112 Questions Leonard Weinglass Never Answered

OFFER OF PROOF:

112 QUESTIONS FOR LEONARD WEINGLASS

Appellant Mumia Abu-Jamal, by and through his Counsel of Record herein, hereby makes the following Offer of Proof:

If Attorney Leonard Weinglass is called as a witness on remand, as requested in this motion, and if he is sworn to tell the truth and does testify truthfully, he will answer in the affirmative to the following questions, should he fail to so testify then his testimony would be impeached by the evidence cited above in Appellants remand motion or to be presented on remand:


1. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement made by Daniel Williams, your co-counsel when you represented Mumia Abu-Jamal, at a public meeting in New York in the summer of 2000: “In death penalty litigation, innocence is the name of the game”?

2. Is it not true that, in death penalty litigation, the Courts are more likely to give more favorable consideration to legal claims that a defendant had an unfair trial and his constitutional rights were violated, if the Courts think that the defendant is or may be innocent, in particular, if the defendant has been convicted of killing a police officer?

3. Is it not true that, in a statutory declaration sworn under penalty of perjury dated May 2, 2001, and filed in court by his present attorneys on May 4, 2001, after he had fired you and Daniel Williams as his attorneys, Mumia Abu-Jamal declares his innocence and sets forth his version of what happened on December 9, 1981?

4. Is it not true that, in the 1995 state post-conviction proceedings, Mumia Abu- Jamal did not testify and that the reason why he did not testify is that you advised him not to testify?

5. Is it not true that, during Mumia Abu-Jamal’s original trial in June 1982, attorney Jackson failed to present any positive defense case that Mumia was innocent?

6. Is it not true that, between 1992 and May 4, 2001, whilst you represented Mumia Abu-Jamal, you never raised attorney Jackson’s failure to present any positive defense case that Mumia was innocent as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on the part of attorney Jackson?

7. Is it not true that, between 1992 and May 4, 2001, whilst you represented Mumia Abu-Jamal, you failed to present any positive defense case that Mumia was innocent?

8. Is it not true that, in the 1995 state post-conviction proceedings and the subsequent federal habeas proceedings, you presented claims to the Courts that Robert Chobert and Cynthia White, the only two prosecution “eyewitnesses” who claimed actually to have seen Mumia Abu-Jamal shoot Police Officer Faulkner, had lied and given perjured testimony?

9. Is it not true that defense investigator, George Michael Newman, interviewed Robert Chobert before the 1995 state post-conviction relief proceedings when you were representing Mumia Abu-Jamal?

10. Is it not true that, when Michael Newman interviewed Robert Chobert before these state post-conviction proceedings, Robert Chobert retracted the testimony which he had given at Mumia Abu-Jamal’s original trial in 1982 and admitted not only that he had not seen the shooting, but also that he had not even been on the same side of the street when the shooting occurred?

11. Is it not true that you put Robert Chobert on the witness stand to testify during the 1995 state post-conviction proceedings?

12. Is it not true that, when you put Robert Chobert on the witness stand at the 1995 hearing, Michael Newman was outside court expecting to testify as to how, when he, Newman, had interviewed Chobert, Robert Chobert had retracted the testimony which he had given at Mumia Abu-Jamal’s original trial, if Robert Chobert denied that he had made such a retraction when he was on the witness stand?

13. Is it not true that, on direct examination, you failed to put to Robert Chobert that he had retracted his trial testimony when he had been interviewed by Michael Newman?

14. Is it not true that, after Robert Chobert had testified at the 1995 state post- conviction proceedings and after you had failed to put to Robert Chobert that he had retracted his trial testimony when he had been interviewed by Michael Newman, you went outside court and you falsely told Michael Newman that you did not require him to testify at the state post-conviction proceedings, because you had “got everything out of Chobert” when he, Robert Chobert, had testified?

15. Is it not true that, in March 1982, when Billy Cook was tried for assaulting Police Officer Faulkner on December 9, 1981, Cynthia White testified that there was a passenger in Billy Cook’s car when he was stopped by Police Officer Faulkner?

16. Is it not true that, at Mumia Abu-Jamal’s trial in June 1982, Cynthia White contradicted her previous testimony by stating that no one else was present at the crime scene other than Mumia and Billy Cook?

17. Is it not true that the prosecutor at both Billy Cook’s assault trial in March 1982 and Mumia Abu-Jamal’s own trial in June 1982 was the same person, Assistant District Attorney McGill?

18. Is it not true that, at Mumia Abu-Jamal’s trial in June 1982, attorney Jackson had the transcript of Cynthia White’s testimony at Billy Cook’s assault trial in his hands as he cross-examined Cynthia White, but he failed to impeach Cynthia White’s testimony at Mumia’s trial with her earlier testimony at Billy Cook’s trial that there was a passenger in Billy Cook’s car when he was stopped by Police Officer Faulkner?

19. Is it not true that, if attorney Jackson had impeached Cynthia White’s testimony at Mumia’s trial with her earlier testimony at Billy Cook’s trial that there was a passenger in Billy Cook’s car when he was stopped by Police Officer Faulkner,

(A) this would have clearly demonstrated to the jury that Cynthia White was knowingly giving perjured testimony so as to falsely incriminate Mumia?

(B) this would have clearly demonstrated to the jury that Assistant District Attorney McGill had knowingly suborned perjury from Cynthia White?

(C) this would have entirely undercut the essence of the prosecution’s case against Mumia Abu-Jamal, namely that only Mumia could have shot Police Officer Faulkner, because, apart from Billy Cook (who the prosecution had not even charged with the killing), no one other than Mumia was present at the crime scene?

(D) this would have completely undermined the integrity of the prosecution case against Mumia Abu-Jamal?

(E) this evidence alone would made it almost impossible for the jury at the original trial to have found Mumia Abu-Jamal guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

20. Is it not true that attorney Jackson’s failure to impeach Cynthia White’s testimony at Mumia’s trial with her earlier testimony at Billy Cook’s trial that there was a passenger in Billy Cook’s car when he was stopped by Police Officer Faulkner amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel on the part of attorney Jackson?

21. Is it not true that you never raised attorney Jackson’s failure to impeach Cynthia White’s testimony at Mumia’s trial with her earlier testimony at Billy Cook’s trial that there was a passenger in Billy Cook’s car when he was stopped by Police Officer Faulkner as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on the part of attorney Jackson?

22. Is it not true that one of the major arguments which the prosecution have used against Mumia Abu-Jamal is that, although his brother, Billy Cook, was present at the crime scene, Billy Cook has never testified on behalf of Mumia?

23. Is it not true that, in the 1995 state post-conviction proceedings, Judge Sabo justified upholding Mumia Abu-Jamal’s conviction, at least in part, upon the grounds that he was entitled to draw an adverse inference from your failure to call Billy Cook to testify?

24. Is it not true that, in May 1999, Billy Cook swore a statutory declaration under penalty of perjury dated May 15, 1999, stating that the passenger in the car was Kenneth Pappi Freeman and that, sometime after December 9, 1981, Kenneth Pappi Freeman had confessed to him that there had been a plot to kill the police officer, and that he, Freeman, was part of the plot, had been armed that night, and had participated in the shooting?

25. Is it not true that, in a further statutory declaration sworn under penalty of perjury dated April 29, 2001, and filed in court by his present attorneys on May 4, 2001, after Mumia Abu-Jamal had fired you and Daniel Williams as his attorneys, Billy Cook confirmed that the passenger in the car was Kenneth Pappi Freeman, that, sometime after December 9, 1981, Kenneth Pappi Freeman had confessed to him that there had been a plot to kill the police officer, and that he, Freeman, was part of the plot, had been armed that night, and had participated in the shooting, that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not shoot the police officer, that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not interfere in anything between him and the police officer, and that he, Billy Cook, had had nothing to do with the shooting?

26. Is it not true that attorney Jackson failed to interview Billy Cook before Mumia Abu-Jamal’s original trial in June 1982?

27. Is it not true that attorney Jackson failed to put Billy Cook on the stand during Mumia Abu-Jamal’s trial in June 1982?

28. Is it not true that you never raised either attorney Jackson’s failure to interview Billy Cook before Mumia Abu-Jamal’s original trial in June 1982 or attorney Jackson’s failure to put Billy Cook on the stand during Mumia Abu-Jamal’s trial as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on the part of attorney Jackson?

29. Is it not true that you never filed in court Billy Cook’s statutory declaration under penalty of perjury dated May 15, 1999?

30. Is it not true that, thereafter, the whereabouts of Billy Cook were always known by you or readily ascertainable by you and that you subsequently personally met with Billy Cook on at least one occasion?

31. Is it not true that in the federal habeas petition which you filed on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal in 1999 you sought to explain your failure to present Billy Cook’s evidence to the court by falsely claiming that Billy Cook had disappeared?

32. Is it not true that, in 1981, Kenneth Pappi Freeman was Billy Cook’s business partner?

33. Is it not true that, by the time of the 1995 state post-conviction proceedings, it was known by you that, after the shooting, the driving licence of one, Arnold Howard, had been found on the body of Police Officer Faulkner?

34. Is it not true that you called Arnold Howard to testify at the 1995 state post- conviction hearings?

35. Is it not true that, at the 1995 state post-conviction hearings, Arnold Howard testified that, sometime prior to December 9, 1981, he had lent his driving licence to Kenneth Freeman?

36. Is it not true that, at the 1995 state post-conviction hearings, Arnold Howard testified that both he, Howard, and Kenneth Freeman had been picked up by the police after the Faulkner shooting, that, whilst they were in police custody, he and Kenneth Freeman had been placed in police line ups, and Kenneth Freeman was twice picked out of the line ups as the person who had shot Police Officer Faulkner?

37. Is it not true that, in a statutory declaration sworn under penalty dated August 31, 2001, Arnold Howard has stated that the person who had picked Kenneth Freeman out of these police line ups as the person who had shot Police Officer Faulkner was Cynthia White and that he, Howard, had told you, Leonard Weinglass, this before he testified in 1995?

38. Is it not true that, when Arnold Howard testified in 1995, you failed to elicit from him that it was Cynthia White who had picked Kenneth Freeman out of these police line ups as the person who had shot Police Officer Faulkner?

39. Is it not true that, in his statutory declaration sworn under penalty dated August 31, 2001, Arnold Howard has stated that the police tested Kenneth Freeman’s hands for gun powder when he was detained shortly after the Faulkner shooting and that he, Howard, had told you, Leonard Weinglass, this before he testified in 1995?

40. Is it not true that, when Arnold Howard testified in 1995, you failed to elicit from him that the police tested Kenneth Freeman’s hands for gun powder when he was detained shortly after the Faulkner shooting?

41. Is it not true that, in 1995, you told, amongst others, your then co-counsel Rachel Wolkenstein and defense investigator Michael Newman that you had received a death threat from Ron Freeman, the brother of Kenneth Freeman, who had told you that you would be killed if you presented any evidence on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal which implicated Kenneth Freeman in the shooting?

42. Is it not true that, between 1992 and May 4, 2001, whilst you represented Mumia Abu-Jamal, you never raised attorney Jackson’s failure to put Kenneth Freeman on the witness stand at the original trial and to accuse him of shooting Police Officer Faulkner as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on the part of attorney Jackson?

43. Is it not true that, on July 20, 1995, the Court ordered the Clerk of the Quarter Sessions to release into the custody of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s representative, Detective Joseph Walsh, all of the trial exhibits and attachments currently within the court’s custody?

44. Is it not true that this Court Order was extraordinary, because it ordered the release of the physical evidence in the case into the custody of one of the parties in the case, thereby breaking the chain of custody and providing an opportunity for the Commonwealth, one of the parties in the case, to tamper with this physical evidence?

45. Is it not true that you failed to object to this Court Order being made?

46. Is it not true that, in any event, you refused to inspect any of this physical evidence?

47. Is it not true that, during the 1995 state post-conviction proceedings, you put a ballistics expert, Mr Fassnacht, on the witness stand to testify on Mumia Abu-Jamal’s behalf when he, Mr Fassnacht, had refused personally to examine the physical evidence upon which he was supposedly offering his expert opinion?

48. Is it not true that, in June 1999, whilst you were representing Mumia Abu- Jamal, Arnold Beverly swore a statutory declaration under penalty of perjury confessing to the killing of Police Officer Faulkner and completely exonerating Mumia Abu-Jamal and that you had this statutory declaration in your possession from June 8, 1999, onwards?

49. Is it not true that, by June 8, 1999, Arnold Beverly’s confession was corroborated by the results of a lie detector test conducted by the leading polygraph examiner, Dr Charles Honts, a Professor of Psychology at Boise State University?

50. Is it not true that, prior to June 1999, you had previously consulted Dr Charles Honts as an expert polygraph examiner?

51. Is it not true that, in a statutory declaration sworn under penalty of perjury dated June 30, 2001, Dr Honts has stated that you were “rude and hostile” when you discussed with him the results of the lie detector test which he had conducted and which corroborated Beverly’s confession?

52. Is it not true that, during the course of these discussions, you falsely told Dr Honts that DNA testing had been carried out which contradicted Beverly?

53. Is it not true that no DNA testing has ever been done in Mumia Abu-Jamal’s case?

54. Is it not true that, in order to do DNA testing, it would have been necessary to obtain a court order permitting DNA testing to be done and no such court order has been made?

55. Is it not true that, by June 1999, your co-counsel working on Mumia Abu- Jamal’s case had prepared some 400 pages of internal, counsel to counsel memoranda and supporting documentation demonstrating all of the many and various ways in which both the evidence which had been available at the time of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s original trial and more recently discovered evidence corroborated and supported Arnold Beverly’s confession?

56. Is it not true, for example, that:

(A) Arnold Beverly’s confession (in which he states that he was wearing a green army jacket) is corroborated by the references of at least five witnesses to a black male wearing a green army jacket or coat being present at the scene and, except in one instance, implicitly, if not explicitly identifying this man as the shooter when the police property records prove that neither Mumia nor Billy Cook were wearing a green jacket and there is no green army jacket or coat in the evidence?

(B) Arnold Beverly’s description in his confession of how Police Officer Faulkner fell on his knee on the sidewalk after he was initially shot is corroborated by the finding in the post mortem report that there was a 2-inch wide, 3/4-inch high superficial red-brown skin denudation in the bottom center of Police Officer Faulkner’s left knee and Dr Hoder, the Assistant Medical Examiner’s trial testimony that this type of injury was consistent with Police Officer Faulkner falling on his left knee?

(C) Arnold Beverly’s description in his confession of the shooting and how he had an accomplice is corroborated by the physical evidence of the bullets which were found in and about and to the west of the doorway to 1234 Locust and the evidence of the number of bullets which were found at the scene, which prove that more than one person was involved in the shooting of Police Officer Faulkner?

(D) Arnold Beverly’s confession is corroborated by the evidence of seven witnesses who have stated at various times that at least one man fled the scene after the shooting and the contemporaneous police radio log on which it was reported that Police Officer Faulkner’s assailant had fled?

(E) Arnold Beverly’s confession is corroborated by the fact that, in December 1981, there were at least three on-going FBI investigations of center city police corruption taking place in Philadelphia, that these investigations ultimately led to indictments and convictions of some thirty police officers, including the Deputy Commissioner of the Police Force, the Commander of the Central Division and the ranking officer supervising the investigation at the scene, and that some seventeen officers who played some role in the arrest of Mumia and the investigation following the shooting of Police Officer Faulkner were either disciplined or indicted for crimes or found guilty of committing acts of corruption or brutality or resigned from the police force as a result of being named by other corrupt police officers?

(F) Arnold Beverly’s confession is corroborated by the police’s failure even to secure the crime scene after the shooting?

(G) Arnold Beverly’s confession is corroborated by the police’s failure to test the hands of either Police Officer Faulkner or Mumia Abu-Jamal for traces of gun powder?

(H) Arnold Beverly’s confession is corroborated by the evidence of three eye-witnesses who confirm that police officers were present at the crime scene at the time of the shooting and a fourth eye witness who confirms that, immediately before the shooting, there were two people standing in precisely the same position as Arnold Beverly states that there were two undercover officers.

(I) Arnold Beverly’s confession is corroborated by the entry made by Stefan Makuch in the contemporaneous medical examiner’s log recording that, at about 9 am on December 9, 1981, he was told by a homicide detective, Sergeant Westerman, that Mumia Abu Jamal was “shot subsequently by arriving police reinforcements”?

57. Is it not true that neither you nor any of your co-counsel produced a single internal, counsel to counsel memorandum challenging the analysis in these memoranda or in any way questioning the reliability of Arnold Beverly’s confession?

58. Is it not true that, on page 3 of your copy of Richard Genova’s memorandum “Shooting Scenario and New Evidence” dated 11th May 1999 in the Section entitled “New Information Better Fits Events Than Sabo’s and PA Supreme Court’s Findings”, you scribbled in the margin the words “Suggests M[umia] shot by another cop”?

59. Is it not true that, in 1992, Rachel Wolkenstein first told you that she had interviewed Arnold Beverly and that he, Beverly, had told her that, even though he would not testify about anything which he knew, Mumia had not shot Police Officer Faulkner, but, rather, there had been a plot by Philadelphia police officers to kill Faulkner, because it was believed that he was interfering with police corruption involving drugs and prostitution in the City Center?

60. Is it not true that, when Rachel Wolkenstein presented you with this information:

(A) You bluntly told her that you were not interested in pursuing this information, that it was too hot to handle and that you did not want to discuss it further?

(B) Thereafter, you refused to discuss, let alone investigate, Beverly’s account right through the 1995 state post-conviction proceedings?

61. Is it not true that, in October 1995, even though you were refusing to investigate Beverly’s account, you announced to a large public meeting in San Francisco that there were rumours that Police Officer Faulkner was an FBI informant and that he had been set up to be killed by fellow officers?

62. Is it not true that, if someone comes forward and confesses to the crime for which your client has been convicted and maintains his innocence, the obvious next step for any attorney who is honestly acting in the best interests of such client to take is to analyse all of the available evidence, both in the record and outside it, in order to ascertain to what extent this other person’s confession is corroborated by the rest of the available evidence in the case?

63. Is it not true that, when, in 1999, Beverly confessed to Rachel Wolkenstein that he had killed Police Officer Faulkner, you refused to engage in rational discussion about how Beverly’s confession squared with any of the supporting evidence?

64. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement made by your co- counsel, Daniel Williams, in his unauthorised book about Mumia’s case, Executing Justice: “Len sought out ways to push this witness [Arnold Beverly] on to the trash heap”?

65. Is it not true that, in 1999, the argument put forward by your co-counsel, Daniel Williams, against presenting Arnold Beverly’s confession to the Courts was that, if accepted, Beverly’s account would mean that the police had knowingly framed an innocent man, and that it was Aunbelievable” that the police or the prosecution would do that?

66. Is it not true that Mumia Abu-Jamal is innocent and that he was knowingly framed by the police?

67. Is it not true that, since 1996, under Pennsylvania law, there has been a 60 day time limit for presenting newly discovered evidence to the Courts?

68. Is it not true that you failed to present Arnold Beverly’s confession to the Courts within 60 days or at all?

69. Is it not true that, between 1992 and May 4, 2001, whilst you represented Mumia Abu-Jamal, you failed to present any positive defense case that Mumia was innocent?

70. Is it not true that, pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Faretta v. California (1975) 422 US 806, Mumia had a constitutional right to defend himself at his original trial?

71. Is it not true that, if a defendant is able to establish that his constitutional right to defend himself at his original trial was violated, he does not have to establish any “prejudice” as a result of this violation of his constitutional rights in order to have his conviction overturned?

72. Is it not true that, in McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 US 168 (1984), the Supreme Court listed “participating in voir dire” (jury selection) as one of the rights that a defendant representing himself has under Faretta?

73. Is it not true that Mumia Abu-Jamal sought to exercise his constitutional right under Faretta to defend himself at his original trial?

74. Is it not true that, during the voir dire at Mumia Abu-Jamal’s original trial, Judge Sabo took the voir dire out of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s hands and made him choose between the Judge or his court-appointed, “back-up” attorney Jackson conducting the voir dire?

75. Is it not true that, in Claim 11 of the Federal Habeas Petition which you and your co-counsel, Daniel Williams, wrote and filed on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal in October 1999, you pleaded a claim for relief based on this violation of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s constitutional rights?

76. Is it not true that the District Attorney opposed this claim for relief on the grounds that you had failed to cite any specific legal authority in support of your claim that there is a constitutional right for a defendant representing himself to “voir dire” (question) potential jurors personally during the jury selection process.

77. Is it not true that you failed to respond to this false claim by the District Attorney and that you failed to cite to the Court the language from the Supreme Court in McKaskle at page 174 which specifically recognizes this right?

78. Is it not true that, in July 2000, you filed a motion in Federal Court to amend Mumia Abu-Jamal’s petition for habeas corpus to add a claim that Mumia Abu-Jamal’s Faretta rights to represent himself had been violated by Judge Sabo’s refusal to allow Mumia’s friend, John Africa, to sit at counsel’s table during Mumia’s original trial to advise him whilst he conducted his own defense?

79. Is it not true that you failed to cite any legal authority in support of this claim?

80. Is it not true that the District Attorney opposed this motion to amend on the grounds that you had failed to cite any legal authority in support of this claim?

81. Is it not true that legal authorities in support of this claim had been cited in the amicus brief previously submitted to the District Court by 22 Members of the British Parliament and the amicus brief previously submitted to the District Court by the Chicana/Chicano Studies Foundation?

82. Is it not true that you failed to cite these authorities or even to incorporate these amicus briefs into your motion to amend by reference?

83. Is it not true that your motion to amend Mumia Abu-Jamal’s petition for habeas corpus to add this so-called “John Africa” claim was denied, in part, on the grounds that you had failed to cite any legal authorities in support of the claim?

84. Is it not true that Mumia Abu-Jamal fired you and your co-counsel, Daniel Williams, in March 2001, after he read a proof copy of Daniel Williams’ unauthorised and fallacious book about his case, “Executing Justice: An Inside Account of the Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal”, and after you refused to take any steps to try and prevent publication of this book?

85. Is it not true that Daniel Williams received a $30,000 advance from St. Martin’s Press for writing “Executing Justice”?

86. Is it not true that, in an affidavit dated March 21, 2001, and sworn by Daniel Williams in Mumia Abu-Jamal v. St. Martin’s Press and Daniel R. Williams, No 01. Civ. 2850, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (proceedings which other attorneys undertook on Mumia’s behalf to try and prevent publication of “Executing Justice”), Daniel Williams has stated that:

(A) You assisted him in putting the book together;

(B) You never informed him that the book was in any way harmful to Mumia’s legal case;

(C) In your public statements, you had repudiated any suggestion that the book harms Mumia’s legal case.

87. Is it not true that Rule IV, Local Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and Rule 1.8 of Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct (Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions) prohibit an attorney from contracting to publish a book about the subject of their representation of a client while representing that client and that the Official comment to Rule 1.8 states that: “an agreement by which a lawyer acquires literary or media rights concerning the conduct of representation creates a conflict between the interests of the client and the personal interests of the lawyer. Measures suitable in the representation of the client may detract from the publication value of an account of the representation”?

88. Is it not true that Daniel Williams’ book was written in direct violation of Rule IV, Local Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and Rule 1.8 of Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct?

89. Is it not true that, according to Williams, the theme of the book is ambiguity?

90. Is it not true that the introduction to Daniel Williams’ book about the Mumia Abu-Jamal case, Executing Justice, contains the following passage at p. xvi: “ Ah, ambiguity, [Cornel] West’s proclamation [of Mumia’s innocence] begs the question: is Mumia’s stature as a writer, the ‘truth’ of his message, unworthy of attention if he is guilty of firing a bullet into the brain of a young police officer? Does guilt for such an act necessarily muffle this voice for social justice? Or can such a guilty man nonetheless still speak to us, clearly and credibly? Indeed, even if his guilt somehow justifies extinguishing his right to remain alive, does it extinguish the worth of his message? Does Mumia’s worthiness, in short, as a voice for the voiceless depend upon his innocence? If so, why?”?

91. Is it not true that, to the reader, the natural meaning of this passage implies that Daniel Williams, as one of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s attorneys, believes that he is guilty?

92. Is it not true that, in his statutory declaration sworn under penalty of perjury dated May 2, 2001, Mumia Abu-Jamal states that he was sitting in a cab in 13th Street (and not the parking lot) filling out his log/trip sheet, when he heard what sounded like a gunshot (implicitly the first shot fired at Police Officer Faulkner), that he looked in the rear view mirror and saw people running up and down Locust, that as he scanned up and down Locust, he recognized his brother, apparently distressed, and that he immediately got out of the cab and ran towards his brother who was screaming?

93. Is it not true that it is the prosecution’s case against Mumia Abu-Jamal that Mumia ran from the parking lot and intervened in a scuffle between Police Officer Faulkner) by shooting dead Faulkner?

94. Is it not true that the caption under one of the photographs in “Executing Justice” states as follows: “The parking lot through which Mumia ran to aid his brother. Was killing on his mind as he raced towards his brother, Billy Cook, who was in a scuffle with Officer Faulkner?”

95. Is it not true that, to the reader, the natural meaning of this passage implies that Daniel Williams, as one of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s attorneys, accepts the prosecution case against Mumia and believes that Mumia did shoot Police Officer Faulkner?

96. Is it not true that it is the prosecution’s case against Mumia Abu-Jamal that Mumia was shot by Police Officer Faulkner whilst he was lying in a prone position on the sidewalk after being shot in the back and just before he was shot in face by a gunman standing over him?

97. Is it not true that the trajectory of the bullet which was found in Mumia Abu- Jamal, which was from his upper chest to his lower back, proves that Police Officer Faulkner could not have shot Mumia Abu-Jamal from this prone position?

98. Is it not true that, whilst you represented Mumia Abu-Jamal, one of the grounds upon which you sought to challenge Mumia’s conviction both in the state post-conviction proceedings and in the federal habeas corpus proceedings was that the trajectory of the bullet which was found in Mumia Abu-Jamal, which was from his upper chest to his lower back, proves that Police Officer Faulkner could not have shot Mumia Abu-Jamal from this prone position?

99. Is it not true that, at about 9 am on December 9, 1981, Stefan Makuch made an entry in the contemporaneous medical examiner’s log recording that he was told by a homicide detective, Sergeant Westerman, that Mumia Abu Jamal was “shot subsequently by arriving police reinforcements”?

100. Is it not true that the caption under one of the photographs in “Executing Justice” states as follows: “Lost freedom and lost promise - Mumia being transported to court after his recovery from a gunshot wound from Officer Faulkner’s gun”

101. Is it not true that, to the reader, the natural meaning of this passage implies that Daniel Williams, as one of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s attorneys, accepts the prosecution case against Mumia, that he believes that Police Officer Faulkner did shoot Mumia, and that he does not believe in one of the central tenets of the defense case which he is presenting to the Courts on Mumia’s behalf?

102. Is it not true that, to the reader, the natural meaning of Daniel Williams’ whole book is that it implies that Daniel Williams, as one of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s attorneys, believes that he is guilty?

103. Is it not true that this is why Mumia Abu-Jamal fired you and Daniel Williams as his attorneys immediately after he had read the proof copy of “Executing Justice” and after you had refused to take any steps to prevent publication?

104. Is it not true that, in every, or if not every, in almost every briefing or pleading which the District Attorney has submitted to the Courts since “Executing Justice” was published, the District Attorney has used and quoted passages from “Executing Justice” against Mumia Abu-Jamal and to attack the case being presented by him and on his behalf?

105. Is it not true that, in a letter dated February 22, 2001, you wrote to Mumia Abu-Jamal generally commending the book “Executing Justice” to him?

106. Is it not true that, in this letter to Mumia Abu-Jamal, you proffered Daniel Williams’ purported explanations for including two of the most obviously damaging passages in “Executing Justice”?

107. Is it not true that, in this letter to Mumia Abu-Jamal, you described “Executing Justice” as being a “pre-emptive strike” against the evidence of Arnold Beverly and his confession, the witness you had “blocked” from coming forward?

108. Is it not true that the District Attorney was never going to present Arnold Beverly or Arnold Beverly’s confession to the Courts, because Arnold Beverly completely exonerates Mumia Abu-Jamal?

109. Is it not true that the only persons who were ever likely to present Arnold Beverly’s confession to the Courts were Mumia Abu-Jamal and attorneys acting on his behalf as they tried to prove Mumia Abu-Jamal’s innocence?

110. Is it not true that, as you stated in your letter dated February 22, 2001, that the purpose of “Executing Justice” was to try and prevent Mumia Abu-Jamal ever making use of Arnold Beverly’s testimony or confession to prove his innocence?

111. Is it not true that, in no circumstances whatsoever, could it ever be in Mumia Abu-Jamal’s best interests to try to prevent Mumia Abu-Jamal ever making use of Arnold Beverly’s testimony or confession to prove his innocence?

112. Is it not true that the only persons in whose interests it was to try to prevent Mumia Abu-Jamal ever making use of Arnold Beverly’s testimony or confession to prove his innocence were you and Daniel Williams, who had “blocked” Arnold Beverly from coming forward, and anyone with an interest in seeing Mumia Abu-Jamal executed or spending the rest of his life in prison?



CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons it is respectfully requested that Appellant Jamal’s motion(s) be granted.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

/// Dated:

Respectfully submitted,

MUMIA ABU-JAMAL

SCI Greene, No. AM8335

175 Progress Drive

Waynesburg, PA 15370-8090

Appellant

NICK BROWN

4 New Square

Lincoln’s Inn

London WC2A 3RJ

United Kingdom

011-44-207-822-2000

MARLENE KAMISH

Attorney-at-Law

P.O. Box 08376

Chicago, IL 60608

(312) 455-0766

ELIOT LEE GROSSMAN

Law Office of Eliot Lee Grossman

La Rotunda Building

248 East Main Street, Suite 100

Alhambra, CA 91801

(626) 943-1945

Attorneys for Appellant Mumia Abu-Jamal

J. MICHAEL FARRELL

Attorney-at-Law

718 Arch Street, Suite 402 South

Philadelphia, PA 19106

(215) 925-1105

Local Counsel for Appellant Mumia Abu-Jamal

By:

J. MICHAEL FARRELL

Attorneys for Appellant