The Daily Bruin, Thursday, Feb. 10, 2000
Mumia Abu-Jamal deserves
punishment, not attention
JUSTICE:Opponents of the death penalty use case for own cause, ignore facts
By Natasha Quinn
Conspiracy theorists, the radical Left, campus rebels and most telling, the entertainment industry, have raised questions about the guilt of Mumia Abu-Jamal and have rallied to support his demand for a new trial. It is unfortunate that so many naive and poorly informed individuals have lent their support to a convicted murderer without fully reviewing the facts.
Reasonable people can disagree on matters such as the death penalty, but not on the guilt of Abu-Jamal. The evidence is unwavering. On July 3, 1982, having heard weeks of testimony, a jury of 12 citizens sentenced Abu-Jamal to death for the premeditated murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. Over the next 17 years, Abu-Jamal's case has become one of the most publicized death penalty cases in the world.
It has also become the most misunderstood case. Twisted tales about Abu-Jamal's case abound. They have been told and retold by countless individuals who know little or nothing about the actual facts of the case. The public has been duped by Abu-Jamal and his legion of attorneys, most notably Leonard Weinglass, who is a master of propaganda and has created numerous myths in a last ditch effort to save his client from the fate he deserves.
The trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal began in June, 1982. Initially, Abu-Jamal was to be represented not by a public defender, but instead by a court appointed attorney who was in private practice. Abu-Jamal was given the opportunity to offer his personal input into the selection of the attorney who would defend his life in the courtroom. The record reflects that Abu-Jamal personally interviewed several prospective attorneys and finally suggested that Anthony Jackson be selected as his defense counsel. Contrary to what Abu-Jamal's supporters portray as fact, Jackson was an experienced attorney who came highly recommended by Abu-Jamal's own friends.
In 1982, Abu-Jamal's preliminary hearing was held before Judge Paul Ribner, a judge who was not known for being pro-prosecution. Abu-Jamal, who was required by law to act appropriately in the courtroom as he defended himself, had this to say to Judge Ribner, "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, you bastard?"
During his 1982 trial, Abu-Jamal, who acted as co-counsel with Anthony Jackson, freely and repeatedly chose to disrupt the proceedings or refused to participate in them altogether. He disrupted the courtroom, humiliated his own chosen attorney, insulted the jury and threatened the judge with violence. After several days filled with endless delays, inane arguments and contemptuous acts by Abu-Jamal, the judge instructed Jackson to assume control of Abu-Jamal's defense.
The prosecution's case was three pronged. First, there were eyewitnesses who stated that Abu-Jamal was the killer. Second, there was significant scientific and ballistic evidence pointing to his guilt. Finally, there were three individuals who heard Abu-Jamal shout out two self-incriminating statements immediately outside the hospital emergency room. By any standard, the amount of evidence against Abu-Jamal was considerable.
The defense, on the other hand, failed to present a case pointing to Abu-Jamal's innocence. Had he been innocent, their most logical exculpatory eyewitness was William Cook, who, in addition to being the driver of the car Officer Faulkner pulled over that morning, was Mumia Abu-Jamal's brother. Cook was seen by several witnesses to have been only a few inches away from Faulkner, when he was shot. Yet the defense, which included Abu-Jamal working in consort with Jackson, chose not to have Cook take the stand on his brother's behalf. Abu-Jamal also refused to take the stand to proclaim his innocence and explain what occurred on Dec. 9, 1981.
Five witnesses from different vantage points state that they saw Mumia Abu-Jamal kill Daniel Faulkner. Three key prosecutorial witnesses were all within 50 feet of the shooting and gave essentially the same statement to three different police officers within 30 minutes of the murder. Abu-Jamal and his brother both witnessed the events, yet they still refuse to give their version of what happened. Why didn't Abu-Jamal take the stand to defend himself? Why wouldn't Cook come forward and say, "I can tell the truth now to help save my brother's life?"
The gun found on the ground next to Abu-Jamal when he was apprehended was a five shot .38 Caliber Charter Arms Revolver. Abu-Jamal's gun contained five spent casings. These casings were from unique Federal Arms .38 Caliber Special +P ammunition, which had a hollow base. This is the exact brand, type and caliber of bullet removed from Faulkner's brain.
Despite the oft-repeated claims by conspiracy theorists that the bullets that killed the police officer were .44 caliber, ballistics analysis matched the unique high velocity shells found in Abu-Jamal's gun to the rounds retrieved from the scene and from Faulkner's body. In fact, Leonard Weinglass' own ballistics expert testified that the fatal bullet was a .38.
According to court transcripts, three individuals testified that Abu-Jamal shouted, "I shot the motherfucker and I hope he dies!" on two different occasions, just outside the emergency room entrance.
Abu-Jamal's support groups have gone to great lengths to vilify Judge Albert Sabo, who presided over the trial. Wild statistics are thrown out regarding the judge's propensity to sentence defendants to death. They claim that Sabo was the orchestrator of a sham trial that never afforded Abu-Jamal a chance for justice. In this case, the fact remains that Sabo did not sentence Abu-Jamal to death.
Abu-Jamal was unanimously convicted and sentenced to death by the racially mixed group of 12 jurors, the same jurors Abu-Jamal personally assisted in selecting. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, on direct appeal, have already reviewed the same evidence and have upheld the jury's decision.
In the numerous appeals heard since his conviction in 1982, no less than 13 different appellate court judges have reviewed the extensive claims of innocence, police coercion and court wrongdoing. To date, not a single judge has agreed with these allegations.
Abu-Jamal has profited handsomely from the murder he committed. He has been sanitized, packaged and sold to the world by a heavily financed group of promoters who seek not to prove Abu-Jamal's innocence with the facts, but to use him as a tool in their campaign against the death penalty. Lending support to a convicted murderer is as life diminishing as the very thing that death penalty opponents stand against.
Finally, it is understood that there will always be individuals who will champion the cause of an individual like Mumia Abu-Jamal.
It is their right to do so. But hopefully, once the world sees Abu-Jamal and his supporters for what they really are, they will abandon him to the fate he was sentenced to more than 17 years ago.