Leading UK lawyers petition US Court; 7/20 filing in U.S. Court of Appeals

Dear Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal,

Please see the message below from Mumia's lead attorney, Robert Bryan
regarding the *crucial 7/20 filing* in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, Philadelphia. Also, a pdf file of the Brief of Appellee and
Cross Appellant can be downloaded: http://freemumia.org/news.html

Please also see an important press release below from the British group,
Legal Action for Women. It includes a major statement from a large group of
prominent British attorneys and much valuable information about Mumia's
case, including background material and legal arguments.

It is part of the national and worldwide campaign to win the freedom of
Mumia as his case enters the final stagtes of the legal battle.

The Mobe has set Sunday, September 17, 8 PM as the date for a major
fund-raising concert at the Great American Music Hall in San Francisco.
Save the date. We expect a number of very prominent performers to be with
us. Additional information to follow.

Contributions made payable to the MOBILIZATION TO FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL are
urgently requested. Send your check immediately to:

The Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal
298 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94103


STOP THE EXECUTION - MUMIA IS INNOCENT - FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL!


In solidarity and for Mumia's freedom,

Laura Herrera and Jeff Mackler, Co-coordinators
The Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal
298 Valencia St., San Francisco, CA 94103, 415-255-1085
alerts [at] freemumia.org http://freemumia.org

----------------------------------------------------------



7/23 - From Robert Bryan:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Friends: On July 20, 2006 we filed the Brief of Appellee and Cross
Appellant, Mumia Abu-Jamal, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, Philadelphia. (Abu-Jamal v. Horn, U.S. Ct. of Appeals Nos.
01-9014, 02-9001.) It is attached. This brief is of great significance
concerning my client's right to a fair trial, due process of law, not to be
subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and equal protection of the law,
guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
U.S. Constitution. The issues the court is hearing are:

Claim 14 Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied the right to due process of
law and a fair trial because of the prosecutor's 'appeal-after-appeal'
argument which encouraged the jury to disregard the presumption of
innocence and reasonable doubt, and err on the side of guilt.

Claim 16 Whether the prosecution's exclusion of African Americans from
sitting on the jury violated Mr. Abu-Jamal's rights to due process and
equal protection of the law, and contravened Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S.
79 (1986).

Claim 25 Whether the verdict form and jury instructions that resulted
in the death penalty deprived Mr. Abu-Jamal of the right to due process of
law, equal protection of the law, and not to be subjected to cruel and
unusual punishment, and violated Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988),
since the judge precluded the jurors from considering any mitigating
evidence unless they all agreed on the existence of a particular
circumstance.

Claim 29 Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied due process and equal
protection of the law during post-conviction hearings as the result of the
bias and racism of Judge Albert F. Sabo which included the comment that he
was "going to help'em fry the n-gger." [spelling changed to avoid email
profanity filters]

The National Lawyers Guild, and, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational
Fund, Inc., will be filing separate amicus curiae (friend of the court)
briefs in the near future. This should strengthen our quest to see justice
done.

It is a is a remarkable accomplishment that the court is hearing issues
that go to the very essence of Mr. Abu-Jamal's right to a fair trial. This
is the first time that any court has made a ruling that could lead to a
new trial and freedom. Nevertheless, he remains on Pennsylvania's death row
and in great danger.

Mr. Abu-Jamal, the "voice of the voiceless," is a powerful symbol in the
international campaign against the death penalty and for human rights. The
goal of Professor Judith L. Ritter, associate counsel, and I is to see that
the many wrongs which have occurred in this case are righted and that this
brave man is freed.

Your support and concern is appreciated.

With best wishes,

Robert R. Bryan
============
Law Offices of Robert R. Bryan
2088 Union Street, Suite 4
San Francisco, California 94123
Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal

----------------------------------------------------------



7/19 - From Legal Action for Women, UK:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PRESS RELEASE. . . PRESS RELEASE. . . PRESS RELEASE. . .

For more information contact Legal Action for Women 020 7482 2496 or 07956
316 899

PRESS CONFERENCE, 19 JULY, 6.30pm
GARDEN COURT CHAMBERS, 57-60 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London, WC2A 3LS

LEADING UK LAWYERS PETITION US APPEAL COURT RE: RACISM IN CASE OF DEATH ROW
JOURNALIST


Over 130 of the UK's most distinguished lawyers are signatories to a
letter initiated by Ian Macdonald QC and Legal Action for Women, to the US
court of appeal. The letter highlights the racism in the original trial
and subsequent hearings of Mr Mumia Abu-Jamal, an award winning journalist.
After 24 years on Pennsylvania's death row, Mr Abu-Jamal, convicted in 1982
of killing a policeman, has been granted an appeal which if successful
could result in a new trial. This would be the first time his side of the
case against conviction would be heard by a jury.

The signatories include many who are Queen's Counsel; leading criminal
trial lawyers, in some cases household names such as Michael Mansfield QC,
Helena Kennedy QC, Lord Gifford QC, Gareth Peirce, Clive Stafford Smith
and Geoffrey Bindman; those with experience of doing appeals in the Privy
Council in death penalty cases from the Caribbean; many experienced in race
and gender discrimination cases; and a professor of law. On 20 July,
Robert R. Bryan, lead counsel for Mr Abu-Jamal, will submit opening briefs
for the appeal on issues such as prosecutorial use of racism in jury
selection and the death penalty.

Ian Macdonald QC, criminal trial lawyer and leading authority in the UK on
anti-racism and immigration law, says:

"This is a most unusual case: although it is taking place in a United
States court, there is enormous concern among the legal profession here at
the strikingly unfair trial that took place. As members of this
distinguished profession, which claims to work for justice, we feel obliged
to register our grave concern. There is no doubt that what happens in US
courts affects the legal climate in the UK.

"Drawing on the common legal heritage between the UK and the US which,
since the time of Magna Carta in 1215, has given pride of place to common
notions of due process and a fair trial to justify their intervention, the
letter lists some of the more noteworthy outrages including: the
prosecution's systematic removal of Black people from the jury and the
blatant and documented racist bias of the trial judge.

"Mr Abu-Jamal's case is a key test of judicial murder. Thousands of lives
depend on the outcome, starting with the 3370 people on death row who are
disproportionately Black people and other people of colour.* Mr Abu-Jamal
had no criminal convictions before his arrest. The determination of the
police, prosecution and judge to deny him a fair trial and execute him
strongly suggests that this outstanding campaigning journalist is being
tried for his track record of exposing racism, police brutality and
corruption in Philadelphia, and for the opposition to US government
policies and practices that his journalism continues to express. What
does it mean if political opposition within the superpower can be disposed
of in this anti-democratic way? When the standard of justice there is
allowed to fall, the rest of the world is inevitably influenced."

The lawyers entreat the US courts to make right the actions of Judge Sabo,
a racist hanging judge, lest he be taken as the face of US justice.

Legal Action for Women comments:

"We have supported Mr Abu-Jamal’s fight for a new trial for many years
and last October had the first opportunity to visit him in prison. With
Ian Macdonald we initiated this letter to help ensure that this remarkable
man, who is in the greatest danger of judicial murder, and whose case
against conviction has never been heard by a jury, gets what we are all
entitled to: a fair trial."

* NAACP-LDF Death Row USA (April 1 2006)

Background

Mumia Abu-Jamal is an award-winning journalist who, in the years leading up
to his December 9, 1981, arrest, had actively exposed police corruption,
racism, and violence against Black people and other people of colour.
Despite severe restrictions on contact with the outside, including how much
written material he is allowed, he continues his work from inside prison,
recording weekly Dispatches From Death Row, incisive radio commentaries,
which goes out on 100 stations. He also writes for other publications. He
has written five books while in prison including: Live From Death Row and
most recently We Want Freedom: a Life in the Black Panther Party.

The US government's determination to kill Mr Abu-Jamal has to be seen in
the context of its treatment of other journalists, many of whom have been
killed for trying to speak the truth. His work as a jailhouse lawyer’,
regularly providing legal advice to other prisoners, led to an honorary
position with the prestigious National Lawyers Guild in the US. His
Jailhouse Lawyers will soon be finalised and published.

Mumia Abu-Jamal's fight for a fair trial has won the support of tens of
thousands of people around the world including Archbishop Desmond Tutu,
Nelson Mandela, the European Parliament, Alice Walker, Paul Newman, Sister
Helen Prejean, Danny Glover, Rage Against The Machine, the Detroit and San
Francisco City Councils, Amnesty International, and many others. Various
cities including Paris, have bestowed on him honorary citizenship.

Accusations aimed at discrediting Mr Abu-Jamal, for example that he has
never given an account of what happened on that night, ignore the evidence
that he was shot in the chest and rendered unconscious shortly after
approaching the scene and consequently knows nothing of what happened there.

Mumia Abu-Jamal comments:

"I remain innocent. A court cannot make an innocent man guilty. Any ruling
founded on injustice is not justice."

Robert R. Bryan, lead counsel comments:

"Mumia's case is now moving forward and may proceed at great speed. The
authorities want to silence his voice and pen. In over three decades of
litigating death-penalty cases, I have not seen one in which the
government wants so badly to kill a client."


Garden Court Chambers
57-60 Lincoln's Inn Fields
London, WC2A 3LS

Learned Colleagues:

We write about the case of Mr Mumia Abu-Jamal, an award-winning journalist
who has been on Pennsylvania's death row for nearly a quarter of a century,
and who was recently granted a review by the United States Court of
Appeals, Philadelphia.

The review was granted by the Court on three issues, each clearly of
enormous constitutional importance.

This is of great interest to us here in the UK because:

(i) we share a common legal heritage which, since the
time of Magna Carta in 1215, has given pride of place to common notions of
due process and a fair trial;

(ii) these common notions guarantee all, citizen or alien,
who come before our courts on serious criminal charges a trial by a jury of
their peers and a judge who is both independent and unbiased.

Where our systems at present part company is over the question of the death
penalty. The United Kingdom ended the death penalty for murder with the
Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act in 1965. Since that time the death
penalty has been abolished or suspended in all countries in the European
Union and all member countries of the Council of Europe, including the
former Soviet Union.

In those parts of the Caribbean where the death penalty still operates, it
has been held by the Privy Council, the supreme court of the British
Commonwealth, that to keep a person on death row for more than five years
is inhuman and degrading treatment, and therefore unconstitutional.

Furthermore, more recently, the Privy Council has ruled that the mandatory
requirement to impose a death penalty for murder is incompatible with the
right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment
enshrined in the constitutions of the Eastern Caribbean, Jamaica and the
Bahamas (see The Queen v Reyes (2002) 2 WLR 1034; The Queen v Lambert
Watson (2005) 1 AC 472: (2004) 3 WLR 841; The Queen V Bowe and Davis
[2006] UKPC 10).

In the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights it has been
held that extraditing a person to face the death row phenomenon amounts to
inhuman and degrading treatment and is a breach of Article 3 of the
European Convention of Human Rights (Soering v United Kingdom 1989 11 EHRR
439).

In our own legal developments, the greatest factors leading to abolition were:

(i) the discovery that innocent people had been
convicted and executed, and

(ii) a series of unsafe convictions where trials were
flawed by unfairness, bias or the withholding of important evidence by the
law enforcement agencies.

As regards bias, the requirement for trial by an ‘impartial tribunal’
embodies the protection against actual and presumed bias, and applies
equally to the judge and to the jury. In Porter v Magill (2002) AC 357, the
House of Lords set out the test which applies in British courts. The court
should first ascertain all the relevant circumstances, and then ask whether
those circumstances would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to
conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.

So the reasons why we have become particularly interested in the review of
Mr Abu-Jamal’s conviction and sentence are:

(i) because of the serious and disturbing allegations
that the fairness of Mr Abu-Jamal’s trial was hopelessly compromised by
racism; and

(ii) because Mr Abu-Jamal has become uniquely identified
with the movement against the death penalty which is growing in every
country, not least in the US itself, where it is practised most. Thus
interest in his case and concern for him transcend national boundaries.

The new development in Mr Abu-Jamal's case is that for the first time in
25 years a court has rendered a decision which could eventually result in
this admirable individual receiving a new and fairer trial, and his likely
freedom.

We write as lawyers practising in the UK who, sharing a common legal
heritage with our counterparts in the USA, are disturbed by the serious
allegations that this conviction is fatally flawed by the racism which
seems to have permeated the case since the night of Mr Abu-Jamal's arrest
in 1981.

One significant issue before the court in this latest review is whether
the prosecution’s systematic removal of Black people from the jury
undermined the fairness of the entire judicial process. The prosecution
used peremptory challenges to remove qualified people whose only
difference from other prospective jurors was the colour of their skin.
This appears to have been common practice especially for the prosecutor in
this case. [1] That would never be allowed in our jurisdiction, and, as you
know, the US Supreme Court held some years ago that such a practice is
unfair. It is this precedent that is being relied on to mount a challenge
in Mr Abu-Jamal’s case.

We are aware, however, that since that ruling, in similar cases, lower
courts have rationalised and excused racist manipulation of jury selection
by the prosecution, ultimately resulting in the execution of the victim of
this racism. We are concerned that in this case the law as laid out by
the US Supreme Court will not be breached again by the racism of a lower
court.

Another issue which has been accepted for federal review involved the
prejudicial conduct at the post-conviction hearing of the trial judge,
Judge Albert Sabo, now deceased. In granting a review of this judge’s
behaviour, the Federal Court has clearly shown proper concern about the
blatant bias and racist conduct of the trial judge which permeated Mr
Abu-Jamal’s trial.

It is widely understood in our profession that the racism of Judge Sabo
was not confined to the occasion of the post-conviction hearing or indeed
just to this trial, but that he had a reputation for bias and partiality,
and was responsible for putting more people on death row than any other
judge in the United States. It is said that it is no accident that
nearly all of those prisoners were Black. Just as we object if the 17th
century hanging judge, Judge Jeffries, is taken to be the face of British
justice, no-one in your country would want Judge Sabo to be taken as the
face of US justice.

We understand that Mr Robert R Bryan, Mr Abu-Jamal’s lead counsel, has
interviewed numerous people who were present not only at the 1982 trial
but also at the subsequent evidentiary hearing in 1995, who all witnessed
the racist conduct of the judge, which was both overt and subtle. Judge
Sabo discriminated against Mr Abu-Jamal in ways that were clearly related
to his race and gave vent to expressions of racist political beliefs.

The most blatant example was the judge’s comment, overheard by a
stenographer, that he was going to help the prosecution "fry the n****r."
[The "N" word was spelled out in the original. It is omitted here to
minimize the rejections generated by some computer programs due to
profanity. JM]

In addition, Mr Abu-Jamal repeatedly insisted on his right to represent
himself, since the court-appointed attorney was not prepared and had
conducted very little in the way of an investigation. Judge Sabo denied the
defendant this basic right. When Mr Abu-Jamal protested, he was removed
from the courtroom. As a result Mr Abu-Jamal was not present during a
large portion of his own trial and was thus essentially tried in absentia.

It seems to us to be a matter of some significance that Mr Abu-Jamal was
denied the right of self-representation at the very moment in the trial
when he was questioning prospective jurors. The outcome is that the
prosecution were able to remove Black jurors, while Mr Abu-Jamal was denied
the right to question key jurors.

Judge Sabo also allowed the prosecution to argue that Mr Abu-Jamal had been
a member of the Black Panther Party[2] as if that was a crime and justified
the death penalty. Witnesses also confirm that he showed favouritism
towards white witnesses and jurors, allowing one white witness personal
time off but denying the same request to a Black juror, leading to this
juror leaving the jury. Witnesses reveal that the judge expressed his
displeasure with those who were people of colour by the rolling of his eyes
and in voice inflection, which was bound to have a terrible impact upon
the jurors.

Other witnesses interviewed by Mr Bryan confirm that the treatment of Mr
Abu-Jamal by the police was markedly racist. The police were heard by more
than one witness to have referred to Mr Abu-Jamal as "n-gger" [spelling
changed to avoid email profanity filters] and after his arrest they ground
his head into a post even though he was badly wounded, having been shot in
the chest. [3] The police also made a blatant and clear demonstration to
the jury of their support for a conviction by packing the court with
uniformed police officers. We are not unfamiliar with either such police
racism or the kind of court tactics used here – similar behaviour led to
some of the most notorious miscarriages of justice in the UK, where
convictions were often not overturned by the Court of Appeal until many
years later.

We know these issues are to be reviewed in this new appeal, which gives
the courts a last chance to right these wrongs. Now that we are in the
21st century, we hope and trust that the court and the public in the United
States are aware of the strong concern outside of the US that this racism
is dealt with in the strongest and clearest terms. This is especially
urgent in the light of the Katrina hurricane disaster in New Orleans, when
television viewers in every country of the world witnessed an unparalleled
display of racism on a massive scale, allowed (some would say enabled) by
the US government.

You will want to know that the signatories to this letter have worked for
many years in the judicial system, that all have worked in cases which
challenged various forms of racism, and that some of the signatories are
people of colour. We are all profoundly aware of the impact on our
personal and professional lives, and on the entire society, of racism in
the US judicial system given the influence the United States exercises in
every country.

We are also aware that the outcome of this appeal will have a great impact
on all people of colour who are at present facing the judicial system;
their cases will be influenced, possibly even determined, by whatever legal
but also moral precedents are set in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal.

However, our general concerns do not override our particular worries for
this gifted individual who has shown both before and since his
incarceration that he is dedicated to the work of changing our world for
the betterment of all.

We ask that you consider most carefully the issue of racism in this
particular case in the light of the above concerns.

Yours sincerely,

Patrick Allen, Hodge, Jones & Allen
Tamsin Allen, Bindman & Partners
Isis Amlak, Kensington & Chelsea Advocacy Alliance
Allison Bailey, Garden Court Chambers
Tim Barnden, Wesley Gryk Solicitors
Sophia Barrett, Christian Khan Solicitors
Geoffrey Bindman, Bindman & Partners
Gilbert Blades, Wilkin Chapman Solicitors
Henry Blaxland QC, Garden Court Chambers
Ruth Brander, Doughty Street Chambers
Nick Brown, Doughty Street Chambers
Shereener Browne, Garden Court Chambers
Ruth Bundey, Harrison Bundey Solicitors
Rachel Burley, Christian Khan Solicitors
Emily Burnham, Bail for Immigration Detainees
Brenda Campbell, Garden Court Chambers
Sophia Cannon, Tooks Chambers
Simon Canter, 8 King’s Bench Walk Chambers
Natasha Catterson, Fisher Meredith Solicitors
Raj Chada, Hodge Jones & Allen
Rebecca Chapman, Tooks Chambers
Hugo Charlton, 1 Grays Inn Sq. Chambers, Green Party Chair & Home Affairs
spokesperson
Mick Chatwin, Renaissance Chambers
Louise Christian, Christian Khan Solicitors
Kevin Cobham, Cobham Solicitors
Sue Conlon, Tyndallwoods Solicitors
Julie Corns, Fisher Meredith Solicitors
Madeleine Corr, Birnberg Peirce and Partners
Paddy Cosgrove QC, Broad Chare Chambers
Stephen Cottle, Garden Court Chambers
Helen Curtis, Garden Court Chambers
Owen Davies QC, Garden Court Chambers
Liz Davies, Garden Court Chambers
Martyn Day, Leigh Day and Co. Solicitors
Rachel Despicht, Birnberg Peirce and Partners
Stephen Dinkeldein, Fisher Meredith Solicitors
Laura Dubinsky, Doughty Street Chambers
John Finlay, Fisher Meredith Solicitors
Brendan Finucane, QC, 23 Essex Street Chambers
Edward Fitzgerald QC, Doughty Street Chambers
Matt Foot, Birnberg Peirce and Partners
Andrew Frederick, Christian Khan Solicitors
Danny Friedman, Matrix Chambers
Arantxa Gaba, Kensington Citizen’s Advice Bureau
Natalia Garcia, Tyndallwoods Solicitors
Alison Gerry, Doughty Street Chambers
Lord Anthony Gifford QC, 8 King’s Bench Walk Chambers
Jonathan Glasson, Doughty Street Chambers
Alex Goodman, Atlas Chambers
Christina Gordon, Tooks Chambers
Courtenay Griffiths QC, Garden Court Chambers
Wesley Gryk, Wesley Gryk Solicitors
John Halford, Bindman & Partners
Phil Haywood, Doughty Street Chambers
Richard Hermer, Doughty Street Chambers
Glen Hodgetts, Tooks Chambers
David Holland, Landmark Chambers
Michael House, Garden Court Chambers
Colin Hutchinson, Garden Court Chambers
Parvais Jabbar, Simons Muirhead & Burton Solicitors
Angela Jackman, Fisher Meredith Solicitors
Anne-Marie Jolly, Hodge Jones and Allen
Wayne Jordash, Doughty Street Chambers
Andrew Katzen, Hodge Jones & Allen
Helena Kennedy QC, Doughty Street Chambers
Judy Khan, Garden Court Chambers
Julia Krish, Garden Court Chambers
Robert Latham, Doughty Street Chambers
Saul Lehrfreund, Simons Muirhead & Burton Solicitors
Anya Lewis, Garden Court Chambers
Catrin Lewis, Garden Court Chambers
Fiona Lindsley, Hackney Community Law Centre Alastair Lyon, Birnberg
Peirce and Partners
Ian Macdonald QC, Garden Court Chambers
Alison Macdonald, Matrix Chambers
Daniel Machover, Hickman and Rose Solicitors
Jeannie Mackie, Doughty Street Chambers
Kam C. Mak, Marziano Khatry & Mak Solicitors
Pierre Makhlouf, Hackney Community Law Centre
Sajida Malik, Birnberg Peirce and Partners
Campbell Malone, Stephensons
Mike Mansfield QC, Tooks Court Chambers
Kate Maynard, Hickman and Rose Solicitors
Kathy Meade, Hackney Community Law Centre
Rajiv Menon, Garden Court Chambers
Keir Monteith, Garden Court Chambers
Peter Morris, Doughty Street Chambers
Anna Morven, Bail for Immigration Detainees
Aryeh Moss, Moss & Co. Solicitors
Narinder Moss, Moss & Co. Solicitors
Piers Mostyn, Tooks Chambers
Terry Munyard, Garden Court Chambers
Sonali Naik, Garden Court Chambers
Paul Nettleship, Sutovic & Hartigan
Catherine O’Donnell, Garden Court Chambers
Femi Omere, Garden Court Chambers
Tim Owen, QC, Matrix Chambers
Icah Peart QC, Garden Court Chambers
Gareth Peirce, Birnberg Peirce and Partners
Jackie Peirce, Glazer Delmar Solicitors
Martin Penrose, Southwark Law Centre
Anne-Marie Piper, Farrer & Co.
Alan Ponting, Asylum Adjudicator
Beatrice Prevatt, Garden Court Chambers
Prof. Richard Rawlings, London School of Economics
Paul Ridge, Bindman & Partners
Nicola Rogers, Garden Court Chambers
Nighat Sahi, Christian Khan Solicitors
Sadat Sayeed, Garden Court Chambers
Mike Schwarz, Bindman & Partners
Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, Scott-Moncrieff, Harbour & Sinclair
Smita Shah, Garden Court Chambers
Phil Shiner, Public Interest Lawyers
Maya Sikand, Garden Court Chambers
Stephen Simblet, Garden Court Chambers
Anne Singh, Christian Khan Solicitors
Jessica Skinns, Bindman & Partners
Abi Smith,Tooks Chambers
Julie Sohrah, Bindman & Partners
Hugh Southey, Tooks Chambers
David Spens QC, Garden Court Chambers
Clive Stafford-Smith, Reprieve
Alison Stanley, Bindman & Partners
Jovanka Savic, Sutoivic & Hartigan
Dawn Staple, Hodge, Jones & Allen
Keir Starmer QC, Doughty Street Chambers
Mark Stephens, Finer Stephens Innocent
Frances Swaine, Leigh, Day & Co. Solicitors
Mark Symes, Garden Court Chambers
Rajeev Thacker, Garden Court Chambers
Ronan Toal, Garden Court Chambers
Michael Turner QC, Garden Court Chambers
Pete Weatherby, Garden Court Chambers
James Wech, Liberty
Anesta Weekes QC, 23 Essex Street Chambers
Quincy Whitaker, Doughty Street Chambers
Marc Willers, Garden Court Chambers
Marcia Willis Stewart, Birnberg Peirce and Partners
Rebekkah Wilson, Tooks Court Chambers
Sarah Woodhouse, TRP Solicitors
Claire Wright, Fisher Meredith Solicitors
Eleanor Wright, Fisher Meredith Solicitors
Zubier Yazdani, Hodge, Jones & Allen
Hossein Zahir, Garden Court Chambers

Legal Action for Women, founded in 1982, is a grassroots anti-sexist,
anti-racist legal service for all women and their families. LAW combines
access to a network of sympathetic lawyers with experienced lay workers.
Its insistence that no case is “hopeless”, that something can always be
done, has won LAW recognition including from distinguished legal
professionals. LAW has helped prevent many injustices and set important
precedents including for the first private prosecution for rape in England.

Ian Macdonald QC is a criminal trial lawyer and a leading authority on
immigration law, and author of the standard text Macdonald's Immigration
Law and Practice used by immigration practitioners, officials,
adjudicators and judges. Head of Garden Court Chambers until 2003 and
known for notable cases such as the Mangrove Nine whose case against
conspiracy was fought and won in the context of massive community support,
and as author of the path-breaking report Murder in the Playground, an
Inquiry into Racial Violence in Manchester Schools, following the murder
of 13-year-old Ahmed Ullah by another pupil. He was leading counsel for
Duwayne Brooks, friend of Stephen Lawrence and key witness in the
government Inquiry into his racist murder.

Robert R Bryan became lead attorney for Mumia Abu-Jamal in 2003. He has
specialized in death-penalty litigation for three decades, and is lead
counsel in various murder cases pending at the federal and state level.
Notable cases include representing Anna Hauptmann, widow of Richard
Hauptmann executed in 1936 in New Jersey for the kidnap-murder of Charles
A. Lindbergh, Jr. and Jimmy Eagle indicted for the killing of two FBI
agents on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. He is legal commentator for
ABC television in San Francisco and lectures widely on the death penalty
and human rights in the US and Europe.

Some facts about Mr Abu-Jamal's 1982 trial

According to the medical examiner, the policeman was killed with a .44
calibre gun. Mr. Abu-Jamal's pistol, which he was licensed to carry as a
night-time taxi driver, was .38 calibre. The trial jury never heard about
this contradiction.

The police never tested Mr Abu-Jamal's gun to see if it had been recently
fired. They did not even examine his hands to see if he had fired a gun.

It was claimed at trial that Mr Abu-Jamal stated, at the hospital shortly
after the shooting, that he fired the fatal shots. Yet, that was
contradicted in a written police report by the officer who was with Mr
Abu-Jamal from the moment he was placed in the paddy wagon at the homicide
scene until he went into surgery for removal of the bullet lodged near his
spine. When asked about the long time spent guarding the defendant, the
police office reported: "The negro male made no comment." A week later he
was asked by the chief detective on the case if there was anything he
wished to add to his statement, to which the officer replied: "Nothing I
can think of now." He was hidden from the defense at the 1982 trial so did
not testify to contradict what other police witnesses claimed was said.
Incredibly, 13 years later the officer's memory "improved" and he claimed
to have heard Mr Abu-Jamal state while lying on the floor at the hospital:
"I shot him. I hope the m-therf-cker dies." The treating doctor said that
Mr Abu-Jamal was unconscious and said nothing. He reported that a nurse
found police with loaded guns pointed at the suspect as he lay virtually
lifeless in his hospital bed.

William Singletary, a Vietnam veteran and local businessman, saw the whole
incident and said that Abu-Jamal was not the shooter. However, the police
forced him to change his story and intimidated him into leaving
Philadelphia. Over a decade after, he testified at an evidentiary hearing
that Mr Abu-Jamal did not shoot the cop and was innocent. The police had
put pressure on him to corroborate their version of events.

Other key witnesses, such as Veronica Jones who at the 1995 hearing,
testified in support of Mr Abu-Jamal, were harassed into initially giving
false testimony. Two prosecution witnesses were given special favors,
including exemption from criminal prosecution, for their testimony against
him.

The defense lawyer did not interview a single witness in preparation for
the 1982 trial, and lacked adequate funds for defending a capital case. Mr
Abu-Jamal could not afford to retain competent counsel, an investigator, or
needed experts in such fields as pathology and ballistics.

[1] Data collected from the period 1977-1986 by David Baldus, Professor of
Law, University of IOWA found that the prosecutor in Mr Abu-Jamal’s case,
Joseph McGill, peremptorily struck Black jurors from a jury 74.14% of the
time he had an opportunity to do so, compared to exercising peremptory
strikes against white jurors 25.30% of the time. (Killing Time by David
Lindorff, Common Courage Press 2003, p. ix)

[2] The Black Panther Party (BPP) was a prominent part of the Black
movement of the 1960s-70s focussed on racial dignity, self-reliance, and
monitoring and protecting the Black community from police brutality, which
was rife. Despite their demands of ‘land, bread, housing, education,
clothing, justice and peace’ and work which included running breakfast
programmes for Black children in Philadelphia from 1969 they (and Mr
Abu-Jamal in particular) were the target of a specialist police unit, under
the command of Police Commissioner Frank Rizzo (who later became mayor),
which ran a campaign of surveillance, harassment, infiltration, break-ins
and trumped-up charges against them. Mr Abu-Jamal’s membership of the BPP
was raised at the trial in order to fit him to a racist stereotype as a
violent and anti-social individual, . (Ibid, pp.38-42)

[3] A third of the 35 police who played a role in Mr Abu-Jamal’s arrest
and conviction were later convicted on charges of corruption for incidents
that preceded the shooting. (Ibid. p.35)


---------------------------------------------------