The Curious Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal

“Facts,” observed John Adams, “are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”[1]

 

So, here are the facts.

 

On a cold December night in 1981, Police Officer Daniel Faulkner observed a vehicle traveling in the wrong direction on a one-way street and initiated a traffic stop. After surveying the situation, Faulkner requested the assistance of policemen working the wagon detail. He then exited his patrol car and encountered the wayward motorist, William Cook, who had gotten out of his car to engage the officer. A physical altercation ensued and Faulkner subdued his attacker with a flashlight or a nightstick. From across the street, a black male sporting dreadlocks ran toward the scene and fired his gun at Faulkner, striking him in the back. The wounded policeman spun around and, as he fell to the ground, shot his assailant, depositing a bullet into his chest.

 

Undeterred, the dreadlocked gunman sought to finish his task. Standing over Faulkner, the assassin peered into the eyes of a man who was twenty-five and recently married; of a policeman whose performance record contained zero disciplinary actions and numerous commendations; of a determined dreamer who hoped to rise to the position of police commissioner or to attain a law degree and work in the District Attorney’s Office; of a fellow human being who aspired to become a father in the not-so-distant future.[2] The gunman pulled the trigger, firing the fatal bullet. Officer Faulkner laid dead on the street, executed for the crime of performing his duty.

 

The murderer attempted to flee, but only managed to make it to the curb. Police officers arrived on the scene quickly and apprehended the suspect. His name was Mumia Abu-Jamal, formerly known as Wesley Cook. By a stroke of coincidence, Abu-Jamal’s brother happened to be William Cook, the driver who had been involved in the initial confrontation with Officer Faulkner.

The testimony of four witnesses assisted in the reconstruction of the incident. A fifth eyewitness, the aforementioned William Cook, asserted on the scene that he was not involved in the murder. At the trial of his brother, William refused to testify, citing his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

 

The murder weapon, a .38-caliber Charter Arms, was registered to Abu-Jamal. The bullet removed from Abu-Jamal’s body was traced back to Officer Faulkner’s service weapon. Both guns were discovered and retrieved at the scene of the crime.

 

After being transported to the hospital to treat his gunshot wound, Abu-Jamal allegedly stated: “I shot the motherfucker and I hope the motherfucker dies.”[3] The confession was overheard and recorded by Priscilla Durham, a security guard who worked at the hospital.

 

These are the facts, and they are indeed stubborn things.

 

Nevertheless, these truths have been submerged in a sea of obfuscation as the events of 9 December 1981 recede into the abyss of the past. Floating along in this body of water is Mumia Abu-Jamal, who has emerged as the vessel that represents all that is wrong with the American system of justice for both his advocates and his opponents. Over the course of thirty-two years, Mr. Abu-Jamal and his supporters have transformed the case from a local homicide of a police officer into an international referendum on the persistence of racism in American jurisprudence. They have wielded America’s history of racial intolerance as a rhetorical shield to fend off the compelling proof of Abu-Jamal’s culpability. They have encouraged others to view the case with an historical telescope rather than a microscope, which has engendered a form of myopia in which broad historical context supersedes even the most basic knowledge of the crime.

 

Abu-Jamal’s legal team has marshaled an impressive stable of wealthy celebrities and influential academics to support his cause. These patrons have afforded Abu-Jamal the credibility and, more importantly, the finances to construct a platform upon which he can rail against the perceived shortcomings of America’s justice system, whose protections have enabled Abu-Jamal to make his case for innocence in appellate proceedings for three decades, to no avail; whose caution led to the overturning of Abu-Jamal’s death sentence on the grounds that jurors might have been confused about the instructions that they received before commencing deliberations during the penalty phase of the trial; and whose restrictions have not silenced Abu-Jamal’s voice during his incarceration. In short, Mumia Abu Jamal’s “persecution” is mythic and risible.    

 

Consider, for example, the claim that Mumia was not granted a fair trial. A reasoned analysis of the trial transcript reveals that the biggest impediment to Abu-Jamal's obtainment of an impartial hearing was Mumia Abu-Jamal himself. The defendant created incessant disruptions throughout the court proceedings; for instance, he spent a considerable amount of time demanding that John Africa, the founder of the radical group MOVE, represent him. Africa possessed little in the way of formal education, much less any knowledge of the intricacies of American law. In this instance (and in quite a few others) the judge, Albert Sabo, was forced to save Abu-Jamal from himself by refusing his motion and instead appointing a public defender of Mumia's choosing to serve as secondary counsel. The judge’s ruling was based purely on the application of legal precedent and did not preclude Africa from offering the defendant advice and counsel during the trial.

 

Moreover, the transcript is littered with instances when Mumia insulted Judge Sabo and repeatedly revisited issues on which Sabo had already ruled, ranting like a petulant child when he did not get his way. The defendant did not seem to care that his disrespectful behavior toward the judge might have reflected a general disregard for officers of the law and the law itself, which likely influenced the jury. In the end, if Abu-Jamal’s sympathizers would like to proclaim that Mr. Abu-Jamal's trial was a circus, they would be remiss if they did not include the identity of the ringmaster when formulating their argument.

 

In spite of the myriad petitions that Abu-Jamal’s defense team has offered in court, no new trial is forthcoming. The exculpatory conspiracy theories, which have relied on the testimonies and recollections of petty criminals and serial prevaricators, have only exposed the desperation to which Abu-Jamal’s lawyers will resort to free their client from his rightful sentence. With his appeals finally exhausted, Mumia Abu-Jamal will spend the rest of his life behind bars.

 

Undoubtedly, there will remain individuals unconvinced of Mumia’s guilt who will regard the prisoner as a martyr to American racism. They will point to our nation’s past as proof of a present injustice. Mumia Abu-Jamal’s supporters would be well-advised, nonetheless, to keep in mind that the light of history can blind just as easily as it can illuminate. Otherwise, they will continue to fall for the cynical sleight-of-hand that Abu-Jamal has employed to conceal the truth, which has been determined by a jury and reaffirmed after numerous appellate proceedings: Mumia Abu-Jamal murdered Daniel Faulkner on December 9, 1981. Case closed.

 

 

-30-

---

[1] http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/3235.html

[2] This general sketch of Officer Faulkner was gleaned from the following book: Faulkner, Maureen and Smerconish, Michael, Murdered by Mumia (Guilford, CT: Lyons Press, 2008).

[3] Marc Kaufman, “Abu-Jamal Said He Shot Officer, Two Tell Trial,” Philadelphia Inquirer, June 15, 1982.