PDA

View Full Version : Ragerrr grrrrr a Kareem Abdul Jammal update



faxman75
10-06-2008, 12:19 PM
Supreme court says no new trial.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081006/ts_alt_afp/usjusticeexecutionmumia

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Supreme Court Monday refused to hear arguments for a new trial for Mumia Abu-Jamal, a former Black Panther accused of killing a police officer who has become an icon for anti-capital punishment campaigners.

ADVERTISEMENT

His lawyer Robert Bryan has already said he will seek to bring a second Supreme Court appeal -- on the grounds of racism -- for the 54-year-old former radio journalist accused of the 1981 murder of Daniel Faulkner.

Abu-Jamal's death sentence was overturned in March by a federal court in Philadelphia, which found that the jury in the case had been incorrectly instructed. The judges voted two-to-one to uphold his conviction, however.

Having escaped death row, his lawyers are now fighting a life sentence and want to bring him back before a jury for a new trial.

They had asked the Supreme Court to approve a re-trial because of unreliable testimony from witnesses.

Bryan has said he will not rest until his client is freed. "Even though the federal court granted a new trial on the question of the death penalty, we want a complete reversal of the conviction," he said in July.

As part of his defense, Abu-Jamal has argued he was denied a fair trial in 1982 because the prosecution barred 10 qualified African-Americans from sitting on the jury, which in the end consisted of 10 whites and two blacks.

The Philadelphia appeals court had rejected his arguments on lack of evidence of any racist intent on the part of the prosecution.

The US penal code bans the exclusion of potential jurists because of the colour of their skin.

Abu-Jamal's campaign has attracted support from Nelson Mandela, Hollywood celebrities Danny Glover and Susan Sarandon and British parliamentarians, according to campaign group Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition.

Abu-Jamal was serving as the president of the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists at the time of his arrest. He was a founding member of the Philadelphia Chapter of the Black Panther Party as a teenager.

The Black Panther Party was a Leftist African-American organization from the 1960s and 70s established to promote black power and self-defense.

TomAz
10-06-2008, 12:36 PM
Well if Hollywood celebs are behind this guy, he MUST GO FREE!

allyjoy
10-06-2008, 01:00 PM
The point is that he was not given a fair trial. not even close to one and it is the duty of the legal system to correct its mistake. If he's a cop killer, then he should go to prison, but no one should act like police didn't take out orders to kill and brutalize members of BPP and walked away without so much as a citation. This is the same police who BOMBED (literally) a house in Philly in order to serve warrants on another "extremist" group.

faxman75
10-06-2008, 01:05 PM
It think there is substantial evidence that members of the hollywood elite and gureilla anti government bands like The Raging Machines KNOW that Mahkmud Mohamaded Kareem Abdul Jabar must be free.

I guess they like the fact that he is a celebrety like they all are.

faxman75
10-06-2008, 01:11 PM
The point is that he was not given a fair trial. not even close to one and it is the duty of the legal system to correct its mistake.

So he had a right to an appeal, he had a right to testify and he continues to exercise his rights in the legal system and time and time again he fails. It usually doens't help when you rant against the judge after the conviction either. He acted like an ASS in the court room so the judge could no longer even let him represent himself. If he wanted to be taken seriously, when charged with murder, it's best to take it seroiusly not turn it into a kangaroo court. He fucked himself. Guilty or not, he did it to himself. He is by the way most likely guilty as the evidence and the jury have said over and over again.




If he's a cop killer, then he should go to prison, but no one should act like police didn't take out orders to kill and brutalize members of BPP and walked away without so much as a citation. This is the same police who BOMBED (literally) a house in Philly in order to serve warrants on another "extremist" group.

Interesting but this doesn't have to do with the case.

TomAz
10-06-2008, 01:14 PM
The point is that he was not given a fair trial.

how do you know this?

has anyone written a song about him yet? that would prove a lot if someone did.

bmack86
10-06-2008, 01:18 PM
A guy at UCLA did. He used to sing his Mumia song along with other political songs he had written while sitting in the study lounge. He died from a heart attack while swimming earlier this year.

TomAz
10-06-2008, 01:30 PM
when one has a heart attack while swimming and dies, does one die from the heart attack or does one drown?

faxman75
10-06-2008, 01:33 PM
One argument was that the ballistics proved the gun was not the right caliber. All these silly celebs like Ed Asner and Claude Pujol (who?) claimed to know wtf they were talking about and that they did no tests. It was false. Ballistics tests were done and a .38 was used, the same gun Mumia had tossed or whatever. Epic fail #1. That theory started because the coronor (you know, a guy who looks at dead bodies) scribbled down .45 as the bullet used but admitted in trial he didn't know the difference, which is why you do ballistics to begin with.

TomAz
10-06-2008, 01:34 PM
The coroner doesn't know the difference between a .38 caliber bullet and a .45?

what's this have to do with heart attacks?

faxman75
10-06-2008, 01:38 PM
How about his hospital confession? Wanna debate that? Was the hospital employee who told her boss that Mumia confessed, was she in on some scam to ruin this strangers life too? Another security guard also heard this confession. He was probably in on this scheme too right?

faxman75
10-06-2008, 01:38 PM
The coroner doesn't know the difference between a .38 caliber bullet and a .45?

what's this have to do with heart attacks?

He was swimming with a gun and a guitar. Try and tell me that doesn't put a strain on the heart.

allyjoy
10-06-2008, 01:40 PM
here's some info:

Since the sentence, new information which contradicts the trial evidence has surfaced.

Eighteen years after the slaying, Arnold Beverly claimed that, "wearing a green (camouflage) army jacket", he had run across the street and shot Daniel Faulkner as part of a contract killing because Faulkner was interfering with graft and payoff to corrupt police. Private investigator George Newman claimed in 2001 that Chobert had recanted his testimony. Cynthia White died in 1992, and it was subsequently alleged that she falsified her testimony. Kenneth Pate, a stepbrother of Priscilla Durham who was imprisoned with Abu-Jamal on other charges, has since claimed that Durham admitted to not hearing the hospital confession. The hospital doctors have claimed that Abu-Jamal was not capable of making such a dramatic bedside confession at that time.

In his version of events, detailed in a sworn statement almost 20 years afterwards, Abu-Jamal claimed that he was sitting in his cab across the street when he heard shouting, then saw a police vehicle, then heard the sound of gunshots. Upon seeing his brother appearing disoriented across the street, Abu-Jamal ran to him from the parking lot and was shot by a police officer. The statement includes no mention of the gun that was found nearby him at the crime scene nor the corresponding firearms shoulder holster he was found to be wearing at the time of his arrest.[46] William Cook did not testify or make any statement until 2001 when he claimed that he had not seen who had shot Faulkner.

faxman75
10-06-2008, 01:45 PM
A simple question. What does any of that have to do with your original assertion about him not having a fair trial?

Also.


The hospital doctors have claimed that Abu-Jamal was not capable of making such a dramatic bedside confession at that time.

Source that. Both a hospital worker and a security guard have testified under oath in court that he made the confession. Was this something the doctors said 20 years later like the rest of the speculation in the story? The only place I seen assertions that it was impossible for him to speak at all are from the "free mumia" website which I think might have a slight bias.

faxman75
10-06-2008, 01:50 PM
If Mr. Jamal didn't shoot Officer Faulkner in the back and in the face, would you please explain...what the hell he was doing at 3:51am sitting on the curb in front of a dead cop, with an empty shoulder holster under his armpit, with a bullet from the dead cop's revolver in his chest, and his own registered five shot .38 caliber handgun lying next to his feet, with all five bullets fired?

faxman75
10-06-2008, 03:34 PM
anyone have a reasonable answer?

Quadromarshia
10-06-2008, 03:35 PM
this thread is all you man

bmack86
10-06-2008, 04:11 PM
when one has a heart attack while swimming and dies, does one die from the heart attack or does one drown?

He died from the heart attack. They revived him in the hospital but he died anyway from severe lack of blood to the brain. He was a nice guy, but way too intense and radical about his politics. He seemed like he really wanted to be Zach De La Rocha.

Young blood
10-06-2008, 04:18 PM
Is this about OJ?

Boourns
10-06-2008, 05:13 PM
If Mr. Jamal didn't shoot Officer Faulkner in the back and in the face, would you please explain...what the hell he was doing at 3:51am sitting on the curb in front of a dead cop, with an empty shoulder holster under his armpit, with a bullet from the dead cop's revolver in his chest, and his own registered five shot .38 caliber handgun lying next to his feet, with all five bullets fired?

Rage Against The Machine said he should be freed, therefore none of this ever happened. And that's that.

fatbastard
10-06-2008, 05:35 PM
Bullets matched?

faxman75
10-06-2008, 06:08 PM
DON'T YOU EVER QUESTION ZACH DE LA ROCHA!

betao
10-06-2008, 06:33 PM
http://www.bgu.ac.il/noar/students/interhug967/gil/tv-movie/airplane/murdock.jpg

oops, wrong thread.

marooko
10-07-2008, 12:35 PM
how do you know this?

has anyone written a song about him yet? that would prove a lot if someone did.

Uh, uh
Cmon check it

Through steel walls
Your voice blastin on
True rebel, my brother mumia
I reflect upon
You be tha spark
That set the prairie fires on
Make the masses a mastodon path
To trample the fascists on
At fifteen exposed phillys finest killing machine
Boots and mad guns
They pacify ya young
Cause and effect
Smell tha smoke and tha breeze
My panther, my brother
We are at war until youre free

Youll never silence the voice of the voiceless
Youll never silence the voice of the voiceless

Yet tha powerful got nervous
Cause he refused to be their servant
He spit truth
That burned like black churches
Prose and versesa million poor in hearses
Watch the decision of dred scott
As it reverses
Long as the rope
Is tied around mumias neck
Let there be no rich white life
We bound to respect
Cause and effect
Cant ya smell tha smoke in tha breeze
My panther, my brother
We are at war until youre free

Youll never silence the voice of the voiceless
Youll never silence the voice of the voiceless
Youll never silence the voice of the voiceless
Youll never silence the voice of the voiceless

And orwells hell a terror era coming through
But this little brothers watching you too
And orwells hell a terror era coming through
But this little brothers watching you too
Watching you too

marooko
10-07-2008, 12:37 PM
If Mr. Jamal didn't shoot Officer Faulkner in the back and in the face, would you please explain...what the hell he was doing at 3:51am sitting on the curb in front of a dead cop, with an empty shoulder holster under his armpit, with a bullet from the dead cop's revolver in his chest, and his own registered five shot .38 caliber handgun lying next to his feet, with all five bullets fired?

ive heard it was his brother and he was covering for him. seriously.

bmack86
10-07-2008, 12:41 PM
I heard that OJ was covering for his son.

marooko
10-07-2008, 12:43 PM
yeah, well, i heard it from his brother that it was him. (as i curl my hair)

faxman75
10-07-2008, 01:15 PM
He should have used that as his defense. Instead, he was dumb, so he shall rot.

real talk
10-07-2008, 02:48 PM
The title of this thread is offensive.

(removed incorrect fact about his sentence)

In a legal system that has historically disenfranchised black men, it isn't ridiculous to pay attention to appeal and evidence. The popularity of a cause due to attention by celebrity should not diminish the cause itself.

I don't really want to argue with you. I'm satisfied saying this much. Continue your meatheaded blowhard style of discourse that initially and immediately identifies those with contrary opinions to yours about the situation as mindless followers. Best of luck finding any intelligent person willing to waste the time.

marooko
10-07-2008, 02:55 PM
fuck you.

faxman75
10-07-2008, 03:02 PM
The title of this thread is offensive.

To who? The guy that murdered the cop who gets to play on the radio and live? Offensive GTFO lol. The crime this fuck committed was offensive.



(removed incorrect fact about his sentence)

In a legal system that has historically disenfranchised black men, it isn't ridiculous to pay attention to appeal and evidence. The popularity of a cause due to attention by celebrity should not diminish the cause itself.

What are you talking about? He had appeals and we have been discussing facts and evidence. The celebrities who argued his cause were clueless as well, they weren't mentioned to debate his guilt or innocense.




I don't really want to argue with you. I'm satisfied saying this much. Continue your meatheaded blowhard style of discourse that initially and immediately identifies those with contrary opinions to yours about the situation as mindless followers. Best of luck finding any intelligent person willing to waste the time.

Thanks for playing. You fail. I presented facts and you basically came into the thread to cry. Come back when you put on your big boy pants.

allyjoy
10-07-2008, 03:11 PM
He should have used that as his defense. Instead, he was dumb, so he shall rot.

Fax, the reason your argument fails to address the issue is because you made the assumption that there was a fair trial to begin with which any black person in America will tell you is not possible in this country and most certainly not nearly 30 years ago in Philadelphia. I know a former Panther who told me about her time in the party and that it was like war. Cops declared war against the BPP and anyone who affiliated with them. Ronald Reagan called them an enemy of the State when he was governor of California. What do you think was the sentiment when he was president? Don't sleep on the fact that there was a lot of corruption and falsifying evidence and what they convicted him on was circumstantial evidence at best.

real talk
10-07-2008, 03:19 PM
FIRST DAY OF TRIAL

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

COMMONWEALTH

VS.

MUMIA ABU-JAMAL

aka

WESLEY COOK
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
January Sessions, 1981 NOS. 1357 Poss Instru of Crime Gen
Poss Instru of Crime Weap
1358 Murder
Voluntary Manslaughter
1359 Involuntary Manslaughter


Philadelphia, Pa., June 17, 1982

Courtroom 253, City Hall

Before: HONORABLE ALBERT F. SABO, J. and Jury

APPEARANCES:
JOSEPH McGILL, ESQUIRE
Assistant District Attorney for the Commonwealth
ANTHONY E. JACKSON, ESQUIRE
Backup Counsel for the Defendant
MUMIA ABU-JAMAL
pro-se


1.2

(The following took place at sidebar on the record as follows:)

THE COURT: What do you want to see me about?

MR. McGILL: I think Mr. Jamal has some comment and I also had some comment with reference to procedure I want to find out.

THE COURT: Whoever wants to go first.

MR. McGILL: Do you have any objections?

MR. JAMAL: Go ahead.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, in terms of procedure, as I understand it, the defendant is still representing himself and, consequently, will be opening and examining, cross-examining, etcetera. I would just state to the Court and also, of course, remind Mr. Jamal -- and it may very well not be intentional -- but, of course, the only thing that we can really state in an opening, is he chooses to open or deal with in terms of procedure in this trial is evidence, and anything outside the record, opinions, anything that is outside the scope of the relevant evidence, for the trial would be inappropriate.

I normally would not say this at the

1.3

beginning of the trial but only because of the fact that Mr. Jamal has never really tried a case. He is not a lawyer. Of course, I would consequently object if there were other things that are occurring. I would hope there wouldn't be constant objections, and I would ask the Court at times to instruct Mr. Jamal to stick with evidence or what he intends to show or whatever, however he wishes to present himself.

Secondly, Your Honor, I have a request to make of the Court, that is because of the volume of material in this particular case I would ask that Detective William Thomas be in the courtroom. He does not have to be beside me. As a matter of fact, he will not be beside me but there may be times when I will have to consult with him particularly because of the number of statements, and to expedite the trial as opposed to my looking around for something that I may not be able to find, it may be a lot easier for him to find out. I will make that request.

THE COURT: Is he going to testify?

MR. McGILL: He may testify but not to any facts, sir. Of course it's within the Court's discretion to permit some individuals

1.4

in the Court connected in the case for purposes that are reasonable. This man is an assigned detective and I just -- I may physically find it a little difficult to find something in a minute's notice because of the volume of the material. That's the only thing.

Of course, Mr. Jamal will assist Mr. Jackson one way or the other. I, of course, have no objection. It's a Court order requirement of law.

He, of course, will not be sitting at my table unless it will be absolutely necessary. But at least he will be aware of where different things are and how to get it. I make that request.

Also, Mr. Jamal has made a request to view the photographs in this case. I have shown my entire file during the course of discovery matters to Mr. Jackson and he recognized that. However, Mr. Jamal now is representing himself and wants to see photographs. I am prepared to show him these photographs right now, Judge. We should take about five or ten minutes. I'm quite sure that he's familiar with some of them, most of them, but I'll show him all the photographs that I have. I believe I have the

1.5

full set with me and I will show him that.

He's also asked to hear a tape of witnesses. I also have no objection that he hear the tape of the witness. That tape, however, practically speaking would not be -- I don't think I should show or have Mr. Jamal hear it at this time now. He may at the end of the day, however, hear it when the jury is out. We can perhaps leave at 4:00 o'clock or whatever the Court wants.

THE COURT: I want to alert you that we may have to break at 3:00 o'clock for the simple reason that one of the jurors would have to be escorted by one of our tip staff to a settlement at 3:30.

MR. McGILL: Okay.

THE COURT: And, of course, the Court officer will be with that juror at all times during the course of that settlement and then bring him back immediately.

MR. McGILL: Okay. Well, that would give me an opportunity then if they were to leave to have a tape played for Mr. Jamal as he wished.

In as much as I will probably be putting on the Crime Lab early in the evidence I could

1.6

show him the photographs now. He, of course, has already seen the sketch, just a big sketch, of the same area that he's seen that is associated with all the statements.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. McGILL: Let's see what else.

THE COURT: The only thing is you say that Thomas -- I want to hear the Position about Thomas sitting in the courtroom since he will be a potential witness.

MR. McGILL: Potential, Judge, I guess, yes. Search warrant, he's not a fact witness. Certainly not an eyewitness. He didn't take a statement. The defendant --

THE COURT: The only testimony will concern the search warrant.

MR. McGILL: Judge, he's the assigned detective.

THE COURT: I know that.

MR. McGILL: I can't be limited to that. The reasons I can't tell you is because I don't know. It may become of importance at a later time. I also might add, I have no objection that Mr. Jamal's relatives stay in the courtroom

1.7

except potential witnesses. For example, his brother is a potential witness. I don't think he should be in the courtroom. If he has a strong objection I may withdraw that, but at any point -- as a matter of fact, if he does want both of his brothers in the courtroom I will not object to that. His entire family may stay in the courtroom whether they testify or not, whether they testify as to facts or not. I think, Judge, that probably covers it. I'm hopeful that I don't have anything else unless Mr. Jamal --

THE DEFENDANT: Okay. An omnibus motion filed before Judge Ribner, one of the things we were looking for were the criminal police records --

MR. McGILL: That's right.

THE DEFENDANT: -- of all witnesses --

MR. McGILL: That's right.

THE DEFENDANT: That was promised but yet to be delivered and it was promised before trial. I didn't think it was five minutes before trial. We also were supposed to hear those

1.8

tapes. I haven't heard them yet. I mean, if you're suggesting that we listen to them after you begin your opening, you know, again, the agreement was to have them heard before trial. I haven't seen those photographs.

MR. McGILL: Photographs?

THE DEFENDANT: Yeah.

THE COURT: He said he is going to show them.

MR. McGILL: Now.

THE DEFENDANT: We're talking about police records of witnesses, we're talking about tapes, we're also talking about photographs. I haven't seen any of those.

MR. McGILL: All right. Now the fact of the matter is, it is true that he -- I assume he has probably seen something or talked with Mr. Jackson over a period of six months that he's been representing him. However, Mr. Jamal is correct about the criminal records and I do have the criminal records and I could, in fact, and will show the criminal, records to -- and it is an updated criminal record. I checked that out and he will receive that before

1.9

the witness takes the stand.

THE DEFENDANT: The agreement was before trial not before the witness took the stand.

MR. McGILL: It is my view --

THE DEFENDANT: The difference is having that information now --

THE COURT: Just a minute. What's the difference in giving it to him now? Is that what the agreement was?

THE DEFENDANT: Before trial.

THE COURT: I don't want to be held up on lousy technicalities. If you're going to give it to him, give it to him. What do I care?

MR. McGILL: Fine. For the sake of the witnesses, Judge, until they take the stand it was my concern that, again, because of the press he may just send it out to the press for all I know, with what's been going on.

THE COURT: What difference does it make? Who cares if he sends it out to the press? The jury is sequestered. I don't really care.

MR. McGILL: It's an embarrassment and surprise to the individual involved.

1.10

THE COURT: Why didn't you contend his order? Is this his order?

MR. McGILL: I don't know specifically if that was his order, but if Your Honor feels that he should receive it then I'm not going to argue with it.

THE COURT: I don't know.

MR. McGILL: I'll give it to him.

THE COURT: They're saying to me you had an order or agreement, or whatever you had. I don't know what you did. I'm coming into this case cold. I don't know anything.

MR. McGILL: I think I do recall Judge Ribner saying, one, with the criminal records, due privacy -- I believe I did say before trial.

THE COURT: Okay. Then give it to him.

MR. McGILL: I will.

THE COURT: No problem.

McGILL: If he wishes I will.

DEFENDANT: What about the tapes?

Mr. McGILL: There was never an agreement as to when they would be played. I don't see any problem at all with them being

1 . 11

played this afternoon because the witness will not go on the stand, the witness will not be on the stand before the tape.

THE DEFENDANT: Well, the agreement was, again, that we set up some procedure where I could hear those tapes and view the photographs before trial. You remember very clear, this is not new to you.

MR. McGILL: Well --

THE DEFENDANT: That agreement was made before Judge Ribner.

MR. McGILL: There was no agreement made before Judge Ribner about that.

THE DEFENDANT: Sure.

MR. McGILL: The first time I heard about your desire to see the photographs and the tape was through Mr. Jackson after you made the decision to represent yourself. He said that to me maybe ten days ago, maybe a week ago. I don't remember exactly when. That was the first time I heard that. Up until the last hearing we had was the first time you said you were going to represent yourself. There was no need to show you tapes and photographs at the hearing with Judge Ribner. All of them

1. 12

were shown and Mr. Jackson had listened to them. It had to happen after that.

I am prepared to show them to Mr. Jamal now. I am saying as of time the witness won't go on until tomorrow or Saturday or Sunday, whatever the Court wants. And he will hear the tape this afternoon. There's no problem with that. There's no specific agreement and he will hear it. In fact, I'll get the photographs now. You want to go back there?

THE COURT: You can show them here. I don't care.

MR. McGILL: Okay.

THE COURT: What's this tape say? What they said in writing? Is it the same thing?

MR. McGILL: No. The tape is Cynthia White's statement.

THE COURT: It wasn't put down in writing?

MR. McGILL: It was not a written thing. The writing was a different statement she made and I also had a tape of her made. But I'm going to play it. It's just a question of whether it's now or I'll do it after court today.

THE COURT: But you are not going

1.13

to use that witness and you are not going to --

MR. McGILL: Right.

THE COURT: You are going to play that tape today?

MR. McGILL: Right.

THE COURT: But you will play the tape for him this afternoon?

MR. McGILL: That's correct.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE DEFENDANT: Obviously, what's necessary is to hear that tape and to examine the information on that tape. I don't know what's on that tape. I have absolutely no idea. There's no transcript existing. So to suggest that I should hear the tape when everyone else in court hears the tape is absurd.

MR. McGILL: No. No. No. I'm sorry. I did not mean to say that to you if that's what you thought.

THE DEFENDANT: You suggested I should hear it after the trial.

MR. McGILL: After it begins. No one's going to be there. Everybody here is going to leave at 3:00 o'clock because court will be

1.14

recessed. It will just be you, me, Mr. Jackson and the detective. At that point we will play the tape so we'll hear it before everybody else hears it. That's all it is. It's much to-do about nothing.

THE DEFENDANT: Easy for you to say.

MR. McGILL: Not really, Mr. Jamal, because you will hear it alone. That's it. You will hear it alone or with your counsel.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: Is there anything else, gentlemen?

MR. McGILL: Let me show the photographs to him.

THE COURT: It's 10:45. If you're going to show photographs --

THE DEFENDANT: The point about the tape is I don't know what's on the tape, I don't know what information at all is on the tape. To suggest that I read certain statements that the tape should be consistent with, that is -- I mean, you know, I don't want to make that assumption, obviously. I think you had ample time and opportunity to have that tape played.

1.15

THE COURT: You can play the tape if you want to during the lunch hour.

THE DEFENDANT: Before trial. I'm talking about before trial so that I can analyze that information.

THE COURT: The only thing before trial now is going to be my opening remarks to the jury, your pleading to the charges, his opening remarks, your opening remarks, if you want to give them now or you can wait until after the District Attorney finishes his case completely, and before you present any of the evidence you can have your opening. You can reserve your right to open. Do you understand what I'm talking about? Mr. Jackson will explain it to you so that that's no problem. And he's evidently just going to go into some background information.

MR. McGILL: I will put the Crime Lab man on first for identification of the body.

THE COURT: And things of that nature, background, which is not really material to what you want. And during the lunch hour, if you want to, you can play the tape. You can eat lunch at

1.16

3:00 o'clock. It doesn't make any difference to me.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE DEFENDANT: Could I speak with Mr. Jackson?

THE COURT: Yes.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE DEFENDANT: Tony Jackson wants to make a message of a technical violation in regard to that tape thing.

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I had spoken to Mr. McGill at least ten days ago with regard to Mr. Jamal's request for the tape. He agreed that he would hear that tape, review the photographs in evidence prior to trial. I've talked to him several times subsequent to that and I think that there's no contradiction of that. I believe in the spirit of the discovery rules consistent with the discovery rules, not withstanding the fact that I may have heard the tape, Your Honor well understands that Mr. Jamal represents himself. Mr. McGill indicates now that he's going to put on some background people

1.17

like the Crime Lab and things of that sort. This tape of an alleged eyewitness will contain information relative to positions, activities and things of that sort. To say that you're going to give the tape to Mr. Jamal after several, one or several, witnesses testify will deny him that information that may be pertinent and relative.

THE COURT: Let me ask you this: Is there an order? Is there a Judge's order on this?

MR. JACKSON: There is an order that the tapes and statements and all be turned over to counsel. The problem is that it was turned over to me and not Mr. Jamal.

THE COURT: You were counsel at that time?

MR. JACKSON: That's right. The only thing, photographs and tape he could not hear them and he could not view the photographs. He's been given all the statements, Your Honor. I'm saying just as the statements have been turned over to Mr. Jamal the tape and photographs can be as well since he is counsel, Your Honor. And to deny him that I think is going to put him at a disadvantage.

1. 18

THE COURT: Well McGill, what do you want to to? It's 20 minutes of 11:00.

THE DEFENDANT: Also the criminal records.

THE COURT: You're going to give it to him? Not criminal records?

THE DEFENDANT: We also want the criminal records.

THE COURT: I don't know anything about this order. As far as I am concerned it can wait until lunch time. Whatever you want to do but let's do something. I have a jury waiting out there, there are people in this courtroom.

MR. McGILL: Judge, I'm ready to proceed. There was no definite agreement with Mr. Jackson. He couldn't very well find an order since it was based on what he's talking about is --

THE COURT: He says he's got some kind of written order from the Judge. I don't know. I don't know what people have. I don't understand. Why didn't you say something yesterday?

MR. JACKSON: Judge, I said it to him

1. 19

yesterday. He said, "We'll do it at the end of the day or tomorrow morning." I've been telling him.

MR. McGILL: I said the end of the day or tomorrow morning. In terms of the tape, I don't know, the photographs, yes. However, Judge, there's definitely no order because Judge Ribner was not even involved in it.

THE COURT: Where is the original order?

MR. JACKSON: There's no order saying prior to the trial. It was in the omnibus motion.

THE COURT: What did it say?

MR. McGILL: That referred to when he was counsel and he heard everything.

MR. JACKSON: I understand --

MR. McGILL: You're not saying you didn't hear the tape?

MR. JACKSON: Yes, I heard it. I'm not denying that. It was pursuant to the omnibus motion, Judge.

THE COURT: How long does it take to play the tape?

MR. McGILL: Let me see if it's here. If it's not here it's a different problem.

1.20

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: What's the situation, Mr. McGill?

MR. McGILL: The tapes are over at the office. He can go get them. If you want to, Judge, we can play it now, but unfortunately it's a delay. But we can do it. He may be looking in an omnibus motion but this, however, was filed when Mr. Jackson was counsel and was complied with. So the only thing we're talking about is Mr. Jackson's statement after the last hearing when Mr. Jamal indicated he was going to represent himself.

THE COURT: I have to cut the cord. Why don't we show him the pictures now that you have --

MR. McGILL: Right.

THE COURT: -- play the tape for him at lunch time -

MR. McGILL: Right.

THE COURT: -- and we'll move ahead.

MR. McGILL: What I'll do is I'll

1.21

have -- during the course of the morning session, however it is, you give an opening, my opening --

THE COURT: He may not want to open now.

MR. McGILL: Whatever. Whatever, Judge. Thomas will go over and get it and we'll then have it. I'll have a record.

THE DEFENDANT: Okay. I still haven't gotten the criminal records and that was part of it.

THE COURT: He will give it to you. One other thing, the Court Crier wants to know how does he want to be arraigned. Under Mumia Abu-Jamal, or the other name down there?

MR. JACKSON: Yes.

MR. McGILL: Yes.

THE COURT: You don't want to say also known as? No?

MR. JACKSON: It was formally changed, the Bill of Information was formally changed.

THE COURT: Mr. Jamal has indicated that he wants to be arraigned under Mumia Abu-Jamal. We won't use the Wesley Cook.

1.22

What Bills are we proceeding on? There's only two Bills, Murder, Possession of Instrument count.

MR. McGILL: First count only.

THE COURT: You can't proceed on the other one anyway.

MR. McGILL: Judge, it might be better, if Your Honor wouldn't mind, if we could have the three of us or at least two plus maybe Thomas in the room looking at the photographs. Could we do that?

THE COURT: Well, the jury's there. I think it's better not going in chambers. The jury's right next to me.

MR. McGILL: Your chambers?

THE COURT: Yes, they're right back there. There is a room in here, or you can sit at the table.

MR. McGILL: Is there a room in there?

THE COURT: There is a room here. You can take a look.

MR. McGILL: Fine.

THE COURT: You can go in there,

1.23

take a look at the pictures, and do what you want. Let's try to push it. It's quarter of 11.

(Side-bar conference ended.)

(A short recess was taken.)

(A side bar conference was held on the record as follows:)

THE COURT: All right. Gentlemen, can I see you over here a minute. Please, let's get moving.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, I've shown the photographs to Mr. Jamal. I've also given him a copy of criminal records of the witnesses that I may call. I don't have the criminal records of any other person, I think he may call -- I don't know whether he will or not -- Hightower or Pickford, Robert Pickford, I have to find them. I think they have one. Michael Marscarland does not have a record so there's none there. As far as I know, Your Honor, I would ask the Court to make an order to counsel as well as the defendant that those records should not be made public. Irrespective of the jury, Your Honor, I think in the privacy of the

1.24

witnesses --

THE COURT: I agree. I will make such an order that those records are to be sequestered and not to be shown to anybody else and not to be publicized in any way except what may come out in this courtroom of course, Jackson knows what he can advise Mr. Jamal, what convictions can be used for impeachment purposes, if that's what he intends to do. But under no circumstances are those records to be given to anybody.

MR. McGILL: I will have a side bar before I call them so that we can clarify on the record the extent to which the law permits cross-examination.

THE COURT: All right. But in the meantime, they should not be shown to anybody else. I agree. I don't think that's fair. I think Mr. Jackson and Mr. Jamal will agree to that.

MR. McGILL: Do you agree, Mr. Jackson?

THE COURT: Criminal records are not public information.

1.25

MR. McGILL: It's an order.

MR. JACKSON: You understand that there is no secret about Cynthia White's record. There is no secret about that so if it comes out tomorrow --

THE COURT: I just want to make sure that you are not the one disseminating this information because a person's criminal record is their own and should be used only in official business. It's no one else's right to know.

THE DEFENDANT: These are my copies?

MR. McGILL: Yes.

THE COURT: It was brought to my attention, though, that you have engaged a private stenographer. Who is that?

MR. JACKSON: Judge, she is a student up at Temple School. We're attempting to accommodate Mr. Jamal's wishes. On Monday we would have a motion for Your Honor to allow two certified stenographers who would be able to provide him daily copy. She is --

THE COURT: All I want to know is, who is paying for this. The Court is not going

1.26

to pay for it. In other words, the City is not paying for this.

THE DEFENDANT: At all?

THE COURT: This is coming from Mr. Jamal's funds.

MR. JACKSON: She's right there.

THE COURT: He just wants that for his own?

MR. JACKSON: It wouldn't be used to contradict; it's only for a daily study.

THE COURT: I don't know. What is your position? Do you know any law on this? Anybody have any law on this?

MR. McGILL: Whether or not is strictly within the discretion of the Court, I'm convinced. I don't think there's any law prohibiting counsel to have such things presented. There are problems and I think Mr. Jackson recognizes them. For one reason, we've already basically agreed that it cannot be used for purposes of impeachment since it's not official. As a matter of fact, unless the Court here would permit the actual court certified stenographer in

1.27

this particular room only those stenographers and what they have on their machines can be used for purposes of impeachment.

THE COURT: There's no doubt about that.

MR. McGILL: I'm just putting it on the record, Judge.

MR. JACKSON: Sure.

MR. McGILL: Secondly, if he wants, Mr. Jamal wants something, in order words, to have his daily evidence, the evidence of the Commonwealth or his own recalled for his benefit, and he's providing them at his own expense, I don't know that the Commonwealth can prevent that. It's within the discretion of the Court. There may be some feelings with the stenography staff as far as being a precedent and so far, it might be considered. However, I cannot say, Judge, that we have an objection to that because we're --

THE COURT: The only thing I can say, since you don't know the law about this, that's all, I'll take it up with President Judge Bradley.

1. 28

MR. McGILL: Fine.

THE COURT: That's the only thing I can say at this time as far as I'm concerned.

THE DEFENDANT: What about in the meantime?

THE COURT: What do you mean, "In the meantime?"

THE DEFENDANT: I mean, you know, today?

THE COURT: You should have let me know this in advance and I could have checked it out and we could have been ready for it.

THE DEFENDANT: It's been several weeks.

THE COURT: I don't particularly care if somebody's taking notes. They are not official. The only official notes is what the official stenographer takes.

THE DEFENDANT: Judge --

MR. JACKSON: Judge, I think technically you could characterize whatever she does on the machine being the very same on everyone else's machine taking notes in the courtroom.

1.29

THE COURT: That's the status of it.

MR. JACKSON: There's only one true copy and I don't think anybody's debating that.

THE COURT: I think for the record we ought to have her name.

MR. JACKSON: Patricia Draper.

THE COURT: Do you know where she lives?

THE DEFENDANT: Student at Temple University.

THE COURT: Why don't you find out? Let her come up here. Tell her to come up here. It's easier to let her put it on the record.

Will you give us your name and address for the record?

TEMPLE STUDENT: Pat Draper, 1936 Independence Street.

THE COURT: And you are the stenographer, or are you learning?

TEMPLE STUDENT: I'm a Temple student at this time.

THE COURT: You're a student?

1.30

TEMPLE STUDENT: Yeah.

THE COURT: And you're learning how to take down the dictation?

TEMPLE STUDENT: Dictation, yeah.

THE COURT: All right. Okay.

TEMPLE STUDENT: Is that all, sir?

THE COURT: Yes. What year are you in?

TEMPLE STUDENT: Pardon me? I'm in my fourth semester at this time.

THE COURT: It's your second year?

TEMPLE STUDENT: Yeah.

THE COURT: And how long have you been taking this?

TEMPLE STUDENT: Two years.

THE COURT: For the two years. All right. You may have a seat. I'll try to reach Judge Bradley during the luncheon recess and find out if there's any problems that I have. See, this is the first time anybody has brought anybody else in. I'm not familiar with her violating any union contracts or something of that nature.

1. 31

I don't want to get involved in that if we are, you know what I mean.

MR. McGILL: Really, in a sense it constitutes having like a secretary at your table. That's basically what it constitutes.

THE COURT: I'm not worried about that. I don't want to get any flack about any unions that we're somehow violating their contract with the courts or something. I'm not that familiar with it because I've never had this before. But I will check with Judge Bradley during the noon recess and we'll find out what the status is. Anything else we have?

MR. McGILL: That's all, Judge.

(Side bar conference ended.)

(The following took place in open court in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Good morning.

THE COURT CRIER: Swear the jury, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, please.

1. 32

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, the Commonwealth formally moves to trial, Commonwealth versus Mumia Abu-Jamal, 8201, Number 1358 charging this defendant with Murder, also 6210, Number 1357 charging this defendant with Possessing Instruments of Crime generally. Your Honor, the Commonwealth is prepared to proceed.

THE COURT CRIER: Swear the jury, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, please.

(The jury was duly impaneled and sworn.)

THE COURT CRIER: May I arraign the defendant, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, please.

THE COURT CRIER: Mumia Abu-Jamal, on Bill of Information Number 1358, January Term, 1982 charging you with Murder, victim Police Officer Daniel Faulkner, to this Bill of Information how do you wish to plead, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: (No response.)

THE COURT CRIER: No response,

1.33

Your Honor.

THE COURT: The Court will enter a response of not guilty to that charge.

THE COURT CRIER: On Bill of Information Number 1357, January Term, 1982 charging you with Possessing Instruments of Crime generally, to this Bill of Information, sir, how do you wish to plea?

THE DEFENDANT: (No response.)

THE COURT CRIER: No response, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. The Court will enter a response of not guilty.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, may I see you at side bar?

THE COURT: Yes.

(A side bar conference was held on the record
as follows with the defendant present:)

MR. McGILL: I think we should put of record that the defendant was plainly in view and in hearing range of Judge Sabo as well as the Crier who, in fact, was almost right next to Mr. Jamal, and I clearly heard him some ten

1.34

or 15 feet away. He was arraigned on both of the charges and Mr. Jamal failed to respond. Under the law it is appropriate under these circumstances for the Judge to enter a plea of not guilty but I wanted the record to reflect clearly that Mr. Jamal in no way was in a position of not being able to hear what the Crier stated. And if there is any objection to what I just said, Mr. Jamal has an opportunity to respond to that since he is right beside me. There is no response to that, Your Honor. I'm prepared to proceed.

THE COURT: Did you know he was not going to respond, Mr. Jackson?

MR. JACKSON: I did not.

MR. McGILL: I am not sure Mr. Jackson really knows what's going on.

THE COURT: You did this of your own volition, you know.

THE DEFENDANT: I need a microphone, Judge.

THE COURT: What's that?

THE DEFENDANT: I need a microphone.

1.35

THE COURT: You don't need a microphone to plead --

THE DEFENDANT: I'm talking about speaking --

MR. McGILL: Judge --

THE DEFENDANT: -- so that everyone can hear me.

MR. McGILL: He doesn't have to willingly do that. He's made his decision. There's no question about it. He's allowed to do that.

(Side bar conference ended.)

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT CRIER: Jurors, to these Bills of Information Numbers 1358 and 1357 a plea of not guilty has been entered by the Judge. Mr. Jamal, how do you wish to be tried, by a Judge without a jury or by a jury, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: (No response.)

THE COURT CRIER: No response, Your Honor.

1.36

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, under those circumstances, Your Honor, he has an absolute right to a jury and that, I think, is preserved at this point.

THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead. Proceed.

THE COURT CRIER: Jurors, to these Bills of Information 1357 and 1358 a plea has been entered by the Judge of not guilty and Mr. Jamal is being tried by a jury. If you find the defendant at the bar of the court guilty, you will say so. If you find the defendant at the bar of the court not guilty, you will say so and no more. Jurors, good and true, stand together and harken to the evidence. Please be seated.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury -- you may sit down -- you have been selected to perform one of the most solemn duties of citizenship. You are to sit in judgment upon criminal charges made by the Commonwealth against one of your fellow citizens. The services you render as jurors in this case

1.37

are as important to the administration of justice as those rendered by me as Judge and by the attorneys.

You should pay close attention to what is said and to what occurs throughout the trial so that you can faithfully perform your sworn duties as jurors. I shall describe in a general way what will take place. First, the District Attorney may, if he wishes, make an opening statement in which he outlines the Commonwealth's case against the defendant. The defendant may make a statement outlining the defense either immediately following the District Attorney's statement or later in the trial.

Second, the District Attorney will present evidence. He may call witnesses to testify and he may offer exhibits such as documents or physical objects. The defendant has a right to cross-examine witnesses called by the Commonwealth in order to test the truthfulness and accuracy of their testimony.

1. 38

At the close of the commonwealth's case the defendant may present evidence for the defense. The defendant has no obligations to offer evidence or to testify himself. Under the law every defendant is presumed innocent and has the right to remain silent. The burden is on the Commonwealth to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The District Attorney may, of course, cross-examine any witnesses called by the defense.

Third, after all the evidence has been presented, the attorney for each side will have an opportunity to address arguments to you. I shall then give you my final charge which will include instructions on the rules of law pertinent to this case and whatever additional guidance I think you need for your deliberations. You will then retire to the jury room to deliberate and decide what your verdict will be. It is the responsibility of the Court to decide all questions of law. I am not, however, the Judge of the facts. It is not for

1.39

me to decide what are the true facts concerning the charges against the defendant. You, the jurors, are the sole judges of the facts. It will be your responsibility to weigh the evidence, to find the facts and apply the rules of law which I give to the facts as you find them to decide whether the defendant has been proven guilty. I am likely to give other instructions during the trial in addition to these preliminary instructions and my final charge. You should consider all of my instructions as a connected series. Taken together they constitute the law which you must follow. You are not permitted to take notes on the testimony nor on anything said by me or by counsel. When you deliberate on your verdict you will have to rely on your own memories of what was said in the courtroom. We have a court reporter who will make a record of the testimony. If you fail to hear a question or an answer while a witnesses is testifying, please raise your hand immediately. The court reporter

1.40

can read back whatever you missed. You are the judges of the credibility and weight of all the evidence including the testimony of witnesses. By credibility of testimony or other evidence I mean its truthfulness and accuracy. In judging credibility and weight you should use your understanding of human nature and your common sense. Observe each witness as he testifies, be alert for any thing in his words, demeanor or behavior on the witness stand, or for anything in the other evidence in the case which might help you to judge the truthfulness, accuracy and grade of his testimony. I shall give you further instructions on this subject later in the trial. Each of you must keep an open mind throughout the trial. In the oath you just took you swore to do so. You should avoid forming opinions about the guilt or innocence of the defendant or about any other disputed questions until you begin your deliberation. You should not talk with each other about the evidence or any other matter relating

1.41

to whether the defendant has been proven guilty until I send you to the jury room to deliberate on your verdict. Only then will you know enough about the evidence and the law to discuss the case intelligently and fairly.

During the trial you must not talk with anyone about the case, or listen to others talk about the case including members of your own family. There are some persons with whom you must avoid even casual conversations having nothing to do with the case. These persons are the defendant, counsel for both sides and the witnesses. Do not read newspapers or other stories about the trial or about the defendant. You should also avoid radio or television broadcasts which might refer to the trial or the defendant. Your only information about this case should come to you while you are all present together acting as a jury in the presence of the Court, the attorneys and the defendant.

As I told you earlier, although you must follow my instructions regarding rules of law, you are the sole judges of the facts. It

1.42

is your recollection of the evidence and not mine or counsel's on which you must rely during your deliberations.

You are not bound by any opinion you might think counsel or I have expressed concerning guilt or innocence, credibility of witnesses, weight of evidence, facts proven by the evidence or inferences to be drawn from the facts. Even though statements and arguments of counsel are not binding on you and are not evidence, you should consider them carefully. It is proper for you to be guided by them if the statements and arguments are supported by the evidence and appeal to your reason and judgment.

The questions which counsel put to witnesses are not themselves evidence. It is the answers of witnesses which provide evidence. You should not speculate that a fact may be true merely because of the lawyers asked questions which assume or suggest that the fact is true.

I may question some of the witnesses

1.43

myself. The questions will not reflect any opinion on my part about the evidence or about the case. My only purpose will be to inquire about matters which counsel may not have fully explored.

The admission of evidence at a trial is governed by rules of law. It is my duty to rule on objections to the evidence made by counsel. If I overrule an objection that means you are entitled to consider the evidence. If I sustain the objection then you will not be entitled to consider it. You must not concern yourselves with the objections or with the reasons for my rulings. You must disregard evidence or any other matter to which I sustain an objection or which I order stricken from the record.

Counsel and I are required by law to take up certain matters out of your hearing. We may do that at the bench, or in my chambers or I shall ask you to leave so that we may do this in the courtroom. You should not concern yourselves with any such proceeding.

1. 44

Remember, a jury's verdict must be unanimous to be valid. In the jury room you will discuss the case among yourselves but ultimately each of you will have to make up his or her own mind.

After the verdict is announced in open court you may be called on individually to say whether you agree with the verdict. Each of us has a responsibility as a juror which you cannot shirk. You must do your best throughout the trial to fulfill this great responsibility. Now I'll call upon the District Attorney for his opening remarks.

THE DEFENDANT: Judge, I have a statement.

THE COURT: If you have anything to say you say it at side bar.

(A side bar conference was held with the
defendant present on the record as follows:)

THE DEFENDANT: I need the microphone at the table.

THE COURT: I don't have one.

THE DEFENDANT: You get one.

1. 45

THE COURT: You should have asked for one before.

THE DEFENDANT: I need one now.

THE COURT: You have to speak up and if you can't speak up then I may have to remove you and put Mr. Jackson in.

THE DEFENDANT: I don't care.

THE COURT: You can do whatever you want.

THE DEFENDANT: You can do whatever you want.

(Side bar conference ended.)

THE DEFENDANT: I need a microphone.

THE COURT: I do not have a microphone.

THE DEFENDANT: You can get one, Judge.

THE COURT: Let's go.

THE DEFENDANT: I need a microphone, Judge.

THE COURT: I'm sorry.

THE DEFENDANT: You're sorry?

THE COURT: Mr. McGill, please.

1. 46

MR. McGILL: Yes, Your Honor.

THE DEFENDANT: I'm not finished.

THE COURT: Mr. McGill, please.

THE DEFENDANT: I need a microphone.

THE COURT: You don't need a microphone now.

THE DEFENDANT: I do need one.

THE COURT: You're speaking loud enough. I can hear you.

THE DEFENDANT: I need everyone in the courtroom to hear me. I want everyone on the jury to hear me.

THE COURT: Speak loudly.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, may I see you at side bar with Mr. Jamal and Mr. Jackson?

(A side bar conference was held on the
record with the defendant present as follows:)

MR. McGILL: I will request, Judge, that any remarks that Mr. Jamal will make other than what is his opening and objections and cross-examination be made at side bar.

THE COURT: I told him that.

MR. McGILL: Not before this jury.

1. 47

THE COURT: I told you that if you have anything to say to me you go at side bar.

THE DEFENDANT: I need a microphone.

THE COURT: I don't care if you need a microphone.

THE DEFENDANT: You don't care. I care. I speak softly.

THE COURT: You should have told me yesterday.

THE DEFENDANT: I want to be heard.

THE COURT: I'm telling you now, the case has already started.

THE DEFENDANT: We can stop now.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, I have no problem hearing what Mr. Jamal is saying and the jury will have no problem.

THE DEFENDANT: That's four feet away from me.

MR. McGILL: The jury will have no problem.

THE DEFENDANT: I want to make sure everyone in this courtroom hears me.

MR. McGILL: That's the point, Judge.

1.48

This trial is not a political platform for all the people and the media to hear what Mr. Jamal has to say. The purpose for a public trial is that this man get a fair trial and people be able to observe it.

THE DEFENDANT: This is not a fair trial. I haven't had the counsel of my choice.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, I would state to this Court respectfully that what Mr. Jamal clearly wants is a way in which he can speak to the jury that is in a position to judge his guilt or innocence --

THE DEFENDANT: How can he assume what I'm going to be speaking to? I want to be heard.

MR. McGILL: Once the law or procedure is changed and those people out there become the jury, that's something else. But right now he has no right to speak generally to people.

THE DEFENDANT: I'm not talking about speaking generally to the people. I want to speak to the jury and I do want to be heard. I do speak softly.

1.49

THE COURT: You get up to the jury and go up to the box. You can speak as softly and --

THE DEFENDANT: And I want a microphone and counsel of my choice.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. I have ruled to all those points.

THE DEFENDANT: You have ruled, Judge? This is not to my satisfaction.

THE COURT: I don't care.

THE DEFENDANT: This is my life and my trial.

THE COURT: If you step out of line --

THE DEFENDANT: Judge, that warning doesn't mean anything to me. If you want to find me in contempt -- I'm on this trial for my life. You know those warnings mean nothing to me.

MR. McGILL: I think it's now at the point where I think that he may be attempting to get ejected from this courtroom so Mr. Jackson can take over for him.

THE DEFENDANT: I'm attempting to

1.50

get counsel of my choice. I'm attempting to get John Africa.

MR. McGILL: And I feel --

THE COURT: I'm telling you, Mr. Jamal, if you disrupt the proceedings, I'm warning you --

THE DEFENDANT: Judge, your warning means nothing to me. Do you understand that?

THE COURT: And I'm telling you, you may very well be removed as counsel.

THE DEFENDANT: You do whatever you have to do.

THE COURT: And Mr. Jackson will be put in.

THE DEFENDANT: Do whatever. It's not your choice, not his choice or Jackson's choice. I want my own counsel of my choice, someone I have faith in, someone --

MR. McGILL: Is that Mr. Africa that he's referring to?

THE COURT: John Africa he's talking about.

THE DEFENDANT: That's right. You

1.51

haven't ruled to my satisfaction trial. This is my trial.

THE COURT: I don't care about your satisfaction.

THE DEFENDANT: Listen, I do.

THE COURT: There's satisfaction --

THE DEFENDANT: I do.

THE COURT: -- in Appellate Court.

THE DEFENDANT: Your satisfaction, your own rights.

THE COURT: No. No. If I don't satisfy the Appellate Court that my ruling is right and proper --

THE DEFENDANT: Right and proper. This is my only trial.

THE COURT: -- they will reverse it.

THE DEFENDANT: This is my only trial. You can make that decision now.

THE COURT: I've made it. I've made it five, six times.

THE DEFENDANT: I don't want that man as my defense.

THE COURT: I don't care what you

1.52

want.

THE DEFENDANT: Damn what you want. This is my trial. It's my life on the line. You're talking about procedure.

MR. McGILL: May I make a suggestion at this time? I would suggest a recess of about ten or 15 minutes. I think if the situation were called right now perhaps the jury can be led from the courtroom at this time.

THE COURT: All right.

(The jury was excused.)

(Side bar conference continued as follows:)

MR. McGILL: All right, Judge. I made a request the jury leave the room so that we can conduct the proceedings at this point out of the hearing of the jury. My hope, Judge -- and I'm sure the Court's --

THE COURT: I want to correct it. It has been out of the hearing of the jury.

MR. McGILL: Excuse me. Yes.

THE COURT: I don't want you to get the opinion that this has been in the hearing

1. 53

of the jury. We've been at side bar out of the hearing of the jury but rather than have them sit there and look at us at side bar indefinitely --

MR. McGILL: You're right, Judge.

THE COURT: -- indefinitely, so as not to prejudice Mr. Jamal here -- and I think that he should know that his conduct may not very well fit well with the jury, and if he wants to act that way that's so at his own peril. That's what happens when you represent yourself.

THE DEFENDANT: I want John Africa.

THE COURT: I ruled on that.

THE DEFENDANT: You did not rule.

THE COURT: Yes, I have.

THE DEFENDANT: What does that rule mean to me?

MR. McGILL: My hope, not my hope but my thought is that perhaps Mr. Jamal is if not the most, I would say the most intelligent defendant by far that I have ever run across, and I'm quite sure that everything he's doing,

1.54

and in particular right now, is purposes of strategy. I believe not only "A" the political philosophy that he wishes for us to espouse or the anti establishment -- and I just note --

THE COURT: Please, don't.

MR. McGILL: -- he raised his right hand and fist up in the air which I think is a power sign during the course of this proceeding. Which leads me again to believe, Judge, that this is becoming more of an attempted diversion from the important decision that the jury is trying to make. I think perhaps Mr. Jamal is attempting to not only divert their minds from guilt or innocence and to some sort of the condition that he believes he is in unjustifiably, but that he may well wish to have himself ejected so that learned counsel would be in a position to try a case, and since he has a great deal of experience in it, and gain some sort of sympathy from the jury. Because of that I would not put it past him one moment with what I've seen going on in the last couple of weeks.

1.55

Judge, I would ask the Court to instruct one more time Mr. Jamal that he is and I believe he still wants to be his own counsel, unless that has changed. Now that has not changed to anybody's knowledge unless you're telling me now that he doesn't want to be his own counsel, that he wants somebody else. If it just means the request he has made before about John Africa, that's one thing. If he wants to remove himself, well that's another. If he wants to stay in himself -- can we find out what he wants first?

THE DEFENDANT: Let me respond to what he had to say about your assumptions, Mr. McGill's assumptions about political reasons are purely his own assumptions. I could care less. It's not important to me what Mr. McGill assumes. What is important to me and the point I'm making and trying to make to you is that I want counsel of my own choice no matter whether he's a member of ABA, because members of the ABA have represented people that are at Holmesburg Detention Center and, you know, prisons

1.56

throughout the country. That's not important to me. I want a representative of my choice, and that is John Africa.

Now, whether you choose to believe that, that's unimportant to me. Whether you call it a political statement, that's, again, horse shit to me. I have a right to counsel of my choice and whether you agree with it, whether you disagree with it, and whether you like it or dislike it is not important to me because my life is on the line.

THE COURT: Mr.--

THE DEFENDANT: You can't tell me this man is representing me if he doesn't want to represent me or if he doesn't want to function as backup counsel for me or if I don't want him to work for me. He can't make any promises of qualifications to me. I want who I want and that is John Africa, and I don't care if the jury hears it. I don't care if everyone on the planet hears it because it is true, it is true. This is no political game. It's my life at stake and John Africa is the only

1.57

representative I would have faith in and trust in; not paid by the Court, not paid out of the same pocket as the D.A. , not court appointed. I want John Africa in this trial as backup counsel for me and I will defend myself.

MR. McGILL: Judge, the Court is pledged and duty bound to follow the law of this Commonwealth. Even if the Court wanted to set a procedure up which would be different than the law allows it would be itself violating the law which would be a mockery of the law and the justice system. The law is clear that a non-attorney cannot be backup counsel. The law, is clear that Mr. Jamal has a right to represent himself, does not have a right to the backup counsel of his choice from the State, but rather has the right and, as a matter of fact, the Court, I believe, has the duty to see that his backup counsel is a member of the legal profession, is aware of the laws and certified to practice in this Commonwealth.

Therefore, by permitting Mr. Africa to be not co-counsel but backup counsel violates

1.58

the law in itself. We're here to be judged -- strike that. Mr. Jamal is here to be judged by this jury under the laws of the Commonwealth. And until they change -- and perhaps he can try to do that in his own way at another time. But, Judge, we are required to follow the laws as they are today, and it is clear that Mr. Africa is not a counsel and has not been conceded, excuse me, which has been conceded, and any further discussion as to his being backup counsel would be inappropriate for this Court to consider.

THE COURT: Well, I have ruled before and I rule the same way today that John Africa cannot be backup counsel. You have an exception to that ruling and if and when it ever becomes necessary to contest that ruling the Appellate Court --

THE DEFENDANT: I contest it now.

THE COURT: I know that.

THE DEFENDANT: You know that?

THE COURT: I know that.

THE DEFENDANT: I contest it now.

1.59

I do not want to be backed up or represented by Attorney Jackson or any other lawyer of the ABA anywhere in America. I want John Africa as my counsel.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, but the Court is bound by the law just as you are. I can't change that.

THE DEFENDANT: Well, I'm telling you that I cannot participate without John Africa, not in this trial. It's my life on the line.

MR. McGILL: That surprises me. I didn't think he would pull this one.

THE DEFENDANT: Pull what? Pull what?

MR. McGILL: Pull out of the case. You're saying you want to be tried, you want to be tried.

THE DEFENDANT: Did you hear what I said?

MR. McGILL: Why don't you do it?

THE DEFENDANT: Did you hear what I said?

1.60

MR. McGILL: You said you don't want to participate.

THE DEFENDANT: Unless John Africa is here. Did you hear the whole statement?

MR. McGILL: I heard what you said.

THE DEFENDANT: Don't put words in my mind.

MR. McGILL: Let's see. You stay here and represent yourself and don't try to chicken out.

THE DEFENDANT: I'm not chickening out. That's unimportant for me. What I want is a representative of my choice, not of your choice, not of his choice, he's court appointed.

THE COURT: You don't understand I'm bound by the law as well as you are, and the law is clear on this; that John Africa cannot represent you. You can represent yourself.

THE DEFENDANT: Sure he can.

THE COURT: Just as you can represent yourself but he cannot represent you.

THE DEFENDANT: Why can't he?

THE COURT: Because that's what the

1.61

law says. I don't make the law. The Supreme Court makes the law and ultimately they will decide the issue for you again if you want to raise it.

THE DEFENDANT: I'm raising it now.

THE COURT: I've ruled now. I'm just following the law as it is. If you are convicted you can always raise that issue on appeal and the Appellate Court will decide whether the law should be changed or not. But the law is pretty clear.

THE DEFENDANT: It's nonsense, man, because what is the appeal of a death sentence? Coming back to life? It's nonsense, man. I need a representative of my choice. That's how serious it is. This is a life and death matter. I can choose my own counsel.

MR. McGILL: Let me just tell you -- I'm stating that Mr. Jamal wonders that if he has an appeal from the death sentence -- I assume he means that if he's dead he doesn't have an appeal. Well, the fact of the matter is that on a death penalty case of all cases that

1.62

is the most closely watched and as a result of that all the death penalties that have occurred in the last ten or 15 years, 20 years, the last person to actually die died in 1962, which is 20 years ago, which gives you an idea of what the appeal status is. So don't tell me that you don't have the right of appeal.

THE COURT: Not only that --

THE DEFENDANT: The point is --

THE COURT: -- it's an automatic appeal to the Superior Court.

THE DEFENDANT: The point is if I have counsel of my choice I don't need an appeal because there will be no conviction, I'm sure, I'm convinced. Obviously, that's what the Court is trying to do.

THE COURT: No, the Court is not trying to do anything.

MR. McGILL: No.

THE DEFENDANT: Sure, it is. Sure, it is. When you denied the Motion to Suppress that was to support a conviction.

THE COURT: I'm ruling on the law.

1.63

THE DEFENDANT: No. You're ruling on the conviction. You're ruling on the D.A.'s office --

THE COURT: I don't think --

THE DEFENDANT: Every time he comes up with something it's supported and defense is knocked to the side. I seen that and you act like it's not happening.

MR. JACKSON: May I say something, not on my behalf but Mr. Jamal's? I most respectfully request to be removed from this case.

THE COURT: You can't be removed. You know that, Mr. Jackson.

MR. JACKSON: I understand. Judge --

THE COURT: You --

MR. JACKSON: Judge --

THE COURT: You made the request before and you can understand that.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, may we proceed with the opening statements?

THE COURT: Yes, it's your turn.

MR. McGILL: Yes.

1.64

THE COURT: It's not your turn.

THE DEFENDANT: Regardless, it's my trial. His turn, my turn, it's not important to me. Why should I proceed without counsel of my choice, counsel that I have faith in? Why should I proceed with a man who just stood here five minutes ago and said, "Can I get out of here, can I withdraw?"

THE COURT: He wants out because you want him out.

THE DEFENDANT: Let him speak. He knows his reason. Why do you want --

MR. JACKSON: The reasons are many fold, Your Honor. I feel uncomfortable in this position being backup counsel. I figured, number one, because my legal training I could probably be a better lawyer than Mr. Jamal; at the same time, I recognize Mr. Jamal's right to self-representation and his choice of his own counsel. I understand what the law says. I don't want to be in a position of interfering with his right or in his selection of counsel.

1.65

It puts me in an unenviable position of being forced to do something that, number one, I don't feel qualified and comfortable to do and, number two, it's not being accepted by Mr. Jamal.

Your Honor, as you can well imagine, in any situation where you're representing someone, whether it's in this case or any other case, one of the keys to that defense is the cooperation of the client. But of course I don't have a client in this situation in that Mr. Jamal is representing himself. And I think to force me to remain in this situation where Mr. Jamal has said in no uncertain terms that he doesn't want me puts me in a position of trying to force advice on someone who doesn't want that advice.

THE COURT: No. You don't have to force any advice on him. You're there to give him advice if he seeks it. If he doesn't seek it he does so at his own peril.

THE DEFENDANT: Yeah, right, but I don't want his advice.

MR. JACKSON: He has no faith in

1.66

anything I say.

THE DEFENDANT: I want the advice of someone that I have respect in and that's John Africa.

MR. McGILL: May I say something?

THE DEFENDANT: And you can --

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, just a brief response. First of all in terms of competency as an attorney, Mr. Jackson is well known and has appeared before this Court as well as other Courts, also with me personally in other proceedings. That is unquestioned in this case.

Secondly, Your Honor, the fact of whether or not Mr. Jamal seeks to take advice from backup counsel is not the issue he is able to accept or reject. The purpose of backup counsel is to be sure that a defendant is represented within the law by someone who is familiar with the law. It is also set up so that there will be no delays, as for example possibly might appear to be occurring, and that the case would be continued or in a case where

1.67

something should happen where Mr. Jamal would not be present or able to continue in accordance with the Court's instructions.

Lastly, in terms of Mr. Jackson's participation, as well as, the Motion to Suppress, as well as, jury selection, one would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to see, number one, considerable times where advice was given, I don't know whether accepted but at least given. Number two, several times in questioning, in pointing out areas of concern for a defendant in the selection of jurors, Mr. Jackson, with the allowance of the Court, questioned jurors for a very long time, each and every one of them and then conferred with the defendant. It is clear that we have had here an active representation with Mr. Jackson and Mr. Jamal.

I would suggest, Your Honor, that it appears to me based on what has occurred in the last proceeding, including jury selection and Motion to Suppress, that this is one more tactic to delay, to divert attention --

1.68

THE DEFENDANT: No tactic.

MR. McGILL: I would ask to continue.

THE DEFENDANT: No tactic to delay and divert.

MR. McGILL: I would ask to continue.

THE DEFENDANT: It's been several weeks ago when I first raised the issue of John Africa. You could have approved that then. That would have been in my best interest. My interest is to have John Africa representing me. That was raised several weeks ago. This is nothing new to you. And as far as that Motion to Suppress is concerned, well, the motion was obviously denied. So, I mean, to say that was very competent and it was good, that's horse shit. In terms of jury selection that's because I was removed from selecting my own jury. That was your jury. It was your order. It wasn't my decision. It wasn't Mr. Jackson's. It was your order. I wanted to select my own so-called jury of my peers.

THE COURT: You did. You conferred with him.

1.69

THE DEFENDANT: Confer is not selecting.

THE COURT: Yes, that's selecting.

THE DEFENDANT: No, it's not selecting. It's conferring. It's not the same thing. I wanted to do that. I wanted to ask questions of these people who are going to decide my life or my death.

THE COURT: We're going to have to proceed.

MR. McGILL: Well, if he wishes to participate he can, if he doesn't I encourage him to do so. He said he was going to live up to that. I'm very anxious to try a case with Mr. Jamal, but let's do it and don't try to get out of it.

THE DEFENDANT: No trying to get out of it. I want to try this case with John Africa as my backup lawyer, that's all. Not Anthony Jackson.

THE COURT: Do you want to make you're opening statement?

MR. McGILL: Yes, sir.

1.70

(The following took place in open court in the presence of the jury:)

THE DEFENDANT: I am going to renew my motion, Judge.

THE COURT: I already ruled on your motion.

THE DEFENDANT: You haven't ruled on it before I have spoken about it. I want John Africa to represent me.

THE COURT: I already ruled on that.

THE DEFENDANT: You have not ruled on it to my satisfaction, Judge.

THE COURT: That may be unfortunate. I ruled on it.

THE DEFENDANT: Say what?

THE COURT: I ruled on it.

THE DEFENDANT: You have not ruled on it to my satisfaction, Judge. This man can't represent me. I do not want him sitting there in a position of defense in defense of my life. I want you to speak to the issue, Judge. I want you to address the issue, Judge, about my right

1.71

to counsel of my choice, not your choice --

THE COURT: Let's Proceed.

THE DEFENDANT: -- or the Commonwealth's choice.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, if it please the Court --

THE DEFENDANT: I'm not finished.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor --

THE DEFENDANT: I'm not finished speaking, Judge.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, we've just had about a half hour, 20 minutes, anyway, of side bar conference and I believe Your Honor has ruled.

THE COURT: Yes, I have.

THE DEFENDANT: He has not ruled to my satisfaction. This is my trial. This is my trial and it isn't your trial. I need counsel of my choice, Judge.

THE COURT: Are you going to allow the District Attorney to address the jury?

THE DEFENDANT: Are you refusing to allow me counsel of my choice?

1.72

THE COURT: I did rule on that before, yes.

THE DEFENDANT: I need counsel that I can have faith in, that I trust, that I respect --

THE COURT: This is --

THE DEFENDANT: -- that is not a member of this court, that is not an officer of this court --

THE COURT: Mr. Jamal, are you refusing to allow the District Attorney to proceed?

THE DEFENDANT: Are you refusing to give me counsel of my choice?

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, as I understand it Your Honor has said that --

THE COURT: Take the jury out.

(The jury was excused.)

(The following took place in open court out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Mr. Jamal, it is quite evident to this Court that you are intentionally

1.73

disrupting the orderly procedure of this court. I have warned you time and time again that if you continue with that attitude that I would have to remove you as counsel in this case.

THE DEFENDANT: Judge, your warnings to me are absolutely meaningless. I'm here fighting for my life. Do you understand that? I'm not fighting to please the Court, or to please the D.A. I'm fighting for my life. I need counsel of my choice, someone I have faith in, someone I have respect for; not someone paid by the same pocket that pays the D.A., not a court-appointed lawyer, not a member of the ABA, not an officer of this court but someone I can trust and I have faith in. Your warnings are absolutely moot, they're meaningless to me.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, so the record could be clear I believe Mr. Jamal is speaking about a Mr. John Africa --

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. McGILL: -- who is not a member of the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is, therefore --

1.74

THE COURT: Not a bar of any court.

MR. McGILL: Of any. But specifically in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Your Honor. As a result of this, Your Honor is not only obligated under the law to prevent a non attorney to represent the defendant even though the defendant wants that, literally the Court is required to do that to literally protect the defendant against himself. There are specific Commonwealth decisions, Supreme Court decisions on that.

Your Honor I believe has already mentioned to this Court but so the record can be clear, rather than denying the defendant, whose rights you're attempting to assure, that he is guaranteed his rights under the constitution and the law of this land. Furthermore, if Your Honor permitted such non-lawyer to represent a non-lawyer, Your Honor, you would be yourself violating the law. So it is clear that Your Honor in accordance with the law of this Commonwealth is acting appropriately. That I believe would be a response to what

1.75

Mr. Jamal is attempting to do.

THE DEFENDANT: That may be a response but it is not true. This man has gone to law school, right, but he cannot guarantee me my freedom; he cannot guarantee me victory.

THE COURT: Nobody can do that.

THE DEFENDANT: Well, how do you know?

THE COURT: Well, how do you know?

THE DEFENDANT: I do know. I do know. John Africa can do that.

THE COURT: No, nobody can.

THE DEFENDANT: Well, you don't know that. I do know.

THE COURT: Neither do you.

THE DEFENDANT: Well, do you know John Africa?

THE COURT: I don't have to know him.

THE DEFENDANT: Well, I do.

THE COURT: I don't have to know him.

THE DEFENDANT: I do.

THE COURT: I don't want any comments from the audience.

1. 76

THE DEFENDANT: The point I am making, Judge Sabo --

THE COURT: You're very loud. You're doing good without a microphone now.

THE DEFENDANT: Well, I could use a microphone.

THE COURT: You don't need a microphone.

THE DEFENDANT: I could use a microphone.

THE COURT: Everybody can hear you. I can. I can hear you perfectly.

THE DEFENDANT: The point I am making is that if Mr. Jackson can guarantee me acquittal, can guarantee me freedom, or can tell me that every defendant he's representing won their case then fine, I have no problem with that.

THE COURT: There is no lawyer in the whole world that can guarantee that.

THE DEFENDANT: Then I don't want any lawyer in the whole world. I want John Africa as my counsel. You don't know what

1.77

John Africa can guarantee.

THE COURT: Neither do you.

THE DEFENDANT: But I am telling you that I want counsel of my choice.

THE COURT: You know --

THE DEFENDANT: You're sitting here to protect my rights --

THE COURT: Mr. Jamal --

THE DEFENDANT: -- you --

THE COURT: Mr. Jamal, I'm only going to tell you one more time. If you do not wish to obey the order of this Court and you do not intend to conduct yourself as an attorney should, you leave me no other alternative but to remove you as counsel and to insist that Mr. Jackson proceed in your presence.

THE DEFENDANT: Do whatever you want to do, Sabo. What I am telling you is that he cannot represent me whether I am my own counsel or client of his.

THE COURT: And let me --

THE DEFENDANT: I don't want him to do anything, not to say a word or do anything

1.78

in my defense. I want John Africa here. That point's been made for several weeks to you but you've been rejecting as if you're doing it in my best interest.

THE COURT: I'm following the law.

THE DEFENDANT: My best interest is to have counsel I can have faith in and respect, not someone paid by the City, the same City that's trying to exterminate me.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, if I may respond? Again, the Court has already indicated it really has no other choice but to follow the law of this Commonwealth if the law means anything. Now perhaps what Mr. Jamal would like to do is change the law. He may some day have his opportunity to do that. As it stands right now this Court is governed by the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which specifically states that backup counsel must be an attorney.

Secondly, during the course of this time he had the court-appointed attorney, which Your Honor is well aware of as is Judge Ribner, that has strenuously and vigorously fought for

1.79

his rights from the very beginning. I have seen Mr. Jackson in all of the hearings before Judge Ribner and this Court. I have seen a jury selection process go from six or seven days. I have yet to see anyone in my nine years to try more earnestly and to be more competent than Mr. Jackson in representing Mr. Jamal. Your Honor, I think that I have some kind of experience to speak of that. And I think Your Honor yourself has already seen Mr. Jackson in this Court before yourself. This leads me to believe plainly, Judge, that it appears to me that if Mr. Jamal is saying, "I don't want Mr. Jackson because he hasn't won all of his cases and he can't guarantee me that he's going to win," if he's saying that, Judge, what he is saying is that he simply does not want anymore to really represent himself; that he wants this Court to specifically hold him in contempt and eject him from this courtroom since he would continue deliberately violating this Court's law.

My suggestion is, Your Honor, that

1. 80

perhaps Mr. Jamal -- and he has an absolute right to have Mr. Jackson come in and take over. I recognize that, and the Court has encouraged that from the very beginning. It is my suggestion that perhaps Mr. Jamal is beginning to get a little cold feet in the situation of representing himself and hopes for the sympathy of the jury in order to be ejected from this courtroom. For anyone to require an attorney to represent him who will always win every one of his cases is purely illogical, at least in this world.

THE DEFENDANT: Well, speaking of illogical --

MR. McGILL: So, Your Honor, I object to Mr. Jamal's comments and I object to Your Honor -- he's admitted to this conduct --

THE DEFENDANT: Well, I would object to his statement. In terms of lawyers it's very clear that there are 1300 people at Holmesburg Detention Center, House of Correction. All of them have lawyers, either private or Public Defenders and it's very clear for those

1.81

1300 people that those lawyers have not served their needs in terms of obtaining freedom for them, in terms of finding them innocent of charges. And, you know, it doesn't matter to me that Mr. Jackson has gone to law school and has practiced for nine years and all of that. That's not important to me. This is my only trial. I have no criminal record. You see what I'm saying? I have never been before the bar of the Court before in terms of a defendant. So what's important to me to have is a representative that I have faith in, that I can trust; it's not Attorney Jackson, it's not Joe McGill, it's not Sabo. It is John Africa and that point has been made for several weeks now.

And in terms of him representing me in case I'm removed, I don't want him to do anything on my behalf. I don't want him to participate in any role if I'm removed, because it's my life at stake, not his. It's his career; it's my life.

THE COURT: Well, I take it --

1.82

THE DEFENDANT: And I need and I am demanding a representative that I can have faith in for counsel and that counsel is John Africa.

THE COURT: What you're saying to me is, if you don't have John Africa you are not going to proceed in any way with this trial; you're going to do everything within your power to disrupt the orderly proceeding. Is that what you're saying?

THE DEFENDANT: No. That's what you're saying to me.

THE COURT: Well, I'm observing that from your conduct.

THE DEFENDANT: I said that's what you're saying to me. You can ask the stenographer to read it back.

THE COURT: I have refused your John Africa because that's the law and I have to do that again.

THE DEFENDANT: What I'm saying to you --

THE COURT: Will you proceed with

1. 83

the orderly proceeding in this courtroom?

THE DEFENDANT: What I'm saying to you --

THE COURT: And I'm telling you if you don't you leave me no choice but to remove you as your own counsel and to direct that Mr. Jackson be put in as your counsel.

THE DEFENDANT: What I'm saying to you is that I have no faith --

THE COURT: I know that.

THE DEFENDANT: You're going to speak to me now?

THE COURT: I know. You said you have no faith and you said that several times over and over again.

THE DEFENDANT: You keep asking me and I -- see, I'm telling you what I'm saying so you won't have to ask me anymore and you won't have to reinterpret my words into another sense. My interest is not disruption. My interest is freedom. That's my interest. And my freedom can best be served by having counsel of my choice that I have faith in.

1.84

It's unimportant to me that, as you say, John Africa is not a member of ABA. To me that's a badge of honor. That's something to be very proud because every inmate in every prison in the State of Pennsylvania has some lawyer who is a member of ABA who didn't do him a damn bit of good.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor --

THE DEFENDANT: Now, my choice is my choice. My life is my life, and I want to be represented by counsel of my choice that I can have faith in for backup counsel. That is John Africa.

THE COURT: It seems I have to make a decision.

THE DEFENDANT: Well, so what, Judge?

MR. McGILL: I can see Your Honor obviously has to make a decision on this and it does appear that Mr. Jamal will continue in the same vein. I know that Your Honor has specifically stated from the very beginning that you wished and hoped that he would recognize the

1. 85

importance of having counsel. This may be a way in which, as I said, Mr. Jamal feels he can have it both ways, a defense counsel present, competent to represent him and in some way a figure of sympathy before jurors. Perhaps this is another tactic.

I'll point this out again, Your Honor. As this man is without a doubt one of the most if not the most intelligent defendants I've ever had and everything he does is with a particular reason in mind. He's not just sprouting off philosophy. He knows exactly what he's doing.

Your Honor, I would suggest in order to make the record complete and I would ask this Court before you would make a decision that perhaps you could give -- and I realize that the time is a problem and that we started late -- perhaps you could give an early luncheon recess at this point and have Mr. Jamal and Mr. Jackson further confer before you make your final decision on this matter.

THE COURT: All right. I will recess

1.86

court until 1:30 giving you, Mr. Jamal, time to talk to Mr. Jackson. And you know what my position is. Unless you want to proceed as your own attorney and put in Mr. Jackson, I will have no choice but to remove you as your own attorney and direct Mr. Jackson to proceed in your behalf.

THE DEFENDANT: Can I respond? What you said about representation --

THE COURT: I'll give you an hour and a half to think about it.

THE DEFENDANT: That threat about removal, but again, that's unimportant to me. As far as him talking about tactics and stuff like that, that is not an issue here. My only reason -- there's no ulterior motive -- my only reason for asking for John Africa is, obviously, to have him here.

THE COURT: I've already told you.

THE DEFENDANT: I have more.

THE COURT: I already told you that under the law I cannot do that.

THE DEFENDANT: What I'm saying is

1.87

that under law --

THE COURT: I told --

THE DEFENDANT: I'm speaking about satisfaction. I fighting for my life. This ain't no satisfaction. I'm fighting for my survival. Do you understand that? In terms of having someone there that I can have faith in.

THE COURT: I don't think you're fighting for your life.

THE DEFENDANT: Say what?

THE COURT: I don't think you're fighting for your life. If you were you wouldn't be using such tactics.

THE DEFENDANT: Again, you assume these are tactics. You're not on trial here. I am. So what you think and you assume, you know what I mean, that's moot.

MR. McGILL: Judge --

THE DEFENDANT: The point I'm making is that I need counsel that I have faith in. This is not a tactic of some sort. He's talking about some ulterior reason. My reason is life.

THE COURT: I'll give you an hour

1. 88

and a half to think about it.

THE DEFENDANT: Can you give me an hour and a half to confer with John Africa? Can you have him come up to the cell room and, and come up to see me?

THE COURT: I don't have anything to do with him.

THE DEFENDANT: Sure you do. If you order the sheriff to have him come up and speak to me he can come up and speak to me. He would be my counsel. I'll tell you I don't want him --

THE COURT: I'm saying you cannot have John Africa as your attorney.

THE DEFENDANT: What I'm saying to you is you can issue an order to the Sheriff's Department so they can allow him to come up and speak to me up in the cell room.

THE COURT: What good is that going to do?

THE DEFENDANT: Conferring with me, isn't it? What is this time for but conferring with me for my defense.

1.89

THE COURT: Your decision as to whether or not you're going to proceed in an orderly fashion.

THE DEFENDANT: I'm proceeding in an orderly fashion.

THE COURT: No, you are not.

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I am. I am not disrupting, there is no disruption.

THE COURT: All right.

THE DEFENDANT: You're disrupting my rights.

(A luncheon recess was taken until 1:30 p.m.)

1.90

AFTERNOON SESSION

(The following took place in open court out of the presence of the jury:)

MR. McGILL: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Let the record indicate it's ten minutes after 2:00. We've been in recess for two hours to give Mr. Jamal an opportunity to think over what I said to him at the close of the morning session. Have you thought over what I said, Mr. Jamal?

THE DEFENDANT: Sure have.

THE COURT: Are you going to allow the Court to proceed in an orderly fashion?

THE DEFENDANT: I'm going to allow the Court to proceed in an orderly fashion with the understanding that I still have a right, a choice, to counsel of my choice. I am representing myself. That decision has been made before you even entered this case. I have a right to represent myself. What I have demanded of this Court time and time again is that I have the right of advice and counsel. It's very clear

1.91

that Mr. McGill can have the advice of whomever he wishes; it can be Gwen Thomas, officer Thomas, Detective Thomas, it can be Brad Richman: from the D.A.'s office, it can be whomever he selects. As a matter of fact, this morning you heard him say that Detective Thomas will be assisting him. If he can have his assistance in prosecution why can't I have my assistance as my own counsel in my defense? And the issue that you've raised about being a member of the bar is not even germane, because I didn't say that I wanted him to represent me. I want him to assist me in my defense. And in that understanding that poses no problem to the Court. You don't have to pay John Africa.

THE COURT: It's not a question of paying anybody.

THE DEFENDANT: Right.

THE COURT: The only thing is I told you that Mr. Jackson will act as your back-up counsel. He is a member of the bar.

THE DEFENDANT: Mr. Jackson is a member of the bar. That point is not contested.

1.92

Again, what I said to you and what you cannot contest is that members of the bar have defended people in jails, jails are full of people that have been defended by members of the bar. If you --

THE COURT: People with money walk the street that are also represented by members of the bar and that doesn't mean anything one way or the other.

THE DEFENDANT: The point is not whether it moves you or not. The point is it's true. It can't be debated. If you want Mr. Jackson to stay there that will be your decision, obviously. It is not mine. I am saying that for my advice and counsel in this matter I'm demanding the representative of MOVE known as John Africa. Now, he can stay there.

THE COURT: What you do on the outside you can do on the outside.

THE DEFENDANT: I'm not talking about the outside. I'm talking about right here at this defense table.

1.93

THE COURT: Right here in this courtroom at this defense table the only one you will have is Mr. Jackson.

THE DEFENDANT: It's no problem when Theresa Africa was meeting with me the other morning.

THE COURT: Not during the course of the trial.

THE DEFENDANT: The course of the trial is obviously the most important matter that we're discussing. That matter has not been resolved.

THE COURT: Mr. McGill?

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, may I respond to Mr. Jamal's comments and Your Honor's discussions with Mr. Jamal?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, the Commonwealth's position in the case has always been that the Court must follow the law in having an attorney represent him, a backup attorney being present with him. Your Honor, as had occurred during the course of almost most

1. 94

of the jury selection, as well as the Motion to Suppress, I believe Miss Theresa Africa was here during most of the time. I believe Mr. Gerald Africa was here off and on during the course of both proceedings. There was a lot of traffic, so to speak, from the standpoint of individuals who support Mr. Jamal's defense and do have certainly their own philosophy which they are entitled, certainly, to have.

These individuals, Your Honor, have been out in court -- I don't really see some of them now, maybe I missed some of them but I don't see them now. But the Court -- excuse me. If I may say to the Court, the Commonwealth has no objection if Mr. Jamal wants to bring in John Africa, wants to bring in anyone who is not incarcerated, that is, into the courtroom and place them in the chairs back there behind the barriers there exactly where my officers are. Detective Bill Thomas, Officer Gwen Thomas, right here, I have stated to the court that I will be here at this table alone during the course of the trial. I have stated that

1.95

Detective Bill Thomas will be in the room; however, he will be back where he is now, which is the second row or someplace there. I have no objection and unless the Court has an objection if John Africa or anybody sits in those chairs back there providing an opportunity for Mr. Jamal at recess or in between witnesses to go and discuss matters and that would include discussing matters before Court. We could have Mr. Jamal down here at quarter after nine instead of 9:30, or some kind of arrangement consistent with the administrative needs and procedures of the Sheriff's Department so that he can discuss with them there anything he wishes about his defense.

I also, Your Honor, would have no objection if along with Mr. Jackson there would be times when Mr. John Africa would go up to his cell room; that is, consistent with the needs of the Sheriff's Department. I do not want to go necessarily against the regulation's there. However, in the interest of expediting this matter, in the interest of justice of the

1.96

one issue in this case which is the guilt or innocence of the defendant, Mr. Jamal, in the shooting death of Officer Faulkner, that is our sole issue involved here.

In terms of the Court's procedures, in terms of following the law, which is necessary to this case, Mr. Jackson's presence as an attorney, we must follow that. I will follow it. I ask Mr. Jamal to follow it. There will be no one up here. It may cause me a little problem in terns of getting all the exhibits but there will be no one here except me. Mr. Jamal can be there and bring in anybody. I have not seen Mr. John Africa for the ten days that we've been operating in both the Motion to Suppress and the jury selection. Perhaps he was here. I'm not even sure if I would know who he was. However, the fact of the matter is that he is welcome to come as part of the audience. But Your Honor must follow the law and also continue in expediting this case with present parties as assembled.

THE DEFENDANT: Judge, what you know

1.97

is that there is no order or procedure to bar anyone from sitting at this table once that's agreed upon. Throughout the Motion to Suppress, throughout the jury selection, he kept someone assisting him in making decisions. He keeps saying that I was conferring with Mr. Jackson. He's spent hours conferring with several detectives --

MR. McGILL: I spent hours conferring -- well, at least, yes, a number of hours with Officer Gwen Thomas. No question about it. She was at my table.

THE DEFENDANT: And the point is --

MR. McGILL: This was agreed by the Court, Mr. Jamal, that there would be two people at the table during jury selection.

THE DEFENDANT: I have no objection to Mr. Jackson going back into the spectator section. I don't need anyone or Mr. McGill to suggest who I want in the spectator section. I'm saying I want an assistant at this defense table to help me with my defense and that someone is John Africa. And if there's any reason why

1.98

I can't have the assistance and advice of someone that I have faith in and that I have trust in -- now, you keep raising the point about Mr. Jackson being there. Mr. Jackson's told you a number of times that he wishes to withdraw; that he does not wish to function in the role that he's in right now. And, I mean, for me to have a defense attorney that doesn't want to function in that role, well, that's paramount to having no defense attorney at all. And it would be, again, no extra cost to this Court to have a chair right there so that he can sit and assist me in planning my defense.

THE COURT: Excuse me just a minute? I have a phone call I have to take.

MR. McGILL: Yes.

(A short recess was taken.)

THE COURT: I've talked to the court administrator's office in reference to the, you know, the stenotype. There is no conflict with any union or anything like that. So if they want to take any notes, as far as I'm concerned, you can. There is nothing -- of

1.99

course, it's unofficial, it's not the official record. But there is no conflict with any union regulations or anything of that nature.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, for the record, there is no objection from the Commonwealth that that be done. So there is no problem with that at all.

THE DEFENDANT: Judge, she can't hear where she's at so could she come --

THE COURT: She can hear me.

THE DEFENDANT: She can't hear me.

THE COURT: I'm saying there is nothing to stop her --

THE DEFENDANT: I'm saying she can't hear me from where she is right now.

THE COURT: If she couldn't hear what you said you have to speak up louder. That's all. Don't be afraid just speak up louder.

THE DEFENDANT: I'm not afraid at all to speak.

THE COURT: Anything else about this other issue that I left you with?

1.100

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, I don't know, again, the procedure, if the Court would obviously decide on -- if the defense wishes to have the individual whose name I've forgotten again, Miss Draper, or something, up here --

THE COURT: I don't want anybody up here except the official court reporter.

THE DEFENDANT: Where those artists are.

THE COURT: Right where she is, she can be behind those artists right there.

MR. McGILL: If she wishes to be on the side I have no objection to that.

THE COURT: I have no objection if she's on the side. It doesn't bother me one way or the other.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, in reference to the other matter, as far as Mr. Jamal's comments as to Mr. Jackson's not wanting to be here, well, Your Honor, in many cases an attorney may well have a client that may feel otherwise in reference to his representation. I will point out to this Court that, again,

1.102

Mr. Jackson has vigorously attempted to represent and has represented the defendant throughout many hearings which have been broadly publicized over the course of many months, going so far as the Supreme Court on the bail issue, going in many cases to presenting motions, filing motions and arguing extensively on various motions on the rights of the defendant. There is question that an attorney placed in a position where his own client wishes that he not be there obviously makes that individual, no matter how competent -- and in this case we happen to have a very competent attorney -- it places them in a position of, naturally, not wanting to be where they're not appreciated. However, there is a big difference from being in a position of not being appreciated and at the same time being in a position of actively and competently representing someone who happens not to appreciate or at least states that.

I may Point out to this Court again during the course of the entire Motion to Suppress as well as jury selection there has

1.103

been active consultation between Mr. Jackson and Mr. Jamal. As a matter of fact, several times during the Motion to Suppress where Mr. Jamal understandably was a little bit unsure of the legal areas to pursue or argue would turn and say, "I think Mr. Jackson has something to say on that issue," and Mr. Jackson promptly came up, and both in an articulate manner, expressed the defense position on that point. This also occurred throughout the jury selection where, obviously, Mr. Jackson put 150 percent effort in and questioned the jurors extensively. There was extensive conversation between Mr. Jackson and Mr. Jamal. At some points, Your Honor, I would go to side bar, point to the clock, and point out to this Court for purposes of the record that there was all of 15 minutes for one consultation after all the questions were done after which he either accepted or rejected that individual. Another time 12 minutes, placing on the record active participation, active conversation and agreement or disagreement, or whatever.

1. 104

So, number one, I would suggest that any kind of comment that there has not been active participation because Mr. Jackson does not wish to be here is an absolute sham. That is false from what we all saw.

Number two, the fact that an individual does not want to be there is quite distinguishable from an individual who competently represents a man because he is under the rule of Court and the law of Court and the Supreme Court of this Commonwealth that says whether or not they want you, you represent them to the best of your ability. A perfect example of this was the MOVE trial where all nine defendants were ejected. They didn't want their defense counsel to do anything. The Supreme Court ordered them, because of their oath as an attorney and as an officer of the Court, to represent them as best they could, and they did.

So, Your Honor, considering that I have to wonder with a great deal of skepticism the motives of Mr. Jamal and suggest once again that it may well be a decision where he wishes

1. 105

the best of both worlds; one, representation by competent counsel, and, two, perhaps the sympathy of a jury because he wants or doesn't have the non-attorney that the law does not permit him.

THE DEFENDANT: In response to Mr. McGill's comment, it's very clear that in the case he cited, the nine MOVE members with the nine backup attorneys, that all nine MOVE members got 3,200 years. I would hardly call that competent legal advice from competent counsel. It's very clear also that just be cause an attorney has gone to law school he's not to be followed in terms of his role as a backup counsel. He doesn't feel comfortable in that role. But because I am representing myself that's the role that the Court thrusts him into.

My issue before this Court is that I want someone to advise and counsel me. I still want to represent myself. You know, this is not the best of both worlds, or whatever you said. I want to represent myself. It's my life

1.106

on the line here. This is my trial. I have said to you for several weeks during Motions to Suppress, during jury selection, that I wanted John Africa as advisor and counsel at the defense table. And I don't mean in the spectator section, I don't mean passing notes back and forth. I mean as an advisor and counsel. And, frankly, I don't see any reason why the Commonwealth or this Court should object to that other than fear. You know, it's very clear --

THE COURT: As I told you for the umpteenth time --

THE DEFENDANT: No, you said he was not a member of the ABA.

THE COURT: I don't care if he's not a member of the ABA.

THE DEFENDANT: You did say --

THE COURT: Member of the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or member of the bar of any state, that's all I said.

THE DEFENDANT: Judge Sabo --

THE COURT: I don't care whether he belongs to the American Bar Association or not.

1.107

That's altogether something different.

THE DEFENDANT: What I'm saying to you is --

THE COURT: What I'm saying is --

THE DEFENDANT: What rule or statute --

THE COURT: The law --

THE DEFENDANT: For what reason?

THE COURT: The law of Pennsylvania says that you can only have backup counsel who is a member of the bar, and that's the way it's going to be.

THE DEFENDANT: What I'm saying to you, Judge, is that --

THE COURT: And I'm saying to you --

THE DEFENDANT: -- there is no rule or statute that you can point to --

THE COURT: If you think --

THE DEFENDANT: -- that says I can't have someone --

THE COURT: If you think that's wrong --

THE DEFENDANT: -- sitting at the

1.108

defense table?

THE COURT: -- all you have to do is go to the Supreme Court.

THE DEFENDANT: I'm before you now. Why should I go to Supreme Court? What I'm saying is, you have not ruled to my satisfaction on that.

THE COURT: Hey, that's not a matter --

THE DEFENDANT: It is a matter.

THE COURT: You may never --

THE DEFENDANT: My life is on trial.

THE COURT: You may never agree as to my rulings on the law as far as the law is concerned. But as I'm saying to you, during the course of the trial this Court will be making numerous rules on law dealing with evidence and other matters. I do not intend to spend all day arguing with you if you disagree with my rulings on law. And that's what I'm doing here. I made a ruling on the law. You must follow it.

THE DEFENDANT: You have made a

1.109

ruling on your procedure. You have not made -- there is no law that states why someone cannot assist me at that defense table, and you know it.

THE COURT: Mr. Jamal, that is a rule on the law.

THE DEFENDANT: That is not a ruling on the law.

THE COURT: If you don't like it, your attorney can tell you what you can do.

THE DEFENDANT: That is not a ruling on the law. It's a ruling on your procedure.

THE COURT: No, it isn't. It is a ruling on the law.

THE DEFENDANT: What law? What law can you state that I cannot have someone assist me at that table?

THE COURT: Mr. Jamal, I am not going to argue consistently throughout this trial. If you continue to act in this way --

THE DEFENDANT: In what way am I acting?

THE COURT: When I make a ruling you

1.110

have an automatic exception to that ruling. It will be reviewed by the Appellate Court. I don't want to stand here and argue with you all day long on every ruling I'm going to make throughout this trial.

THE DEFENDANT: Judge --

THE COURT: I'm telling you now that if you continue that way I will have no alternative but to remove you as counsel, and you can sit in here. Mr. Jackson will proceed. And if you continue to disrupt this court while you're sitting here I will then be forced to consider contempt proceedings against you.

THE DEFENDANT: Again, those warnings of contempt are meaningless to me.

COURT: I know that.

THE DEFENDANT: You are threatening me with death and you think contempt means something to me?

THE COURT: I don't care but I'm required by the law to advise you of this, what will happen. And if you keep acting that way you have to be removed from the courtroom. The

1.111

Court --

THE DEFENDANT: Again, Judge --

THE COURT: -- the Court will have to proceed in your absence.

THE DEFENDANT: That's absolutely meaningless to me. I am not --

THE COURT: That's unfortunate that it's meaningless to you.

THE DEFENDANT: Let me make a point.

THE COURT: It's unfortunate --

THE DEFENDANT: Let me make a point.

THE COURT: I want it on the record so that you understand that I have advised you that our United States Supreme Court has spoken on this question, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has spoken on this question, and I've ruled on the law and that's it. And if you don't like it take me up.

THE DEFENDANT: Judge, you have ruled on procedure. You have not ruled on law because there is no law.

THE COURT: I have no choice. As long as Mr. Jackson --

1.112

THE DEFENDANT: Mr. Jackson --

THE COURT: -- can represent you.

THE DEFENDANT: He cannot represent me because I'm representing myself.

THE COURT: All right. As far as counseling and anything else is concerned --

THE DEFENDANT: There is no law that you can point to, Judge.

THE COURT: All I want to know from you is, are you going to abide by the orders of this Court or not, because if you're not I must remove you as counsel because we must proceed.

THE DEFENDANT: There is no law that you can point to that can say why --

THE COURT: I am not going to have you argue with me as to law --

THE DEFENDANT: I'm making a point.

THE COURT: -- and every decision I make.

THE DEFENDANT: I'm making a point.

THE COURT: I'm telling you that as far as you are concerned when I rule on the law that's it. You have an automatic exception.

1.113

The Appellate Court will review the record. If I am wrong they reverse me; if I'm right they affirm me. It's as simple as that.

THE DEFENDANT: If you wanted to do what's right you can do that right now.

THE COURT: Standing here and arguing with me all day is foolish.

THE DEFENDANT: No, it is not foolish.

THE COURT: I do what I believe is the law.

THE DEFENDANT: I don't care what you believe. What I'm saying, Judge, is, that there is no law that prohibits you from allowing someone to assist me at the defense table. This is done all the time. I cited cases during that Motion to Suppress, a number of cases, that happened right here in this City Hall where there was an assistance from non-lawyers at the defense table, and there's no reason --

MR. McGILL: Your Honor --

THE DEFENDANT: -- and there's no reason for you or the Commonwealth to deny me access to assistance that I have stated a number

1.114

of times that I need in my defense.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, Your Honor has not really ruled as far as my, at least, suggestion was before.

THE COURT: Look, anybody can be in this courtroom.

MR. McGILL: You have no objection?

THE COURT: He can get anybody he wants to.

MR. McGILL: You have no objection John Africa be here?

THE COURT: During breaks and all. I have no objection to that.

MR. McGILL: How about visiting upstairs?

THE COURT: Well, take it up with the sheriff. If he can visit up there and they are able to accommodate, fine, he can visit him in the prison. As far as I'm concerned he can visit anywhere he wants. I'm not holding back on that.

MR. McGILL: You have no objection if his name was placed on a list for him to

1-115

be able to visit Mr. Jamal at the prison?

THE COURT: Certainly not. What difference does that make?

THE DEFENDANT: The issue here is not prison. The issue is right here at the defense table. This is the trial and for you to suggest I can visit with whomever I wish to visit, that's not the point. That's not the issue. For you to evade it and talk about up stairs --

THE COURT: I think Mr. Jackson ought to take some position --

THE DEFENDANT: There is no law that you can point to about how I couldn't have whom I wish to have --

THE COURT: Mr. Jackson --

THE DEFENDANT: -- whom I have confidence in to assist me at the defense table.

THE COURT: Mr. Jackson, you're doubtful about your position in this case. I would suggest that you read the Africa case or, if you wish, go to the Supreme Court this afternoon --

1.116

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, I would be in a position --

THE COURT: And --

MR. McGILL: Excuse me. I don't want to interrupt the Court.

MR. JACKSON: Most respectfully --

MR. McGILL: Mr. Jackson, I don't mean to interrupt you. I would be in a position, at this time, Your Honor, to alert the Court I'm sure Mr. Jackson is aware of what had occurred in the MOVE case and, therefore, I could, at least, hopefully add some knowledge to these proceedings.

THE COURT: I'm pretty sure Mr. Jackson knows about that case. But if he wants further confirmation I have no objection to his going to the Supreme Court immediately.

MR. McGILL: That has already been done.

MR. JACKSON: Yes, Your Honor. May it please the Court, I have, of course, asked on numerous occasions to withdraw from this matter, as Your Honor well knows, and Mr. Jamal

1.117

has indicated his desire for other counsel. Consistent with what I believe to be my fundamental allegiance to my client, I cannot, in all due conscience, but certainly with due respect in this court, I cannot proceed in this matter at this time without some further word from the Supreme Court of this State.

THE COURT: That's what I'm suggesting that you probably ought to take this afternoon to affect that and that will let you know exactly where you stand in this position and the Court. Whatever order the Supreme Court makes I certainly will abide by it.

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I think --

THE COURT: That's the easiest way to do it.

MR. JACKSON: The issue, of course, sir, so that I am clear, Mr. Jamal, as I understand, still represents himself.

THE COURT: At this point --

MR. JACKSON: I don't think I would have any standing to go --

THE COURT: You can go there asking

1.118

for guidance in the event -- you can say that the Court is on the verge of removing him --

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor --

THE COURT: -- as his own attorney.

MR.JACKSON: I don't wish to quibble with the Court but Your Honor well knows that the Supreme Court does not give advisory opinion in that there is no issue for the Court to resolve saying that he's on the verge of losing his self-representation.

THE COURT: Well, if you're asking me to remove him, I'll remove him. I'll make it easy for you.

MR. JACKSON: I'm not asking for you to remove him. I'm simply saying I cannot get the ruling of the Court because I have no standing. There is no issue for the Court to decide.

THE COURT: I thought you said that you wanted to talk to them to get advisory opinion.

MR. JACKSON: I thought Your Honor was appointing me to do something specifically.

1.119

I'm simply saying at this juncture, as I understand, Mr. Jamal still represents himself and I have no standing to go to the Supreme Court for advisory opinion.

THE COURT: As I said, the only way he's going to go before the Supreme Court is for me to make a decision, and I'm going to have to make a decision shortly.

MR. McGILL: Well Your Honor, I understand the Court's position and also Mr. Jackson who wants, again, proof that he is aware of what is happening, and that is, I believe, that there may be some basis of concern as backup counsel petitioning the Supreme Court in terms of standing. Therefore, Your Honor, I would make a suggestion to the Court that if temporarily -- because I still feel that Mr. Jamal perhaps will, well, I hope will, listen to the Supreme Court, and he does wish to represent himself -- I would ask the Court to consider temporarily or at least entering an order of removal of Mr. Jamal from the case for the purposes -- and then appointing backup

1.120

counsel as primary counsel. We would understand that that order is done for the purposes that an attorney would be able to go directly to the Supreme Court and make a -- or file the needed papers. And I anticipate, Your Honor, if properly done this would be done in a matter of a short period of time, and at that point Mr. Jackson then as primary counsel would then have the standing. I would ask the Court to consider once the ruling is made, whatever the order is --

THE COURT: Whatever the order is I would follow the Supreme Court's ruling.

MR. McGILL: Of course. And once that order is made and we are again before this Court in this trial that Your Honor consider moving Mr. Jackson and reappointing or for that matter allowing Mr. Jamal to represent himself again. I believe that maybe that's one way that we could do it. I can't imagine the Supreme Court not allowing a backup counsel who is primary counsel to approach it. Now he has a right to file, not necessarily a right

1.121

for a hearing but at least a right to file, and perhaps within a matter of one day there may be some ruling.

And the issue, as I understand it, is whether or not backup counsel must in fact be an attorney. Of course, if they say that's not needed, it's not necessarily true, well then, he can have whomever he wishes.

THE DEFENDANT: May it please the Court --

MR. McGILL: I would encourage Your Honor no matter what the order is to continue having Mr. Jackson present so that the law could be or at least someone learned in the law would be able to advise Mr. Jamal throughout the proceedings whether he wants them or not.

THE COURT: Do you want to say something?

MR. JACKSON: Yes, Your Honor. With all due respect to counsel's argument and Your Honor's position, my thought, at least with respect to the attempt to gain jurisdiction or the attempt to give me standing and go to

1.122

the Supreme Court -- I'm only suggesting and I don't want to be presumptuous as to go into the minds of Your Honor and counsel -- but clearly it's being put on the record that the only reason Mr. Jamal is being removed as counsel is to give me jurisdiction and standing to go to the Supreme Court.

THE COURT: No. No, that's not true.

MR. JACKSON: That's what I think counsel said.

THE COURT: That may be what Mr. McGill said but that's not my position.

MR. JACKSON: Fine.

THE COURT: My position is that Mr. Jamal has been intentionally disrupting the orderly progression of this trial --

THE DEFENDANT: How?

THE COURT: -- and what I said in the very beginning, when I make a ruling that's it, you don't argue with the Court about the ruling --

THE DEFENDANT: Judge, fine.

THE COURT: You have certain rights

1.123

but what I said is this: My position is that you have deliberately disrupted the orderly progression of this trial. Therefore, I am removing you as primary counsel and I am appointing Mr. Jackson to take over as primary counsel. And I am not doing it just to gain admission to the Supreme Court. I am doing it because I think it's the proper thing to do in this case. And Mr. Jackson, forget it, I'm not doing this just to get around a technicality so you can go to the Supreme Court. I was willing to allow you to go to the Supreme Court before I made a ruling.

MR. JACKSON: I understand.

THE COURT: I'm advising you, or if you felt that you needed it, but I'm not doing this just because I want to go around a technicality. I'm doing it because I believe it's the right thing to do and that's the way we're going to proceed.

Now, you can go to the Supreme Court this afternoon forthwith. I am expecting you to go today immediately.

1. 124

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I believe the rules require that I file a written petition and I have to be allowed some time to do that. I'm familiar with the law in the area and I believe that I can have that completed in about an hour and a half or so. I need time to do that. I also need an issue clarified notwithstanding a question with respect to my obligations to Mr. Jamal, do I also hear Your Honor saying that I and also ask the Court the question of whether or not John Africa can sit at counsel table?

THE COURT: I can't tell you what to say --

MR. JACKSON: Fine, sir.

THE COURT: -- to the Superior Court.

MR. JACKSON: Very well, sir.

THE COURT: You say whatever you want to.

MR. JACKSON: Very well.

THE COURT: And whatever the Supreme Court wishes to answer they will answer.

MR. JACKSON: Very well, Your Honor.

1.125

THE COURT: It is not for me to make that decision. My only position now is removing Mr. Jamal as primary counsel and putting you in, Mr. Jackson, as the primary attorney.

MR. JACKSON: I understand, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That's all I'm doing. And what the Supreme Court will hear from you, what you will argue, whatever that ruling is, I will follow it.

MR. JACKSON: Very well.

THE COURT: I'm here to follow the law just like everybody else. All right. Now I see we have to adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9:30.

MR. McGILL: I would suggest there's another issue to Mr. Jackson in making that petition and that is whether backup counsel is appointed as primary counsel that he has an obligation to represent the defendant even if he doesn't want to himself or the defendant doesn't want him.

THE COURT: I'm assuming that's what

1.126

Mr. Jackson wants to put in his petition. He's the one that keeps saying, "I don't want to represent Mr. Jamal if Mr. Jamal doesn't want me to represent him." So I'm assuming he's going to ask the Court for guidance on that part. I don't have to draw up this petition for Mr. Jackson. He's learned in the law, he knows the proper procedure.

MR. MCGILL: Yes, sir.

THE DEFENDANT: Judge, I don't want Mr. Jackson to do anything on my defense. I don't want him to participate in this trial.

THE COURT: Well, he has been ordered to.

THE DEFENDANT: You have removed me, because that's something you've been wanting to do for several weeks now.

THE COURT: No. I'm doing it because you're disrupting --

THE DEFENDANT: I am not disrupting the court. You've disrupted my right to defend myse1f.

THE COURT: Fine. We'll let the

1. 127

Supreme Court decide that.

MR. McGILL: If Mr. Jamal doesn't want to maybe he wants to start the opening now.

THE COURT: Do you want the District Attorney to proceed?

THE DEFENDANT: I don't care if he proceeds or not. Do you want to let me have the choice of counsel as I want?

THE COURT: I'm telling you we can proceed as you want now.

THE DEFENDANT: No. I want choice of counsel.

THE COURT: He's not going to let you proceed.

THE DEFENDANT: You're not letting me proceed.

THE COURT: Let's get this resolved once and for all.

THE DEFENDANT: You are not letting me proceed.

THE COURT: We'll adjourn until tomorrow morning.

1.128

THE DEFENDANT: You are not letting me proceed.

- - - - -

(Court adjourned until Friday,
June 18, 1982, 9:30 o'clock a.m.)

- - - - -

1.129

I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the trial of the above cause, and that this copy is a correct transcript of the same.

Official Stenographer







The foregoing record of the proceedings upon the trial of the above cause is hereby approved and directed to be filed.

Judge

faxman75
10-07-2008, 03:25 PM
Fax, the reason your argument fails to address the issue is because you made the assumption that there was a fair trial to begin with which any black person in America will tell you is not possible in this country and most certainly not nearly 30 years ago in Philadelphia.
I know a former Panther who told me about her time in the party and that it was like war. Cops declared war against the BPP and anyone who affiliated with them. Ronald Reagan called them an enemy of the State when he was governor of California. What do you think was the sentiment when he was president? Don't sleep on the fact that there was a lot of corruption and falsifying evidence and what they convicted him on was circumstantial evidence at best.

yet you are just ranting and giving me a history lesson on history I already know about. Not one thing you stated here proves this particular trial was was not fair. Reagan and California have nothing to do with this trial. You make it sounds as if, because there was a conflict then he was entitled to either shoot the cop or it automatically makes for a setup in this case. Both are false.

Read the independant studies on the case, read what 20/20 found out about the case, read the facts, read what the witnesses say and do this all without going to a pro mumia or an antie mumia site.

He had appeals. These appeals didn't take place in Philly 30 years ago. They took place in the Supreme court in 2008.

So was the current supreme court decision racist as well?

There were also 2 black jurors on his original jury, were they threatened or coerced into calling one of their own guilty?

So far I just see rhetoric, all the evidence points to this guy. Other than claims about racism I don't see eveidence of it in the procedings. The two black guys on the jury could have easily made it a hung jury. In fact, even if one of them thought it was a racist trial, they could have hung the jury.

faxman75
10-07-2008, 03:30 PM
FIRST DAY OF TRIAL




All that proved was you are an ass. A link would work for those who don't know about the transcripts. You don't have to be an ass and prove your copy and paste skills.

That proved nothing. In fact it was silly. It simply showed that this case was unorthadox. He chose to represent himself. Which was foolish.

faxman75
10-07-2008, 03:34 PM
Oh and I need to correct myself. There were three african americans on the original jury. Three. All found him guilty.

faxman75
10-07-2008, 03:38 PM
As far as Abu-Jamal representing himself goes, he was granted that permission. He then abused it and hijacked the court to rant. Do you really not know this or you don't think it matters? Should he have been allowed to rant endlessly? The judge then appointed him another lawyer. Abu Jamal tried desperately to make a mockery of the the entire trial. So much so apparently even the african americans on the jury thought the evidence proved he was guilty. The attorney he was assigned was experienced and had represented 20 other clients in murder cases.

This case was in fact more cut and dry than the OJ Simpson trial.

marooko
10-07-2008, 03:47 PM
There were three african americans on the original jury. Three.

thats racist.

faxman75
10-07-2008, 03:49 PM
I know, I meant colored.

marooko
10-07-2008, 04:09 PM
actually i meant cause you counted them. but i was kidding.

Jew'd Law
10-07-2008, 04:41 PM
the assumption that there was a fair trial to begin with which any black person in America will tell you is not possible in this country

I have been in communication with Orenthal James and he says that you are incorrect, even after his recent experiences Las Vegas.

thestripe
11-04-2008, 02:25 AM
Massive Attack & Snoop (http://www.massiveattack.co.uk/index.php?id=657)

greghead
11-04-2008, 03:57 AM
If one does research on this case, there is a lot of shady shit involved. Police coercion, disappearing evidence, suspicious witness beatings/deaths.

Faxman, you need a lesson in post-WWII American social history. Do you honestly believe a member of the Black Panthers could really receive due process of law ("fair trial") when accused of murdering a white police officer? In Philadelphia? In 1982!? Don't be silly.

I'm not saying he's automatically innocent, but I feel we should give his case a fair look, instead of assuming he's guilty because he's an angry black male who's vocalizing his opinions regarding his case. You should at least attempt to understand what you're talking about to avoid looking like a racist meat head

faxman75
11-04-2008, 07:33 AM
I'm not saying he's automatically innocent, but I feel we should give his case a fair look, instead of assuming he's guilty because he's an angry black male who's vocalizing his opinions regarding his case. You should at least attempt to understand what you're talking about to avoid looking like a racist meat head


There is an appeal process. I don't buy that the US Supreme Court was in on this. Also I know the history.

Finally you're comment about me assuming he's guilty because he's an angry black man who vocalizes his opinion is ignorant and without reason. The title of the thread is to mock the celebrity they have made of this guy. It's not racist, you should never throw around the term racist either. It's what is making you look ignorant. I completely understand what I am talking about and have discussed this issue without personally attacking others in the discussion.

You can go back to pretending you know what you are talking about now.

thestripe
11-04-2008, 08:35 AM
You could have just quoted yourself from the past 10 posts. I almost didn't post the above link because I knew you'd run to this thread to repeat the same old faxman shit.

faxman75
11-04-2008, 08:44 AM
Welcome back! :) Thank you for adding something new as well.

I ignored your post, I addressed the person who misrepresented my thoughts on the case. So go cry like a fucking baby elsewhere. I wasn't addressing you and you were the ONLY cause for this thread coming back. Wahhhh I knew faxman would post again if I bumped this thread...go suck snots.

marooko
11-04-2008, 09:11 AM
Massive Attack & Snoop (http://www.massiveattack.co.uk/index.php?id=657)

made it like 10 secs. damn.

thestripe
11-04-2008, 09:21 AM
I think it's pretty shitty too.

faxman75
11-04-2008, 09:36 AM
Uh oh, sounds like someone needs a diaper change.

thestripe
11-04-2008, 09:45 AM
What does that even mean? Faxman, are you trying to tell me whats what?

marooko
11-04-2008, 09:45 AM
dude, did you shart?

marooko
11-04-2008, 09:46 AM
What does that even mean? Faxman, are you trying to tell me whats what?

im sure its just in case you dont know what is what. WTF?!

thestripe
11-04-2008, 09:49 AM
Jesus I hate the both of you.

faxman75
11-04-2008, 09:55 AM
No you don't. You love us so much that rather than post in the thousands of other threads on this board you keep choosing this one and you are doing nothing but bitching and moaning in it. You like the abuse. :) If you didn't. You could simply choose not to post and banter back and forth. Come on man, use your head. It's really that easy.

marooko
11-04-2008, 10:00 AM
Jesus I hate the both of you.

i figured you'd get pissy. it was a song reference on my part, re-fucking-lax.

faxman75
11-04-2008, 10:03 AM
I don't think I really neeed to explain the joke to the stripe. I mean christ, he said he felt shitty, sounded like he needed a diaper change. It's pretty straight forward. Some confuse easy I suppose.

allyjoy
11-04-2008, 10:34 AM
Fax, one day you and I will smoke a couple of bowls, listen to some Common and I'll explain it all to you-- the internet is no place for such a conversation. ;)

marooko
11-04-2008, 10:38 AM
how the fuck is Common so FUCKING AWESOME!?!?!?

faxman75
11-04-2008, 10:42 AM
Fax, one day you and I will smoke a couple of bowls, listen to some Common and I'll explain it all to you-- the internet is no place for such a conversation. ;)

That is cool with me. :)

faxman75
11-04-2008, 10:44 AM
how the fuck is Common so FUCKING AWESOME!?!?!?


I'm not educated on the Common. I listen to Talib Kweli.

marooko
11-04-2008, 10:44 AM
ohhhh man, go get (insert any album name by Common here), its fucking awesome!!