In Defense of Mumia

by Sam E. Anderson (Editor), Tony Medina (Editor), Amiri Baraka (Contributor)

In 1982, the award-winning journalist and former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted of killing a Philadephia police officer and was sentenced to death. He was on death row for 13 years before a groundswell of public opinion questioned the fairness of his trial and demanded a stay of execution. In August 1995, artists, activists, and concerned citizens met in New York City to demand a new trial. This book documents their overwhelming outpouring of support.

364 pages, Paperback

First published March 1, 1996

About the author

Anderson was a founding member of Harlem’s Black Panther Party, which prioritized the struggle for community control over schools. He was the founding chair of Sarah Lawrence College’s Black studies department in 1969; worked with other progressive educators to design the formation of SUNY Old Westbury in 1970; and has taught at Brooklyn College, City College of New York, New York University, and Rutgers University.

He was a founding member of the Coalition for Public Education and the National Black Education Agenda, and remains active with the NYC Coalition to Finally End Mayoral Control of Schools.

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A COLLECTION OF WRITINGS SUPPORTING A NEW TRIAL

The editors wrote in this 1996 collection, “This anthology of writings and artwork---by an array of international activists, writers, and musicians---pays tribute to Mumia Abu-Jamal, a freedom fighter, a revolutionary journalist, a father, a humble African man… a political prisoner threatened with execution by a truly unjust criminal justice system… Moonlighting as a cab driver… he witnessed a police officer beating an African-American male… he realized that this young victim was his brother. Coming to his aid, Mumia was shot in the chest, and the police officer was shot and killed. Several eyewitnesses reported seeing another man shoot the policeman and run from the scene… these eyewitnesses were never called to testify at Mumia’s farcical trial…

“As we rush to publish this anthology, Mumia Abu-Jamal must now run the legal gauntlet of appealing to the higher courts of Pennsylvania and the federal government. Even as we prepare this text, the threat of death still looms over Mumia Abu-Jamal!” [NOTE: in 2011, the prosecution agreed to a sentence of life imprisonment without parole.] … The contributors to this anthology may or may not see Mumia as innocent of the murder of Officer Faulkner, but they all condemn the unjust and racist nature of the Pennsylvania judicial system’s handling of his initial trial and have selflessly donated their time and talent.”

In his essay, Dr. Cornel West notes, “The brutal killing of Officer Daniel Faulkner on December 9, 1981, was wrong and unjust. Whoever killed Faulkner deserves to be imprisoned. But only a fair trial will determine who that person is… The trial was a farce. The chief grounds of the decision against Abu-Jamal were based on the testimony of a prostitute… who was eager for immunity from arrest in return for her testimony… His superb lawyer, Leonard Weinglass, had planned to file a post-conviction review appeal… Abu-Jamal deserves a new and fair trial.” (Pg. 7-8)

E.L. Doctorow wrote, “Of the two witnesses who positively identified Mr. Jamal as the gunman, one was a prostitute… and the other was a car driver on probation for a felony arson conviction. The cab driver’s testimony corroborated the prostitute’s, but in a deposition taken on the night of the crime he said something else entirely… that the gunman was … a heavyset man of well over 200 pounds who had fled the scene… Yet no police inquiries regarding another possible gunman were ever made… no effort was made by the police department to determine if Mr. Jamal’s pistol had been fired that night. Moreover, the Police Department’s own medical examiner concluded that the officer’s fatal head wound was made by a .44 caliber bullet. Mr. Jamal’s pistol was a .38 caliber… The prosecution’s claim that Mr. Jamal was shot while standing over the fallen officer is not consistent with a pathologist’s report describing the downward trajectory of his chest wound… A different scenario… is suggested by Mr. Jamal’s own account---that he was shot first by the officer as he approached.” (Pg. 37)

The MOVE organization wrote, “During the early part of his trial Mumia had asked that John Africa represent him, because Mumia knew that John Africa could, without a doubt, effectively represent him and win his case. However, Judge Albert Sabo denied Mumia his right to have John Africa as his counsel… MOVE believes that Mumia was framed for the murder of a cop to justify sentencing him to die in a vendetta to silence him forever for publicly demonstrating his support for MOVE, and for refusing to back down from the system’s intimidation.” (Pg. 96)

In a 1995 interview, Abu-Jamal said, “Many conservative black and white commentators looking at my original trial excoriated and criticized me viciously for my ‘animalistic behavior.’ They criticized me, verbalizing my position regarding representation by John Africa for counsel, and they criticized me for criticizing the judge. As many people have seen during this hearing, I have been absolutely silent. I have not criticized the counselors, because for this reason---they are very good counsel, there is no reason to criticize them. What they have shown throughout this hearing is what should have happened throughout the trial. Had they been representing me then, the results would have been astoundingly different.” (Pg. 180)

William Kunstler pointed out that “Mr. Abu-Jamal was represented at trial … [by a lawyer] who was later disbarred, [and] insisted from his appointment that he had never tried a capital case and was not prepared to do so… Although the jury was informed that Mr. Abu-Jamal had confessed to the crime, the arresting officer, who was present at the time such admission would have been made, wrote in his report that the defendant made no statements at all. The officer conveniently took his vacation at the beginning of the trial, and a defense request … to await his return was summarily denied by the judge.” (Pg. 235).

Herb Boyd pointed out, “While there is no way for any of us to determine with certainty whether Abu-Jamal is guilty or innocent … we do know that his Constitutional rights were abrogated, and that alone is compelling enough for me to side with him as he awaits execution… there are at least nine examples of why Mumia did not get a fair trial, including denial of counsel of his choice.” (Pg. 236)

Jelani W. Cobb comments, “Is Mumia Abu-Jamal innocent? I do not know. I am sure, however, that nobody sitting on his jury knew either. His trial was rife with racist violations including a judge who deprived Mumia of his right to self-representation, without explanation, in the middle of his trial. White jurors, without informing the blacks, met to pre-deliberate and decide upon the terms they would follow when the ‘interracial’ deliberations began.” (Pg. 298)

Mike Farrell argues, “Is it wrong to question a verdict of premeditated murder when a man happens on his brother being brutally beaten by a police officer and attempts to intervene?.. Is it wrong to question the theory on which a capital conviction is based when ballistic evidence---the path of the bullet through Mumia’s body---contradicts it? Is it wrong to question why none of the testimony when other witnesses tell of being threatened, bribed and intimidated by police? Is it wrong to question why none of the testimony indicating another individual running from the scene of the crime… was ever followed up?” (Pg. 330)

This book will be “must reading” for supporters of Abu-Jamal.

[Cherie · Rating 3 out of 5]

An anthology of works in favor of the freedom of Mumia Abu-Jamal.