note: Conversion to a plain ascii file has caused the loss of text attributes like boldface and italic that were in the original. The one place where the text contained italics for emphasis, is marked... The original filing also contains three photocopied appendices: The sworn statement of Pamela Jenkins with photos of Cynthia White whom she identified, the transcript of a 1986 court session in which Cynthia White (charged with felonies) is released on her own signature at the requested of Philadelphia homicide officer, and a copy of Cynthia White's rap sheet.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EASTERN DISTRICT
_________________________________________
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Appellee,
No. 119 Cap. App. Dkt. 1995
v.
MUMIA ABU-JAMAL,
a/k/a Wesley Cook,
Appellant.
_________________________________________
APPELLANT MUMIA ABU-JAMAL'S APPLICATION FOR RELIEF IN THE FORM OF A REMAND TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY AND TAKE DISCOVERY REGARDING POLICE AND PROSECUTION MISCONDUCT
Appellant Mumia Abu-Jamal ("Jamal") respectfully applies for relief in the form of a remand to the Court of Common Pleas for the purpose of taking the additional testimony of Pamela Jenkins and obtaining further discovery in support of his Amended Petition for Post-Conviction Relief.
Jenkins was a central government informant and witness in the federal investigation leading to the conviction of six 39th District police officers for misconduct. She will testify that police officers (including one of the officers convicted in the 39th District corruption scandal) engaged in the same misconduct in Jamal's case. Specifically, if given the opportunity, Jenkins will testify that, in late 1981, police pressured her to falsely identify Jamal as the shooter in this case. Jenkins would further testify that she knew prostitute and prosecution witness Cynthia White, also known as "Lucky," and that White also was subjected to threats by police, which produced her false identification of Jamal as the shooter. None of this has ever been disclosed to the defense.
Jenkins' testimony thus provides additional powerful support to Jamal's pending PCRA claim that police improperly manipulated and pressured prostitute witnesses to give false testimony, resulting in the perjured identification of Jamal by the central prosecution witness at trial, Cynthia White, conduct so egregious as to warrant dismissal of the charges, or at a minimum a new trial. Moreover, Jenkins' testimony demonstrates once again rampant police misconduct and withholding of Brady information, at a minimum entitling Jamal to discovery of all police and prosecution files in this case.
In further support of this Application for Relief, Jamal submits the attached verified statement of Pamela Jenkins (Exhibit 1, "Jenkins Aff.") and states as follows:
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Pamela Jenkins' Revelations of Undisclosed Police Misconduct in This Case.
1. In late 1981, Pamela Jenkins was a teenaged prostitute in Philadelphia. She frequented the center city Locust Street area. At that time, Jenkins was the lover and informant of police officer Thomas Ryan. As Jenkins explains, she "knew prostitutes and people who became police informants in order to continue working the streets." (Jenkins Aff. P 1.) One of these people was Cynthia White, who "was a prostitute, police informant and turned tricks for police officers in the district." (Id. P 4.) White was also the central prosecution witness against Jamal at the 1982 trial, the only witness who claimed to have seen Jamal holding a gun.
2. Jenkins' and Ryan's activities became the subject of public attention during the past two years due to revelations of gross Philadelphia police misconduct, including intentional framing of innocent people. (Jenkins Aff. P 11.) Jenkins was a pivotal government informant in the federal investigation of several 39th District officers, leading to their convictions for police misconduct.
3. Earlier this year, Jamal's attorneys located Jenkins and interviewed her. Although the defense had no prior information linking Jenkins directly to Jamal's case, she provided stunning confirmation of police manipulation and intimidation of prostitute witnesses in this case. Jenkins provided a verified statement, revealing that in late 1981 police had pressured her to perjure herself and falsely identify Jamal as the shooter in this case -- despite the fact that Jenkins had not even been present at the scene:
8. Tom Ryan, Richard Ryan and other police officers pressured me and asked me if I had seen the shooting of the police officer and whether I had been in the area of the shooting that night. When I said 'no' they pressured some more and asked me was I really sure that I hadn't been on the street that night and seen the shooting.
9. It was clear to me that Tom Ryan and Richard Ryan wanted me to perjure myself and say that I had seen Jamal shoot the police officer.
10. I think I wasn't pressured more because I was very young and at that time Tom Ryan and I were lovers and he was protective of me. (Jenkins Aff. PP 8-9.) 1
4. Although Jenkins refused to falsely identify Jamal, another center city prostitute, Cynthia White, did so. White ultimately was the only witness in this case who claimed to have seen Jamal, gun in hand, shoot P. O. Faulkner. Jamal has alleged, and Jenkins now confirms, that police applied improper pressure and threats to secure White's testimony:
3. One of the girls I hung with was Cynthia White who I also knew by the nicknames "Lucky" and Cindy. I have identified Lucky as the woman in the photos which are attached. I have known Lucky since I was a young girl.
4. I know that Cynthia White worked as a prostitute in the center city area, specifically at Locust and 13th Street, during 1980 and 1981 and that she was a prostitute, police informant and turned tricks for police officers in the district. * * *
6. During the same period of time, Cynthia White told me that she was afraid of the police and that the police were trying to get her to say something about the shooting. Lucky also told me that she had been threatened with her life by a police officer because of the Jamal case. Shortly afterwards, Lucky disappeared. (Jenkins Aff. PP 3-4, 6.)
B. The Pattern of Police/Prostitute Collusion in Philadelphia's Center City.
5. Jenkins' description of police intimidation of prostitutes fits the pattern of police/prostitute activities in Philadelphia's center city area at that time, exemplified by the testimony concerning police intimidation and manipulation of the two prostitute witnesses at trial, Cynthia White and Veronica Jones, and by the federal investigation of police corruption in the center city area in the early 1980's. As Jamal has alleged throughout these PCRA proceedings, there was a sordid interconnection between center city police and prostitution rings in the early 1980's. In 1981, the Federal Bureau of Investigation had begun an undercover investigation of Philadelphia police control of prostitution rings in the center city, where the shooting in this case took place. (Mem. of Law in Support of Pet. for Post-Conviction Relief, 6n.8; Brief for Appellant 45n.58.) That investigation exposed a well-entrenched symbiotic relationship in which center city police took "protection" money while manipulating prostitutes and pimps to provide perjured pro-prosecution testimony. Ultimately, the investigation led to convictions of over twenty Philadelphia police officers on charges including extortion from pimps and prostitutes. (Id.; PCRA Pet. Exh. 42-43.) 2 Similar patterns of misconduct were uncovered in the wide-ranging 39th District scandal.
6. Cynthia White. The prostitute Cynthia White was the key prosecution witness at trial. She was the only witness who claimed to have seen Jamal with a gun in his hand. 3 At trial, the defense attacked White's credibility by showing that her account changed with each re-telling. The defense also sought to show that she had reason to change her story to suit the police. During the trial, White was serving a sentence of 18 months for prostitution in Massachusetts. (Tr. 6/21/82: 4.79, 4.84-85.) She had 38 previous arrests for prostitution in Philadelphia and had three open cases in Philadelphia. (Tr. 6/21/82: 4.80-81.) In the days after the shooting, she was arrested at least twice for prostitution. (Tr. 6/21/82: 4.169-71; 6/22/82: 5.31.) Her picture was posted in the 6th District with instructions for arresting officers to "Contact Homicide." (Tr. 6/21/82: 4.171.) Each time police picked White up and took her statement, she revised her story. (Id.: 159-63, 168; 6/22/82: 5.176-190.) Without explanation, bench warrants against her were not prosecuted. (Id.: 5.44, 5.51.) 4
7. The heightened police attention to White continued even after Jamal's 1982 conviction. White claimed at the 1982 trial that she had received no special treatment in return for her testimony, other than lodging and security during her testimony. (Tr. 6/21/82: 4.92.) However, White plainly continued to receive special treatment as late as 1987, when a Homicide detective came to court to ask the judge to let White out of jail because of her role in the Jamal case. On June 29, 1987, after a preliminary hearing, White was held for arraignment on serious felony charges including robbery, assault, and weapons charges. Jamal has now obtained the transcript of this hearing, attached as Exhibit 2, which shows an extraordinary proceeding. The court was prepared to impose a bail requirement on Ms. White, based on "seventeen failures to appear." (Com. v. White, MC 87-06-2351 Tr. 6/29/87: 29.) Ms. White's attorney then sought to go to a sidebar to permit Homicide detective Douglas Culbreth to address the court. (Id.: 30-31.) Det. Culbreth, who was one of the detectives involved in the Jamal investigation, told the court that Ms. White "was a Commonwealth witness in a very high profile case." (Id.: 31-32.) The District Attorney's office then agreed that Ms. White would be allowed to sign for her own bail. (Id.: 32-33.) After that Homicide detective's intervention, White signed herself out, skipped bail, and has never been arrested in Philadelphia since. (See Exhibit 3.)
8. Now Pamela Jenkins provides further confirmation that White, whom Jenkins knew, was being pressured by police and that White was "afraid of the police" and that White said "she had been threatened with her life by a police officer because of the Jamal case." (Jenkins Aff. P 6.) Jenkins also confirms that White was one of the prostitutes who was professionally involved with center city police: "I know that Cynthia White worked as a prostitute in the center city area, specifically at Locust and 13th Street, during 1980 and 1981 and that she was a prostitute, police informant and turned tricks for police officers in the district." (Id.: P 4.)
9. Veronica Jones. At trial, Veronica Jones explained that she was picked up in early 1982 and taken to the Sixth District where police pressured her for five hours to identify Jamal as the shooter, promising to allow her to work the streets with impunity if she complied with the police requests:
They were getting on me telling me I was in the area and I seen Mumia, you know, do it, you know, intentionally. They were trying to get me to say something that the other girl said. I couldn't do it. . . . It more so came about when we had brought up Cynthia's name and they told us we can work the area if we tell them.
(Tr. 6/29/82: 129, 135-36.) The trial court improperly struck this testimony and precluded further inquiry into the police intimidation of Jones and White. (Id.: 136-45.)
10. As Jones testified at the supplemental PCRA hearing last October, police once again pressured her to identify Jamal as the shooter shortly before the 1982 trial, when she was jailed on unrelated weapons charges. In this police interview, just days before her testimony, police led Jones to believe that her charges would be dropped if she helped the prosecution, but that she would face a long prison term if she helped the defense. Again, the police told Jones she "was supposed to do something like this girl named Lucky White. They said we made a deal with her and it was going to work out for her so they could make it work out for me." (Tr. 10/1/96: 24.) Succumbing to this improper police intimidation, at trial Jones retracted her original statement to police that she saw two men flee the scene, instead denying that she saw anyone running on Locust Street. 5
C. Jamal's Continuing Efforts to Investigate Police Misconduct in This Case, And The Denial of Necessary Discovery.
11. In his PCRA petition and supporting Memorandum of Law, Jamal pointed to the police corruption scandals in the early 1980's, and the apparent interconnection between police and prostitution in the center city area. (Mem. of Law in Support of Pet. for Post-Conviction Relief, pp. 3n.4 and 6n.8; PCRA Petition Exhs. 42-44.) In his Motion for Discovery, Jamal specifically sought discovery regarding these allegations of police misconduct. (Mot. for Discovery, P 10.) The PCRA court denied any discovery on the erroneous ground that discovery is prohibited in PCRA proceedings.
12. As Jamal's PCRA evidentiary hearing proceeded in July and August 1995, his daily proof of police misconduct was paralleled by the unfolding public revelations of police misconduct in the 39th District. With the assistance of Pamela Jenkins' testimony, the federal government prosecuted six officers. The Philadelphia public defender has uncovered countless cases in which innocent men and women were falsely convicted. Although initially the Philadelphia District Attorney's office refused to acknowledge that any of these convictions should be overturned, even that Office has grudgingly conceded that innocent people were falsely convicted.
13. Because of the revelations of misconduct in the 39th District, coupled with the prior scandal involving similar misconduct by center city police in the early 1980's, Jamal renewed his requests for discovery of any allegations of misconduct involving officers involved in the investigation ofhis case. At the close of the PCRA hearing, Jamal requested additional time to investigate and prepare evidence regarding the 39th District events, noting that "the criminal activities of the indicted police officers are similar to the actions of the police and prosecution in the instant case: coercion, threats, and alternatively favors to witnesses; falsification and manufacturing of evidence." (Wolkenstein Aff. 9/10/95 P 7.a.)
14. In late 1996, Jamal obtained information as to the whereabouts of Pamela Jenkins, the key federal prosecution witness in the 39th District cases. At that time the defense had no information directly tying Jenkins to this case. However, because of the parallel instances of misconduct in this case and in the 39th District cases, as part of its due diligence, the defense team interviewed Jenkins, learned of her stark allegations of misconduct in this case, and obtained her verified statement on January 9, 1997. To avoid presenting his claims piecemeal, Jamal has continued his investigation in the meantime. However, to avoid any claim that Jamal has prejudicially delayed the filing of this application, Jamal files it now and will present further new evidence as it becomes available. 6
15. At the supplemental PCRA hearing, Jamal also advised the PCRA court of his desire to call Cynthia White as a witness, and requested that the Commonwealth provide her address. The prosecutor stated "I don't have an address for Cynthia White." (Tr. 10/1/96: 280-81.) Jamal has continued his efforts to locate Cynthia White and other witnesses.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
JENKINS' REVELATIONS THAT POLICE PRESSURED HER AND CYNTHIA WHITE TO FALSELY IDENTIFY JAMAL AS THE SHOOTER WARRANT PCRA RELIEF OR, AT A MINIMUM, DISCOVERY OF THE COMMONWEALTH'S CASE FILES.
16. The proffered testimony of Pamela Jenkins concerning police intimidation of herself and White is not a singular item of evidence supporting a peripheral claim in this PCRA litigation. Rather, it is additional proof among an array of evidence demonstrating that the prosecution and law enforcement built a case against Jamal through manipulation and coercion of witnesses, and through unfettered perjury of the central prosecution witness. See Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U.S. 28 (1957). 7 The record before this Court is clear and powerful on this score. Jenkins' testimony adds to that clarity and power, and thus cannot be ignored.
17. Not only does Jenkins' testimony further illuminate Jamal's due process contention that his conviction and death sentence were secured through corrupt means and false evidence, it also bolsters his contention that Brady material was systematically withheld. There can be no question that the information that police threatened White's life and pressured Jenkins to falsely identify Jamal would have been powerful ammunition for the defense in countering the prosecution case at trial. See Kyles v. Whitley, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 1573 (1995) (highlighting importance of disclosure of material permitting a defense attack on "the reliability of the investigation").
18. As suggested above, in evaluating the instant application, this Court must examine the present proffer of newly-discovered evidence in light of the entire record. The trial record hints at law enforcement and prosecution misconduct (notably, the stricken remarks of Veronica Jones, cited above), but those hints were inadequately developed as a combined result of inadequate defense preparation and performance and erroneous judicial rulings. Amplification of the record in these PCRA proceedings has thus far shown that the jury was left unaware of the following:
(a) the police pressured three prostitutes (White, Jones and Jenkins) to falsely identify Jamal as the shooter;
(b) P. O. Gary Wakshul was present at the hospital and reported immediately afterward that Jamal "made no comments," demonstrating that the purported hospital "confession" was concocted;
(c) police threatened William Singletary, who saw the real shooter flee the scene, and destroyed his true witness statement, forcing him to sign a false statement;
(d) prosecutor McGill had promised to renew the suspended driver's license of witness Robert Chobert, and ignored the fact that Chobert, on probation, was making his living illegally by driving a cab without a license;
(e) police withheld the information that a driver's license or application in the name of Arnold Howard was found in the clothing of P. O. Faulkner, which led police to suspect that Howard had been present at the shooting and fled the scene;
(f) ballistic evidence which could have excluded Jamal's gun had disappeared.
19. A simple but profound fact undergirds this application. Because the Commonwealth seeks to execute Jamal, the PCRA court, and inevitably this Court, must reckon with all of the facts concerning how this conviction and death sentence were secured. Jamal is thus entitled to a full and fair opportunity to augment the factual record with the testimony of Pamela Jenkins.
20. A fully developed record in this case mandates extraordinary relief. The widespread police misconduct in this case is so egregious that dismissal of the charges is the appropriate remedy. Com. v. Smith, 532 Pa. 177, 615 A.2d 321 (1992). Certainly, a new trial is in order.
21. At a minimum, given the widespread evidence of police and prosecutorial misconduct, and the continuing stream of new material evidence which the defense has uncovered, this case cries out for full disclosure of the prosecution and police files on the investigation. It is obvious that the prosecution has not complied with its Brady obligations, and that material evidence of police misconduct has been withheld. Jamal should be permitted such discovery.
22. Accordingly, Jamal respectfully requests that this cause be remanded to permit the presentation of Jenkins' testimony, discovery, and presentation of such additional testimony or evidence Jamal may develop regarding his claims of police and prosecutorial misconduct. Alternately, the Court should reverse the judgment below, grant PCRA relief, and order the charges dismissed or a new trial. 8
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, an Order should be entered granting the following relief:
(a) remanding this cause to the Court of Common Pleas to a new PCRA judge for the purpose of taking additional testimony and for such other proceedings as may be just and equitable in light of the additional testimony;
(b) directing the PCRA court to reconsider its rulings, findings, conclusions and adjudication as appropriate in light of the additional testimony;
(c) directing the PCRA court to permit Jamal to take discovery, including discovery of the Commonwealth's prosecution and police files on this case in their entirety;
(d) granting Jamal's Amended PCRA Petition in all respects, including either a new trial or outright dismissal of the charges;
(e) granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and equitable under the circumstances. Respectfully submitted,
LEONARD I. WEINGLASS
6 West 20th St., Suite 10A
New York, New York 10010
(212) 807-8646
DANIEL R. WILLIAMS
Moore & Williams, LLP
740 Broadway Suite 500
New York, New York 10003
(212) 353-9587
JONATHAN B. PIPER
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal
8000 Sears Tower
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 876-8000
RACHEL H. WOLKENSTEIN
67 Wall Street, Suite 2411
New York, New York 10005
(212) 406-4252
STEVEN W. HAWKINS
National Conference of Black Lawyers
918 F Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 347-2411
DAVID RUDOVSKY, Local Counsel (Bar No. 15168)
Kairys, Rudovsky, Kalman & Epstein
924 Cherry Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 925-4400
Attorneys for Petitioner Mumia Abu-Jamal Dated: March 10, 1997
PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing document upon the persons and in the manner indicated below which service satisfies the requirements of Pa. R. A. P. 121:
Service by first class mail addressed as follows:
Hugh J. Burns, Jr., Esquire (counsel for District Attorney of Philadelphia County)
Assistant District Attorney
1421 Arch Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19102
(215) 686-5728
Karl Baker, Esquire (counsel for amicus)
125 South Ninth Street, Suite 701
Philadelphia, Pa. 19105-1161
(215) 568-3190
Earl W. Trent, Esquire (counsel for amicus)
1231 North Broad Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19122
Romona Washington, Esquire (counsel for amicus)
5019 Cedar Avenue
Philadelphia, Pa. 19143
Dated: March 10, 1997
Jonathan B. Piper
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal
8000 Sears Tower
Chicago, Illinois 60613
(312) 876-7992 (Counsel for Appellant Mumia Abu-Jamal)
Footnotes:
1 According to Jenkins, "Tom Ryan told me that police officers on the scene of the shooting included Richard Ryan, an officer named Boston and a police officer who I know as `Sarge' and is one of the officers who was just convicted in the 39th District cases with Tom Ryan." (Jenkins Aff. P 11.) Court records show that Richard Ryan had arrested Kenneth Freeman in February 1982, the man who was the source of the driver's license found on P. O. Faulkner's body. (Com. v. Freeman, No. MC 8202-2557; see Brief for Appellant 56-57, Reply Brief 33-34). Ryan was assisted in arresting Freeman by P. O. James Forbes, who was the first police officer on the scene after P. O. Faulkner's shooting, and was a key police witness for the prosecution at the 1982 trial. Given Jenkins' revelations, Jamal is entitled to his previously-requested discovery concerning the identities of all officers present at the scene or involved in the investigation, including P. O. Boston and "Sarge." As Jamal complained at the supplemental PCRA hearing, the Commonwealth has never turned over the "white paper" investigation reports, including the reports and memoranda of Det. Sgt. Herbert Gibbons. (Tr. 10/1/96: 6-7.) Given the widespread evidence of police and prosecutorial misconduct and coverup in this case, Jamal is entitled to full discovery of these reports, along with the entire Commonwealth files in this case.
2 Among those convicted as a result of these investigations was Inspector Giordano, the police inspector on the scene shortly after the shooting in this case. (PCRA Pet. Exh. 44.)
3 White claimed to see the "barrel part" of the gun in Jamal's hand. (Tr. 6/21/82: 4.102; 6/22/82: 5.117.) Initially White claimed the gun was in Jamal's left hand, then said it was in the right, but later could not say which hand she claimed to have seen it in. (Tr. 1/8/82: 56; 1/11/82: 105; 6/21/82: 104.) Robert Chobert claimed he heard shots but did not see a gun or gunfire. (Tr. 6/19/82: 261, 229, 230.) According to Inspector Giordano, at the scene cab driver Chobert initially claimed "the man that shot the policeman ran away." (Tr. 6/1/82: 70.) The third prosecution witness, Michael Scanlan, did not see any guns and could not say who was doing the shooting. (Tr. 6/25/82: 8.65.) He misidentified Jamal as the driver of the Volkswagen, and could not say which of the black males shot the officer. (Tr. 6/25/82: 8.46, 8.50.) The fourth prosecution witness, Albert Magilton, did not see the shooting and did not see anything in Jamal's hand. (Id.: 8.88-8.89, 8.100.)
Moreover, no other witness saw White at the corner where she claimed to have witnessed the shooting -- not even prosecution witness Robert Chobert, who claimed his cab was parked right at that same corner. (Tr. 6/19/82: 227.) (See also Tr. 8/11/95: 300-01 (Singletary saw White around the corner where she could not witness shooting); 6/29/82: 130-31 (Jones did not see White at scene); 6/25/82: 8.58, 8.86 (Scanlan and Magilton saw no one on corner); PCRA Pet. Exh. 21 (Hightower saw White down the street from where she claimed to have been).)
4 At the PCRA hearing, defense investigator Robert Greer testified that in 1982 he was never able to interview White because there was always a little red car parked at the curb adjacent to her with two people in it. Based on his 30 years of experience in law enforcement, Greer identified these two guardians as plainclothes police officers. (Tr. 8/1/95: 175-76.)
5 The Commonwealth takes the absurd position of denying that Jones initially told police that she had seen two men run away from the slain officer shortly after the shooting. Yet even the law enforcement witness who took Jones' December 15, 1981 statement was "positive" that she said she saw the men running:
Q: You have an impression they were jogging away from the shooting?
A: That's correct. (Tr. 10/2/96: 252.)
Q: As you sit here today, Officer, you are certain that she said to you on December [15th], 1981 [] she saw two black men jogging away from the scene?
A: I'm positive that's what she told me. (Tr. 10/2/96: 252, 257.)
6 In the event the Commonwealth renews its tiresome claims of "delay," Jamal notes that issues of "delay" and "due diligence" arise under the PCRA only after the Commonwealth first establishes some prejudice in its ability to respond or to re-try the petitioner. 42 Pa. C. S. S 9542(b). Moreover, the Commonwealth cannot claim "delay" here because the claim at issue involves Brady information which the Commonwealth improperly withheld from Jamal. See Walker v. Lockhart, 763 F.2d 942 (8th Cir. 1985) (after initial appellate decision, mandate was withdrawn and case was remanded for evidentiary hearing based on new evidence of Brady violation); United States v. Biberfeld, 957 F.2d 98 (3rd. Cir. 1992) (no "cause and prejudice" issue arose where government's Brady violations prevented petitioner from raising claim on direct appeal); Kirkpatrick v. Whitley, 992 F.2d 491, 496 (5th Cir. 1993) (no diligence issues arose on habeas petitioner's second petition where petitioner could not have presented his Brady claims on first petition). See also Dobbs v. Zant, 113 S. Ct. 835 (1993) (state could not raise petitioner's delay in discovering transcript where state had previously erroneously denied that closing arguments were transcribed).
7 Jamal presents Jenkins as a further witness in support of his pending claim that the Commonwealth "withheld evidence of intimidation, special deals and favors, and coercion which was applied to numerous witnesses." (Am. PCRA pet. Claim I(5).)
8 For all the reasons set forth in Jamal's Brief, this matter should be assigned on remand to a different PCRA judge because of the evident bias of Judge Sabo. (See Brief for Appellant, 18-28; Reply Brief for Appellant, 3-17.)
Mumia Index | Protests Planned | R&R
Main Page
Contact Refuse
& Resist!
305 Madison Ave., Suite 1166, New York, NY 10165
Phone: 212-713-5657
email: info@refuseandresist.org or resist@walrus.com