MUMIA Action Alert! 10 Nov 2000
From: Sis. Leslie Jones - 11/10/00 ona move!
peace everyone.......
please help spread the word.....
As the nation waits to see which EXECUTIONER goes to the White House, we must continue to MOBILIZE around the AMICUS BRIEFS filed in Mumia's case before Federal District Court Judge Yohn. This system relies on going UNCHALLENGED. It has been said that Yohn's decision denying the briefs cannot be questioned. Yohn's decision MUST be questioned because Mumia's life depends on it, AND because, in rejecting the biefs, Yohn EXCEEDED the scope of his authority as a judge.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2000, two of the Amici whose amicus briefs Yohn denied, For Chicano/Chicana Studies Foundation and Twenty-Two Members of the British Parliament, filed a petition for Writ of Mandamus in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. If granted, the Writ of Mandamus will order Yohn to READ the amicus briefs submitted by these two Amici BEFORE deciding whether or not they are "necessary and helpful" to THE COURT in deciding Mumia's petition for habeas relief.
While Yohn does have the "discretion," or ability, to deny amicus briefs filed in cases before him, his authority to do so IS NOT without limits. The law allows for challenges of judicial decisions where the judge ABUSES his/her "discretion." In Mumia's case, Yohn EXCEEDED his authority to deny the four amicus briefs submitted on Mumia's behalf. In his own order, Yohn says that he is not denying the briefs on their "merits"--meaning that he is not disputing what the briefs say because he has NOT read them! Rather Yohn denied the briefs because they were "unnecessary and unhelpful," due to the amount of paper involved and the "detrimental delay" it would cause Mumia--a man who has been on death row for nineteen years. (See NHH #2).
But by EXCEEDING the scope of his authority, by UNLAWFULLY denying the amicus briefs, what Yohn has done, in effect, is to create MORE paper and MORE delay, because the Writ of Mandamus (of sizeable length) was filed with over 100 notices of joinder (3 pages each), and requires that a higher court, the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals, get involved. Did I mention that the federal court rules require 11 copies of everything that gets filed? Talk about paper!
Finally, we must also EXPOSE Yohn's attempts to DIVIDE us. In his order denying the amicus briefs, Yohn repeatedly notes that Mumia is "adequately represented" by "privately-retained counsel of his choice" who are very familiar with Mumia's case, and that the Amici do not suggest, in their briefs, that Mumia's attorneys are inadequate. Why is this divisive on Yohn's part? Because the purpose of an amicus brief is to AID the COURT, NOT to criticize Mumia's counsel. Yohn also points to the notoriety of Mumia'a case as a reason NOT to accept the briefs because of the ever-worry of a paper monsoon. We are ALL fully aware that it has been the work of THE PEOPLE who have kept Mumia alive and has created an international movement to abolish the death penalty. How exactly can we now be blamed for the UNLAWFUL EXCLUSION of these amicus briefs for a job well done? And let's not forget that amicus briefs only really ever get filed and ACCEPTED in cases where there is great public concern over the outcome of the case.
Is this the best that Yohn could do?
This system is crumbling.... if the current situation in electoral politics was not already enough to convince you!
In the event you cannot attend the legal update TONIGHT in nyc as listed below, "Necessary & Helpful" Hint #3 (NHH #3) follows the legal update announcement...
Amici Curiae Briefs DENIED in Mumia's Case Learn about Mumia's overall legal situation, where it stands now, and the amicus briefs Judge Yohn unlawfully denied!
Friday, November 10, 2000 - 6:30 PM Martin Luther King Auditorium, New York City 310 W. 43rd Street @ 9th Avenue (take A,C,E to 42nd Street)
Speakers: Marlene Kamish, Esq., Co-author, Chicana/Chicano Fdn. Amicus Brief Eliot Grossman, Esq., Co-author, Chicana/Chicano Fdn. Amicus Brief Dan Williams, Esq., Long-time member of Mumia's legal team Pam Africa, Int'l Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu Jamal Youth Speakers: Rachel Laforest, SLAM; Refuse and Resist!; Campaign to End the Death Penalty Ray Laforest, DC 1707, AFSCME Suheir, Palestinian Poet Seeds of Wisdom, youth rap group from MOVE MC's: Safiya Bukhari and King Downing, Esq.
For more info call 212-330-8029 To download flyer go to: www.freemumia.com/upcomingevents
Fior Cruz' Fabulous Rice & Beans and more available for sale, come & eat (6 - 6:50pm)!
"Necessary & Helpful" Hint #3 (taken from the For Chicana/Chicano Studies Foundation Amicus Brief)
According to the United States Supreme Court, an attorney should NOT be forced upon a defendant who wants to represent himself, because to do otherwise "can only lead [the defendant] to believe that the law contrives against him." Faretta v. California, 422, U.S. 806, 834 (1975). The "contrivance" the United States Supreme Court warns about in Faretta is exactly what occurred in Mumia's case. On June 18, 1982, not only did court-imposed defense attorney Anthony Jackson contrive against Mumia, so too did Sabo and prosecutor Joseph McGill. How?
The day after Sabo UNCONSTITUTIONALLY revoked Mumia's pro se status (his right to represent himself, acting as his own attorney), two conferences were held between Sabo, Jackson, and McGill in Mumia's ABSENCE. Only one of these two "meetings" was on the record. (see NHH #2)
During the conference which was recorded, apparently Jackson took issue with what he perceived to be a conflict of interest--his duties as an officer of the court, and his duties to Mumia as his court-appointed counsel. Under the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC)--which are supposed to represent the ethical and professional guidelines for lawyers--a lawyer has a two-fold duty: (1) to zealously represent his/her client, while (2) maintaining his/her responsibilities to be forthright and honest/sincere with the court.
According to Jackson, McDermott of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court instructed him to represent Mumia's interest to the best of his abilities, while Mumia had instructed Jackson to NEITHER examine any witnesses, nor to participate in the trial itself. (6/18/92 Tr. 2.5)
So what did Jackson do to resolve what he perceived to be an ethical and professional dilemma? He VIOLATED MRPC Rule 1.16 by REVEALING Mumia's TRIAL STRATEGY to Sabo and McGill--the very "organ[s] of the State" that the United States Supreme Court said in Faretta VIOLATES a defendant's Sixth Amendment constitutional right to self-representation. This is even more of a problem because in the law there is supposed to be such a thing as attorney-client privilege. An attorney CANNOT reveal confidential communications relayed to him/her WITHOUT the client's consent, absent a few exceptions that did not apply in Mumia's case. The CLIENT'S consent is mandatory because the client, NOT the attorney, is the "holder" of this privilege.
So not only do we have CONTRIVANCE between these otherwise adversarial parties in a meeting which UNCONSTITUTIONALLY EXCLUDED Mumia, where Sabo, McGill, and Jackson sat around and discussed what many would perceive to be Mumia's private business--his trial strategy--Jackson, by VOLUNTARILY revealing confidential communications between Mumia and himself, created a scenario that mirrors the situation Faretta was decided to eliminate.
Jackson neither followed McDermott's alleged instructions (see NHH #2)--since he collaborated with the state in deciding how to represent Mumia--nor did he follow Mumia's instructions. He followed the instructions of Sabo and McGill.
Mumia needs us to take IMMEDIATE ACTION on the denial of the AMICUS BRIEFS filed in his case! As the unlawful denial of the amicus briefs EXPOSES, the courts CANNOT be trusted when it comes to Mumia! We must MAKE them do what is right!
Reach out to EVERYONE! Just as we have educated our communities about Mumia's case and prepared ourselves to be in Philadelphia for Mumia's day in federal court, we MUST EDUCATE ourselves and our communities with the LIFE-SAVING information contained in those amicus briefs!
This is Mumia's LAST CHANCE in the court system. If the information contained in those briefs was not critical to Mumia's case this government would not have denied them! We CANNOT trust Yohn to do what is right!
Use the information in those briefs to create flyers, write newspaper articles and editorials, make stickers for bumpers and subway walls! Wheat-paste and poster these words EVERYWHERE! Incorporate the text of the briefs in your lyrics, your performance art, and your critical essays. Organize a LEGAL UPDATE for your community and invite the authors of the amicus briefs.
Use this information in whatever way you can to show the PEOPLE that, based on the violation of Mumia's constitutional rights by Sabo, District Attorney McGill, and court-appointed defense attorney Anthony Jackson, NOT that Mumia did not have a fair trial, BUT that in 1982--when faced with life or death for a crime he did not commit--Mumia had NO TRIAL!
take care & stay on the move.......
FREE MUMIA! FREE THE MOVE 9! FREE LEONARD PELTIER! FREE ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS! LONG LIVE JOHN AFRICA! LONG LIVE REVOLUTION!
Back to: Political Prisoners/ Mumia Reports/Press
Back to: Political Prisoners/Mumia Action Alerts
