Mumia Abu Jamal Essay, Research Paper

Wesley Cook was born in 1954. While he was protesting at a George Wallace for

president rally in 1968, several white men attacked him. He claims that two men

grabbed him. One kicked his face and skull, while the other kicked him in the

groin. As the beating progressed, ?he looked up and saw the two-toned

gold-trimmed pant leg of a Philadelphia police officer.? He yelled for the

police, who saw him on the ground being beaten to a pulp. ?A police officer

marched over briskly, and kicked him in the face.?1 ?I have been thankful to

that faceless cop ever since, for he kicked me straight into the Black Panther

Party.?2 Wesley Cook became a founding member of the Black Panther Party?s

Philadelphia chapter in 1969 at the age of 15. After joining mainstream news

organizations in the 1970?s, Wesley Cook changed his name to Mumia Abu-Jamal.

As a teenage journalist, Jamal took an interest in stories about police

brutality. Jamal was known to be a rare talent of radio journalism. He had a

powerful intellect and a burning empathy for poor people. He was known as a

skillful interviewer and became a well-known figure in local broadcasting

journalism. Jamal appeared on National Public Radio, the National Black Network,

and local Philadelphia stations including WUHY-FM (now WHYY). He had a lot of

admiring friends in journalism and politics, and had no prior record of crime or

violence. Despite his personal experience of police brutality and years as a

teenage Black Panther, he kept his noise clean even under the microscope of the

FBI and Philadelphia police surveillance. By the late 1970?s, Jamal was also

an ardent sympathizer and supporter of MOVE ? a black militant

antiestablishment, antipolice group. He started wearing his hair in long

dreadlocks like a MOVE member. By mid 1981, Jamal?s growing obsession with

MOVE had compromised his standing as a journalist and cost him his job at WUHY.

He started freelancing his writing skills, while moonlighting as a cabdriver. He

was robbed while on duty with his cab, so he started to carry a gun. 3 During

this time, the Philadelphia Police Department was so notorious for violence and

police brutality, that the United States Justice Department, in an unprecedented

1979 civil suit, charged then mayor (and former police commissioner) Frank Rizzo

and the top police brass with ?encouraging rampant police brutality, racism,

and lying.? This suit was later dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.4 On

December 9, 1981, Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner was shot to death.

On July 3, 1982 Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted of Officer Faulkner?s murder and

sentenced to death. Beyond these two facts, there are a number of versions of

the incidents that lead to Mumia Abu-Jamal?s conviction. This paper will

review the incidents of December 9, 1981 and show that Mumia Abu-Jamal was not

provided a fair and impartial trial by his peers, and was wrongly convicted and

sentenced for the death of Officer Faulkner. What the Jury Heard: On December 9,

1981, at 3:51 a.m. Officer Faulkner stopped Mr. William Cook (Jamal?s

brother), who was driving a Volkswagen Beetle for a traffic violation, on the

south side of Locust Street about 80 feet east of 13th Street. The area at the

time was known for its seediness. The area had many late-night bars, nightclubs,

cafes, and streetwalkers. Officer Faulkner radioed his location and then added:

?On second thought, send me a wagon.?5 He was apparently planning to arrest

Mr. Cook or someone in Mr. Cook?s car for an unknown reason. According to two

prosecution witnesses, both Faulkner and Cook got out of their cars. Faulkner

spread-eagled Mr. Cook across one of the cars and then suddenly turned and

slugged Officer Faulkner. Faulkner responded by clubbing Cook several times with

his 17-inch flashlight. Mr. Cook?s face and neck were bloody when police

arrived. By coincidence, Mumia Abu-Jamal was parked in his cab and came out of a

parking lot on the northeast corner of Locust and 13th. He accelerated from a

walk to a run as he charged toward Officer Faulkner across Locust Street. It was

never fully disclosed at the trial, why Jamal?s cab was parked nearby. He just

happened to be around. In any event, this is when the point blank shooting

started to occur. According to the prosecution?s theory, Jamal ran up behind

Officer Faulkner to within one foot, and shot him in the back. The wounded

Faulkner turned around and returned fire, hitting Jamal in the chest, and

falling onto his back. Jamal then emptied his gun into Officer Faulkner at close

range, finishing him off with a shot between his eyes.6 Less than one-minute

later, police arrived at the scene. The wounded Jamal was sitting on a curb four

feet from Faulkner, with his empty shoulder holster on and his empty gun nearby.

Cook was standing a few feet away against a wall, with what two witnesses

called, ?a look of shock? on his face.7 He allegedly told police that he had

nothing to do with the shooting and was only prosecuted for hitting Office

Faulkner. On the surface, the prosecution presented a clean theory. The

prosecution’s case pointed to a clear legal conclusion that Jamal had committed

first-degree murder of a police officer with a maximum sentence of death.

However, as one examines Mumia Abu-Jamal supposed confession, the public

defenders lack of experience in capital murder cases, the changing testimony of

the three eye witnesses, the physical evidence procured at the scene, and

discrepancies between the officers at the scene, the clean prosecution theory

starts to unravel. The Philadelphia police department themselves could of gone a

long way to proving Jamal?s guilt. For example, there was no definitive match

between Jamal?s gun and the bullet that killed Officer Faulkner. The police

could have tested Jamal?s hands to determine if he had recently fired a gun.

The officers on the scene, could of smelled the gun barrel to determine if it

had been recently fired.8 The Philadelphia police failed to go the extra mile in

examining the evidence and in doing so failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that Jamal was guilty and deserved to be sentenced to death. The Confession:

Priscilla Durham, a hospital security guard and Officer Gary Bell (Faulkner?s

former partner and best friend) both swore that they heard Jamal, as he was

lying on the floor of the hospital emergency room defiantly shout: ?I shot the

mother*censored*er, and I hope the mother*censored*er dies.?9 Jamal contends

this confession was fabricated. The ?confession? was allegedly shouted in

the emergency room while he was being detained by fifteen or so Philadelphia

police officers. In fact, none of the officers present mentioned Jamal?s

?confession? in their police reports or interviews over the next few months.

Not a word of the ?confession? found it?s way into any police report for

more than two months.10 Furthermore, it is very peculiar that an intelligent man

whose livelihood depended on articulate communication would spontaneously and

flamboyantly incriminates himself. Priscilla Durham first mentioned Jamal?s

?confession? to police investigators in a February 9, 1982 interview, 62

days after the shooting. She claimed that she mentioned the ?confession? to

hospital investigators the day after the murder, which was, written down by

hand. Prosecutor McGill seemingly surprised, claimed to have never seen the

report. While Ms. Durham was on the witness stand during the trial, an unsigned,

unauthenticated, typewritten piece of paper dated December 10, 1981 was read to

the jury and admitted as evidence against Jamal. 11 Officer Gary Bell made no

mention of Jamal?s ?confession? in his reports after the shooting. It was

not until 78 days later that Officer Bell remembered the confession. Officer

Bell explained that he was so devastated by seeing Officer Faulkner with his

face almost blown off that he did not remember the confession. 12 Due to the

ineffectiveness of Jamal?s defense lawyer and the bias of Judge Sabo (the

presiding judge) the jury never heard any exculpatory evidence. Officer Gary

Wakshul, who was in the paddy wagon that took Jamal from the scene to Jefferson

Hospital, reported later that morning that ?we stayed with the male at

Jefferson until we were relieved. During this time, the Negro male made no

comments.?13 Did Officer Wakshul not hear the confession, or did he step away

for a minute and miss it? While interviewing Officer Wakshul on charges of

police brutality by Jamal, Officer Wakshul issued a new statement, 64 days after

the murder (February 11, 1982). Officer Wakshul now claimed to hear the entire

confession loud and clear. When asked by the interviewer to explain his initial

report, Officer Wakshul said that ? the statement disgusted me, and I did not

realize it had any importance until today.?14 Judge Albert Sabo Jamal?s

defense team and supporters claim that Judge Sabo has sentenced more people to

death than any other judge in the United States. Therefore, the judge was biased

against Jamal from the start, due to the nature of the alledged crime. However,

the defense team seeking a re trail, fail to mention the frequent disruptive

nature of Mr. Jamal during his trial. The truth is that Judge Sabo has been a

sitting judge since 1974. During his tenure, he has almost exclusively presided

over capital murder cases. Therefore, if Judge Sabo has presided over more

capital punishment trials than any other sitting judge in the United States, it

would be due to his tenure as a judge not his bias. The fact that more death

penalties have been issued from Judge Sabo?s court is not a function of Judge

Sabo but of the individual juries in the case. 15 Under the system of justice

used in Pennsylvania, the judge does not sentence the defendant to death. A jury

of 12 citizens hear the evidence against the accused and then must decide

unanimously to impose the death sentence. In this case, Judge Sabo did not

sentence Jamal to death, the racially mixed group of 12 jurors, which Jamal

assisted in selecting did. This decision was later upheald by the Pennsylvania

Supreme Court on direct appeal.16 The court transcripts and appeal court

decisions uphold the fact that Judge Sabo was eminently fair and patient with

Jamal during his trial. He frequently was disruptive during the trial which

resulted in many delays. One can only imagine how the actions of Jamal during

his trial adversly influenced the jury as they sat sequestered in a hotel for

six weeks. Judge Sabo defends himself by stating, ?In the old days we lawyers

had a saying: If you have the evidence on your side, argue the evidence. If you

have the law on your side, argue the law. And if you have neither the evidence

or the law on your side, scream like hell. Now the news media has changed that

to read: If you don?t have the evidence or the law on your side: blame the

judge. Who else are you going to blame it on?? 17 The Jury: Jamal?s

supporters and defense team have claimed during the appeal process that the jury

was racially stacked against the defendant, violating his civil rights. During

the 1982 trail, Judge Sabo encouraged the defense to note the race of each

prospective juror so it could become part of the public record. Unfortunatly,

the defense failed to do so. Therefore there is no record to confirm or support

how many prospective jurors for the 1982 trail were black and of that number,

how many of the prosecutions fifteen preemptory challenges to excuse jurors were

used against eligible black jurors. This is unfortunate since during this part

of the trial, Mr. Jamal was acting as his own attorney during the selection

process. Having demanded to represent himself, Jamal assumed the responsibility

of asking prospective juror what their race was and noting it in the writing of

the record. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has reviewed the evidence and ruled

that Jamal?s civil rights were upheld. The facts clearly show that at the

beginning of the trial, 3 or the 12 jurors seated were black. When one of the

black jurors, Ms. Jenny Dawley, violated sequestration to attend to a sick cat,

the defense as well as the prosecution agreed to her removal. The defense claims

that the judge provided a white juror special arrangements who needed to take a

civil service exam, and was not as flexible for the Ms. Dawley. The facts

clearly indicate that the white juror had asked the judges permission prior to

taking the test. Ms. Dawley did not communicate with the judge or any court

officers regarding her cat. Ms. Dawley while under sequesture at the hotel ,

simply chose to go and take care of her cat. She was told by the court that she

could not just leave, and responded per the public record, ?I don?t care

what Judge Sabo or anybody says, I do what I have to do, nobody is going to stop

me.? Ms Dawley chose to violate her sequestration without asking the judge to

accommodate her personal needs. The record also shows that both the defense and

prosecution agreed to her dismissal. In short, the 1982 jury that Mr. Jamal

helped select was properly selected and seated. The racial mix of the jury was

almost identical to that of Philadelphia at the time. The prosecution had four

(4) preemptory challenges left when the jury was finally seated. If the

prosecution had desired, they could of used these remaining challenges to

exclude the three black jurors that were seated. The court transcripts verify

that each of the jurors dismissed by the prosecution were dismissed for valid

non-racial reasons. 18 The Witnesses Both the defense and prosecution have a

litany of witnesses. Over the years, many of these witnesses have changed their

stories. A few of the witnesses have filed sworn affidavits that the police

coerced them into making false statements to support the prosecution?s claims.

The defense witnesses contend that a third person was present during the routene

traffic stop by Officer Faulkner. This third person was responsible for shooting

Officer Faulkner and then fled on foot. This ?running man? theory is the

only theory ever presented on the record that purports to show Mr. Jamal?s

innocence. 19 This section will try to identify all key witnesses for both the

prosecution and the defense and analyize their statements individually. The

defense claims that Veronica Jones is a key eye witness to overturning the

murder conviction. The night of the murder, Ms. Jones was a prostitute working

the neighborhood around 13th and Locust. Ms. Jones originally told the police

that she had witnessed two men run from the scene in which Officer Faulkner was

shot, but changed her story after receiving threats and promises from two

Philadelphia detectives. Ms. Jones was a mother of two at the time and was

facing felony charges of welfare fraud and was later convicted of these felony

charges. However Ms. Jones testified in 1982 that she did not see the actual

shooting. She stated that she was working the street around the cornor and did

not look across the street until after the shooting stopped. When she looked

around the cornor, she saw ?two men kinda jogging away? from the crime

scene. Ms. Jones has never testified that these two men were involved in the

crime in any way.21 Today, Ms Jones claims in a sworn affidavit that she gave

false testimony under oath against Jamal. She claims that at the time of the

trial, she was coerced by the police to lye. In her statement, Ms. Jones states

that approximatly one week before the trial she was visited by two white plain

clothed detectives. The detectives began by discussing Mr. Jamal rather than the

facts of the case. They told her that if she testified at the trial and

identified Jamal as the shooter, she would not have to worry about her upcoming

pending felony charges. She claims to of told the detectives at the time that

she did not see the shooting, but only heard the shots. The detectives were not

satified with this response and reminded Ms. Jones that she faced a long prison

sentence if convicted. She felt at the time that if she did not testify against

Mr. Jamal, she would never see her children again and spend many years in

prison. Ms. Jones also claims in her sworn statement that during the trial both

detectives were in plain view, standing at the rear of the courtroom. Debra

Kordansky is another defense eyewitness that was in the bedroom of her apartment

down the street from the crime scene. She heard all five shots but thought they

were firecrackers so she did not look out her window until the police arrived on

the scene. She saw ten squad cars and two vans and a man running on the South

side of Locust Street. 22 Mr. Desie Hightower testified in 1982 that he was down

the street from the shooting, behind a building in a parking lot, getting into a

car with his friend. Like Ms. Kordansky, Mr. Hightower initially thought the

shooting was a kid lighting firecrackers. Mr. Hightower testified that he ?did

not have a direct line of vision to the crime scene because he had sought cover

behind a wall when the shooting started and then remained there until the

shooting stopped. Having waited until quite some time after the shooting stoped

before looking around the corner towards the crime scene, he stated that he saw

somebody running from the general area of the shooting.? Mr. Hightower has

never testified or stated that the person he saw running from the scene was the

shooter or involved in the crime in any way. It should be noted that Mr.

Hightower?s 1982 description of the person he saw running after the police

arrived was an exact composite of Mr. Jamal the morning of the shooting and Mr.

Hightower had no explanation for this fact. Furthermore, Mr. Hightower was given

a polygraph test on his testimony and passed. William Singletary was a secondary

eyewitness for the defense. He not only was present at the crime scene the night

of the murder, he had a long discussion with one of the presiding officers.

However, he did not testify in the original trial but was called by Judge Sabo

during the 1995 appeal of the decision. Later in 1996, Mr. Singletary was called

the key witness in the 1996 HBO documentary on the Jamal trail. He stated that

he saw two shooters. The first shot Officer Faulkner in the back and then

escaped down the street. The second gunman stepped out of the car Officer

Faulkner pulled over (Jamal?s brother), shot the wounded officer in the face,

threw the gun away, and ran away. Then according to Singletary, as Mr. Jamal

approached Officer Faulker to offer assistance, Officer Faulkner raised his hand

and shot Mr. Jamal in the chest. Mr. Singletary went on to say that he

personally approached Officer Faulkner and heard him say ?Get Maureen, get the

children.? Maureen is in fact Officer Faulkner?s wifes first name, however

they never had any children. Mr. Singletary?s testimony does raise some

interesting questions. Both the prosecution and defense medical experts both

agreed that Officer Faulkner died immediately from his head wound. Did Mr.

Singletary actually speak to Officer Faulker? How did Mr. Cook?s mystery

passenger get posession of Mr. Jamal?s gun, out of its holster, and shoot

Officer Faulkner in the head? How was Officer Faulkner shot in the back? . Was

there a second man (mystery man) in Mr. Cook?s car? If there was a second man

in Mr. Cook?s (Jamal?s brother) car, why hasn?t Mr. Cook come forward? Mr.

Cook has stated for the record many times that he had nothing to do with the

murder of Officer Faulkner and has refused to testify during the trial. Mr.

Singletary also swears that he was admitted in the Philadelphia Police

Headquarters (Roundhouse) at 4am on the morning of the shooting and released at

9am. During this time he was interogated and threatened by a black Philadlephia

police detective. Mr. Singletary claims he provided a handwritten version of the

mornings events, and once it was reviewed by the detective it was balled up and

thrown away. Finally frustrated, the interviewing detective typed up his own

version of the events that morning and demanded that Mr. Singletary sign the

typed document. Fearing for his safety, Mr. Singletary claims he unwillingly

signed the typed police version of the morning?s events. Mr. Singletary also

claims that the police treatened him at his place of business, windows of his

gas station were routinely broken by police, and that his tow trucks were cited

for numerous violations. He claimed in the HBO documentary that the alleged

intimidation became so oppressive that he was forced to abandon his business in

Philadelphia and leave town, moving to South Carolina. There are many

inconsistancies with Mr. Singletary?s statement. Log books at the Philadelphia

Police Headquarters indicate that Mr. Singletary signed himself in and out of

the roundhouse. He was not questioned by a black detective as he claims, the

records show Mr. Singletary was interogated by a white detective with less than

eight months experience. It is impossible to prove or disprove weather or not he

was threatened by a detective with less than eight months experience. Both the

prosecution and defense agree that Robert Chobert was an actual eyewitness to

the shooting and one of the closest individuals to the crime. When he was 18

yeas old, Mr. Chobet was paid to throw a molotov cocktail into an empty school

building. He pleaded no contest to the charges and was placed on probation. The

night of Officer Faulkner?s murder, Mr. Chobert was parked in the taxi he was

driving 30 feet behind Officer Faulkner?s police car. He swore in the 1982

trail and 1995 appeal that he saw Mr. Jamal shoot Officer Faulkner and did not

take his eyes off of Jamal until he was arrested and placed in the police van.

The defense claims that Mr. Chobert was driving his taxi without a valid drivers

license and that the Assistant DA Mr. McGill had an agreement with Mr. Chobert

that he would arrange to get his license back in return for favorable testimony.

Mr. Chobert confirmed during his 1996 testimony that back in 1982, he did ask

the DA on how he could get his license back. Thirteen years after the shooting

and testimony of Mr. Chobert, he still does not have his drivers license back

due to his limited source of funds, but has been allowed to continue driving a

taxi cab. Four individuals, Michael Scanlon, Cynthia White, Robert Harkins, and

Albert Magelton all provided testimony for the prosecution. All four witnesses

were unquestionably present during the shooting, eyewitnesses to the murder, and

have been deemed credible by the court. ?Michael Scanlon was visiting

Philadelphia from out of state and was sitting in his car at the intersection of

13th and Locust and witnessed the entire murder, beginning to end.? Mr.

Scanlon testified extensively at the 1982 trail and confirmed that William Cook

attacked Officer Faulkner. He went on to testify that the officer reacted to Mr.

Cook?s attack trying to subdue Mr. Cook. As this was going on, another man

came running out from the parking lot across the street towards the officer and

Mr. Cook in front of the police car. Mr. Scanlon saw Jamal?s hand raise and

heard a gunshot. Then the officer fell down on the sidewalk and Mr. Jamal walked

over and shot the officer two additional times at point blank range. Another

prostitute working Locust street that night was Cynthia White. Ms. White

testified that she was across the street in the parking lot when ?I noticed

Mr. Jamal running out of the lot and practically on the curb when he shot two

times at Officer Faulkner in the back. The officer turned around and staggered

and seened like he was grabbing for something but fell. Then Jamal came on top

of the officer and shot him some more.? After it was all over, Jamal slouched

down and sat on the curb. Credible Eyewitness Albert Magelton was a pedestrian

walking across the intersection of 13th and Locust approximatley twenty yards

from the shooting. While testifying in 1982 to what he had witnessed Mr.

Magelton stated, ?I noticed the gentleman (Jamal) coming from the parking lot.

He was moving across the street towards where the officer had stopped the

Volkswagen. I heard shots and I did not see the Officer any more. I proceeded

back across the street to see what happened to the Officer. And then, as I was

moving across the street, I looked to where I heard the shots. When I got to the

pavement, I looked down and saw the Officer lying there. I did not see the other

gentleman (Jamal) until I moved up closer and saw him sitting on the curb.?

Under oath in 1982, when asked by Assistant D.A. Joe McGil what the police did

with the man who was sitting on the curb next to the dead Officer. Mr. Magelton

responded that they handcuffed Jamal and put him in the wagon. One of the

officers on the scene then took Mr. Magelton over to the wagon and asked him if

this was the gentleman that he had seen coming across the street. Mr. Magelton

confirmed his story under oath and there is no evidense that the defense of Mr.

Jamal has ever challenged his testimony. Mr Robert Harkins was another cab

driver placed immediately across the street from the crime scene. Like Mr.

Chobert, Mr. Harkins was very close to the actual shooting and witnessed the

entire crime. Mr. Harkins gave a statement to the officers on the scene

confirming the prosecutions theory. In his statement from 1981, Mr Harkins said

that, ? I looked over and observed a police officer grab a guy, the guy spun

around and the officer went to the ground. He had his hands on the ground and

then rolled over at this point and the male who was standing over the officer

pointed a gun at the officer and fired one shot and then he fired a second shot.

At this time the officer moved a little and then went flat to the ground. I

heard a total of three shots and saw what appeared to be three flashes from the

gun of the man standing over the officer.? Despite this fact, Mr. Harkins is

in the unique position of having neither the defense nor prosecution call him to

testify at the 1982 trial. However, Mr. Harkins was asked by the defense to

testify at the 1995 appeal trial. Mr. Harkins stated under oath during the 1995

trial that he had been repeatedly harassed by Mr. Jamal?s investigators

between 1990 and July of 1995. He went on to say, that ?there were many people

that came around, many different people that would go to my place of work, and

then call me at my home. Each time Mr. Harkins refused to talk to the defense

team.? Finally after thirteen years of keeping his silence, Mr. Harkins

finally sucummed to the defense?s pressure and agreed to give a statement to

one of Mr. Jamal?s investigators. After he gave his statement the defense team

continued to contact him. Under oath in the 1995 trial, Mr. Harkins explained

that ? each time I would say something to the defense, they would come back

with something different than what I said. I don?t like that.? Regarding the

witnesses of this trial, it is clear that four prosecution witnesses: Scanlon,

White, Chobert, and Magelton, all gave virtually the exact same testimony.

Furthermore, the man that defense witness Harkins describes as having shot

Officer Faulkner and then sat down on the curb, who was later apprehended by

police was Munia Abu-Jamal. Witness credability is a major factor in this case.

There are four eyewitnesses for the defense that claim there was a third person

at the scene of the crime or a passenger in the Volkswagen? Pamela Jenkins

Cynthia White was a key witness for the prosecution, due to the fact that she

was the only witness who testified to seeing Jamal with a gun in his hands. No

other witness claims to have seen Jamal with a gun. It should also be noted

Cynthia White has disappeared and can not be found by the defense. No other

witness the morning of the shooting can recall seeing her that morning. It seems

that only the prosecution and the Philadelphia police now of Cynthia Whites

exact whereabouts. Following Jamal?s conviction, Ms. White continued to work

the streets under police protection. She was arrested many times after the trial

and all charges were dismissed, or a plea bargain was worked out. Pamela Jenkins

recently came forward for the defense. Apparently, Ms. Jenkins was working as a

prostitute that night and knew Cynthia White very well. Ms. Jenkins also knew a

number of Philadelphia police officrs at the time and was dating Officer Thomas

Ryan. Ms. Jenkins has provided a sworn statement that Officer Ryan asked her to

testify against Jamal and to falsely identify Mumia as the shooter, in spite of

the fact she wasn?t even present during the shooting. Her statement went on to

say that Officer Ryan paid her $150 to help Ms. White and that the police put

pressure on Ms. White to lie at the Mumia trial. Is Ms. Jenkins testimony and

statement credible after all these years? It appears the government has used Ms.

Jenkins as a star witness in a police corruption case in Philadelphia. At that

trial, Ms. Jenkins revealed how the Philadelphia police used her to provide

fraudulent evidence to obtain a murder conviction against Raymond Carter. Ms.

Jenkins testified that Officer Thomas Ryan paid her $500 to testify against

Carter.