1
1
1
An essential pillar in a constitutionally fair trial, experts agree, is having an "impartial judge" who does not act as "either an assisting prosecutor or a thirteenth juror."
Assertions by Abu-Jamal's opponents that his obvious guilt negates any need for following fair trial procedures contradict long established law.
The Pa Supreme Court declared in a 1959 ruling that defendants are entitled "to all the safeguards of a fair trial"even if the evidence of guilt piles as high as Mt. Everest."
That fair trial right exists irrespective of whether judges or prosecutors are convinced of a defendant's guilt, the Pa Supreme Court stated in that ruling issued when Abu-Jamal was four-years-old.
That 1959 ruling arose from a Philadelphia murder case where the defendant had pled guilty. Abu-Jamal has consistently proclaimed his innocence in the shooting death of Officer Daniel Faulkner --- before, during and after his trial.
Even some who feel Abu-Jamal could be guilty as charged also believe Abu-Jamal received an unfair trial.
Respected lawyer/journalist Stuart Taylor, in a 1996 article, asserted that Abu-Jamal "received an unfair trial" despite also contending that a "strong probably" existed that Abu-Jamal killed Officer Daniel Faulkner"when Jamal came to the aid of his brother who was being beaten by Faulkner during a traffic stop.
Echoing conclusions of other investigators, Taylor found unfairness in "grossly inadequate defense lawyering, flagrantly biased judging and, in all probability, police fabrication of evidence and intimidation of witnesses."
Prosecutors contributed to undermining Abu-Jamal's fair trial rights by withholding evidence of innocence from the defense and the jury during the 1982 trial. This suppression included withholding evidence of a third person at the crime scene other than Abu-Jamal and his brother. Abu-Jamal's defense centered on the claim that Faulkner's shooter fled a contention consistent with eyewitness reports that Faulkner's shooter fled.
Violations of fair trial procedures by prosecutors are a problem in Pa and nationwide. An October 2007 American Bar Association report chided top prosecutorial officials in Pennsylvania for not complying with "all legal, professional and ethical obligations to disclose to the defense information"and tangible documents""
Incredibly, state and federal courts including the US Supreme Court have repeatedly dismissed the vile violations in Abu-Jamal's case when denying his appeals for a new trial.
Dismissals in the Abu-Jamal case contradict those same courts citing chillingly similar violations when voiding over 200 Pa. death penalty convictions since 1978.
The federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, has voided Philadelphia first degree murder convictions upon findings that prosecutors engaged in racially biased jury selection practices.
Yet, in 2008, a 3rd Circuit panel dismissed Abu-Jamal's jury bias claim by creating a new standard for proving that claim.
That new proof standard was far stiffer than that Circuit's existing precedent, exceeding even jury bias proof standards utilized in a US Supreme Court ruling weeks earlier authored by Justice Samuel Alito, a former 3rd Circuit jurist.
The dissenting judge in that 3rd Circuit ruling the first ever dissent in an Abu-Jamal case ruling upbraided his panel colleagues for seizing Abu-Jamal's case to change established procedures.
