 |
AN OPEN LETTER TO JOHN CONYERS, JR
|
|
TO SIGN ON TO THIS LETTER, SEND YOUR NAME AND ORGANIZATION, PREFERABLY BY EMAIL, TO mark.taylor@ptsem.edu
An Open Letter To John Conyers, Jr. 2. We denounce the Resolution’s intervention into St-Denis’ municipal affairs and into those of a foreign sovereign nation. We would not expect the U.S. government to take action against one of its own cities because a foreign legislative body disagrees with a decision made by a U.S. city, and it is outrageous for a U.S. legislative body to now call for French governmental action against St-Denis. We commend the 31 House members who voted against such an unacceptable resolution.
3. We reaffirm what was clear from St-Denis’s inaugural act for creating “Mumia Abu-Jamal Street:” its intention to express opposition to the death penalty world wide, and appreciation for Abu-Jamal’s exemplary advocacy for justice. We applaud St. Denis for its vision and courage in highlighting Abu-Jamal’s struggle.
4. We protest the haste of the Resolution, a condemnation of St-Denis that was rushed through the House of Representatives in the last three days of the previous, 109th Congress, and under a suspension of rules without benefit of a single hearing or of any of the usual considerations by the House Committee on the Judiciary.
5. We disapprove of the Resolution’s interjection of legislative powers into a judicial matter that is still alive and pending before a court of law. H.R. 1082 conveniently hides this fact, being silent about four crucial claims in Abu-Jamal’s case that are now being considered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
6. We object to the Resolution’s false claim that Abu-Jamal was tried by “a jury of his peers.” The truth is that this very issue was accepted as a ground for appeal of his conviction by the Third Circuit. In fact, Abu-Jamal’s jury was purged of 11 qualified African-American jurors by the prosecutor’s unconstitutional use of peremptory challenges, leaving only 2 African Americans among the 12 who decided on his case and his sentence in a city that is 44% African American.
7. We find scandalous that the language of the Resolution has such careless disregard for the facts that it invents new inflammatory rhetoric about the case, claiming wrongly, for example, that Abu-Jamal “struck Officer Faulkner four times in the back with his gun,” a point not even made by the prosecutors at the original trial.
8. We register our grievance that this Resolution was passed over your vote and spurns past actions of support by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and the National Black Caucus of State Legislators (NBCSL). In 1999, the CBC claimed that in Abu-Jamal’s case “treatment of evidence and application of justice had been arbitrary and inconsistent,” and a 2004 resolution of the NBCSL joined with organizations the world over to call for a new trial and his release from prison.
9. We deplore how this hastily-enacted resolution entangles the U.S. Congress in making Abu-Jamal more vulnerable to a hasty execution. The rush to judgment and execution leaves numerous issues insufficiently addressed by the courts, even by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, whose comprehensive rulings against Abu-Jamal, according to a meticulous study by Amnesty International in 2000, were sullied by the connections of at least five of the Pennsylvania justices to the Fraternal Order of Police that still campaigns openly for his execution. One of the justices ruling against Abu-Jamal, Ron Castille, did not recuse himself, even though he was a former Philadelphia D.A. who had previously filed briefs against Abu-Jamal. Among the issues still awaiting adequate and full airing are these: (a) the failure of police to do basic investigative acts like ballistics checks, fingerprinting, and securing of the crime scene; (b) the bribing, exclusion or intimidation of important witnesses against Abu-Jamal; (c) prosecutors’ intentional efforts to prevent African Americans serving on Abu-Jamal’s jury; (d) the existing and mounting evidence that yet another man was in the car stopped by Officer Faulkner on the night of his killing and that Faulkner had this other man’s driver’s license in his pocket; (e) a court stenographer’s affidavit that she heard the original trial judge, Albert Sabo, say about Abu-Jamal’s case, “Yeah, and I’m going to help them fry the nigger”; (f) the fact that the original prosecutor, Joseph McGill, has been quoted as saying in the Philadelphia Inquirer that Abu-Jamal “could have been convicted of a lesser offense” had he waged “a true defense.”
10. We renounce the Resolution’s false claim that honoring Abu-Jamal with a street name in St-Denis is an affront to law enforcement. On the contrary, St-Denis’ action guards the integrity of law and justice, and even the legacy of Officer Daniel Faulkner, by insisting that all claims about violations of Abu-Jamal’s due process and Constitutional rights be investigated and aired fully in courts of law.
THEREFORE, we reaffirm our demand that the House Committee on the Judiciary begin a formal hearing to reconsider the egregious misstep of H.R. 1082, which was passed so hastily by the 109th Congress. The formal inquiry would have the following purposes: (1) to allow all sides, especially representatives from St-Denis, France, to be present and give expression to their views before Congress, and (2) to allow Congress to find an appropriate voice on the matter of Abu-Jamal’s case – a voice that respects House legislative processes that are free of hasty decision-making, a voice that does not interject itself into the active legal case of Abu-Jamal, and a voice that would respect the sovereign matters of another nation’s city.
Pam Africa, International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal
Suzanne Ross, Free Mumia Coalition (NYC)
Mark L. Taylor, Educators for Mumia Abu-Jamal
Julia Wright, COSIMAPP, France
Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition (NYC) • info@freemumia.com • (212) 330-8029 |
