Write us! |
|
July/August 2001 Vol 1, No. 3 Prosecution Seeks to Deny Mumia Abu-Jamal Counsel of Choice News released by Attorneys Marlene Kamish and Eliot Grossman June 7, 2001 (PHILADELPHIA) In a move eerily reminiscent of his 1981 trial, which resulted in the incarceration of Mumia Abu-Jamal on Pennsylvanias death row for close to 20 years, the Philadelphia District Attorneys Office is once again seeking to prevent this innocent man from exercising his right to be represented by counsel of his choice. Mr. Jamals case is currently pending before Judge William H. Yohn in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in a federal habeas corpus action. The District Attorneys office has objected to Jamals selection of Nick Brown, Esq., pre-eminent British barrister, as a member of his defense team. Attorneys from foreign nations, including Britain and Canada, are routinely admitted to practice before various American courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, for the purposes of a particular case. Generally speaking, the only issue with respect to such admissions is whether an attorney is qualified to practice law. It is indisputable that Nick Brown is qualified to be a member of Mumias defense team and to appear before the court, said Jamals attorney Marlene Kamish. In fact, it seems that the real issue for the District Attorneys Office is that he is too qualified. Brown graduated in the top 5 percent of his class at Cambridge Universitys law school, and has been a barrister at one of Londons leading law chambers for more than ten years. Barristers are members of an elite society of specialized trial attorneys. Mr. Browns chambers are the equivalent of a top AV- rated law firm in a major American city. Brown has tried hundreds of civil and criminal cases. Brown not only has extensive experience in the legal system from which the American judicial system was born, but also has a thorough understanding of Jamals case and relevant American constitutional provisions and laws. He was the author of a comprehensive amicus brief submitted by 22 members of the British Parliament in Jamals case. Not the first time Jamal denied rights to counsel The irony of this latest move by the D.As office is not lost on Jamal or his defense team. One of the 29 constitutional violations which took place during the original trial, and one of the grounds for Jamals pending habeas corpus petition, is the denial of the constitutional right to represent himself and be represented by counsel of his choice. Throughout the history of this case, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and its counsel have defended the ineffective representation of counsel afforded [Jamal] at trial and on appeal, Jamals attorneys state in a brief on the issue filed with the court on Monday, June 4, 2001. Opposition to motions for admission of attorneys from outside a courts jurisdiction are almost unheard of, Eliot Grossman, also a member of Jamals new legal team, stated. If the D.As office is so sure of its case against Mumia, why is it so concerned about who represents him in a habeas corpus proceeding? Another individual, Arnold Beverly, has admitted to committing the crime Jamal was charged with in 1981. Although Mr. Beverlys sworn confession was filed with the court on May 4th, 2001, and corroborated by a polygraph examination, Mumia Abu-Jamal remains on death row. |
|
Write us! |
|