In the Court of Common Pleas

of Philadelphia Criminal Trial Division



Mumia Abu-Jamal


Wesley Cook

January Term, 1982
Nos. 1357 Poss Instru of Crime Gen
Poss Instru of Crime, Concealed Weapon
1358 Murder
Voluntary Manslaughter
1359 Involuntary Manslaughter

July 3, 1982

Courtroom 253, City Hall


Jury trial


Before: Honorable Albert F. Sabo, Judge


  • Joseph McGill, Esquire
    Assistant District Attorney
    For The Commonwealth
  • Anthony Jackson, Esquire
    Attorney For The Defense
  • Mumia Abu-Jamal, Defendant

Page 1(a)


July 3,1982

Sentencing Hearing

Commonwealth Witnesses: Dr Cr Rdr Rcr
Patricia Beato 3 7
Defendant Abu-Jamal
(reading from a statement)
Page 10
Summations to the jury: 20
By Defense Council Page 34
By the Commonwealth 55
Charge of the Court 90
Verdict of the jury 98
Polling of the jury 99


Page 2.

(At 9:45 A.M. Counsel for the defense entered into the courtroom.)

(At 9:58 A.M. The Assistant District Attorney entered into the courtroom.)

(At 10:07 A.M. The defendant entered into the courtroom
and there was a conference with defense counsel.)

(At 10:17 A.M. The jury was seated in the box.)

(At 10:18 A.M. The court was convened, all parties present.)

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, and your verdict has been recorded.

We are now going to hold a sentencing hearing during which counsel may present additional evidence and arguments and you will decide whether the defendant is to be sentenced to death or life imprisonment.

Whether you sentence the defendant to death or to life imprisonment will depend upon what, if any, aggravating or mitigating

Page 3.

circumstances you find are present in this case.

Loosely speaking, aggravating and mitigating circumstances are circumstances concerning the killing and the killer which make a first degree murder case either more serious or less serious. The crimes code defines more precisely what constitutes aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Although I will give you detailed instructions later in this hearing, I will tell you now that aggravating circumstances must be proved by the Commonwealth beyond a reasonable doubt, while mitigating circumstances must be proved by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.

Mr. McGill, are you ready to proceed?

MR. MCGILL: Yes, your honor, if it please the court. Your honor, the Commonwealth's witness will be Miss Pat Beato.



MR. MCGILL: May I proceed your honor?


Page 4.


Q. Is that Beato or Beatto?

A. Beato.

Q. Miss Beato, where are you currently employed?

A. Philadelphia Police Department, personnel.

Q. Are you custodian of records?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And are you familiar to when those entries are made in reference to the records that are kept?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Have you, pursuant to a subpoena, ma'am, brought the records that I have requested to court today?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And just give us the name of the individual who is the subject of those personnel records?

A. Daniel J. Faulkner

MR. MCGILL: May I approach the witness?


(Whereupon the District Attorney approaches the witness bench.)


Q. Would you place it up here for a second?

(Whereupon the witness places her

Page 5.

personnel file on the witness bench for the District Attorney's observation.)

Now, Miss Beato, does it indicate the employment of --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what was the employment of that particular individual?

A. The position was that of a police officer.

Q. And when did he have his appointment date?

(Whereupon the witness examines the file.)

A. 5/31/76.

Q. And when was the last date that he was serviced?

A. 12/9/81.

Q. As part of these personnel records, are there various documents?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is the nature of those documents?

A. Commendations, commendatory letters and merits.

Q. What are they?

A. They are letters that people write in commending him for a job that he did and merits for a specific arrest that he made.

Q. Would you indicate how many documents there are?

Page 6.

(Whereupon the witness examines the file.)

A. Seven.

Q. And during the course of these particular documents, you indicated there were several merit indications?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And who, in experience, could tell us -- who determines the merit status?

A. The police commissioner.

MR. MCGILL: (examining the portfolio) excuse me while I find this.



Q. You are familiar with the notations on his record, his performance of either satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance ratings?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Would you take a look at those ratings?

(Whereupon the witness examines the ratings.)

Q. Would it be accurate to say, ma'am, that those documents reflect at all times that he was a police officer, the performance rating was satisfactory?

Page 7.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And at no time was there an unsatisfactory rating?

A. That's right, sir.

Q. And is it also accurate that on 12/9/81 the reason for his -- for determination or separation, -- excuse me, that's the correct word; separation was a service connected death?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. MCGILL: Cross-examine?

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, may I have the record and have an opportunity to review the record, please?


(Whereupon the District Attorney presents the personnel record to counsel for the defense who examines it at 10:25 A.M.)



Q. Miss Beato, is that the complete personnel record of Officer Faulkner?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is there well, there is an indication that on

Page 8.

11/15/79 there was a transfer of officer Faulkner to the sixth district.

MR. JACKSON: Perhaps -- Your Honor, may I approach the witness?


(Whereupon counsel for the defense approaches the witness box.)


Q. Again the question is: 11/15/79, there was a transfer of Officer Faulkner to the sixth district. Is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I note, and correct me if I am wrong, in October there was a request made for him to be transferred to the Sixth District and that was denied?

A. No, sir, it does not.

Q. Fine, correct me please?

A. Commissioner O'Neill felt him deserving of it and approved the assignment on 11/14/79.

Q. Fine.

A. I think it says up here -- (indicating by pointing on the document) -- "Due to the lack of man power that is why his commanding officer denied the

Page 9.

request, but commissioner O'Neill changed it on the back."

Q. Would the disciplinary record of Officer Faulkner be included in this?

A. Yes. He had no disciplinary record.

MR. JACKSON: Fine Thank you very much. I have no further questions, Your Honor.

MR. MCGILL: Thank you, Ma'am. Does the court have any questions?


(Whereupon the witness was excused and sequestered.)

MR. MCGILL: Your honor, the Commonwealth would move to incorporate all of the testimony of the trial into this hearing at this time and then rest for the sentencing hearing.

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, with your approval the defense would call Mumia Abu-Jamal.

THE COURT: Do you want to take the stand?

(Whereupon the defendant approaches the bar of the court.)

Page 10.

BY THE COURT CRIER: (To defendant at the bar of the court:)

Q. Would you state your full name for the record please?

A. Mumia Abu-Jamal.

(At 10:34 A.M. The defendant was affirmed of record.)

DEFENDANT JAMAL: I would like to read a statement.

THE COURT: Mr. Jackson, do you want to question him?

MR. JACKSON: Mr. Jamal would have something to say to the court.



DEFENDANT JAMAL: Today's decision comes as no surprise, in fact, many will remember that I said this would happen last week when John Africa predicted and prophesied this jury decision. I want everyone to know it came after a legal trained lawyer was imposed upon me against my will. A legal trained lawyer whose interests were clearly not my own. A legal

Page 11.

trained lawyer named Tony Jackson, a man who knew he was inadequate to the task and chose to follow the direction of this black-robed conspirator, Albert Sabo, even if it meant ignoring my directions.

To quote John Africa, "When a lawyer chooses to follow the conditions of the court, he compromises his obligation to his client, it was a legal, trained lawyer who followed Sabo's direction. Not to introduce the testimony of policeman Gary Wakshul, a cop who, according to his statement of 12-9-82, arrested me, carried me to a wagon, accompanied me to Jefferson Hospital, guarded me and returned to homicide later that morning to make a statement, according to Wakshul, quote, "We stayed with the male at Jefferson until we were relieved. During this time, the negro male made no comments." (Unquote). According to Wakshul's statement of Feb. the 11th, 1982, over 2 months later, Wakshul recalls, "Oh, yeah -- Jamal said: I shot him, I hope the dies." Did he consider that a "comment"? According to Sabo, Wakshul is on

Page 12.

vacation, so despite the fact his testimony is directly linked to a supposed confession, he would not be called in to testify. How convenient! It was a legal, trained lawyer who told the jury "You have heard all the evidence" -- knowing that wasn't so. The jury heard merely what Sabo allowed -- nothing more. Many jurors were told I would cross-examine witnesses, make opening and closing arguments, and explore evidence, what they also heard was I would act as my own attorney, my own lawyer. What they saw was a man silenced, gagged by judicial degree. So what they heard was nothing.

A man ordered not to fight for his life. Every so-called "right" was deceitfully stolen from me by Sabo. My demand that the defense assistance of my choice, John Africa, be allowed to sit at the defense table was repeatedly denied. While, meanwhile, in a city hall courtroom just 4 floors directly above, a man charged with murder sits with his lawyer and his father who just happens to be a Philadelphia policeman. The man, white, was charged with beating a black man to

Page 13.

death and came to court to have his bail revoked, after being free for several weeks. His bail was revoked after a public outcry in the black community about the granting of bail at all. Of course, my bail, a ransom of $250,0000,00 was revoked one day after it was issued. For one defendant everything is granted. For another, everything is denied.

But, isn't justice blind, equal in it is application? Did Winston see through it? Did Cornell Warren (sic) -- Cornell Warren was a -- (inaudible) -- to give justice to Philadelphia.

Does it matter whether a white man is charged with killing a black man or a black man is charged with killing a white man? As for justice when the prosecutor represents the Commonwealth the Judge represents the Commonwealth and the court-appointed lawyer is paid and supported by the Commonwealth who follows the wishes of the defendant the man charged with the crime? If the court-appointed lawyer ignores, or goes against the wishes of the man he is charged with representing, whose wishes does he follow?

Page 14.

Who does he truly represent or work for? To again quote John Africa, "When you judges hang a person, put a person in an electric chair, gas a person, shoot a person to death for a crime you all didn't see that person commit, you ain't solving the problem of crime of the so-called criminal or the victim. You've caused a burden for the mother that is now without a son, the wife that is now without a husband, the daughter that is now without a father and society for putting faith in this goddamning procedure, for it is the system that is guilty of the crimes of all that is criminal, all crimes are committed within the system not without, because the influence of that ignorant black boy you judges gassed to death, poor white boy you judges shot to death, unaware puerto rican boy, girl, adult you judges electrocuted to death came straight from you judges, your bosses, their crimes. In short, this system." A quotation by John Africa.

I am innocent of these charges that I have been charged of and convicted of and despite the connivance of Sabo, McGill and Jackson to deny me

Page 15.

my so-called rights to represent myself, to assistance of my choice, to personally select a jury who is totally of my peers, to cross-examine witnesses, and to make both opening and closing arguments, I am still innocent of these charges.

According to your so-called law, I do not have to prove my innocence. But, in fact, I did have to by disproving the Commonwealth's case. I am innocent despite what you 12 people think and the truth shall set me free.

This jury is not composed of my peers, for those closest to my life experiences were intentionally and systematically excluded, peremptorily excused. Only those prosecution prone, some who began with a fixed opinion of guilt, some related to city police, mostly white, mostly male remain. May they one day be so fairly judged.

Long live John Africa!! For his assistance in this fight for my life!! It is John Africa who has strengthened me, aided me, and guided me, and loved me! Could John Africa have done worse than this worthless sellout and shyster who

Page 16.

promised much and delivered nothing? Could he have done worse than Tony Jackson?

It was John Africa's influence that this court feared and his assistance that this court requested and denied as if it were unfair to have him help me fight for my life. It is his protection that remains despite this court's resistance and opinion.

On December the 9th, 1981, the police attempted to execute me in the street. This trial is a result of their failure to do so, just as police tried to kill my brothers and sisters of the family Africa on August the 8th, 1978, they failed and hence, a so-called trial was conducted to complete the execution. But long live John Africa for our continued survival!

This decision today proves neither my guilt nor my innocence. It proves merely that the system is finished. Babylon is falling!! Long live MOVE. Long live John Africa!

(There was a conference between counsel for the defense and the defendant.)

Page 17.

MR. JACKSON: I have no further questions, your honor.

MR. MCGILL: May I proceed, your honor?

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. MCGILL: Perhaps it would be better, your honor, if I would stand over here and direct my comments to him.

THE COURT: I don't care.

MR. MCGILL: It seems kind of silly if I turn to the right.

(Whereupon the District Attorney stands at the witness box
directing his cross-examination to the defendant.)

MR. MCGILL: I will not be that long ladies and gentlemen.

MR. JACKSON: Your honor, can we see you at side-bar for just one moment, please?

(The following colloquy occurred at side-bar.)

MR. JACKSON: Your honor, I know, of course, I am anticipating, I believe Mr. McGill has a number of newspaper articles and publications and perhaps other quotations. I would

Page 18.

object to the authority purportedly attributed or if attributed to the defendant, if they are not authenticated or without authentication and without any acknowledgement or truth, but, simply to the defendant himself. I would object to the questioning in that even if he asked the question, "Did you say so-and-so." whatever his answer is, or is going to be, it's already prejudiced the minds and inflame the jury and I would object to the reading of anything that is purported to be from the defendant.

MR. MCGILL: This is a sentencing hearing, Judge.


MR. MCGILL: And any kind of a statement that is made by the defendant, the purpose of the authentication, I would authenticate it is what the defendant would say, the actions that would result or -- strike that --

Actually what the defendant would say because of -- or, that he would adopt it or not, I think that would be entirely up to the determining factors as to whether or not the

Page 19.

evidence is admissible. I think he has opened up an extensive amount of doors. I can't begin to count them in the statement, including the inadmissible testimony, or the inadmissible evidence, or documents and quoting of people, John Africa, among others. There are so many doors open, Judge, that really --

THE COURT: I realize that.

MR. JACKSON: Well, that is his prerogative to project or not to project, but -- and to go into that, but an unauthenticated document --

THE COURT: You knew that Mr. Abu-Jamal had the statement prepared and you knew that he was going to read it regardless whether the District Attorney objected or not, so it seems in point that I will allow him to cross-examine him.

Go ahead.

(The above concluded the side-bar conference.)

(In open court)

MR. MCGILL: Mr. Jackson do you have a copy of that statement that he read?

Page 20.

MR. JACKSON: No, I don't.




Q. Mr. Jamal, what was the first quote you made that John Africa had stated - I think that might have been on your first page?

A. Why don't you ask the stenographer?

Q. Do you have it in front of you; the document that you read?

A. I sure do.

Q. Would you take a look at it and tell me what that says?

A. I said, why don't you ask the stenographer?

Q. Well, is there any particular reason why you don't want to respond to my question, sir?

A. (no answer)

Q. Let me try something else, then.

What is the reason you did not stand when Judge Sabo came into the courtroom.

MR. JACKSON: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.


Page 21.

deserves no honor from me or anyone else in this courtroom because he operates -- because of the force, not because of right.

(Whereupon the defendant stands up at defense counsel's table.)

Because, he is an executioner. Because, he is a hangman; that is why.


Q. You are not an executioner?

A. No.

(Whereupon the defendant sits at defense counsel's table.)

Are you?

Q. Mr. Jamal, let me ask you if you can recall saying something sometime ago and perhaps it might ring a bell as to whether or not you are an executioner or endorse such actions.

"Black brothers and sisters - and organizations - which would not commit themselves before are relating to us black people that they are facing -- we are facing the reality that the Black Panther party has been facing which is --

Now, listen to this quote. You've often been

Page 22.

quoted saying this:

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Do you remember saying that, sir?

A. I remember writing that. That's a quotation from Mao-Tse-Tung.

Q. There is also a quote --

A. Let me respond if I may?

Q. Well, let me ask you a question.

A. Let me respond fully. I was not finished when you continued.

Q. All right, continue.

A. Thank you.

Q. Continue to respond, then, please, sir.

A. That was a quotation from Mao-Tse-Tung of the Peoples Republic of China it's very clear that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun or else America wouldn't be here today. It is America who has seized political power from the Indian race, not by god, not by Christianity not by goodness but by the barrel of a gun.

Q. Do you recall making that quote, Mr. Jamal, to Acel Moore?

Page 23.

A. I recall quoting Mao-Tse-Tung to Acel Moore about 12 to 15 years ago.

Q. Do you recall saying: "All power to the people"? Do you recall that?

A. "All power to the people".

Q. Yes.

A. Yes. (Nods head affirmatively.)

Q. Do you believe that your actions as well as your philosophy are consistent with the quote:

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

A. I believe that America has proven that quote to be true.

Q. Do you recall saying that: "The Panther party is an uncompromising party, it faces reality"?

A. (Nods head affirmatively.) Yes. Why don't you let me look at the article so I can look at it in its full context, as long as you're quoting?

Q. I'd be very glad to give you the article. I am ashamed -- I'm kind of sorry you didn't give me your

Page 24.

statement before.

A. Well, you can't have everything I have.

Q. Here is your statement sir. Do you recall saying this when you had the name, West Cook?

A. Well, let me look at it.

(Whereupon the District Attorney presents the newspaper
article to the defendant who examines same.)

I would like to read the entire article if you have no objection?

MR. MCGILL: Go right ahead.

DEFENDANT JAMAL: Okay. Do you have the continuation, page 12, column 1?

MR. MCGILL: Here is the underlined area where: "The Panther party is an uncompromising party, it faces reality"

(Whereupon the District Attorney presents the
second portion of the article to the defendant.)

DEFENDANT JAMAL: This is Sunday morning,

Page 25.

January 4th, 1970, the Philadelphia Inquirer. It's a picture of West Cook, communication secretary for the Philadelphia Chapter, Black Panther party.


Q. Is that you?

A. That was my name when I was born.

Q. Well, is that you in that picture?

A. That is a picture of me 12 years ago.

Q. It says:

"His organization is doing what the churches are supposed to do. Chapter office is at 1928 Columbia Ave.

Protest killings by police. Headquarters cold, but issues are hot for black Panthers." By Acel Moore of the Inquirer staff.

The walls in the storefront headquarters at 1928 Columbia Ave. are painted black and plastered with revolutionary posters. The faces are dark and determined. Black men and women bundled in coats and jackets against the cold of the unheated interior are busy with telephones, paperwork, or huddling in earnest conference and barely take time to acknowledge new arrivals or departures. When they do, the standard salutation is a

Page 26.

slogan, "All power to the people."

It was busy before at the Philadelphia chapter headquarters of the Black Panther party, it's busier now.

"Since the murders," says West Cook, chapter communications secretary, "black brothers and sisters and organizations which wouldn't commit themselves before are relating to us. Black people are facing the reality that the Black Panther party has been facing: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Q. So that is a quote, isn't it?

A. "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Q. Mr. Jamal, is that a quote or is it not?

A. Can I finish reading?

Q. Well, is it a quote or isn't it?

A. Can I finish reading it?

Q. Well, will you answer the question?

A. Didn't I ask if I could read this in its entirety?

Q. Will you answer the question? Are there quotation marks there?

MR. JACKSON; Your Honor -- Your Honor --

Page 27.

Your Honor --

A. Will you stop interrupting me?

MR. JACKSON: He already agreed to let him read it. May he read it?

A. If you want to go over it after I finish, that's okay.

MR. MCGILL: Would Your Honor rule?

THE COURT: Let him read it.


DEFENDANT JAMAL: "Since the murders," says West Cook, chapter communication secretary, "black brothers and sisters and organizations which wouldn't commit themselves before are relating to us. Black people are facing the reality that the Black Panther party has been facing: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

Murders a calculated design of genocide and a national plot to destroy the party leadership is what the Panthers and their supporters call a bloody two year history of police raids and shootouts. The Panthers say 28 party members

Page 28.

have died in police gunfire during that period, to last month.

Police who have had officers killed and wounded by Panther gunfire deny there is a plot. Police have been shot at, they say, simply and they have shot back.

Nevertheless, the gun battles and arrests of Panther leaders have convinced the Black Panthers that it is a party under siege.

Although there have been no shootouts between Philadelphia Panthers and police, Cook who ranks behind defense capt. Reggie Schell and Sister Love, a young woman who is field lieutenant in the Philadelphia leadership says there could have been.

On September the 28th, the FBI arrested Schell on a charge of possession of a stolen government weapon after alleging finding a loaded marine M-14 rifle in his room and city police raided the party headquarters confiscating some office equipment.

They would have shot us then, Cook recently told a visitor to the headquarters, speaking with

Page 29.

deliberate conviction, "Except we were all out in the community working at the time."

There were no visible weapons in the headquarters, but we can't hope to exist he said without some kind of protection.

Referring frequently to the party's newspaper, the Black Panther, West stressed the aim of the Black Panther party of helping black Americans gain a sense of dignity and of the party's insistence on self-defense.

There are 26 rules outlining the Black Panther newspaper for party members. One of them stipulates that no party member will use, point or fire a weapon of any kind unnecessarily or accidentally hurt anyone. Another rule however, states that all Panthers must learn to operate and service weapons correctly.

Genocide is coming to the forefront under the Nixon, Agnew and Mitchell regime says West, and that is exactly what it is. The Panther party is an uncompromising party. It faces reality.

In Philadelphia at least the Panther have been more socially activist than militant. Their

Page 30.

rhetoric, frequent references to policemen as 'facist pigs,' and a 'racist, capitalistic American society' has been angrier than their actions.

Like other Panther chapters, the Philadelphia Black Panther party has established a free breakfast program for needy children. Cook estimates that the Philadelphia Panthers feed about 80 children daily. The number fluctuates some -- at two centers, 1916 W. Columbia Avenue and at the Houston Community Center, 8th St. and Snyder Ave.

Pennsylvania Black Panther party members have also initiated breakfast programs in Harrisburg and in Reading. The food is obtained primarily from donations by merchants in black ghetto areas but Cook denies charges which have been made, accusing the Panthers of intimidation. "The donations", he said, "are voluntary."

By Mr. McGill:

Q. Mr. Jamal, let me ask you again, sir. If I may --

MR. MCGILL: If I may ask a question Judge? Was that or was that not a quote that you made to

Page 31.

Acel Moore?

A. That was a quote from Mao-Tse-Tung.

Q. Is that one that you have adopted?

A. Say again?

Q. Have you adopted that as your philosophy theory?

A. No, I have not adopted that, I repeated that.

Q. Let me ask you, Mr. Jamal, when you were before this court, I believe it was yesterday, you said: "The system is finished," is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. During the course of this trial, several times, sir, you continuously said, "That rulings went one way or the other and they would go against you at times." You would then say, "Rulings are not to my satisfaction," And then, you would go on and on and on and on, is that accurate?

A. What did I say, "Going on and on and on;" are you quoting me now?

Q. Well, did you not continue to complain --

A. What did I say?

Q. -- argue and continually --

A. What did I say?

Q. -- about it?

Page 32.

Mr. Jamal, do you recall those, sir?

A. I said, what did I say?

Q. Mr. Jamal, did you or did you not? Are you going to just keep on asking questions like you did to Judge Sabo, and constantly playing with words?

A. I'm not playing with words. I want you to ask me -- you said, I was going on and on and on, and I said to you, what did I say; that's all.

Q. Did you not continually question Judge Sabo and disagree with his rulings continually after he ordered you again and again and again and again is that correct?

A. (No answer)

Q. Or, is it not?

A. Did I disagree? Most certainly I disagreed with his rulings.

Q. Do you recall in front of the Supreme Court Justice McDermott who had affirmed the order of this court that your counsel continue to represent you that you shouted to him as he walked out, McDermott, get back here, "Do you remember saying that

A. No. (shakes head negatively)

Page 33.

A. I said, "McDermott, where are you going?"

Q. Just like that? "McDermott, where are you going?"

A. I said, "McDermott, where are you going?" He wasn't as close as you are to me, I'm sorry.

Q. That was the only reason you wanted to know where he was going?

A. Because, he got up and walked away while I was trying to address him. Because, I was trying to make a point, this man could not defend my life. This is a perfect example of how well he is defending me.

Q. Mr. Jamal, on April the 29th, 1982, do you recall being in front of Judge Ribner?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you recall over about two or three actual pages of testimony saying such things as, and this was in court, open court:

"I don't give a damn what you think, go to hell. What the hell are you afraid of? What the hell are you afraid of bastard?"

Do you recall saying that to Judge Ribner?

A. Sure do. (Nods head affirmatively.)

MR. MCGILL: I have nothing further, Judge.

Page 34.

MR. JACKSON: Mr. Jamal do you have anything further?

DEFENDANT JAMAL: (shaking head negatively) No. (Waving of the hand away.)

MR. JACKSON: The defense would rest Your Honor.

THE COURT: Members of the jury you must now decide whether the defendant is to be sentenced to death --

MR. JACKSON: Excuse me, Your Honor, may I see you at side-bar?

THE COURT: I'm sorry; I'm sorry.


THE COURT: You're right.

MR. JACKSON: May I proceed, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. JACKSON: Ladies and gentlemen you are of course now at the juncture where you must decide whether Mr. Jamal should receive life imprisonment or the imposition of the death penalty. Although His Honor, Judge Sabo, is in deed the judge of the law, I have an opportunity -- I

Page 35.

have a right to comment on the law. The law as is given by Judge Sabo is the law that you must follow.

In the state of Pennsylvania, as His Honor, Judge Sabo, has indicated to you earlier the method by which, or the guide by which you are to follow in determining whether life imprisonment should be imposed, or the death penalty, says in effect that there are aggravating circumstances, meaning the presence of aggravating circumstances which would suggest to you the imposition of death would be appropriate. Although I can't presume what the Commonwealth will present to you in terms of its argument, the very first paragraph of our aggravating circumstances reads: "The victim was a fireman, peace officer or public servant concerned in official detention as defined in 18 PA, Section 5121, relating to escape who is killed in the performance of his duties."

I would assume that the Commonwealth will suggest to you that Officer Faulkner was a peace officer. Although the legislators, the

Page 36.

Pennsylvania Legislators, has not specifically indicated that indeed a police officer is a person or the status of a person for which you are to decide that aggravating circumstances exist. So that you are left with the responsibility to determine if in fact it was the responsibility, the intent of the legislators to include police officers in this section. They did not specifically indicate police officers but I would assume the Commonwealth is going to argue that this is what they meant. If they meant police officers, why didn't they say police officers? It's not a decision that I can make for you. I'll bring that to your attention as a matter I think you need to consider.

The Commonwealth also has the responsibility of proving that beyond a reasonable doubt. Although you have made your decision this is not the opportunity, this is not the moment for me to now be critical of that decision but to move on. There are also mitigating circumstances that these legislators point out and indicate

Page 37.

that you must consider if these mitigating circumstances exist. Then, you are to weigh them against the aggravating circumstances.

Unfortunately, the legislators have not, have not sufficiently presented guidelines for you to weigh the aggravating versus the mitigating. What do I mean by that? Does it take one aggravating to offset two mitigating or does it take three mitigating to offset one or two aggravating? The legislators have not decided that. They simply -- the legislators simply said that you are to weigh them, how much weight is given to a killing of a peace officer? How much weight is to be given to the age of the defendant? How much weight is to be given to the lack of the criminal history of the defendant? How much weight is to be given to the family of the defendant? How much weight is to be given to his prior employment history?

Now why do I say how much weight is to be given to mitigating circumstances? The legislators, again, mitigating circumstances shall include the

Page 38.


Number one, "The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal convictions." I assure you if there were, Mr. McGill certainly would have told you there were prior significant convictions. There are none.

"The defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance." That section does not mean that someone was mentally ill. It suggests by your verdict that you must assume that as a result of Officer Faulkner's beating William Cook, you felt that Mr. Jamal came to the rescue of his brother. If that is indeed your assumption, the question then would be was that circumstance sufficient to provoke anger, fear, to such an extent that the offense occurred. You must decide then, not by reasonable doubt mind you, as His Honor, Judge Sabo, has indicated to you that the defense must not prove its mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, but by a preponderance of the evidence.

Preponderance of the evidence is not the

Page 39.

same type of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. His Honor, Judge Sabo will instruct you on that.

We go on to mitigating circumstances. The age of the defendant at the time of the crime. That is a circumstance that you must consider, whether the person was obviously an adult and there is a factor for you to assume that someone who is 25, 26, 27, the age at the commission of the crime should receive the same penalty as someone who is 18, or someone who is 50 or 60 or 70, for that matter. It is a factor that you must consider.

These mitigating circumstances that I'm indicating to you are not things that you may or may not consider; you must consider, you must consider these mitigating circumstances when you look at the aggravating circumstances as suggested by the Commonwealth.

Another mitigating circumstance was --

strike that I'm sorry.

Any evidence of mitigation concerning the character and record of the defendant and the circumstances of his defense. What does that

Page 40.


Generally speaking, you heard character witnesses testify on behalf of Mr. Jamal. The Commonwealth has just had Mr. Jamal to read a statement that he had given perhaps 12 years ago, and Mr. Jamal indicated that he was a member of the Black Panther party. When he further indicated that he was concerned about the black community, that is not a concern, unfortunately, of a lot of people. By and large the concern, the interest in the black community is left with those persons who have an interest in the black community. Black persons. Black persons who are not at all intimidated by what the system has forced upon them.

I'm not here to give you a history lesson or racial prejudice. I'm not going to present you with a history of bias or the racial slurs the black persons had to endure in this country. Many of you, I am sure, are already aware of that. There have been a number of groups in my lifetime, before my lifetime, who have attempted to assist black people in the black community

Page 41.

because there has been not just a seeming indifference, but a real indifference to the problems that plague the black community. For some time in the past at least, the white community has simply been afraid of the words Black Panther. That was seemingly an attitude of the white people. It was almost as if it was Ku Klux Klan, the black people.

But, what is it? How much do you really know about the Black Panther party? Simply because they repeat as Mr. McGill asked Mr. Jamal, simply because they repeat what someone else, -- Mao Tse-Tung may have said sometime ago, can we deny that political power in America was a result of a gun?

We know that we fought Great Britain. We know that we fought Indians, and we fought and we fought and we fought. And, we're still fighting in this world.

Does that in and of itself indicate that Mr. Jamal is abdicating violence? I think not. The article went on to state that the Black Panther, along with Mr. Jamal, fed 80 black kids

Page 42.

daily. Can any of you -- and I don't say this in criticism -- but can any of you say that you fed 80 black kids each day? Those black kids needed to be fed.

So, the reality of the Black Panther party, the reality of Mr. Jamal's interest, the reality of Mr. Jamal's activities presented to you now for which you are to judge whether or not this man is to receive the penalty or life imprisonment.

One of the interesting things that the legislators have indicated is that if in fact someone is a fireman, a peace officer, or someone who is concerned in detention of offenders and if you kill those individuals those three types of persons, then the death penalty could be imposed. Well, what happens if your occupation is something else? Why not lawyers? Or judges? Or telephone linemen, secretaries, hospital workers, retired persons? Does that mean that your life is not worth as much as a police officer?

I am suggesting to you that when you consider that if that is the aggravating

Page 43.

circumstance upon which you are to impose death, why is it that someone, the legislators have decided well, there are some people that if you kill them, you're to get the death penalty, but if you don't kill -- if you kill somebody else, well, then, that is not an aggravating circumstance. They don't even say the Governor of the State, the Mayor of the City, or the President of the United States. Just certain status of people, so that means that someone has decided, some people have decided that there are certain people in this Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that if you kill them, or you're convicted of killing them, that we're going to impose death because that is an aggravating circumstance. Is that fair? Is that fair to you? Is that fair to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? Is it fair to the defendant?

Oftentimes when we get to the stage of the sentencing hearing, many people -- perhaps many among you as well simply as a result of your voir dire indications that you have no moral, religious scruples that would prevent you from

Page 44.

imposing the death penalty in an appropriate case. In the appropriate case, many of you may - I know some people believe that the death penalty acts as a deterrent; that is -- well, if we impose death on someone then that will send signals throughout the community, throughout the state, that if you do certain things that you will be given the death penalty. Now, think about that. How many people do you think when they're committing crimes think about number one, being caught and number two, being convicted and number three, given the death sentence? Do you really think there is a rational decision that is being made that before I do this, am I going to be killed? Does that act as a deterrent? Statistics say no.

The death penalty, of course, has not been imposed since 1972 as administered. It's been ruled unconstitutional. So up until 1972 thousands of people have been killed in America unconstitutionally, so now you're being asked to do something that people had done for years and years and years thinking that it was right to

Page 45.

kill someone. And now, later on the court said that was unconstitutional, it was wrong, it was wrong. Wrong.

In Pennsylvania when, of course, we have not had a death since perhaps 1962, 1963, but again, because the death penalty as it's been administered, not just in Pennsylvania, but throughout the United States was declared by the United States Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. So, we're now still waiting for the United States Supreme Court to determine whether or not you can constitutionally impose death and carry out death in the state of Pennsylvania.

We talk about first degree murder. His Honor, Judge Sabo, gave you instructions when you deliberated as to the requirements of the elements of first degree murder. One of those requirements is premeditation, meaning think about it. Deliberation, discussing, you think about it. Discuss it.

Let me ask you, as 12 members, 12 people, when you retire to the sentencing hearing, what do you do? You go back and you discuss the

Page 46.

termination of his life. That's what you going to do. The state has said that's what he has done when he committed first degree murder. You're going to go back and discuss whether or not he lives or dies. You're going to have an opportunity to think about his family. You're going to have an opportunity to think about the provocation.

Can you say, your actions -- again, I'm not criticizing, I'm simply -- I simply want you to be aware and to consider your situation that you're in -- can you say that your directed actions are not consistent with those persons who are indeed convicted of first degree murder when you're saying it's a premeditated act, it's a deliberate act. That is in effect what you'll be doing. You'll be committing and condoning first degree.

McGill: Objection.

THE COURT: Objection; Mr. Jackson, please.

MR. JACKSON: I say --

THE COURT: Please.

MR. JACKSON: Yes, Your Honor.

Page 47.

Again, with regard to the imposition of the death sentence as a deterrent, I don't know how many of you have ever seen an execution; I don't know if anyone else in this courtroom has seen an execution. Why; because, executions are carried out in secret. How can a secret execution act as a deterrent upon persons who have never seen it carried out? It just won't happen. It's a legal fallacy, it's something that we tell ourselves in order to wretch vengeance for crimes that are committed.

Officer Faulkner cannot be brought back no matter what it is that you do; no matter what it is that you think; no matter what it is that you want to do. His life is now gone and there is no way that you can do anything to bring that life back.

Should vengeance be yours? Or, should vengeance be god's? I ask you that in justice's name.

You know one of the things that occurred to me when we get again to the stage of the death penalty is aside from the fact that I'm suggesting

Page 48.

to you that the death penalty is unwarranted in this case, of course, and you by again your voir dire promises indicated you have no moral philosophical scruples that would prevent you from imposing the death sentence -- but, at the same time just consider in the western world, in France, there is no death penalty. Great Britain there is no death penalty. Scandinavian countries, no death penalty. Holland no death penalty.

Where do they have the death penalty? Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan.

MR. MCGILL: Objection your honor.

THE COURT: You're going a little too far, Mr. Jackson.

MR. JACKSON: Your honor, it's a fact.

THE COURT: You're going a little too far. All right.

MR. JACKSON: Nevertheless --

THE COURT: All right.

COURT CRIER: (To the audience) Quiet.

MR. JACKSON: My indication to you is to consider, although you must follow the order of

Page 49.

the court by virtue of the promises that you have given the court, I ask you at this moment whether in fact you're going to feel satisfied and comfortable making the decision that the Commonwealth would ask you to make, rendering the death penalty.

I suggest to you that although we still have the death penalty or provisions for the death penalty in Pennsylvania, will you one day wonder if in fact the United States Supreme Court says, well, for whatever reasons, whatever reasons the provisions of the death penalty as it is administered doesn't constitute cruel and unusual punishment? Is it going to be constitutional? Isn't that why one day something can be legal and constitutional, and the very next day it's not?

So, you're being asked at this very moment to decide whether or not it is all right to kill Mr. Jamal.

MR. MCGILL: Objection.

MR. JACKSON: Or, maybe tomorrow impose the death penalty and forgive him. Impose the

Page 50.

death penalty today and possibly tomorrow or the next day, the law might be changed.

MR. MCGILL: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, if it's changed then it will take care of itself.

Please, try not to be so personally involved in that phase.

MR. JACKSON: Yes, Your Honor.

COURT CRIER: (to the audience) quiet, please.

MR. JACKSON: What's the alternative? The alternative obviously is life imprisonment. You read, you hear, you think, presume someone who is given life sentence will be out in a certain number of years. Don't believe every thing that you hear and say about people who are given life sentence and are out in a few years. It happens in some few cases. Just some few cases. Some isolated cases that someone brings to your attention, that the press for one reason or another decides that they are going to bring to your attention.

Those persons who are given life sentences

Page 51.

a lot of time. A lot of time. Do they serve life sentences? Do they serve out their time until they die? There are some persons who do that.

What is life imprisonment? Life imprisonment is a life in a cage. That's what it is. It's no easy way. There is no pretty way of saying it.

MR. MCGILL: Objection, Your Honor.

MR. JACKSON: It's life in a cell. You can call a cell a cage; you can call a cell a box; you can call it what you will.

This is argument, counsel.

MR. MCGILL: Your Honor, I object. We're talking about aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

THE COURT: Please, much too far.

MR. JACKSON: Before or during the time that you're considering the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances consider, is there some compelling reason, some compelling reason why you must in this case impose death because the individual who was killed was a

Page 52.

police officer as opposed to -- suppose he was a lawyer that was killed? Suppose it was an office worker, or a hospital worker, retired person? Is there some reason -- is society so compelling that society says yes in certain kinds of cases there are some lives that are more important than other lives to such an extent that we're going to take another life.

I am suggesting to you that that situation does not exist in this case. Also, understand and appreciate historically in America, in Pennsylvania and in Philadelphia, the death penalty has been imposed on certain classes of people; poor people, black people, and men. Mr. Jamal fits those categories. Statistics -- this is not Tony Jackson telling you -- statistics you will see that the greater percentage of those persons killed for the death penalty imposed have been black people, poor people and men. Black men who are poor. Do you just want to add to that statistic. I would hope not.

Consider the mitigating circumstances; consider them fully. I'm suggesting to you that

Page 53.

the mitigating circumstances that I have suggested to you, the legislators have indicated that you must consider it. It's something that you are bound to accept, just as you're bound to accept the instructions of the court.

Just quote again from the statute:

"The verdict must be a sentence of death if the jury unanimously finds at least one aggravating circumstance specified in subsection D" and that's what I was talking to you about, an aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances. Understand that. Again, if you find aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances, you are permitted to impose the death penalty.

I am suggesting to you at least four mitigating circumstances, it goes on.

"Or, if the jury unanimously finds that one or more aggravating circumstances which outweigh any mitigating circumstance, the verdict must be a sentence of life imprisonment in all other cases."

I'm saying to you that the legislators,

Page 54.

although it has not specifically and entirely given you guidelines -- I think the legislators have said we don't really know how you weigh aggravating circumstances against mitigating, but if you find there are indeed mitigating circumstances that outweigh the aggravating circumstances, then you would be doing your duty to impose life imprisonment.

I ask you ladies and gentlemen, --

(Whereupon there was an extended pause while counsel
drinks water and composes his emotions.)

I ask you at this moment before Mr. McGill addresses you again, is there some compelling reason?

Thank you.

(At 11:24 A.M. Counsel for the defense concluded
his closing argument to the jury.)

MR. MCGILL: Your honor may I have five minutes?


COURT CRIER: Everyone remain seated while the jury leaves the room.

Page 55.

(At 11:24 A.M. The court was recessed.)

(At the same time the defendant was taken to the sheriff's cell room for bathroom privileges and returned at 11:38 A.M.)

(At 11:39 A.M. The jury was seated in the box,
the court being reconvened, all parties present.)

MR. MCGILL: Your honor, may I proceed?


MR. MCGILL: Mr. Jackson.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be speaking to you and this will really be the last time you'll be spoken to by either counsel. Following me will be the court who will give you brief instructions and then, you will go out and deliberate. There will be no extensive time period before that time.

I better not give you a time period as to the amount of time because I've already been wrong, a couple of times, so I just better stay away from that. But, I will try at best to keep it within say 45 minutes, a half hour, 45 minutes;

Page 56.

maybe within that time, possibly.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of this hearing as you clearly know is to determine the sentence for this defendant. You've heard a number of things. You had the opportunity to actually hear this defendant who chose to testify; he didn't have to, but he did. You had an opportunity of seeing the person, the type of person he is, and how he is. That way you again have an opportunity to reflect back upon the incident the events at the time.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, what we're talking about in terms of sentencing is aggravating and mitigating circumstances. That is it. I'm not going to come up with philosophy or the statutes, or whatever, except perhaps on one or two circumstances, and I will attempt to rebut something that Mr. Jackson said. But, other than that what you're concerned about is just that, aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the effect of either.

Because, ladies and gentlemen what we are dealing with now and who we are dealing with now is

Page 57.

a convicted murderer. This man is no longer presumed innocent. This man over here -- (indicating by pointing) -- is a killer, you're looking and have heard a killer. That's who we're dealing with. This is not a trial; this is a sentencing hearing.

Now, to what extent when we review this has this killer merited one or the other type of sentence?

The law is what you must be guided by, and beg you to consider that. That is what all of us have to be guided by. You must concern yourself with the tenets of law, the specific categories, and then, listen to the instructions. Very briefly, you will have either two situations to concern yourself with.

One would be aggravating circumstances that exist and no mitigating circumstances. Actually, I said two -- you can have three. Aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances. So, up here we have aggravating and no mitigating (whereupon the District Attorney illustrates

Page 58.

with his arms as a scale).

Another time, you can have no aggravating circumstances and mitigating. So, it would be like this. (Again, illustrating.)

Now, in between is the balancing stage where you would have aggravating and mitigating in which out balances or outweighs each other. Does the aggravating outweigh the mitigating? Does the mitigating outweigh the aggravating? That one area there. (Again, indicating)

So I would say to you then, that in either of the situations where you would find aggravating circumstances, one or more, and no mitigating circumstances then the penalty of death would be mandated by law. The other situation, we would have aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances, but the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances. (indicating) Whether it be one or more aggravating circumstances or one or more mitigating circumstances. Either way, if the aggravating outweighs the mitigating, then the law requires the death penalty. That basically is only under

Page 59.

those circumstances that you can impose it. But, if you find those facts, it's mandated by the statute; it's really not a question of discretion, but those facts must be found.

Ladies and gentlemen, in terms of facts what we're dealing with -- because you will not be dealing with philosophy and I'll not go into that. We're dealing with the real facts. We're dealing with facts on December the 9th, 1981 and circumstances that surround that particular incident. We're dealing with facts of evidence which have been presented before you. What kind of evidence, not what kind of speculation, but evidence that you have heard on either side to make a determination about this aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

You have heard such things as age as a mitigating circumstance. You have heard character as a mitigating circumstance. You have had some sort of an emotional disturbance or emotional feeling. You heard nothing at all ladies and gentlemen in reference to testimony as to any kind of emotional feeling on the defendant's part

Page 60.

because he has, as is his absolute right, he did not choose to take the stand and testify what the circumstances were. So, as a result, that really is not evidence that you would consider because it's just not in the record.

And you heard from what the evidence was at trial, exactly what those circumstances were, in terms of the aggravating circumstances you must consider this. The aggravating circumstance would be of a police officer being killed during the course of duty. Right in the line of duty.

There could be also another aggravating circumstance to the extent that another individual, namely William Cook, was in fact possibly, or could possibly have been injured as a result of this defendant's shooting since he was near by. That could possibly be an aggravating circumstance, but I just put that aside and deal with the main one, and that is, a police officer in the line of duty.

Because, ladies and gentlemen, that is what were talking about and in which I would like to focus clearly on. And I will read this since

Page 61.

Mr. Jackson didn't mention something about the peace officer in case there is any doubt in any of your minds:

"The peace officer is any person who by virtue of his office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to maintain public order or to make arrests for offenses."

Ladies and gentlemen, that is a police officer. So, it is clear that is one of the aggravating circumstances, police officer in the line of duty.

Now, you might ask yourself -- as a matter of fact, Mr. Jackson asked you too, in so many words why couldn't it be somebody else? What about a lawyer or a laborer or an insurance salesman, or somebody like that? Why does it have to be a police officer? You may ask yourself why.

Well, the fact of the matter is that Daniel Faulkner himself at the same age as he was, 26 years of age, actually younger than this defendant is now, that man if he were off duty or if he were not a police officer and did the

Page 62.

exact same thing as what occurred on December the 9th, for some reason was talking to William Cook or something, and then the defendant came over and shot him as viciously as you heard the testimony, with that same weapon and that same repeated fashion, there would be no aggravating circumstance. You would ask yourself why? Same vicious act, but why?

Ladies and gentlemen, I'll point out to you what we must consider is the law as it is, the law as set out by the legislators, which is the law of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the purpose behind the law to determine why is this such an important aggravating circumstance? It was asked by the defense. I will attempt to respond.

The fact of the matter is simply this. It's all called law and order. That is why that is so important, that aggravating circumstance. Law and order. And, ladies and gentlemen, this is what this trial is all about more than any other trial I have ever seen, and certainly, more than any other I have been, because you, yourself,

Page 63.

have seen, you have heard things that are going on and you have heard testimony of things that are going on as to what is lawful and what is not lawful, and actions, arrogance, reactions against the law, law and order.

So, ladies and gentlemen, we then will simply make the response, at least ask yourselves the question, are we going to live in a society with law and order, and are we going to enforce the laws consistent with the intention of law and order, or are we going to decide our own rules and then act accordingly? That's really what we are talking about. Because, Daniel Faulkner on December the 9th, 1981, in very plain view was wearing his officer's uniform and Daniel Faulkner, as was brought to my attention last night by the assigned detective, Detective Bill Thomas who worked with me constantly during this, and I didn't realize this, but it is true, Daniel Faulkner, ladies and gentlemen, actually wore his hat, you may not think -- he wore his hat when he got out of his car. This hat right here. (indicating by illustrating) How many

Page 64.

police officers wear their hat -- wear their hat when they get out of the car? They should, but they get out. What is the reason? What is he doing? Why is he doing this?

Ladies and gentlemen, in plain view of everybody at 13th and Locust Streets, clearly with the simple -- with the manifestation, with the presence of law and order in that section of the city, from head to toe that man was a police officer, able to be seen and maintaining order and not only walking over and maintaining order with his uniform, but also in a police car that was marked in plain view.

What does that mean? Ladies and gentlemen, this is our core, our unity of any kind of order, and that is individuals that are trying to enforce it. Why is it so important? Because, once we have the opportunity presented that anybody can kill a cop and it doesn't matter, you may as well forget about law and order just throw it right out.

I might mention the fact, it was true this morning, and this is really what this is all

Page 65.

about. This morning before I left -- actually, my mother actually called me up and we were talking about the case a little bit and before went down there, she said this to me. She simply said, you know, and I won't go into some of the other things that she said about this case, but she specifically said this "Joe, if you can come up --" and this is a lady who is in her seventies, she said, "Joe, if you can come up and kill a police officer who is going to protect me?"

That's what she said and then, she goes off and that was it. But, that, ladies and gentlemen, is really what it is all about. Because, that is what our system and the kind of constant battleground that we have during the course of every day in this city. The only symbol of people that are attempting to enforce the law, to control and protect people are police officers. And, if you can at will kill police, ladies and gentlemen, you then make that extra step towards the area which is without law enforcement, which is an outright jungle. We are one step from the jungle without the opportunity

Page 66.

of individuals to enforce the law.

Law and order. That's what this case is about and that is what the legislators view that particular aggravating circumstance. So important that it lists number one. Those legislators are not police officers, all part of a fraternity. They want to put that aggravating circumstance number one that was it, order.

Order, ladies and gentlemen, that you may not have seen; order that this defendant has decided is not good enough for him. Order that he says, I don't care about standing, I have no respect for him. I don't care if Justice McDermott is going to walk away. I don't care if Judge Ribner says things, I'm just going to curse at him and say it because I don't have to agree with him. I don't agree with this. So, I'm going to do this. Completely in violation of any law and order is what you have seen and what you have seen in this very courtroom.

The arrogance, the defiance all present the grandiose defiance continuously present.

Interesting to note that one reason in a

Page 67.

situation which is truly amazing to you is the kind of situation where an individual from the outset who has actually represented this defendant almost on a daily basis for a six month period, constantly and with all the ability he has and with extreme competence is not only criticized by the defendant continuously, but all the people that are supporting him, yelling and screaming --

MR. JACKSON: Objection.

MR. MCGILL: -- in fighting for his life.

MR. JACKSON: Objection Your Honor.

MR. MCGILL: And I'll tell you, ladies and gentlemen, - -

THE COURT: It's noted.

MR. MCGILL: I will tell you, ladies and gentlemen, about that is this, Justice McDermott himself when he was walking out made a decision and he affirmed Judge Sabo's decision.

MR. JACKSON: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.

MR. MCGILL: And he affirmed Judge Sabo's

Page 68.

decision, which says you have to have a lawyer which happens to be the law of this Commonwealth to be present with you, and that is the situation, and, you have to do this.

No, again, I don't want this. Again, he is viewed as some sort of an individual who's a traitor because he is doing what -- following the law. The law of Judge Sabo, the law of the Supreme Court. Again, this is what this is all about, law and order. How do we avoid it if we don't like it, we don't just accept it, and we don't try to change it from within, we just rebel against it. And maybe that was the siege all the way back then with political power, power growing out of the barrel of a gun. No matter who said it, when you do say it and when you feel it, and particularly in an area when you're talking about police or cops or shootings and so forth, even back then, this is not something that happened over night.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is one thing, that is to kill an individual, that is atrocious, another thing, to kill a police officer who

Page 69.

obviously and presently is attempting to protect, attempting to assist us to live on a daily basis and yet, there is that one other thing about all of this, and that one other thing is the manner in which you execute and you saw that and you heard all that testimony. And you can almost see, I am sure, how it was done with the arrogance that has been displayed in front of you over this period of time. An individual who defiantly will do it and then, defiantly brag after it, and it is not completely in character. Maybe not so as the individual who wrote a forward to the book that actually praised another individual by the name of Joanne Chesamar (sic). I mean, that person thinks that that character is good and all, but that happens to be the subject of that individual who herself was convicted of killing a police officer.

MR. JACKSON: Objection. Objection Your Honor.

May we see you at side-bar? Objection, objection.

MR. MCGILL: Of killing a police officer,

Page 70.

a state trooper in New Jersey who had stopped a car, who had actually stopped a car.

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, objection. Your Honor, may I see you at side-bar? Your Honor --

THE COURT: It's noted. Let him finish.

MR. MCGILL: Ladies and gentlemen, that is the kind of individual who says that character is okay. All right, ladies and gentlemen, let us take a look at what we're talking about and if we are talking about so much in reference to individuals that will constantly violate whatever law there might be, whether it be the law of the court or the law of Judge Sabo, or just refuse to abide at all, let's again take a look at the act itself, and I think that you will find two things. Let's look at this as we're talking about the individual who executed a police officer as you saw. What else did he do besides that?

You know, ladies and gentlemen, if you look at that, you can see in that act an extreme amount of cowardice. Because, in order to be sure we're

Page 71.

going to kill and shoot him in the back when he's not even looking at us; we'll get him in the back.

Ladies and gentlemen, these are the facts and those -- that is the evidence that is the evidence that you heard in the execution of a man fully uniformed, a police officer, Daniel Faulkner.

Ladies and gentlemen, there has been much said about individuals' philosophies. Anybody can grasp or hold any kind of philosophy you want, that's fine. That's what this country happens to be all made of. But, one thing that cannot be tolerated is constant abuse of authority, defiance of authority, and daily law breaking. That simply is not permitted. And, ladies and gentlemen, I ask no one, even indirectly, to enforce any such thing.

Ladies and gentlemen, you are not asked to kill anybody. You are asked to follow the law. The same law that I keep on throwing at you, saying those words, law and order. I should point out to you it's the same law that has for six months provided safeguards for this defendant. The same law, ladies and gentlemen,

Page 72.

The same law that will provide him appeal after appeal after appeal.

MR. JACKSON: Objection.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. MCGILL: The same law, ladies and gentlemen, --

THE COURT: (To spectators)

Quiet; quiet, please or you'll go out.

Please. Go ahead.

MR. MCGILL: The same law, ladies and gentlemen, that has made it so because of the constant appeals, that as Mr. Jackson said, nobody at all has died in Pennsylvania since 1962 for an incident that occurred in 1959. Who, by the way, and it's only by the way, in fact he also was a white man, Elmo Smith was the name; remember that going way back, 1959 incident? The rape and murder of Mary Ann Mitchell. The last one who was executed and that's over 20 years; appeal after appeal after appeal. That law should be that way and that law should be followed, and he should have every

Page 73.

appeal. But, the same law that permits this, ladies and gentlemen, let us -- let me urge you to consider and enforce that law today because the law is not -- or, the law is, rather, a double edged saw, it works for both sides. It works for both sides.

So when you are determining in reference to the evidence only, and that evidence would be aggravating and mitigating circumstances, nothing more. In considering those, only consider the evidence you heard, the age, the age of Daniel Faulkner. You heard no evidence of the --

MR. JACKSON: Objection, Your Honor. Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. MCGILL: You heard also the mention, the age, he did mention the circumstances surrounding his mental frame of mind, which is no evidence whatsoever. That's not evidence. Because it was not there. The other evidence, and you heard from individuals in terms of mitigation; those are the factors, but on the

Page 74.

other side, you have the aggravating circumstances that I mentioned and in particular, in particular the primary one, the police officer in the line of duty.

And I ask you to consider that because that is what the law and order is all about. Not the fact of who represented him, not the fact whether John Africa, the name John Africa, who I have never seen in this courtroom for some reason, never testified as to character or anything like that, this individual who is constantly called and so forth, that is not the relevant issue. The issue is the evidence that is presented before you and where you have aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and where you weigh them. Where you weigh them.

Ladies and gentlemen, there have been a number of cases where such situations have occurred and individuals have listened to evidence and then, made up their minds. As a matter of fact, in one particular case I can recall and even before, even before they themselves, the individuals on the jury came back with their

Page 75.

verdict, they prefaced their -- they asked the Judge if they could preface their verdict with "In accordance with the law." They asked that could they say it that way because they wanted it. It was clear then what was in the minds of those individuals. They're not condoning this or that action, or saying -- but, they're saying we will follow the law and because it is the law, we will follow it and do it, "In accordance with the law," we find. That is how the situation is.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, I would ask you to consider that after deliberations, you could if you wish, you could consider that particular phrase. That of course, would be up to you because that is in fact what we're talking about, not speculation and not anything else.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'll point out as Mr. Jackson stated several times, the business about the black people are the only people that are in death row. Ladies and gentlemen, it should be considered that, because in this particular Commonwealth and over a period of even

Page 76.

of just one year, the fact of the matter is that black Philadelphians are close to eighty percent of the victims of most of the crimes, of all of the violent crimes, and particular homicides in the City. Those people, those people are as much and if not more victims than actually any case being directly involved with the law as perpetrators. It may have been because of the fact that since so many of those homicides involve victims, that many of the individuals happen to have been arrested happened to be black Philadelphians. All right, because of that and numerically only would be the reasons why over the course of the nation that any such statistic would have any relevance at all. And, I suggest to you it is not relevant. The only relevance is what you find, not what the moans and groans of individuals over there can constantly refuse to obey order --

MR. JACKSON: Objection.

MR. MCGILL: --of the court would in any way intimidate you. Ladies and gentlemen, I would ask you to

Page 77.

continue if you would having the courage that you have had before, and I thank you for that. I thank you for the time that you spent, and I thank you for the responsibility that you have shown, and that responsibility and that courage no matter what your finding would be, I shall always appreciate, particularly, the time that you spent over the two week period. I truly thank all of you for that.

(Whereupon the District Attorney peruses his personal notes.)

Finally, ladies and gentlemen, and this is only -- this is all it will be and that's it.

Please consider in a common sense fashion the evidence that you heard. The evidence that you heard in this case is not just the evidence that you heard in the sentencing hearing. You heard me move for the incorporation of the evidence of the trial. Take all the evidence from the trial and the evidence of the sentencing Hearing and in considering that make your determination. But I would ask you -- the reason why I ask you very seriously, make a

Page 78.

decision without in any way being intimidated. I ask all of you to make a decision on the facts and weigh it. If you find mitigating circumstances, whether you would think the age, or whatever, they were -- that he has mentioned -- and only those that the court will say as to what mitigating circumstances you would be able to find. Weigh the mitigating circumstances and the aggravating circumstances, and I would ask you to consider the importance of law and order, which this entire trial is all about.

The manner in which a uniformed officer was executed. The manner in which the facts have been related to all of you. The way and manner of this defendant easily imagining how that act was perpetrated. First in the back and then right over him. (Illustrating) In uniform, he is shot between the head, law and order is what I ask of you. I ask of you to follow that law and reach a decision solely based on that law and nothing else. Nothing else.

MR. JACKSON: Objection.

Page 79.

MR. MCGILL: Just the aggravating circumstances.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. MCGILL: And, the mitigating circumstances, nothing else. What they do in countries anywhere else is not important, it's here today, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, this courtroom, whatever evidence you heard.

Thank you very much.

(At 12:10 P.M. The assistant District Attorney
concluded his summation to the jury.)

(The following colloquy occurred at side-bar.)

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I understand your honor has made a ruling. I know that Mr. McGill in his comments, making comments that you told me and so, I would object and when I did object, you said nothing to it at that time, even of my objections as if he can say all of the things he can say.

The court: Well, I didn't want to interrupt him during his summation. You could come to the bar and put it on record now what

Page 80.

you're objecting to.

MR. JACKSON: I understand, your honor but i was making an objection. You admonished me.

MR. MCGILL: You were going too far.

THE COURT: You were going too far. You see, this is what I'm saying, you were going too far afield. I have to leave him go as far as you did. I didn't want to do that --

MR. MCGILL: He went into countries and the killing of individuals and how it is done.

MR. JACKSON: I understand that but it was my objection --

MR. MCGILL: I didn't --

THE COURT: There are other objections that he made and I did not rule on them. The only time he said something was when you were going too far afield. I'm not interested in that. And, I just told you, you were just going too far, I didn't say anything to admonish you. I just wanted you to steer clear and I didn't know where you were going and I wanted you to concern yourself with the issues here.

Page 81.

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, my objection is he made a comment on Sonia, S-o-n-i-a, Sonches, S-o-n-c-h-e-s, he made that comment about her. Again, I noted with regard to testimony, Your Honor allowed him to cross-examine and impeach her with respect to the fact that she wrote a book about that, it wasn't about the killing of a police officer. We don't know when it was written, but here it was written after the time of the shooting, but the jury didn't know and I'm suggesting that this woman just goes around and testifies and gives good comments about who kills police officers. That's what's left in the jury's mind about her testimony. And I think without basing as to whether she wrote this book, or the forward to the book and what it is about --

MR. MCGILL: As a matter of fact, on cross-examination she stated why she did that and that was part of it. She claimed that she was writing, only about what she said in her writing and the only concern was about black persons or something about the depression and you went into

Page 82.

the other things she had written.

MR. JACKSON: But, it was clearly given to the jury as if she was writing it in support of someone who kills police officers.

MR. MCGILL: Well, she was definitely doing that and it was after the individual had fled and was a fugitive, she agreed with that. It was right after she had fled after having killed a police officer and after that particular act of which she wrote, that was the only relevancy.

MR. JACKSON: Again, it's the -- she identified that person as the one who killed the police officer, so why did you talk about the forward? She wrote about that mickey mouse story. I'm only suggesting you did it because you wanted to inflame the jury.

MR. MCGILL: No, no.

MR. JACKSON: She killed a police officer.

THE COURT: Mr. Jackson both of you were getting emotional, too.

MR. JACKSON: But, I didn't say that.


Page 83.

MR. JACKSON: I understand.

THE COURT: How can I condone what he's doing when you're both doing the same thing? I wish you both would stick to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. You brought up the issue and I've got to let him answer it. Just can't let him stay in the middle of the air.

MR. JACKSON: Well, I never said anything about her.

THE COURT: Not about her, but some of the other things were justified.

MR. MCGILL: You talked about character --

MR. JACKSON: Good character but that's --

MR. MCGILL: That was character witnesses.

THE COURT: Well, that goes into the character thing so --

MR. JACKSON: I understand, Judge. The other comment he said was something about appeal after appeal after appeal, and I think he did that to suggest to this jury that their deliberation may overturn --

THE COURT: Well --

MR. JACKSON: That he has an appeal after

Page 84.

appeal after appeal suggesting that it's not going to happen.

THE COURT: Well, you went -- you brought in the same thing.

MR. MCGILL: You went into the actual killing.

THE COURT: Life imprisonment is life imprisonment, you know that. Depends on what happens, the governor if he wants to commute it --

MR. JACKSON: Well, that's as to sentencing, I mean --

THE COURT: Well, you see, you're going into areas and he's going into the same areas and you were the one that brought it up. I don't think it's my duty to stop him when he's answering what you already brought up. You brought this issue up and I can't tie his hands.

MR. JACKSON: Very well, Your Honor. Your Honor, with regard to the instructions to the jury, you have indicated that you want to do that after you gave your instructions and I just -- Mr. McGill and I --

THE COURT: What instructions do you want?

Page 85.

Mr. Jackson: Well, I've never heard Your Honor's instructions.

THE COURT: It's just taken from the form book.

MR. MCGILL: I would object to anything additional. I'm not going to ask for anything, just what you read.

MR. JACKSON: Well, will it be -- I'm sure that you're going to explain the preponderance of evidence?

THE COURT: That's about all, whatever is in the suggested form that we use.

MR. MCGILL: It's just binding instructions with regard to if you find there are mitigating circumstances that outweigh the aggravating circumstances, you must --

THE COURT: No, I don't. I explain to them what they have to do, you know, and what happens if they're -- for instance, the only way they can get to the death penalty, they must, you know, find some aggravating circumstances.


THE COURT: If they find aggravating

Page 86.

circumstances and mitigating circumstances, they have to weigh and decide the weight. As a matter of fact, I put it on the sheet that I give them. I give them the penalty sheet.

MR. JACKSON: Do you tell them that they have to --

THE COURT: They indicate on there which ever ones they find.

MR. JACKSON: Which ones they find? Okay. I just wanted to make sure.

MR. MCGILL: They mark it on the sheet.


THE COURT: The only thing I intend to explain to them is the policeman is in fact a peace officer. You brought it up and I think that I have an obligation to explain that to the jury.

MR. JACKSON: But, it doesn't say police officer.

THE COURT: Well, as far as I am concerned it does.

MR. MCGILL: It's in the book.

THE COURT: I know.

Page 87.

MR. MCGILL: It's in the crimes code.

THE COURT: I know that. I will explain that. There is no question about that.

MR. MCGILL: All right.

THE COURT: In fact, it places him in the performance of his duties in a special class that would not apply if he was like on vacation or some social affair.

MR. JACKSON: But, Judge, what you're doing in fact by --

THE COURT: Well, wait a while, you brought it up. You should have asked me first and I would have told you.

MR. JACKSON: But, Judge, what you're doing is in effect, Mr. Mcgill has already read --

THE COURT: Well, I will give them the law. I will read it. I will give them the law and they will take the law from me. They may think that he is reading it wrong.

MR. JACKSON: Then, why can't I --

THE COURT: Mr. Jackson, I'm sorry, you didn't have to bring it up, but you did. I have a duty to inform them since you brought it up.

Page 88.

I have to do it.

MR. JACKSON: Well, I thought it was just fair argument.

THE COURT: Because, you're leaving them to decide who is a peace officer.


THE COURT: As a matter of law, I'm telling them who a peace officer is. It's not only peace officers, it is state troopers, deputy sheriffs, all peace officers. So, I have to explain it to them. I didn't want to explain it to them, but you brought it up. You leave me with no choice. I don't like to go into these things.

MR. JACKSON: That means anything Mr. McGill has said, some comments on the law --

THE COURT: No, no I don't care what he said on the law. They don't have to take it from him. They have to take the law from me.


THE COURT: You brought it up. You gave your version, he gave his version. I now have to tell them what the law is. You made an issue.

Page 89.

You brought it up, saying the legislators didn't say who a peace officer is and I have to explain that to them. I have to explain that to them.

MR. JACKSON: Well, they didn't specifically -

THE COURT: I don't care. I have to tell them, Mr. Jackson. You brought it up and I have to tell them.

MR. MCGILL: Let's go.

(The above concluded the side-bar conference.)

(In open court)

COURT CRIER: Anyone wishing to enter or leave the courtroom must do so now. No one will be permitted to enter or leave while the Court is charging the jury.


Page 90.




THE COURT: Members of the jury you must now decide whether the defendant is to be sentenced to death or life imprisonment. The sentence will depend upon your findings concerning aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The crimes code provides that a verdict must be a sentence of death if the jury unanimously finds at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, or if the jury unanimously finds one or more aggravating circumstances which outweigh any mitigating circumstances.

The verdict must be a sentence of life imprisonment in all other cases.

The crimes code defines aggravating and mitigating circumstances. I will not go into detail on them because I will later explain to you this penalty sheet which will go out with you that lists all of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

I must, however, at this time instruct you as a matter of law that a policeman in the city of Philadelphia is in fact and in law a peace officer.

Page 91.

Every state trooper throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, every police officer throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and every deputy sheriff throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is in fact and in law a peace officer. A peace officer is one whose duty and obligation is to maintain order or peace, and who has the legal duty and obligation to make arrests. Therefore, a policeman in the city of Philadelphia is in fact and in law a peace officer.

I should note that that section indicates that he must be in the line of duty in the performance of his duties. Therefore, that section would not apply to a peace officer who might be on vacation or off duty socializing. It applies only if he is killed in the performance of his duties. That means he must be in uniform and actually on duty at the time.

The Commonwealth has the burden of proving aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has the burden of proving mitigating circumstances, but only by a preponderance of the evidence. This is a lesser burden of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt. A preponderance of the evidence exists where one side is more believable than the other

Page 92.

side. All the evidence from both sides, including the evidence you heard earlier during the trial-in-chief as to aggravating or mitigating circumstances is important and proper for you to consider. You should not decide out of any feelings of vengeance, or sympathy, or bias towards the defendant.

Now, the verdict is for you members of the jury. Remember and consider all of the evidence giving it the weight to which it is entitled. Remember that you are not merely recommending a punishment. The verdict you return will actually fix the punishment at death or life imprisonment. Remember again that your verdict must be unanimous. It cannot be reached by a majority vote or by any percentage, it must be the verdict of each and everyone of you.

Remember that your verdict must be a sentence of death if you unanimously find at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances. Or, if you unanimously find one or more aggravating circumstances which outweigh any mitigating circumstances. In all other cases, your verdict must be a sentence of life imprisonment. You will be given a verdict slip upon

Page 93.

which to record your verdict and findings. I am holding in my hand that verdict report which will go out with you. You will see it has three pages. The first page says:

"We, the jury, having heretofore determined that the above-named defendant is guilty of murder of the first degree, do hereby further find that:

(1) "We, the jury, unanimously sentence the defendant to --"

And you have two blocks; one block says death, the other block says life imprisonment. Whichever unanimously you decide on, you will put an "X" in that block.

Now, under (2), it says:

"(To be used only if the aforesaid sentence is death.)"

That means, under number one, you have indicated death and you will put an "X" in there, you would then have to fill out the number two portion. And that reads as follows:

"We, the jury, have found unanimously --"

And the first block there says:

"At least one aggravating circumstance and no

Page 94.

mitigating circumstance."

If that is the block, you put an "X" there and then, it says:

"the aggravating circumstance(s) is/are --"

And what you do, you go to page 2. Page 2 lists all the aggravating circumstances. They go from small letter (a) to small letter (j). Whichever one of these that you find you put an "X" or check mark there and then put it in the front. Don't spell it out, the whole thing, just what letter you might have found.

Now, the second block there says:

"One or more aggravating circumstances which outweigh any mitigating circumstances."

And then, it goes on to say:

"The aggravating circumstance(s) is/are --"

And then, you would as I said before, on the second page indicate which ones they were and put it on the front here, like a small number or (a) or (b) or (c) or whatever one you might find. And then underneath that, there are:

"The mitigating circumstances(s) is/are --"

"And those mitigating circumstances appear on the third page here. They run from a little (a) to a little

Page 95.

letter (h). And whichever ones you find there, you will put an "X" mark or check mark and then, put it on the front here at the bottom, which says mitigating circumstances. And you will notice that on the third or last page, it has a spot for each and every one of you to sign his or her name on here as jurors and date it down on the bottom, the date that you reach the verdict, and return it to the court with this verdict report.

(At 12:27 P.M. The court concluded its charge to the jury
on the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.)

COURT CRIER: Everyone remain seated until the jury leaves the room.

(At l2:27 P.M. The jury exited the courtroom to begin its deliberations.)

(Whereupon the verdict report slip was examined by
counsel for the defense and the District Attorney.)

MR. JACKSON: Your honor may we see you at side-bar?

(The following colloquy occurred at sidebar.)

Page 96.

THE COURT: What do you want to say?

MR. MCGILL: I think it's --

MR. JACKSON: I think it's suggestive.

THE COURT: What, this?

MR. JACKSON: With section (D):

"The youth or advanced age of the defendant at the time of the crime."

THE COURT: Well, that was when --

MR. JACKSON: The statute says --

MR. MCGILL: What's the date on your reading?

MR. JACKSON: Well, it's just a Xerox from the --

THE COURT: Wait a while, what does it say?

MR. JACKSON: It says the age of the defendant at the time of the crimes.

THE COURT: Yes, that was put under the new statute. That was put in, even if it is advanced age, one who's -- even a guy whose 80 years old, or 76 years old, they can consider that just as they can consider the youthfulness of the defendant. They can consider his old age

Page 97.

and the advanced age.

MR. MCGILL: That wasn't in the old statute.

THE COURT: No, no, no. It wasn't in the old statute. You can check it.


THE COURT: All right

(At 12:30 P.M. The court was recessed until the call of the crier.)


(At 4:00 P.M. The assistant District Attorney entered into the courtroom.)

(At 4:06 P.M. Counsel for the defense entered into the courtroom.)

(at 4:19 P.M. The defendant entered into the courtroom.)

(At 4:20 P.M. The jury was seated in the the court
being reconvened, all parties present.)

COURT CRIER: Quiet, please, the court is in session. May I take the verdict, your honor?


Page 98.

COURT CRIER: (To jurors) Jurors have you agreed upon a verdict and penalty?


COURT CRIER: Do all twelve agree?


COURT CRIER: Will the foreman please rise?

(Whereupon Juror NO. 9, rises as jury foreman.)

BY THE COURT CRIER: (To Jury Foreman)

Q. Having found the defendant, Mumia Abu-Jamal, guilty of murder in the first degree on Bill of Information NO. 1358, January Term 1982, what is your verdict as to penalty?

A. Death.

COURT CRIER: Please be seated, sir.

MR. JACKSON: Would you poll the jury your honor?

THE COURT: Poll the jury.

COURT CRIER: Jurors, defense counsel wishes you to be polled. When your name and number is called, you will please rise and in a full, clear, audible voice announce your verdict.

Page 99.


JUROR NO. 1: Guilty.

COURT CRIER: Wait a minute, Sir.


Q. Jennie Dawley, having found the defendant, Mumia Abu-Jamal, guilty of murder in the first degree on Bill of Information NO. 1358, January Term, 1982, what is your verdict as to penalty?

A. Death.

COURT CRIER: You may be seated.


Q. James Mattiace, having found the defendant, Mumia Abu-Jamal, guilty of murder in the first degree on Bill of Information NO. 1358, January Term, 1982, what is your verdict as to penalty?

A. Death.

COURT CRIER: you may be seated.


Q. Richard Tomczak, having found the defendant, Mumia Abu-Jamal, guilty of murder in the first degree on Bill of Information NO. 1358, January Term, 1982, what is your verdict as to penalty?

A. Death.

COURT CRIER: You may be seated.

Page 100.


Q. Joseph Mangan, having found the defendant, Mumia Abu-Jamal, guilty of murder in the first degree on Bill of Information NO. 1358, January Term, 1982, what is your verdict as to penalty?

A. Death.

COURT CRIER: You may be seated.


Q. Maurice Simovetch, having found the defendant, Mumia Abu-Jamal, guilty of murder in the first degree on Bill of Information NO. 1358, January Term, 1982, what is your verdict as to penalty?

A. Death.

COURT CRIER: You may be seated.


Q. Mirian Adelman, having found the defendant, Mumia Abu-Jamal, guilty of murder in the first degree on Bill of Information NO. 1358, January Term, 1982, what is your verdict as to penalty?

A. Death

COURT CRIER: You may be seated.


Q. Savanna Davis, having found the defendant,

Page 101.

Mumia Abu-Jamal, guilty of murder in the first degree on bill of Bill of Information NO. 1358, January Term, 1982, what is your verdict as to penalty?

A. Death.

COURT CRIER: You may be seated.


Q. Lois Pekala, having found the defendant, Mumia Abu-Jamal, guilty of murder in the first degree on Bill of Information NO. 1358, January Term 1982, what is your verdict as to penalty?

A. Death.

COURT CRIER: You may be seated.


Q. George Ewalt, JR. having found the defendant Mumia Abu-Jamal, guilty of murder in the first degree on Bill of Information NO. 1358, January Term, 1982, what is your verdict as to penalty?

A. Death.

COURT CRIER: You may be seated.


Q. Basil Malone, having found the defendant, Mumia Abu-Jamal, guilty of murder in the first degree on Bill of Information NO. 1358, January Term, 1982, what is

Page 102.

your verdict as to penalty?

A. Death

COURT CRIER: You may be seated.


Q. Domenic Durso, having found the defendant, Mumia Abu-Jamal, guilty of murder in the first degree on Bill of Information NO. 1358, January Term. 1982, what is your verdict as to penalty?

A. Death.

COURT CRIER: You may be seated.


Q. Louis Godfrey, having found the defendant, Mumia Abu-Jamal, guilty of murder in the first degree on Bill of Information NO. 1358, January Term, 1982, what is your verdict as to penalty?

A. Death.

COURT CRIER: You may be seated.

(At 4:24 P.M. The jury was polled of record.)

COURT CRIER: Your Honor, the jury has been polled each individually as to the verdict on penalty and all twelve agree. May the verdict be recorded?

Page 103.

THE COURT: Record the verdict.


(At 4:24 pm the verdict was molded of record.)

COURT CRIER: Jurors, harken to the verdict as the court hath recorded.

Having found the defendant, Mumia Abu-Jamal, guilty of murder in the first degree on Bill of Information NO. 1358, January Term, 1982 you set the penalty at death and so say you all?


THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the Code of Judicial Ethics prevents me from commenting one way or the other on your verdict and that is the way it should be, because as I told you initially on this trial, you are just as much a judge as I am in this case. I was the judge as to the law and you were the judges as to the facts. If this had been a trial without a jury, I would have had to perform both functions. Therefore, you can see that the function that you have performed was very important to the administration of justice.

Page 104.

There is nothing in the Code of Judicial Ethics that prevents me from extending to you, each and every one of you, my sincere thanks for your services. I know that you have served away from your family for over two weeks and I really appreciate it, and I want to extend to you my sincere thanks on behalf of the entire board of judges of the court of common pleas, the people of Philadelphia, and myself. We extend to you our sincere thanks. You are discharged from any further service,in this case. Thank you very much. Everyone remain seated while the jury leaves the room.

(At 4:26 P.M. The jury was discharged of record.)

(The following colloquy occurred in open absent the discharged jury.)

THE COURT: All right, Mr. Abu-Jamal?

(Whereupon the defendant remains seated at defense counsel's table.)

Page 105.

BY THE COURT CRIER: (To defendant)

Mumia Abu-Jamal, also known as Wesley Cook, you have been found guilty of Possession Instrument of Crime generally under Bill NO. 1357, January Term, 1982. You have also been found guilty of murder in the first degree and the penalty has been set at death by a jury under Bill NO. 1358, January Term, 1982. This court wishes to advise you that you have an automatic appeal to the supreme court of Pennsylvania.

However, before that appeal can be taken, certain post trial motions must be filed and disposed of. They are motions for new trial and an arrest of judgment. These motions must be filed in writing within 10 days of today. The reasons for those motions must be spelled out with specificity at this level, otherwise this court cannot or will not be in a position to answer those reasons, nor will the appellate court. So, it is very important that they be filed in writing within 10 days of today and spelled out with specificity the reasons why you should be granted a new trial or an arrest of judgment.

The court will defer formal sentencing pending

Page 106.

disposition of these motions, and will set as the time, date, and place for the disposition of these motions for Monday, September 13th, 1982 at 3:30 P.M. in courtroom 253.

In the interim, the court will order a pre sentence and psychiatric examination to be performed by Dr. Camiel.

Anything else, gentlemen?

(Whereupon the defendant sits there and laughs.)

MR. MCGILL: Nothing, no, sir.

THE COURT: Of course, if there is any bail, it is automatically revoked because this is a first degree case, a conviction.

All right. The court stands adjourned.

(At 4:28 P.M. The court was adjourned.)


Page 107.

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.