JUDGE REJECTS LEGAL BRIEFS FOR ABU-JAMAL
By Betsey Piette, Philadelphia
12 Sep 2000
In an unprecedented decision, Federal District Judge William H. Yohn refused to accept four amicus briefs filed in support of death-row political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal. Amicus briefs are legal arguments submitted to the court by groups that are not a party to the case but have an interest in its outcome.
The briefs detail legal issues that are crucial to Abu- Jamal's pending petition for a federal review of his case. They show why he should be released or at least granted a new trial.
Yohn is expected to call a hearing in Philadelphia sometime this fall to determine whether he will hear new evidence from the defense. Around the country, Abu-Jamal's supporters are gearing up for a mass protest outside the court when that date is set.
The four amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs were filed this year as part of Abu-Jamal's effort to overturn his 1982 conviction and death sentence. The Black journalist and his supporters contend that he was targeted and framed for the killing of a white Philadelphia cop because of his opposition to police brutality.
Most recently, on June 29, the Los Angeles-based Chicana/Chicano Studies Foundation filed a brief calling for reversal of the conviction based on Judge Albert Sabo's refusal to allow Abu-Jamal to represent himself.
The brief describes how Anthony Jackson, Abu-Jamal's court-appointed lawyer, conspired with Judge Sabo and prosecutor Joseph McGill to deny him his rights.
On June 27, an amicus brief was filed by 22 members of the British Parliament. Citing 30 U.S. federal cases, the brief criticized Sabo's refusal to let Abu-Jamal's adviser, John Africa, sit next to him during the trial.
Two other important briefs were filed earlier this year: one by the Pennsylvania chapters of the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union, and another by the National Lawyers Guild, National Conference of Black Lawyers and other progressive lawyers' groups.
'FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED'
In cases where the right to self-representation has been violated, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that the conviction must be reversed.
Both of the recent briefs, in Abu-Jamal's words, "found clear constitutional, judicial, prosecutorial and defense violations...The briefs are more than a procedural or case history. They are history lessons about fundamental human rights that were violated by the state with impunity."
Abu-Jamal urged supporters to read the briefs and "learn what it means to have a court-appointed lawyer who seems like a prosecutor and a judge who is one.
"Learn as I did what happened in back rooms when I wasn't there and no one cared. Learn how jurors are really chosen; how they are moved, replaced and imposed as foreman of a hanging jury. Without a doubt this happens every day in America, but you will rarely have a better opportunity to read a record such as this."
Amicus briefs are commonly filed in cases of broad public interest. Yet Yohn ruled on Aug. 7 that the briefs were "unnecessary and unhelpful."
Citing a legal precedent called Liberty Lincoln Mercury, Yohn said he was denying the amicus briefs because Abu-Jamal was already adequately represented.
However, that's not what the Liberty Lincoln Mercury decision says, according to Marlene Kamish, an attorney for the Chicana/Chicano Studies Foundation. It states that the amicus briefs may be denied only if it doesn't offer any assistance on a relevant issue and the petitioner is adequately represented.
Yohn refused to examine the briefs on their merits, breaking the first half of this court precedent.
'PEOPLE NEED TO LOOK AT THESE BRIEFS'
Yohn also stated that he was denying the amicus briefs out of fear that he would be buried under an avalanche of briefs because of the worldwide interest in the case.
The judge's decision is extraordinary because the extent of public interest is actually one of the determining factors that courts regularly use in considering whether amicus briefs would be beneficial. Abu-Jamal has worldwide support and public interest about his case is growing on every continent.
Yohn further claims that it is in Abu-Jamal's interest to deny the briefs because they might delay his hearing. But faced with a death sentence, a delay is hardly a primary source of concern for a petitioner in a capital punishment case.
"People need to be aware that Judge Yohn lied and manipulated the law in order to throw these briefs out," Pam Africa, leader of International Concerned Family & Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal, told Workers World. "It is urgent that people understand the conspiracy to kill Mumia that is going on here that is no different than what Sabo did.
"People need to look at these briefs and see what they are saying," Africa explained, "particularly about the side-bar discussion between Mumia's attorney Jackson, Sabo and the prosecutor, where it is clear that it was Jackson's idea to have Mumia thrown out of the courtroom."
The Chicana/Chicano Studies Foundation and the British Parliament members will appeal Yohn's decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in early September. Kamish said, "We are looking forward to the day when this innocent and courageous man, Mumia Abu-Jamal, will be freed."
All four amicus briefs are available at the International Concerned Family & Friends Web site, www.mumia.org . For information on protests at the upcoming hearing in Philadelphia, visit www.mumia2000.org .
*****
International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, Room 206
New York, NY 10011
email: iacenter@iacenter.org
web: www.iacenter.org
CHECK OUT THE NEW SITE www.mumia2000.org
phone: 212 633-6646
fax: 212 633-2889
Back to: Political Prisoners/ Mumia Reports/Press
