IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH

VS.

MUMIA ABU-JAMAL

aka

WESLEY COOK

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
January Session 1982
NOS. 1357 Poss Instru of Crime Gen
Poss Instru of Crime Weap
1358 Murder
Voluntary Manslaughter
1359 Involuntary Manslaughter

Courtroom 253
City Hall
Philadelphia, Pa.

June 30, 1982

Before: HONORABLE ALBERT F. SABO, J. (and a Jury)

APPEARANCES:
  • JOSEPH McGILL, ESQUIRE
    Assistant District Attorney for the Commonwealth
  • ANTHONY E. JACKSON, ESQUIRE
    Court Appointed Counsel for the Defendant

Joseph Masciantonio, R.P.R

INDEX

DEFENSE EVIDENCE: DE CE RDE RCE
Sonia Sanchez 17 18 27 29
Nellie Reynolds 30
Allen Lawson 32 33 49
Officer John McGurk,
3185
51 55
Officer Caroline Chinn,
2915
57 68 71 73
Officer Caroline Chinn,
2915
FURTHER RDE
76
FURTHER RCE
85
Officer Caroline Chinn,
2915
FURTHER RDE
92
FURTHER RCE
95


DE CE RDE RCE
Dell Jones 125 127 134 135
John Skief 139 141
Falai Shionesu 148 149


COMMONWEALTH REBUTTAL: DE
Elizabeth Williams 158


EXHIBITS PAGE
C-67 69

Page 3.

(The following is a discussion in chambers with both counsel present.)

THE COURT: We are back in chambers. I am advising counsel that it is now 10:30 and the jury is getting restless.

MR. McGILL: Mr. Jamal has been here for about ten or fifteen minutes.

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I would like to bring to your attention that we have a prospective witness a Debbie Kordansky. Yesterday counsel for the prosecution Mr. McGill gave me her phone number and the St. James Hotel as to the place where I could locate her.

I contacted her by phone. She indicated to me by phone that she no longer lived at the St. James Hotel, although I have not been able to confirm it.

In any event, she indicated to that last Monday she was in a bicycle accident and she injured her head and she would find it extremely inconvenient and impossible to appear in court. My sense is

Page 4.

that she simply wants to avoid appearing as a witness.

Given the fact yesterday I guess it was about 6:00 p.m., 6:00 o'clock, last night was the first opportunity I had of contacting this witness I wondered whether or not there maybe some means that the court could suggest that I could have her brought in, or her injury confirmed, or if she is not going to testify?

THE COURT: Let's find out what she is going to testify to in the first place.

MR. JACKSON: She is going to testify that after --- I can read her statement. It is so short.

I was watching TV and I heard about five gun shots sometime between 3:45 and 4:00 a.m. The gunshots seemed to be in succession. I thought that it was firecrackers. I didn't look out the window at first. I heard sirens a short time later. I saw about ten squad cars and two vans at l3th and Locust Street. I saw a male running on the south side of

Page 5.

Locust Street.

Specifically the defense would want her to testify regarding a statement of a man running on the south side of Locust.

MR. McGILL: Apparently according to the statement as I look at it, Judge, it says, "I heard sirens a short time later." This is after the shots. Then she says, "I saw about ten squad cars, two vans at l3th and Locust." Then she says, "I saw a male running on the south side."

MR. JACKSON: My point is, Judge, that maybe the sequence, or that may not be the sequence.

MR. McGILL: Did you ask her?

MR. JACKSON: I did ask her. She said, "Well, I am afraid to tell you what I said because I really don't want to help you. "I read the statement to her. She said, "I really don't want to help you," and she says she doesn't like black people. She says, "I was raped by a black male about

Page 6.

five years ago and if I could avoid coming in court I will."

THE COURT: Maybe you are better off without a witness like that.

MR. JACKSON: I think -- notwithstanding her attitude I understand that, but in fact there was a way I could question her specifically on this point? She says, "You can have the judge call me, or anyone else, and we can straighten it out."

I don't know, Judge. That is my predicament. I think I would be remiss if I did not make some further attempt to get her in court.

THE COURT: I don't think it is my prerogative to call her. That is for you.

MR. McGILL: Did you get an address from her?

MR. JACKSON: She won't tell me anything. She says, "Nobody said anything about Mumia's case, but it sounds like some Moslems, I don't know whether they are white or black, are calling me and harassing me."

Page 7.

She says, "I don't know if it has anything to do with this case." I said, "He is not a Moslem." "Oh."

MR. McGILL: Judge, first of all, the first time I heard that name as a potential defense witness was yesterday. I then said let me check. I checked my book. This was yesterday afternoon. I checked to see if I could get the address and give it to them right away. I said it was not here and I would check the book which had been taken over. They take the box over right after court, the police officers, and I said it is over on my desk. I went over and got the information and called Mr. Jackson immediately and gave it to him.

MR. JACKSON: That is correct.

MR. McGILL: I can appreciate the fact you would like to have a witness. I have never contacted the woman, although we have had the telephone number.

I suppose that the Commonwealth would be willing to try and have somebody call

Page 8.

her, but we don't have any more information than does Mr. Jackson.

So, it will be that much more difficult if she Is in a position of not wanting to come in. I don't know how cooperative she will be.

I will be glad, if Your Honor feels it would be necessary, at this time to have my detective make some effort to call her and find out where she is and if she is physically able to come in and if so how the situation could be satisfied. How the means could be set up so she could get here. I am not sure.

On the face of her testimony it appears to be irrelevant in the sequence as stated, but yet perhaps it has marginal relevance and we can make the effort. I can't guarantee that we are going to be successful. I don't want to give the court the impression that we would be.

THE COURT: I don't want you to think I am going to order you to do anything.

Page 9.

I don't think it is my job to order anybody in here without the proper service. Number one, she hasn't been served. What you ought to do is try to talk to her. I don't care who does it. As long as Mr. Jackson is not objecting to your efforts to do it. This is potentially his witness. I don't want him to say that your people somehow influenced the witness.

MR. JACKSON: If the court pleases, as you understand in homicide cases the addresses of the witnesses are not given to counsel.

THE COURT: I know that, but you didn't tell him you were going to call this girl until yesterday. So, he was in no position to give you any information prior to that.

MR. JACKSON: I understand. That is not the nature of my criticism. What I am simply saying is that one of the things we could do, of course, if the witness - - in the beginning if we had her address we

Page 10.

could perhaps have known where she is right now. I have a phone number for her.

THE COURT: If you had told him three or four weeks ago, if you told him before this he could have given you a phone number and you could have called her and you could have gotten her address. You could have served her. I am saying don't expect the court to act as some sort of magician here and pull witnesses out of the hat for you at the last minute. Do whatever you have to do.

MR. McGILL: Certainly in his very thorough preparation of the case Mr. Jackson had several avenues of defense that he could have pursued. He was attempting to pursue various areas and it is clear that the Defendant hasn't been all that cooperative in certain areas. He has done it largely himself. I really don't criticize Mr. Jackson for last minute things.

I will point out also that the Defendant did have conversations and, in fact, as far as I could see suggested

Page 11.

questions to be asked of Veronica Jones yesterday by writing questions down and giving them to Mr. Jackson for him to ask. It shows he was participating.

MR. JACKSON: He didn't write questions. I talked to him.

THE COURT: All I am saying is Mr. Jackson should talk to her even if It is by phone to get this sequence of events, but I don't really see how it is going to hurt him. I don't see how it is going to help him either. You are talking about after the police arrived there. You have about ten vehicles there and somebody may have run down the street.

MR. JACKSON: That assumes, Your Honor, that it was after.

THE COURT: You should find that out. You talk to her.

MR. JACKSON: She won't talk to me. She won't discuss it.

THE COURT: What am I going to do If she won't talk to you?

Page 12.

MR. JACKSON: What I am saying is we have never known her location. The only thing that I know --

THE COURT: (Interposing) What I am trying to say to you is that the district attorney didn't even know you were going to call her. Reading her statement doesn't really mean anything.

MR. JACKSON: I never had an opportunity to interview her.

THE COURT: You talked to her yesterday to find out what she was going to say. If she tells you she is going to be antagonistic toward you in my opinion you would be crazy to force her in. But you do what you want to do.

MR. McGILL: I think it is also potentially explosive for us if she comes out with things like that, too. It doesn't help, us out. I mean the Commonwealth.

MR. JACKSON: With regard to the specific facts regarding her attitude and perceptions and all I don't think that is

Page 13.

relevant.

THE COURT: You have her statement. Ask her if that is the sequence in which it happened.

MR. JACKSON: She says she is not going to testify. She said she is not going to testify. She said, "I am not going to discuss it with you."

MR. McGILL: I will do this. I understand the situation and there has been another case where this came up, although I will admit in other cases I was at least advised a little bit more than one day before, but in this case, Judge, I will have one of my detectives also call her to see what the situation is, because we don't know her address either. We can't even subpoena somebody when we don't know where they live.

MR. JACKSON: At least I would like to find out where she is now living, because at this point I would like to subpoena her. I know she doesn't want to come in.

MR. McGILL: That is the point.

Page 14.

If she says, "I don't want to see you, I don't want to come in," we have no way of getting around that.

MR. JACKSON: I was forced into this situation. I can't afford and I can't pay for an investigator. I have to run around and do it. That is my problem, Judge. But I have to make an attempt to bring her in.

THE COURT: Do whatever you have to do. I will make whatever rulings I have to make when the time comes. There is nothing more I can do for you, gentlemen.

MR. McGILL: I will do what I said. I will attempt to have one of my officers make some effort to contact her.

THE COURT: You don't object?

MR. JACKSON: No. I don't object.

THE COURT: You are not objecting to one of his detectives trying to induce her to come in?

MR. JACKSON: No, I am not.

THE COURT: You won't say there is some collusion here or something like that?

Page 15.

MR. JACKSON: No, Sir. I need the witness.

THE COURT: Anything else before we go out? Do you have any other problems?

MR. JACKSON: I asked him if he was going to come in. He said not until he saw his sister. I don't know, Judge.

THE COURT: Is there any other problem with these witnesses or anything?

MR. JACKSON: I am going to start off with two or three character witnesses, because a couple of people have to leave.

THE COURT: Any problem with the character witnesses?

MR. McGILL: Who are they?

MR. JACKSON: Sonia Sanchez, Allen Lawson and I think John Skief is here.

MR. McGILL: Is that the Street's aide?

MR. JACKSON: I don't know if he is going to testify.

THE COURT: Any problem?

MR. McGILL: No problem. I do have

Page 16.

a problem with any other character witnesses. I think twenty-five is enough. If any more names come up I may object. I may object to some of these, because it is putting me at quite a disadvantage. I can't check-up on any of the people since I only had one day and half of the names are not English names. That makes it more difficult.

MR. JACKSON: I think to remedy the situation we could possibly have an in camera hearing with respect to the criminal record.

MR. McGILL: Let's go on with these three. Let's move on. You have three now?

MR. JACKSON: There maybe some more. I don't know.

(At this time the discussion in chambers was
concluded and the following is in open court, in the presence of the jury.)

MR. JACKSON: The defense would call Sonia Sanchez.

Page 17.

SONIA SANCHEZ, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: SONIA SANCHEZ:-DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. Do you know Mumia Abu-Jamal?

A. Yes.

Q. For approximately how long have you known him?

A. For about three or four years.

Q. Would you tell us how it is you have come to know him?

A. I came to know Mr. Jamal through his writings and his newspaper comments and radio commentaries.

Q. Now, could you tell how you came to know him directly?

MR. McGILL: I object to that. It is his reputation based on hearsay and not personal experiences.

MR. JACKSON: I still have to establish that she knows him, Your Honor.

THE WITNESS: I too am a professor and writer. I came to know Mr. Jamal as a writer. At many events we were both there and

Direct-S. Sanchez

Page 18.

we began to have conversations and we talked about certain things and that is how I came to know him.

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. Do you know other people who know Mr. Jamal?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Among those other people that you know who know Mr. Jamal what is his reputation for being a peaceful and law abiding citizen?

A. Well, Mr. Jamal has always been viewed by the black community as a creative, articulate, peaceful, genial man. As one speaks to people throughout the city that opinion has not changed and has not varied at all.

MR. JACKSON: Thank you very much.

SONIA SANCHEZ-CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. McGILL:

Q. That is Miss Sanchez?

A. That is correct.

Q. Miss Sanchez, in reference to your writing you wrote a Forward, did you not, for the book "Asata

Page 19.

Cross- S. Sanchez

Speaks," correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Did that not deal with convicted police killer Judy Chesmar's case?

A. Did you read it?

Q. I am asking you?

A. It has nothing to do with that at all. It has to do with her as a black woman in America.

Q. Were you not in sympathy with her position and through the surrounding circumstances of her action?

A. That is not correct. That is why I asked you did you read it?

Q. Is it a fact, Miss Sanchez, - - if you would answer my question ---

A. (Interposing) I am trying to.

Q. It does deal with Miss Judy Chesmar, is that correct?

A. It deals with her as a black woman.

Q. And was she not convicted of killing a policeman and is presently a fugitive from justice, is that correct?

A. I think so.

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I would

Page 20.

Cross-S. Sanchez

object and move to strike.

MR. McGILL: This is admissible, Your Honor.

(The following is a sidebar discussion with both counsel present.)

THE COURT: When we were in chambers I asked whether there was going to be any problem so I could decide on that.

MR. McGILL: It goes to bias.

MR. JACKSON: I would object and I would move for a mistrial. Counsel is questioning this woman not about any crimen, falsi cases, he is questioning her personal life with regard to what she has written and the contents of what she has written. It is highly irrelevant. What she has written about other people has nothing to do with this case. He is obviously attempting to inflame the jury with regard to a specific writing that she has made. He is incorrect about it .

MR. McGILL: It is very clear that

Cross-S. Sanchez

Page 21.

this goes to her bias and assisting and helping out individuals who are accused of very serious crimes and in particular involving policemen. I think it goes into her bias and the jury has a right to know. It is certainly relevant. It is a bias character witness.

MR. JACKSON: The bias of a character witness is obvious because they are coming into testify about a person's good reputation

THE COURT: He is questioning her motive in coming in and testifying as to good reputation.

MR. JACKSON: Then I should be allowed to go into other writings as well.

MR. McGILL: Wait a minute. Let me explain to you, Judge, the reason for this. He can't just go into anything else he wants to.

MR. JACKSON: If he don't want to I will.

MR. McGILL: I would like you to

Cross-S. Sanchez

Page 22.

make a ruling.

MR. JACKSON: I can get all of her writings. If he wants to do that, fine. Otherwise I object.

MR. McGILL: This is in reference to only police killers.

MR. JACKSON: He is going to pick out certain things she has written.

THE COURT: Just a minute. If he brings out that she is biased then you can rehabilitate her if you wish to. You cannot go into all the writings.

MR. JACKSON: I don't think he can go into any of the writings.

MR. McGILL: I can go into her actions as a character witness.

THE COURT: He is going into her motive for being here as a character witness. You can bring out that that is not her motive for coming in here. That is fine.

(At this time the sidebar discussion was
concluded and the following is in open court.)

Cross-S. Sanchez

Page 23.

BY MR. McGILL:

Q. Also, Miss Sanchez, did you have occasion to publicly speak in support of Herman Bell, Anthony Bottom and another Defendant by the name of Washington who were convicted killers of three police officers in New York?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Did you have any contact at all in terms of those Defendants in reference to that case?

MR. JACKSON: I object again. I would ask for a sidebar.

(The following is a sidebar discussion with both counsel present.)

MR. McGILL: Can we move on, Judge? Please? Can we move on?

THE COURT: Where are you going now?

MR. McGILL: I am again trying to find out the same thing. It is my information that she, in fact, was involved in that. I am trying to determine either

Cross-S. Sanchez

Page 24.

through writing or speaking any involvement at all in support of them as individuals.

MR. JACKSON: Can he ask her about every police killing in the world?

MR. McGILL: Obviously not.

THE COURT: You are bringing somebody in for reputation. He has a right to go into it and see whether or not this person maybe biased in what she is saying as to the Defendant's reputation, because she somehow seems to get involved with people that are police killers and she has written books and testified for them.

MR. JACKSON: We have a hundred people that she had been involved with and five of them are people who have been convicted of killing police.

THE COURT: This is a police killing and you have to limit it to this case. I can't let him go into being biased as to everybody else. Bias only to these sets of facts. She said no she had nothing to

Page 25.

Cross-S. Sanchez

do with that.

MR. JACKSON: How is it bias against police because she testifies on individual cases about the good character of people? She doesn't always testify. She has written about people who are accused of these killings and that has no indication of bias against police. It just shows that she is talking about the individual.

THE COURT: The jury has a right to hear this and they will make the decision.

MR. McGILL: It goes on and on.

MR. JACKSON: If it takes all day for me to make an objection I will take all day.

MR. McGILL: I am waiting for the judge to rule.

THE COURT: I have ruled on this thing now. He can go into that area and that limited area only. Not that she maybe biased against society or biased against the whole world. I am not concerned about that.

MR. JACKSON: We don't know whether

Page 26.

Cross-S. Sanchez

this woman gets involved before they are accused or after.

THE COURT: He asked her the question and she said "No" to that.

(At this time the sidebar discussion was
concluded and the following is in open court).

BY MR. McGILL:

Q. I believe the answer to that question was "No," is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Now, understand, Miss Sanchez, I am not criticizing what you are doing at all. I am just trying to find out whether you did it. Did you in anyway publicly either support, discuss, write or in any sense indicate awareness and direct concern about those Defendants Anthony Bottoms, Herman Bell, and also a Defendant by the name of Washington?

A. Who are they? Would you explain who they are? Evidently you know who they are.

The answer then is you did not know and

Page 27.

Cross-S. Sanchez

had nothing to do with them?

A. I am asking you who they are?They were three Defendants convicted of killing three police officers. Any connection with them at all in your memory?

A. No.

MR. McGILL: Thank you very much.

MR. JACKSON: I have a few additional questions.

SONIA SANCHEZ-REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. Where are you presently teaching?

A. Temple University.

Q. How long have you been teaching?

A. I have been teaching at Temple for five years.

Q. And before that?

A. Amherst College. The University of Penn and Amherst College.

Q. How long have you been writing?

A. I have been writing for twenty years.

Page 28.

Redirect-S. Sanchez

Q. How many individuals have you written about?

A. I have written about many people. I have written about Martin Luther King, Brookes and many people that I know in the black community. People who have dealt with things as they affect us in a place called America.

Q. Let me ask you this. Do you have any bias against police?

A. Against police? No, I don't.

MR. McGILL: I object, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Go-ahead, please.

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. Your purpose in writing about anyone -- let me strike that. Has there been a purpose in any of your writings to criticize the Police Department?

A. I have written about many facets of America. I have written about the oppression in a place called America. I teach also at Gratorford Prison. I teach young men in prison and have also talked to the guards there. You cannot talk about America without talking about oppression and the Police Department and

Page 29.

Redirect-S. Sanchez

the courts.

MR. JACKSON: Thank you very much.

SONIA SANCHEZ-RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. McGILL:

Q. When you use the word "oppression" are you also referring to oppression by police?

A. By America. The government. Does the Police Department come under the government?

Q. Try to answer my question, please?

A. I am trying to.

MR. JACKSON: She is answering the question. He doesn't like the answer.

MR. McGILL: Would Your Honor kindly instruct Mr. Jackson about the rules?

THE COURT: Please, gentlemen. Come on. Let's go.

MR. McGILL: May I finish my question?

BY MR. McGILL:

Q. When you say --- the question is simply this. When you care talking about oppression in your answer to

Page 30.

Recross-S. Sanchez

Mr. Jackson the question is simply are you including oppression by police on black people?

A. By everyone.

MR. McGILL: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: You are welcome.

(WITNESS EXCUSED)

MR. JACKSON: The defense would call Nellie Reynolds.

NELLIE REYNOLDS, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

NELLIE REYNOLDS-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY

MR. JACKSON:

Q. Do you know Mumia Abu-Jamal?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. For about how long have you known him?

A. About eight years.

Q. Could you tell us how is it you have come to know him?

A. Well, I would really say during his radio

Page 31.

Direct-N. Reynolds

work I came in contact with him. The type of work that I do he often came out and interviewed me.

Q. What kind of work do you do?

A. I represent the Public Housing tenants.

Q. What is your position in the organization?

A. I am an executive director of the Residence Advisory Board.

Q. Do you know other people who know Mr. Jamal?

A. Yes.

Q. Among those other people that you know who know Mr. Jamal what is his reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen?

A. An excellent reputation.

MR. JACKSON: Thank you.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, I have no questions of Miss Reynolds.

MR. JACKSON: Thank you very much.

(WITNESS EXCUSED)

MR. JACKSON: The defense would next call Allen Lawson.

Page 32.

Direct-A. Lawson

ALLEN LAWSON, having been duly sworn was examined and testified as, follows:

ALLEN LAWSON-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY

MR. JACKSON:

Q. Mr. Lawson, do you know Mumia Abu-Jamal?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. The Defendant seated before you?

A. Yes.

Q. How long have you known him?

A. I guess about ten years.

Q. Could you tell us how it is you have come to know him?

A. Well, I come to know him because of his activity in reporting news in Philadelphia. In working with WDAS. I come to know him because I was a teacher at Temple University for seven years and on three or four occasions he came up and guest lectured with the students in the class.

I know him in reference to different problems that have occurred in prisons which we have shared information with each other that he reported

Page 33.

Direct-A. Lawson

while he was a newspaper reporter.

Q. Do you know other people who know Mr. Jamal?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Among those other people that you know who know Mr. Jamal what is his reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen?

A. As far as I know he has always been peaceful and law abiding and that is what he generally speaks about in the nature of his talks. It is usually peaceful and law-abiding and dealing with the truth.

MR. JACKSON: Thank you.

Cross-examine

ALLEN LAWSON-CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. McGILL:

Q. Good morning, sir. You are the director of the Prisoners Rights Council?

A. I am.

Q. Mr. Lawson, you indicated you have known this Defendant for about ten years?

A. Yes.

Page 34.

Cross-A. Lawson

Q. Have you known him for any extended amount of time in the last year and a half since 1979?

A. Yes.

Q. How often would you see him during that period of time?

A. I don't know how to judge that. I have seen him quite a few times. In fact, during the times he lectured in my classes it has been within the past two years.

Q. Within the past two years?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Lawson, you were convicted yourself, is that correct?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And would it be fair to say that was robbery and conspiracy arising out of an incident which occurred in August of 1960?

A. Yes. It was a robbery.

Q. And as a result of that did you serve time?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Following that on February 8th, 1965 were you also convicted of robbery at that time?

A. Yes, I was.

Page 35.

Cross-A. Lawson

Q. And did you also serve time as a result of that?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. During the course of that time did you have occasion to meet or talk to this Defendant during the period of your incarceration?

A. No. In fact, when I met him it was after the incarceration.

Q. And the first time would have been ten years ago?

A. Somewhere along there. After I was left out of jail. After '71. That is when I met everybody.

Q. Did you hear of him before that period of time, 1972?

A. I don't recall.

Q. You mentioned individuals that know him and that you have heard his reputation is good for being peaceful and law-abiding?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you tell me what you mean by peaceful and law-abiding?

MR. JACKSON: Objection. What he means isn't relevant, Your Honor.

Page 36.

Cross-A. Lawson

MR. McGILL: He testified to it.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.

BY MR. McGILL:

Q. Did you at anytime ever hear others speak of the fact that this Defendant at one time was suppose to say --

MR. JACKSON: (Interposing) Objection. May we see you at sidebar?

(The following is a sidebar discussion with both counsel present.)

MR. McGILL: What is the objection?

THE COURT: I want to hear the question first before you say it in front of the jury.

MR. JACKSON: What does it have to do with his reputation?

MR. McGILL: If he heard it. His reputation is what you hear.

MR. JACKSON: From people. It is not what he himself has said. It has nothing to do with reputation.

Page 37.

Cross-A. Lawson

MR. McGILL: That is completely inaccurate.

THE COURT: You read that? I can't read that.

MR. McGILL: It says the black brothers and sisters and organizations which wouldn't commit themselves before are relating to us that black people are facing the reality that the Black Panther Party has been facing. Political power grows out of the barrel of the gun.

That is absolutely relevant as hearsay. This has been quoted often in various newspapers since then. This is certainly admissible and relevant cross examination on character testimony.

MR. JACKSON: Whatever words he said, if he said, "Kill the Goddamn pigs" it has nothing to do with the reputation. He can cross-examine with regard to what they know about his reputation, good, bad or indifferent, and not as to whether or not he has heard a witness say specific words.

Page 38.

Cross-A. Lawson

How can he bring up specific words?

MR. McGILL: It is completely wrong.

MR. JACKSON: I will get some cases. I know I am right.

THE COURT: You better get the cases then.

MR. JACKSON: He knows that, Judge.

MR. McGILL: Listen to the reasoning. Number one it is hearsay. Reputation evidence is hearsay. What did you hear from others? He has already gotten many inadmissible things in as to individual instances which are not relevant.

You are suppose to say how did you know him? I knew him professionally. That should be enough. Not because when he did a, b, c, d, e, which gets in a lot of specific incidents.

Your Honor allowed that. The real admissible testimony is have you heard from others? What have you heard from others? Have you heard from others about his

Page 39.

Cross-A. Lawson

reputation? What have you heard about his reputation?

So, if he says he has been a good and peaceful and law abiding person and all that, that is fine. On cross-examination they should be cross-examined on whether or not he has heard anyone say, this Defendant or anyone talk about this quote which has been widely publicized.

THE COURT: I remember there was a time when you could cross-examine about reputation witnesses in regards to the Defendant's bad actions on the streets even though he was not convicted of a crime, but I understand recently the Supreme Court, I think it was, had ruled that you cannot use any prior incident unless that incident somehow resulted in a conviction and that conviction has to be for a crime of crimen falsi. That is what they have said.

MR. McGILL: Can I explain what the ruling is that refers to hearing about specific bad acts?

Page 40.

Cross-A. Lawson

THE COURT: This is a specific bad act?

MR. McGILL: No. No.

THE COURT: This is something he wrote advocating some form of violence?

MR. McGILL: I would like to finish. I am explaining to you what the law is.

THE COURT: Let him finish so I can understand his position.

MR. McGILL: The case is the Smith case, the Harold Smith case. It says you can use on cross-examination as well as rebuttal the same kind of incident which is testified about.

For example, if he had been convicted of another murder, or if he had been convicted of aggravated assault I could say had you heard that he had been convicted of aggravated assault? I can't say in this case have you heard that he was convicted of burglary, because that was crimen falsi. Only the specific issue that is raised by the witness. That is the limitation of that

Page 41.

Cross-A. Lawson

case.

Now, this is different. We are not talking about specific bad acts. We are talking about his competence and the basis for his statement that he has heard others talk about Mr. Jamal as being peaceful and law-abiding.

Now, the question then becomes have you heard those others say, or have you heard from others, or heard generally or in publications in which publication this is stated? If he says yes he heard that I would ask how that would affect, if at all, your judgment as to his reputation. He will probably say not at all, or he will probably say he didn't hear it at all. It is a quote from him and something he said and something, which is widely publicized as things which he has said. This is not a specific bad act. It goes to what they have heard about him and he has put that into evidence on direct. He has heard his reputation is good. That is the only relevance of direct anyway.

Page 42.

Cross-A. Lawson

MR. JACKSON: Could we dismiss the jury? He is going to go on. He is absolutely wrong. He can bring on bad character witnesses to say a host of things. I am not going into that. First of all, you have an unauthenticate news article of something that he said he is going to give you evidence of some bad character. First of all, the reputation is in the eyes of whoever it is that is testifying. Not as to what he characterizes as being something bad. If he thinks it is bad that is one thing. Neither one of those things are competent evidence for this witness to comment on. This witness says his reputation for being peaceful and law-abiding is good.

He cannot get into any specific acts whatsoever. Any specific acts. In particular the courts have said recently as well as with regard to even arrests that they are equally consistent with innocence as well as guilt. You are not going to be able to say we can talk about specific acts. This is

Page 43.

Cross-A. Lawson

not even an act. It is a quote. He said it is a quote.

It is not that I have any problem with hearsay, Your Honor, it is just that he can't get into it.

MR. McGILL: Of course you can on cross-examination. I would like to hear how this is not admissible?

THE COURT: I don't make the rules. I remember reading this recent case that the court said you could not.

Let's assume he was arrested for advocating violence to destroy the country and he was not convicted of that crime. As I understand that case you could not being that out.

MR. McGILL: That is a specific bad act. This is not. This is a statement. This is a hearsay statement. This is an admission. This is a fact.

THE COURT: How the court reasoned that was they said that he maybe innocent of that arrest and, therefore, we are only

Page 44.

Cross-A. Lawson

going to allow in convictions. They overthrew the decisions. The law was in existence from as far back as I can remember.

MR. McGILL: This is not an arrest.

THE COURT: It doesn't make any difference. They are saying arrests or conduct. It is the same thing.

MR. McGILL: Judge, in other words, what you are saying is you are saying he can bring hearsay out on direct examination?

THE COURT: You can bring in witnesses who will say that his reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen is lousy. You can do that.

MR. McGILL: Of course I can do that .

THE COURT: What the Supreme Court said is you cannot do it on cross-examination no matter what his actions may have been. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it is true that he made that statement and it is a bad statement.

MR. McGILL: Are you saying I can't

Page 45.

Cross-A. Lawson

cross-examine?

THE COURT: No.

MR. McGILL: That is not what the case says.

THE COURT: That is the way I read the case. If you want to bring a case in I will be glad to read it over.

MR. McGILL: This is not a bad act. This undercuts hearsay. Have you heard from these people that he had said this?

MR. JACKSON: It is irrelevant.

MR. McGILL: It goes to his competence in making a judgment as to hearsay reputation.

THE COURT: I will be willing to let you bring in the case and you can bring in anybody you wish and I will make a ruling later. We will hold this fellow subject to being recalled and if you can convince me that is the right approach I will let you go forward. Otherwise I am inclined to think you can't do it.

From my reading, of the case as I

Page 46.

Cross-A. Lawson

understand it they are not saying you can't bring in witnesses who will testify that he has a bad reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen. You can do it the same as he did. You can't use any act or any statement of the individual even if it didn't amount to an arrest, or even if it amounted to an arrest.

Under the old rules you could do that. As it was for years and years you could do that, but it has been overruled now.

MR. JACKSON: That is right.

THE COURT: As I understand it. You just can't do it. I know your hands are tied, but I didn't make the decision.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor has ruled and I will accept your ruling. I think Your Honor is wrong. That is not what the case says.

THE COURT: I will hold this witness for you and you can bring in the case.

MR. McGILL: He won't have to stick

Page 47.

Cross-A. Lawson

around, because he will have other character witnesses.

THE COURT: If you knew there was going to be a problem why didn't you load yourself down with cases and present them to me?

MR. JACKSON: I didn't know it was problem.

MR. McGILL: I didn't view it as problem. That was my fault. This is hearsay information which undercuts his hearsay.

MR. JACKSON: It maybe appropriate for us now when we finish with this witness to have a recess and find out the nature of the questions that he plans to ask about documents so we can find out if he is going to use different documents.

THE COURT: Do you have more character witnesses now?

MR. JACKSON: I think I have two more.

THE COURT: We will hold them and

Page 48.

Cross-A. Lawson

during the lunch hour I will allow you to present any cases to me that will substantiate your position so I can make my ruling as to whether you can go into this.

Mr. Jackson wants to know in advance how you are going to attack those character witnesses. He wants to know now so he can prepare and give me cases to show that it can't be done.

What I am going to do is give you an opportunity to present cases to me and show me that you can do it.

Do you have any other witnesses other than character witnesses?

MR. JACKSON: Oh, yes. I have a few other witnesses.

THE COURT: Let's get to those and over the luncheon recess we will come back at 2:00 o'clock and I will make a ruling.

(At this time the sidebar discussion was
concluded and the following is in open court).

Page 49.

Cross-A. Lawson

MR. McGILL: Consistent with the court's ruling I have no further questions of Mr. Lawson.

MR. JACKSON: I have some further questions.

ALLEN LAWSON-REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. How long have you been director of the Prisoners Rights?

A. I have been director --

MR. McGILL: (Interposing) Objection. Improper redirect.

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. Mr. McGill has indicated that you had arrests back ---

MR. McGILL: (Interposing) I object.

THE COURT: He is going into something else.

MR. JACKSON: Certainly.

BY MR. JACKSON:

Page 50.

Redirect-A. Lawson

Mr. McGill has just brought out on cross examination that you were convicted of robbery both in '65 and '60, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you have had the opportunity, being director of the Prisoners Rights Council, of coming into contact with a number of individuals within the institutions, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you have had the opportunity since being director of your organization to come in contact with a number of individuals within the penal institutions, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell us the purpose of your organization, sir?

MR. McGILL: Objection.

THE COURT: I will sustain that.

MR. McGILL: It is not Mr. Lawson's character.

MR. JACKSON: Fine. Thank you, Mr. Lawson.

Page 51.

(WITNESS EXCUSED)

- - -

MR. JACKSON: Police Officer McGurk.

- - -

POLICE OFFICER JOHN McGURK, badge number 3185, 6th Police District, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

OFFICER McGURK-DIRECT EXAMINATION

- - -

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. Officer McGurk, let me direct your attention to December 9th, 1981. Were you employed by the Philadelphia Police Department at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. I further direct your attention to the area of 13th and Locust at or about 3:50 a.m. Do you recall that date and time, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you have occasion to come upon the scene

Page 52.

Direct-Officer McGurk

of an alleged shooting of Officer Daniel Faulkner?

A. Yes.

Q. At that time did you further have reason to come in contact with a gentleman by the name of William Cook?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you relate to us the facts and circumstances under which you came in contact with him?

A. At that particular time and date upon arrival at the scene of the shooting I arrived with my partner and observed William Cook against the wall. At that time my partner and I split up. My partner proceeded to William Cook and I proceeded to help Officer Daniel Faulkner.

Q. Now, at some point in time you came in contact, you directly, with William Cook?

A. Repeat the question?

Q. At some point in time when you were right there at the scene did you come --- strike that. Did you have an opportunity to observe Mr. Cook?

A. Yes.

Page 53.

Direct-Officer McGurk

Q. And as a result of your observations what is it that you saw, sir?

A. I saw blood on the left side of his head and on his hand.

Q. Now, on his hand or hands?

A. On his hand.

Q. On which hand did you see blood?

A. The left-hand.

Q. Now, you are certain it wasn't hands, sir?

A. (No response)

Q. Let me do it this way. Are you testifying now from what you recall or are you testifying as a result of perhaps reading a statement that you may have given before?

A. From what I recall.

Q. Okay. Your recollection is that he had blood on one hand?

A. To my knowledge.

Q. Officer, would you just take a brief moment to at least read down just the first page right now? Does that refresh your recollection in anyway with regard to whether or not he had blood on his hand or hands?

Page 54.

Direct-Officer McGurk

A. I just saw it on his neck, the left side of his face and hand.

Q. Okay. On the front of the document does it not say a black male identified as William Cook was standing over blood on the highway and I noticed blood on his neck and hands, with an s?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, do you recall giving the statement to Detective Thomas?

A. Yes.

Q. And are you saying that "hands" is incorrect?

A. Hand or hands. Whichever.

Q. I want to know whether it is hand or hands?

A. Hand.

Q. So, this is incorrect?

A. From my recollection it was one hand.

Q. So, wouldn't it be fair to say that when you gave this statement on December 9th, 1981 at 5:50 a.m. that your recollection of what had just happened was fresher in your mind than it is today?

A. Yes.

Q. Nevertheless you are saying that what you told him then is incorrect and what you recall now is

Page 55.

Direct-Officer McGurk

correct?

A. I believe so.

Q. Did you have occasion to take a swab from his hand to find out what blood type that was?

A. No.

Q. Did you order it?

A. No.

Q. Do you know if anyone did?

A. I don't know.

Q. Did you handcuff Mr. Cook?

A. No.

Q. Did you search Mr. Cook?

A. No.

Q. Did you see him searched?

A. No.

Q. Did you see him handcuffed?

A. No.

MR. JACKSON: No further questions.

- - -

OFFICER McGURK-CROSS-EXAMINATION

- - -

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. Officer McGurk, did you pay much attention to

Page 56.

Cross-Officer McGurk

his hand or hands, or whatever, I am talking about Cook now?

A. Not much attention at all.

Q. Officer McGurk, while you were there on the scene did you have occasion to see any other officer with weapons in his hand?

MR. JACKSON: Objection. Beyond the scope, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I didn't get the question.

MR. MCGILL: Did he see any other officer with guns in his hands at the scene.

MR. JACKSON: I am objecting.

THE COURT: Technically I will have to sustain it. You can call him later on.

MR. MCGILL: Nothing further.

MR. JACKSON: I have nothing further.

- - -

(WITNESS EXCUSED)

- - -

MR. JACKSON: Police Officer Chinn.

- - -

Page 57.

Direct-Officer Chinn

POLICE OFFICER CAROLINE CHINN, badge number 2915, 6th Police District, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

OFFICER CHINN-DIRECT EXAMINATION

- - -

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. Officer Chinn, let me direct your attention to December 9th, 1981 at approximately 3:50 a.m. Were you employed as a Philadelphia police officer on that date and time?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. At that tine or about that very same time, could you tell us if, in fact, you came in contact or went to the scene of the shooting of Officer Faulkner?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. At about what tine did you arrive?

A. Approximately 3:55.

Q. And were you riding solo or were you with a partner?

A. Riding solo.

Q. What was your vehicle number?

A. Car number 611.

PLEASE NOTE: Page 58 is missing. Every attempt will be made to locate it.

Page 59.

Direct-Officer Chinn

Q. Were you at the wagon when he gave you that?

A. I just turned my back.

Q. And he just gave it to you?

A. He handed it to me saying one of the officers must have dropped it.

Q. Did he say which officer?

A. No.

Q. Did you question him further?

A. I asked him where he picked it up. He just motioned with his hand toward the curb on the south side of Locust Street.

Q. You don't know where he got where he got it, or exactly where he got it?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Do you have a flashlight like that?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Do you know Officer Faulkner, or did you know Officer Faulkner?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you know him to have a flashlight like that?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Do you know if that is it?

Page 60.

Direct-Officer Chinn

A. (Pause) More than likely.

Q. The question is do you know if that is it?

A. No.

MR. MCGILL: Objection. She responded.

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. Do you know now whether or not that is his flashlight?

A. No.

Q. Are there other officers in the 6th Police District that have flashlights similar to that?

A. Yes, there are.

Q. How many officers?

A. A rough estimate?

Q. Yes.

A. Twenty, twenty-five.

Q. Now, did you take that flashlight into homicide?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you go into homicide that day?

A. Yes.

Q. About what time did you go into homicide?

A. Approximately 4:05 a.m.

Page 61.

Direct-Officer Chinn

Q. Did you have the flashlight with you?

A. This particular flashlight?

Q. Yes.

A. No, I did not.

Q. Where was it?

A. In the police vehicle that I left.

Q. You left it in your vehicle?

A. Yes.

Q. Number 611?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you handle the flashlight?

A. Yes.

Q. And Officer Repsch did the very same thing when he handed it to you?

A. Yes.

Q. You went into the homicide unit and did you mention to anyone that you had the flashlight that was left at the scene?

A. No, I did not.

Q. By the way, were any other items given to you allegedly having been dropped by a brother officer?

A. No.

Q. How long did you stay in homicide?

Page 62.

Direct-Officer Chinn

A. Approximately about an hour.

Q. And after you left homicide you went back to your vehicle, your radio patrol car?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you ask while you were in homicide if, in fact, anyone dropped the flashlight?

A. I asked several officers that were there and they replied they did not.

Q. How many officers did you ask, approximately?

A. Approximately ten.

Q. How many officers were at the scene?

A. Approximately twenty, twenty-five.

Q. When did you go off duty?

A. 7:30 a.m.

Q. What did you do with the flashlight?

A. Took it home with me.

Q. Even though you were told that it maybe from an officer at the scene who dropped it you didn't leave it at the 6th District?

A. No.

Q. And you are assigned to the 6th District?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. When did you report back again for work?

Page 63.

Direct-Officer Chinn

A. 11:30 p.m.

Q. At that time did you bring the flashlight back with you?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what did you do with it then?

A. Asked all the officers that I worked with if they lost the flashlight and my answer was "No."

Q. Then what did you do with the flashlight?

A. I got in touch with officers in the 9th District and asked them and they replied "No."

Q. And was that the very next day? Would that have been the December?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you do with the flashlight after you got off work on the lOth?

A. Took it home with me.

Q. On the 11th what did you do with the flashlight?

A. Took it home with me.

Q. Did you make any further inquiry?

A. I was trying to reach the stake-out officers who were at the scene, but I couldn't.

Q. What about on the 12th?

Page 64.

Direct-Officer Chinn

A. I was still trying to locate the owner of the flashlight.

Q. What about on the 13th?

A. The same thing.

Q. What about the 14th?

A. The same.

Q. And the 15th?

A. On the 15th when I went to work we had a message read out at roll call asking everyone if they had seen a flashlight, or had a flashlight.

Q. Now, Officer Chinn, at anytime between the 9th and the 15th did you contact the assigned detect Officer Thomas?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you contact any homicide officer?

A. No, I did not.

Q. So that other than your statement that you gave on December the 9th and the contact that you had on December the 15th you never contacted homicide?

A. No, I did not.

Q. It never crossed your mind that maybe it might be a piece of evidence?

A. No, it didn't.

Page 65.

Direct-Officer Chinn

Q. Each day you took the flashlight home, what you do with it?

A. Placed it with my other police items.

Q. Did you use the flashlight?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Did you have a flashlight of your own?

A. Do I have a flashlight of my own?

Q. Did you at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. And you brought that to work with you each of those days between the 9th and 15th?

A. Yes.

Q. And you never left it in your locker, or you never left it with the desk sergeant, or anyone at the 6th District?

A. No, I did not.

Q. When you went to homicide that night you were still riding solo?

A. Yes.

Q. You arrived I think you said --- or you left 4:05 you either left the scene or arrived at homicide?

A. Arrived at homicide.

Q. Did you have any prisoner in your custody?

Page 66.

Direct-Officer Chinn

A. I had a witness.

Q. Who was the witness?

A. Michael Mark Scanlon.

Q. Were you present when Mr. Scanlon gave a statement?

A. No, I wasn't.

Q. Did you talk to Mr. Scanlon at all?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. You never had any discussions --- well, strike that. Did he ever say anything to you?

MR. MCGILL: Objection, Your Honor. That is hearsay.

MR. JACKSON: I am not asking what he said.

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. I want to know did he ever say anything to you?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Did he say more than one thing to you?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Were you instructed or directed by someone to take Mr. Scanlon in?

A. Yes, I was.

Page 67.

Direct-Officer Chinn

Q. That was not an independent decision on your part?

A. No, it wasn't.

Q. And you took him directly there; just him?

A. Yes.

Q. When he got to homicide you took him to the homicide unit itself?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did you see whether or not --- whether in fact one of the detectives interviewed him?

A. I saw him speaking with one of the detectives, but after that I don't know what happened to him.

Q. So, you were not present at the beginning or the end or at any portion of his interview?

A. No, I wasn't.

Q. Have you ever had an opportunity to review the interview that he gave?

MR. MCGILL: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. Did you before the 15th have an opportunity to review the contents of the interview?

A. No.

Page 68.

Direct-Officer Chinn

MR. JACKSON: No further questions.

- - -

OFFICER CHINN-CROSS-EXAMINATION

By MR. MCGILL:

Q. Officer Chinn, just a very few minutes. As I understand your testimony you received a flashlight from Officer Repsch with the thinking that this was dropped by somebody?

A. Yes.

Q. You made efforts when you went back to the district to find out who the owner was, is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you were unable to find out who the owner was and you kept the flashlight?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And it was not until the 15th --- let's see. I think that was the 15th at roll call when it was brought to your attention about the flashlight, did anyone find it, or if anyone has one from the scene to get in touch with homicide?

A. Yes.

Page 69.

Direct-Officer Chinn

Q. Then you had it at home because you remembered it was home?

A. That is correct.

Q. And then the next day you got it, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You made out a property receipt for it?

A. Yes, I did.

MR. MCGILL: Your Honor, I would ask that this be marked as C67 and ask that it be shown to the witness?

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. Can you identify the exhibit?

A. Yes, I can.

Q. What is it?

A. It is a flashlight.

Q. What is that piece of paper?

A. That is the property receipt that I signed for the flashlight.

Q. Is it for that flashlight that you have in your hand?

A. Yes.

Q. That is part of the evidence and you have

Page 70.

Direct-Officer Chinn

been testifying to that from questions from Mr. Jackson?

A. Yes.

MR. MCGILL: Would you ask Officer Repsch to come in?

(At this time the police officer entered the courtroom.)

MR. MCGILL: Would you step-up here, Officer, please?

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. Can you identify this gentleman?

A. Yes, I can.

Q. Who is that?

A. Officer William Repsch.

MR. MCGILL: You may walk out, please?

(At this time the officer left the courtroom.)

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. And who is Officer Repsch in connection with your testimony?

A. He is the officer who handed me the flashlight at the scene.

Q. Officer Chinn, in your direct testimony you

Page 71.

Direct-Officer Chinn

stated that you had, I believe, helped to take the Defendant and place him in the wagon, is that correct?

A. That is correct.

MR. JACKSON: Objection. There has not been any direct testimony, but I will allow it because I have redirect.

MR. MCGILL: I object to his comments. Number one, it was on direct.

THE COURT: If you are going to object just object. No speeches.

MR. JACKSON: I apologize to the court, Your Honor.

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. You did say, did you not, that you put the Defendant in the wagon?

A. Yes.

Q. And who did you do that with?

A. Officer McGurk and Officer Soboleski.

MR. MCGILL: Thank you. Nothing further.

- - -

OFFICER CHINN-REDIRECT EXAMINATION

- - -

Page 72.

Redirect-Officer Chinn

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. Officer Chinn, do you recall giving a statement to Sergeant Farcas on 12/18/82 pursuant to a question by me --- a question on the first page --- just for context. Did you respond to the scene --- I am sorry. I apologize. 2/18/82. My eyes are getting bad. The bottom of the page. Did you respond to the scene of a police shooting in the 1200 block of Locust Street on 12/9/81?

Answer: Yes, I did.

Did you observe Mumia Abu-Jamal upon your arrival at the scene?

Answer: No, I did not. Jamal was gone upon my arrival.

Did you respond to that question with that answer?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you are saying now that you assisted Officer Soboleski and another officer in subduing Mr. Jamal?

A. Yes, I did.

Page 73.

Redirect-Officer Chinn

Q. But in any event, it was in response to my request for an investigation that you told them he was gone, is that right?

A. That is right.

Q. Was Mr. Cook at the scene when you arrived?

A. Yes, he was.

Q. So, both Mr. Cook and Mr. Jamal were present when you arrived?

A. That is true.

Q. Both of them were there, so when you said that he was gone when you arrived you were absolutely wrong?

A. Correct.

MR. JACKSON: No further questions.

- - -

OFFICER CHINN-RECROSS-EXAMINATION

- - -

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. Officer, in reference to that, would you explain to the jury what happened?

MR. JACKSON: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Upon my arrival on the south side of Locust

Page 74.

Recross-Officer Chinn

Street I saw Officer Soboleski and Officer McGurk struggling with a negro male who was face down. I helped them handcuff this prisoner and assisted them in taking him over to the wagon.

I observed another negro male against the wall. I heard another officer ask him if he was involved in this scene. He shook his head "No." So, I just didn't pay any more attention to him.

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. You made a mistake, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You didn't know who it was that you put in the wagon?

A. No.

Q. And you then gave a statement on February 25th, 1982, also, didn't you?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did you, in fact, clarify that mistake?

A. Yes.

MR. MCGILL: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?

Page 75.

Recross-Officer Chinn

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. February 25th, 1982 on page two.

Police Officer McGurk told me he assisted Police Officer Soboleski in handcuffing Jamal, not the driver of the Volkswagen. Soboleski also told me he handcuffed Jamal.

If you assisted then you must have handcuffed Jamal. Can you explain this in reference to your other two interviews?

When I arrived at the scene I saw McGurk and Soboleski handcuffing a black male who was face down on the sidewalk near the street. I also saw at the same time another black male near the building wall. He had his back to me.

McGurk and Soboleski were tussling with Jamal attempting to place handcuffs on him. I assisted them and helped place Jamal in the wagon. I assumed the one I handcuffed was taken to homicide.

Do you remember that answer to that question?

A. Yes.

Q. What do you mean by""tussling"?

Answer: Jamal was flinging his arms about.

Page 76.

Recross-Officer Chinn

Q. Do you reca11 that question and answer?

A. Yes.

Q. Also, Officer, that was pretty much a hectic situation when you arrived, wasn't it?

A. Correct.

Q. You really didn't know who you had at the time?

A. No.

Q. But you did eventually clarify that with the authorities that, in fact, you had the Defendant?

A. Yes.

MR. MCGILL: Thank you very much.

MR. JACKSON: I have a couple of more things if you don't mind?

MR. MCGILL: I object, Your Honor. It is further redirect.

THE COURT: Go-ahead.

- - -

OFFICER CHINN-FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

- - -

Page 77.

Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. First of all, the statement that you gave on 12/9/81 at 5:00 a.m. --- I will read the question and answer.

Police Officer Chinn, would you please explain to me your assignment in this incident?

It is very short. I was assigned to radio patrol car 611. I was at 12th and Chestnut when the call came out; I went south on 12th Street and west on Locust Street. Upon my arrival on the south side of the street Officer Soboleski and Officer McGurk were attempting to handcuff the prisoner who is in here now.

Who were you referring to?

A. Okay. Upon my arrival at the PAB en route to homicide the last thing I heard on the radio was "Take the prisoner to homicide." I had assumed the Defendant was being taken to homicide.

Q. But you are saying upon my arrival on the --- strike that.

Upon my arrival on the south side of the street Officer Soboleski and Officer McGurk were attempting to handcuff the prisoner who is in here now.

Page 78.

Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn

Which prisoner was in there then?

A. At the present tine William Cook was in there then.

Q. So, is that the one that you attempted to place handcuffs on?

A. No.

Q. You were mistaken?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Now, you indicated again before that Jamal was not there at the scene, but you have told me that both Jamal and his brother were at the scene when you were there?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. So, who is it that you were saying had left the scene?

A. It was a case of mistaken identity.

Q. We don't want you to identify whoever it is, but ---

MR. MCGILL: (Interposing) Objection, Your Honor. If she wants to explain her answer she has to explain it.

MR. JACKSON: I thought she was done with her answer.

Page 79.

Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn

You had something else to say?

MR. MCGILL: No.

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. The question is, if Jamal and his brother were there who was it that they took away?

A. They didn't take anybody away.

Q. Why did you say they had taken somebody away?

A. I had not seen the faces of either of the males there.

Q. I understand that. But just because you didn't see their faces doesn't mean that they went away, does it?

A. No, it doesn't.

Q. You said on December the 9th -- let me find out for sure.

In February again in response to my request for an investigation --- I am sorry. Page two, the 2/18/82 interview.

Did you observe Mumia Abu-Jamal upon your arrival at the scene?

No, I did not. Jamal was gone upon my arrival.

Page 80.

Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn

Now, on December the 9th you knew that you saw William Cook because you said that is who you took in. So, you knew what William Cook looked like. On December the 18th ---

MR. MCGILL: (Interposing) Objection, Your Honor. Is he asking a question?

THE COURT: Ask a question. Don't testify.

MR. JACKSON: My apologies.

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. You said that on December the 9th you saw William Cook in homicide because you said the same prisoner that was in here, is that right?

A. I heard the prisoner was taken to homicide.

Q. Didn't you just tell me, and correct me if I am wrong, did you not just say that William Cook was the one that you saw on December the 9th in homicide?

A. Yes.

Q. So, now on December --- on February 18th you knew there were only two people arrested, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. On December the 18th the question did you

Page 81.

Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn

observe Mumia Abu-Jamal upon your arrival at the scene?

No, I did not. Jamal was gone upon my arrival.

You already knew what William Cook looked like. So, who else was arrested?

MR. MCGILL: I have to object. She didn't say she already knew it. She said she saw Mr. Cook later.

THE COURT: Let her answer the question.

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. Did you see William Cook on December the 9th?

A. Yes.

Q. So that you already seen him and you knew what he looked like, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you see this man on December the 9th?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. So, on February 18th when you were asked the question you said that he was gone, isn't that true?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. You knew what he looked like?

Page 82.

Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn

A. From the back, yes.

Q. You said that you participated in the arrest of Mr. Jamal?

A. Yes.

Q. And whether you recognized his face or any other portion of his body you knew there were only two people arrested, one of whom you saw on December the 9th, is that right?

A. Right.

Q. So, when the question was asked of you, where was Jamal on that date and you said he had gone was there somebody else that you arrested?

A. No.

Q. Are you sure of that?

A. Positive.

Q. Was there somebody else in homicide that had Dreadlocks?

A. No.

Q. Did you handcuff somebody else who had Dreadlocks?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Do you know, in fact, that this was the man that you handcuffed?

Page 83.

Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn

A. Yes, I do.

Q. How do you know he was the man you handcuffed?

A. (Pause) From identification.

Q. When?

A. From seeing his pictures.

Q. In the newspaper?

A. Yes.

Q. You are just assuming then, but on December the 9th what is that you saw about him that tells you that this is the same person?

A. I only saw the back of him.

Q. You don't know who you arrested do you?

A. It was the Defendant.

Q. How do you know?

A. From his back.

Q. You can tell from his back? Have you seen his back today?

A. No, I have not.

Q. How do you know that is him?

A. Just from identification.

Q. You arrested someone on December the 9th, you saw the back of him you say?

A. Yes.

Page 84.

Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn

Q. Is that you think everyone who wears Dreadlocks looks alike?

MR. MCGILL: I object. As a matter of fact, this is his witness. I haven't objected so far, but I object now.

MR. JACKSON: I will withdraw the question.

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. What I want to establish is that you participated in the arrest of someone and you are saying all you saw was his back. We know already that you said on February the 18th you said Jamal was gone. So, I want to know who you arrested on December the 9th?

A. The Defendant.

Q. How did you arrest him if, in fact, you said that he was not there?

A. I had mistaken him for his brother.

Q. You already knew on the 18th who his brother was, didn't you?

A. By that time, yes.

Q. So, how could you make that mistake?

A. (No response)

Page 85.

Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn

Q. Could you tell us? Was it a mistake or did you, in fact, arrest somebody else?

A. No. It was a mistake.

MR. JACKSON: No further questions.

- - -

OFFICER CHINN-FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION

- - -

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. Officer Chinn, was this your first homicide?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there a considerable amount of traffic and busy activity at the scene?

A. Yes.

Q. As a matter of fact, in your experience prior to that would you classify that one as the most activity that you have ever seen upon an arrest?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell the jury exactly what the circumstances were when you arrested the Defendant with the other gentlemen?

A. When I arrived on the scene I saw a negro

Page 86.

Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn

male flinging his arms and kicking his legs. I saw two of my fellow officers trying to handcuff him. So, I went over and assisted.

Q. And what happened to the Defendant?

A. He was still moving about.

Q. Who picked him up?

A. I picked him up and Officer McGurk picked him up. Officer Soboleski was in the back of us.

Q. Then what happened?

A. Okay. We tried to get him to the wagon as quick as possible, because he was a prisoner. En route to the wagon, we had a small area to work with, he accidentally ran into a pole.

Q. After that what happened?

A. The Defendant, the prisoner, fell on the ground and we picked him up and went over to the wagon and put him in the wagon.

Q. That was the same person that you arrested, the same person that was struggling, the same person that you held and the same person whose head contacted the pole and the same person that you put in the wagon, correct?

A. Correct.

Page 87.

Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn

MR. MCGILL: Can I have that diagram?

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. Officer, you have seen this diagram before?

A. Yes.

Q. This is north and this is south. This is Locust Street and this is identified as the RPC 610, the Volkswagen, and the Ford.

I will point out that that pole has been identified in this general area right here. I am indicating now at the rear right wheel of the Volkswagen.

Would it be accurate to say when you arrived and were with Officer Soboleski and Officer McGurk you were struggling with the Defendant in this location between the Ford and Volkswagen?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it also accurate that at that time when you moved forward quickly toward the wagon this is where he made contact with the pole with his head?

A. That is correct.

Q. Then after that immediately he was then taken to the wagon area which was parked alongside the RPC 610?

Page 88.

Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn

A. Yes.

Q. Is there any other individual that you arrested that you and Officer McGurk and Officer Soboleski carried over toward the wagon and whose head made contact with the pole?

A. No.

Q. And as I recall your testimony after the Defendant was placed in the wagon that is when you got the flashlight from Officer Repsch?

A. Correct.

Q. Then you went to homicide with Mr. Mark Scanlon as a witness?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, would that be the sum total of your duties in brief summary on the scene on December 9th, 1981?

A. Yes.

Q. And on the way I believe on the radio you said you heard that the prisoner was taken to homicide, is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you felt or you thought that it was the one that you put in the wagon?

Page 89.

Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn

A. Yes.

Q. You had just simply made a mistake as to who was who, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. There were no more than two individuals present, were there?

A. Correct.

MR. MCGILL: Thank you.

MR. JACKSON: I have a few more.

MR. MCGILL: I object. This is the fourth redirect.

MR. JACKSON: I don't know what the number of times has to do with it.

THE COURT: Let me see you over here so we can decide.

(The following is a sidebar discussion with both counsel present.)

THE COURT: I want to find out where you are going and to see whether it is repetitious or not.

MR. JACKSON: I want to know whether or not she saw blood on him.

Page 90.

THE COURT: On whom?

MR. JACKSON: On the prisoner when she picked him up, because I never covered that. He brought up the beating. If you notice, Your Honor, he went back ---

THE COURT: (Interposing) Wait a minute.

MR. MCGILL: Okay.

THE COURT: You are going to ask if she saw blood. Anything else?

MR. JACKSON: I would like to know whether she was struggling with the Defendant. I never got into this struggle thing, he did. I want to find out if, in fact, she beat him or saw any beating when she arrived at the scene and under what circumstances she believed that he was the driver of the Volkswagen.

THE COURT: No. We have gone over that a million times already. She didn't say he was the driver.

MR. JACKSON: It is in her statement.

THE COURT: I don't care what is

Page 91.

in the statement.

MR. MCGILL: I object to the repetition. She already clarified it a few times that it was a mistake. It was her first homicide and it was a busy area.

THE COURT: I am not going to let you go back into that area that has already been covered. That is all.

MR. JACKSON: I want to find out what reason she has for believing he was the driver.

THE COURT: You went through that twice already. He went through that. That is enough. I will let you ask about whether she saw blood or saw anybody hit him. That I will let you ask. What else?

MR. JACKSON: Whether she saw Dessie Hightower.

MR. MCGILL: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: You should have brought that long ago.

MR. MCGILL: This is his fourth redirect.

THE COURT: I am sorry. I can't

Page 92.

Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn

let you go back into that.

- - -

(At this time the sidebar discussion was
concluded and the following is in open court.)

- - -

OFFICER CHINN-FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

- - -

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. Officer Chinn, the person who you attempted along with Officer McGurk and Officer Soboleski, the person that you arrested did you see any blood on that person when you were attempting to handcuff that person?

A. No, I did not.

Q. No blood at all?

A. No.

Q. Not on the chest, not on the head or anywhere, is that right?

A. I didn't see his chest.

Q. You didn't feel any blood?

A. No.

Page 93.

Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn

Q. You came in contact with that person?

A. Yes.

Q. Aside from carrying the individual to the wagon you also assisted in placing the person in that wagon?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you see the person beaten?

A. No, I did not.

Q. No beating whatsoever?

A. No, I did not.

Q. No one kicked him?

A. No.

Q. No one hit him with a night stick?

A. No.

Q. How about hitting him with a flashlight?

A. No.

Q. Do you recall seeing a Dessie Hightower across the street from you?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Was Officer Faulkner still there?

A. No, he wasn't. He had gone along with the suspect?

MR. MCGILL: Objection, Your Honor.

Page 94.

Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn

THE COURT: You have gone far beyond what I allowed you to. I have to sustain the objection.

MR. JACKSON: Can I have a brief sidebar?

MR. MCGILL: No, sir. I will not object if it means another sidebar.

THE COURT: He has no objection.

MR. JACKSON: It is something else.

THE COURT: What do you mean? Do it here.

MR. JACKSON: I want to bring it up at sidebar.

THE COURT: Just a minute. I said sit-down and ask your question. He is not going to object. I am not going to rule on something I don't have to.

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. Officer Chinn, do you recall this question and answer?

Did you see Officer Faulkner there when you arrived?

This is on 12/9/81.

Page 95.

Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn

No, he had already been taken to the hospital along with the suspect.

Do you recall that question and answer?

A. Yes.

Q. What suspect?

A. (Pause) I had thought they had a suspect. So, I thought he was taken to the hospital for identification.

Q. Are these three different people you are talking about in the testimony that you have given?

A. No. Two.

Q. Was he a suspect in the shooting or a suspect in the Volkswagen? What suspect are you referring to?

A. The suspect in the shooting.

MR. JACKSON: No further questions.

- - -

OFFICER CHINN-FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION

- - -

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. Officer, again, that was a mistake, was it

PLEASE NOTE: Page 96 is missing. It appears to be a mistake as the content is continuous.

Page 97.

Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn

not?

A. Yes, it was.

MR. MCGILL: Thank you very much.

- - -

(WITNESS EXCUSED)

- - -

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, could we have a recess at this time?

THE COURT: We will recess at this time.

(At this time court was recessed and the
following is in chambers with both counsel present.)

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, for the record, with regard to Debbie Kordansky, the witness that we spoke to you about earlier, Mr. McGill was gracious enough to have Detective William Thomas, as well as Detective Morton contact her by phone. Detective Morton was the detective who originally interviewed her on December the 9th, 1981.

She indicated to both Detective

Page 98.

Thomas and Detective Morton substantially the very same thing she said to me, that she was ill and injured and could not appear in court.

Because both of the detectives, as well as myself, did not receive her address we have only the phone number. I am unable to effectuate a subpoena. Based on the statement that I have, a copy that the Commonwealth made available to me, I cannot in good conscience determine that, in fact, she would be a hostile witness.

Indeed, based on the statement as it is here there is some reason for me to believe that indeed she might be a beneficial witness to the defense.

At this point I am not at all sure how I would go about securing the presence of the witness. I would just suggest that even though I only asked the Commonwealth yesterday for the address of the witness that, indeed, if I had the address of the witness when I asked for it earlier, which is perhaps

Page 99.

several months ago before Judge Ribner, at that time I might have been in a position to, number one, interview the witness myself and/or maintain some contact with the witness so I could have her in court.

I think at this juncture given the circumstances as I have just described I think the defense is being compromised and for that reason I would, in the absence of having her brought into court somehow, I would ask the court for some sort of instruction to the jury that the Commonwealth had access to this witness and did not provide us with her address until requested yesterday, which was the 29th. That the Commonwealth did have contact with her when I made the request for her address along with all of their witnesses and it should have been provided to me then so that the present circumstances we have before us would not be here.

If I had a chance to interview her before I would have been able to find

Page 100.

out precisely what her testimony would be. But, again, the precise testimony that I think is pertinent and relevant is the last sentence of her statement. "I saw a male running on the south-side of Locust Street."

The sequence in the statement itself suggests arguably, that the person could have ran away after the police and all arrived. However, I have no way of verifying the sequence of events that have been described in the statement.

MR. MCGILL: In response, it is the practice in most homicide cases, particularly one of this nature, where there was some reason, however justified, that there maybe problems with witnesses because of the emotion generated by this incident the addresses were not made known to the public. At least through our office. Judge Ribner in a hearing made the determination and it is also his practice to prevent witnesses and addresses to be known, to be made known to the public or to defense counsel

Page 101.

The arrangement that Judge Ribner made was that he would have me contact those witnesses that Mr. Jackson felt appropriate for his defense and see if they wished to be interviewed and if they were I would give Mr. Jackson their phone numbers and if they didn't mind their addresses.

I did that.

At no time was this particular woman on that list. The list he gives me really was a verbal list. He told me that the people he would call were the police, Dessie Hightower and Robert Pickford, which I attempted to find. I found Dessie Hightower and told him what I believe Dessie Hightower told me.

To make a long story short, it was a rule of the court that we not do that. It was an order of the court. I believe for valid reasons.

However, I mentioned to Mr. Jackson at anytime that he did wish to see a witness I would, to the best of my ability, make that

Page 102.

witness available.

I also told him, as I did this morning, that we cannot guarantee cooperation.

I will make this known to the court, that there have been witnesses who have not cooperated with me at all that I have attempted to bring in who will not come in under threat of going to jail. So, I have had bad experiences also with the inability of getting witnesses to cooperate.

So, as far as instructions are concerned, it would be completely inappropriate for an instruction. I never really heard that kind of instruction and it would not be appropriate for this case at all. Unless Your Honor thinks there is a basis for it I will continue arguing.

THE COURT: I think the only thing that you might be able to do would be, knowing the phone number, the police might be able to get the address and go there and maybe bring her in for Mr. Jackson to talk to.

Page 103.

MR. MCGILL: Mr. Jackson already mentioned that we have had two individuals that have attempted to get in touch with her. We will continue to try and get the address through a phone number. I don't know whether we will be successful.

THE COURT: I am just throwing that out as a suggestion.

MR. MCGILL: I made that suggestion. I want you to know I have talked to both of them and I might point out since Mr. Jackson mentioned that this witness apparently is very aggressive and biased because of the incident that happened to her, I think Mr. Jackson said she was raped by a black person, I had both a black person as well as a white person call her up.

Now, I don't know whether she knew that, but at any rate both people received a pretty, a pretty arrogant reply, particularly Thomas, saying that she made herself very clear to the defense, or to that man, or something to that effect, and there was no

Page 104.

way that she was going to come in. She was injured and didn't want to do it and couldn't and that sort of thing.

So, we are getting no cooperation at all, but we will continue to try.

MR. JACKSON: With regard to Veronica Jones, Your Honor, Your Honor has already indicated that I should not be permitted to bring in the detectives who took her previous statements, so I could not indicate that, indeed, she has given a statement.

My purpose in bringing on the detective --- I don't have his name right now --- that would be to, number one, show that, in fact, she has previously given another statement. Although I have read from the statement, what purports to be her statement, she has --- in fact, she says she has not made that statement. So, in the minds of the jury I could just as well be reading from a piece of paper that I have written on.

So, I would like to renew my

Page 105.

request to have the detective come in and testify with regard to the statement that he took.

I would point Your Honor to the case of Commonwealth versus Hamm. The essence of that holding would be that a witness maybe impeached with proof that on a pervious occasion he made a statement inconsistent with his present testimony. As well as by the testimony of other witnesses whose version of the facts differs from that of the witness being impeached.

The Commonwealth versus Hamm case goes onto cite a number of other cases, citing the very same legal proposition.

I could cite those cases for you.

Again, it is my understanding that I have to present proof that, in fact, she made a prior inconsistent statement. I have no proof she made a prior inconsistent statement and for that reason I think I have to have the detective to prove she made a prior inconsistent statement.

Page 106.

This is just for Your Honor's convenience and consideration, the case that overruled Commonwealth versus ---

THE COURT: (Interposing) Let's do one thing at a time.

MR. JACKSON: I cite Your Honor to Commonwealth versus Waller, which is reported in Pennsylvania Superior Court 444, A Second, 653; which specifically overrules Commonwealth versus Lord. I don't know if anything in that case specifically speaks on the point that I am addressing other than whether or not it is to be used as substantive evidence.

I agree with Your Honor and counsel the prior statement could not be used as substantive evidence, but I still say that I need the detective to prove that there was a prior inconsistent statement.

THE COURT: It seems they are saying that the prior inconsistent testimony which is used for the purpose of impeachment could not be used for substantive evidence. However, the responses of that witness

Page 107.

concerning these prior statements could be used as substantive evidence. In other words, whatever they are saying on the stand.

MR. MCGILL: In response to the point raised by Mr. Jackson I would oppose, and I have talked to our Appeals Division about this, I would oppose bringing the detective in.

There are two reasons for that, Your Honor. The primary reason is that this witness was a defense witness. So, everything that Mr. Jackson says in reference to prior inconsistent statements maybe accurate, but only as refers to the inconsistent statement of the Commonwealth witness and not his own, because he is not permitted to impeach his own witness as a general rule.

Specifically when he pleads surprise and Your Honor in a very limited area permitted cross-examination. Now, cross-examination is one thing that is permitted in reference to a plea of surprise. It is suppose to be limited to a very specific area and not beyond.

Page 108.

Your Honor permitted him to cross-examine on a substantial portion of the statement which he felt was positive to his position. He cannot with his own witness bring in a detective or anyone who took the statement to have it read for the purposes of placing on the record a prior inconsistent statement, because it is his own witness. Particularly since Waller would knockout the substantive evidence.

That leaves impeachment and you are unable to impeach with a prior inconsistent statement, through a detective, your own witness.

Secondly, it emphasizes this testimony and the real testimony was her testimony of record of what she said she observed.

I may not feel and I don't know whether Mr. Jackson feels, but I personally may not feel too happy about her testimony one way or the other. However, the fact of having a detective come in you will have a

Page 109.

detective actually walking in and testifying to an inconsistent statement, alleged inconsistent statement, which he is not permitted to use for his own witness and thereby emphasizing that which is not real evidence, which is the inconsistent statement. The real evidence is what she testified to. Also, Lord is no longer effective. So, I would oppose vehemently that detective.

Lastly, the third reason, she had effectively adopted a portion of that statement in the questioning by Mr. Jackson. She adopted a portion of the statement that I pointed out about Officer Faulkner's prior help of her. There were other answers to questions that she adopted during the course of Mr. Jackson's questioning and it turned out to be cross-examination of his own witness. One portion was the first long statement that she read. She did not deny all of that. She said a portion of it she denied. She didn't mention Charlie Smith. Not Charlie Smith. Candy. That was one

Page 110.

she never mentioned. She adopted a portion and did not adopt another portion.

The jury is clearly aware, as well as the newspaper I might point out, the jury is well aware that there was something said before, because she has partially adopted it. That is a further reason why there would be no basis at this time for him to introduce a prior inconsistent statement for his own witness.

MR. JACKSON: Very briefly, Your Honor.

I concede the fact that she was brought up and presented as my own witness. Obviously, again, Your Honor, you have in my view properly ruled that I can plead surprise with regard to specific statements. That is whether she saw two men run from the scene or not. As to that issue I was permitted to cross-examine her and I must, in fact, present proof that there was a prior inconsistent statement.

THE COURT: I think the proof is

Page 111.

she signed the statement.

MR. JACKSON: It hasn't been introduced as evidence. That would not be proof.

THE COURT: It wouldn't go out with the jury anyway.

MR. JACKSON: It is not proof, Judge. She says she did not sign the statement if you will recall.

MR. MCGILL: She signed once.

MR. JACKSON: That is why I have to have proof. Your Honor knows that you give a number of instructions to the jury and ---

THE COURT: (Interposing ) I am not going to talk about individual witnesses. I don't do that. I will just say "If the jury concludes that any witness on a prior occasion gave inconsistent statements" then I will go into the charge, but that is all I am going to say. It is up to them. They heard the evidence and they know which ones are inconsistent and they know which ones

Page 112.

they are going to believe.

MR. JACKSON: The problem is, the law requires that I present proof.

THE COURT: As far as I am concerned you have presented proof. It is just whether or not they believe it.

MR. JACKSON: With all due respect, as far as you are concerned I presented proof? I don't see how. All I have done was read questions from it.

THE COURT: Suppose the witness said, "I don't remember"?

MR. JACKSON: She didn't.

THE COURT: The witness says, "I don't remember." It is something that they don't remember.

MR. JACKSON: It is not inconsistent. What I am saying in this specific area and the case again of Commonwealth versus Hamm says that the witness maybe impeached with proof. I have to provide that proof. I must be given the opportunity to present proof that there was indeed a prior

Page 113.

inconsistent statement.

MR. MCGILL: The reason why this is improper, first of all, is that he can't impeach his own witness through an inconsistent statement. That deals with the Commonwealth witnesses.

Your Honor, what I am saying in reference to this is let us face reality, they know since they have been talking about statements throughout this entire event, if it were correct, which it isn't, even if Mr. Jackson were correct, they know very well there are statements made by witnesses to police as everyone testified and everyone has been cross-examined on statements. She has adopted a portion of it and just lied about the rest. Okay. The jury is well aware of what it is. Now, this is the problem. By putting this witness on to read that statement, which has already been partially adopted on cross-examination or direct examination is to make it in the jury's mind substantive evidence and it puts unneeded

Page 114.

emphasis on an area that shouldn't be before them anyway. So, I would object.

MR. JACKSON: I am saying the case holds that I must present proof, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I think you can argue that to the jury.

MR. JACKSON: That is the law, Judge.

THE COURT: You can argue she is inconsistent and that she said certain things you can argue that to them. I don't care.

MR. JACKSON: You are not giving me the opportunity to present the proof that the law requires. I don't understand.

THE COURT: We don't have to prove every witness is a liar on the stand. That is what you are doing. You are getting away from the crux in this case. We are beginning to try every witness in this case. You are getting far a field.

MR. JACKSON: The case says I

Page 115.

must present proof. Fine.

MR. MCGILL: My next point is character witnesses, which is the primary issue of why we are back here. This is the general rule of cross examining character witnesses, or one of the general rules. It would be that you are able to cross-examine a character witness on the sources of his information. In other words, to determine the competency of his sources, the competency of the areas from which he received this information as to reputation, because the reason why is that the law cannot --- the law does not allow specific good acts to be admissible as part of reputation evidence. Granted that has been done in the direct examination. However, the law does not permit that. Inasmuch as these are sources from which he has received I could ask him questions of who did you talk to and how many people and so forth. Part of that type of cross-examination would be of these people that you talked to, and this is how

Page 116.

it would have to be phrased, did they tell you that they had heard the Defendant saying --- and then the particular area.

THE COURT: Do you have a case on that?

MR. MCGILL: Well, Judge, if you agree with me that it is the general rule ---

THE COURT: (Interposing) You can cross-examine as to what people you talked to and how many people and were they in the neighborhood, or did you talk to people that live out of the county in reference to his reputation.

Do you see what I am talking about? That part I think is, right. You are going to specific acts or things that the Defendant did.

MR. MCGILL: I am going into the source; not what he did. What he said. That is important.

MR. JACKSON: It is an act.

THE COURT: It is an act.

Page 117.

MR. JACKSON: It is a specific act.

THE COURT: Suppose he had shot a gun?

MR. MCGILL: Where do they get their information.

THE COURT: Suppose he shot at somebody. That is an act. The same thing as if he had verbally said something.

MR. MCGILL: The fact is this is also published.

THE COURT: I know that.

MR. MCGILL: He is stating this to a reporter. So, he is then making it public and that public part of it is the hearsay aspect which makes or breaks reputation. That is why it normally would not be admissible, because you are talking about something that is not direct and it is. So, this public information that is surrounding the area the question would be had you heard from these individuals that this Defendant had said this and their answer

Page 118.

would be yes or no? If you had heard it, or if you did hear it how would that affect --- what affect would that have on your opinion or testimony as to reputation.

The case I have, Judge, is Commonwealth versus Turvilon. It speaks to a general rule. This Turvilon deals with rebuttal evidence that was used of a prior extra judicial statement made by the Defendant that statement was not really specifically relevant to the case in chief, it had to do with something else, but what it had to do with was proof that the Defendant was not where he said he was.

As a general rule voluntary extra judicial statements may be used against the Defendant although they contain no admission of guilt. These extra judicial statements which differ from confessions which do not acknowledge all essential elements of the crime are generally considered qualified for introduction into evidence under the exception to then hearsay rule. It

Page 119.

doesn't have to be an admission of guilt. Any kind of statement. In this case the Turvilon prior statement might properly have been received as part of the case in chief, but this fact does not necessarily exclude its use in rebuttal. Evidence is admissible in rebuttal to contradict that offered by the Defendant or his witnesses even though by doing so the Commonwealth supplies previous omissions from its case in chief. That is a general statement.

The point here is that you can use his admissions. I can use his admissions to test the competency of the sources of those character witnesses who offer him as a peaceful and law-abiding citizen, because their only sources could be hearsay and their only sources are what they hear.

THE COURT: Won't that be by way of rebuttal?

MR. MCGILL: It is cross-examination first to see if it would or would not affect their opinion.

Page 120.

THE COURT: Would that be through your own witness?

MR. MCGILL: That is one way of doing it.

THE COURT: It might be the only way of doing it.

MR. JACKSON: May I suggest, Your Honor, that, in fact, that the courts just recently specifically indicated and specifically limited the area where the prosecution may cross-examine or attempt to impeach character testimony. That is why there is a greater use now of, I guess, rebuttal character witnesses, or bad character witnesses.

For the Commonwealth to be able to introduce statements of prior admissions, whatever they are, of the Defendant that would be allowing them to introduce collateral statements that they could not get in any other way. So, they are going to use the bootstrap and say we can't get it in any other way and we are going to try to

Page 121.

get it in this way.

Again, it is my understanding from another case that I believe is analogous what he is doing is introducing a collateral issue. If Mr. Jamal had said, "The only way we can obtain justice is at the end of a barrel of a gun" and he cannot get that statement in any other way then what he purports to do through character witnesses is to say, "Did you ever hear him say that?" Whether he said it or not it would be a specific act which he is precluded from questioning a prospective witness about. Because he speaks it as opposed to acting it out it is still an act if, in fact, he said it. He is not permitted to question him on particular acts or particular activities.

Your Honor has already indicated with respect to arrests and I suggest to you that any act or action on the part of the Defendant would be consistent with an arrest and that unless there is something implicit in what he has said or spoken

Page 122.

that says he has got a bad reputation then he just can't say, "Well, because he says that, that means he has got a bad reputation." That is what he is trying to say. That there is something in and of these words that suggest that he has got a bad reputation.

I think again --- I am quoting now from Wharton's criminal evidence section 471, a witness may be impeached by evidence impuning his character or reputation for truth and veracity. Evidence of particular acts or of particular facts though tending to show untruthfulness is not admissible for this purpose.

I think that is what he is trying to do. They are specific acts. He can't impeach them.

MR. MCGILL: You don't determine the competency of sources solely by rebuttal. They may well answer, "Yes, I did hear that and I don't believe that."

THE COURT: I think when you are questioning their sources you are

Page 123.

questioning whether or not they have talked to other people. That is what the reputation is. It is no specific things that they do. In other words, did they talk to people in the neighborhood, or do they live so far away from him that they talked to people in their own neighborhood who wouldn't even know him. That would go to discredit what they are saying about reputation. In other words, it is not an individual's feeling. In other words, I can't say I think he has got a good reputation because I have talked to him and I like him and he has been good to me all along. That is not important. It is what other people in that so-called community where he evidently lived.

MR. MCGILL: Had they heard this or read it?

THE COURT: It is nothing specific. You can bring in reputation witnesses all you want in rebuttal. I don't know why you are worried about reputation one way or the other. That

Page 124.

is not going to save this man. It is what they believe happened on that night. That is the issue.

MR. MCGILL: You have ruled. I have made my point and Your Honor ruled against me.

THE COURT: Show me where it says it and you can do it.

MR. MCGILL: It says you can use extra judicial statements of a Defendant for any purpose.

THE COURT: In that case he put on an alibi that he was in a certain place. You can put somebody on to say, "No, he was at such-and-such a place at that time." Sure you can do that. There is nothing wrong with that.

MR. MCGILL: It doesn't say it is limited to that, Judge.

THE COURT: That is what that case stands for.

If it had not been for that most recent decision of the Supreme Court that

Page 125.

overruled all other cases on reputation evidence I would have agreed, but that case was so far reaching that to me to allow such a thing like that to enter might jeopardize the whole case and to me I don't even think it would be worthwhile.

- - -

(At this time the discussion in chambers was
concluded and court was reconvened at 3:05 p.m.)

- - -

(JURY PRESENT)

- - -

MR. JACKSON: The defense would call Dell Jones.

DELL JONES, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DELL JONES-DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. Mr. Jones, what is your occupation?

A. I am a journalist with the New Observer.

Page 126.

Direct-D. Jones

Q. How long have you been a journalist?

A. For the last about eight years.

Q. Do you know Mumia Abu-Jamal?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. How long have you known him?

A. About six years.

Q. Would you tell us how it is that you have come to know him?

A. Well, he was at WDAS and I was there as a volunteer in the Public Service Department and we worked together.

Q. Mr. Jones, do you know other people who know Mr. Jamal?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Have you had occasion to discuss his reputation with other people?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Among those other people that you know who know Mr. Jamal what was his reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen?

What is his reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen?

A. It is definitely excellent.

Page 127.

Cross-D. Jones

MR. JACKSON: Thank you. You may cross-examine.

- - -

DELL JONES-CROSS-EXAMINATION

- - -

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. What is your definition, sir, of law-abiding citizen?

MR. JACKSON: Objection. It is a legal conclusion.

MR. MCGILL: I would like to know what he means by law-abiding. He has testified to it.

THE COURT: All right. I will let him answer if he can.

A. Well, to me a law-abiding citizen is a person who struggles to right wrongs within the context of the given rules of society.

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. So then, it would be necessary for him or her to work within the rules of society, is that correct?

A. I suppose.

Q. So, if you had heard any kind of information

Page 128.

Cross-D. Jones

that would suggest that an individual does not of his own choosing work within the rules of that civilization, or of that society, would you not change your opinion as to his reputation, sir?

A. Not necessarily. I would have to know more.

Q. In other words, are you saying then, sir ---

MR. JACKSON: (Interposing) I will object. Are we talking about Mr. Jamal or a hypothetical?

MR. MCGILL: Obviously I am talking about him. We are now talking about the sources of information of what he testified to. That is all.

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. Are you saying, sir, that the word "motive," the fact of motive as a matter of fact may well change whether or not someone in your view is law-abiding if he does not choose to work within the rules of society?

MR. JACKSON: Now I am going to object.

THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question?

Page 129.

Cross-D. Jones

MR. JACKSON: He is talking about somebody else, Judge. Mr. Jamal is the only Defendant in this case.

MR. MCGILL: I believe we are not talking about specifics now. We have to stay with the hearsay reputation evidence.

THE COURT: Go-ahead and rephrase it.

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. You stated, sir, as I understand, and you correct me if I am wrong, that in determining what a law-abiding citizen is, that this individual should right wrongs within the rules of that society, I asked you if an individual, if an individual, decides to act in a way outside of the rules of that society would that in anyway change your opinion as to his reputation for being law-abiding. Did I not ask you that?

A. (Indicating yes)

Q. And did you not say it would determine, I think you said, it would depend upon his motive? Didn't you say that?

A. I would have to say that as long as the

Page 130.

Cross-D. Jones

system stayed within the law-abiding rules that they laid down.

Q. Okay. So then it would be important for the system to stay within the rules that they the system lay down, is that correct, or do you mean they the individual lay down?

A. That the system lay down.

Q. All right. Then again, sir, wouldn't it also be accurate to say that if the rules of the system are within the rules ---

MR. JACKSON: (Interposing) Can we see you at sidebar?

(The following is a sidebar discussion with both counsel present.)

MR. JACKSON: I object. This is all very interesting, but this philosophical discussion on the rights and wrongs of society is irrelevant.

MR. MCGILL: That is what he said. I didn't say law-abiding.

THE COURT: You asked him what he meant by law-abiding and I thought he was going to say whoever obeys the law. I

Page 131.

Cross-D. Jones

didn't realize he was going to go into some philosophical dissertation.

MR. JACKSON: That is the point. It is not relevant.

THE COURT: I am talking about the witness when he answered the question. That is why I allowed the question.

MR. MCGILL: This is a relevant point.

THE COURT: I said initially I let you ask the question because I thought the witness was going to say a law-abiding citizen is somebody who obeys the law. That is it. He went beyond that and now you are trying to figure out what he means. That is all right. He can do that.

MR. MCGILL: It is extremely important for the jury to know, since I have been precluded from using sources of information which I know have been available to the public and published in newspapers which I have present before me.

THE COURT: I don't want to go

Page 132.

Cross-D. Jones

into that.

MR. MCGILL: What I am trying to limit it to is to find out what he means.

THE COURT: You can find that out.

MR. JACKSON: I can come back and I can ask him what he means by every word that he has used.

THE COURT: He is only asking just as far as law-abiding. I am assuming we know what peaceful means.

MR. JACKSON: What you have opened the door for is what do you mean by law-abiding and he explains that and what do you mean by your explanation. What does your explanation mean.

THE COURT: I mean somebody who obeys the law.

MR. JACKSON: What you are doing now is because he gave an explanation he wants him to explain his explanation. Now he is getting further.

THE COURT: No, because now he is saying it depends on the motive of the

Page 133.

Cross-D. Jones

individual. What does he mean by that? I don't know.

MR. JACKSON: That was the second question. He is getting into him explaining his explanation.

THE COURT: That is the only way we are going to know what he means by peaceful and law-abiding. Just stay away from the article.

MR. MCGILL: I know that.

- - -

(At this time the sidebar discussion was
concluded and the following is in open court.)

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. Now, I believe you said and you agreed that if the system would stay within the laws of the system. That is what you said?

A. Yes. I believe it is a two way street.

Q. Okay. So, I guess what I am asking you then is, if a person acts in a way, or you have heard that a person would act in a way in which the rules of that system are violated would you in anyway change

Page 134.

Cross-D. Jones

your opinion as to his reputation?

MR. JACKSON: I object.

A. No. I am a reporter. I go by facts that I see and touch and that are tangible. I can't go by what people are saying.

MR. MCGILL: I have nothing further. Reputation evidence is all what people tell you. I would move to strike that testimony.

- - -

DELL JONES-REDIRECT EXAMINATION

- - -

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. Mr. Jones, do you know Mr. Jamal to be a violent person?

A. No.

Q. You know him to be a law-abiding person?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Which means you know that he obeys the law?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Has anyone ever told you, any of the people that you know who know him, has anybody ever said he violated the law?

Page 135.

Redirect-D. Jones

A. Definitely not.

Q. Did anybody ever say he was a violent person?

A. Definitely not.

MR. JACKSON: Thank you, sir. I have no further questions.

DELL JONES-RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. You have said and counsel asked you specifically whether you know if the Defendant is a violent person.

MR. JACKSON: I object.

MR. MCGILL: Judge, he said that. I heard it clearly.

MR. JACKSON: I asked if he knows other people.

MR. MCGILL: You asked him specifically whether he knew whether the Defendant was a violent person.

THE COURT: Let's go to sidebar.

- - -

(The following is a sidebar discussion with both counsel present.)

Page 136.

Recross-D. Jones

MR. MCGILL: Do you know he obeys the law? Do you know that he is a law-abiding citizen? Two or three times he asked specifically do you know that, which opens up the newspaper article.

THE COURT: I don't think it opens it.

MR. MCGILL: Oh my God.

THE COURT: I am not going to allow you to go into that.

MR. MCGILL: He can do anything with his reputation and I can't go into it on cross-examination? When he opens the door I can move in, sir.

THE COURT: Mr. McGi11, this jury is not going to decide this case, as I told you before, on his reputation.

MR. MCGILL: Then he can't ask the questions.

THE COURT: Bring in rebuttal witnesses. They can say that they know him to be other than a law-abiding citizen.

Page 137.

Recross-D. Jones

MR. MCGILL: You have permitted him to say individually that he knows him to be a law-abiding citizen. I can't cross-examine on that?

MR. JACKSON: Because of what you said in terms of making your speech, with regard to making your speech, I move for a mistrial. I specifically asked him with regard to what other people know.

MR. MCGILL: I am not restricted, Your Honor, from cross-examining when he opens the door to his specific knowledge of the person.

MR. JACKSON: There is no exception to the rule with regard to cross-examination with regard to specific and particular acts. They don't say, "except when" they say "never." There it is.

MR. MCGILL: That is completely wrong.

MR. JACKSON: I can read the law to you.

MR. MCGILL: I can't believe you,

Page 138.

Recross-D. Jones

you are letting him do that without me cross-examining.

THE COURT: You are getting all excited about nothing.

MR. MCGILL: I maybe, Judge, but he opens the door and I should be able to walk in.

THE COURT: You are getting all excited about nothing. I don't think you should go into that area. I feel that it it too dangerous. I am not going to risk this whole trial based on that.

- - -

(At this time the sidebar discussion was
concluded and the following is in open court.)

MR. MCGILL: Consistent with the court's ruling I have no further questions.

MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Jones.

- - -

(WITNESS EXCUSED)

- - -

MR. JACKSON: The defense would

Page 139.

call John Skief.

- - -

(The following is a sidebar discussion with both counsel present.)

THE COURT: How many witnesses are you going to bring in?

MR. JACKSON: About five, sir, and about five more tomorrow.

THE COURT: Can't you stipulate to them?

MR. MCGILL: I am not going to stipulate right now. One or two is something else, but he comes up with five or ten. Give me a break?

THE COURT: I don't care how many he brings in.

- - -

(At this time the sidebar discussion was
concluded and the following is in open court.)

- - -

JOHN SKIEF, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Page 140.

Direct-J. Skief

JOHN SKIEF-DIRECT EXAMINATION

- - -

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. Mr. Skief, what is your occupation?

A. I am a school teacher.

Q. And where do you teach?

A. I teach at West Philadelphia High, as well as the Detention Center and House of Corrections.

Q. Do you know Mr. Jamal?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. How long have you known him?

A. I have known him, I guess, over about five or six years now.

Q. Could you tell us how it is that you came to know him?

A. I came to know him through various community activities in terms of education. He has also covered stories involving my own school and institutions. And just working together basically in community activities.

Q. Do you know other people who know Mr. Jamal?

A. Yes, I do know many that know him.

Q. Among those people that you know who know

Page 141.

Direct-J. Skief

Mr. Jamal, what is his reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen?

A. He has a very strong reputation for being a very good and sensitive journalist in terms of getting into a story.

MR. MCGILL: Objection. It is not responsive.

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. Unfortunately you have to just speak to his reputation for being peaceful and non-violent, whether it is bad, good, excellent, or whatever. So, again, among those people that you know who know him, what is his reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen?

A. Well, everybody that I know that knows him that I know feels that he is a very --- I guess a law-abiding and peaceful person.

MR. JACKSON: Thank you, sir. You may cross-examine.

- - -

JOHN SKIEF-CROSS-EXAMINATION

- - -

Page 142.

Cross-J. Skief

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. How far back did you know the Defendant?

A. I would say around six years. At least that time.

Q. You have stated that he is law-abiding. May I ask you what you mean by law-abiding, Sir?

MR. JACKSON: Objection.

THE COURT: I will let him answer that.

A. What I mean by law-abiding is simply operating within the confines of the law.

BY MR MCGILL:

Q. Is this the first time that you have been in this courtroom, sir, or have you been here anytime within the last month?

A. This is the first time I have been inside this courtroom.

Q. Have you heard anything at all about what has occurred in this last month?

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I object.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.

Page 143.

Cross-J. Skief

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. If you had heard from the sources of information that you said stated that he was, in fact, law-abiding that his actions were not in accordance with the law as it is in this Commonwealth would that change your reputation testimony?

MR. JACKSON: Objection. That requires the witness to know what is consistent with the laws of this Commonwealth.

THE COURT: Come over here.

- - -

(The following is a sidebar discussion with both counsel present)

MR. JACKSON: I would like to state the basis of my objection.

First of all I am specifically moving for a mistrial. Mr. McGill has been specifically directed by Your Honor with regard to the scope of his questioning of character and reputation witnesses. We had a discussion in conference and we had two sidebar conferences and Mr. McGill nevertheless is persisting on asking inappropriate and inadmissible questions.

Page 144.

Cross-J. Skief

I would specifically ask Your Honor to rule for a mistrial.

MR. MCGILL: I am absolutely outraged that I have to face character witnesses without the ability to cross-examine

.

THE COURT: I am sorry, Mr. McGill, but I don't make the law on that.

MR. JACKSON: He is blaming you.

MR. MCGILL: I am not.

THE COURT: As far as this case is concerned we have gone so far away from the crucial issue here of who killed this police officer on that day.

MR. MCGILL: This is relevant evidence. Reputation witnesses whether he likes it or not happens to be relevant evidence. Therefore, they should be appropriately cross-examined.

Your Honor, as far as I am concerned when he starts saying all these people are saying this and that about being law-abiding and I am unable to test their sources and

Page 145.

Cross-J. Skief

determine ---

THE COURT: (Interposing) I am saying to you that you can go out and dig up people to come in and say he has a bad reputation.

MR. MCGILL: It is just like a doctor's opinion if the facts were different. I think I should have the opportunity to say if you heard from these people that he had not been ---

THE COURT: (Interposing) I told you to look up the law on this. I told you to look up the law over the recess.

MR. MCGILL: I did. Your Honor disagreed with my position.

THE COURT: I disagree with your position because I don't think it is right. You give the impression to the jury that it is so important and it is not.

MR. JACKSON: I am reading from the quick index. In the case of Commonwealth versus Kosh, 305, Pennsylvania 146, among other things, the proposed testimony shows

Page 146.

Cross-J. Skief

that the doctor was able to give an opinion which was negative only as to Barnes' truthfulness concerning his use of drugs. Not his general truthfulness or lack thereof. As with the cross-examination of Barnes himself as to the use of drugs such evidence would serve only to introduce a collateral issue into the trial. For that reason the trial court's refusal to permit Doctor Fignitto to testify was not error.

In that case what they are saying is that even though the Defendant may have lied about one specific act he could still say he has good reputation for truthfulness and whatever it is. You can't go to a specific act. Again, that is what he keeps trying to do.

MR. MCGILL: I do not agree, but I accept the court's ruling. What I am saying is I only ask the court to be sensitive to the wording of Mr. Jackson's questions in the future. When the door is open I think I should be able to walk in.

Page 147.

Cross-J. Skief

THE COURT: All he is asking is from your discussions with the people in the community what is his reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen. I know it is the type of thing you can't cross-examine, but I don't make the law.

MR. JACKSON: That is what the law says.

- - -

(At this time the sidebar discussion was
concluded and the following is in open court.)

MR. MCGILL: I have no further questions.

MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Skief. No further questions.

(WITNESS EXCUSED)

- - -

MR.JACKSON: The defense would call Viola Young.

- - -

Page 148.

Direct-F. Shionesu

FALAI SHIONESU, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

FALAI SHIONESU-DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q. Do you know Mumia Abu-Jamal?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. How long have you known him?

A. Approximately five years.

Q. Do you know other people who know him?

A. Certainly.

Q. Among those people that you know who know him, what is his reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen?

A. His reputation is beyond anything I can possibly say at this point. He is upheld in our community. He has always been from the time I have known him. He is a type of person who if there is an incident occuring he is the type of person that would help cool it out, because people respect him. He is the type of person who has done just that.

Brothers who are younger who may

Page 149.

Direct-F. Shionesu

have seemed hostile on certain incidents he may have said words to then and they have removed themselves from whatever incident they may have thought they wanted to get into.

Q. Your response is based on his reputation? That is his reputation?

A. Yes. I have worked with him as a colleague. I have formerly worked at radio station WKDU. I worked with him in our community.

MR. JACKSON: Thank you very much.

- - -

FALAI SHIONESU-CROSS-EXAMINATION

- - -

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. I believe you stated that if the Defendant observed an incident he would do whatever he could to what?

A. To possibly resolve the incident, or lessen it. You must understand Mr. Jamal is a journalist, which means often times he would be on the scene of perhaps a possible incident and, therefore, seeing that could perhaps interject a word by being

Page 150.

Cross-F. Shionesu

in our community to some of those persons and would possibly lessen the incident.

Q. These people that you have spoken to in relation to Mr. Jamal, have you ever heard the term hostility or aggressiveness?

A. No.

MR. JACKSON: I object.


THE COURT: She said no.

MR. JACKSON: I understand that. I knew she would.

MR. MCGILL: Objection. Is he going to be the next character witness?

THE COURT: Come on.

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. What is your definition of law-abiding?

MR. JACKSON: Objection.

THE COURT: I will let her answer.

A. Law-abiding applied to an intelligent person means to address the rules that are set-up for us, addressing themselves in such a way that we adhere to them, that we understand what those laws are and that we try out best to uphold those laws.

Page 151.

Cross-F. Shionesu

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. And if for any reason any of those individuals say things to you that would indicate that an individual would not be upholding or following those laws would that in anyway change your opinion?

MR. JACKSON: I am going to object, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I will let her answer.

A. My opinion is based on what the situation is and how I view it.

Now, often times someone may feel as though that a law is being broken, but I often see things that are not necessarily being done that are said to be done.

For example, I understand a person is supposedly innocent until proven guilty. So, when you address that question to me you have to be a lot clearer on exactly what you imply.

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. I am sorry if I wasn't clear. If you would hear from these individuals that the individual would not be acting within those very laws that you think are important to follow ---

Page 152.

Cross-F. Shionesu

A. (Interposing) Are we speaking of laws that are kind of stabilized and not flexible?

Q. The laws of the Commonwealth.

MR. JACKSON: May we see you at sidebar, Your Honor?

- - -

(The following is a sidebar discussion with both counsel present.)

MR. MCGILL: Nothing further, Judge.

THE COURT: Mr. Jackson, I think this witness here has left herself in a hole. You asked her a simple question and all she had to say is excellent, good or very good, and she goes into a dissertation that leaves the door wide open. Now she is hedging about what she means about law-abiding. She is saying if the rules are rigid and can't be changed then she doesn't agree with them.

MR. JACKSON: It is because she went onto explain what she meant by law-abiding. What he did was give a hypothetical about this and if this and if that. What is her opinion. Her opinion is not what has

Page 153.

Cross-F. Shionesu

been asked, it is reputation.

THE COURT: Her opinion as to what she means of a law-abiding citizen.

MR. JACKSON: Her opinion is not relevant.

THE COURT: Yes it is, because she has given testimony to his reputation. You should tell these people about what they are suppose to be testifying to and don't blame anybody if they deviate from that.

MR. MCGILL: This one has gone way far a field.

MR. JACKSON: He is soliciting an opinion.

THE COURT: You did it.

MR. JACKSON: I did not.

THE COURT: You asked it and when she went into that long dissertation she left the door wide open.

MR. JACKSON: I asked if that was based on reputation and she said yes. Then Mr. McGill said if this and if that would your opinion change.

Page 154.

Cross-F. Shionesu

THE COURT: That is right.

MR. JACKSON: Her opinion is not being tested, it is the reputation.

THE COURT: Her opinion, plus maybe others. Maybe he can rephrase the question.

MR. MCGILL: As far as you are concerned what is his reputation and if others say various things would that change your opinion?

MR. JACKSON: She is not asked what her opinion is.

THE COURT: It is hers together with others.

MR. JACKSON: It is reputation and not her opinion. He is saying would that change her opinion.

THE COURT: Ask her if she thinks that would change the opinions of the other people.

MR. JACKSON: How would she know?

MR. MCGILL: It is her opinion, Judge, it is not the others.

Page 155.

Cross-F. Shionesu

It is hearsay information.

MR. JACKSON: I will get the rule on opinion.

THE COURT: I went over that. Let me say that she wouldn't come in here in the first place if she didn't have an opinion of her own, too, along with the other people.

MR. JACKSON: I can't ask her about her opinion and neither can he.

THE COURT: She brought it out.

MR. JACKSON: Not her opinion. She said based on the reputation.

THE COURT: You bring the people in.

MR. JACKSON: I am bringing them in.

THE COURT: She has gone into a long dissertation and she is leaving the door wide open.

MR. JACKSON: She is saying that is his reputation.

THE COURT: I don't care. How does

Page 156.

Cross-F. Shionesu

she know that then?

MR. JACKSON: It is his reputation. He asked specifically would your opinion change.

THE COURT: I am telling you that you better watch how you put people on. When they open the door I can't hold him down.

- - -

(At this time the sidebar discussion was
concluded and the following is in open court.)

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. Have you been in this courtroom at all the last month?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Does your opinion remain the same?

A. Does my opinion remain the same?

Q. As to his reputation, the reputation of this Defendant for being peaceful and law-abiding?

A. Yes.

MR. MCGILL: No further questions.

MR. JACKSON: Thank you very much.

- - -

Page 157.

(WITNESS EXCUSED)

- - -

MR. JACKSON: Can we see you at sidebar briefly without the stenographer?

- - -

(At this time there was a sidebar discussion
with both counsel present off of the record.)

- - -

MR. JACKSON: Before presenting the balance of our character witnesses I would request that I be given the opportunity to present them tomorrow consistent with Your Honor's rulings? I believe Mr. McGill has a request of the court.

MR. MCGILL: Yes, Your Honor. I wonder if I may call out of turn a rebuttal witness who is here today. I would hate to have them wait until tomorrow. She has to go to work. It is just one witness and it will be brief. It is the custodian of records, Elizabeth Williams.

Page 158.

Direct-E. Williams

THE COURT: Sure.

- - -

ELIZABETH WILLIAMS, Thomas Jefferson University Custodian of Records, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

ELIZABETH WILLIAMS-DIRECT EXAMINATION

- - -

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. Miss Williams, you are presently employed as the custodian of records, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. That is for Jefferson Hospital?

A. Yes.

Q. And as custodian of records are you familiar as to how the records are kept?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you also familiar with whether or not those particular entries are, in fact, made at or about the time that the actual action occurs?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you be able to identify records from Jefferson Hospital?

Page 159.

Direct-E. Williams

A. Yes.

Q. As a matter of fact, you came today pursuant to the district attorney's subpoena for that purpose, is that correct?

A. Yes.

MR. MCGILL: Can the witness be shown C63?

BY MR. MCGILL:

Q. Miss Williams, will you please take a look at C63 and flip through this and I will ask you if you can identify that exhibit?

A. Yes.

Q. What is C63?

A. The admission records for a patient by the name of Mumia Abu-Jamal a-k-a Cook admitted to the hospital on December 9th, 1981 and discharged on December 16th, 1981.

MR. MCGILL: Thank you very much. Cross-examine.

MR. JACKSON: No questions.

- - -

(WITNESS EXCUSED)

- - -

Page 160.

THE COURT: We will adjourn court until 9:30 tomorrow morning.

- - -

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED)

- - -




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.



Official Stenographer




The foregoing record of the proceedings upon the trial of the above cause is hereby approved and directed to be filed.



Judge