COURTROOM AUDIO: Mumia's May 17 Oral Arguments!

COURTROOM AUDIO: Mumia Abu-Jamal’s May 17 Oral Arguments

Presented by Journalists for Mumia Abu-Jamal
(Abu-Jamal-News.com)

On May 17, 2007, a three-judge panel from the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral arguments in Philadelphia on four different issues regarding the fairness of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s original 1982 trial. Robert R. Bryan, lead counsel for Abu-Jamal, joined by his associate, Professor Judith L Ritter, and Christina Swarns of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, argued that Abu-Jamal’s trial was tainted with racist jury selection, confusing and wrong jury instructions on the death penalty, prosecutorial misconduct regarding a false argument to the jury at the guilt phase, and the bias of the trial judge at a 1995 hearing whom a court stenographer overheard boasting in 1982 that he was going to help the prosecution “fry the nigger.” The National Lawyers Guild also submitted amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefing on the issues of judicial bias and false prosecutorial argument.

Because of the limited time, not all of the issues were discussed, even though they were thoroughly covered in briefing filed by Bryan and Ritter on behalf of Abu-Jamal. At the outset of oral argument, Deputy District Attorney Hugh Burns addressed three issues: 1) He argued for reinstating the death penalty, in his appeal of Judge Yohn’s 2001 decision regarding the death penalty. 2) He argued in defense of prosecutor Joseph McGill’s false argument to the jury: “If you find the Defendant guilty of course there would be appeal after appeal and perhaps there could be a reversal of the case, or whatever, so that may not be final,” implying the trial was not final. 3) Addressing the Batson racism-in-jury-selection claim, Burns argued in defense of McGill’s use of 10 of 15 peremptory challenges to strike black jurors.

For the defense, Ritter addressed the issue of the death penalty, which is based on the Mills v. Maryland precedent. In December, 2001, U.S. District Court Judge William Yohn ruled that sentencing forms used by jurors and Judge Sabo's instructions to the jury were confusing and contrary to the law. Jurors were mistakenly led to believe that they had to unanimously agree on any mitigating circumstance in order to consider it as weighing against a death verdict.

Lead attorney Robert R. Bryan and Christina Swarns of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund focused on the racial discrimination in jury selection issue. In 1986, the US Supreme Court ruled in Batson v. Kentucky that a defendant deserves a new trial if it can be proved that jurors were excluded on the grounds of race. Most importantly, Batson significantly lowered the defendant's burden of proof.

Lead attorney Robert R. Bryan can contacted via email: RobertRBryan [at] aol.com


THE MAY 17, 2007 AUDIO

The audio is available in both MP3 and Real Player formats. The unedited, complete audio is available for listening, but it has also been broken up into both chapters and short excerpts for your convenience.

Listen to the unedited, complete 2 hr. 15 min MP3 file

http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/17mayfull.mp3

Or you can download the files in Real Player format:

http://againstthecrimeofsilence.de/News/2007-05-17-1.ra

http://againstthecrimeofsilence.de/News/2007-05-17-2.ra



CHAPTER ONE: DA Prosecutor Hugh Burns

FULL CHAPTER: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DA.mp3

---PART ONE: Death Penalty: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DAdp.mp3
Deputy DA Hugh Burns argues that Abu-Jamal’s death sentence remain in force by appealing the December, 2001 decision by U.S. District Court Judge William Yohn. Citing the 1988 Mills v. Maryland precedent, Yohn ruled that sentencing forms used by jurors and Judge Sabo's instructions to the jury were confusing. Subsequently, jurors mistakenly believed that they had to unanimously agree on any mitigating circumstances in order to consider them as weighing against a death sentence. However, since the prosecution appealed, the death judgment remains in effect with Abu-Jamal continuing to be on death row.

PART TWO: “Appeal after Appeal”: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DA2.mp3
Burns addresses the legality of McGill's statement to Mumia’s jury minimizing the seriousness of a verdict of guilt: “If you find the Defendant guilty of course there would be appeal after appeal and perhaps there could be a reversal of the case, or whatever, so that may not be final.”

PART THREE: Batson: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DAbatson.mp3
“Certified for appeal” by Yohn in 2001, the Batson claim addresses the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to exclude Blacks from Abu-Jamal’s jury. In 1986, the US Supreme Court ruled in Batson v. Kentucky that a defendant deserves a new trial if it can be proved that jurors were excluded on the grounds of race. Most importantly, Batson significantly lowered the defendant's burden of proof.

SHORT EXCERPTS:
Marching Up San Juan Hill? (13:25): http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DAsjhill.mp3
Judge Ambro challenges DA Burns’ argument for re-instating the death penalty, and compares Burns’ effort to “marching up San Juan Hill” (ie. a losing battle).

You Don’t Deny That McGill’s Statements Were Inappropriate? (18:30): http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DAdenial.mp3
Judge Cowen asks DA Burns about 1982 Prosecutor Joseph McGill’s statement to the jury (at both guilt and penalty phases) that Abu-Jamal would have “appeal after appeal,” which served to lessen the gravity of a guilty verdict and death sentence. Judge Cowen asks: “You don’t deny that the statements made by the Assistant Prosecutor were inappropriate for the summation, do you?” Burns answers: “I do deny that, yes.”

A Violation of the Bill of Rights? (21:30): http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DArights.mp3
Judge Cowen addresses the Caldwell case, which DA Burns cites in defense of McGill’s false “appeal after appeal” statement. Judge Cowen forcefully asks DA Burns about the constitutionality of 1982 Prosecutor Joseph McGill’s “appeal after appeal” statement, asking “Isn’t Caldwell also about the rights established by the Bill of Rights? Part of the Bill of Rights is to have a fair trial.” He then specifically asks if McGill’s statement was “a denial of one of the rights secured by the Bill of Rights?”

Jenny Dawley (30:00): http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DAdawley.mp3
Jenny Dawley was a black juror who was not granted a leave to take her sick cat to the veterinarian. When she subsequently violated the court ruling by leaving to take her cat to the veterinarian, she was removed from the jury. When DA Burns cites Dawley to argue that there was no racist jury selection, Judge Ambro said “I don’t think that really helps you.”

Batson Prima Facie (48:30): http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DAprimaf.mp3
Burns argues that the State Supreme Court was “reasonable” in denying Abu-Jamal’s Batson claim, and seems to be rebuked by Judge Ambro, who emphasizes the low burden of proof, at the “prima facie” level of evaluating the Batson claim.


CHAPTER TWO: Judith Ritter

Judith Ritter Unedited (52:00): http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/JR.mp3
Professor Judith L. Ritter, Robert R. Bryan’s associate, argues on behalf of Abu-Jamal, and specifically addresses the “Mills” issue. In December, 2001 U.S. District Court Judge William Yohn affirmed Abu-Jamal's guilt judgment but overturned the death sentence. Citing the 1988 Mills v. Maryland precedent, Yohn ruled that sentencing forms used by jurors and Judge Albert Sabo's instructions to the jury were confusing and violated the U.S. Constitution. Jurors were led to believe that they had to unanimously agree on any mitigating circumstance in order to consider it as weighing against a death verdict.

*Unfortunately the audio quality of the second half of Ritter’s presentation is poor. It can be heard via Real Player instead.

SHORT EXCERPT: Verdict Form: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/JRvform.mp3
Judith Ritter argues that the verdict form was confusing.

CHAPTER THREE: Robert R. Bryan

Robert R. Bryan Unedited (1:03:00): http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/RRB.mp3
This is the complete, unedited version of the argument of Abu-Jamal’s lead attorney, Robert R. Bryan, where his focus is on the Batson issue. Unfortunately, the first 10 minutes of audio is poor quality, but it is included here just in case. To remedy this problem, either 1) Listen to the next segment, which does not include the bad 10 minutes, or 2) Listen via Real Player from the file available at the top of the page.

Robert R. Bryan, Edited, Good Quality: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/RRBgood.mp3
For this selection, the first 10 minutes of Robert R. Bryan’s presentation have been removed, so that all of this is high-quality audio.

SHORT EXCERPT: Peremptory Strikes: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/RRBstrikes.mp3
Addressing the Batson claim, Robert R. Bryan gives several examples where prosecutor McGill’s justification for striking black jurors contradicts his treatment of potential white jurors.

*Also, listen to Robert R. Bryan’s closing argument below.

CHAPTER FOUR: Christina Swarns of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund

Full Unedited 21 Minute Presentation: (1:34:30):
http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/LDF.mp3
Christina Swarns of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund addresses the Batson claim. In their amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief supporting the Batson claim, http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=957
the Legal Defense Fund concludes that it is an “abundantly clear… prima facie case of discrimination.” The LDF cites a survey of homicide cases DA McGill tried from Sept., 1981 to Oct., 1983, showing that “the odds that Mr. McGill would peremptorily challenge an African-American potential juror were 8.47 times greater than for non-black jurors.”

SHORT EXCERPTS:

Introduction (1:34:30): http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/LDFintro.mp3
Christina Swarns begins.

McMahon Videotape: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/LDFmcmahon.mp3
Citing several different reasons that Abu-Jamal’s case fits within the Batson framework, she contextualizes these facts with the infamous McMahon videotape that trained Philadelphia prosecutors to exclude black jurors.

March 18, 1982 Hearing: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/LDFjackson.mp3
Christina Swarns discusses the March 18, 1982 hearing where defense attorney Anthony Jackson expresses his fear that the DA will exclude black jurors in Abu-Jamal’s trial, saying: “They always do. They always do.”

Jury Veneer Pool: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/LDFveneer.mp3
Swarns responds to the DA’s argument that because the racial composition of the overall potential jury pool is unknown, Mumia cannot prove racist jury selection. She cites a precedent which states that while those statistics are helpful, they are not necessary for a successful Batson claim.

CHAPTER FIVE: Hugh Burns Makes Closing Argument

Full, Unedited Rebuttal: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DArebuttal.mp3
Burns makes his concluding argument to the Judges.

SHORT EXCERPT:

March 18, 1982 Hearing: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/march18.mp3
In this dialogue between Burns and the judges, Burns argues that Anthony Jackson’s March 18, 1982 statement about racist jury selection actually helps the DA’s case. In this argument, Burns is strongly challenged by Judge Ambro.

----ROBERT R. BRYAN MAKES CLOSING ARGUMENT:

Full, Unedited Rebuttal: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/RRBclosing.mp3
In these closing remarks, lead attorney Robert R. Bryan asks rhetorically how Abu-Jamal’s case can be the exception to the rule during a period in Philadelphia when racist jury selection was so widespread by the District Attorney in all murder cases tried both before and after that of his client. Citing cases, he said “We have bookends here. We have case, after case, after case in which race was used in jury selection. . . . that discrimination was at work.”

----
Listen to interviews with several observers of the May 17 oral arguments
http://phillyimc.org/en/2007/05/39663.shtml


For more information, please visit the new Journalists for Mumia Abu-Jamal website: http://Abu-Jamal-News.com

Also visit: FreeMumia.com (NYC Coalition to Free Mumia), FreeMumia.org (San Francisco Mobilization to Free Mumia), EmajOnline.com (Educators for Mumia), PrisonRadio.org (Mumia’s Radio Essays), or contact:

International Concerned Family & Friends of MAJ
P.O. Box 19709
Philadelphia, PA 19143
Phone - 215-476-8812/ Fax - 215-476-6180
E-mail - icffmaj [at] aol.com