COURTROOM AUDIO: Mumia Abu-Jamal's May 17 Oral Arguments

CHAPTER ONE: DA Prosecutor Hugh Burns

FULL CHAPTER: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DA.mp3

---PART ONE: Death Penalty: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DAdp.mp3

Deputy DA Hugh Burns argues that Abu-Jamal’s death sentence remain in force by appealing the December, 2001 decision by U.S. District Court Judge William Yohn. Citing the 1988 Mills v. Maryland precedent, Yohn ruled that sentencing forms used by jurors and Judge Sabo's instructions to the jury were confusing. Subsequently, jurors mistakenly believed that they had to unanimously agree on any mitigating circumstances in order to consider them as weighing against a death sentence. However, since the prosecution appealed, the death judgment remains in effect with Abu-Jamal continuing to be on death row.

PART TWO: “Appeal after Appeal”: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DA2.mp3

Burns addresses the legality of McGill's statement to Mumia’s jury minimizing the seriousness of a verdict of guilt: “If you find the Defendant guilty of course there would be appeal after appeal and perhaps there could be a reversal of the case, or whatever, so that may not be final.”

PART THREE: Batson: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DAbatson.mp3

“Certified for appeal” by Yohn in 2001, the Batson claim addresses the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to exclude Blacks from Abu-Jamal’s jury. In 1986, the US Supreme Court ruled in Batson v. Kentucky that a defendant deserves a new trial if it can be proved that jurors were excluded on the grounds of race. Most importantly, Batson significantly lowered the defendant's burden of proof.

SHORT EXCERPTS:

Marching Up San Juan Hill? (13:25): http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DAsjhill.mp3

Judge Ambro challenges DA Burns’ argument for re-instating the death penalty, and compares Burns’ effort to “marching up San Juan Hill” (ie. a losing battle).

You Don’t Deny That McGill’s Statements Were Inappropriate? (18:30): http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DAdenial.mp3

Judge Cowen asks DA Burns about 1982 Prosecutor Joseph McGill’s statement to the jury (at both guilt and penalty phases) that Abu-Jamal would have “appeal after appeal,” which served to lessen the gravity of a guilty verdict and death sentence. Judge Cowen asks: “You don’t deny that the statements made by the Assistant Prosecutor were inappropriate for the summation, do you?” Burns answers: “I do deny that, yes.”

A Violation of the Bill of Rights? (21:30): http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DArights.mp3

Judge Cowen addresses the Caldwell case, which DA Burns cites in defense of McGill’s false “appeal after appeal” statement. Judge Cowen forcefully asks DA Burns about the constitutionality of 1982 Prosecutor Joseph McGill’s “appeal after appeal” statement, asking “Isn’t Caldwell also about the rights established by the Bill of Rights? Part of the Bill of Rights is to have a fair trial.” He then specifically asks if McGill’s statement was “a denial of one of the rights secured by the Bill of Rights?”

Jenny Dawley (30:00): http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DAdawley.mp3

 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5