A refresher course in justice–American style

By Еvan Osentоn

Who is Mumia Abu Jamal?

Is he the infamous and outspoken African American dissident and writer, currently on death row, innocent of the crime for which he is accused? Was he sentenced to death based on his political views and history — a man whose death could be mere weeks away?

Or is he the man who callously murdered a police officer and then made a mockery of justice and morality by withholding the truth about his crime, turning his trial into a circus, profiting from his celebrity status and possible martyrdom, whose death is long overdue?

Debated for nearly 20 years, his identity rests on the events of the morning of Dec. 9, 1982. At 3:52 a.m., Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner was shot twice while apprehending a driver going the wrong way on a one-way street. He died an hour later in hospital. His shooter was determined by the courts to have been Wesley Cook, aka Mumia Abu Jamal. On July 2, 1983, after a sensational trial that garnered national attention, Jamal was convicted of murdering Faulkner and sentenced to death. Currently Jamal is scheduled to die in the electric chair at Pensylvania’s Greene State prison on Dec. 2, 1999.

His supporters feel reasonable evidence exists to suggest Jamal may be innocent. If his conviction cannot be quashed, at they very least they feel Jamal deserves a retrial. At the same time, those convinced of Jamal’s guilt feel a gross miscarriage of justice has occurred by allowing him to live for the past 16 years.

By all accounts, this remains one of the most controversial cases in the history of the US justice system.

Dec. 9, 1982

The only undisputed facts of this case are that Daniel Faulkner was murdered and Mumia Abu Jamal was present at the crime scene. Beyond these facts, there are dozens of versions of what happened.

It is agreed upon that Officer Faulkner pulled over a Volkswagen belonging to Jamal’s brother, William Cook, and called for backup. This occurred directly across the street from a cab Jamal was sitting in. Jamal’s opponents suggest the possibility of a setup; a conspiracy to kill Faulkner, due to the coincidence of Jamal "just happening to be there." Jamal’s defenders counter with the theory Jamal was the one set up: his status as a dissident and vocal critic of police made him a target. Neither theory had any impact on the verdict.

A fight may or may not have broken out between Faulkner and Cook, although it is clear that Faulkner was attempting to subdue Cook in the process of arrest. Jamal is reported to have crossed the street at this point. Accounts vary widely at this point. Witnesses for the prosecution claim they saw Jamal shoot Faulkner in the back as he grappled with Cook. Faulkner is then said to have wheeled around and shot Jamal before the latter again shot the officer, this time from a distance of less than two feet . Unable to flee due to his wounds, Jamal is alleged to have stumbled several feet before collapsing.

However, the defence produced witnesses that claim another man shot Faulkner as Jamal approached. This "mystery shooter" is then reported to have fled the scene. At least one witness says the mystery man was a passenger in Jamal’s cab. The prosecution argued Faulkner would have only shot Jamal if he were the assailant.

Regardless, Faulkner was taken to hospital where he died an hour later. Jamal was identified on the scene as a known dissident and was assumed to have killed Faulkner. According to Jamal, police beat him at the scene, drove around for a while "in the hope that he would bleed to death," and then beat him again upon arrival at the hospital.The trial
Leonard Weinglass, Jamal’s current attorney, states on the grounds of due process, Jamal’s original trial would never stand up in court. He cites 29 constitutional violations in Jamal’s 1983 trial. The main issues of contention revolve around the reliability of witnesses, the calibre of the bullet that killed Faulkner, a confession Jamal supposedly made while in hospital, and allegations of a mystery shooter.
Several key witnesses for both the prosecution and the defence were proven to have been bribed prior to the trial. Others were eventually discredited due to either disreputable character, drunkenness or admitted drug use at the time of the shooting. Several witnesses changed their stories over the years. As such, any discussion of witnesses is futile; both the prosecution and defence witnesses are equally discreditable.

The calibre of the bullet that killed Faulkner was in question since the night of the shooting. Jamal’s supporters note the original pathologist’s report states the bullet was fired from a .44 calibre gun. On the night of Faulkner’s murder, Jamal was carrying a legally registered .38 calibre gun. Prosecutors maintained the pathologist’s report was incorrect and that he was unqualified to have determined the bullet’s calibre in the first place.

Weinglass said Jamal’s constitutional rights were violated because he was denied the right to represent himself at trail, and also because he was barred from the courtroom for much of the proceedings. His critics argue that Jamal’s conduct in court, such as disruptive behaviour, necessitated certain decisions, such as Judge Sabo’s decision to bar Jamal from interviewing potential jurors, in order to expedite the trial. Jamal has always maintained that the jury was racially stacked against him as it contained but one black person. The prosecution was satisfied that it contained a racial mix that reflected that of Philadelphia in the early ’80s and asserts that potential black jurors were dismissed for non-racial reasons.

The largest issue of contention during the trial was the alleged confession.

According to a hospital worker and a police officer on duty the night of the shooting, Jamal confessed to the crime on the morning of Dec. 9. He is said to have bragged, "I just shot the motherfucker and I hope the motherfucker dies." Jamal denies this confession, a claim seemingly confirmed by the official written report of Officer Gary Wakshul who guarded Jamal in hospital. Wakshul’s report simply states "the negro male made no statement."

Three months after the shooting, once Jamal filed police brutality charges, police claimed that Faulkner’s partner, Officer Bell, and hospital security guard Priscilla Durham (who reportedly knew Faulkner personally) both heard Jamal confess.

The defence argued that if the confession had been made, it certainly would have been reported right away, not three months after the event and only after Jamal filed charges against the Philadelphia Police Department. Unfortunately for the defence, Wakshul was "on vacation" during the trial. Jamal’s motion to postpone the trial until the officer returned was denied.

As for the mystery shooter, Jamal refuses to comment on his identity. In fact, while maintaining his innocence all along, Jamal has refused to talk about what happened that night unless he is granted a new trial. The only witness whose presence at the scene is undisputed was Jamal’s brother, and he has also refused to testify in the case. These two facts are used by those who believe in Jamal’s guilt to prove his culpability although neither fact helped directly to convict him.

Mumia Abu Jamal today
Since Jamal’s incarceration, he has become a figure of international notoriety. His cause has been championed by conspiracy theorists, opponents of capital punishment, the Black community, human rights organizations, and celebrities such as Whoopi Goldberg and Nelson Mandela. Jamal has written hundreds of articles and three books from death row which have garnered his cause considerable attention. His face has been plastered on billboards and placards in thousands of demonstrations calling for a retrial or the complete dismissal of charges. He has become known as an award-winning journalist, an outspoken critic of racism and police misconduct, a champion of justice for African American people, and a man who has for 16 years been called "the voice for the voiceless" and "the champion of the disenfranchised."

To many people, he is the archetypal symbol of injustice in America and around the world. To his detractors, which include police unions, the Fraternal Order of Police , the majority of US politicians, death penalty supporters, and the majority of mainstream US media, he is a murderer–a cop-killer who capitalized on his sensationalist trial, benefiting from his morbid celebrity status.

While on death row, Jamal lists his occupation as journalist. He has been the recipient of awards and honours for his reporting on police misconduct, abuse of authority, and racial discrimination, as well as education and housing in Philadelphia. He has been credited for exposing police and prosecutorial wrongdoing in the aerial bombing of the Move organization and the subsequent prosecution of Move members.

What happens next?
Jamal has been known to Philadelphia police since the late ’60s and ’70s in government crack downs on the Black Panther Party and black radicals in general. This came to a head in 1985 when the headquarters of Move was bombed by police, killing 11 occupants, and destroying 60 homes in resulting fire. Jamal was affiliated with and had exposed an earlier police attack on Move. He was also a founding member and Minister of Information for the Black Panthers in Philadelphia. In fact, since Jamal was 16 years old he was subjected to police surveillance. However, until his conviction for the murder of Officer Faulkner, he had no prior criminal record.

Following his conviction, and due to the expected appeals process, Jamal’s execution was initially scheduled for Aug. 17, 1995. It was stayed by a court order 10 days prior to being carried out while Judge Sabo determined whether or not to hold a new trial. After a litany of appeals and petitions, Sabo rejected Jamal’s request for a new trial. On Oct. 13, 1999, Pennsylvania Governor Thomas Ridge signed a death warrant scheduling Jamal’s execution for Dec. 2, 1999. Jamal has been on death row for almost 17 years, long enough that if he were to see the charges dropped to manslaughter, he could be released for time already served.

When Governor Ridge signed the warrant, he did so despite an expected habeus corpus petition from Jamal’s lawyer, citing fabrication and suppression of evidence, racial bias in selecting jurors, and denial of the right to self-representation, among other arguments.

With the filing on Oct. 15 of a petition in federal district court for a new trial, the federal judge has the authority to grant a stay of execution. A stay is only a postponement to allow the federal judge to consider the new petition. This will be Jamal’s last opportunity to present the evidence and witnesses previously denied . After the federal district court, all higher federal appeals courts will only review transcripts — they will not hear any new evidence. As of Oct. 20, it remains to be seen whether Governor Ridge will grant another stay of execution.

Innocent or not, Jamal was the catalyst for a great deal of criticism towards the US Justice System and corruption in the Philadelphia PD. He raised awareness of the conditions of death-row prisoners and highlighted the need for sweeping changes in US law enforcement.

If he is innocent, then the system has jailed and is determined to kill an innocent man, while a cop-killer walks free. If he is guilty, then a criminal has flouted the justice to which he was sentenced, made a mockery of the system, and garnered much support along the way.

If Jamal is executed on Dec. 2, will his opponents feel justice has been done? The man has lived for nearly 17 years on death row; years of life which opponents say he has stolen through legal posturing and wasted court time. His very life offends them; in a recent statement the Fraternal Order of Police recently called for Jamal to "burn in hell."

If Jamal dies, his legacy will not soon be forgotten. Jamal’s followers assert that, "If Mumia dies, [there will be] Fire in the Skies." This expression is seen by many as a call to arms, to mass rioting and civil disobedience if Jamal is executed.

So who is Mumia Abu Jamal? It is unlikely this question will ever be answered definitively.

For further information on Mumia Abu Jamal please view a 1996 HBO documentary entitled, "A Case for Reasonable Doubt" or the following websites.

International Concerned Family and and Friends of Mumia
www.mumia.org

Refuse and Resist
mojo.calyx.net/~refuse/mumia

Justice for Police Officer Daniel Faulkner
www.danielfaulkner.com