Mumia

The Boston Phoenix
March 4 - 11, 1999

[Features]

Justice done or justice denied?

by Kelly McCarthy
Early on the morning of December 9, 1981, Mumia Abu-Jamal, a Philadelphia radio journalist, was working a night shift as a cab driver when he came upon his brother, William Cook, engaged in an altercation over a motor-vehicle violation with a police officer, Daniel Faulkner.
Of everything that occurred in the moments that followed, only a couple of facts are undisputed: (1) Officer Faulkner was shot and killed; (2) Abu-Jamal, too, was shot, but survived.
Virtually everything else about the incident is the subject of debate between Mumia's defenders and his prosecutors. Abu-Jamal was arrested and charged with Faulkner's murder, convicted in 1982, and sentenced to death.

Mumia's side

Abu-Jamal's partisans believe that Faulkner's real killer escaped the scene of the crime and is still at large. And they claim Abu-Jamal was set up by police because of his strong on-air criticism of Philadelphia law enforcement, as well as his involvement with the Black Panther Party.

ANOTHER SHOOTER. Abu-Jamal's supporters maintain that at least one of the eyewitnesses testified that another person, not Abu-Jamal, shot Faulkner and fled. One source claims that four witnesses saw a man other than Abu-Jamal flee the scene of the crime. In addition, supporters say that a witness "critical" to the prosecution's case was actually not present at the crime scene.

ABU-JAMAL'S GUN. Mumia does not deny obtaining a license to carry a .38 caliber revolver; he had recently been robbed while driving his cab. But his defenders maintain that ballistics experts never conclusively matched any of the bullets found in Faulkner's body with a gun that was found next to Abu-Jamal at the crime scene. Police also tested the murder weapon for fingerprints, and did not find Abu-Jamal's prints on the gun. What's more, police did not test Abu-Jamal's hands for powder burns, which could have shown whether or not he fired a weapon that night.

DUE PROCESS? Of all the claims made by Mumia's supporters, the most vehement is that Abu-Jamal did not receive a fair trial. They say he was denied his right to represent himself, and that his court-appointed attorney was grossly unprepared, in terms of both experience and finances, to try the case effectively.

Abu-Jamal's supporters say the trial was flawed from the start. The jury selected to hear the case was not representative of the community, they maintain, pointing out that although Philadelphia is 40 percent African-American, only two of the 12 jurors were black.

They also point out that his defense was barred from examining one of the most critical eyewitnesses for the prosecution; the defense had wanted to show that the witness was "coaxed and coerced" by police to testify. Another witness is alleged to have changed his story because he was on probation and feared police retaliation.

Finally, Mumia's defenders claim that the introduction of Mumia's personal history -- including his association with the Black Panthers -- in his post-trial sentencing hearing was prejudicial and violated his constitutional rights.

AN UNFAIR JUDGE? The judge who oversaw the case, Albert Sabo, had been a member of the Fraternal Order of Police -- the same law-enforcement union to which Faulkner had belonged. Prior to Abu-Jamal's case, Sabo had sentenced 32 people to death, and all but two of those were people of color, according to Abu-Jamal supporters. Despite these considerations, Mumia's supporters say, Sabo has refused to recuse himself from hearings on whether or not Abu-Jamal should be granted a new trial.

The prosecution's side

The prosecutors who successfully convicted Mumia Abu-Jamal of Daniel Faulkner's murder have never wavered in their belief that they got the right man. The prosecution's theory is that Abu-Jamal shot Faulkner in the back, and when Faulkner returned fire, Abu-Jamal shot him again repeatedly, including once between the eyes at point-blank range.

EYEWITNESSES. Faulkner's supporters point out that five eyewitnesses, who saw the incident from five vantage points, testified in detail that they saw Abu-Jamal run from the parking lot across the street and fire at Faulkner. Some of these witnesses report having watched from less than 30 feet away as Abu-Jamal repeatedly fired at Faulkner, at point-blank range, after the officer had fallen to the ground. Faulkner's supporters say that none of these eyewitnesses knew each other beforehand, nor did they have time to hear the others' testimony before they identified Abu-Jamal.

THE GUN. The prosecution maintained that the bullet in Abu-Jamal's chest was fired from Faulkner's gun, which is consistent with their theory that Faulkner shot at the person attacking him. They said that the gun discovered next to Abu-Jamal was owned by him, registered in his name, and contained five spent casings of the same brand, caliber, type, and rifling characteristics of the bullets extracted from Faulkner's brain and body.

THE MISSING BROTHER. Faulkner's supporters say that William Cook, Abu-Jamal's brother, was discovered a few feet away from the scene of the crime and is believed to have seen the entire incident take place. According to them, when Philadelphia police officers approached Cook, he said, "I ain't got nothing to do with this" -- not, as Abu-Jamal supporters claim, "My brother and I ain't got nothing to do with this," or "Someone shot the cop and ran away." Also, Cook did not testify in Abu-Jamal's defense.

A CONFESSION? Faulkner's supporters say that Abu-Jamal shouted, "I shot the motherfucker and I hope he dies" twice outside the hospital emergency entrance. (Mumia's supporters contend that he never confessed.)

THE TRIAL. Defenders of the prosecution maintain that Abu-Jamal received a fair trial, and that the problems he had with his defense were of his own making. They point out that in a subsequent review of the case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found no merit to the charges that an unfit jury was impaneled for the case, or that Judge Sabo was incapable of conducting a fair trial.