Additionally, this dissenter stated that jury discrimination practices displayed in a now infamous video-taped training session at the Philadelphia DAs Office gave “a view of the culture” of that office during the 1980s when Abu-Jamal was tried.
This dissenter criticized his two colleagues for failing to make the obvious connection between the discrimination instruction given at the taped session and discriminatory practices used by Philadelphia prosecutors before, during and after the 1980s.
“Indeed, given that Abu-Jamal’s trial preceded Batson, it is not far-fetched to argue that the culture of discrimination was even worse,” the dissenter declared.
Previously, the Third Circuit ordered new federal trial court hearings to collect more evidence to enable full and fair determinations on jury discrimination claims.
The Third Circuit’s ruling rejected that procedure for Abu-Jamal.
MAJOR FLAWS IN COURT RULINGS
This practice of creating new court standards to only apply to Abu-Jamal was criticized in an Amnesty International report of the Abu-Jamal case controversy released in 2001.
AI criticized the Pa Supreme Court for altering its prior rulings – precedents – to reach results against Abu-Jamal.
In 1986, for example, the Pa Supreme Court overturned a Philadelphia death sentence after ruling that a prosecutor named Joseph McGill made improper comments to the jury during a trail presided over by Judge Albert Sabo.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
