Who Is Mumia Abu-Jamal?

     This dramatic story is a mere sketch of the saga of Mumia
Abu Jamal.
     Mumia began his career in journalism at the age of 16 as the
Minister of Information of the Philadelphia Black Panther Party.
By the age of 19 he was the President of the Philadelphia
Association of Black Journalists. He was one of the few
journalists who spoke out against the racist brutality of city
police, and virtually the only reporter to give broad coverage to
the racist police campaign against the MOVE organization.
     In 1982 Mumia was shot, beaten and nearly killed while he
tried to stop police from beating his brother. His only defense
was an incompetent, court-appointed counsellor who was thrust
into the role of defense counsel after Mumia was stripped of his
right to represent himself midway through jury selection. He
repeated sought to be relieved as assisting counsel to Mumia
during pre-trial hearings. Following the trial he was suspended
from the practice of law for unrelated financial charges.
     The court allocated Mumia $150 pretrial to the defense for
the investigation of the case, despite the fact that police
investigators has conducted over 125 witness interviews. By trial
time, the defense has succeeded in locating just 2 eyewitnesses.
     On the third day of jury selection, the court barred Mumia
from further questioning potential jurors stating that his
questions intimidated the potential jurors. Under pressure from
the court to expedite the selection process, a jury was selected
that included one man whose best friend was a former Philadelphia
police officer on disability as the result of being shot while on
duty, and an alternate juror whose husband was a Philadelphia
police officer. The prosecution racistly used 11 of their 15
preemptory challenges to remove African American jurors.
     The prosecution presented its case in less than 7 days.
Mumia was not present during most of it having been removed from
the courtroom for insisting on his right to self-representation,
as well as the absence of John Africa at the defense table.
Nothing was done to assist Mumia in following the proceedings,
such as audio transmission into his holding cell or the provision
of a transcript.
     It was undisputed that the police officer had been shot on a
public street at 4 a.m. on December 9, 1981, after having stopped
Mumia's brothers car. It was also undisputed that Mumia arrived
on the scene moments later, after the officer had pummelled his
brother with his flashlight. Mumia was shot, presumably by the
same officer, since the bullet was taken from his body matched
that of the officer's gun.
     The prosecution's case relied mainly on the testimony of
four witnesses who claimed to be at or near the scene of the
shootings. The court refused all requests to have these witnesses
attempt an identification of Mumia in a lineup, instead allowing
him to be identified as he sat at counsel table or through
photographs in his absence. The most damaging witness was a
female prostitute who had a record and was facing charges in
Massachusetts. She testified that she saw Mumia shoot the officer
by running up behind him, shooting him once, and then firing
again after he fell to the sidewalk. Previously she had given a
number of differing accounts, most contradicting the other three
witnesses. Another prostitute who was working the same area that
night testified she was offered the same deal as the
prosecution's witness: immunity from arrest by the police in
return for her testimony against Mumia.
     Of the remaining witnesses, all male, two said they saw
Mumia run to the scene where the police officer was beating
Mumia's brother. Both testified that gunfire erupted shortly
after Mumia arrived, but neither one saw Mumia shoot the officer.
The third witness, a cabdriver, who pulled up behind the police
car was the closest to the shooting. He told police the shooter
fled the scene, that the shooter was a large, heavy man over 6'
2" and weighing more that 225 pounds. Mumia is 6' 1" and weighs a
scant 180 lb. At trial this witness denied that the shooter ran
away, insisting that he took just a few steps and then sat down
on the curb at the precise point where police found Mumia. The
judge kept from the jury that this witness has previously been
convicted of throwing a Molotov cocktail into a public school for
pay and might therefore have altered his testimony to curry favor
with the prosecution. Another witness, an nearby resident, also
reported seeing a man flee the scene. A third witness told the
authorities that she also observed one or two men fleeing the
scene. In all, four witnesses situated in four separate
locations, none of who knew each other or Mumia, reported seeing
the shooter flee.
     The jury began deliberating at noon the Friday of the
weekend of July fourth; before the day was over they reached a
verdict of guilty of first degree murder. The key to
understanding why the jury voted for the death penalty lies in
the following: in a clear violation of Mumia's constitutional
rights, the prosecution presented evidence of Mumia's background
as a member of the Black Panther Party some 12 years earlier and
his political beliefs as reported in a newspaper interview when
he was just 16 years old. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Mumia is on
death row because of those political beliefs and associations.
Having portrayed Mumia as a black radical militant to this nearly
all-white jury, the prosecutor argued in summation that it was
Mumia's political history and disrespect of the system that
caused him to kill the policeman. In returning the verdict of
death, the jury obviously focused on the irrelevant quotes of a
16 year old, while disregarding the fact that Mumia had grown
into manhood without a single arrest or conviction on his record,
with a college education, a family and the abiding respect and
admiration of professional journalists and the community.
     The appeal which followed was no less irregular. A year
passed before the Judge got around to formally pronouncing the
sentence of death. Mumia's first assigned appellate attorney did
nothing for an additional year and had to be removed from the
case by the appellate court. His replacement attorney took a year
to file the appeal. Part of the appeal was an affidavit from
Mumia's trial attorney testifying to the number of African
Americans who had been removed from the jury. Due to the passage
of time, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court disregarded the
affidavit, alleging, without support in the record, that his
memory had faded in the interim. All relief was denied. Just four
justices, the minimum required, signed the court's opinion.
     Mumia fared no better with the U.S. Supreme Court. It
refused to even consider his appeal. However, that same year it
accepted and decided favourably, a case in which a member of the
Aryan Brotherhood complained that the prosecution had improperly
used the fact that his political association against him in the
penalty phase of the trial. Ruling that the First Amendment to
the Constitution bars such evidence, the court reversed his death
sentence. Mumia's petition for similar relief was denied.