To The HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE CRIMINAL COURT: Petitioner MUMIA ABU-JAMAL, through undersigned counsel, and upon the Exhibits and the Memorandum of Law submitted herewith, respectfully petitions this Court for relief pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. section 9541 et. seq. ("The Post-Conviction Relief Act" or "PCRA"), on grounds that his restraint and sentence of death results from a conviction and sentence that was obtained in violation of the Constitution of this Commonwealth and of the Constitution of the United States. In support of this petition, Petitioner alleges as follows:
1. Petitioner Mumia Abu-Jamal ("Mr. Jamal") is presently incarcerated at SCI-Greene, and is awaiting execution of a death sentence upon a conviction of murder in the first degree and possession of an instrument of a crime.
2. By this petition, Mr. Jamal moves to vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence entered on May 25, 1983, and requests a new trial on both the guilt and penalty phase. Mr. Jamal was tried by a jury, Judge Albert Sabo presiding, and convicted of murder in the first degree and possession of an instrument of a crime on July 2, 1982. After a sentencing hearing on the following day, the jury voted to impose the penalty of death. (7/3/82, Tr. 98) Post-trial motions were filed and denied. (5/25/83 Tr. 1-157) The court, through Judge Sabo, formally imposed the death sentence on May 25, 1983. (Id. at 163-66) Mr. Jamal then pursued a direct appeal, which culminated in a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirming his conviction and death sentence. Com. v. Abu-Jamal, 521 Pa. 188, 555 A.2d 846 (1989), rehearing denied, 524 Pa. 106, 569 A.2d 915 (1990). For unknown reasons, two justices recused themselves from consideration of the appeal.
3. Thereafter, Mr. Jamal submitted an application for certiorari review with the United States Supreme Court, which was denied. Abu-Jamal v. Pennsylvania, 498 U.S. 881 (1990). Mr. Jamal then filed a petition for rehearing predicated on the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari review in cases involving similar issues, which was denied. Abu-Jamal v. Pennsylvania, 498 U.S. 993 (1990). Mr. Jamal's motion for leave to file a second petition for rehearsing was also denied. Abu-Jamal v. Pennsylvania, 501 U.S, 1214 (1991).
4. Mr. Jamal was represented at trial by court-appointed counsel, Anthony Jackson. He was represented on appeal, also by appointment, by Marilyn J. Gelb.
5. On June 1, 1995, Governor Thomas Ridge signed a warrant for Mr. Jamal's execution during the week of August 13, 1995.
6. This is Mr. Jamal's first application for collateral relief pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act.
7. Petitioner Jamal was convicted of a crime he did not commit and sentenced to death based on his political views and history.
8. Through this proceeding, Mr. Jamal will prove that his conviction was the product of widespread police and prosecutorial misconduct, countenanced and advanced by a hostile and biased trial court which stripped him of his ability to raise a defense and then violated his fundamental rights to a fair and impartial trial.
9. Police coerced witnesses to testify against Mr. Jamal, rewarded those who did, concealed exculpatory evidence of his innocence, forcing at least one exculpatory witness to give a false statement and leave the jurisdiction for fear of police harassment. Not satisfied, a false "confession" story was manufactured months later as a result of Mr. Jamal's filing a complaint against the police. The police witness who could have rebutted that false claim went "on vacation" and was thus unavailable for trial. Testimony was adducted from prosecution experts who tailored their scientific tests to preclude the possibility of Mr. Jamal's innocence and offered speculation and hypothesis that, it turns out, was utterly false. None of this was rebutted at trial due to the court's refusal to provide Mr. Jamal with minimal funds to launch an investigation and hire experts in firearms and pathology and due to the gross ineffectiveness of his stand-in counsel.
10. For its part the trial court seated a jury from which blacks were unconstitutionally excluded through the prosecution's use of racially-biased peremptory challenges, then (in Mr. Jamal's absence) removed the only juror selected by Mr. Jamal and replaced her with a white juror who said he was biased against him. The court denied Mr. Jamal the right to represent himself, forced an unprepared, unwilling and incompetent stand-in attorney to serve as Mr. Jamal's counsel, and excluded Mr. Jamal from key portions of the trial. The court refused to grant a continuance to allow a critical defense witness to be called to rebut the false confession claim, barred cross-examination of a prosecution witness on his probationary status for a felony conviction, and refused to permit the defense to show that the key prosecution witnesses had a motive to lie due to police rewards and threats.
11. Then the court allowed the prosecution to make egregiously improper and unfair jury arguments at both the guilt and penalty phases, and allowed the unconstitutional use of Mr. Jamal's political activities and statements from more than a decade earlier to convince the jury that death was the appropriate sentence.
12. Because of the apparent scope of the Commonwealth's misconduct and suppression of evidence in his case, Mr. Jamal seeks a new trial. He also moves for extensive discovery, the right to amend this Petition, and a protective order. For any factual issues that must be resolved, the court should order an evidentiary hearing.
Scene of the CrimeChronologyDefense Motion
