOING TO DECIDE OUR
OWN RULES AND THEN ACT ACCORDINGLY? THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT,
BECAUSE DANIEL FAULKNER ON DECEMBER THE 9TH 1981, IN VERY PLAIN VIEW WAS WEARING
HIS OFFICER IS UNIFORM AND
DANIEL FAULKNER, AS WAS
BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION LAST NIGHT BY THE ASSIGNED DETECTIVE, DETECTIVE BILL
THOMAS WHO WORKED WITH ME CONSTANTLY DURING THIS AND I DIDN'T REALIZE THIS, BUT
IT IS TRUE DANIEL FAULKNER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN ACTUALLY WORE HIS HAT YOU MAY
NOT THINK -- HE WORE HIS HAT WHEN HE GOT OUT OF HIS CAR, THIS HAT RIGHT HERE,
(INDICATING BY ILLUSTRATING) HOW MANY
- 63
POLICE OFFICERS
WEAR THEIR HAT -- WEAR THEIR HAT WHEN THEY GET OUT OF THE CAR? THEY SHOULD, BUT
THEY GET OUT. WHAT IS THE REASON? WHAT IS HE DOING? WHY IS HE DOING THIS?
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IN PLAIN VIEW OF
EVERYBODY AT 13TH AND LOCUST STREETS, CLEARLY WITH THE SIMPLE -- WITH THE
MANIFESTATION WITH THE PRESENCE OF LAW AND ORDER IN THAT SECTION OF THE CITY,
FROM HEAD TO TOE THAT MAN WAS A POLICE OFFICER., ABLE TO BE SEEN AND MAINTAINING
ORDER
AND NOT ONLY WALKING OVER AND MAINTAINING ORDER
WITH HIS UNIFORM BUT ALSO IN A POLICE CAR THAT WAS MARKED
IN PLAIN VIEW.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN,
THIS IS OUR CORE OUR UNITY OF ANY KIND OF
ORDER AND THAT IS INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE TRYING TO ENFORCE IT. WHY IS IT SO
IMPORTANT? BECAUSE, ONCE WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED THAT ANYBODY CAN KILL
A COP AND IT DOESN'T MATTER YOU MAY AS WELL FORGET ABOUT LAW AND ORDER JUST
THROW IT RIGHT OUT.
I MIGHT MENTION THE FACT, IT WAS TRUE THIS
MORNING AND THIS IS REALLY WHAT THIS IS ALL
-
64 ABOUT, THIS MORNING BEFORE I LEFT
-- ACTUALLY MY MOTHER ACTUALLY CALLED ME UP AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE CASE A
LITTLE BIT AND BEFORE WENT DOWN THERE SHE SAID THIS TO ME. SHE SIMPLY SAID YOU
KNOW AND I WON'T GO INTO SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT SHE SAID ABOUT THIS CASE
BUT SHE SPECIFICALLY SAID THIS "JOE, IF YOU CAN COME UP -- AND THIS IS A
LADY WHO IS IN HER SEVENTIES SHE SAID "JOE, IF YOU CAN COME UP AND KILL A POLICE
OFFICER WHO IS GOING TO PROTECT ME?"
THAT'S WHAT SHE
SAID AND THEN SHE GOES OFF AND THAT WAS IT BUT THAT LADIES AND GENTLEMEN., IS
REALLY WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT, BECAUSE, THAT IS WHAT OUR SYSTEM AND THE KIND OF
CONSTANT BATTLEGROUND THAT WE HAVE DURING THE COURSE OF EVERY DAY IN THIS CITY.
THE ONLY SYMBOL OF PEOPLE THAT ARE ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE THE LAW TO CONTROL AND
PROTECT PEOPLE ARE POLICE OFFICERS. AND, IF YOU CAN AT WILL KILL POLICE, LADIES
AND GENTLEMEN, YOU THEN MAKE THAT EXTRA STEP TOWARDS
THE AREA WHICH IS WITHOUT LAW
ENFORCEMENT WHICH IS AN
OUTRIGHT JUNGLE. WE ARE
ONE STEP FROM THE JUNGLE WITHOUT
THE OPPORTUNITY
- 65
OF INDIVIDUALS TO
ENFORCE THE LAW.
LAW AND ORDER. THAT'S WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT AND
THAT IS WHAT THE LEGISLATORS VIEW THAT PARTICULAR AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE, SO
IMPORTANT THAT IT LISTS NUMBER ONE. THOSE LEGISLATORS ARE NOT POLICE OFFICERS,
ALL PART OF A FRATERNITY, THEY WANT TO PUT THAT AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE NUMBER
ONE THAT WAS IT, ORDER.
ORDER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THAT YOU MAY NOT HAVE
SEEN; ORDER THAT THIS DEFENDANT HAS DECIDED IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR HIM. ORDER
THAT HE SAYS, I DON'T CARE ABOUT STANDING, I HAVE NO RESPECT FOR HIM DON'T CARE
IF JUSTICE McDERMOTT IS GOING TO WALK AWAY. DON'T CARE IF JUDGE RIBNER SAYS
THINGS, I'M JUST GOING TO CURSE AT HIM AND SAY IT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE TO AGREE
WITH HIM. I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS. SO, I'M GOING TO DO THIS. COMPLETELY IN
VIOLATION OF ANY LAW AND ORDER IS WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN AND WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN IN
THIS VERY COURTROOM.
THE ARROGANCE, THE DEFIANCE ALL PRESENT THE GRANDIOSE
DEFIANCE.-CONTINUOUSLY PRESENT, INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT ONE REASON IN A
- 66
SITUATION WHICH
IS TRULY AMAZING TO YOU IS THE KIND OF SITUATION WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL FROM THE
OUTSET WHO HAS ACTUALLY REPRESENTED THIS DEFENDANT ALMOST ON A DAILY BASIS FOR A
SIX MONTH PERIOD, CONSTANTLY AND WITH ALL THE
ABILITY HE
HAS AND WITH EXTREME COMPETENCE IS NOT ONLY CRITICIZED BY THE DEFENDANT
CONTINUOUSLY BUT ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SUPPORTING HIM.. YELLING AND
SCREAMING
MR. JACKSON: OBJECTION,
MR. McGILL: IN FIGHTING FOR HIS LIFE,
MR. JACKSON: OBJECTION YOUR HONOR. MR.
McGILL: AND I'LL TELL YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN -
THE COURT: IT'S NOTED.
MR. McGILL: I WILL TELL YOU, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN, ABOUT THAT IS THIS JUSTICE McDERMOTT HIMSELF WHEN HE WAS WALKING OUT
MADE-A DECISION AND HE AFFIRMED JUDGE SABO'S DECISION.
MR. JACKSON: OBJECTION YOUR HONOR. THE
COURT: OVERRULED. GO AHEAD.
MR. McGILL: AND HE
AFFIRMED JUDGE SABO'S
- 67
DECISION, WHICH
SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LAWYER
WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE
LAW OF THIS COMMONWEALTH TO BE PRESENT WITH YOU AND THAT IS THE SITUATION AND,
YOU HAVE TO DO THIS.
NO, AGAIN, I DON'T WANT THIS. AGAIN HE IS VIEWED AS SOME
SORT OF TRAITOR BECAUSE HE IS DOING LAW. THE LAW OF JUDGE SUPREME COURT. AGAIN,
ABOUT LAW AND ORDER. AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS A WHAT -- FOLLOWING THE SABO, THE LAW
OF THE THIS IS WHAT THIS IS ALL HOW DO WE AVOID IT IF WE DON'T LIKE IT WE DON IT
JUST ACCEPT IT,, AND WE DON IT TRY TO CHANGE IT FROM WITHIN.. WE JUST REBEL
AGAINST IT. AND MAYBE THAT WAS THE SIEGE ALL THE WAY BACK THEN WITH POLITICAL
POWER, POWER GROWING OUT OF THE BARREL OF A GUN, No MATTER WHO SAID IT, WHEN YOU
DO SAY IT AND WHEN YOU FEEL IT AND PARTICULARLY IN AN AREA WHEN YOU IRE TALKING
ABOUT POLICE OR COPS OR SHOOTINGS AND SO FORTH EVEN BACK THEN THIS IS NOT
SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED OVER NIGHT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THERE IS ONE THING, THAT IS TO KILL
AN INDIVIDUAL, THAT IS ATROCIOUS, ANOTHER THING, TO KILL A POLICE OFFICER WHO
- 68
OBVIOUSLY AND PRESENTLY IS ATTEMPTING TO PROTECT,
ATTEMPTING TO ASSIST US TO LIVE ON A DAILY BASIS AND YET, THERE IS THAT ONE OTHER THING ABOUT ALL OF
THIS, AND THAT ONE OTHER THING IS THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU EXECUTE AND YOU SAW
THAT AND YOU HEARD ALL THAT TESTIMONY. AND YOU CAN ALMOST SEE I AM SURE, HOW IT
WAS DONE WITH THE ARROGANCE THAT HAS BEEN DISPLAYED IN FRONT OF YOU OVER THIS
PERIOD OF TIME, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DEFIANTLY WILL DO IT AND THEN, DEFIANTLY BRAG
AFTER IT AND IT IS NOT COMPLETELY IN CHARACTER. MAYBE NOT SO AS THE INDIVIDUAL
WHO WROTE A FORWARD TO THE BOOK THAT ACTUALLY PRAISED ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL BY THE
NAME OF JOANNE CHESAMAR (SIC). I MEAN, THAT PERSON THINKS THAT THAT CHARACTER IS
GOOD AND ALL BUT THAT HAPPENS TO BE THE SUBJECT OF THAT INDIVIDUAL WHO HERSELF
WAS CONVICTED OF KILLING A POLICE OFFICER,
MR. JACKSON: OBJECTION. OBJECTION YOUR
HONOR.
MAY WE SEE YOU AT SIDE-BAR? OBJECTION,
OBJECTION. MR. McGILL: OF KILLING A POLICE OFFICER,
-
69
A STATE TROOPER IN NEW JERSEY WHO HAD STOPPED A CAR,,
WHO HAD ACTUALLY STOPPED A CAR,
MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION.
YOUR HONOR, MAY I SEE YOU AT SIDE-BAR?
YOUR HONOR -
THE COURT: IT'S NOTED. LET HIM FINISH.
MR. McGILL: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THAT IS
THE KIND OF INDIVIDUAL WHO SAYS THAT CHARACTER IS OKAY, ALL RIGHT, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN LET US TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WE IRE TALKING ABOUT AND IF WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT SO MUCH IN REFERENCE TO INDIVIDUALS THAT WILL CONSTANTLY VIOLATE WHATEVER
LAW THERE MIGHT BE, WHETHER IT BE THE LAW OF THE COURT OR THE LAW OF JUDGE SABO,
OR JUST REFUSE TO ABIDE AT ALL LET IS AGAIN TAKE A LOOK AT THE ACT ITSELF, AND I
THINK THAT YOU WILL FIND TWO THINGS, LET'S LOOK AT THIS AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
THE INDIVIDUAL WHO EXECUTED A POLICE OFFICER AS YOU SAW. WHAT ELSE DID HE DO
BESIDES THAT?
YOU KNOW, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN IF YOU LOOK
AT THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THAT ACT AN EXTREME AMOUNT OF COWARDICE. BECAUSE, IN
ORDER TO BE SURE WE'RE
- 70
GOING TO KILL AND
SHOOT HIM IN THE BACK WHEN HE'S NOT EVEN LOOKING AT US; WE ILL GET HIM IN THE
BACK.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THESE ARE THE FACTS AND THOSE --
THAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HEARD IN THE EXECUTION OF A
MAN FULLY UNIFORMED, A POLICE OFFICER, DANIEL FAULKNER.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THERE HAS BEEN MUCH
SAID ABOUT INDIVIDUALS' PHILOSOPHIES. ANYBODY CAN GRASP OR HOLD ANY KIND OF
PHILOSOPHY YOU WANT, THAT'S FINE. THAT'S WHAT THIS COUNTRY HAPPENS TO BE ALL
MADE OF. BUT ONE THING THAT
CANNOT BE TOLERATED IS
CONSTANT ABUSE OF AUTHORITY DEFIANCE OF AUTHORITY AND DAILY LAW BREAKING. THAT
SIMPLY IS NOT PERMITTED. AND, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN I ASK NO ONE EVEN INDIRECTLY
TO ENFORCE ANY SUCH THING.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU ARE NOT ASKED TO
KILL ANYBODY. YOU ARE ASKED TO FOLLOW THE LAW. THE SAME LAW THAT I KEEP ON
THROWING AT YOU SAYING THOSE WORDS LAW AND ORDER. I SHOULD POINT OUT TO YOU IT'S
THE SAME LAW THAT HAS FOR SIX MONTHS PROVIDED SAFEGUARDS FOR THIS
DEFENDANT. THE SAME LAW LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
- 71 THE SAME LAW
THAT WILL PROVIDE HIM APPEAL AFTER
APPEAL AFTER APPEAL.
MR. JACKSON: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: G0 AHEAD. MR. McGILL: THE
SAME LAW, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN-
THE COURT: (To SPECTATORS)
QUIET QUIET, PLEASE OR YOU'LL GO OUT.
PLEASE. GO AHEAD.
MR. McGILL: THE SAME LAW, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THAT HAS
MADE IT SO BECAUSE OF THE CONSTANT APPEALS, THAT AS MR. JACKSON SAID, NOBODY AT
ALL HAS DIED IN PENNSYLVANIA SINCE 1962 FOR AN INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED IN 1959.
WHO, BY THE WAY AND IT'S ONLY BY THE WAY IN FACT HE ALSO WAS A WHITE MAN, ELMO
SMITH WAS THE NAME REMEMBER THAT GOING WAY BACK 1959 INCIDENT? THE RAPE AND
MURDER OF MARY ANN MITCHELL. THE LAST ONE WHO WAS EXECUTED AND THAT'S OVER 20
YEARS, APPEAL AFTER APPEAL AFTER APPEAL. THAT LAW SHOULD BE THAT WAY AND THAT
LAW SHOULD BE FOLLOWED AND HE SHOULD HAVE EVERY
- 72
APPEAL, BUT, THE
SAME LAW THAT PERMITS THIS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN LET US -- LET ME URGE YOU TO
CONSIDER AND ENFORCE THAT LAW TODAY BECAUSE THE LAW IS NOT -- OR THE LAW IS
RATHER., A DOUBLE EDGED SAW IT WORKS FOR BOTH SIDES. IT WORKS FOR BOTH SIDES, SO
WHEN YOU ARE DETERMINING IN REFERENCE TO THE EVIDENCE ONLY AND THAT EVIDENCE
WOULD BE AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, NOTHING MORE, IN
CONSIDERING THOSE ONLY CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE YOU HEARD THE AGE, THE AGE OF
DANIEL FAULKNER. YOU HEARD NO EVIDENCE OF THE -
MR. JACKSON: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR
OBJECTION,, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: GO AHEAD.
MR. McGILL: YOU HEARD ALSO THE MENTION, THE AGE, HE DID
MENTION THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING HIS MENTAL FRAME OF MIND, WHICH IS NO
EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. THAT'S NOT EVIDENCE. BECAUSE IT WAS NOT THERE. THE OTHER
EVIDENCE, AND YOU HEARD FROM INDIVIDUALS IN TERMS OF
MITIGATION, THOSE ARE THE FACTORS, BUT ON THE
73
OTHER SIDE YOU
HAVE THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUM STANCES THAT I MENTIONED AND IN PARTICULAR, IN
PARTICULAR THE PRIMARY ONE THE POLICE OFFICER IN THE LINE OF DUTY.
AND I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THAT BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE
LAW AND ORDER IS ALL ABOUT, NOT THE FACT OF WHO REPRESENTED HIM NOT THE FACT
WHETHER JOHN AFRICA THE NAME JOHN AFRICA WHO I HAVE NEVER SEEN IN THIS COURTROOM
FOR SOME REASON NEVER TESTIFIED AS TO CHARACTER OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT THIS
INDIVIDUAL WHO IS
CONSTANTLY CALLED AND SO FORM THAT IS
NOT THE RELEVANT ISSUE. THE ISSUE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT IS PRESENTED BEFORE YOU
AND WHERE YOU HAVE AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND WHERE YOU WEIGH
THEM. WHERE YOU WEIGH THEM.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF CASES
WHERE SUCH SITUATIONS HAVE OCCURRED AND INDIVIDUALS HAVE LISTENED TO EVIDENCE
AND THEN MADE UP THEIR MINDS. AS A MATTER OF FACT. IN ONE PARTICULAR CASE I CAN
RECALL AND EVEN BEFORE EVEN BEFORE THEY THEMSELVES THE
INDIVIDUALS ON THE JURY CAME BACK WITH THEIR
- 74
VERDICT THEY PREFACED THEIR -- THEY ASKED THE JUDGE IF THEY COULD PREFACE THEIR VERDICT WITH "IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW." THEY ASKED THAT COULD THEY SAY IT THAT WAY BECAUSE
THEY WANTED IT. IT WAS CLEAR THEN WHAT WAS IN THE MINDS OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS.
THEY'RE NOT CONDONING THIS OR THAT ACTION OR SAYING -- BUT, THEY'RE SAYING WE
WILL FOLLOW THE LAW AND BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW WE WILL FOLLOW IT, AND DO IT "IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW" WE FIND. THAT IS HOW THE SITUATION IS.
NOW, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER
THAT AFTER DELIBERATIONS YOU COULD IF YOU WISH YOU COULD CONSIDER THAT
PARTICULAR PHRASE, THAT OF COURSE, WOULD BE UP TO YOU BECAUSE THAT IS IN FACT
WHAT WE IRE TALKING
ABOUT NOT SPECULATION AND NOT
ANYTHING ELSE.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'LL POINT OUT AS MR. JACKSON
STATED SEVERAL TIMES, THE BUSINESS ABOUT THE BLACK PEOPLE ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE
THAT ARE IN DEATH ROW. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THAT BECAUSE
IN THIS PARTICULAR COMMONWEALTH AND OVER A PERIOD OF EVEN
- 75
OF JUST ONE YEAR,
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT BLACK PHILADELPHIANS ARE CLOSE TO EIGHTY
PERCENT OF THE VICTIMS OF MOST OF THE CRIMES, OF ALL
OF THE VIOLENT CRIMES AND PARTICULAR HOMICIDES IN THE CITY. THOSE PEOPLE THOSE
PEOPLE ARE AS MUCH AND IF NOT MORE VICTIMS THAN ACTUALLY ANY CASE BEING DIRECTLY
INVOLVED WITH THE LAW AS
PERPETRATORS. IT MAY HAVE BEEN
BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT SINCE SO MANY OF THOSE HOMICIDES INVOLVE VICTIMS, THAT
MANY OF THE INDIVIDUALS HAPPEN TO HAVE BEEN ARRESTED HAPPENED TO BE BLACK
PHILADELPHIANS. ALL RIGHT, BECAUSE OF THAT AND NUMERICALLY ONLY WOULD BE THE
REASONS WHY OVER THE COURSE OF THE NATION THAT ANY SUCH STATISTIC
WOULD HAVE ANY RELEVANCE AT ALL. AND, I SUGGEST TO YOU IT
IS NOT RELEVANT. THE ONLY RELEVANCE IS WHAT YOU FIND NOT WHAT THE MOANS AND
GROANS OF INDIVIDUALS OVER THERE CAN CONSTANTLY REFUSE TO OBEY ORDER -
MR. JACKSON: OBJECTION.
MR. McGILL: OF THE COURT WOULD IN ANY WAY INTIMIDATE
YOU.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I WOULD ASK YOU TO
- 76
CONTINUE IF YOU
WOULD HAVING THE COURAGE THAT YOU HAVE HAD BEFORE, AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT. I
THANK YOU FOR THE TIME THAT YOU SPENT, AND I THANK YOU FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY
THAT YOU HAVE SHOWN AND THAT RESPONSIBILITY AND THAT COURAGE NO MATTER WHAT YOUR
FINDING WOULD BE, I SHALL ALWAYS APPRECIATE PARTICULARLY, THE TIME THAT YOU
SPENT OVER THE TWO WEEK PERIOD.
I TRULY THANK ALL OF YOU
FOR THAT.
(WHEREUPON THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY PERUSES HIS
PERSONAL NOTES.)
FINALLY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND THIS
IS ONLY -- THIS IS ALL IT WILL BE AND THAT' S IT.
PLEASE CONSIDER IN A COMMON SENSE FASHION THE EVIDENCE
THAT YOU HEARD. THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HEARD IN THIS CASE IS NOT JUST THE
EVIDENCE THAT YOU HEARD IN THE SENTENCING HEARING. YOU HEARD ME MOVE FOR THE
INCORPORATION OF THE
EVIDENCE OF THE TRIAL. TAKE ALL THE
EVIDENCE FROM THE TRIAL AND THE EVIDENCE OF THE SENTENCING HEARING AND IN CONSIDERING THAT MAKE YOUR
DETERMINATION. BUT I WOULD ASK YOU -- THE REASON WHY I ASK YOU VERY
SERIOUSLY, MAKE A
- 77
DECISION WITHOUT
IN ANY WAY BEING INTIMIDATED. ASK ALL OF YOU TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE FACTS AND
WEIGH IT. IF YOU FIND MITIGATING CIRCUM STANCES, WHETHER YOU WOULD THINK THE AGE
OR WHATEVER, THEY WERE -- THAT HE HAS MENTIONED AND ONLY THOSE THAT THE COURT
WILL SAY AS TO WHAT MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO FIND. WEIGH
THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND I WOULD ASK
YOU TO CONSIDER THE IMPORTANCE OF LAW AND ORDER.- WHICH THIS ENTIRE TRIAL IS ALL
ABOUT.
THE MANNER IN WHICH A UNIFORMED OFFICER WAS EXECUTED.
THE MANNER IN WHICH THE FACTS HAVE BEEN RELATED TO ALL OF YOU. THE WAY AND
MANNER OF THIS DEFENDANT EASILY IMAGINING HOW THAT ACT WAS PERPETRATED. FIRST IN
THE BACK AND THEN RIGHT OVER HIM. (ILLUSTRATING)
IN UNIFORM, HE IS SHOT BETWEEN THE HEAD,
LAW AND ORDER IS WHAT I ASK OF YOU. I ASK OF YOU TO FOLLOW THAT LAW AND REACH A
DECISION SOLELY BASED ON THAT LAW AND NOTHING ELSE. NOTHING ELSE.
MR. JACKSON: OBJECTION.
78
MR. McGILL: JUST
THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
THE COURT: GO AHEAD.
MR. McGILL: AND, THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, NOTHING
ELSE. WHAT THEY DO IN COUNTRIES ANYWHERE ELSE IS NOT IMPORTANT, IT'S HERE TODAY,
THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, THIS COURTROOM, WHATEVER EVIDENCE YOU
HEARD,THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
(AT 12:10 P.M. THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY CONCLUDED
HIS SUMMATION TO THE JURY.) (THE FOLLOWING COLLOQUY OCCURRED AT SIDE-BAR.)
MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, I UNDERSTAND YOUR HONOR HAS
MADE A RULING. I KNOW THAT MR. McGILL IN HIS COMMENTS, MAKING COMMENTS THAT YOU
TOLD ME AND SO, I WOULD OBJECT AND WHEN I DID OBJECT, YOU SAID NOTHING TO IT AT
THAT TIME, EVEN OF MY OBJECTIONS AS IF HE CAN SAY ALL OF THE THINGS HE CAN
SAY.
THE COURT: WELL, I DIDN'T
WANT TO INTERRUPT HIM DURING HIS SUMMATION. YOU COULD COME TO THE BAR AND PUT IT
ON RECORD NOW WHAT
- 79
YOU'RE OBJECTING
TO.
MR. JACKSON: I UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR BUT
I WAS MAKING AN OBJECTION. YOU ADMONISHED ME, MR. McGILL: YOU WERE GOING TOO
FAR.
THE COURT: YOU WERE GOING TOO FAR. YOU SEE, THIS IS WHAT
I'M SAYING, YOU WERE GOING TOO FAR AFIELD, I HAVE TO LEAVE HIM GO AS FAR AS YOU
DID, I DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT -
MR. McGILL: HE WENT INTO COUNTRIES AND THE KILLING OF
INDIVIDUALS AND HOW IT IS DONE, MR. JACKSON: I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT IT WAS MY
OBJECTION -
MR. McGILL: I DIDN'T
THE COURT: THERE ARE OTHER OBJECTIONS THAT HE MADE AND I
DID NOT RULE ON THEM THE ONLY TIME HE SAID SOMETHING WAS WHEN YOU WERE GOING TOO
FAR AFIELD. I'M NOT INTERESTED IN THAT. AND., I JUST TOLD YOU YOU WERE JUST
GOING TOO FAR, I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING TO ADMONISH YOU,
JUST WANTED YOU TO STEER CLEAR AND I
DIDN'T KNOW WHERE YOU WERE GOING AND I WANTED YOU TO CONCERN YOURSELF WITH THE
ISSUES HERE. - 80
MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR MY
OBJECTION IS HE MADE A COMMENT ON SONIA, S-0-N-I-A, SONCHES, S-0-N-C-H-E-S, HE
MADE THAT COMMENT ABOUT HER. AGAIN, I NOTED WITH REGARD TO TESTIMONY, YOUR HONOR
ALLOWED HIM TO EXAMINE AND IMPEACH HER WITH RESPECT THAT SHE WROTE A BOOK ABOUT
THAT, IT.THE KILLING OF A POLICE OFFICER, WE WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN BUT HERE IT WAS
HER CROSS TO THE FACT WASN'T ABOUT DON'T KNOW WRITTEN
AFTER THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING BUT THE
JURY DIDN'T KNOW AND I'M SUGGESTING THAT THIS WOMAN JUST GOES AROUND AND
TESTIFIES AND GIVES GOOD COMMENTS ABOUT WHO KILLS POLICE OFFICERS, THAT'S WHAT S
LEFT IN THE JURYS MIND ABOUT HER TESTIMONY. AND I THINK WITHOUT BASING AS TO
WHETHER SHE WROTE THIS BOOK OR THE FORWARD TO
THE BOOK-AND WHAT IT IS ABOUT -
MR. McGILL: AS A MATTER OF FACT, ON
CROSS-EXAMINATION SHE STATED WHY SHE DID THAT AND
THAT WAS PART OF IT SHE CLAIMED THAT SHE WAS WRITING ONLY
ABOUT WHAT SHE SAID IN HER WRITING AND THE ONLY CONCERN WAS ABOUT BLACK PERSONS
OR SOMETHING ABOUT THE DEPRESSION AND YOU WENT INTO
-
81
THE OTHER THINGS
SHE HAD WRITTEN.
MR. JACKSON: BUT, IT WAS CLEARLY GIVEN TO THE JURY AS IF
SHE WAS WRITING IT IN SUPPORT OF SOMEONE WHO KILLS POLICE OFFICERS.
MR. McGILL: WELL, SHE WAS DEFINITELY DOING THAT AND IT
WAS AFTER THE INDIVIDUAL HAD FLED AND WAS A FUGITIVE SHE AGREED WITH THAT, IT
WAS RIGHT AFTER SHE HAD FLED AFTER HAVING KILLED A POLICE OFFICER AND AFTER THAT
PARTICULAR
ACT OF WHICH SHE WROTE THAT WAS THE ONLY
RELEVANCY.
MR. JACKSON: AGAIN, IT'S THE -- SHE IDENTIFIED THAT
PERSON AS THE ONE WHO KILLED THE POLICE OFFICER, SO WHY DID YOU TALK ABOUT THE
FORWARD? SHE WROTE ABOUT THAT MICKEY MOUSE STORY. I'M ONLY SUGGESTING YOU DID IT
BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO INFLAME THE JURY.
MR. McGILL: NO, NO.
MR. JACKSON:
SHE KILLED A POLICE OFFICER,
THE COURT: MR. JACKSON BOTH OF YOU WERE
GETTING EMOTIONAL, TOO.
MR. JACKSON: BUT, I DIDN'T SAY THAT.
THE COURT: WELL? - 82
MR. JACKSON: I
UNDERSTAND.
THE COURT: HOW CAN I CONDONE WHAT HE'S
DOING WHEN YOU'RE BOTH DOING THE SAME THING? I WISH YOU BOTH WOULD STICK TO THE
AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. YOU BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE AND I'VE GOT
TO LET HIM ANSWER IT. JUST CAN'T LET HIM STAY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE AIR.
MR. JACKSON: WELL, I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HER.
THE COURT: NOT ABOUT HER, BUT SOME OF THE
OTHER THINGS WERE JUSTIFIED.
MR. McGILL: YOU TALKED ABOUT CHARACTER
MR. JACKSON: GOOD CHARACTER BUT THAT'S-
MR., McGILL: THAT WAS CHARACTER WITNESSES.
THE COURT: WELL THAT GOES INTO THE
CHARACTER THING SO -
MR. JACKSON: I UNDERSTAND, JUDGE. THE
OTHER COMMENT HE SAID WAS SOMETHING ABOUT APPEAL AFTER APPEAL AFTER APPEAL, AND
I THINK HE DID THAT TO SUGGEST TO THIS JURY THAT THEIR DELIBERATION MAY
OVERTURN
THE COURT: WELL
MR. JACKSON. THAT HE HAS AN APPEAL AFTER
- 83
APPEAL AFTER APPEAL SUGGESTING THAT IT S NOT GOING TO
HAPPEN.
THE COURT: WELL, YOU WENT -- YOU BROUGHT IN THE SAME
THING.
MR. McGILL: YOU WENT INTO THE ACTUAL KILLING.
THE COURT: LIFE IMPRISONMENT IS LIFE IMPRISONMENT YOU
KNOW THAT. DEPENDS ON WHAT HAPPENS THE GOVERNOR IF HE WANTS TO COMMUTE IT.
MR. JACKSON: WELL THAT'S AS TO SENTENCING, I MEAN -
THE COURT: WELL, YOU SEE,, YOU'RE GOING INTO AREAS AND
HE'S GOING INTO THE SAME AREAS AND YOU WERE THE ONE THAT BROUGHT IT UP, I DON'T
THINK IT'S MY DUTY TO STOP HIM WHEN HE'S ANSWERING WHAT YOU ALREADY BROUGHT UP.
YOU BROUGHT THIS ISSUE UP AND I CAN'T TIE HIS HANDS.
MR. JACKSON: VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, WITH
REGARD TO THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT YOU WANT TO DO
THAT AFTER YOU GAVE YOUR INSTRUCTIONS AND I JUST -- MR. McGILL AND I -
THE COURT: WHAT INSTRUCTIONS DO YOU WANT?
- 84 MR. JACKSON:
WELL, I'VE NEVER HEARD YOUR HONOR'S INSTRUCTIONS,
THE COURT: IT'S JUST TAKEN FROM THE FORM BOOK,
MR. McGILL: I WOULD OBJECT TO ANYTHING
ADDITIONAL, I'M NOT GOING TO ASK FOR ANYTHING, JUST WHAT YOU READ.
MR. JACKSON: WELL, WILL IT BE -- I'M SURE
THAT YOU'RE GOING TO EXPLAIN THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE?
THE COURT: THAT'S ABOUT ALL WHATEVER IS IN
THE SUGGESTED FORM THAT WE USE.
MR. McGILL: IT'S JUST BINDING INSTRUCTIONS
WITH REGARD TO IF YOU FIND THERE ARE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT OUTWEIGH-THE
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU MUST -
THE COURT: NO, I DON'T. I EXPLAIN TO THEM
WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO YOU KNOW AND WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY'RE -- FOR INSTANCE THE
ONLY WAY THEY CAN GET TO THE DEATH PENALTY THEY MUST YOU KNOW FIND SOME
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES, MR. JACKSON: FINE.
THE COURT: IF THEY FIND AGGRAVATING
- 85
CIRCUMSTANCES AND
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES THEY HAVE TO WEIGH AND DECIDE THE WEIGHT. AS A MATTER
OF FACT I PUT IT ON THE SHEET THAT I GIVE THEM GIVE THEM THE PENALTY SHEET.
MR. JACKSON: DO YOU TELL THEM THAT THEY HAVE TO -
THE COURT: THEY INDICATE ON THERE WHICH EVER ONES THEY
FIND.
MR. JACKSON: WHICH ONES THEY FIND? OKAY. I
JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE.
MR. McGILL: THEY MARK IT ON THE SHEET. MR.
JACKSON: OKAY. THE COURT: THE ONLY THING I INTEND TO EXPLAIN TO THEM IS THE
POLICEMAN IS IN FACT A PEACE OFFICER. YOU BROUGHT IT UP AND I THINK THAT I HAVE
AN OBLIGATION TO EXPLAIN THAT TO THE JURY.
MR. JACKSON: BUT, IT DOESN'T SAY POLICE OFFICER.
THE COURT: WELL, AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED IT DOES.
MR. McGILL: IT'S IN THE BOOK.
THE COURT: I KNOW.
- 86
MR. McGILL: IT'S
IN THE CRIMES CODE.
THE COURT: I KNOW THAT. I WILL EXPLAIN THAT, THERE IS NO
QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
MR. McGILL: ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: IN--FACT IT PLACES HIM IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
HIS DUTIES IN A SPECIAL CLASS THAT WOULD NOT APPLY IF HE WAS LIKE ON VACATION OR
SOME SOCIAL AFFAIR.
MR. JACKSON: BUT, JUDGE, WHAT YOU'RE DOING IN FACT BY
-
THE COURT: WELL, WAIT A WHILE YOU BROUGHT IT UP. YOU
SHOULD HAVE ASKED ME FIRST AND I WOULD HAVE TOLD YOU.
MR. JACKSON: BUT, JUDGE, WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS IN EFFECT,
MR. MCGILL HAS ALREADY READ.
THE COURT: WELL, I WILL GIVE THEM THE LAW. I WILL READ
IT, I WILL GIVE THEM THE LAW AND THEY WILL TAKE THE LAW FROM ME. THEY MAY THINK
THAT HE IS READING IT WRONG.
MR. JACKSON: THEN, WHY CAN'T I? THE COURT: MR.
JACKSON, I'M SORRY, YOU YOU DID TO BRING IT UP BUT . I HAVE TO INFORM THEM SINCE
YOU BROUGHT IT UP
- 87
I HAVE TO DO IT.
MR. JACKSON: WELL I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST
FAIR ARGUMENT.
THE COURT: BECAUSE YOU'RE LEAVING THEM TO
DECIDE WHO IS A PEACE OFFICER.
MR. JACKSON: NO. THE COURT: AS A MATTER
OF LAW, I'M TELLING THEM WHO A PEACE OFFICER IS. IT'S NOT ONLY PEACE OFFICERS,
IT IS STATE TROOPERS DEPUTY SHERIFFS ALL PEACE OFFICERS. SO, I HAVE TO EXPLAIN
IT TO THEM I DIDN'T WANT TO EXPLAIN IT TO THEM BUT YOU BROUGHT IT UP. YOU LEAVE
ME WITH NO CHOICE, DON'T LIKE TO GO INTO THESE THINGS.
MR. JACKSON: THAT MEANS ANYTHING
MR. McGILL HAS SAID, SOME COMMENTS ON THE LAW -
THE COURT: NO, NO I DON'T CARE WHAT HE
SAID ON THE LAW. THEY DON'T HAVE TO TAKE IT FROM HIM THEY HAVE TO TAKE THE LAW
FROM ME.
MR. JACKSON: RIGHT. THE COURT: YOU
BROUGHT IT UP. YOU GAVE YOUR VERSION HE GAVE HIS VERSION. NOW HAVE TO TELL THEM
WHAT THE LAW IS. YOU MADE AN ISSUES
- 88
YOU BROUGHT IT
UP, SAYING THE LEGISLATORS DIDN'T SAY WHO A PEACE OFFICER IS AND I HAVE TO
EXPLAIN THAT TO THEM, I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THAT TO THEM.
MR. JACKSON: WELL, THEY DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY
THE COURT: I DON'T CARE. I HAVE TO TELL THEM, MR.
JACKSON. YOU BROUGHT IT UP AND I HAVE TO TELL THEM.
MR. McGILL: LET'S GO.
(THE ABOVE CONCLUDED THE SIDE-BAR
CONFERENCE.) (IN OPEN COURT)
COURT CRIER, ANYONE WISHING TO ENTER OR
LEAVE THE COURTROOM MUST DO SO NOW. NO ONE WILL BE PERMITTED TO ENTER OR LEAVE
WHILE THE COURT IS CHARGING THE JURY. - 89
CHARGE OF THE
COURT HON. ALBERT F. SABO J.
(CHARGE COMMENCED 12:22
P.M.)
THE COURT: MEMBERS OF THE JURY YOU MUST NOW DECIDE
WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS TO BE SENTENCED TO DEATH OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT. THE
SENTENCE WILL DEPEND UPON YOUR FINDINGS CONCERNING AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES. THE CRIMES CODE PROVIDES THAT A VERDICT MUST BE A SENTENCE OF
DEATH IF THE JURY UNANIMOUSLY FINDS AT LEAST ONE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE AND NO
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OR IF THE JURY UNANIMOUSLY FINDS ONE OR MORE AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH OUTWEIGH ANY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, THE VERDICT MUST BE A
SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN ALL OTHER CASES,
THE
CRIMES CODE DEFINES AGGRAVATING AND
MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES. I WILL NOT GO INTO DETAIL ON
THEM BECAUSE
I WILL LATER EXPLAIN TO YOU THIS PENALTY
SHEET WHICH
WILL GO OUT WITH YOU THAT LISTS ALL OF THE
AGGRAVATING
AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
I MUST HOWEVER, AT THIS TIME INSTRUCT YOU
AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT A POLICEMAN IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA IS IN FACT AND
IN LAW A PEACE OFFICER.
- 90
EVERY STATE TROOPER THROUGHOUT THE COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, EVERY POLICE OFFICER THROUGHOUT THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
AND EVERY DEPUTY SHERIFF THROUGHOUT THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IS IN FACT
AND IN LAW A PEACE OFFICER. A PEACE OFFICER IS ONE WHOSE DUTY AND OBLIGATION IS
TO MAINTAIN ORDER OR PEACE AND WHO HAS THE LEGAL DUTY AND OBLIGATION TO MAKE
ARRESTS. THEREFORE, A POLICEMAN IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA IS IN FACT AND IN
LAW A PEACE OFFICER,
I SHOULD NOTE THAT THAT SECTION
INDICATES THAT HE MUST BE IN THE LINE OF DUTY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES.
THEREFORE, THAT SECTION WOULD NOT APPLY TO A PEACE OFFICER WHO MIGHT BE ON
VACATION OR OFF DUTY SOCIALIZING, IT APPLIES ONLY IF HE IS KILLED IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES. THAT MEANS HE MUST BE IN UNIFORM AND ACTUALLY ON DUTY
AT THE TIME,
THE COMMONWEALTH HAS THE BURDEN OF
PROVING
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT. THE DEFENDANT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES BUT ONLY
BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. THIS IS A LESSER BURDEN OF PROOF THAN BEYOND
A REASONABLE DOUBT. A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE EXISTS WHERE ONE SIDE IS
MORE BELIEVABLE THAN THE OTHER
- 91 SIDE. ALL THE EVIDENCE FROM BOTH SIDES INCLUDING THE
EVIDENCE YOU HEARD EARLIER DURING THE TRIAL-IN-CHIEF AS TO AGGRAVATING OR
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES IS IMPORTANT AND PROPER FOR YOU TO CONSIDER. YOU SHOULD
NOT DECIDE OUT OF ANY FEELINGS OF VENGEANCE, OR SYMPATHY, OR BIAS TOWARDS THE
DEFENDANT.
NOW, THE VERDICT IS FOR YOU MEMBERS OF THE
JURY. REMEMBER AND CONSIDER ALL OF THE EVIDENCE GIVING IT THE WEIGHT TO WHICH IT
IS ENTITLED. REMEMBER
THAT YOU ARE NOT MERELY RECOMMENDING A
PUNISHMENT. THE VERDICT YOU RETURN WILL ACTUALLY FIX THE PUNISHMENT AT DEATH OR
LIFE IMPRISONMENT. REMEMBER AGAIN THAT YOUR
VERDICT MUST
BE UNANIMOUS. IT CANNOT BE REACHED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OR BY ANY PERCENTAGE, IT
MUST BE THE VERDICT OF EACH AND EVERYONE OF YOU.
REMEMBER THAT YOUR VERDICT MUST BE A SENTENCE OF DEATH IF
YOU UNANIMOUSLY FIND AT LEAST ONE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE AND NO MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES.
OR, IF YOU UNANIMOUSLY FIND ONE OR MORE
AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH OUTWEIGH ANY MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES, ,IN ALL OTHER CASES YOUR VERDICT MUST BE A SENTENCE OF LIFE
IMPRISONMENT.
YOU WILL BE GIVEN A VERDICT SLIP UPON
- 92
WHICH TO RECORD
YOUR VERDICT AND FINDINGS. AM HOLDING IN MY HAND THAT VERDICT REPORT WHICH WILL
GO OUT WITH YOU. YOU WILL SEE IT HAS THREE PAGES. THE FIRST PAGE
SAYS!
"WE, THE JURY, HAVING
HERETOFORE DETERMINED THAT
THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT IS
GUILTY OF MURDER OF THE
FIRST DEGREE DO HEREBY FURTHER
FIND THAT:
(1) WE, THE JURY,, UNANIMOUSLY SENTENCE
THE
DEFENDANT TO -- IT AND YOU HAVE TWO BLOCKS ONE BLOCK
SAYS DEATH THE OTHER BLOCK SAYS LIFE IMPRISONMENT. WHICHEVER UNANIMOUSLY YOU
DECIDE ON YOU WILL PUT AN "X" IN THAT BLOCK,
NOW, UNDER
(2), IT SAYS:
"(TO BE USED ONLY IF THE AFORESAID
SENTENCE IS DEATH.)"
THAT MEANS, UNDER NUMBER ONE YOU
HAVE INDICATED
DEATH AND YOU WILL PUT AN "X" IN THERE
YOU WOULD THEN
HAVE TO FILL OUT THE NUMBER TWO PORTION.
AND THAT READS
AS FOLLOWS:
"WE, THE JURY.- HAVE FOUND UNANIMOUSLY AND
THE FIRST BLOCK THERE SAYS: "AT LEAST ONE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE AND NO
- 93
MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE, IF THAT IS THE BLOCK, YOU PUT AN "X" THERE AND THEN IT SAYS:
"THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE(S) IS/ARE- AND WHAT YOU
DO, YOU GO TO PAGE 2. PAGE 2 LISTS
ALL THE AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES$ THEY GO FROM SMALL
LETTER (A) TO SMALL
LETTER (J). WHICHEVER ONE OF THESE
THAT YOU FIND YOU PUT
AN "X" OR CHECK MARK THERE AND
THEN PUT IT IN THE FRONT.
DON'T SPELL IT OUT THE
WHOLE THING JUST WHAT LETTER YOU
MIGHT HAVE FOUND.
NOW, THE SECOND BLOCK THERE SAYS:
ONE OR MORE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
OUTWEIGH ANY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, It
AND THEN, IT GOES ON TO SAY:
"THE
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE(S) IS/ARE
AND THEN YOU WOULD AS
I SAID BEFORE ON THE
SECOND PAGE INDICATE WHICH ONES
THEY WERE AND PUT IT
ON THE FRONT HERE LIKE A SMALL
NUMBER OR (A) OR (B) OR (C) OR WHATEVER ONE YOU MIGHT FIND. AND THEN UNDERNEATH
THAT THERE ARE:
"THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES(S)
IS/ARE
AND THOSE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES APPEAR ON
THE
THIRD PAGE HERE, THEY RUN FROM A LITTLE (A) TO A
LITTLE
- 94
LETTER (H). AND
WHICHEVER ONES YOU FIND THERE YOU !,WILL PUT AN "X" MARK OR CHECK MARK AND THEN,
PUT IT ON
THE FRONT HERE AT THE BOTTOM WHICH SAYS
MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES. AND YOU WILL NOTICE THAT ON
THE THIRD
OR LAST PAGE IT HAS A SPOT FOR EACH AND EVERY
ONE OF
YOU TO SIGN HIS OR HER NAME ON HERE AS JURORS AND
DATE
IT DOWN ON THE BOTTOM THE DATE THAT YOU REACH
THE
VERDICT AND RETURN IT TO THE COURT WITH THIS
VERDICT
REPORT,
(AT 12:27 P.M.
THE COURT CONCLUDED ITS CHARGE TO THE JURY ON THE AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES.)
COURT CRIER: EVERYONE REMAIN SEATED
UNTIL THE JURY LEAVES THE ROOM,
(AT l2:27 P.M.-. THE
JURY EXITED THE COURTROOM TO BEGIN ITS DELIBERATIONS,)
(WHEREUPON THE VERDICT REPORT SLIP WAS EXAMINED BY COUNSEL
FOR THE DEFENSE AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.)
MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR MAY WE SEE YOU AT SIDE-BAR?
(THE FOLLOWING COLLOQUY OCCURRED AT SIDE
BAR.)
- 95
THE COURT: WHAT
DO YOU WANT TO SAY?
MR. McGILL: I THINK IT'S---
MR. JACKSON: I THINK IT'S SUGGESTIVE.
THE COURT: WHAT, THIS?
MR. JACKSON: WITH SECTION (D) "THE YOUTH ADVANCED AGE OF
THE DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME."
THE COURT: WELL, THAT WAS WHEN.
MR. JACKSON: THE STATUTE SAYS---
MR. McGILL: WHAT'S THE DATE ON YOUR READING?
MR. JACKSON: WELL, IT'S JUST A XEROX FROM THE
THE COURT: WAIT A WHILE WHAT DOES IT SAY?
MR. JACKSON: IT SAYS THE AGE OF THE DEFENDANT AT THE
TIME OF THE CRIMES.
THE COURT: YES, THAT WAS PUT UNDER THE NEW STATUTE. THAT
WAS PUT IN EVEN IF IT IS ADVANCED AGE ONE WHO IS -- EVEN A GUY WHOSE 80 YEARS
OLD, OR 76 YEARS OLD, THEY CAN CONSIDER THAT JUST AS THEY CAN CONSIDER THE
YOUTHFULNESS OF THE DEFENDANT. THEY CAN CONSIDER HIS OLD AGE ;
96
AND THE ADVANCED
AGE,
MR. McGILL: THAT WASN'T IN THE OLD STATUE.
THE COURT: NO, NO, NO., IT WASN'T IN THE OLD STATUE. YOU
CAN CHECK IT.
MR. JACKSON: FINE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT
(AT 12:30 P.M. THE COURT WAS RECESSED UNTIL THE CALL OF
THE CRIER.)
(LATER)
(AT 4:00 P.M. THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY ENTERED
INTO THE COURTROOM.) (AT 4:06 P.M. COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE ENTERED INTO THE
COURTROOM.)
(AT 4:19 P.M. THE DEFENDANT ENTERED INTO THE
COURTROOM.)
(AT 4:20 P.M. THE JURY WAS SEATED IN THE THE COURT BEING
RECONVENED, ALL PARTIES PRESENT.)
COURT CRIER: QUIET PLEASE
THE COURT IS IN SESSION. MAY I TAKE THE VERDICT, YOUR
HONOR? THE COURT: YES. -
97 COURT
CRIER: (TO JURORS)
JURORS HAVE YOU AGREED UPON A VERDICT AND
PENALTY? JURORS: YES.
COURT CRIER: DO ALL TWELVE AGREE?
JURORS: YES. COURT CRIER. WILL THE
FOREMAN PLEASE RISE? (WHEREUPON JUROR No. 9,RISES AS JURY FOREMAN.)
BY THE COURT CRIER: (To JURY FOREMAN)
Q. HAVING FOUND THE DEFENDANT MUMIA ABU-JAMAL, GUILTY OF
MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE. ON BILL OF INFORMATION NO. 1358, JANUARY TERM 1982,
WHAT IS YOUR VERDICT AS TO PENALTY?
A. DEATH.
COURT CRIER: PLEASE BE SEATED SIR.
MR. JACKSON: WOULD YOU POLL THE JURY YOUR
HONOR?
THE COURT: POLL THE JURY,
COURT CRIER: JURORS DEFENSE COUNSEL WISHES
YOU TO BE POLLED. WHEN YOUR NAME AND NUMBER IS CALLED YOU WILL PLEASE RISE AND
IN A FULL CLEAR AUDIBLE VOICE ANNOUNCE YOUR VERDICT.
98
BY THE COURT
CRIER: (To JUROR No. 1) JUROR NO. 1: GUILTY.
COURT CRIER: WAIT A MINUTE.- SIR. BY THE
COURT CRIER: (To JUROR No. 1) Q. JENNIE DAWLEY, HAVING FOUND THE
DEFENDANT,
MUMIA ABU-JAMAL, GUILTY OF MURDER IN
THE FIRST DEGREE ON BILL OF INFORMATION No. 1358, JANUARY TERM, 1982, WHAT IS
YOUR VERDICT AS TO PENALTY?
A. DEATH.
COURT CRIER: YOU MAY BE SEATED. BY THE
COURT CRIER: (To JUROR No, 2) Q. JAMES MATTIACE, HAVING FOUND THE DEFENDANT
MUMIA ABU-JAMAL, GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE ON BILL OF INFORMATION No.
1358, JANUARY TERM, 1982, WHAT IS YOUR VERDICT AS TO PENALTY?
A. DEATH.
COURT CRIER: YOU MAY BE SEATED BY THE
COURT CRIER: (To JUROR No. 3) Q, RICHARD TOMCZAK, HAVING FOUND THE DEFENDANT
MUMIA Abu-JAMAL, GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE l@ON BILL OF INFORMATION
No, 13581 JANUARY TERM, 1982 !WHAT IS YOUR VERDICT AS TO PENALTY?
A. DEATH.
COURT CRIER: YOU MAY BE SEATED
-
99
BY THE COURT
CRIER: (To JUROR No. 4)
Q. JOSEPH MANGAN, HAVING FOUND THE
DEFENDANT. MUMIA ABU-JAMAL, GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE ON BILL OF
INFORMATION No, 1358, JANUARY TERM, 1982,
WHAT IS YOUR
VERDICT AS TO PENALTY?
A. DEATH.
COURT CRIER: YOU MAY BE SEATED.
BY THE COURT CRIER: (To JUROR No. 5)
Q. MAURICE SIMOVETCH HAVING FOUND THE DEFENDANT MUMIA
ABU-JAMAL GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE ON BILL OF INFORMATION NO. 1358,
JANUARY TERM, 1982, WHAT IS YOUR VERDICT AS TO PENALTY?
A. DEATH.
COURT CRIER: YOU MAY BE SEATED.
BY THE COURT CRIER: (To JUROR No. 6)
Q. MIRIAN ADELMAN HAVING FOUND THE DEFENDANT MUMIA
ABU-JAMAL, GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE ON BILL OF INFORMATION No, 1358,
JANUARY TERM 19821 WHAT IS YOUR VERDICT AS TO PENALTY?
A. DEATH
COURT CRIER: YOU MAY BE SEATED 'BY THE
COURT CRIER: (To JUROR No. 7) Q. SAVANNA DAVIS HAVING FOUND THE DEFENDANT,
- 100
MUMIA ABU-JAMAL,
GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE
ON BILL OF
INFORMATION NO. 1358.. JANUARY TERM, 1982,
WHAT IS YOUR
VERDICT AS TO PENALTY?
A. DEATH.
COURT CRIER: YOU MAY BE SEATED.
BY THE COURT CRIER: (To JUROR No. 8)
Q. LOIS PEKALA, HAVING FOUND THE DEFENDANT, MUMIA
ABU-JAMAL, GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE ON BILL OF INFORMATION No, 1358,
JANUARY TERM' 1982, WHAT IS YOUR VERDICT AS TO PENALTY?
A. DEATH.
COURT CRIER: YOU MAY BE SEATED.
BY THE COURT CRIER: (To JUROR NO, 9)
Q. GEORGE EWALT, JR. HAVING FOUND THE DEFENDANT MUMIA
ABU-JAMAL, GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE ON BILL OF INFORMATION NO. 1358,
JANUARY TERM, 1982, WHAT IS YOUR VERDICT AS TO PENALTY?
A. DEATH.
COURT CRIER: YOU MAY BE SEATED.
BY THE COURT CRIER: (To JUROR No. 10)
Q. BASIL MALONE, HAVING FOUND THE
DEFENDANT, MUMIA ABU-JAMAL, GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE ON BILL OF
INFORMATION No. 1358, JANUARY TERM, 1982, WHAT IS
-
101
YOUR VERDICT AS
TO PENALTY?
A. DEATH
COURT CRIER: YOU MAY BE SEATED.
BY THE COURT CRIER: (To JUROR No. 11)
Q. DOMENIC DURSO, HAVING FOUND THE DEFENDANT, MUMIA
ABU-JAMAL, GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE ON BILL OF INFORMATION NO$ 1358,
JANUARY TERM.. 19821 WHAT IS YOUR VERDICT AS TO PENALTY?
A. DEATH.
COURT CRIER: YOU MAY BE SEATED,
BY THE COURT CRIER: (To JUROR No. 12)
Q. LOUIS GODFREY, HAVING FOUND THE DEFENDANT, MUMIA
ABU-JAMAL, GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE ON BILL OF INFORMATION No 1358,
JANUARY TERM, 1982, WHAT IS YOUR VERDICT AS TO PENALTY?
A. DEATH.
COURT CRIER: YOU MAY BE SEATED.
(AT 4:24 P.M. THE JURY WAS POLLED OF
RECORD.)
COURT CRIER: YOUR HONOR,
THE JURY HAS
BEEN POLLED EACH INDIVIDUALLY AS-:TO THE
VERDICT
ON PENALTY AND ALL TWELVE AGREE,
MAY THE VERDICT BE RECORDED?
-
102
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS THAT
PREVENTS ME FROM EXTENDING TO YOU EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU MY SINCERE THANKS
FOR YOUR SERVICES. I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE SERVED AWAY FROM YOUR FAMILY FOR OVER
TWO WEEKS AND I REALLY APPRECIATE IT AND I WANT TO EXTEND TO YOU MY SINCERE
THANKS ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE BOARD OF JUDGES OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, THE
PEOPLE OF PHILADELPHIA, AND MYSELF. WE EXTEND.-TO YOU OUR SINCERE THANKS.
YOU ARE DISCHARGED FROM ANY FURTHER SERVICE
IN THIS CASE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. EVERYONE REMAIN SEATED
WHILE THE JURY LEAVES THE ROOM,
(AT 4:26 P.M. THE JURY
WAS DISCHARGED OF RECORD.)
(THE FOLLOWING COLLOQUY
OCCURRED IN OPEN
ABSENT THE DISCHARGED JURY.)
THE COURT: -ALL RIGHT, MR. ABU-JAMAL?
(WHEREUPON THE DEFENDANT REMAINS SEATED AT DEFENSE
COUNSEL S TABLE.)
103
BY THE COURT: (TO DEFENDANT)
MUMIA ABU-JAMAL, ALSO KNOWN AS WESLEY COOK
YOU HAVE BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF POSSESSION INSTRUMENT OF CRIME GENERALLY UNDER
BILL No. 1357, JANUARY TERM, 1982.
YOU HAVE ALSO BEEN
FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE
FIRST DEGREE AND THE
PENALTY HAS BEEN SET AT DEATH BY
A JURY UNDER BILL No.
1358, JANUARY TERM, 1982.
THIS COURT WISHES TO ADVISE
YOU THAT YOU HAVE AN
AUTOMATIC APPEAL TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
HOWEVER, BEFORE THAT APPEAL CAN
BE TAKEN, CERTAIN
POST TRIAL MOTIONS MUST BE FILED AND
DISPOSED OF. THEY
ARE MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL AND AN
ARREST OF JUDGMENT,
THESE MOTIONS MUST BE FILED IN
WRITING WITHIN 10 DAYS
OF TODAY. THE REASONS FOR THOSE
MOTIONS MUST BE SPELLED
OUT WITH SPECIFICITY AT THIS
LEVEL OTHERWISE THIS
COURT CANNOT OR WILL NOT BE IN A
POSITION TO ANSWER
THOSE REASONS NOR WILL THE APPELLATE
COURT. SO, IT IS
VERY IMPORTANT THAT THEY BE FILED IN
WRITING WITHIN 10
DAYS OF TODAY AND SPELLED OUT WITH
SPECIFICITY THE REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD BE GRANTED A NEW TRIAL OR AN ARREST OF
JUDGMENT.
THE COURT WILL DEFER FORMAL SENTENCING
PENDING
104 DISPOSITION OF THESE MOTIONS AND WILL SET AS THE TIME DATE
AND PLACE FOR THE DISPOSITION OF THESE MOTIONS FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13TH, 1982
AT 3:30 P.M. IN COURTROOM 253,
IN THE INTERIM THE COURT
WILL ORDER A PRESENTENCE AND PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION TO BE PERFORMED BY DR.
CAMIEL.
ANYTHING ELSE, GENTLEMEN?
(WHEREUPON THE DEFENDANT SITS THERE AND
LAUGHS.) MR. McGILL.: NOTHING, NO, SIR.
THE COURT: OF COURSE IF THERE IS ANY BAIL IT IS
AUTOMATICALLY REVOKED BECAUSE THIS IS A FIRST DEGREE CASE, A CONVICTION.
ALL RIGHT. THE COURT STANDS ADJOURNED.
(AT 4:28 P.M. THE COURT WAS
ADJOURNED.) 105-
|