Verfahren gegen Mumia Abu-Jamal

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

- - -

**********

Room 613 City Hall
Philadelphia, Pa.

April 29, 1982

**********

2

COURT CRIER: The next matter is Commonwealth versus Mumia Abu-Jamal, your Honor.

SPECTATOR: Do you want me to pronounce it for you?

MR. McGILL: Good morning, your Honor.

MR. JACKSON: Good morning, your Honor. May I have one moment, please?

THE COURT: Yes.

- - -

MR. JACKSON: There are several preliminary matters that I would like to bring to your attention, your Honor.

I know that we are here today for a trial date, and we wish in no way to interfere with that process.

Your Honor may recall that on January 20th you issued an order with respect to Mr. Jamal's diet. There apparently was no recording of that order in the Quarter Sessions file, in addition to which the prison officials have misplaced it.

I am now requesting that I might have an additional copy of that order, or a new copy of that order that you issued on January 20th.

3-4

THE COURT: I also spoke to Superintendent Owens, and he agreed to get as many of those items that you wanted as possible.

MR. JACKSON: At the time that you did that, Mr. Jamal was in the hospital wing of the detention center. And although they are well within the Philadelphia County prison system, Holmesburg wants another one.

THE COURT: All right, we'll get a copy of what I ordered, a copy of the order that I issued.

MR. JACKSON: Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: On that date I asked you to give me a listing of everything you wanted.

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Did you ever file that?

MR. JACKSON: No, your Honor, I didn't. I think what happened was it was just given to the sheriff to take up to the prison on that day.

THE COURT: Well, on the 20th all we did was talk about what list you were going to give me.

MR. JACKSON: And I gave you the list later on that day, in your chambers. And I

5

don't think that your Honor's order included the list. I have a copy of the list, if your Honor wishes to --

THE COURT: All right. What is the problem now, specifically, Mr. Jackson?

MR. JACKSON: We need the order for Mr. Jamal, who is now at Holmesburg Prison. Apparently no one at Holmesburg Prison has seen the order, although they have heard about it. But they say they want to see the order.

THE COURT: All right. All I can find in my file is a list which is the same as yours. But I don't see any specific order. However, I'll check the Quarter Sessions file.

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I think that's the problem: we have checked the Quarter Sessions file, and it's not there. And I remember specifically that after I submitted the list to you in chambers the order was given directly to the sheriff. If I failed to file it with Quarter Sessions, I didn't know that was required. I was simply told to give it to the sheriff to take to the prison. And that's what I did.

THE COURT: I can't find any

6

specific order. I know we had a list.

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Do you have another copy of that?

MR. JACKSON: The list?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. JACKSON: Yes, I do, sir.

THE COURT: I'll check to see if we have a specific order. If not, I'll prepare a new order.

MR. JACKSON: Fine, sir.

THE COURT: So that will take care of that.

MR. JACKSON: The next request would be for the appointment of additional counsel. Since this matter has begun, there has been, as you might imagine, a tremendous amount of work involved, both legal and factual, and things of that sort.

I find now, particularly, I guess, in a desire to go to trial within a prompt period of time, that there is a problem in organizing the materials that I have before me, as well as preparing the appropriate research.

You may recall, your Honor, that I

7

had asked, in fact, for the addresses of several witnesses that the Commonwealth had interviewed, some of whom we have been able to contact by other means. And I find that notwithstanding counsel for the Commonwealth's representation that these witnesses would not speak to me, that in fact they will speak to me.

I am not suggesting that Mr. McGill has mislead me. I don't know. Nevertheless, some of those witnesses are talking to me. And, in fact, those witnesses have proven to be very important.

There is a great deal of work to be done, a great deal of information to be developed, and I have some reservation as to whether or not I can properly be prepared to go to trial within the next three weeks, or three to four weeks. And I will request additional counsel at this time.

THE COURT: Well, I don't recall, in recent years, ever granting additional counsel in a murder case.

MR. JACKSON: I understand, sir.

THE COURT: Years ago we did. We would appoint one experienced counsel and one

8

relatively inexperienced counsel--to sort of use as a training ground, I guess. But later on, because of budget problems, we adopted the procedure of appointing one attorney. So unless there's something startling about a case, I'm not inclined to grant additional counsel.

MR. JACKSON: I don't know how I can argue what is "startling." The charges in and of themselves are startling. As your Honor can imagine, I have reams and reams of material to go through --

THE COURT: I know there is a lot of work involved. And I trust you are keeping a careful list of how many hours you put in.

MR. JACKSON: That's more work, to do that. I'm trying to do that.

THE COURT: Put all of that in your pay petition.

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Keep a record of that.

MR. JACKSON: Well, your Honor, I would not mind receiving less money if I could get more work done. And that's my problem. Physically, your Honor, I can do only so much. As your Honor well knows, I do have other trials.

9

THE COURT: I know.

MR. JACKSON: I am in the process of reducing my trial load, your Honor, to allow me to prepare effectively for this matter. But there are some matters that are still outstanding. And in Mr. Jamal's interest, this request is being made. This is not --

THE COURT: I suggest you do this: if you want to file a petition, a short petition, and give some specific reasons why you can't handle this alone --

MR. JACKSON: Fine, sir.

THE COURT: You'll have to really -- so you will know my thinking, you'll have to really show me that you can't possibly handle this by yourself.

MR. JACKSON: And the only way I can show you is to suggest that I am ineffectual. That's it.

COURT: Well, no, I don't think that's --

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, there must be at least 125 statements that I have, possibly 150 statements, sir, of witnesses.

THE COURT: Well, you know, there

10

has to be one lead counsel. Even if you have ten lawyers In a case, there has to be one lead counsel who is going to sit there and try the case.

MR. JACKSON: That's me.

THE COURT: So another attorney is going to go through you, in any event.

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: And you have to know what's in your file from front to back. And, therefore, you are going to have to be familiar with everything in the file, every statement, every report, and so on. And you're going to to have to sit there and make the proper moves, contemplate the proper strategy. So at some point you have to be thoroughly prepared in the case, all by yourself.

MR. JACKSON: I plan to be.

THE COURT: If there's no way you can do the leg work, that's something else. There you might want more investigative help.

MR. JACKSON: That's the other issue. And I think I need both. And the next request was going to be for the appointment of an investigator.

11

THE COURT: File a petition and I'll look it over. And serve a copy on the district attorney. File a petition as to why you need additional help.

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: And file a copy on the District Attorney's Office.

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: But at some point you have to be thoroughly prepared to present your case, even if you have to drop other cases.

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. Your Honor, with respect to --

THE COURT: I'll wait until I get that from you before ruling on that request.

MR. JACKSON: Fine, sir,

With respect to the investigators and experts, your Honor had suggested before that I present to you bills. I have a report from the ballistician, George Fassnacht, and a bill in the amount of $350. I believe your Honor is well aware of what his normal rate is. He has indicated a request that this be paid.

THE COURT: In advance?

MR. JACKSON: Well, your Honor --

12

THE COURT: The reason I ask is this: I have approved his bill in other situations, other cases, after the pay petition is filed. So he gets a down payment and then submits his final bill with the pay petition. And usually he doesn't press for the rest of his money at this time.

MR. JACKSON: Would I get the down payment from the Court?

THE COURT: Yes. Well, we allow the normal --

MR. JACKSON: One hundred and fifty dollars?

THE COURT: Yes. And just tell him to submit the balance of his bill with your pay petition, because you will have other bills, too, and we may as well consider them all at once. I don't think you're going to have any trouble with the ballistics expert's bill.

MR. JACKSON: Do I have the order that I previously prepared signed, your Honor, or how is that to be done?

THE COURT: Did you submit an order?

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir, when the ballistician was originally appointed.

13

THE COURT: I'll check the record, and If it has been filed I'll sign it and get it back to you.

MR. McGILL: Could I just sort of interject here, your Honor, at least on the point where he is saying that he is interviewing additional witnesses or the same witnesses? I don't have any notice of people that he is talking to. And he can talk to whomever he wishes to talk to, your Honor, if they wish to talk to him.

However, I am reminding Mr. Jackson on the record and in court that the Commonwealth does have a right to any statement or statements that he manages to obtain from any witness or witnesses.

THE COURT: Under Rule 305?

MR. McGILL: Yes, sir. And I would again point out that, granted, Mr. Jackson has in his possession some 125 statements, sir, a substantial portion of them, of course, deal with matters that are not involved in the incident, but are involved with immediately afterwards, at the hospital, which would not require a great amount of research, since they would be irrelevant

14

at trial.

MR. JACKSON: That's a mischaracterization.

MR. McGILL: I would request that I be able to finish, your Honor.

MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry. I apologize.

MR. McGILL: I tried to be courteous to Mr. Jackson.

MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry.

MR. McGILL: What I would at least alert the Court to -- and Mr. Jackson -- is that I would appreciate receiving as soon as possible: any statement he has. And I would point out that despite all the statements that we have given to him, your Honor, to date the Commonwvealth has received nothing.

MR.JACKSON: Your Honor, in response to that representation by counsel, as you well know, I asked for the addresses of those witnesses. Your Honor will recall that. I have had an extremely difficult time locating many of these witnesses. So they say, yes, I can have the names, your Honor, but they are not going to help me find them. And I understand the

15

procedure that is followed generally. However, in this --

THE COURT: Well, on that point, I don't expect the prosecution to help your case, and I don't expect you to help their case. If they don't know where a witness is, I don't expect them to --

MR. JACKSON: That's, not the case. That's not what I --

THE COURT: What is the situation?

MR. JACKSON: The situation is that by virtue of your policy, your Honor, of not providing me with addresses, I have a difficult time in locating many of these witnesses.

Also, if a witness -- hypothetically, at least -- if a witness says, "Yes, I saw the person who did the shooting. And he ran around the corner," your policy says, "You cannot interview that witness unless the district attorney says it's okay." And then the district attorney or the police say, "He will not talk to you." I manage to find the witness, the witness sags, "Sure, I'll talk to you."

Now, I'm not saying that the witnesses are told anything by Mr. McGill or by the

16

police. I am simply saying what has happened. I am finding that the witnesses will talk to me. So that Mr. McGill will know, your Honor, he says a witness will not talk to me, I am simply saying that I am finding that that is not the case. And I cannot accept the representation of counsel that these witnesses will not talk to me.

So I have now put myself to the burden of locating and interviewing these witnesses. And I think I have an obligation to do that.

I understand that the Rules of Criminal Procedure require that I turn over these statements, and I will do that at the appropriate time.

THE COURT: What is the "appropriate time"?

MR. JACKSON: As soon as I have had an opportunity to review those statements, your Honor.

And I would also point out to the Court that notwithstanding your order that I be given discovery information, that information has been delayed oftentimes anywhere from ten days to two weeks, which puts an extra burden on

17

me when I come back before your Honor and I am asked, "What are you doing with the statements?" That information is not given to me right away, and I want your Honor to be aware of that.

THE COURT: Specifically, what information wasn't given to you right away?

MR. JACKSON: Well, your Honor, the Internal Affairs information I got two weeks after I left the courtroom. With respect to certain other discovery informatlon, it was about a week or so afterwards. And, again, I am not placing blame on anybody. I am simply calling the Court's attention to this matter.

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, the entire file, which he has been given, sir, the file in reference to the police investigation of this case, has been in his possession since March.

The Internal Affairs statements, information -- which he was not entitled to under the very order in which he made the complaint with respect to the Internal Aftairs Division -- I agreed to give him that information, your Honor, but only if the Court -- and

18-19

I encouraged the Court to give it to him -- but it had to be court-ordered. And the Court was quite right in its statement at the hearing when this was brought up, that we are talking largely here about situations and incidents that occurred, or facts or particular interviews that occurred, sir, at a hospital, after the incident, anywhere from one to two to three hours after the incident, and not with anything that occurred at the time of the incident, being relevant to the time of the incident.

Now, your Honor, on the basis of that --

THE COURT: We can do without the shouting. I can do without comments from the audience.

COURT CRIER: Quiet, please.

THE COURT: If we have this again, I'm going to have ejected from the courtroom anyone who interferes with this proceeding. Go ahead, Mr. McGill.

MR. McGILL: Thank you, your Honor.

So I would say that a substantial portion of the police file, if not the entire police file, has been in Mr. Jackson's possession

20

since March. The Internal Affairs complete file, consistent with this Court's order, and as to which the District Attorney's Office provided the manpower to Xerox and duplicate the many statements involved -- that has been in his possession for approximately two weeks. But the actual relevant factual circumstances surrounding the incident, sir, that information has been in his possession for two and a half months.

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I am not going to belabor that point, because those are -- well, those are his representations.

THE COURT: What haven't you gotten so far that I have ordered be given to you?

MR. JACKSON: I have got it all now.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. JACKSON: With a few exceptions, I believe, your Honor. And I am simply saying, your Honor, that he his making the characterization that the information is not relevant, that certain of the information is not relevant. You know and I know, your Honor, that that is a Judge's responsiblllty, sir, to make that determination. And I certainly disagree

21

strongly, your Honor, and say that the information he refers to is indeed relevant. And it is because of that information that I now find that I have other information which to seek, your Honor.

THE COURT: Go ahead, investigate whatever you have to.

What other problems do you have?

MR. JACKSON: You Honor, I have bills from several investigators; some of which I -- some of this money I have paid out of my own pocket. But the problem I have, again, your Honor --and I don't have copies of these, and I can present them later, bring them later on to the Court -- I have a bill from Robert T. Greer, a private investigator, for $562. Also, I have a bill for photographs. You may recall, your Honor, that very early in these proceedings I asked for photographs to be taken of Mr. Jamal forthwith. A photographer, Bill Perono, has taken those photographs and has submitted a bill in the amount of $150. I have subsequently asked him to take some additional photographs, which was done, and I have an additional bill for those photographs in the amount of $250.

22

THE COURT: What photographs were they?

MR. JACKSON: Photographs of the scene, your Honor, and the surrounding areas.

THE COURT: Do you have itemized bills showing what was done?

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Put them in a petition and send them to me.

MR. JACKSON: Fine, sir.

MR. McGILL: Again, your Honor, I really do not have standing to make any input, except I want to alert -- in the interests of justice -- I want the record to be made aware that -- at least, this is my understanding -- that at some time there was a committee established, a defense committee, that was attempting to solicit funds. I think that before the City of Philadelphia is required to pay any additional money, your Honor -- again in the interests of justice -- should be told exactly what the financial status of that committee is.

MR. JACKSON: Could I speak to that issue?

THE COURT: We can do without the comments from the audience. I'm not going to

23

issue any more warnings. The next time I'm going to order certain individuals evicted from the courtroom. If they have to be ejected from the courtroom, they will be. I'm not giving any special consideration to an audience in this case.

MR. JACKSON: Just briefly to speak to that issue. It is a fact that there has been a defense committee, your Honor, and a fund has been developed.

THE COURT: Were monies given to you to spend on the defense here?

MR. JACKSON: No, sir. Your Honor, Mr. Jamal has a family that continues to survive, continues to live. Mr. Jamal is the breadwinner for his family. He is now, obviously, incarcerated and is not able to provide funds to his family.

THE COURT: And your statement is there have been no funds made available to you for investigation in this case?

MR. JACKSON: No, sir. I have not received any money for -- I am not saying that some monies could possibly be made available, your Honor. But to suggest that a fund is being

24

developed or being raised for that purpose -- it has not been done.

I know for a fact, your Honor -- well, with regard to the experts that I need, with regard to the jury selection process -- your Honor has already indicated that the court would not pay for this. How, it is my anticipation that that fund would provide me with the money to pay for those experts -- and I feel that they are crucial. And, your Honor, I don't' feel that the court has jurisdiction to go in and look at those books at all. I don't think that's a relevant issue for this court.

THE COURT: Well, only to the extent where you are asking me to approve funds that are not given in other cases, asking me to approve them for your purposes now.

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor --

THE COURT: And in deciding how much money is to be awarded to you for various uses, various purposes, I think it might be relevant to find out if there are other monies available to you and that you were given to spend.

MR. JACKSON: I am simply saying

25

that to start trying to determine how much money is in the fund, you then must ask each family member how much money do they have, you must ask each friend --

THE COURT: No, I don't think so.

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I don't have any control over that fund whatsoever. So how do we determine that, what the fund is, who is part of it? I'm saying that it's a practical matter as well as a legal matter. And I am simply saying, again, your Honor, that I have not gotten any funds for these matters that I am bringing before the Court. I am anticipating that I will be receiving funds for the experts, and I anticipate that I might receive some money for some investigators. But that would be the extent of it, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. To that extent, then, put that in your petition, along with your bills, and submit it to me, with a copy to the District Attorney's Office. Send me any outstanding bills you have and I'll look them over.

MR. JACKSON: Fine, sir.

THE COURT: What else?

26

MR. JACKSON: I have not been able to obtain a pathologist, your Honor, for the fee that you have indicated thus far. And I am asking the Court if the Court would know of one.

THE COURT: A forensic pathologist?

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. I have several names of forensic pathologists. If this Court would insure the matter of payment, I believe that I might be able to secure one. I do have the names of several pathologists in the Philadelphia area.

THE COURT: I don't usually associate with forensic pathologists.

MR. JACKSON: I have the names, your Honor. What I am saying is would I be permitted to direct the pathologist to contact this Court in that respect. Because all I can tell them -- they ask me will they get their money, they ask me when and how much. And all I can say is, "I don't know." And they say, "well, that's not good enough." So it's the same problem, your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, all right, do this: ask them to give you an estimate as to what they need for the work. And submit their

27

bills with your pay petition also. All right?

MR. JACKSON: Fine, sir.

THE COURT: And do that pretty fast.

MR. JACKSON: I'll do it within -- by Monday, at the latest.

THE COURT: Within a matter of hours after you give me the material I'll give you an answer.

MR. JACKSON: Fine. The other matter that I need -- in one of my omnibus motions, your Honor, I requested a copy of Daniel Faulkner's police record. And I would like to present that issue again to the Court. I believe that this --

THE COURT: Was that presented in your omnibus motion?

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: I don't remember that at all.

What record are you asking for?

MR. JACKSON: His police personnel record, your Honor.

It's item 12, your Honor.

THE COURT: Number 12 in your omnibus motion?

28

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: What is the relevance of that?

MR. JACKSON: I believe Mr. Faulkner's personnel record may be very relevant, your Honor, regarding his actions on the night of December 9, 1981. And for that reason I would like to have his personnel record.

MR. McGILL: As to that reason, your Honor, the Commonwealth's position would be that we have no objection to this Court reviewing the dead officer's personnel record, and if the Court feels it to be relevant, to then --

THE COURT: I have done that in other caues.

MR. JACKSON: Before you --

MR. McGILL: In the interest of privacy with respect to the individual involved, I feel that this should not be given directly to counsel.

MR. JACKSON: Well, your Honor -- and I am certainly not impugning the integrity of the Court -- the only question that I have, the only issue that I would like to pose to you

29

is that I don't know how you are able to determine the relevance of that personnel record without having gone through all of the information in this case, all of the statements of the witnesses. And I am not trying to put a burden on the Court. I am simply saying --

THE COURT: Well, no. If I look at the personnel record and I see something that has absolutely no relevance at all to this matter, not the remotest contact with this incident -- for instance, a record talking about his pay scale, his health record, and so on -- with respect to records such as that I can determine myself whether there is any possible relevance.

Now, what I have done in the past is if I determined that a record has no relevance to the issue before the court, I have made a statement on the record to that effect. I note for the record that I have looked at certain documents, noting exactly what documents I have looked at, and stating my determination for the record as to the relevance or non-relevance of certain documents. So all of that is noted for possible appellate review. So

30

that if that is followed in this case, that procedure, you will have your record protected in the event you have to seek appellate review. And if they think that I was wrong, they will give you relief.

MR. JACKSON: Fine, sir.

THE COURT: Of course, that doesn't give you a right to look at the records. We do have certain matters involving privacy. We must take into consideration the right of privacy with respect to the deceased officer here. And it's my practice not to open up privileged records like this unless I feel there is some relevance to the case.

MR. JACKSON: I'm not really interested in that kind of information, sir, his pay scale, and his social security number, things like that.

THE COURT: If there is anything in the personnel record -- and I will take a look at it -- if there is anything at all that relates to the incidents of that night --

MR. JACKSON: Not just that night, your Honor. I am referring to such things as his assignments, his disciplinary record, per-

31

formance rating, his activities as a police officer. They are things that I feel are relevant. Mr. Jamal is being charged with murder here, your Honor, and the death penalty is being sought.

THE COURT: If I see I see that there is nothing in his personnel record that can possibly help you in that regard, I'll make a note for the record as to what I have looked at and what my conclusion was. And that will be in the record for possible appellate review. And an appellate court can always re-examine it.

MR. JACKSON: Very well, your Honor.

THE COURT: So I will take a look at the personnel record myself.

MR. McGILL: I want to ask this question, if I may -- and not in reference to that point --

THE COURT: I might point out that in other cases I have spent several hours going through personnel records and finding absolutely nothing having to do with the case in front of me.

MR. JACKSON: Well, we feel that

32

there may be some relevance in this case.

THE COURT: I understand. But that's the reason I follow that procedure in determining what is relevant, what is not relevant.

MR. JACKSON: The problem is you won't know until you look.

THE COURT: I'm going to look. I'm going to review the records.

MR. JACKSON: I understand that. I'm only saying that's the reason for the request, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. JACKSON: Fine.

MR. McGILL: There will be, of course, some personal matters in those records, sir, commendations for service in the past, certain awards that were given to him. And those things I'm sure would not be relevant for Mr. Jackson's purposes. I would agree with the Court that any record which involves personal aspects of an individual's life and work should not be made available to the public or to the defense.

Your Honor, in reference to Mr.

33

Jackson's particular point as to the witnesses that he states he is now seeing and talking to and claiming that they wish to talk to him, would I, your Honor, perhaps have an opportunity to get the names of the people he is talking to, even if I do not have an oral statement which may have been given to him or any kind of notes that he would have? I have nothing with respect to any of that, your Honor.

Also, Mr. Jackson states that I indicated some of the witnesses were not willing -- expressed a desire not to speak to Mr. Jackson. And that's what I have indicated, your Honor. And I might also add that some of them would not speak to me. So there are some that I have not interviewed. Perhaps they are the people that he has interviewed, or some of them. And I would like to know who he has contacted, who he has talked to, if the Court would permit my obtaining that knowledge.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Jackson, what about that?

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I have talked to the witnesses -- I have talked to witnesses who had been interviewed by the police.

34

I have some concern about telling the Court now who those witnesses are, your Honor. I have agreed that I am going to provide that information to counsel and to the Court.

Your Honor, in my view there has already been some intimidation or misleading of the witnesses. And I think, now that I have talked to the witnesses, that I can appreciate why they are reluctant to have someone come and re-interview them again from the Commonwealth.

Again, your Honor, I am not ascribing any personal responsibility to Mr. McGill or any other person. I am simply saying I am reluctant to do that right now, provide that information right now. If your Honor would give me a week to complete that process, I'll do it then. Because I believe by that time --

DEFENDANT: You ought to try the goddamned case.

MR. JACKSON: Mumia --

THE COURT: Sheriff, put handcuffs on him.

DEFENDANT: That's right, put them on.

You try the case, Ribner. You're

35

going to decide what you want to hear. You try the case. What are you afraid of? What are you scared of? Make your decision. Try the case, Ribner.

THE COURT: Sheriff, take this man back to the cellroom.

I think your comments are totally improper.

DEFENDANT: I don't give a damn what you think. You go to hell.

THE COURT: We'll have some extra sheriffs here in a minute.

DEFENDANT: What the hell are you afraid of?

THE COURT: I'm not afraid of you.

DEFENDANT: What the hell are you afraid of, bastard?

SPECTATOR: Bunch of morons. Trying to railroad the man. Ain't no justice.

COURT CRIER: Let's have quiet, please.

SPECTATOR: I'm leaving. You don't have to put me out. And I won't be back here any more. Who the fuck they think they are?

THE COURT: I know this is not your

36

fault, Mr. Jackson. And I will not let this effect my conduct of the case.

SPECTATOR: The good Lord will take care of this.

THE COURT: Let the record reflect that I ordered the defendant removed from the courtroom because of his vituperative remarks about the Court and about other matters. And his actions are not in any way going to impair his attorney's ability to handle the case before me. So if he claims later that he wasn't present during these proceedings, the record reflects the reason for that.

MR. JACKSON: May I proceed, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. JACKSON: I have just indicated, your Honor, with respect to the matter of witnesses who I have or will have spoken to, that I will have that information by next Wednesday. I assure the Court that I will provide that information to Mr. McGill.

I anticipate also that there will be a tape recording, and I will make that available, to Mr. McGill. And, as I have indicated, he

37

has made statements available to me, and it is necessary that I --

THE COURT: I want to also state for the record that none of the remarks of Mr. Jamal or of anyone else in the courtroom will have any adverse affect upon the defense in terms of any of my rulings in this matter. There will be no affect upon any of my rulings with respect to any matters raised. I may personally not like the remarks he made, but that won't affect my decisions in any way. So I don't want that to be an issue at any time during this case. His conduct will have no effect on me at all. I have been through this type of thing before.

MR. McGILL: I was going to say, your Honor --

THE COURT: I sat through that type of conduct for many weeks, and my decisions were completely upheld by the Supreme Court, and my conduct was never subject to attack.

All right, then, within a week you will supply those things to Mr. McGill?

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. And, again, your Honor -- and I will say now, sir, that I

38

will be continuing to locate and interview witnesses, of course.

There are several witnesses that I know -- that I have interviewed, your Honor, and others that I will interview by next week. And I intend to turn that information over.

There has been a request, your Honor --

MR. McGILL: If I could, on that point, your Honor -- I have no problem not getting statements earlier than that. I believe that there was a statement made by Mr. Jackson that somebody that I said did not want to speak to him he has spoken to.

MR. JACKSON: Dessie Hightower.

MR. McGILL: I will state for the record, your Honor, that Mr. Hightower, whom Mr. Jackson had specifically asked me about at one time -- I made a direct contact with Mr. Hightower and specifically asked him whether or not he would speak to Mr. Jackson. I stated that Mr. Jackson may well want to talk to him. And I said that it would be up to him. And he did tell, me that he would prefer not to talk to anybody. And he asked me if it was necessary to even appear

39

in court. And I said it would be if he were subpoenaed.

THE COURT: I don't think there has been any attempt to withhold witnesses or to tell witnesses not to talk to Mr. Jackson. We all know the facts of life: a lot of people don't want to be approached or interviewed, don't want to get involved. I ran into that myself many times when I was in practice. So that doesn't surprise me. If he wants to talk to you, fine; If not --

MR. JACKSON: It doesn't surprise me, either, your Honor. And I am not stating -- I am simply saying what my experience has been, that there have been representations made to me that a witness will not talk to me, and I have found that the witness will talk to me. That's what I am saying. And I am suggesting that that may be the case with each and every one of those witnesses, your Honor, if I have an opportunity to interview them, to locate them and interview them. And -- well, the point has been made.

MR. McGILL: I have nothing further on that point.

40

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I have made several requests of the District Attorney's Office regarding police officers, complaints against police officers.

On March 10th I sent a letter to the District Attorney's Office, with a copy to Mr. Murray, wherein I requested as to whether information was developed which would indicate probable cause for the arrest of one or several police officers. I have not yet gotten any response, oral, written or otherwise, from the District Attorney's Office.

On April 21st I sent an additional letter to Mr. Rendell. This April 21st letter was pursuant to information I had gotten through discovery in this matter, as well as the Internal Affairs charges, sir, which clearly -- which information clearly indicates that Mr. Jamal was beaten and struck on the street, without cause--very clearly, your Honor. It's not just a characterization. He was cuffed, handcuffed, and beaten and struck. At the hospital -- he was taken to the hospital, your Honor, dropped at the hospital and kicked. And a number of things happened, your Honor, and I

41

won't get into the specifics at this time. But this information is relevant, your Honor, in that I assume that several, many or all of these witnesses will be testifying on behalf of the Commonwealth. And, obviously, the bias of these witnesses will be a relevant question for me to bring out on cross-examination. I need to knov what the District Attorney's Office intends to do with respect to this. I have not, as I say, gotten any response. I don't know if it's the responsibility of Mr. McGill to respond to this or not.

It's my understanding from Mr. Murray, from a brief informal discussion that we have had, that Mr. Rendell has awaited a formal request for an investigation and that he viewed my request of April 21st as the first formal request for investigation. And whatever investigative machinery they have, apparently it has not yet been put in motion. And I would certainly argue to the Court that once he was notified by me -- although it was a carbon copy of a letter to the Police Commissioner speaking of these abuses -- it's my position that once

42

he had notice of that in that manner, sir, he had an obligation to pursue that. And certainly, when I send a letter as of March 10th, your Honor, requesting what his position is, it seems, to me he has an obligation to respond. I am not told, following my letter of April 21st, that at least he is starting to do something.

I need to know that information, your Honor, at or before the time of trial.

MR. McGILL: May I respond to that, sir?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. McGILL: I now have both letters counsel is speaking of. First of all, again --

THE COURT: Incidentally, if you talk to any of those people out In the hallway, you can tell them that if they think any screaming or taunting by them is going to affect any of my decisions in this matter, or if they think that I am going to be intimidated by any of their actions -- well, you can tell them that they're wrong.

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: We know better than that,

43

don't we?

MR. JACKSON: Well, your Honor, I will state --

THE COURT: I understand they are not within your control, and I am not saying that you have had anything to do with their conduct. But I just want them to know that.

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, this is a very emotional case. Many of the --

THE COURT: I am just pointing out that if anybody thinks that I am going to be intimidated in any way or coerced in any way, they have the wrong guy. Okay?

MR. JACKSON: I think that's very clear, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, Mr. McGill, go ahead.

MR. McGILL: I do want to have some time to respond, sir, and I will not take that long. But I think a response is necessary, is indicated.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. McGILL: Particularly in the area where Mr. Jackson has stated that clearly there was evidence of Mr. Jamal being beaten

44

without just cause, and all of that.

I would just like to state for the record, so that those comments, statements like that, sir, do not go unresponded to, that I would not at all agree with that characterization of the factual circumstances. The circumstances, of course, will come out in court, as will everything that is relevant to this particular case. And I just want to indicate that I think that the characterization as made by Mr. Jackson -- although I am sure it is made in good faith -- is inaccurate and not complete. And as I say, the factual circumstances which will be developed at trial, the full story -- when that is developed at the trial, your Honor, I am sure that whatever is relevant with respect to that will be made clear to the court and to the jury.

So the response of our office is that what he is stating -- although, again, it is being stated in good faith, I am sure -- is inaccurate, and that indeed the circumstances were such that the action of the police was most appropriate, sir, under those very serious circumstances which existed immediately after

45

the shooting and killing of a police officer, with two weapons very close to Mr. Jamal at the time.

So that our statement at this point, as I would review the matter, your Honor, from my standpoint, is that there is really no evidence of mistreatment.

THE COURT: Considering all of the facts -- Mr. Jackson?

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, forgive the interruption. But I would simply state that if the man was handcuffed and struck, what appropriate reason would the police have for that, for striking him?

MR. McGILL: I would object to any further comments, your Honor.

MR. JACKSON: But that's the point, your Honor. He's making statements that he was appropriately beaten, as I understand his representation. And what reason would there have been for him to have been struck while handcuffed?

MR. McGILL: That's not what I said, your Honor. This is what happens --

MR. JACKSON: What reason would they

46

would they have for kicking him in the hospital?

MR. McGILL: I would like very much for Mr. Jackson to not misinterpret my statements, your Honor.

MR. JACKSON: That's what he said, your Honor.

MR. McGILL: I would like Mr. Jackson to extend to me the same courtesy I extended to him.

MR. JACKSON: I am responding to his statement, your Honor.

MR. McGILL: Just briefly, your Honor, if I may, my point is that the characterization that Mr. Jackson has made is inaccurate, in view of the factual circumstances that existed at the time. And this is certainly not relevant, your Honor, for consideration at this time. Whatever is relevant with respect to this, sir, will be brought to the attention of the court and the jury at the time of trial.

THE COURT: In any event, there is nothing that has to be done at the moment, is there?

MR. JACKSON: No, sir.

MR. McGILL: I would state, if I may,

47

sir, that there are two letters that Mr. Jackson refers to, a letter of March 10th, to Mr. Rendell, and a letter or April 21st. I would state, your Honor, first of all, that from the very beginning -- and properly so, because this is the method of procedure that is dictated by the regulations -- Mr. Jackson proceeded under Executive Order 180, your Honor, and the regulations thereunder, which is the Mayor's executive order, sir, and which gives authority to the police department to set up a certain procedure with respect to citizens' complaints as to any kind of police activity or police mistreatment.

This was followed, your Honor. There was in fact a complaint registered, the complaint was received, and our office received a copy. This was the avenue that was chosen.

There was an Internal Affairs investigation, sir, involving a great deal of statements, all of which have been presented to Mr. Jackson. There will be other statements, since the investigation is continuing, and he will get those statements as they come in. So that he will get all of that material, your

48

Honor. That is the situation -- with the District Attorney's Office encouraging the Court to permit Mr. Jackson to have this material, even though such statements are not normally given to counsel, or to anyone, until after the disposition of the charges made in the complaint.

Going further, your Honor, I would point out that in the March 10th letter to Mr. Rendell, sir, Mr. Jackson set out what he believed to be the facts. And I am sure that he did so in good faith. And he indicates that he himself is in possession -- that he himself believes that there may have been some actions which would lead to the arrest of individuals involved. And as to that, your Honor --

THE COURT: Sergeant, you have my permission to clear the hallway. I think the screaming and shouting and yelling and threats are interfering with the orderly processes of this court, and you can clear the hallway.

MR. JACKSON: May I have an opportunity to perhaps address those folks in the hallway?

THE COURT: Pardon?

MR. JACKSON: May I have an

49

opportunity to speak to them first?

THE COURT: Let's get on with this case. I'm not going to have the court process destroyed.

MR. McGILL: May I continue, then, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. McGILL: The entire thrust, if your Honor will recall those hearings in late February and early March, at the time when this letter was written, the letter of March 10th -- in fact, sir, at the end of March -- the entire thrust of those hearings had to do with what kind of recommendations and evaluations were coming from the police department as a result of that complaint.

And this is what was going on, this is what the thrust of those hearings was going toward. And this is when I said that I could encourage that all of the interviews be given to Mr. Jackson.

So that was the focus of what it was. We concerned ourselves at that time with the police investigation, your Honor, the Internal Affairs investigation.

50

Mr. Jackson also speaks here (indicating) about an evaluation of injuries to Mr. Jamal, requesting that any such evaluation be submitted to him. "I am requesting that it be provided to me. If there are continuing investigations or pending arrests, I wish to be advised."

So that he is asking to be advised of the investigation process.

However, your Honor, since the investigation was not complete at that time, at the time of this letter, and since the investigation was initiated through the police department, we would not be in a position to make -- we would not have been in a position at that time to make any kind of an evaluation, and would not be able to do so unless we ourselves had conducted an independent investigation.

I will state for the record, your Honor, that on April 21, 1982 Mr. Jackson writes a letter which to me indicates, particularly when he uses language such as -- well, when he demands results of investigations relative to various assaults, et cetera, et cetera, that this certainly can be read and has been read, sir,

51

as a formal request of sorts to have an investigation conducted by our office.

This is the procedure that we follow, your Honor, that there must be a formal request. And if there is a formal request filed, sir, the individual involved, the deputy district attorney involved, then proceeds.

So that we view this letter of April 21st as a formal request. And Mr. Rendell, along with other officials of the District Attorney's Office, is now looking at this letter, this request, and a decision will be made in terms of whether or not an investigation will be forthcoming.

I can alert the Court -- and I certainly also alert Mr. Jackson -- and I expect that Mr. Rendell himself will write a letter to Mr. Jackson, sir, outlining exactly what his expectations are, what his intentions are at this point.

THE COURT: Mr. Jackson will hear from Mr. Rendell in this area, then.

MR. JACKSON: Fine. And I am happy to hear that Mr. Rendell will respond. Hovever, your Honor, let me say, in terms of the run date

52

in this matter -- the run date in this case, your Honor, is June 7th. Today is April 29th.

THE COURT: It was when we started.

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. Now, I am to understand, your Honor, that Mr. Rendell is going to tell us -- is going to let us know at some point what he is going to do in this matter.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. JACKSON: I am prepared to have your Honor set a trial date. And I would just ask that your Honor set a trial date perhaps around June 1st. But notwithstanding that, your Honor, I am simply saying that once you set a trial date and we get a response from Mr. Rendell in perhaps a week or two weeks from now, sir, of what he intends to do -- and he might do it in August, September -- I need to know the information before I go to trial, your Honor. That's the whole purpose here.

THE COURT: What are you asking now, that Mr. Rendell move faster?

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir,

THE COURT: All right.

MR. McGILL: If I can respond to

53

what your Honor just said. I'm sure that Mr. Jackson will receive a letter in the next couple of days as to the action of our office in terms of an investigation into this matter.

Secondly, sir, irrespective of what the situation is as far as our office is concerned -- as a matter of fact, irrespective of what the situation is as far as the police department is concerned -- it's not relevant to the factual incident that we are talking about. If it is relevant at all, it would be relevant with respect to some other proceeding, sir, in another courtroom, another forum.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Rendell will respond to Mr. Jackson directly and advise him of that. Right?

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. And --

THE COURT: And what?

MR. JACKSON: All right, your Honor.

THE COURT: And let's see what happens. If this is a collateral matter, it should not interfere with the progress of this case.

54

MR. JACKSON: Oh, your Honor, this is indeed not a collateral matter. These issues are not collateral issues, sir. And, again, the representation by the Commonwealth -- and your Honor is not in a position to decide one way or the other, and I am not asking you to do so. I am simply saying that these issues are relevant, counsel for the prosecution is saying they are irrelevant. And we can go on all day in that manner.

THE COURT: Well, we have a system of justice where you can make all the arguments you want to make and perhaps get relief in some areas.

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. But as far as what is relevant or not relevant, I am not asklng your Honor to accept what I say or what the prosecution says. So on that matter, sir, we will await Mr. Rendell's letter and perhaps then come before your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I think we have had enough discussion on that matter. What else do you have?

MR. JACKSON: One last matter, your Honor, with regard to -- I lost my notes,

55

your Honor. If the Court will indulge me --

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. JACKSON: Because of the difficulty that I have had in preparing the case, I have previously spoken to Mr. Owens regarding -- with regard to two gentlemen to assist me in passing messages to Mr. Jamal, sir, and assisting me in my defense. Those gentlemen are Gerald Ford and Alfonso Robbins.

THE COURT: Gerald Ford Africa?

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: He is not in prison now, is he?

MR. JACKSON: No, sir.

THE COURT: In fact, he's been in the hallways here for some weeks. So he apparently is available to you.

MR. JACKSON: No, your Honor, that's not the problem. The problem is that I -- well, I would like a court order to the effect that they are assisting me in this matter, your Honor, and that they be permitted to see Mr. Jamal on official visits.

THE COURT: Well, there I have to

56

talk to the superintendent. I don't want to interfere with the prison procedure.

MR. JACKSON: Fine, sir. But I might say that what often happens is that --- and I have seen this take place many times -- the order will come from the court, and then from the superintendent to the warden, but doesn't get to the officer at the gate. And the officer at the gate will say, "I don't see any order." And that's the problem. And then, your Honor, if they try to reach the --

THE COURT: Well, I'll talk to Superintendent Owens.

MR. JACKSON: Fine, sir. And if he agrees, your Honor, would you issue an order, sir, so that they will have a copy at the prison?

THE COURT: What individuals are you concerned about?

MR. JACKSON: Gerald Ford and Alfonso Robbins.

THE COURT: Gerald Ford and Alfonso Robbins?

MR. JACKSON: That is correct, sir.

THE COURT: I'll talk to the

57

superintendent about that.

MR. JACKSON: Fine, sir.

THE COURT: Anything else?

MR. JACKSON: My last request would be for a trial date, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. When are you going to be ready for trial?

MR. JACKSON: I would assume, your Honor, based upon the good faith of counsel for the Commonvealth and the cooperation of everybody involved, that I should be ready in about three to four weeks.

THE COURT: Mr. McGill, what is your status?

MR. McGILL: Your Honor, I just have a fev more things to do in the next couple of days. I'll certainly be ready, however -- in fact, I might, if I may, sir, suggest a status listing in two weeks.

THE COURT: On what issue?

MR. McGILL: Just as to the trial date, to make sure that we can move forward with this.

How about a status listing in two weeks, your Honor, and then maybe set a date

58

certain, or be placed in the ready pool, whatever your Honor would feel would be appropiate at that time?

THE COURT: Is that agreeable, Mr. Jackson?

MR. JACKSON: Fine, sir.

THE COURT: All right. On May 13 1982, then, you will report as to whether or not you are ready for trial. You won't go on trial on that date. That will just be a status listing, to see if everybody is ready for trial.

MR. McGILL: The run date is June 7th, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. McGILL: We certainly will be prepared at that time to try the matter.

THE COURT: And I'll talk to Superintendent Owens about that other matter and see what his position is.

MR. JACKSON: Fine, sir.

MR. McGILL: Mr. Jackson had made a request out in the hallway, your Honor -- apparently he has misplaced a few statements and some photographs. I told Mr. Jackson that he

59

will get new photographs and statements, photographs as well as statements.

Is that correct?

MR. JACKSON: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. JACKSON: May I speak to you, your Honor, about another case?

THE COURT: All right.

MR. JACKSON: This is not about Mr. Jamal's case.

THE COURT: All right.