Post by Anja Nieser on Sept 6, 2006 13:07:02 GMT -5
MUMIA ABU-JAMAL LEGAL UPDATE FROM ROBERT R. BRYAN
September 4, 2006
Dear Friends:
On October 4, 2006, our Reply Brief in response to the briefs submitted by
the district attorney will be filed on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Philadelphia. This
is pursuant to a September 1 court order.
We continue to aggressively pursue relief for Mr. Abu-Jamal. On July 20,
Professor Judith L. Ritter, associate counsel, and I filed a lengthy
opening brief supported by voluminous exhibits. A week later NAACP Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., through Christine Swarns filed an
/amicus curiae/ (friend of the court) brief. A separate /amicus curiae/
brief was filed for the National Lawyers Guild by Jill Soffiyah Elijah of
the Harvard Law School, Professor Zachary Wolfe of George Washington
University Law School, and Heidi Boghosian, its Executive Director. They
were joined by the National Conference of Black Lawyers, International
Association of Democratic Lawyers, Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for
Race and Justice of Harvard Law School, Southern Center for Human Rights,
and the National Jury Project. These /amicus/ briefs greatly strengthen
our quest to protect the constitutional rights of Mr. Abu-Jamal and secure
a reversal.
This case concerns my client's right to a fair trial, and the struggle
against the death penalty and the political repression of an outspoken
journalist. Racism and politics are threads that have run through this
case since his 1981 arrest. The issues under consideration by the court
are complex and of great significance under the United States
Constitution, include:
1. Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied the right to due process of law and a
fair trial under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments because of the
prosecutor's "appeal after appeal" argument that called upon the jurors to
disregard the right to the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt,
and err on the side of guilt.
2. Whether the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to exclude
African Americans from sitting on the jury violated Mr. Abu-Jamal's right
to due process and equal protection of the law under the Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments and contravened the prohibition against racism in
jury selection held in /Batson v. Kentucky/, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
3. Whether the verdict form and jury instructions that resulted in the
death penalty deprived Mr. Abu-Jamal of rights guaranteed by the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments 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 jurors
from considering any mitigating evidence unless they all agreed on the
existence of a particular special circumstance.
4. Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied due process and equal protection of
the law under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments during post-conviction
proceedings as a result of the bias of Judge Albert F. Sabo which included
the statement that he was going to "help 'em fry the n----r".
The case continues to move rapidly. Once the briefing phase is complete,
we will present oral argument before a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court
of Appeals. I will notify you when a date is eventually set.
Our purpose is to win this life-and-death struggle, gain a new and fair
trial, and see our client walk out of jail a free person. However, Mr.
Abu-Jamal remains in great danger. We must redouble our efforts to prevent
his execution.
Thank you for your concern in this campaign for justice.
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
(source: Law Office of Robert R. Bryan)
September 4, 2006
Dear Friends:
On October 4, 2006, our Reply Brief in response to the briefs submitted by
the district attorney will be filed on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Philadelphia. This
is pursuant to a September 1 court order.
We continue to aggressively pursue relief for Mr. Abu-Jamal. On July 20,
Professor Judith L. Ritter, associate counsel, and I filed a lengthy
opening brief supported by voluminous exhibits. A week later NAACP Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., through Christine Swarns filed an
/amicus curiae/ (friend of the court) brief. A separate /amicus curiae/
brief was filed for the National Lawyers Guild by Jill Soffiyah Elijah of
the Harvard Law School, Professor Zachary Wolfe of George Washington
University Law School, and Heidi Boghosian, its Executive Director. They
were joined by the National Conference of Black Lawyers, International
Association of Democratic Lawyers, Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for
Race and Justice of Harvard Law School, Southern Center for Human Rights,
and the National Jury Project. These /amicus/ briefs greatly strengthen
our quest to protect the constitutional rights of Mr. Abu-Jamal and secure
a reversal.
This case concerns my client's right to a fair trial, and the struggle
against the death penalty and the political repression of an outspoken
journalist. Racism and politics are threads that have run through this
case since his 1981 arrest. The issues under consideration by the court
are complex and of great significance under the United States
Constitution, include:
1. Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied the right to due process of law and a
fair trial under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments because of the
prosecutor's "appeal after appeal" argument that called upon the jurors to
disregard the right to the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt,
and err on the side of guilt.
2. Whether the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to exclude
African Americans from sitting on the jury violated Mr. Abu-Jamal's right
to due process and equal protection of the law under the Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments and contravened the prohibition against racism in
jury selection held in /Batson v. Kentucky/, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
3. Whether the verdict form and jury instructions that resulted in the
death penalty deprived Mr. Abu-Jamal of rights guaranteed by the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments 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 jurors
from considering any mitigating evidence unless they all agreed on the
existence of a particular special circumstance.
4. Whether Mr. Abu-Jamal was denied due process and equal protection of
the law under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments during post-conviction
proceedings as a result of the bias of Judge Albert F. Sabo which included
the statement that he was going to "help 'em fry the n----r".
The case continues to move rapidly. Once the briefing phase is complete,
we will present oral argument before a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court
of Appeals. I will notify you when a date is eventually set.
Our purpose is to win this life-and-death struggle, gain a new and fair
trial, and see our client walk out of jail a free person. However, Mr.
Abu-Jamal remains in great danger. We must redouble our efforts to prevent
his execution.
Thank you for your concern in this campaign for justice.
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
(source: Law Office of Robert R. Bryan)