ON LATEST COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: MUMIA ABU-JAMAL LEGAL UPDATE FROM LEAD COUNSEL ROBERT R. BRYAN: 4/11/2008

Dear Friends:

This Legal Update is made on behalf of my client, Mumia Abu-Jamal, who
remains on Pennsylvania’s death row. Many people have inquired as to our
reaction and position concerning recent legal developments, and what
will happen now. This should answer many of those questions and
alleviate some of the confusion.

_U.S.__ Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, __Philadelphia_ As
widely reported in the media, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued its
long-awaited decision on March 27, 2008. (/Abu-Jamal v. Horn/, Nos.
01-9014, 02-9001, 2008 WL 793877 (3^rd Cir. 2008).) Mumia and I had
legal conferences that day, and we have been in frequent contact since
including a death-row meeting earlier this week and a discussion this
evening. We view the opinion of the three-judge panel as a mixed bag
with some good, some very wrong, and a remarkable dissenting opinion by
a judge on racism that gives us great hope for eventual victory.

A new jury trial has been ordered by the federal court on the question
of whether Mumia should be sentenced to life or death, due to the trial
judge’s unconstitutional and misleading instructions to the jury. It is
a positive step in any capital case when a court finds that the death
penalty was wrongfully imposed. Mumia is pleased with this part of the
ruling because it could help others on death rows across the U.S. The
prosecution now has various options including seeking reconsideration by
the federal court and petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to have the
death sentence remain intact.

It was a great disappointment that the federal court rejected our quest
for a reversal of the conviction and a new trial on the question of
guilt and innocence. To say that Mumia and I are unhappy with this would
be an understatement, for the decision flies in the face of the United
States Constitution and case precedent. The facts are that the
prosecutor did engage in racism during jury selection, and made a false
and misleading argument to the jury which turned the concept of
reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence on its head. The trial
judge was biased and bigoted, even stating in reference to my client
that he was “going to help'em fry the nigger.” Unfortunately the court
used against Mumia the failings of the lawyers who represented him in
state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus proceedings. Their
mistakes should not serve as an excuse to rationalize away the
fundamental constitutional violations that occurred in this case.

The silver lining of this ruling is that Judge Thomas L. Ambro wrote a
41-page dissent on the racism-in-jury-selection issue. This brilliant
opinion began:

Excluding even a single person from a jury because of race violates
the Equal Protection Clause of our Constitution. /See //Batson v.
//Kentucky//,/ 476 U.S. 79, 84-86, 99 n. 22, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90
L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). This simple justice principle was reaffirmed by
our Supreme Court this past week. /Snyder v. //Louisiana//,/ No.
06-10119, 2008 WL 723750, at *4 (Mar. 19, 2008).

Justice Ambro concluded that everyone

is entitled to a fair and impartial trial by a jury of his or her
peers. As /Batson/ reminds us, “[t]he core guarantee of equal
protection, ensuring citizens that their State will not discriminate
on account of race, would be meaningless were we to approve the
exclusion of jurors on the basis of . . . race.” /Id./ at 97-98. I
fear today that we weaken the effect of /Batson/ by imposing a
contemporaneous objection requirement where none was previously
present in our Court's jurisprudence and by raising the low bar for
a /prima facie/ case of discrimination in jury selection to a height
unattainable if enough time has passed such that original jury
records are not available. In so holding, we do a disservice to
/Batson./ I respectfully dissent.

Shortly before the decision, we brought the /Snyder /decision to the
attention of the federal court in a Notice of Supplemental Authority. I
wrote on March 23, 2008:

In */Snyder v. Louisiana/**, ___ U.S. ___**, **2008 WL 723750 (Mar.
19, 2008)**, *the judgment of the Louisiana Supreme Court was
reversed with the United States Supreme Court holding that the trial
court should have disallowed a peremptory challenge based upon race
because it violated /Batson v. Kentucky/, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
Justice Alito, in writing for the majority, reaffirmed that evidence
of discriminatory intent should be taken from a broad array of
factors. Citing /Miller-El v. Dretke/, 545 U.S. 231, 239 (2005), he
pointed out that “in considering a /Batson/ objection, or in
reviewing a ruling claimed to be /Batson/ error, all of the
circumstances that bear upon the issue of racial animosity must be
consulted . . .” /Snyder /underscores the point made by Appellee and
Cross-Appellant, Mr. Abu-Jamal, urged in oral argument on May 17,
2007, and in briefing, that the existence of a prima facie /Batson/
claim depends upon, /inter alia, /the connection between race and
the pattern of strikes, the nature of the case, comments made during
jury selection, and the time and place of the trial. Brief of
Appellee and Cross-Appellant, Mumia Abu-Jamal, July 26, 2006, at
17-46; Fourth-Step Reply Brief of Appellee and Cross-Appellant,
Mumia Abu-Jamal, Oct. 23, 2006, at 11-58.

The high court also reiterated that “the Constitution forbids
striking even a single prospective juror for a discriminatory
purpose.” */Snyder v. Louisiana/**, 2008 WL 723750** at *4 (quoting
*/United States v. Vasquez-Lopez,/ 22 F.3d 900, 902 (C.A.9 1994)*).
This too was pointed out in oral argument and briefing. *Brief of
Appellee and Cross-Appellant, Mumia Abu-Jamal, /supra/, at 41-42.
Finally, the case recognized that an "inference of discriminatory
intent" is supported when the prosecution's proffered reasons for
striking African Americans do not apply even-handedly to non-African
Americans. */Snyder v. /**/Louisiana/**, 2008 WL 723750** at *8.
Again, this point was presented in oral argument and our briefing.
*/See, e.g./, Brief of Appellee and Cross-Appellant, Mumia
Abu-Jamal, /supra/, at 32-36.

_The "Mumia Exception_" The latest denial of a new trial to Mumia has
been referred to as part of the “Mumia Exception.” David Lindorff, a
noted investigative journalist and author of /Killing Time: An
Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal/, wrote in the
Philadelphia Inquirer on April 2, 2008, that the “courts have altered
the rules just to keep Abu-Jamal on course for death.” What Professor
Linn Washington earlier dubbed the “Mumia Exception”, could not have
been more on target.

_Reaction of the District Attorney of __Philadelphia_ The District
Attorney appeared livid that the federal court had ordered a new
penalty-phase jury trial. At a press conference on March 27, 2008, the
day of the decision, she vowed that her office will continue pursuing
the execution of my client. Sadly, the prosecution could not resist
distorting the truth as it has from the outset over a quarter of a
century ago. The DA falsely said that the court “finally decided in its
wisdom . . . that Mr. Jamal was guilty.” That is not what the U.S. Court
of Appeals found and is nonsense; there was no retrial or verdict. That
is not what appellate courts do. Rather, the federal decision dealt with
issues of law and procedure. The prosecution’s suggestion that my client
was found “guilty” of anything on appeal is absurd and patently false.

_Where we go from here _ The dissent of Justice Ambro is a light in the
darkness, a roadmap as to where we go from here. On April 9, 2008, the
U.S. Court of Appeals granted my 45-day Motion for Extension of Time To
File Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing /En Banc/. The rehearing
petition, now due on May 27, 2008, will be seeking review of the case by
all the judges in the Third Circuit. The basis will be that “the panel
decision conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme Court or
of the court to which the petition is addressed and consideration of the
full court is therefore necessary to secure uniformity of the court’s
decisions,” and, “the proceeding involves one or more questions of
exceptional importance”. (Fed. R. App. P. 35(b)(1).) If unsuccessful, we
will proceed to the Supreme Court.

_Conclusion_ The issues in this case concern the right to a fair trial,
the ongoing struggle against the death penalty, and the political
repression of a courageous author and journalist. Based upon three
decades of successfully litigating murder cases involving the death
penalty, I am convinced that we can win an acquittal upon a new jury
trial. My goal is his acquittal upon retrial. I intend to see Mumia go
home to his family. I will not ret until that occurs.

Mumia is still on death row and in great danger. His life is hanging in
the balance. We must remember that racism, fraud, politics, and
unfairness are threads that have run through this case since the
beginning. As reflected by the comments at its recent press conference,
the prosecution has learned little from its shameful behavior in this
case. The misconduct continues, and the prosecutorial wrongs of the past
are thus visited on the present.

Finally, we are grateful for all those who do so much to bring the
injustice in this case to public attention, whether it be through
demonstrations, writing to newspapers, meetings, or circulating
information on the Internet. This is all important. We are of one voice
in this campaign for justice: Free Mumia!

Yours very truly,

Robert R. Bryan

Law Offices of Robert R. Bryan

2088 Union Street, Suite 4

San Francisco, California 94123-4117

Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal