You Don’t Deny That McGill’s Statements Were Inappropriate? (18:30): http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DAdenial.mp3
Judge Cowen asks DA Burns about 1982 Prosecutor Joseph McGill’s statement to the jury (at both guilt and penalty phases) that Abu-Jamal would have “appeal after appeal,” which served to lessen the gravity of a guilty verdict and death sentence. Judge Cowen asks: “You don’t deny that the statements made by the Assistant Prosecutor were inappropriate for the summation, do you?” Burns answers: “I do deny that, yes.”
A Violation of the Bill of Rights? (21:30): http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DArights.mp3
Judge Cowen addresses the Caldwell case, which DA Burns cites in defense of McGill’s false “appeal after appeal” statement. Judge Cowen forcefully asks DA Burns about the constitutionality of 1982 Prosecutor Joseph McGill’s “appeal after appeal” statement, asking “Isn’t Caldwell also about the rights established by the Bill of Rights? Part of the Bill of Rights is to have a fair trial.” He then specifically asks if McGill’s statement was “a denial of one of the rights secured by the Bill of Rights?”
Jenny Dawley (30:00): http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DAdawley.mp3
Jenny Dawley was a black juror who was not granted a leave to take her sick cat to the veterinarian. When she subsequently violated the court ruling by leaving to take her cat to the veterinarian, she was removed from the jury. When DA Burns cites Dawley to argue that there was no racist jury selection, Judge Ambro said “I don’t think that really helps you.”
Batson Prima Facie (48:30): http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/DAprimaf.mp3
Burns argues that the State Supreme Court was “reasonable” in denying Abu-Jamal’s Batson claim, and seems to be rebuked by Judge Ambro, who emphasizes the low burden of proof, at the “prima facie” level of evaluating the Batson claim.
CHAPTER TWO: Judith Ritter
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).