1
1
1
The Pa. Supreme Court, in a 1999 ruling involving "extensive and flagrant prosecutorial misconduct" released two reputed Philadelphia mob members convicted of a high-profile murder, ruling this pair was denied a fair trial. That unfair trial took place two years after Abu-Jamal's trial during Rendell's DA tenure.
The Pa. Supreme released those two mob members directly from prison, one year after its 1998 Abu-Jamal case ruling where that Court rejected voluminous claims of prosecutorial misconduct during Abu-Jamal's trial and his appeal proceedings.
Incidentally, five of the seven Court justices participating in that 1998 ruling against Abu-Jamal received substantial electoral financing and other support from Philadelphia's police union the leading proponent of Abu-Jamal's execution.
A February 2000 Amnesty International report on Abu-Jamal's case expressed concern about the "political support" Pa justices receive from police organizations noting the prospect of "severe political backlash" against any justice challenging Abu-Jamal's conviction.
Pa. judicial ethics require judges to remove themselves from cases they handled while serving as government lawyers. Yet, a former Philadelphia DA-turned-Pa Supreme Court Justice who's received extensive police union backing has repeatedly refused to remove himself from Abu-Jamal appeals.
Equal protection of laws is an essential aspect of civil rights. The Blacks Law Dictionary cited as authority by judges defines equal protection of the law in part as: "no person shall be denied the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons in like circumstances""
Pa. Supreme Court rulings in 1988 and 1989 provide glaring evidence of equal protection violations.
In March 1988, the Pa. Supreme Court issued a ruling granting a new trial to a Pa. State Trooper charged with fatally shooting a woman inside a judge's office. That Trooper shot the woman he accused of burglarizing his home during a court proceeding involving that burglary.
The Court ruled the Trooper did not receive a fair trial because the presiding judge made a single statement questioning the professional credentials of a defense witness. The Court deemed that single statement as offering an improper "opinion.'
However, one year later, the same Court found no fair trial fault in numerous opinion laden statements by Judge Sabo during Abu-Jamal's trial including Sabo assailing the professional competency of Abu-Jamal's attorney in front of the jury.
Equal protection violations comprise a consistent thread in the trial and appellate court rejections of Abu-Jamal's legal claims.
These violations include the U.S. Supreme Court in the early 1990s twice refusing to consider Abu-Jamal's claim that prosecutors violated his First Amendment association rights with inflammatory references to his teenaged membership in the Black Panther Party.
Although Abu-Jamal had voluntarily left the BPP 12-years before his 1982 trial, prosecutors speciously argued his former BPP membership spurred his killing a cop.
The U.S. Supreme Court, months after rejecting Abu-Jamal's first appeal, granted a new hearing to a murderer who challenged prosecutorial reference to his current membership in a violent white racist prison gang. Following the favorable ruling for the racist, Abu-Jamal unsuccessfully sought Supreme Court reconsideration of his association right claim citing that Court's ruling in the white racist's case.
Months after spurning Abu-Jamal a second time, the Supreme Court granted a new hearing to a white murderer challenging prosecutorial reference of his membership in a devil worshiping cult. When giving relief to the devil worshiper, the Supreme Court cited the precedence of its ruling in the racist's case.
Equal protection of laws seemingly should have provided an ex-Black Panther with the same protection of laws as a white racist and white devil worshiper given the similarities of their appeal circumstances.
