Mumia Abu-Jamal was not only stripped of his right to defend himself and denied the right to have John Africa sit at the defense table as an advisor, he was also expelled from the courtroom and barred from his own trial at which he was sentenced to death.
Here is the complete transcript of that expulsion which occurred on the afternoon of June 18, 1982, following the infamous in camera session between Judge Sabo, prosecutor Joseph McGill, and the court-appointed defense attorney, Anthony Jackson.
A PDF copy of the court record is available here.
AFTERNOON SESSION 2.57
(The following took place in open court out of the presence of the jury:)
MR. MCGILL: Your Honor, good afternoon.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
MR. MCGILL: The Commonwealth is prepared to proceed as it was yesterday; how- ever, I believe that inasmuch as we've had some discussion in chambers in reference to the scope of representation by Mr. Jackson, Mr. Jackson may well want to address the Court as to what the situation is in relation to his client in terms of the scope of his representation and, perhaps, might suggest a colloquy or what would be in order. I know the Court was going to do that anyway but I was going to make that suggestion. Mr. Jackson?
THE COURT: Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, Your Honor. I just bring to the Court's attention that pursuant to Your Honor's allowance yesterday we did, of course, petition to the Supreme Court. Justice McDermott denied the petition this morning. Subsequent to that I had some questions with regard to what my participation would be in this case in that Mr. Jamal, at least yesterday, indicated. that he did not want me to participate in this process;primarily it was his intention to put on an active defense with the active assistance of John Africa at counsel table.
I've just had another discussion with Mr. Jamal and Mr. Jamal says again that he would indeed participate with an active participation if in fact John Africa was permitted to sit at counsel table and to assist him. Other than that Mr. Jamal has not indicated what my participation might be. May I have one moment?
(A discussion was held off the record.)
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, may it please the Court, Mr. Jamal will address the Court at the conclusion of my remarks. Mr. ' Jamal would have me remind the Court that he has.1 I requested on numerous occasions that John Africa assist him at counsel table. He again would like to renew that request that John Africa assist him in this matter. And to deny him the assistance of John Africa would substantially compromise his defense in this matter.
He further states that without the assistance of John Africa obviously his defense would be adversely affected. My further participation in his defense would also be compromised in that I am now being forced by the Court to participate as his trial counsel against his wishes.
I believe Mr. Jamal would like to --
THE COURT: I don't want to hear anymore about it. As I told you yesterday, I would abide by what the Supreme Court said. The Supreme Court has spoken in this matter. They have affirmed my decisions and there's nothing to argue any further.
I can appreciate the position that you're in, Mr. Jackson. You are in a dilemna and it calls to m ind an old adage that I remember that, you can lead a horse to the water but you can't make him drink. And that's true in this case. You're doing all that you can and all that is humanly possible. If he chooses not to actively participate in this case, he does so at his own peril. But you have received your instructions from the Supreme Court and I'm expecting that we will all obey the Supreme Court in this case.
We will proceed immediately. If he chooses not to participate that is his problem.
All right. Call the jury in.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I don't believe there's been a colloquy.
THE COURT: We don't need a colloquy. The Supreme Court says we don't need a colloquy. If he chooses not to participate, that's his problem.
MR. JACKSON: That's what he was going to respond to.
THE COURT: We're not going to argue this over and over and over again, gentlemen. It's been argued. It's been up to the Supreme Court. It is now time to move forward. It's quarter to three and we haven't even started.
MR. JACKSON: I understand, Your Honor. I was --
THE COURT: I am not going to go through this all over again. It's just a useless gesture. You know your position.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: He knows his position. I know mine. He knows his. If Jamal chooses not to assist you in this matter he does so at his peril. You are under instructions from the Supreme Court to defend him to the best of your ability and that you will have to do.
(A discussion was held off the record.)
(The following took place in open court in the presence of the jury:)
THE DEFENDANT: Who is representing me?
THE COURT: Mr. Jackson.
THE DEFENDANT: Why is he representing me?
THE COURT: By order of the Supreme Court.
THE DEFENDANT: Did the Supreme Court order him to represent me against my wishes?
THE COURT: No, it's by the Court's order.
MR. MCGILL: Your Honor, may I --
THE DEFENDANT: Why is he representing me?
MR. MCGILL: Your Honor, may we --
THE DEFENDANT: Why is he representing me if I don't want him to represent me?
MR. MCGILL: Your Honor, may we have a very brief side bar?
THE COURT: Let the jury out again, please.
(The jury was excused.)
(The following took place in open court out of the presence of the jury:)
THE DEFENDANT: Why is he wanting to represent me if I don't want him to represent me?
THE COURT: Mr. Jamal, it is obvious to this Court that you have been intentionally --
THE DEFENDANT: Why is he representing me?
THE COURT: -- disrupting the orderly proceedings in this courtroom.
THE DEFENDANT: I asked you a question.
THE COURT: He is representing you.
THE DEFENDANT: Against my wishes.
THE COURT: By order of the Court against your wishes, yes.
THE DEFENDANT: He's not working for me. He's working for the court, isn't he?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. MCGILL: Your Honor, as long as we do have this opportunity with Mr. Jamal, before Your Honor makes any further order --
THE COURT: Well, I am directing Mr. Jamal to sit down. If he chooses not to I participate in the proceedings, that's fine. But I will not allow him to continue to disrupt the proceedings here.
THE DEFENDANT: I asked you a question. There's nothing disruptive about the question.
THE COURT: I am going to remove him from the courtroom.
THE DEFENDANT: I asked you a question? There's nothing disruptive about that.
THE COURT: The Supreme Court says there are two alternatives; one is to gag him, the other is to remove him from the courtroom. I choose to remove him from the courtroom. He can come back any time he agrees to abide by the proper decorum in this courtroom.
THE DEFENDANT: Do I have to agree to counsel I don't want?
MR. MCGILL: Before that is done may I request the Court, as long as we're here with Mr. Jamal and Mr. Jackson, that we do, if you would, briefly conduct a colloquy with this defendant as to the situation in terms of representation of Mr. Jackson. It is clear from what Your Honor said and the Court said that Mr. Jackson represents this defendant and is to do the best that he can. Now I would like if Your Honor would at least advise at this point in time Mr. Jamal the advantages and disadvantages of active participation of the defendant in his own defense, as well as, the advantages and disadvantages of either for strategic reasons or for other reasons asking his attorney not to participate. I think that that is needed.
THE COURT: I don't know what his feelings are. It may be that it's up to Mr. Jackson to inquire of Mr. Jamal for the record what he wants to do. He doesn't want to answer my questions. He just gives me questions.
THE DEFENDANT: You don't want to answer mine.
THE COURT: And you don't answer my questions. Maybe Mr. Jackson can throw some light on the situation.
MR. MCGILL: I have no problem with that at all. Maybe Your Honor would permit myself to ask Mr. Jamal some questions.
THE COURT: YOU want to ask him questions? Go ahead.
MR. MCGILL: Mr. Jamal -- we'll ask Mr. Jackson if there's any objection. I see a negative response.
Your Honor, thank you for the op- portunity.
Mr. Jamal, do you recognize that if you do not --
THE DEFENDANT: Before you ask me a question I'd like him to answer my question about why is he representing me against my wishes and against his own wishes. This is not. a mock trial.
MR. MCGILL: Do you realize, Mr. Jamal, that if you do not participate in your trial that you may well be at a disadvantage in this court.
THE DEFENDANT: Why are you asking me questions when he hasn't answered my questions?
MR. MCGILL: Mr. Jamal, do you or do you not want to actively participate with Mr. Jackson in this trial?
THE DEFENDANT: I want counsel of my choice which is John Africa.
MR. MCGILL: I assume from that that you did not want to actively participate?
THE DEFENDANT: You can assume what you wish. My answer was that I want counsel of my choice which is John Africa.
MR. MCGILL: Your Honor, perhaps since it's obvious that we're going to get the usual double-talk, I would suggest --
THE DEFENDANT: I think it's you that's double-talking.
MR. MCGILL: -- if Mr. Jackson would come up to the Court and Your Honor could, in a colloquy, ask Mr. Jackson the questions similar to the questions that were asked at side bar in front of Mr. Jamal so that we can get this squared away.
THE COURT: I think Mr. Jackson is in a better position than I am as to what the I feelings and the intent of Mr. Jamal are in this' case. I don't know. I don't have the slightest idea.
MR. MCGILL: Fine.
THE COURT: So Mr. Jackson, for the record, would you like to tell us and then we can listen?
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I believe I am not at all certain what it is that Mr. Jamal wishes to present to the Court. It would be presumptuous on my part to speak for Mr. Jamal. I have indicated to the Court the substance of our conversation and I think for me to make any further representations --
THE COURT: What is the substance of it?
MR. JACKSON: What I said, his request for John Africa and, again, his last instruction and, certainly on the record yesterday, would be that I not participate in this proceeding.
THE COURT: I know that but I have ruled on that question and I said that I would abide by whatever the Supreme court said.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: The Supreme Court has now ruled on that.
MR. JACKSON: That is correct.
THE COURT: What is his position now? Now, this is what I want to know.
MR. JACKSON: Can I have one moment, Your Honor?
(A discussion was held off the record.)
MR. JACKSON: Mr. Jamal advises Your Honor if you wish to ask him he's prepared to respond.
MR. MCGILL: Well, I think Your Honor is asking Mr. Jackson now.
MR. JACKSON: I don't know.
THE COURT: I just wanted to know, you understand what your position is? The Supreme Court has made it clear to you.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: That you are to be the primary attorney here and you are to defend Mr. Jamal to the best of your ability. So we can't go back again and start worrying about why Mr. John Africa can't be here at this proceeding. That's already been ruled upon.
MR. MCGILL: Your Honor, could you instruct Mr. Jackson in the presence of Mr. Jamal the status, or first of all, to find out whether or not he, Mr. Jackson, will actively represent the defendant?
THE COURT: Well, I've no reason to believe that Mr. Jackson will not actively represent him. I would assume that as a member of the bar, an officer of this court, that he would certainly carry out his duties.
MR. MCGILL: I'm only thinking in terms of what was said this morning, sir. I think that should be clarified.
THE COURT: Based on his answers now it's an altogether different statement. Now I don't know what Mr. Jackson is going to do. If you want to ask Mr. Jackson what he's going to do, fine.
Will you tell us what your intentions are, Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, with regard to my last instruction from Mr. Jamal with regard to my participation, is that if I could not in fact absolutely follow his instructions and direction I was not to participate in this proceeding, and that is in fact -- he has a number of strategies, and one of the strategies was what I indicated earlier; that he would actively participate in this if John Africa was here. Previously the instruction I got from Mr. Jamal was that I would not participate in this trial, sir.
MR. MCGILL: I would say, Judge, on the basis of that -- are you through with your statements?
MR. JACKSON: Well --
MR. MCGILL: On the basis of that, Your Honor, it appears that the conversation this morning is really not relevant on the record.
THE COURT: That's right.
MR. MCGILL: Because this morning it was mentioned that the defendant would be purposefully and strategically quiet and that there would be no participation from the defendant, and also that he and Mr. Jackson would agree that it would be in his best interests strategically not to act at all, which would mean cross-examine witnesses, or call witnesses, or whatever.
Has that position changed, Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: No, that is the same. Your Honor, I did not use the specific words but I could certainly do that.
MR. MCGILL: Please.
MR. JACKSON: Fine. It is my understanding that Mr. Jamal's wishes are, number one, that if I cannot act consistent with his, all of his wishes, that at the very least I not participate in this trial because it is indeed against his wishes for me to participate. It is against his interests for me to participate in this trial. And based on that I don't think that I could in any way participate in any manner that would be in I derogation of his rights and derogation of his interests.
MR. MCGILL: Judge, I have to respond to that. That's a different situation. We're talking about two things: Number one, we're'talkinq about following Mr. Jamal's instructions and not doing anything at all --
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
MR. MCGILL: -- because he cannot represent him in the way that he wants. That's one thing. Another thing is to not do anything at all as his counsel out of a strategy which is that for the benefit of Mr. Jamal a result which he wishes may well occur through the use of this strategy, which is a proper type of strategy although it is fought with danger. However, he has a right to do that.
If we're viewing this from the words of Mr. Jackson, it appears clear that if we're doing it under the first part only, which is that he is quiet and will do nothing solely because he can't represent him the way he wants, that is in violation of the Supreme Court order which says that you are to represent him to the best of your ability.
THE COURT: Absolutely.
MR. MCGILL: If it is done strategically for another reason, that's something else. We've got to clarify that.
THE COURT: That's not what he's saying.
MR. JACKSON: I'll clarify it for the record. It is not solely and simply because I am not counsel of his choice. But in addition to that, it is his decision, as a matter of strategy, that I not participate in his trial because it is against his interests. And that is, at least, part of his trial strategy. And as I suggested to the Court earlier, I don't believe that it would be appropriate for the Court to intrude into the defendant's trial strategy. I think that is consistent with his trial strategy. For me to participate and indeed go against his very wishes would be to compromise his defense. And for that reason I am specifically advising the Court that pursuant to the instructions I believe that have from Mr. Jamal; and that is, it is indeed, his strategy that I not participate in his trial, that I not conduct any examination, that I not object, that I not do any of those things that a lawyer normally does --
MR. MCGILL: And it's because it's in his best interest. What you're saying is it's because it's in his best interest that you do not do that, and that's his belief.
MR. JACKSON: I'm saying his belief for me to participate would be against his best interest. That's what he said to me. I can't put words in his own --
THE COURT: Well then, you better get on the record --
MR. JACKSON: Whether I say it's in his best interest or against it's a matter of semantics.
THE COURT: You better get it from him on the record.
MR. JACKSON: DO you want to speak?
THE COURT: Your his attorney. Put it on the record.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I'm constantly being asked and demanded to do things by everyone. I can't make Mr. Jamal talk.
THE COURT: Neither can I.
MR. JACKSON: Well --
MR. MCGILL: Judge, Mr. Jackson is quite right but I think Mr. Jackson is aware that we, both the Commonwealth and the Court, are in a position of some difficulty in communication in getting on the record that which is proper in order to guarantee the type of record necessary in a trial. Now I would ask that Mr. Jackson, inasmuch as this is really the only way I think that we can approach this at this point, if we could ask Mr. Jackson if he has told his client, and if he is aware, in the presence of his client, of the various disadvantages of his actions even though it may prove to be a very strategic action indeed. Nonetheless, he should be told, number one, that if you do not cross-examine witnesses their truth may well not be sufficiently tested for a jury as a finder of fact; if you do not call your own witnesses and you have a defense it may well be to your disadvantage not to call witnesses; it may be smart not to call witnesses--
THE COURT: He's waiving his riqht.
MR. MCGILL: That's correct.
THE COURT: Waiving his constitutional right which could be lost forever.
MR. MCGILL: That is also correct.
THE COURT: And another thing I want to bring out, the fact that you direct your attorney not to cross-examine witnesses, in addition to what Mr. McGill has said, that the jury may properly infer that everything you're saying is truthful, if you should be convicted and if the Appellate Court would grant a new trial and if that witness was no longer available those prior notes of testimony could be read at your second trial, and you will have no opportunity to cross-examine those records. So that's a very important right that you're I losing.
And I think Mr. Jackson has a responsibility to inform you of all of these rights that you will lose by not actively participating in this trial.
MR. MCGILL: Your Honor, also --
THE COURT: And in addition to that you do so at your own peril.
MR. MCGILL: Also, of course, he has a right to testify, as he well knows.
THE COURT: Certainly he has a right not to testify if he so chooses and the jury cannot infer anything from that. You have an absolute right -- and I'm sure Mr. Jackson has talked to you about this --
MR. MCGILL: Judge, it's particularly important since you mentioned about the notes of testimony, if he were convicted they could be used again, because even though he chooses not to cross-examine --
THE COURT: They are available now.
MR. MCGILL: -- because of strategy, he has had the opportunity to cross-examine.
THE COURT: That's right.
MR. MCGILL: As Your Honor is makinq clear now, it's the opportunity that allows those notes of testimony to be admitted in a subsequent proceeding if the witness is unavailable. Is that what you also said?
THE COURT: That's exactly what I'm saying. So he has a lot to lose as far as his rights.
MR. MCGILL: Also, Your Honor, the openings and summations, if he gives that up -- an opening, of course, is an opportunity to outline your defense. You don't need it but you can do it. A summation is clearly your side of the case, arguing with vigorous intent.
THE COURT: It's a very important function, absolutely.
MR. MCGILL: Also, the instructions of the Court, any kind of instructions of law that counsel may wish the Judge to consider in reading instructions of law to the jury. Those particular instructions, if he chooses not to I put those on paper and submit any, it may hurt the defendant inasmuch as he may have important points that the Court may have overlooked.
Particularly important, Your Bonor, is objections. And I'm speaking loud enough so that Mr. Jamal, as well as, Mr. Jackson can hear what I'm saying. Objections being made during the course of trial for evidence that is thought to be introduced by the Commonwealth is a very important function, because objections can prevent. evidence from being admissible. These type of rulings can well be very important in the determination of the facts that a jury will eventually consider for the verdict.
All of these, whether it be objections, summations, cross-examination, all of these are very important aspects of work from a defense counsel. And if the defendant chooses not to use any of those tools which are at his disposal in a proceeding, it can hurt him significantly. It can also be the smartest strategy that he would want. But I would I suggest, Your Honor, it may not.
THE COURT: And by the same token, he would lose a very important constitutional right that he has, and lose it forever.
MR. MCGILL: Mr. Jackson, have you at least, mentioned this to Mr. Jamal in terms of your many conversations? These things I mentioned.
MR. JACKSON: I have, I believe, substantially advised him of the rights that he has constitutionally with respect to his right to counsel and things of that sort. The specific circumstances, what you're going through now, I have not at all gone through since it has just happened. There is no reason to have done it before.
MR. MCGILL: Would Your Honor permit at this moment an opportunity, a few minutes opportunity, for Mr. Jackson and Mr. Jamal to, at least, have that opportunity to discuss what I just said?
THE COURT: Sure.
THE DEFENDANT: It's very curious that the Court seems protective of certain rights and clearly doesn't give a damn about others, the right of self-representation is absolutely an absolute right. Just like the constitutional rights you had about objections, examining, cross-examining witnesses, but the right of self-representation has been stolen by you several times during the voir dire, and it's been stolen before this actual trial began. My right of determining a jury of my peers was seized by you without cause. My right of self- representation was stolen by you without cause and without reason.
THE COURT: I'm just saying --
THE DEFENDANT: The rights you're saying are not rights at all if you can take them at --
THE COURT: You have rights --
THE DEFENDANT: If they're not absolute rights they're not rights at all.
THE COURT: You have rights that you can use and you can waive by your conduct. That's not what you're doing. You're losing and you're waiving these rights by your conduct in this courtroom. You choose to do so. As I told you before, you do so at your own peril. I warned you time and time again. I've tried to give you good advice but you won't take it.
THE DEFENDANT: Are you my defense counsel now, Judge?
THE COURT: No. But I'm just trying to advise you of the rights that you might lose.
THE DEFENDANT: Judge, in terms of my advice. I would like my advice coming from John Africa seated there at the defense table.
THE COURT: I told you that's over-ruled.
THE DEFENDANT: You're telling me --
THE COURT: The Supreme Court said --
THE DEFENDANT: And I'm saying to you I'd rather have my advice come from John Africa rather than Sabo.
THE COURT: Fine.
MR. MCGILL: Can you give an opportunity at this point to Mr. Jackson and Mr. Jamal to discuss the area of the right he is giving up?
THE COURT: And one other right you are giving up, if you continue in these outbursts to interject yourself and interrupt Court, you will be giving up your right to be present during the course of this trial until you agree to abide by the proper course of conduct.
THE DEFENDANT: Your threats --
THE COURT: That's not a threat. That's just telling you what rights you're going to give up.
THE DEFENDANT: Your threats and your warnings are meaningless to me.
THE COURT: I know that. You already told me that.
TME DEFENDANT: Okay.
THE COURT: Your conduct has already exhibited that to me.
THE DEFENDANT: My conduct has been in my own defense.
THE COURT: I have said I've --
THE DEFENDANT: I have not been disruptive in this court, Judge.
THE COURT: I said I will give you a little time to talk to your attorney.
THE DEFENDANT: I'm telling you, you can do what you want to do. I'm telling you that my rights have been disrupted and you're sitting there talking nonsense.
THE COURT: All right.
(A discussion was held off the record.1
(A short recess was taken.)
(A conference was held in chambers off the record.)
THE COURT: Let the record indicate that the Court has allowed Mr. Jamal to speak to Theresa Africa and to his attorney in the hope that some agreement may be reached as to what they're going to do in this case.
MR. MCGILL: It was approximately 40 minutes, Judge.
(A discussion was held off the record.)
THE COURT: While we're waiting, because of the unavailability of Juror Number 1, Juror Number 13 will take the place of Juror Number 1.
(A discussion was held off the record.)
THE COURT: Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: Sir?
THE COURT: Can Mr. McGill address the, jury with his opening remarks without any interruptions from Mr. Jamal?
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, we have perhaps one minute more and I think I'll be in a position to --
THE COURT: All right.
(A discussion was held off the record.)
THE COURT: All I want to know is can Mr. McGill give his opening remarks to the jury without any interruptions from Mr. Jamal?
THE DEFENDANT: What you say?
THE COURT.: May we proceed with Mr. McGill making his opening statement to the jury without any interpretations, please?
THE DEFENDANT: Can we proceed with John Africa at the defense table?
THE COURT: That's already been ruled on.
THE DEFENDANT: Ruled on or not I mean, this is my trial.
THE COURT: I know that. The Supreme Court has ruled on it. It's been up to the Supreme Court.
THE DEFENDANT: I understand. You probably had coffee together and talked about it. I understand. The point I'm making --
THE COURT: I told you before if you interrupt me one more time that's the last. You will be removed from the courtroom.
THE DEFENDANT: What I'm saying to you is --
THE COURT: Can we hring in the jury, please?
THE DEFENDANT: -- that threat is meaningless.
THE COURT: I know it's meaningless to you. You've told me that a million times.
Bring the jury in. I'm telling you for your own sake, if you interrupt I'm going to remove you.
THE DEFENDANT: What does that mean to me? What I'm saying to you is, I would like to have the defense of my choice. I'm having a problem with this man. We argued for the last half hour. He cannot do what I want him to do. Do you understand that? So I renew my motion for John Africa to assist me on my defense. Did you hear me, Judge?
THE COURT: Just a moment.
(The following took place in open court in the presence of the jury:)
THE DEFENDANT: I know if you said it was approved it would be done. It seems real clear to me and it should be clear to everyone in this court that you're afraid of having John Africa's presence in this courtroom even though it's in my defense, in defense of my life.
THE COURT: Mr. McGill?
MR. MCGILL: Your Honor, may I proceed?
THE DEFENDANT: I'm not finished.
THE COURT: We're finished.
THE DEFENDANT: I'm not finished. We are not finished.
MR. MCGILL: May I proceed with the opening before this jury that's been waiting for two days?
THE COURT: Yes.
THE DEFENDANT: I don't care.
MR. MCGILL: You don't care what?
THE DEFENDANT: I have a right to the defense of my choice.
THE COURT: Let's move the jury out just for a minute.
THE DEFENDANT: This does not mean anything to me. They mean absolutely nothing to me.
(The jury was excused.)
(The following took place in open court out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Mr. Jamal, you have interrupted these proceedings for the last time. The Court is ordering the sheriff to remove him from the courtroom. We'll proceed in your absence.
THE DEFENDANT: That doesn't mean anything to me.
THE COURT: When you wish to abide by the proper decorum in this courtroom you will be readmitted to the courtroom. Until then you are being removed.
THE DEFENDANT: What does that mean to me? That is not news.
THE COURT: Please, sheriff, take him out.
THE DEFENDANT: What I'm saying is, I want the defense of my choice so this case -- get off of me.
THE COURT: Sit down in this courtroom or you will be removed.
THE DEFENDANT: They don't want to sit.
THE COURT: You will be removed.
A SPECTATOR: This is a fucking railroad, I say. What are you trying to do here?
A SPECTATOR: What is this?
(The defendant was removed from the courtroom.)
THE COURT: Bring them back, bring those two men back.
Ybu both are in criminal contempt of this Court for your outbursts in this courtroom. I am summarily fining you to 60 days in the County Prison. That's it.
A SPECTATOR: Take it easy, baby. It's all right. Say nothing. We in the right. Take it easy, baby. We right, we win. God is the Father.
(The two spectators were removed from the courtroom.)
(A short recess was taken.)
THE COURT: I just want to state for the record that when the Court had ordered the sheriff to remove Mr. Jamal from the courtroom because he has been obstructing the Court's orderly procedure in this courtroom, he became very abusive and some of his relatives or friends I or followers, whoever they may have been, became very abusive, vile language, screaming in the courtroom. The Court was forced to order the sheriff to apprehend two of them. I don't know their names but now they're in custody. We'll ascertain what their names are later, I assume. Does anybody know who it is?
MR. MCGILL: Yes. Mr. William Cook, brother who was present at the scene, the one that you will hear testimony concerning, and, I believe, Mr. Wayne Cook, also brother.
THE COURT: Both brothers. The Court had summarily found them in criminal contempt and sent them to 60 days in the County Prison.
Because of the outbursts and the lateness of the hour -- it is now 4:20 -- I think it would be better if we proceed with opening remarks tomorrow morning.
All right. Nine thirty tomorrow morning.
(Court adjourned at 4:20 p.m. until Saturday, June 19, 1982, 9:30 o'clock a.m.)
I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the trial of the above cause, and that this copy is a correct transcript of the same.
(signed) Official Stenographer
The foregoing record of the proceedings upon the trial of the above cause is hereby approved and directed to be filed.
Judge
[posted 9/13/00]
Mumia Index | Mumia Events | R&R Main Page
Join Refuse
& Resist!
305 Madison Ave., Suite 1166, New York, NY 10165
Phone: 212-713-5657
email: info@refuseandresist.org