Verfahren gegen Mumia Abu-Jamal

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TRIAL DIVISION-CRIMINAL
---

---
COURTROOM 613, CITY HALL
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
---
MAY 13, 1982
---
MOTIONS
---
BEFORE: THE HONORABLE PAUL RIBNER, J.
---

2

THE COURT CRIER: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS THE MATTER OF MUMIA ABU JAMAL.

MR. MCGILL: YOUR HONOR, THERE WILL BE CERTAIN MOTIONS TO BE RULED UPON.

THE COURT: LET'S GET ON WITH THE LIST. LET'S GO DOWN THE MOTIONS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY TENDED BY ME.

MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, I SUSPECT ONE OF THE MOTIONS, OF COURSE, WAS WITH RESPECT TO OFFICER FAULKNER'S PERSONNEL RECORD, WHICH WAS PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE OMNIBUS MOTION WHICH WAS FILED ON THE 18TH OF MARCH THIS YEAR. YOUR HONOR INDICATED AT THE LAST LISTING THAT YOU WOULD OBTAIN THAT RECORD.

THE COURT: I'VE OBTAINED IT. I WENT THROUGH THE RECORD MYSELF. I HAVE MADE A LIST, WHICH I'M KEEPING IN MY FILE, WHICH HAS ABOUT EVERYTHING IN THERE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND THEN I WANT IT BACK FOR MY FILE. YOU CAN INITIAL IT AND MR. MCGILL CAN INITIAL IT AND THIS WILL BE POINTED AND THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGES IN THE FILE.

THERE IS NOTHING, IN MY JUDGMENT,

3

IN THAT FILE THAT WOULD AID THE DEFENSE IN ANY POSSIBLE WAY. ACCORDINGLY, I AM NOT GOING TO OPEN THE FILE TO THE PUBLIC.

I THINK THE ONLY THING LEFT OF THAT LIST IS THE LAST LETTER OF COMMISSIONER SOLOMON ADVISING OF THE DEATH OF OFFICER FAULKNER. IF IT'S NECESSARY FOR YOU LATER, WE'LL HAVE THAT LIST AVAILABLE AND THE FILE IS ALSO AVAILABLE.

MR. MCGILL: I HAVE--

MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, I WANT TO SHOW IT TO MY CLIENT, MR. JAMAL.

(PAUSE.)

MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, MY REVIEW-- I HAVE SUPPOSEDLY A SUMMARY OF THE INDEX OF THE ITEMS IN THIS PERSONNEL FILE. AT THE VERY LEAST WE WOULD ARGUE THAT THE PERFORMANCE REPORT OF OFFICER FAULKNER WOULD INDEED BE A RELATIVE MATTER.

THE COURT: I DON'T THINK IT TAKES ANY FURTHER ARGUMENT. I HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT ENTIRE FILE AND I HAVE LOOKED AT IT FROM A STANDPOINT OF ANY POSSIBLE QUESTION THAT THE DEFENSE MIGHT HAVE BETWEEN THE FILE AND THIS CASE. THERE IS NOTHING IN MY

4

JUDGMENT AND MY FINDINGS THAT WOULD AID THE DEFENSE IN ANY POSSIBLE WAY. IT'S STRICTLY PERSONNEL INFORMATION ABOUT OFFICER FAULKNER AND I SEE NO REASON TO CHANGE THE ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CONCERNING, THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THEIR RECORDS. THAT'S MY JUDGMENT. THEIR FILE IS ALWAYS AVAILABLE. THIS LIST WILL ALWAYS BE KEPT AVAILABLE.

MR. JACKSON: WILL THIS LIST AND WHAT'S ALLEGED IN THE FILE BE AVAILABLE TO THE TRIAL JUDGE? I WOULD ONLY ARGUE THAT, OF COURSE, YOUR HONOR MAKES THIS JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND PRESENTED TO YOU AT THIS POINT AND, OBVIOUSLY, YOUR HONOR, WILL NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO BOTH THE COUNSEL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH AND I HAVE--

THE COURT: THAT'S TRUE. I HAVE DONE THIS IN OTHER CASES. I HAVE LOOKED AT THAT FILE, PERSONNEL INFORMATION ABOUT OFFICER FAULKNER, HIS REQUEST, HIS COMMENDATIONS. THIS IS NOT GOING TO HELP THE DEFENSE IN ANY WAY.

5

MR. JACKSON : I AM NOT ARGUING THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THERE IS NOTHING IN MY JUDGMENT THAT WOULD PROBABLY HELP THE PROSECUTION OR DEFENSE IN THIS CASE AND I AM NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE ADMINISTRATIVE RULE OF MAINTAINING THE FILE OF A CONFIDENTIAL RECORD. IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THERE THAT HAD ANY BEARING, PERFORMANCE WISE, OR COMPLAINTS, OR ANYTHING ELSE, I WOULD HAVE MADE IT AVAILABLE TO YOU. THAT IS WHY I LOOKED AT THE FILE. THERE IS NOTHING IN THERE THAT CAN HELP YOU. YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT LATER BEFORE THE TRIAL JUDGE OR THE APPELLATE COURT, IF THAT BECOMES NECESSARY. THAT'S OPEN TO YOU BUT AS OF NOW, THAT IS MY RULING AND IT'S MY JUDGMENT.

MR. MCGILL: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD STATE, AS FAR AS NUMBER SIX, THE COPIES OF COMMENDATIONS AND MERIT LETTERS, AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT, IT WOULD NOT BE RELEVANT FOR THE CASE. HOWEVER, IF AT A TIME IT SHOULD BECOME RELEVANT, I WOULD THEN MAKE--

THE COURT: I HAVE ON RECORD OF

6

STANDING THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT FILE THAT CAN EITHER HELP THE PROSECUTION OR DEFENSE. THAT LIST CAN-- THE STENOGRAPHER CAN MAKE A NOTE OF IT AS NUMBER ONE. I WANT IT NOTED BY THE STENOGRAPHER AND THE ORIGINAL WILL BE RETURNED TO MY FILE.

MR. MCGILL: LET ME INITIAL IT.

THE COURT: I DON'T SEE WHERE A LIST HAS TO BE PUBLISHED. I'LL KEEP IT IN MY FILE, AS LONG AS EVERYBODY HAS INITIALED IT.

MR. MCGILL: MR. JACKSON HAS INITIALED IT.

THE COURT: IT'S UP TO HIM IF HE DOESN'T--

MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE PURPOSE OF MY INITIALLING--

THE COURT: SO THAT AT A LATER DATE YOU SAY WHERE IS THE LIST OF ITEMS THAT WAS IN THAT FILE. I WILL SHOW YOU THE EXACT SAME PAPER I HAVE HERE TODAY WITH ALL OUR THINGS ON IT. I SIGNED MY NAME ON IT.

MR. JACKSON: I SEE YOUR POINT.

THE COURT: YOU CAN EVEN DRAW A LINE DOWN ON THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE SO THAT

7

NOTHING CAN BE ADDED TO THIS. I AM DOING THIS FOR EVERYBODY'S PROTECTION, MINE, THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE DEFENSE. THAT LIST WILL REMAIN IN THE FILE AND FOR MY OWN PERSONAL INFORMATION. IF I GET THE FILE AGAIN, EVERYTHING IN THAT LIST MUST BE IN THERE.

MR. JACKSON: MAY I HAVE A COPY OF THAT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: NO. THAT IS THE PURPOSE IN MY KEEPING THIS.

MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, YOU CAN APPRECIATE THE POSITION YOU HAVE PLACED ME IN. I SIGNED A DOCUMENT WHICH I HAVE NO COPY.

THE COURT: OKAY. YOU WANT A PHOTOSTAT OF IT, YOU CAN HAVE IT.

NOW WE'LL HOLD, FOR THE MOMENT, THE TRIAL DATE, WHICH WE'LL NOW DISCUSS ALSO.

THE FOOD, THAT HAS TO BE WORKED OUT FOR MR. JAMAL.

MR. JACKSON: AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT'S STILL ERRATIC. IT'S NOT SATISFACTORY.

THE COURT: IF YOU SEND ME A

8

LETTER-- I HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT BEFORE. HE TRIED TO TELL ME THAT HE WILL GET WHATEVER IS REQUIRED, THE VEGETABLES AND WHATEVER ELSE IS POSSIBLE. IF IT'S NOT AVAILABLE, IT WILL BE.

MR. JACKSON: THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL ACT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT. WE RECEIVED THOSE ASSURANCES IN THE PAST AND, NEVERTHELESS, YOUR HONOR, YOUR HONOR'S ORDER HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND THE QUESTION IS--

THE COURT: SEND ME A NOTE AS TO EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT THAT HASN'T BEEN PROVIDED. IT'S THE BEST THAT I CAN DO. WHAT ELSE CAN I DO? WE HAVE NO PROCUREMENT FACILITIES TO ORDER CERTAIN FOOD OUT OF THE COURT SYSTEM.

MR. JACKSON: IT WOULD JUST SEEM IF YOUR HONOR WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER AND THOSE PERSONS-- IF THOSE PERSONS DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE ORDER, THEN THEY ARE IN CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT.

THE COURT: SEND ME A LIST OF THE FOOD THAT YOU THINK MR. JAMAL HAS AND HE IS NOT GETTING NOW AND I WILL CALL THE

9

SUPERINTENDENT AND IF THE FOOD IS AVAILABLE, I WILL ISSUE AN ORDER. THE REASON WHY I DON'T WANT TO ISSUE AN ORDER, SOME FOOD IS NOT AVAILABLE. IF YOU WANT SOMETHING TO BE BROUGHT IN FROM CALIFORNIA--

MR. JACKSON: I ASSURE THIS COURT THAT THERE ARE NO ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN UNUSUAL IN ANY NATURE.

THE COURT: DURING THE WINTERTIME CERTAIN FRESH VEGETABLES ARE NOT AVAILABLE; HOWEVER, THAT IS A MINOR MATTER. I INDICATED I WILL TRY TO GET YOU EVERYTHING YOU WANT.

MR. JACKSON: FINE, SIR.

THE COURT: ANOTHER BALLISTICS REPORT, NO BALLISTICS ORDER.

MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, I JUST SPOKE TO MR. JAMAL. THERE ARE JUST THREE ITEMS AND I CAN BRING THAT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION.

THE COURT: WHAT ARE THEY?

MR. JACKSON: GARLIC, ONIONS, WHEAT, POTATOES.

THE COURT: THEY SHOULD BE

10

AVAILABLE. I WILL CALL THE SUPERINTENDENT AND TELL HIM THEY SHOULD BE PROVIDED. NOW ON THE BALLISTICS EXPERT, I AM GOING TO RAISE THE AMOUNT THAT IS ORDERED TO $350.00, WHICH IS ONE I HAVE ALLOWED IN A FEW OTHER CASES FOR BALLISTICS REPORTS.

MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, UNFORTUNATELY I DID NOT MAKE A COPY OF MR. FASSNACHT'S (PHONETICALLY) BILL. I DO HAVE A BILL HERE IN COURT.

THE COURT: I THINK IT WAS 350.

MR. JACKSON: YES.

THE COURT: I AM AUTHORIZING THAT TO BE AMENDED RIGHT AWAY. THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH HIS REPORT IN OTHER CASES.

MR. MCGILL: YOUR HONOR, MAY I ASK, IN CONNECTION WITH THAT, IF THERE IS A REPORT, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED A REPORT FROM MR. FASSNACHT (PHONETICALLY).

MR. JACKSON: THERE IS NO REPORT YET. I SPOKE WITH MR. FASSNACHT (PHONETICALLY) ON A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS. WE ASKED THE-- WE REVIEWED THE BALLISTICS REPORT. IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME.

11

MR. FASSNACHT (PHONETICALLY) HAS ANALYZED THAT REPORT. HE HAS INDICATED TO ME THAT HE MAY OR MAY NOT PREPARE A REPORT RELATIVE TO WHAT HIS REVIEW CONTAINS. HE HAS SUGGESTED THAT, AMONG OTHER THINGS HE WOULD DO, IS TO PREPARE QUESTIONS AND ASSIST ME IN THE TECHNICAL NATURE OF THOSE QUESTIONS THAT WOULD BE ASKED OF THE BALLISTICS EXPERT OF THE COMMONWEALTH. SO THERE IS NO REPORT AS OF YET. IF THERE EVER WILL BE ONE-- AND I AM NOT AT ALL CERTAIN. HE HAS NOT REQUESTED, NOR HAS HE SEEN, AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE HIMSELF, EITHER THE WEAPONS OR BULLET OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT. HIS INDICATION HAS BEEN THAT HE CAN REVIEW THE RECORDS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND, BASED ON THAT, HE BELIEVES THAT THE REPORT THAT HE WOULD PRESENT US WOULD BE MORE THAN USEFUL.

THE COURT: BUT HE SHOULD PREPARE A REPORT TOO HIMSELF. IF YOU ARE GOING TO PAY HIM, YOU SHOULD GET A REPORT.

MR. JACKSON: YES, SIR. YOUR HONOR, IT'S JUST NOT THE REPORT THAT HE'S PREPARING AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. IT'S

12

NOT SIMPLY A MATTER OF HIM SAYING WELL, $350.00 FOR A REPORT. HE'S GOING TO PREPARE QUESTIONS FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION, AS WELL AS EXPERT RESOURCES.

MR. MCGILL: WELL, NATURALLY, YOUR HONOR, THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH THAT WOULD BE-- AND THAT IS THROUGH THE ABSENCE OF A REPORT UNTIL THE LAST MOMENT-- IS THAT THE COMMONWEALTH BE PRESENTED WITH A REPORT THE DAY BEFORE TRIAL, WHICH IS CERTAINLY-- FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE RULES OF DISCOVERY AND CERTAINLY THE MOTIVES BEHIND IT--

THE COURT: IF HE'S MERELY GOING TO ASSIST IN THE PREPARATION, THAT IS A MATTER BETWEEN HIM AND MR. JACKSON. IF HE'S GOING TO ISSUE A REPORT DRAWING SOME CONCLUSIONS ABOUT BALLISTIC MATTERS, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO YOU IN THE NEAR FUTURE AND THAT SHOULD BE TURNED OVER TO THE COMMONWEALTH, EVEN IF HE IS GOING TO TESTIFY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION AS TO CERTAIN CONCLUSIONS.

MR. MCGILL: IF HE IS GOING TO DO THAT AND HE IS NOT GOING TO PREPARE A REPORT, I WOULD PREFER, YOUR HONOR, OR AT

13

LEAST I WOULD REQUEST THE COURT-- AND I BELIEVE I WOULD BE ENTITLED TO AN ORAL SUMMARY OR A SUMMARY OF WHAT HE WOULD TESTIFY TO.

THE COURT: ON DIRECT EXAMINATION, YES.

MR. MCGILL: BECAUSE I ENTER IT WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT HE'S GOING TO SAY, SIMPLY BECAUSE HE DOESN'T ISSUE A REPORT.

MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, I APPRECIATE THE COMMONWEALTH'S POSITION AND IF WE GOT TO THE POINT OF AN OFFER OF PROOF, IF I HAD A REPORT, I WOULD PRESENT IT. I HAVE NO REPORT, EITHER ORAL AND WRITTEN, AND, OTHER THAN ORAL DISCUSSIONS, AN ANALYSIS REPORT, WE RECEIVED FROM THE COMMONWEALTH. IF THERE IS A REPORT THAT I RECEIVE SUBSEQUENTLY TO TODAY, I WILL MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO THE COMMONWEALTH.

AGAIN, MY POSITION AT THIS POINT IS THAT MR. FASSNACHT (PHONETICALLY) HAS INDICATED THAT HE WOULD ASSIST ME IN BEING AN EXPERT RESOURCE. NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER, IN FACT, HE WOULD EVEN TESTIFY. WE DON'T KNOW INDEED

14

THAT HIS TESTIMONY WOULD BE NECESSARY, BASED ON HIS REVIEW OF THE BALLISTICS REPORT.

MR. MCGILL: ON THE BASIS OF THAT REPRESENTATION, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD SAY THIS AND THAT IS THAT IF MR. FASSNACHT (PHONETICALLY) AT ANY TIME-- OBVIOUSLY IF HE HAS HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. JACKSON AND HE FEELS THAT IT MAY BE OF SOME ASSISTANCE, OBVIOUSLY, THEY HAVE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS OF SUBSTANCE AND IT IS VERY EASY FOR THOSE CONVERSATIONS, SUBSTANCE, ORALLY AND IN SUMMARY FORM, TO BE PRESENTED ON A SHEET OF PAPER AND MADE AVAILABLE TO ME. IF IT IS NOT, I WILL STATE TO THE COURT THAT IF HE IS CALLED AS A WITNESS, I WILL THEN PETITION TO EXCLUDE HIS TESTIMONY SINCE I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING. THAT IS ALL I AM SAYING. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS OF RECORD.

THE COURT: THAT IS SOMETHING YOU MAY DO. IF YOU DECIDED TO USE HIM AS A WITNESS, I THINK AT THAT POINT, WHATEVER PART IT IS, YOU OUGHT TO PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF HIS PROPOSED TESTIMONY TO MR. MCGILL.

15

MR. MCGILL: AND PREFERABLY NOT TEN MINUTES BEFORE HE CAN GET ON THE STAND SO I CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, THE RULES ARE CLEAR-- AND I WOULD CERTAINLY COMPLY WITH THE RULES OF COURT.

THE COURT: I ASK THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS-- AND IF YOU HAVE SOME STATEMENTS, YOU ARE GOING TO TURN THOSE OVER TO MR. MCGILL.

MR. JACKSON: I INDICATED TO MR. MCGILL, YOUR HONOR, THAT WE HAVE TWO STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN TAPE RECORDED. THEY ARE NOW BEING TRANSCRIBED. I HAVE INDICATED TO MR.-- TO COUNSEL THAT IF HE WANTS TO LISTEN TO THE TAPES, HE COULD. OTHERWISE, I WOULD HOPE THAT THE TRANSCRIPTION WOULD BE AVAILABLE BY THE END OF THIS WEEK.

MR. MCGILL: THAT'S SATISFACTORY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ON THE PART OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER, INVESTIGATOR AND FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST, I ALREADY ISSUED ORDERS TO RETAIN THEM. I AM GOING TO ISSUE THE SAME

16

AMOUNT, A HUNDRED AND FIFTY. IF THERE IS ADDITIONAL WORK, THEY CAN SUBMIT ITEMIZED BILLS AND YOU CAN PUT THAT ON PAPER, WHICH WON'T BE THAT MUCH IN THE FUTURE. WE HAVE THIS PROBLEM IN EVERY CASE AND THE POLICY HASN'T BEEN CHANGED YET. IF THERE ARE BILLS, THEY CAN SUBMIT THEM AND THE TRIAL JUDGE IS IN THE BEST POSITION TO DECIDE HOW MUCH WORK HAS BEEN DONE.

MR. JACKSON: I APPRECIATE THE TRIAL JUDGE MAY BE IN A POSITION TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH WORK WAS DONE. AS YOU MAY VERY WELL KNOW, THE COURT WOULD, IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, IF THE PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF A FEE WAS FILED, EVEN IN A TIMELY MANNER, IT WOULD TAKE NINE MONTHS TO A YEAR FOR PAYMENT.

THE COURT: IT'S NOT NECESSARY. IF YOU FILE A PETITION TO PAY A PETITION FILED, I AM SURE THE COURT WILL APPROVE IT. IF NOT, BRING IT TO ME AND I WILL BRING IT. YOU CAN GET YOUR PAY PETITION FILED AS SOON AS THE TRIAL IS OVER OR GET AN INTERIM PAYMENT. WE HAVE DONE THAT IN CERTAIN CASES.

17

MR. JACKSON: I WOULD JUST BRING TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION, I BELIEVE, THAT YOUR HONOR'S RULING WILL COMPROMISE THE DEFENDANT. I HAVE MADE CERTAIN REPRESENTATIONS TO THOSE PERSONS WHO WE WOULD BE USING THEIR RESOURCES, WITH RESPECT TO OBTAINING THEIR MONEY. I OBTAINED SERVICE-- IN THAT THEIR SERVICE BE PAID. I CERTAINLY WOULD NEED A FEE FOR THEM. NOW, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL BEFORE SUBMITTING THOSE PAYMENTS. I DARE SAY THAT THOSE SERVICES WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE TO ME IN THE FUTURE.

THE COURT: THEY'VE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER MURDER CASES IN PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO COMPROMISE THIS CASE MORE THAN ANY OTHER.

MR. JACKSON: OF COURSE, IN ALL DUE RESPECT, THIS IS THE ONLY MATTER THAT IS OF IMPORTANCE AT THIS MOMENT AND IF THOSE PERSONS WOULD NOT MAKE THEIR SERVICES AVAILABLE, I CAN'T MAKE THEM WORK FOR FREE.

THE COURT: ON THE OTHER HAND, WE

18

CAN'T AUTHORIZE AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT. THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR THAT IN THE LAW OR THE POLICY.

MR. JACKSON: I AM NOT REQUESTING AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT BUT I BELIEVE THAT YOUR HONOR'S RULING WOULD OVERBURDEN THE DEFENSE IN THIS MATTER.

THE COURT: YOU MADE YOUR POINT. I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I HAVE AUTHORIZED THE APPOINTMENTS OF AN INVESTIGATOR, A PHOTOGRAPHER AND A FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST. THE ONLY PROBLEM IS THE PAYMENT OF THEIR BILL AND WE HAVE PROVISIONS. IF THESE PEOPLE ALL WANT PAYMENT IN ADVANCE, THEY HAVE DONE WHAT NOBODY ELSE--

MR. JACKSON: THEY ALREADY WORKED. THEY EXCEEDED THE AMOUNT.

THE COURT: I EXPLAINED MY POSITION. IN THE PAST THERE HAVE BEEN NO PROBLEMS. APPARENTLY THE BILLS HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT. SO THERE SHOULD BE NO REASON WHY THEY CAN'T BE WORKED OUT IN THIS CASE. THAT IS THE RULE AND YOU ARE NOT BEING COMPROMISED IN ANY WAY THAT I CAN SEE.

MR. MCGILL: I WOULD ALSO AT THAT

19

POINT, YOUR HONOR, AGAIN ASK IF THERE HAS BEEN ANY REPORT MADE BY EITHER THE INVESTIGATOR OR WHOEVER ELSE HAS BEEN WORKING WITH MR. JACKSON ON THIS CASE. THE COMMONWEALTH HAS RECEIVED NOTHING AND, AGAIN, IF THEY WOULD TESTIFY, I WOULD PETITION TO EXCLUDE THEIR TESTIMONY SINCE I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING.

THE COURT: THAT IS UP TO YOU AND MR. JACKSON.

MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD, AS WELL, I WILL INDICATE THAT THERE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT MR. PERNO (PHONETICALLY) HAS TAKEN, BOTH OF MR. JAMAL WHILE IN THE HOSPITAL AS WELL AS THE SCENE AT 13TH AND LOCUST OR THE 1200 BLOCK OF LOCUST STREET. I WOULD MAKE THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS AVAILABLE TO HIM, IF HE WOULD LIKE.

WITH RESPECT TO THE INVESTIGATION OF MR. GREER (PHONETICALLY), THE STATEMENTS, I HAVE INDICATED, ARE BEING TRANSCRIBED. THEY SHOULD BE AVAILABLE BY THE END OF THE WEEK. THE BALANCE OF MR. GREER'S (PHONETICALLY) INVESTIGATION HAVE

20

NOT BEEN REDUCED TO WRITING AND WHEN AND IF THEY ARE, I WILL CERTAINLY BRING THEM TO THE ATTENTION OF MR. MCGILL.

MR. MCGILL: ON THAT POINT, JUDGE, AGAIN, I WOULD SAY, TO AVOID THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING A REPORT THE LAST MINUTE, WHICH WOULD BE A GREAT PREJUDICE TO THE COMMONWEALTH IN THIS CASE, I WOULD ASK THIS COURT TO SET UP A PARTICULAR DAY, WHICH WOULD BE TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE TRIAL DATE, WERE ALL REPORTS OF INDIVIDUALS THAT MR. JACKSON INTENDS TO CALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMONWEALTH SO THAT I MAY REVIEW IT. INASMUCH AS MR. JACKSON HAS HAD OUR ENTIRE FILE, ALONG WITH THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS FILE FOR MONTHS, IT IS, I THINK, THE VERY LEAST THAT CAN BE EXPECTED OF THE DEFENSE, TO GIVE THE COMMONWEALTH TWO WEEKS NOTICE AND IF ANYTHING BEYOND THAT TWO WEEKS IS MADE OR IN ANY WAY PREPARED, NONE THE LESS, THE WITNESS WOULD BE EXCLUDED. I THINK THAT IS FAIR, YOUR HONOR, BASED ON THE RULES.

MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO PRESENT THIS TO THE COURT: FIRST OF ALL, AT THIS POINT WE DON'T INTEND

21

TO CALL ANYONE, IN THAT WE HAVE CERTAINLY NOT HEARD THE COMMONWEALTH'S CASE AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WITNESSES WE WOULD PRESENT. FOR THE COMMONWEALTH TO IMPLY THAT WE HAVE A BURDEN TO TELL THEM WHO WE ARE GOING TO CALL IN ADVANCE OF WHAT WE HEAR, WHAT THE CHARGES ARE AND WHAT THE ALLEGATIONS ARE, I THINK WOULD BE UNREASONABLE BUT, SECONDLY, YOUR HONOR, AS YOU WELL KNOW, FROM THE REVIEW OF THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS REPORT, AS WELL AS THE LETTER FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THAT THEIR INVESTIGATION IS CONTINUING AND THAT MR. MCGILL HAS REPRESENTED TO ME AS WELL THAT THEY ARE CONTINUING THEIR INVESTIGATION. SO WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER AND THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN ME A DAILY BASIS--

THE COURT: YOU FILE A PETITION WITH ME, WHAT REPORTS YOU THINK YOU ARE ENTITLED TO, PRIOR TO TRIAL, AND HOW MUCH TIME, AND SERVE A COPY TO MR. JACKSON AND A DAY OR TWO LATER HE WILL FILE WHATEVER REPLY HE WANTS AND I WILL ISSUE A RULING ON IT.

22

MR. MCGILL: I'M NOT ASKING FOR WHAT WITNESSES THEY CALL. IT'S POTENTIAL WITNESSES AND, OBVIOUSLY, IF THEY DON'T CALL THEM--

THE COURT: THE RULES PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AND I WILL FOLLOW THE RULES AND THAT IS IT.

MR. JACKSON: AND THAT WOULD INDEED BE ADDRESSED BY THE COMMONWEALTH AS WELL AND, AGAIN, THE COMMONWEALTH HAS INDICATED TO ME THAT THEIR INVESTIGATION IS CONTINUING AND WHICH MEANS TODAY INVESTIGATION CONTINUES AND THERE MAY BE POTENTIAL WITNESSES AND I AM SURE, ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE, THAT I HAVE NOT RECEIVED A REPORT OF EACH AND EVERY PERSON THAT I'VE SPOKEN TO WITH REGARD TO THE CASE AND I DON'T THINK MR. MCGILL WILL MAKE THAT REPRESENTATION TO THE COURT.

MR. MCGILL: WHATEVER MR. JACKSON MAY THINK, HE HAS, NONE THE LESS, RECEIVED OVER A HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE INTERVIEWS. THIS IS ALMOST ABSURD. I'M OBVIOUSLY NOT GOING TO CALL A HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE WITNESSES. HE HAS A RIGHT, HOWEVER-- AND,

23

AS A MATTER OF FACT, HE DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO INTERNAL AFFAIRS BUT I AGREED TO GIVE HIM EVERYTHING.

MR. JACKSON: I WOULD OBJECT TO THAT.

MR. MCGILL: HERE I AM WITH NOTHING.

THE COURT: BOTH SIDES ARE TO PROVIDE REPORTS AS RECEIVED AND STATEMENTS AND SO ON.

MR. MCGILL: POTENTIAL WITNESSES?

THE COURT: POTENTIAL WITNESSES. AND IF THE WITNESS TAKES THE STAND AND SAYS I WAS SOUGHT TO BE A WITNESS THREE MONTHS AGO AND SO ON AND NEITHER COUNSEL DISCOVERS IT, YOU RUN THE RISK OF HAVING IT BARRED. THAT IS VERY SIMPLE.

FILE THE PETITION AS TO WHAT EXACTLY YOU WANT. I WILL LOOK AT IT, WILL LOOK IT OVER AND DECIDE WHAT I WANT TO DO ON THE RULES OF DISCOVERY.

MR. MCGILL: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: NOW THERE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE NAMES OF OTHER WITNESSES MR.

24

JACKSON WAS GOING TO TURN OVER TO MR. MCGILL.

MR. JACKSON: I HAVE GIVEN HIM TWO NAMES, YOUR HONOR.

MR. MCGILL: THEY ARE DESI HIGHFORN (PHONETICALLY), FOR THE RECORD, ROBERT PICKFORD (PHONETICALLY).

THE COURT: INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS OF ABUSE?

MR. JACKSON: YES. I WOULD LIKE TO BRING THAT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION AS WELL. BACK ON DECEMBER-- I BELIEVE IT WAS DECEMBER 29TH-- WE FILED AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS COMPLAINT WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE SHOOTING AND OTHER INJURIES SUSTAINED BY MR. JAMAL. IT WAS CARBON COPIED TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY. SUBSEQUENTLY, THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND MYSELF WITH CARBON COPIES TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

ON MARCH 10TH I SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY THAT HE PROVIDE ME WITH AN EVALUATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS

25

ADEQUATELY AND FULLY DISCLOSED THE FACTS AS THEY RELATE TO THE ENTIRE INCIDENT, AMONG OTHER THINGS.

I AGAIN SENT A LETTER ON APRIL 21ST DEMANDING THE RESULTS OF THAT INVESTIGATION. ON MAY 5TH I RECEIVED A RESPONSE FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY INDICATING THAT UNTIL MY APRIL 21ST LETTER CAME IN THAT THEY HAD NOT INITIATED ANY EFFORTS WHATSOEVER TO RESOLVE THE COMPLAINTS-- IT WAS NOT FORMALLY BROUGHT TO THEIR ATTENTION THAT INDEED THERE WERE COMPLAINTS ABOUT MR. JAMAL AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, THEY WERE JUST THEN BEGINNING TO START THEIR INVESTIGATION.

I SPOKE WITH HARRY SPAETH OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, TO WHOM THIS MATTER WAS REFERRED TO LAST FRIDAY. HE SAYS THAT HE WOULD THEN-- LAST FRIDAY, BEGAN HIS INVESTIGATION. YOUR HONOR CAN, I BELIEVE, WELL APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT MANY OF THE WITNESSES WHO, I BELIEVE, THE COMMONWEALTH WOULD PRESENT IN TESTIMONY AGAINST MR. JAMAL, WOULD ALSO BE THE VERY SAME WITNESSES WHO HAVE BEAT, STRUCK OR

26

SHOT MR. JAMAL. THE REST OF THOSE OFFICERS OR THE RESULTS OF THAT INVESTIGATION WOULD BE RELEVANT TO BIAS AND OTHER MATTERS WITH RESPECT TO THEIR TESTIMONY AND I BELIEVE THE DEFENSE WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION AND I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE COURT ORDER THAT INVESTIGATION BE COMPLETED, THAT ANY AND ALL INVESTIGATIONS BASED ON PROBABLE CAUSE BE CONCLUDED BEFORE TRIAL AND THAT INFORMATION BE TURNED OVER TO THE DEFENSE.

MR. MCGILL: MAY I HAVE SOME TIME TO RESPOND TO THIS, YOUR HONOR, SO THAT IT'S CLEAR?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. MCGILL: FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THAT THERE MAY WELL BE, HOWEVER WELL INTENTIONED, A MISUNDERSTANDING AS TO WHAT IS PRIMARY FACTUAL MATTERS AND COLLATERAL ISSUES IN THE CASE BEFORE THE COMMON PLEAS COURT IN THE MURDER CHARGE AGAINST MR. JAMAL. ANY KIND OF COMPLAINT THAT IS BROUGHT UPON BY A-- BROUGHT OUT, RATHER, BY A PARTICULAR VICTIM OR A PARTICULAR DEFENDANT IN A CASE

27

IS REVIEWED BY THE POLICE, WHEN IT IS MADE THROUGH AN EXECUTIVE ORDER.

ALSO, AS A MATTER OF COURSE, YOUR HONOR, I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW, THAT AS A MATTER OF COURSE, EVERY COMPLAINT THAT GOES THROUGH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS INVESTIGATED OR REVIEWED BY THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS. AFTER THAT INVESTIGATION IS COMPLETED-- AND IN SOME CASES DURING-- THAT COMPLAINT IS REVIEWED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. EVERY ONE OF THEM IS REVIEWED AS A MATTER OF COURSE.

ALSO, I UNDERSTAND, OF THOSE COMPLAINTS, COMPLAINTS ARE SENT DIRECTLY TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BECAUSE OF THE COOPERATION BETWEEN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE PRESENT POLICE ADMINISTRATION AND AS INDICATED BY MR. RENDELL IN HIS LETTER OF MAY 5TH, 1982, THE RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS ARE REVIEWED AT THE TIME THAT THE INVESTIGATION IS COMPLETED, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO GO FORWARD WITH AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION.

NOW IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE OR IN ALL CASES, WE WOULD WAIT FOR THE ENTIRE

28

INVESTIGATION TO BE COMPLETED. IN SOME CASES, WHEN INDEPENDENTLY ASKED, WE WOULD WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OR WE WOULD WORK INDEPENDENTLY.

YOUR HONOR, IN REFERENCE TO INVESTIGATIONS BEING MADE AND SO FORTH, I EVEN HEARD AND READ SOMETHING YESTERDAY ABOUT A PROBE UNDER WAY. YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT-- AND IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THIS BE MADE AS A PART OF THE RECORD TO THIS COURT AND TO THE PUBLIC-- IT IS PURELY IN THE COURSE OF NORMAL PROCEDURE THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WILL REVIEW, NO MATTER HOW SPECIOUS, EVERY COMPLAINT MADE BY A DEFENDANT OR MADE BY A COMPLAINANT ON THE STREET WHO MAY NOT BE ARRESTED. EVERY ONE OF THEM IS REVIEWED. THIS, IN CONNECTION WITH EVERY ONE, WILL BE REVIEWED, AS INDICATED BY LETTER OF MAY 5TH THAT MR. RENDELL SENT.

I WILL POINT OUT TO THIS COURT THAT THERE IS NO PARTICULAR REASONABLE CAUSE OR NO PARTICULAR PIECE OF INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE, OTHER THAN AS A NORMAL CITIZEN. MR. JACKSON IS MAKING A COMPLAINT THAT THIS

29

OFFICE IS REVIEWING THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION AND CONDUCTING ITS OWN, FOR NO OTHER REASON. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD, YOUR HONOR-- AND I THINK YOUR HONOR MAY HAVE EVEN SEEN IT PUBLISHED IN THE PAPERS THIS MORNING, IN THE INQUIRER, WHICH GAVE A RATHER LENGTHY ARTICLE ABOUT THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS UNIT.

IN 1981, YOUR HONOR, THERE WERE-- I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE. I THINK 636 COMPLAINTS THAT WENT THROUGH THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS. NOT IN THE INQUIRER WAS THE FACT THAT THAT TOTAL NUMBER OF REVIEWS OF COMPLAINTS WHERE THEY GO DIRECTLY THROUGH THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OR INITIATED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WAS OVER 722 IN 1981. THAT AMOUNT HAD DECREASED SINCE THE NUMBER IN 1981. OF ALL OF THOSE COMPLAINTS, 722 OUT OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, IN TERMS OF INITIATING INVESTIGATIONS, THERE WERE NO, ZERO, ARRESTS THAT CAME OUT. OUT OF THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS UNIT THERE WAS LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF THOSE 636.

MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, I'M

30

GOING TO OBJECT TO COUNSEL TESTIFYING. I THINK I AM GOING TO OBJECT. I THINK I KNOW MORE ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS THAN MR. MCGILL.

THE COURT: LET HIM FINISH.

MR. JACKSON: WILL I BE ALLOWED TO GIVE TESTIMONY WITH RESPECT TO INVESTIGATIONS AS WELL?

THE COURT: HAVE I EVER STOPPED YOU BEFORE?

MR. JACKSON: NO BUT IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PERMIT ME TO TESTIFY--

THE COURT: THIS IS IN THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT. THIS IS NOT ACTUAL TESTIMONY.

MR. JACKSON: FINE, SIR.

MR. MCGILL: YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE WHERE I WAS BEFORE INTERRUPTED WAS THAT THERE WAS APPROXIMATELY 636 THAT GO THROUGH THE POLICE. LESS THAN ONE PERCENT WHERE THERE WERE ARRESTS. THERE IS A NUMBER WHICH IS PUBLISHED IN THE PAPER WHERE THERE IS SOME SORT OF DISCIPLINE MADE. I WANT TO MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR TO EVERYONE IN THIS COURTROOM AND TO THIS

31

COURT THAT THE MERE REASON THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS INITIATING AN INVESTIGATION IS BECAUSE OF THE COMPLAINT BY MR. JACKSON AND NOT BECAUSE OF ANY OTHER PARTICULAR REASON, JUST AS IT HAS REVIEWED, AND IN SOME CASES, CONDUCTED INVESTIGATIONS ON ITS OWN IN THE PAST. SO WITH THAT VOLUME OF INFORMATION, YOUR HONOR, TO EVEN SUGGEST THAT THERE WERE GOING TO BE ARRESTS, TO EVEN SUGGEST THAT THERE WERE GOING TO BE ANYTHING AT ALL, IN A MATTER OF WEEKS BEFORE THE TRIAL, IS REALLY GUESSING AND I WOULD JUST PERHAPS EVEN WISH-- PARTICULARLY BASED ON THE STATISTICS THAT I TOLD YOU, JUDGE, I THINK TWO POSSIBLE REASONS FOR, PERHAPS, MR. JAMAL, WHO'S INITIATING THIS PARTICULAR APPROACH TO THE COURT: NUMBER ONE, A FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PRIMARY AND COLLATERAL ISSUE AND PERHAPS-- I KNOW MR. JACKSON TO BE A VERY INTELLIGENT PERSON. SO I DOUBT THAT AND, NUMBER TWO, I BELIEVE IT MAY VERY WELL BE AND INTENTIONAL ACT IN ORDER TO DIVERT ATTENTION FROM THE FACTS WHICH HAPPENED TO THE INDIVIDUALS AND THE

32

DEFENSE FEAR ARE DAMNING TO THEIR CASE AND, AS A RESULT, TO DIVERT ATTENTION FROM THAT AND TRY TO BUILD UP AND FOCUS ON A COLLATERAL ISSUE WITH A HOPE THAT IT SWALLOWS UP THE PRIMARY ONE. NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS AFTER AN INCIDENT, NO MATTER WHERE, AN HOUR, TWO HOURS, TWO MINUTES, THAT IS NOT WHAT'S ON TRIAL. SO I OBJECT TO THIS WHOLE PROCEDURE AND I THINK I CALLED IT FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.

THE COURT: MR. JACKSON, YOU CAN RESPOND.

MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, I WILL TRY TO BE VERY BRIEF.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE ANOTHER MATTER THIS MORNING.

MR. JACKSON: YES, IN FEDERAL COURT AND I BELIEVE MR. FOY (PHONETICALLY) HAS RESOLVED THAT WITH JUDGE BRODERICK. YOUR HONOR, TO RESPOND TO COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE NATURE WHY WE PRESENTED THIS COMPLAINT-- AND I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR WHY WE PRESENTED THE COMPLAINT TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. MR. JAMAL WAS SHOT, YOUR

33

HONOR. THERE'S BEEN NO INFORMATION-- WITH ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT THE COMMONWEALTH HAS INDICATED AND REPRESENTED TO THE COURT THAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED ME, THERE HAS BEEN NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER AS TO HOW OR WHY MR. JAMAL WAS SHOT. SECONDLY, YOUR HONOR--

THE COURT: SO WAS THE BULLET TAKEN FROM MR. JAMAL RECOVERED?

MR. JACKSON: I BELIEVE IT WAS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WAS IT CAPABLE OF BEING SUBJECT TO A BALLISTICS TEST?

MR. JACKSON: YES, IT WAS, YOUR HONOR. THERE STILL IS NO INDICATION AS TO WHO SHOT MR. JAMAL AND WHY HE WAS SHOT.

MR. MCGILL: YOUR HONOR, MAY I RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION?

THE COURT: LET HIM FINISH. LET MR. JACKSON FINISH.

MR. JACKSON: AGAIN, MR. JAMAL WAS SHOT. THERE IS NO INFORMATION, NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER AS TO HOW MR. JAMAL WAS SHOT. WE KNOW-- AT LEAST THE REPORTS WOULD SUGGEST THAT MR. JAMAL WAS SHOT--

34

THE COURT: YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT I SAT HERE AND LISTENED TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS AT THE BAIL HEARING OF THE EYE WITNESS AND THERE WAS AND INDICATION OF THE RELATIVE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES AND SO ON. SO THERE MIGHT BE SOME INDICATION AS TO HOW THE SHOOTING TOOK PLACE, IF YOU ARE REALLY IN DOUBT ABOUT IT.

MR. JACKSON: I AM CERTAINLY IN DOUBT, YOUR HONOR, AND PERHAPS YOU CAN APPRISE ME. I DIDN'T CERTAINLY HEAR SOMEONE SAY HOW MR. JAMAL WAS SHOT. I CERTAINLY DID NOT HEAR THAT.

THE COURT: GO AHEAD.

MR. JACKSON: AGAIN, THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT, YOUR HONOR, THAT MR. JAMAL WAS SHOT FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER. MR. JAMAL WAS BEATEN AT THE TIME AND, AS YOUR HONOR WELL KNOWS, INSPECTOR GEE (PHONETICALLY) TESTIFIED SOMEHOW MIRACULOUSLY MR. JAMAL MADE A PURPORTED STATEMENT TO HIM AND CONFESSION TO HIM AND, OF COURSE, THAT WAS ONE OF THE VERY PERSONS THAT MR. JAMAL INDICATED

35

STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD IN THE CAR. MR. JAMAL WAS ALSO BROUGHT IN-- AND I AM GIVING YOU FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY THE COMMONWEALTH, THAT MR. JAMAL WAS TAKEN INTO THE HOSPITAL. HE WAS DROPPED AND HE WAS KICKED. HE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY-- HIS URINE LINE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY STEPPED ON AND A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS HAPPENED AS WELL WHILE HE WAS AT THE HOSPITAL.

WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE DIRECT MATTERS OR COLLATERAL MATTERS, THE COMMONWEALTH-- AND, OF COURSE, INDEED THE COURT WOULD HAVE TO PREJUDGE AND PRESUPPOSE WHAT IT IS THAT THE DEFENSE WOULD PRESENT IN ITS DEFENSE BUT, YOUR HONOR, AGAIN, BASED ON THE REPORTS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ALONE, THERE IS INDEED AMPLE REASON TO SUSPECT THAT THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THOSE TO INVESTIGATE THOSE OFFICERS AND THAT THERE WAS NO REASON WHATSOEVER FOR MR. JAMAL TO BE SHOT, THERE WAS NO REASON FOR MR. JAMAL TO BE BEATEN AND THERE WAS NO REASON FOR HIM TO BE KICKED AT THE HOSPITAL.

36

THE COURT: WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO AT A PRETRIAL MATTER? WHAT ARE YOU ASKING HE TO DO?

MR. JACKSON: TO ORDER THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO GIVE ME THE RESULTS OF WHETHER THEY ARE GOING TO INVESTIGATE AN OFFICER OR OFFICERS, TO DO THAT NOW IMMEDIATELY, OR TO TELL US WHY THEY ARE NOT INVESTIGATING. YOUR HONOR, I DON'T REALLY WANT TO ARGUE THE POLICY OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

THE COURT: YOU WANT THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. ALL RIGHT.

MR. JACKSON: YES.

THE COURT: MR. MCGILL.

MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, IF I CAN CONTINUE JUST BRIEFLY AS WELL? MR. MCGILL HAS SAID IT IS THE POLICY OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO AWAIT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION BEFORE THEY DO ANYTHING BUT, OF COURSE, WE ARE IN A CATCH 22 SITUATION. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SAYS WELL, WE ARE CONTINUING TO INVESTIGATE. OF COURSE, MR. JAMAL STANDS READY TO GO TO TRIAL WHILE THE

37

POLICE DEPARTMENT IS CONTINUING TO INVESTIGATE AND MR. RENDELL HAS AT LEAST PREVIOUSLY INDICATED THAT WE ARE GOING TO WAIT. NOW THEY ARE SAYING WELL, SINCE YOU HAVE MADE A SPECIFIC DEMAND, NOW WE ARE GOING TO DO SOMETHING. THE BIAS, THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, OF ALL WITNESSES WHEN THEY TESTIFY IN ANY CASE, YOUR HONOR, IS A RELATIVE CONSIDERATION. I BELIEVE WE NEED THAT INFORMATION AT THE TIME OF TRIAL. THIS IS NOT A SMOKE SCREEN. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS INDEED VERY IMPORTANT AND CRITICAL TO THE DEFENSE. I THINK THAT THE POLICY OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR THE POLICY OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS HIGHER THAN THE RULES OF COURT. I UNDERSTAND THE RULES OF DISCOVERY, YOUR HONOR, AND I UNDERSTAND THE RIGHTS THAT MR. JAMAL HAS. IF MR. JAMAL IS DENIED THAT INFORMATION, THEN HE WOULD BE SEVERELY DENIED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION AND FOR THAT REASON, YOUR HONOR, I THINK HE HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION AT OR BEFORE TRIAL.

38

THE COURT: MR. MCGILL.

MR. MCGILL: YES, YOUR HONOR. VERY BRIEFLY.

THE COURT: ADDRESS YOURSELF TO TWO THINGS. I ASKED ABOUT THE QUESTION OF WHERE THE BULLET CAME FROM AND, TWO, DID YOU REQUEST AN ORDER ORDERING AN INVESTIGATION AND HE WANTS THE RESULTS OF THAT INVESTIGATION BEFORE TRIAL.

MR. MCGILL: YES, I WILL, THOSE TWO AREAS. THE FIRST AREA, YOUR HONOR AND COUNSEL HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITH BOTH THE REPORTS, CERTAINLY THE BALLISTIC REPORT, AS WELL AS PROPERTY RECEIPTS FOR THE WEAPONS, AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT IT WAS REGISTERED TO MR. JAMAL AND ALSO THE WEAPON THAT WAS REGISTERED TO OFFICER FAULKNER. YOUR HONOR, THE EVIDENCE WHICH HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO MR. JACKSON IS CLEARLY THE BULLET THAT WAS TAKEN FROM MR. JAMAL--

THE COURT: MR. JACKSON, I WANT YOU TO HEAR THIS.

MR. JACKSON: I'M LISTENING, YOUR HONOR. BELIEVE ME, I AM.

THE COURT: GO AHEAD, MR.

39

MCGILL. MR. JACKSON SAID HE'S LISTENING.

MR. JACKSON: I AM LISTENING. I LEARNED TO DO TWO THINGS AT ONCE.

THE COURT: GO AHEAD.

MR. MCGILL: THE BULLET THAT WAS TAKEN FROM MR. JAMAL WHO, BY THE WAY, YOUR HONOR, WAS TAKEN IMMEDIATELY TO THE HOSPITAL IN ORDER TO PROVIDE HIM TREATMENT AFTER HE WAS SHOT AND HE WAS TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL BY THE PHILADELPHIA POLICE THAT HE'S NOW CLAIMING SO ABUSED HIM AND IF HE HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL AND IF TREATMENT HAD NOT BEEN URGED UPON HIM, HE MAY NOT BE HERE TODAY BUT I WOULD SAY, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE BULLET THAT WAS TAKEN FROM MR. JAMAL WAS SHOT AND IT WAS TESTED BY BALLISTICS. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THIS BULLET WAS SHOT FROM THE GUN, THE WEAPON THAT POLICE OFFICER FAULKNER HAD. THE GUN THAT WAS REGISTERED TO HIM. THAT EVIDENCE WAS QUITE AVAILABLE TO MR. JACKSON AT A VERY EARLY DATE. WITH THE--

THE COURT: WAS THAT GIVEN TO MR. JACKSON?

MR. JACKSON: YES, I BELIEVE,

40

THAT WAS GIVEN TO HIM.

THE COURT: YOU HAVE SOME--

MR. JACKSON: I DON'T, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE, AT BEST, FROM WHAT GUN THE BULLET CAME FROM. MY QUESTION IS WHO SHOT HIM AND WHEN AND FOR WHAT REASON? THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, YOUR HONOR, A BIG DIFFERENCE.

THE COURT: THAT IS NOT AT THE TRIAL.

MR. JACKSON: NO, IT'S NOT, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS MY POINT. IT WAS WHY I WANT TO INVESTIGATE, BECAUSE THE INVESTIGATION, IN MY MIND, WILL SHOW, IN FACT, THAT OFFICER FAULKNER DID NOT SHOOT MR. JAMAL.

MR. MCGILL: WELL, HE MAY INDICATE-- YOUR HONOR, IN SOME WAY HE MIGHT THINK AND INVESTIGATION-- AND AMAZINGLY SPECULATIVE ONE, BECAUSE OF ALL THE STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY ALL OF THE WITNESSES THAT WERE PRESENT AND IMMEDIATELY THAT HAD ARRIVED ON THE SCENE, ALL OF THE STATEMENTS THAT WERE NOT THE LEAST BIT RELEVANT TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT ACTUALLY OBSERVED ANYTHING AT ALL OR HEARD ANYTHING

41

AT ALL IN RELATION TO THE SHOTS, THE SHOOTING THAT HAD OCCURRED, WAS WHETHER MR. JAMAL AND OFFICER FAULKNER WAS THERE AFTER OFFICER FAULKNER HAD STOPPED HIS BROTHER WILLIAM COOK. THERE WERE NO SHOTS FIRED AFTER THAT TIME. THERE WERE NO SHOTS FIRED, CERTAINLY, BY THE POLICE AT ANY TIME, OTHER THAN OFFICER FAULKNER.

THE COURT: THAT'S A MATTER FOR TRIAL.

MR. MCGILL: THERE IS JUST NO EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: IF ANOTHER BULLET WOULD HAVE BEEN FIRED LATER ON, SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE HEARD A GUN SHOT.

MR. JACKSON: THERE IS THE STRONG PREMISE, YOUR HONOR--

MR. MCGILL: THIS AGAIN IS WHAT I AM SAYING, JUDGE. THERE IS TWO REASONS FOR ALL THESE COLLATERAL ISSUES.

THE COURT: WHAT ABOUT THE REPORT FROM YOUR INVESTIGATION AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS ANY SUBSEQUENT SHOOTINGS AND SO ON?

MR. MCGILL: YES-- AND IT'S BEEN ABSOLUTELY FOUND, ANY POSSIBILITY THAT

42

ANYBODY ELSE HAD SHOT THE GUN.

THE COURT: WHEN DO YOU THINK THE REPORTS WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO MR. JACKSON?

MR. MCGILL: THE INVESTIGATION OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. JACKSON: I REALLY DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION. I WOULD IMAGINE THAT IT WOULD TAKE SOME TIME. WE WOULD REVIEW ALL OF THE STATEMENTS AND, AS I SAID, THERE WAS 125 AND APPARENTLY THE COMPLAINTS THAT MR. JACKSON HAD MADE WAS MORE THAN JUST SHOOTING. IT GOES TO THE HOSPITAL AND OTHER THINGS.

THE COURT: I AM GOING TO DO THIS: I AM NOT GOING TO ISSUE MR. JACKSON A DIRECT ORDER FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. I AM GOING TO TELL YOU THAT YOU COMPLETE AN INVESTIGATION, REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH TIME YOU HAVE TO PUT IN ON IT, IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE, BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO THE TRIAL DATE. SO IF IT TAKES PUTTING ENOUGH PEOPLE ON TO GO THROUGH ALL THAT, YOU HAVE TO DO IT. THERE IS NO

43

REASON TO DELAY THAT FOR ANY PERIOD.

MR. MCGILL: NO, YOUR HONOR. THE ACTUAL INVESTIGATION BY THE POLICE AND THE INVESTIGATION BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT TWO SEPARATE ONES. THAT INVESTIGATION OF THE POLICE IS CONTINUING TO DATE AND YOUR HONOR HAS SEEN THE FILE. THERE IS NOT ONLY AN ABSENCE OF RECOMMENDATION OF ANY KIND OF ARRESTS, THERE IS A BLATANT ABSENCE.

THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE TO TERMINATE THAT AND GET ON WITH THE TRIAL. IF YOU HAVE 5,000 STATEMENTS, PUT AN EXTRA 20 PEOPLE ON IT BUT GET THE THING DONE. PRESUMABLY ALL EVIDENCE IS ALREADY IN. YOU KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT. YOU KNOW THE STATEMENTS AND THE PEOPLE YOU WANT TO INTERVIEW, IF NECESSARY. DO IT. NOW LET'S GET IT DONE AND WE WILL GET A COPY OF THAT REPORT, CONCLUSIONS AND/OR ANY ACTION FOR MR. JACKSON AND THAT'S IT.

MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE ONE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO THAT. IF INDEED BASED ON THAT-- AS MR. MCGILL KNOWS THIS-- WITH RESPECT TO STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES WHO

44

WOULD TESTIFY THAT MR. JAMAL WAS BEATEN AND THINGS OF THAT SORT THAT INFORMATION IS CONTAINED IN THE INFORMATION--

MR. MCGILL: I WOULD OBJECT TO THAT. I KNOW THAT HE WAS BEATEN?

MR. JACKSON: YES.

THE COURT: THAT'S A STATEMENT, ARGUMENT, AND HE SAYS HE WASN'T BEATEN.

MR. JACKSON: WE CAN GO THROUGH EACH WITNESS AND I CAN SHOW YOU IN THE REPORT WHERE THEY SAID YES, MR. JAMAL WAS BEATEN WHILE HE WAS HANDCUFFED. YES, MR. JAMAL WAS DROPPED AND KICKED IN THE HOSPITAL.

THE COURT: MR. MCGILL DENIES IT. THAT'S NOT RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF MY RULINGS TODAY.

MR. JACKSON: THE CORNER THAT I HAVE IS INDEED THE COMMONWEALTH WILL DO WHAT I SUSPECT THAT THEY WILL DO, AT BEST, IS REPEAT THEIR STATEMENTS THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY AND WHAT I AM SAYING, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT THERE IS AMPLE REASON, AMPLE EVIDENCE ALREADY THAT WOULD-- THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST SEVERAL

45

POLICE OFFICERS. AS YOUR HONOR WELL KNOWS, THERE IS STILL A RULE OF COURT THAT WILL ALLOW A COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TO ISSUE AN ARREST WARRANT. IF MR. RENDELL FAILS OR REFUSES TO ARREST THOSE OFFICERS, WOULD YOUR HONOR, EVEN TODAY, CONSIDER ARRESTING THOSE OFFICERS BASED ON PROBABLE CAUSE?

THE COURT: I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN FRONT OF ME.

MR. JACKSON: I WOULD PRESENT THAT EVIDENCE TO YOU AND I AM PREPARED TO DO THAT TODAY BY WAY OF STATEMENTS, YOUR HONOR, SINCE IT APPEARS THAT MR. RENDELL--

THE COURT: THE ONLY THING I WANT NOW IS TO HAVE THAT INVESTIGATION COMPLETED THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS CONDUCTING GIVEN TO YOU SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE IT BEFORE TRIAL.

MR. JACKSON: I AM SUGGESTING TO THE COURT THAT MR. RENDELL WILL NOT COMPLETE THEIR INVESTIGATION AND IT WILL BE ALMOST A CARBON COPY OF WHAT IS AVAILABLE ALREADY AND I AM SUGGESTING TO THIS COURT THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE BASED ON THOSE REPORTS, THOSE WITNESSES ALONE.

46

THE COURT: THAT'S ANOTHER MATTER. I WANT TO GET THE CASE READY FOR TRIAL.

MR. JACKSON: IT'S NOT A COLLATERAL MATTER, YOUR HONOR. IT'S A MATTER THAT DIRECTLY PERTAINS TO THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE.

MR. MCGILL: JUDGE, THAT'S MY POINT. JUDGE, THIS IS NOT RELEVANT.

THE COURT: I RULED ALREADY. THIS IS NOT RELEVANT TO MY ORDERS NOW. IF THIS IS PART OF CROSS-EXAMINATION, IT'S PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF CROSS-EXAMINATION, MR. JACKSON.

MR. JACKSON: I THINK I HAVE THE JUDGE'S ATTENTION. YOUR HONOR, IF THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THOSE POLICE OFFICERS, IF NOT TODAY-- IF NOT BY DECEMBER 9TH-- I'M SAYING TODAY, ON MAY 13TH, THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THOSE POLICE OFFICERS. TO SUGGEST THAT WE SHOULD WAIT UNTIL THE TIME OF TRIAL OR AFTER THE TRIAL TO ARREST THOSE OFFICERS DENIES MR. JAMAL AN EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION BECAUSE IF THEY ARE ARRESTED, THEY SHOULD BE ARRESTED.

47

THE COURT: I AM RULING RIGHT NOW AND SO RULING ON THE RECORD THAT THERE IS NOTHING SO FAR THAT PREJUDICES YOUR RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION OR TO EFFECTIVE PREPARE FOR TRIAL. I HAVE SAID THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SHOULD COMPLETE THEIR INVESTIGATION AND MAKE THAT AVAILABLE FOR YOU FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE IT SHALL BE FOR AND IT WILL BE DONE BEFORE TRIAL.

MR. JACKSON: AND ARE YOU SAYING YOU WILL NOT CONSIDER A MOTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ARREST WARRANTS FOR THOSE OFFICERS?

THE COURT: I THINK IT'S TOTALLY IMPROPER TO ASK ME THAT ALONG THAT LINE. I DON'T THINK ANYTHING FALLS ON ME AND I DON'T THINK IT'S RELEVANT FOR THE CASE TO BE PREPARED FOR TRIAL.

MR. JACKSON: FINE. I CAN PRESENT THAT PETITION TO YOU. YOUR HONOR KNOWS THERE ARE CERTAINLY PROVISIONS WITHIN OUR STATE LAW THAT WOULD ALLOW YOUR HONOR TO ISSUE WARRANTS FOR THE ARREST OF THOSE OFFICERS?

THE COURT: YOU CAN FORWARD THAT

48

PETITION TO ME AND I WILL LOOK IT OVER, AND SERVE A COPY ON THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

MR. MCGILL: ON THIS POINT, JUDGE, IF THAT BE PERMITTED--

THE COURT: IF WHAT BE PERMITTED?

MR. MCGILL: THE PARTICULAR BUSINESS ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS BEING COMPLETED, HIS HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE ON INVESTIGATIONS, IT WOULD BE VERY EASY, YOUR HONOR, FOR EVERY DEFENDANT AND EVERY DEFENSE COUNSEL TO DEMAND AN INVESTIGATION BECAUSE HIS CLIENT IS-- HE BELIEVES IN SOME WAY ABUSED AND, THEREFORE, CAUSE A DELAY OR WHATEVER.

THE COURT: IF YOU FIND THAT BECAUSE FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO COMPLETE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO COMPLETE BEFORE TRIAL, JUST SEND A COPY OF THAT STATEMENT TO MR. JACKSON AND TELL HIM WHY. THAT'S IT. THEN HE CAN MAKE USE OF THAT AT TRIAL OR APPEAL, IF NECESSARY, IF IT'S NECESSARY FOR APPEAL. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL BE, ONE WAY OR THE

49

OTHER.

MR. MCGILL: I WOULD STATE, YOUR HONOR, THAT MR. JACKSON JUST MENTIONED THE BUSINESS ABOUT GETTING AN ORDER OF THAT. YOUR HONOR, ALL OF THOSE WITNESSES-- IT IS CLEAR OUT OF THE ENTIRE NUMBER OF WITNESSES THAT WERE PRESENT, OF THOSE THAT WERE ABLE TO SEE CLOSE AT HAND AS TO WHAT HAD OCCURRED, THAT AT THE TIME OF APPREHENSION MR. JAMAL, AT THE SCENE, WHERE THAT OFFICER WAS THERE, THERE WERE TWO WEAPONS CLOSE TO MR. JAMAL. I MEAN ALL OF THIS IS SO MUCH A PART. HE JUST SAYS THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE.

THE COURT: I REJECTED THAT. YOU CAN FILE-- IF YOU WANT, YOU CAN FILE ANYTHING AND I WILL MAKE A RULING ON IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

MR. JACKSON: I JUST WANT THIS TO BE CLEAR, YOUR HONOR. ASSUMING I FILE A PETITION FOR YOUR HONOR TO ISSUE A WARRANT FOR THE ARREST OF THOSE OFFICERS, AS YOUR HONOR WELL KNOWS, WE HAVE THE STATEMENTS OF THE WITNESSES. WE DON'T HAVE THEIR ADDRESSES. WE CAN DO IT ONE OF SEVERAL

50

WAYS. WE CAN SUBMIT, BASED ON THE STATEMENTS THAT WE HAVE-- IS THAT THE OFFICERS HAD NO REASON TO BEAT MR. JAMAL OR WHEN WE FILE THE PETITION, THE COMMONWEALTH WOULD THEN HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO BRING IN THOSE WITNESSES. WE HAVE NO ACCESS TO THOSE WITNESSES AND THOSE ARE THE WITNESSES THAT THE COMMONWEALTH--

THE COURT: PRESENT THE PETITION TO ME AND I WILL RULE ON WHAT, IF ANYTHING, IS NECESSARY. I HAVE TO DEAL IN CONCRETE THINGS RATHER THAN JUST HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS.

MR. JACKSON: FINE, SIR. ONE OTHER MATTER.

THE COURT: I'M NOT FINISHED. NOW WITH REGARD TO THAT MATTER, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS LOOKING INTO IT.

NOW WITH REGARD TO ADDITIONAL VISITORS TO MR. JAMAL, HAS THAT BEEN TAKEN CARE OF?

MR. JACKSON: CAN I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

(OFF THE RECORD DISCUSSION.)

51

MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, JUST ONE ADDITIONAL VISITOR, ADELE JONES, WHO IS ALSO PRESENT IN THE COURT TODAY. MR. JAMAL HAS REQUESTED THAT HE BE PERMITTED TO VISIT WITH HER. MS. JONES HAS BEEN AFFILIATED WITH THE PRISONERS' RIGHTS ORGANIZATION. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISONS HAS ALLOWED A NUMBER OF PERSONS TO VISIT WITH MR. JAMAL. A LIST WILL BE PREPARED. I KNOW THE ORGANIZATION HAS ALREADY BEEN SANCTIONED BY MR. OWENS.

THE COURT: DO WE HAVE ANY PROBLEMS? SUPERINTENDENT OWENS USUALLY HANDLES THESE MATTERS. IS THERE ANY PROBLEM WITH VISITORS?

MR. JACKSON: THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE A RESULT OF MR. OWENS.

THE COURT: I WANT TO LEAVE THAT IN THE SUPERINTENDENT'S OWN HANDS. IF YOU THINK HE'S VIOLATING THE LAW IN ANY WAY, SEND ME A SHORT NOTE. IF HE VIOLATES THE LAW IN ANY WAY, I WILL LOOK AT IT. OTHER THAN THAT, I SEE NO REASON TO DISCUSS THAT RIGHT NOW.

52

MR. JACKSON: VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I BELIEVE THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT. IF YOU THINK HE IS VIOLATING THE LAW, YOU LET ME KNOW. NOW THE REMAINING MATTER IS A TRIAL DATE. YOU HAVE A RUN DATE OF JUNE 7 AND THE CASE SHOULD BE ASSIGNED BEFORE THAT.

MR. JACKSON: I HAVE A COUPLE OF MATTERS BEFORE THAT. NOTES OF TESTIMONY TAKEN BEFORE JUDGE MEKEL ON THE 8TH OF JANUARY, I HAVE ATTEMPTED ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS TO OBTAIN THOSE NOTES OF TESTIMONY. I HAVE BEEN TOLD--

THE COURT: DO YOU WANT ME TO ISSUE AN ORDER FOR JUDGE MEKEL--

MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, THE NOTES, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, HAVE BEEN TRANSCRIBED. THE REPORTER IS SALVATORE NATALE. I HAVE BEEN TOLD VARIOUS THINGS ON OCCASION. HE IS UNAVAILABLE, THAT NOTES ARE MISSING. I HAVE NOT GOTTEN THEM. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT SALVATORE NATALE IS

53

IN 675 THIS MORNING. I HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE NOTES OF TESTIMONY AND I OBVIOUSLY NEED THEM.

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE NOTES, MR. MCGILL?

MR. MCGILL: I BELIEVE I HAVE A COPY OF THE NOTES, BOTH, OF OUR HEARING, AS WELL AS THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.

MR. JACKSON: I DON'T HAVE THEM.

THE COURT: DID YOU ASK MR. NATALE? WE'LL CHECK IT OUT AND GIVE YOU A CALL.

MR. JACKSON: FINE, SIR, AND BEFORE ASSIGNING A TRIAL DATE, MR. JAMAL WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COURT.

THE COURT: DO YOU THINK IT'S ADVISABLE?

MR. JACKSON: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: IF YOU THINK IT'S RELEVANT--

MR. JACKSON: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: I'M IN THE MIDDLE OF A JURY TRIAL RIGHT NOW.

MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE IT'S A MATTER OF CRITICAL

54

IMPORTANCE.

MR. JAMAL.

. . . MUMIA ABU JAMAL, HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN AS A WITNESS, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS...

THE DEFENDANT: MUMIA ABU JAMAL. AND AT THIS TIME I WISH TO PETITION THE COURT WITH NOTICE OF INTENT TO REPRESENT MYSELF. I BELIEVE THAT SUCH AN ACTION IS CONSTANT AND CONSISTENT WITH MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, WHICH ARE DEEMED HELD--

THE COURT: YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT. LET'S TAKE THIS MATTER, YOU MAY REPRESENT YOURSELF. I AM GOING TO ORDER MR. JACKSON TO BE PRESENT AT ALL TIMES AS BACKUP COUNSEL TO ASSIST YOU IF YOU WISH. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO REPRESENT YOURSELF, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T INTERFERE WITH THE COURT PROCESSES OR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. MR. JACKSON WILL BE AVAILABLE AS BACKUP COUNSEL TO HELP YOU IN ASSISTING IN ANY WAY AND IF AT ANY TIME YOU ARE UNABLE TO REPRESENT YOURSELF OR YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO REPRESENT YOURSELF, HE WILL BE ASKED TO TAKE OVER THE REPRESENTATION.

55

MR. JACKSON: IF IT PLEASES THE COURT, YOUR HONOR, I APPRECIATE THAT YOUR HONOR HAS GRANTED MR. JAMAL'S PETITION. WITH RESPECT TO YOUR HONOR THAT I WOULD BE ASSIGNED AS BACKUP COUNSEL, I, OF COURSE, HAVE BEEN TRAINED AS A LAWYER TO REPRESENT INDIVIDUALS. I HAVE NOT BEEN TRAINED AS BACKUP COUNSEL. YOUR HONOR WOULD BE PLACING ME IN A SITUATION I AM UNFAMILIAR WITH. I HAVE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE AND I AM NOT SURE, FEELING THAT I WOULD BE EFFECTIVE IN PROVIDING--

THE COURT: WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO?

MR. JACKSON: I WOULD REQUEST THAT EITHER ADDITIONAL OR OTHER COUNSEL BE PROVIDED AS BACKUP FOR MR. JAMAL. I WOULD CERTAINLY CONTINUE TO ASSIST MR. JAMAL IN WHATEVER MANNER I POSSIBLY COULD BUT I WOULD NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE BEING MR. JAMAL'S--

THE COURT: YOU ARE COURT APPOINTED?

MR. JACKSON: YES.

THE COURT: YOU'RE COURT

56

APPOINTED AND YOUR PAY PETITION WILL REFLECT--

MR. JACKSON: THE APPOINTMENT THAT I ACCEPTED WAS TO REPRESENT MR. JAMAL (unleserlich), IN FACT, THE CONTRACT THAT I SIGNED, TO REPRESENT HIM, AND I DON'T BELIEVE YOUR HONOR--

THE COURT: I DON'T WANT EXTENSIVE ARGUMENT ON THIS. THE PRESENT COURT RULE IS TO HAVE COUNSEL REMAIN AS BACKUP COUNSEL AND THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING. MR. JAMAL CAN HANDLE HIS OWN DEFENSE.

MR. JACKSON: MOST RESPECTFULLY, I WOULD LIKE TO LET THE RECORD SHOW AS WELL THAT I WOULD REFUSE TO BE BACKUP COUNSEL. IF THAT REQUIRES MY INCARCERATION--

THE COURT: INCARCERATION?

MR. JACKSON: YES.

THE COURT: I DON'T HAVE-- I AM NOT GOING TO HAVE YOU ARRESTED.

MR. JACKSON: I'M NOT GOING TO--

THE COURT: IF YOU EQUATE GOING TO MY COURTROOM AS GOING TO PRISON, I FEEL SORRY.

MR. JACKSON: I'M SAYING I AM NOT

57

GOING TO ACCEPT AN APPOINTMENT FOR BACKUP COUNSEL. I ACCEPTED AN APPOINTMENT AS COUNSEL AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE COURT HAS ANY JURISDICTION. SLAVERY HAS BEEN ABOLISHED, YOUR HONOR, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS COURT, IN ALL DUE RESPECT TO MR. JAMAL, THAT I BELIEVE THAT I CAN BE REQUIRED TO BE BACKUP COUNSEL. MR. JAMAL KNOWS AND I DISCUSSED THIS AND I WOULD CONTINUE TO ASSIST IN AN INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL CAPACITY BUT I DON'T WISH TO BECOME BACKUP COUNSEL AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS COURT--

THE COURT: YOU SEE, YOU ARE PUTTING THE COURT IN A POSITION BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE A DELAY IN TRIAL AND I AM NOT GOING TO PERMIT IT OR TOLERATE IT. LET ME FINISH. IF I CAN APPOINT OR ASK FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION OF ANOTHER ATTORNEY, HE WOULDN'T FEEL CONFIDENT THAT HE CAN SIT AND ADVISE COUNSEL OF ANYTHING. HE WOULD WANT THE RECORD AND START IT OVER. I AM NOT GOING TO PERMIT IT.

THAT SLAVERY HAS BEEN ABOLISHED, I WILL ANNOUNCE, IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT

58

ABOUT IT. YOU ARE AN OFFICER OF THE COURT. WE ALL ARE. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER YOU EFFECTIVELY PRESENT THE CASE OR STAY IN IT AS BACKUP COUNSEL BUT YOU'RE STILL PERFORMING A FUNCTION AS AN ATTORNEY, A DEFENSE COUNSEL, AND BACKUP COUNSEL, AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, AND I'M ORDERING YOU TO DO SO.

MR. JACKSON: YOUR HONOR, AS YOU WELL KNOW I DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOUR HONOR CAN DO THAT. I AM SUGGESTING THAT WITHOUT DUE PROCESS YOUR HONOR IS REQUIRING ME TO PERFORM A FUNCTION I HAVE NEVER PERFORMED IN A MATTER WHERE A MAN'S LIFE IS AT RISK AND I DON'T BELIEVE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT YOUR HONOR SHOULD OR--

THE COURT: YOU KNOW THAT AND MR. JAMAL IS MAKING THE DECISION. IF HE WANTS COUNSEL TO REPRESENT HIM, HE MAY DO SO.

MR. JACKSON: I AM NOT CONCERNED RIGHT NOW, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION, WITH MR. JAMAL'S RIGHTS. MR. JAMAL HAS HIS RIGHTS. I AM TALKING ABOUT MY RIGHTS. I HAVE A RIGHT A TO PICK AND CHOOSE AND WHICH APPOINTMENTS I WILL PROVIDE TO THE COURT.

59

I ACCEPTED AN APPOINTMENT.

THE COURT: I THINK IN YOUR FUNCTION AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, MR. JACKSON, YOU CAN CERTAINLY REFUSE AN APPOINTMENT INITIALLY, IF YOU WANTED TO DO IT IN THIS CASE. YOU TOOK THE REPRESENTATION OF MR. JAMAL. AT THAT POINT THAT REPRESENTATION IS NOT BEING RESOLVED. IT IS MERELY CHANGING ITS CHARACTER AND NATURE.

MR. JACKSON: AS TO THE NATURE OF THE CONTRACT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU WILL REMAIN AS BACKUP COUNSEL AND PROVIDE THAT FUNCTION TO MR. JAMAL. HE HAS THE RIGHT TO WAIVE THE ACTIVE PARTICIPATION OF AN ATTORNEY AND I AM GRANTING HIM THAT RIGHT AND GRANTING HIS MOTION.

MR. JACKSON: I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOUR HONOR, BUT, I BELIEVE, AGAIN, YOUR HONOR IS NOT EMPOWERED TO SUPERCEDE THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE WILSON TO DEMAND OR ORDER ME TO CONTINUE SINCE, IN FACT--

THE COURT: WE DO HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO REFUSE TO PERMIT COUNSEL TO

60

WITHDRAW FROM A CASE. WITHDRAWAL FROM A CASE, ONCE THE REPRESENTATION HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN, IS NOT WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF AN ATTORNEY WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE COURT AND IF YOU CHECK THE LAW AND STANDINGS ON THIS, YOU WILL FIND THAT IS TRUE. IF YOU ARE ASKING TO WITHDRAW, I AM DENYING YOUR PETITION TO WITHDRAW.

MR. JACKSON: BUT, YOUR HONOR, AGAIN I AM NOT ASKING TO WITHDRAW. I AM SAYING THAT IN THIS CASE I WILL EITHER BE A LAWYER OR I WILL NOT BE A LAWYER. THAT'S ALL AND YOU ARE TRYING TO SUGGEST, YOUR HONOR, THAT-- I BELIEVE, YOUR HONOR-- THAT I AM WITHDRAWING FROM THIS CASE. I AM SAYING I AM THE LAWYER, NOTWITHSTANDING MR. JAMAL, CERTAINLY NOT WITH ANY--

THE COURT: YOU CAN FIGHT THAT OUT WITH MR. JAMAL. IT'S HIS REQUEST THAT HE REPRESENT HIMSELF. I REFUSE TO BE PUT IN A DILEMMA HERE. YOU WILL REMAIN IN THE CASE AS BACKUP COUNSEL BECAUSE I WILL NOT PERMIT YOU TO WITHDRAW, AT LEAST NOT AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME. WE'RE NOT GOING TO DELAY TRIAL BECAUSE OF THIS. THAT'S THE

61

END. I RULED.

IF YOU WISH TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT AND ASK FOR, SAY, FURTHER RELIEF, FEEL FREE TO DO SO.

MR. JACKSON: WOULD YOU CERTIFY THE QUESTION--

THE COURT: NOT TO DELAY TRIAL.

MR. JACKSON: YOU ARE SAYING YOU WILL ALLOW ME TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT. THE ONLY WAY I WOULD DO THAT IS FOR YOUR HONOR TO CERTIFY THE QUESTION--

THE COURT: I AM NOT GOING TO CERTIFY ANY QUESTION BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT MY LEGAL RIGHT TO ORDER YOU TO REMAIN AS BACKUP COUNSEL. I'M NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING THAT WILL DELAY THE START OF THIS TRIAL. IF YOU WISH TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT AND GET A WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROHIBITING ME ASKING YOU TO-- ASKING THEM TO RELIEVE YOU AS BACKUP COUNSEL, YOU CAN DO IT.

THE DEFENDANT: JUDGE RIBNER, IT IS NOT MY INTENTION-- AND I ASSURE YOU IT IS NOT THE ATTENTION TO DELAY TRIAL. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR SEVERAL

62

MONTHS NOW, AS YOU WELL KNOW. THIS HAS BEEN A POSITION THAT I HAVE HELD FOR SEVERAL MONTHS NOW. IT HAS BEEN MY INTENTION TO DEFEND MYSELF.

THE COURT: IT'S THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU MENTIONED IT TO ME.

THE DEFENDANT: THIS HAS BEEN MY INTENTION.

THE COURT: I AM GRANTING YOUR MOTION.

THE DEFENDANT: THE POINT I AM MAKING IS I AM FACED NOW WITH AN ATTORNEY WHO HAS SAID IN FULL COURT THAT HE IS NOT FUNCTIONING AS BACKUP COUNSEL. I NEED AN ATTORNEY WHO'S COMFORTABLE DOING THAT. AS I EXPRESSED, I WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH MR. JACKSON BUT I FEEL IT IS NOW TIME FOR ME TO DEFEND MYSELF. IT IS MY LIFE AT STAKE HERE, NOT YOURS, NOT MR. JACKSON'S. MAY I FINISH, SIR?

THE COURT: WELL, I'LL LET YOU FINISH. KEEP TO THE POINT.

THE DEFENDANT: I AM KEEPING TO THE POINT EXACTLY. MY POINT IS THAT IF I HAVE A COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL ASSIGNED AS

63

BACKUP COUNSEL, WHO HAS EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO FUNCTION IN THAT ROLE, THEN OUR RELATIONSHIP IS COMPROMISED. MY ABILITY TO DEPEND ON HIS RESOURCES IS COMPROMISED.

THE COURT: I HAVEN'T HEARD MR. JACKSON SAY HE IS UNAVAILABLE.

MR. JACKSON: I WILL SAY IT.

THE COURT: WE ARE GOING ABOUT A DISCIPLINARY MATTER BECAUSE YOU ARE TRYING TO CREATE REVERSIBLE ERROR BY SAYING YOU CANNOT FUNCTION AS BACKUP COUNSEL AND I WILL PURSUE THAT, MR. JACKSON. I THINK THIS IS A DIRECT ATTEMPT TO TRY TO CREATE A DELAY IN THE TRIAL OF THIS CASE.

THE DEFENDANT: IT IS NOT.

MR. JACKSON: WHAT I'M SAYING, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT I HAVE NEVER, NEVER, SINCE I HAVE BEEN PRACTICING LAW, BEEN BACKUP COUNSEL AND I AM SAYING THAT I DO NOT KNOW HOW I WOULD FUNCTION AND I FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE THAT INDEED I MIGHT BE INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE, I BELIEVE, MY SKILLS AND RESOURCES ARE IN MY ABILITY TO TRY A CASE AND NOT NECESSARILY TRAIN SOMEONE IN

64

THE LAW, TRAIN ONE IN A MANNER THAT THEY ARE TO ASK QUESTIONS, AND I AM SAYING THAT, IN FACT, I MAY BE INEFFECTIVE AND THAT THERE MAY BE OTHERS WHO ARE BETTER SUITED TO DO THAT. I AM NOT SEVERING MY RELATIONSHIP.

THE COURT: YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO THAT THERE IS NO COURSE IN LAW SCHOOL ON BACKUP COUNSELLING.

MR. JACKSON: THAT'S MY POINT.

THE COURT: LET ME FINISH. AND I REGARD THAT AS OUTRAGEOUS ARGUMENT AND I AM SO STATING FOR THE RECORD. YOU ARE AN ATTORNEY, AN OFFICER OF THE COURT. YOU KNOW HOW TO HANDLE A CASE AND YOU DO VERY WELL IN HANDLING THE CASES.

MR. JACKSON: WHEN I--

THE COURT: MAY I FINISH WITHOUT BEING SHOUTED OUT?

MR. JACKSON: MY APOLOGIES, SIR.

THE COURT: YOU KNOW HOW TO HANDLE A CASE. YOU KNOW HOW TO REPRESENT A CLIENT. I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU DO ANYTHING MORE THAN COUNSELLING TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS CASE AND IN MY VIEW,

65

THE BEST PERSON CAPABLE OF ADVISING MR. JAMAL AS TO CERTAIN MATTERS IS THE ONE WHO HAS WORKED ON THIS CASE FROM THE INCEPTION. I DON'T THINK ANY OTHER ATTORNEY COULD STEP IN THE CASE AND FUNCTION AS WELL AS YOU COULD IN THIS CASE. I REGARD IT AS IMPROPER FOR YOU TO WITHDRAW AS BACKUP COUNSEL. I DENIED YOUR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW IN THE CASE. IF YOU WANT TO TAKE OTHER ACTION, FEEL FREE TO DO SO.

NOW THE NEXT POINT? ANYTHING ELSE?

MR. JACKSON: THAT'S IT.

THE COURT: NOW THE TRIAL DATE-- I PRESUME MR. JAMAL WANTS TO HANDLE THAT HIMSELF. THE RUN DATE IS JUNE 7TH.

MR. MCGILL: THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

THE COURT: WHEN WILL YOU BE READY TO GO TO TRIAL, MR. MCGILL?

MR. MCGILL: YOUR HONOR, AT ANY TIME, REALLY. I THINK ORIGINALLY, WHEN MR. JACKSON AND YOU WERE SPEAKING, WE WERE TALKING IN TERMS OF AROUND JUNE THE lST, AROUND THAT TIME, I THINK, IS WHEN WAS

66

AVAILABLE. I THINK HE HAD SOME MATTERS BEFORE THEN AND I SAID I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT TIME.

ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU SAID, MR. JACKSON?

MR. JACKSON: YES. I BELIEVE-- WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MR. JAMAL, I BELIEVE THAT MR. JAMAL IS NOW THE ONE THAT THOSE--

THE COURT: THAT'S WHAT I SAID. MR. JAMAL, THE CASE WILL BE ASSIGNED FOR TRIAL ON TUESDAY, JUNE THE lST, OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS A COURTROOM IS AVAILABLE BUT IT WILL BE TRIED BEFORE JUNE 7TH.

YOU WILL BE READY WITH PROSECUTION?

MR. MCGILL: I CERTAINLY WILL.

THE COURT: I PRESUME YOU WILL BE READY BY JUNE 1ST THEN?

THE DEFENDANT: I HOPE SO.

THE COURT: IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO PRESENT, YOU PRESENT IT DIRECTLY TO THE COURT BY WAY OF LETTER OR PETITION AND YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO ASK MR. JACKSON TO HELP YOU OR FACILITATE GETTING IT OUT. YOU MAKE

67

YOUR DECISIONS AND I HAVE ORDERED HIM TO REMAIN TO ASSIST YOU IN ANY WAY YOU CAN. MR. JACKSON, ARE WE CLEAR ON THAT? IF YOU THINK I DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT, TAKE WHATEVER REMEDIES YOU FEEL ARE NECESSARY.

MR. JACKSON: I CERTAINLY WILL, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THAT CONCLUDES THE MATTERS AND THE NEXT THING WILL BE THE TRIAL ON OR BEFORE JUNE 1ST.

MR. MCGILL: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: MR. JAMAL, WE'RE GOING TO SEND MATTERS DIRECTLY TO YOU. WE HAVE JUDGE-- THOSE NOTES FROM THE COURT OF JUDGE MEKEL. IF WE CAN GET ANOTHER COPY OF THE NOTES-- IF NOT, THESE WILL BE PHOTOSTATED AND SENT TO YOU.

MR. MCGILL: YOUR HONOR, I'M JUST WONDERING. PERHAPS THE PROPER TIME WOULD BE TRIAL BUT DO YOU THINK A COLLOQUY OF THE DEFENDANT, IN REFERENCE TO HIS REPRESENTING HIMSELF, WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME?

THE COURT: WELL, CERTAINLY

68

BEFORE TRIAL.

MR. MCGILL: YES, SIR. IT WOULD BE. THEN IN TERMS OF PREPARATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, PRETRIAL MOTIONS, I GUESS, ALSO, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REFERRING TO, BECAUSE BOTH MOTIONS AND TRIAL WILL BE AT THE SAME TIME. PERHAPS THE COURT SHOULD--

THE COURT: MR. JAMAL, DO YOU WANT TO COME UP HERE. I WANT TO DISCUSS SOMETHING WITH YOU. I WANT YOU TO SAY ON THE RECORD THAT YOU'RE TOTALLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO HAVE COUNSEL APPOINTED TO REPRESENT YOU AT ALL PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT COST TO YOU.

THE DEFENDANT: YES.

THE COURT: YOU ALREADY SAT THROUGH THE PROCEEDINGS. I HAVE GIVEN CERTAIN ORDERS FOR INVESTIGATORS AND SO FORTH AND I HAVE OPENED THE DOOR TO THOSE?

THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: OF COURSE, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO WAIVE COUNSEL-- IT'S YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT-- AND REPRESENT

69

YOURSELF. IN THIS CASE, AS YOU ARE ALREADY AWARE, I HAVE ASKED YOUR ATTORNEY, MR. JACKSON, TO FUNCTION AS BACKUP COUNSEL AND TO REMAIN IN THE CASE AND HE WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ASSIST YOU AND AID YOU IN ANY WAY THAT YOU REQUEST. IF AT ANY TIME YOU WAIVE THE RIGHT TO REPRESENT YOURSELF, FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, OR IT BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO REPRESENT YOURSELF, MR. JACKSON WILL BE ASKED TO CONTINUE THE CASE TO THE END OF TRIAL, WHETHER YOU ARE PRESENT OR ABSENT OR WHATEVER. I DON'T KNOW WHAT MIGHT OCCUR. HE'S GOING TO BE AVAILABLE TO TAKE OVER THE CASE UNDER OUR PRESENT ARRANGEMENT.

IN THE MEANTIME, ANY MATTERS THAT YOU WANT TO FILE WITH THE COURT OR PRESENT, YOU CAN DO SO DIRECTLY AND YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO ASK MR. JACKSON TO ASSIST YOU IN DOING THAT. IF THERE IS ANY DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AS TO WHAT THE COURSE OF ACTION IS, YOU HAVE TO BE GUIDED BY YOUR OWN DECISION, SINCE YOU ARE EFFECTIVELY REPRESENTING YOURSELF.

NOW IS THERE ANYTHING I HAVE SAID

70

THAT YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT? IT'S THE COURT'S IMPRESSION-- I AM STATING FOR THE RECORD THAT YOU ARE COMPLETELY AWARE OF EVERYTHING THAT IS HAPPENING IN THE COURTROOM, YOU ARE ACTING KNOWLEDGABLY AND YOU ARE MAKING AN INTELLIGENT WAIVER?

THE DEFENDANT: THAT'S CORRECT.

THE COURT: IT'S THE COURT'S IMPRESSION THAT MR. JAMAL IS COMPLETELY ALERT. HE'S NOT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY SUBSTANCE AND HE CERTAINLY CAN READ AND HE WRITES PRETTY NICELY AND HE IS FULLY AWARE OF HIS RIGHTS.

MR. MCGILL, ANYTHING ELSE?

MR. MCGILL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HAVE NOTHING ELSE.

THE COURT: IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO INDICATE THEM TO ME, ANY.

THE DEFENDANT: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO-- OBVIOUSLY WHAT MR. JACKSON HAS DONE, UNDERSTAND HIS PROTEST, UNDER HIS PERSONAL PROTEST, MINE AS WELL, HIM NOT WANTING TO PERFORM THAT FUNCTION, COMPROMISES OUR ABILITY TO WORK.

71

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE HEARD THAT.

MR. JACKSON, I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT YOUR CONVERSATION. I AM IN THE MIDDLE OF A MURDER TRIAL. SO WE DO HAVE TO GET STARTED.

MR. JACKSON: IT WILL JUST TAKE ONE MINUTE. WE HAVE TO WORK OUT A FEW THINGS AND YOU UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE I HAVE TO GO TO FEDERAL COURT.

MR. MCGILL: BY THE WAY, YOUR HONOR, I WANT TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE HEARD, OTHER THAN YESTERDAY TALKING TO MR. JACKSON, THE POSSIBILITY OF MR. JAMAL'S REPRESENTING HIMSELF.

THE COURT: OKAY.

(PAUSE.)

MR. JACKSON: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(HEARING ADJOURNED).