Page 3.
THE COURT: We are back in chambers. I am advising counsel
that it is now 10:30 and the jury is getting restless.
MR. McGILL: Mr. Jamal has been here for about ten or
fifteen minutes.
Q. Do you know other people who know Mr. Jamal?
A. Yes.
Q. Among those other people that you know who know Mr.
Jamal what is his reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding
citizen?
A. An excellent reputation.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
MR. McGILL: Your Honor, I have no questions of Miss
Reynolds.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you very much.
(WITNESS EXCUSED)
MR. JACKSON: The defense would next call Allen
Lawson.
Page 32.
Direct-A. Lawson
ALLEN LAWSON, having been duly sworn
was examined and testified as, follows:
ALLEN LAWSON-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. JACKSON:
Q. Mr. Lawson, do you know Mumia Abu-Jamal?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. The Defendant seated before you?
A. Yes.
Q. How long have you known him?
A. I guess about ten years.
Q. Could you tell us how it is you have come to know
him?
A. Well, I come to know him because of his activity in
reporting news in Philadelphia. In working with WDAS. I come to know him
because I was a teacher at Temple University for seven years and on three
or four occasions he came up and guest lectured with the students in the
class.
I know him in reference to different problems that have
occurred in prisons which we have shared information with each other that
he reported
Page 33.
Direct-A. Lawson
while he was a newspaper reporter.
Q. Do you know other people who know Mr. Jamal?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Among those other people that you know who know Mr.
Jamal what is his reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding
citizen?
A. As far as I know he has always been peaceful and law
abiding and that is what he generally speaks about in the nature of his
talks. It is usually peaceful and law-abiding and dealing with the
truth.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
Cross-examine
ALLEN LAWSON-CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. McGILL:
Q. Good morning, sir. You are the director of the
Prisoners Rights Council?
A. I am.
Q. Mr. Lawson, you indicated you have known this
Defendant for about ten years?
A. Yes.
Page 34.
Cross-A. Lawson
Q. Have you known him for any extended amount of time in
the last year and a half since 1979?
A. Yes.
Q. How often would you see him during that period of
time?
A. I don't know how to judge that. I have seen him quite
a few times. In fact, during the times he lectured in my classes it has
been within the past two years.
Q. Within the past two years?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Lawson, you were convicted yourself, is that
correct?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And would it be fair to say that was robbery and
conspiracy arising out of an incident which occurred in August of
1960?
A. Yes. It was a robbery.
Q. And as a result of that did you serve time?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Following that on February 8th, 1965 were you also
convicted of robbery at that time?
A. Yes, I was.
Page 35.
Cross-A. Lawson
Q. And did you also serve time as a result of that?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. During the course of that time did you have occasion
to meet or talk to this Defendant during the period of your
incarceration?
A. No. In fact, when I met him it was after the
incarceration.
Q. And the first time would have been ten years ago?
A. Somewhere along there. After I was left out of jail.
After '71. That is when I met everybody.
Q. Did you hear of him before that period of time,
1972?
A. I don't recall.
Q. You mentioned individuals that know him and that you
have heard his reputation is good for being peaceful and law-abiding?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you tell me what you mean by peaceful and
law-abiding?
MR. JACKSON: Objection. What he means isn't relevant,
Your Honor.
Page 36.
Cross-A. Lawson
MR. McGILL: He testified to it.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
BY MR. McGILL:
Q. Did you at anytime ever hear others speak of the fact
that this Defendant at one time was suppose to say --
MR. JACKSON: (Interposing) Objection. May we see you at
sidebar?
(The following is a sidebar discussion with both counsel
present.)
MR. McGILL: What is the objection?
THE COURT: I want to hear the question first before you
say it in front of the jury.
MR. JACKSON: What does it have to do with his
reputation?
MR. McGILL: If he heard it. His reputation is what you
hear.
MR. JACKSON: From people. It is not what he himself has
said. It has nothing to do with reputation.
Page 37.
Cross-A. Lawson
MR. McGILL: That is completely inaccurate.
THE COURT: You read that? I can't read that.
MR. McGILL: It says the black brothers and sisters and
organizations which wouldn't commit themselves before are relating to us
that black people are facing the reality that the Black Panther Party has
been facing. Political power grows out of the barrel of the gun.
That is absolutely relevant as hearsay. This has been
quoted often in various newspapers since then. This is certainly
admissible and relevant cross examination on character testimony.
MR. JACKSON: Whatever words he said, if he said, "Kill
the Goddamn pigs" it has nothing to do with the reputation. He can
cross-examine with regard to what they know about his reputation, good,
bad or indifferent, and not as to whether or not he has heard a witness
say specific words.
Page 38.
Cross-A. Lawson
How can he bring up specific words?
MR. McGILL: It is completely wrong.
MR. JACKSON: I will get some cases. I know I am
right.
THE COURT: You better get the cases then.
MR. JACKSON: He knows that, Judge.
MR. McGILL: Listen to the reasoning. Number one it is
hearsay. Reputation evidence is hearsay. What did you hear from others? He
has already gotten many inadmissible things in as to individual instances
which are not relevant.
You are suppose to say how did you know him? I knew him
professionally. That should be enough. Not because when he did a, b, c, d,
e, which gets in a lot of specific incidents.
Your Honor allowed that. The real admissible testimony is
have you heard from others? What have you heard from others? Have you
heard from others about his
Page 39.
Cross-A. Lawson
reputation? What have you heard about his reputation?
So, if he says he has been a good and peaceful and law
abiding person and all that, that is fine. On cross-examination they
should be cross-examined on whether or not he has heard anyone say, this
Defendant or anyone talk about this quote which has been widely
publicized.
THE COURT: I remember there was a time when you could
cross-examine about reputation witnesses in regards to the Defendant's bad
actions on the streets even though he was not convicted of a crime, but I
understand recently the Supreme Court, I think it was, had ruled that you
cannot use any prior incident unless that incident somehow resulted in a
conviction and that conviction has to be for a crime of crimen falsi. That
is what they have said.
MR. McGILL: Can I explain what the ruling is that refers
to hearing about specific bad acts?
Page 40.
Cross-A. Lawson
THE COURT: This is a specific bad act?
MR. McGILL: No. No.
THE COURT: This is something he wrote advocating some
form of violence?
MR. McGILL: I would like to finish. I am explaining to
you what the law is.
THE COURT: Let him finish so I can understand his
position.
MR. McGILL: The case is the Smith case, the Harold Smith
case. It says you can use on cross-examination as well as rebuttal the
same kind of incident which is testified about.
For example, if he had been convicted of another murder,
or if he had been convicted of aggravated assault I could say had you
heard that he had been convicted of aggravated assault? I can't say in
this case have you heard that he was convicted of burglary, because that
was crimen falsi. Only the specific issue that is raised by the witness.
That is the limitation of that
Page 41.
Cross-A. Lawson
case.
Now, this is different. We are not talking about specific
bad acts. We are talking about his competence and the basis for his
statement that he has heard others talk about Mr. Jamal as being peaceful
and law-abiding.
Now, the question then becomes have you heard those
others say, or have you heard from others, or heard generally or in
publications in which publication this is stated? If he says yes he heard
that I would ask how that would affect, if at all, your judgment as to his
reputation. He will probably say not at all, or he will probably say he
didn't hear it at all. It is a quote from him and something he said and
something, which is widely publicized as things which he has said. This is
not a specific bad act. It goes to what they have heard about him and he
has put that into evidence on direct. He has heard his reputation is good.
That is the only relevance of direct anyway.
Page 42.
Cross-A. Lawson
MR. JACKSON: Could we dismiss the jury? He is going to go
on. He is absolutely wrong. He can bring on bad character witnesses to say
a host of things. I am not going into that. First of all, you have an
unauthenticate news article of something that he said he is going to give
you evidence of some bad character. First of all, the reputation is in the
eyes of whoever it is that is testifying. Not as to what he characterizes
as being something bad. If he thinks it is bad that is one thing. Neither
one of those things are competent evidence for this witness to comment on.
This witness says his reputation for being peaceful and law-abiding is
good.
He cannot get into any specific acts whatsoever. Any
specific acts. In particular the courts have said recently as well as with
regard to even arrests that they are equally consistent with innocence as
well as guilt. You are not going to be able to say we can talk about
specific acts. This is
Page 43.
Cross-A. Lawson
not even an act. It is a quote. He said it is a
quote.
It is not that I have any problem with hearsay, Your
Honor, it is just that he can't get into it.
MR. McGILL: Of course you can on cross-examination. I
would like to hear how this is not admissible?
THE COURT: I don't make the rules. I remember reading
this recent case that the court said you could not.
Let's assume he was arrested for advocating violence to
destroy the country and he was not convicted of that crime. As I
understand that case you could not being that out.
MR. McGILL: That is a specific bad act. This is not. This
is a statement. This is a hearsay statement. This is an admission. This is
a fact.
THE COURT: How the court reasoned that was they said that
he maybe innocent of that arrest and, therefore, we are only
Page 44.
Cross-A. Lawson
going to allow in convictions. They overthrew the
decisions. The law was in existence from as far back as I can
remember.
MR. McGILL: This is not an arrest.
THE COURT: It doesn't make any difference. They are
saying arrests or conduct. It is the same thing.
MR. McGILL: Judge, in other words, what you are saying is
you are saying he can bring hearsay out on direct examination?
THE COURT: You can bring in witnesses who will say that
his reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen is lousy. You
can do that.
MR. McGILL: Of course I can do that .
THE COURT: What the Supreme Court said is you cannot do
it on cross-examination no matter what his actions may have been. Let's
assume for the sake of argument that it is true that he made that
statement and it is a bad statement.
MR. McGILL: Are you saying I can't
Page 45.
Cross-A. Lawson
cross-examine?
THE COURT: No.
MR. McGILL: That is not what the case says.
THE COURT: That is the way I read the case. If you want
to bring a case in I will be glad to read it over.
MR. McGILL: This is not a bad act. This undercuts
hearsay. Have you heard from these people that he had said this?
MR. JACKSON: It is irrelevant.
MR. McGILL: It goes to his competence in making a
judgment as to hearsay reputation.
THE COURT: I will be willing to let you bring in the case
and you can bring in anybody you wish and I will make a ruling later. We
will hold this fellow subject to being recalled and if you can convince me
that is the right approach I will let you go forward. Otherwise I am
inclined to think you can't do it.
From my reading, of the case as I
Page 46.
Cross-A. Lawson
understand it they are not saying you can't bring in
witnesses who will testify that he has a bad reputation for being a
peaceful and law-abiding citizen. You can do it the same as he did. You
can't use any act or any statement of the individual even if it didn't
amount to an arrest, or even if it amounted to an arrest.
Under the old rules you could do that. As it was for
years and years you could do that, but it has been overruled now.
MR. JACKSON: That is right.
THE COURT: As I understand it. You just can't do it. I
know your hands are tied, but I didn't make the decision.
MR. McGILL: Your Honor has ruled and I will accept your
ruling. I think Your Honor is wrong. That is not what the case says.
THE COURT: I will hold this witness for you and you can
bring in the case.
MR. McGILL: He won't have to stick
Page 47.
Cross-A. Lawson
around, because he will have other character
witnesses.
THE COURT: If you knew there was going to be a problem
why didn't you load yourself down with cases and present them to me?
MR. JACKSON: I didn't know it was problem.
MR. McGILL: I didn't view it as problem. That was my
fault. This is hearsay information which undercuts his hearsay.
MR. JACKSON: It maybe appropriate for us now when we
finish with this witness to have a recess and find out the nature of the
questions that he plans to ask about documents so we can find out if he is
going to use different documents.
THE COURT: Do you have more character witnesses now?
MR. JACKSON: I think I have two more.
THE COURT: We will hold them and
Page 48.
Cross-A. Lawson
during the lunch hour I will allow you to present any
cases to me that will substantiate your position so I can make my ruling
as to whether you can go into this.
Mr. Jackson wants to know in advance how you are going to
attack those character witnesses. He wants to know now so he can prepare
and give me cases to show that it can't be done.
What I am going to do is give you an opportunity to
present cases to me and show me that you can do it.
Do you have any other witnesses other than character
witnesses?
MR. JACKSON: Oh, yes. I have a few other witnesses.
THE COURT: Let's get to those and over the luncheon
recess we will come back at 2:00 o'clock and I will make a ruling.
(At this time the sidebar discussion was
concluded and
the following is in open court).
Page 49.
Cross-A. Lawson
MR. McGILL: Consistent with the court's ruling I have no
further questions of Mr. Lawson.
MR. JACKSON: I have some further questions.
ALLEN LAWSON-REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. JACKSON:
Q. How long have you been director of the Prisoners
Rights?
A. I have been director --
MR. McGILL: (Interposing) Objection. Improper
redirect.
BY MR. JACKSON:
Q. Mr. McGill has indicated that you had arrests back
---
MR. McGILL: (Interposing) I object.
THE COURT: He is going into something else.
MR. JACKSON: Certainly.
BY MR. JACKSON:
Page 50.
Redirect-A. Lawson
Mr. McGill has just brought out on cross examination that
you were convicted of robbery both in '65 and '60, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you have had the opportunity, being director of
the Prisoners Rights Council, of coming into contact with a number of
individuals within the institutions, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have had the opportunity since being director
of your organization to come in contact with a number of individuals
within the penal institutions, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell us the purpose of your organization, sir?
MR. McGILL: Objection.
THE COURT: I will sustain that.
MR. McGILL: It is not Mr. Lawson's character.
MR. JACKSON: Fine. Thank you, Mr. Lawson.
Page 51.
(WITNESS EXCUSED)
- - -
MR. JACKSON: Police Officer McGurk.
- - -
POLICE OFFICER JOHN McGURK, badge
number 3185, 6th Police District, having been duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:
OFFICER McGURK-DIRECT EXAMINATION
- - -
BY MR. JACKSON:
Q. Officer McGurk, let me direct your attention to
December 9th, 1981. Were you employed by the Philadelphia Police
Department at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. I further direct your attention to the area of 13th
and Locust at or about 3:50 a.m. Do you recall that date and time,
sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have occasion to come upon the scene
Page 52.
Direct-Officer McGurk
of an alleged shooting of Officer Daniel Faulkner?
A. Yes.
Q. At that time did you further have reason to come in
contact with a gentleman by the name of William Cook?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you relate to us the facts and circumstances under
which you came in contact with him?
A. At that particular time and date upon arrival at the
scene of the shooting I arrived with my partner and observed William Cook
against the wall. At that time my partner and I split up. My partner
proceeded to William Cook and I proceeded to help Officer Daniel
Faulkner.
Q. Now, at some point in time you came in contact, you
directly, with William Cook?
A. Repeat the question?
Q. At some point in time when you were right there at the
scene did you come --- strike that. Did you have an opportunity to observe
Mr. Cook?
A. Yes.
Page 53.
Direct-Officer McGurk
Q. And as a result of your observations what is it that
you saw, sir?
A. I saw blood on the left side of his head and on his
hand.
Q. Now, on his hand or hands?
A. On his hand.
Q. On which hand did you see blood?
A. The left-hand.
Q. Now, you are certain it wasn't hands, sir?
A. (No response)
Q. Let me do it this way. Are you testifying now from
what you recall or are you testifying as a result of perhaps reading a
statement that you may have given before?
A. From what I recall.
Q. Okay. Your recollection is that he had blood on one
hand?
A. To my knowledge.
Q. Officer, would you just take a brief moment to at
least read down just the first page right now? Does that refresh your
recollection in anyway with regard to whether or not he had blood on his
hand or hands?
Page 54.
Direct-Officer McGurk
A. I just saw it on his neck, the left side of his face
and hand.
Q. Okay. On the front of the document does it not say a
black male identified as William Cook was standing over blood on the
highway and I noticed blood on his neck and hands, with an s?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, do you recall giving the statement to Detective
Thomas?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you saying that "hands" is incorrect?
A. Hand or hands. Whichever.
Q. I want to know whether it is hand or hands?
A. Hand.
Q. So, this is incorrect?
A. From my recollection it was one hand.
Q. So, wouldn't it be fair to say that when you gave this
statement on December 9th, 1981 at 5:50 a.m. that your recollection of
what had just happened was fresher in your mind than it is today?
A. Yes.
Q. Nevertheless you are saying that what you told him
then is incorrect and what you recall now is
Page 55.
Direct-Officer McGurk
correct?
A. I believe so.
Q. Did you have occasion to take a swab from his hand to
find out what blood type that was?
A. No.
Q. Did you order it?
A. No.
Q. Do you know if anyone did?
A. I don't know.
Q. Did you handcuff Mr. Cook?
A. No.
Q. Did you search Mr. Cook?
A. No.
Q. Did you see him searched?
A. No.
Q. Did you see him handcuffed?
A. No.
MR. JACKSON: No further questions.
- - -
OFFICER McGURK-CROSS-EXAMINATION
- - -
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. Officer McGurk, did you pay much attention to
Page 56.
Cross-Officer McGurk
his hand or hands, or whatever, I am talking about Cook
now?
A. Not much attention at all.
Q. Officer McGurk, while you were there on the scene did
you have occasion to see any other officer with weapons in his hand?
MR. JACKSON: Objection. Beyond the scope, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I didn't get the question.
MR. MCGILL: Did he see any other officer with guns in his
hands at the scene.
MR. JACKSON: I am objecting.
THE COURT: Technically I will have to sustain it. You can
call him later on.
MR. MCGILL: Nothing further.
MR. JACKSON: I have nothing further.
- - -
(WITNESS EXCUSED)
- - -
MR. JACKSON: Police Officer Chinn.
- - -
Page 57.
Direct-Officer Chinn
POLICE OFFICER CAROLINE CHINN, badge
number 2915, 6th Police District, having been duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:
OFFICER CHINN-DIRECT EXAMINATION
- - -
BY MR. JACKSON:
Q. Officer Chinn, let me direct your attention to
December 9th, 1981 at approximately 3:50 a.m. Were you employed as a
Philadelphia police officer on that date and time?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. At that tine or about that very same time, could you
tell us if, in fact, you came in contact or went to the scene of the
shooting of Officer Faulkner?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. At about what tine did you arrive?
A. Approximately 3:55.
Q. And were you riding solo or were you with a
partner?
A. Riding solo.
Q. What was your vehicle number?
A. Car number 611.
ACHTUNG: Die Seite 58 ist nicht
auffindbar.
Page 59.
Direct-Officer Chinn
Q. Were you at the wagon when he gave you that?
A. I just turned my back.
Q. And he just gave it to you?
A. He handed it to me saying one of the officers must
have dropped it.
Q. Did he say which officer?
A. No.
Q. Did you question him further?
A. I asked him where he picked it up. He just motioned
with his hand toward the curb on the south side of Locust Street.
Q. You don't know where he got where he got it, or
exactly where he got it?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you have a flashlight like that?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Do you know Officer Faulkner, or did you know Officer
Faulkner?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know him to have a flashlight like that?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Do you know if that is it?
Page 60.
Direct-Officer Chinn
A. (Pause) More than likely.
Q. The question is do you know if that is it?
A. No.
MR. MCGILL: Objection. She responded.
BY MR. JACKSON:
Q. Do you know now whether or not that is his
flashlight?
A. No.
Q. Are there other officers in the 6th Police District
that have flashlights similar to that?
A. Yes, there are.
Q. How many officers?
A. A rough estimate?
Q. Yes.
A. Twenty, twenty-five.
Q. Now, did you take that flashlight into homicide?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you go into homicide that day?
A. Yes.
Q. About what time did you go into homicide?
A. Approximately 4:05 a.m.
Page 61.
Direct-Officer Chinn
Q. Did you have the flashlight with you?
A. This particular flashlight?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I did not.
Q. Where was it?
A. In the police vehicle that I left.
Q. You left it in your vehicle?
A. Yes.
Q. Number 611?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you handle the flashlight?
A. Yes.
Q. And Officer Repsch did the very same thing when he
handed it to you?
A. Yes.
Q. You went into the homicide unit and did you mention to
anyone that you had the flashlight that was left at the scene?
A. No, I did not.
Q. By the way, were any other items given to you
allegedly having been dropped by a brother officer?
A. No.
Q. How long did you stay in homicide?
Page 62.
Direct-Officer Chinn
A. Approximately about an hour.
Q. And after you left homicide you went back to your
vehicle, your radio patrol car?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you ask while you were in homicide if, in fact,
anyone dropped the flashlight?
A. I asked several officers that were there and they
replied they did not.
Q. How many officers did you ask, approximately?
A. Approximately ten.
Q. How many officers were at the scene?
A. Approximately twenty, twenty-five.
Q. When did you go off duty?
A. 7:30 a.m.
Q. What did you do with the flashlight?
A. Took it home with me.
Q. Even though you were told that it maybe from an
officer at the scene who dropped it you didn't leave it at the 6th
District?
A. No.
Q. And you are assigned to the 6th District?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. When did you report back again for work?
Page 63.
Direct-Officer Chinn
A. 11:30 p.m.
Q. At that time did you bring the flashlight back with
you?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And what did you do with it then?
A. Asked all the officers that I worked with if they lost
the flashlight and my answer was "No."
Q. Then what did you do with the flashlight?
A. I got in touch with officers in the 9th District and
asked them and they replied "No."
Q. And was that the very next day? Would that have been
the December?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do with the flashlight after you got off
work on the lOth?
A. Took it home with me.
Q. On the 11th what did you do with the flashlight?
A. Took it home with me.
Q. Did you make any further inquiry?
A. I was trying to reach the stake-out officers who were
at the scene, but I couldn't.
Q. What about on the 12th?
Page 64.
Direct-Officer Chinn
A. I was still trying to locate the owner of the
flashlight.
Q. What about on the 13th?
A. The same thing.
Q. What about the 14th?
A. The same.
Q. And the 15th?
A. On the 15th when I went to work we had a message read
out at roll call asking everyone if they had seen a flashlight, or had a
flashlight.
Q. Now, Officer Chinn, at anytime between the 9th and the
15th did you contact the assigned detect Officer Thomas?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you contact any homicide officer?
A. No, I did not.
Q. So that other than your statement that you gave on
December the 9th and the contact that you had on December the 15th you
never contacted homicide?
A. No, I did not.
Q. It never crossed your mind that maybe it might be a
piece of evidence?
A. No, it didn't.
Page 65.
Direct-Officer Chinn
Q. Each day you took the flashlight home, what you do
with it?
A. Placed it with my other police items.
Q. Did you use the flashlight?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you have a flashlight of your own?
A. Do I have a flashlight of my own?
Q. Did you at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. And you brought that to work with you each of those
days between the 9th and 15th?
A. Yes.
Q. And you never left it in your locker, or you never
left it with the desk sergeant, or anyone at the 6th District?
A. No, I did not.
Q. When you went to homicide that night you were still
riding solo?
A. Yes.
Q. You arrived I think you said --- or you left 4:05 you
either left the scene or arrived at homicide?
A. Arrived at homicide.
Q. Did you have any prisoner in your custody?
Page 66.
Direct-Officer Chinn
A. I had a witness.
Q. Who was the witness?
A. Michael Mark Scanlon.
Q. Were you present when Mr. Scanlon gave a
statement?
A. No, I wasn't.
Q. Did you talk to Mr. Scanlon at all?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. You never had any discussions --- well, strike that.
Did he ever say anything to you?
MR. MCGILL: Objection, Your Honor. That is hearsay.
MR. JACKSON: I am not asking what he said.
BY MR. JACKSON:
Q. I want to know did he ever say anything to you?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Did he say more than one thing to you?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Were you instructed or directed by someone to take Mr.
Scanlon in?
A. Yes, I was.
Page 67.
Direct-Officer Chinn
Q. That was not an independent decision on your part?
A. No, it wasn't.
Q. And you took him directly there; just him?
A. Yes.
Q. When he got to homicide you took him to the homicide
unit itself?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you see whether or not --- whether in fact one
of the detectives interviewed him?
A. I saw him speaking with one of the detectives, but
after that I don't know what happened to him.
Q. So, you were not present at the beginning or the end
or at any portion of his interview?
A. No, I wasn't.
Q. Have you ever had an opportunity to review the
interview that he gave?
MR. MCGILL: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. JACKSON:
Q. Did you before the 15th have an opportunity to review
the contents of the interview?
A. No.
Page 68.
Direct-Officer Chinn
MR. JACKSON: No further questions.
- - -
OFFICER CHINN-CROSS-EXAMINATION
By MR. MCGILL:
Q. Officer Chinn, just a very few minutes. As I
understand your testimony you received a flashlight from Officer Repsch
with the thinking that this was dropped by somebody?
A. Yes.
Q. You made efforts when you went back to the district to
find out who the owner was, is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you were unable to find out who the owner was and
you kept the flashlight?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And it was not until the 15th --- let's see. I think
that was the 15th at roll call when it was brought to your attention about
the flashlight, did anyone find it, or if anyone has one from the scene to
get in touch with homicide?
A. Yes.
Page 69.
Direct-Officer Chinn
Q. Then you had it at home because you remembered it was
home?
A. That is correct.
Q. And then the next day you got it, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You made out a property receipt for it?
A. Yes, I did.
MR. MCGILL: Your Honor, I would ask that this be marked
as C67 and ask that it be shown to the witness?
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. Can you identify the exhibit?
A. Yes, I can.
Q. What is it?
A. It is a flashlight.
Q. What is that piece of paper?
A. That is the property receipt that I signed for the
flashlight.
Q. Is it for that flashlight that you have in your
hand?
A. Yes.
Q. That is part of the evidence and you have
Page 70.
Direct-Officer Chinn
been testifying to that from questions from Mr.
Jackson?
A. Yes.
MR. MCGILL: Would you ask Officer Repsch to come in?
(At this time the police officer entered the
courtroom.)
MR. MCGILL: Would you step-up here, Officer, please?
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. Can you identify this gentleman?
A. Yes, I can.
Q. Who is that?
A. Officer William Repsch.
MR. MCGILL: You may walk out, please?
(At this time the officer left the courtroom.)
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. And who is Officer Repsch in connection with your
testimony?
A. He is the officer who handed me the flashlight at the
scene.
Q. Officer Chinn, in your direct testimony you
Page 71.
Direct-Officer Chinn
stated that you had, I believe, helped to take the
Defendant and place him in the wagon, is that correct?
A. That is correct.
MR. JACKSON: Objection. There has not been any direct
testimony, but I will allow it because I have redirect.
MR. MCGILL: I object to his comments. Number one, it was
on direct.
THE COURT: If you are going to object just object. No
speeches.
MR. JACKSON: I apologize to the court, Your Honor.
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. You did say, did you not, that you put the Defendant
in the wagon?
A. Yes.
Q. And who did you do that with?
A. Officer McGurk and Officer Soboleski.
MR. MCGILL: Thank you. Nothing further.
- - -
OFFICER CHINN-REDIRECT EXAMINATION
- - -
Page 72.
Redirect-Officer Chinn
BY MR. JACKSON:
Q. Officer Chinn, do you recall giving a statement to
Sergeant Farcas on 12/18/82 pursuant to a question by me --- a question on
the first page --- just for context. Did you respond to the scene --- I am
sorry. I apologize. 2/18/82. My eyes are getting bad. The bottom of the
page. Did you respond to the scene of a police shooting in the 1200 block
of Locust Street on 12/9/81?
Answer: Yes, I did.
Did you observe Mumia Abu-Jamal upon your arrival at the
scene?
Answer: No, I did not. Jamal was gone upon my
arrival.
Did you respond to that question with that answer?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you are saying now that you assisted Officer
Soboleski and another officer in subduing Mr. Jamal?
A. Yes, I did.
Page 73.
Redirect-Officer Chinn
Q. But in any event, it was in response to my request for
an investigation that you told them he was gone, is that right?
A. That is right.
Q. Was Mr. Cook at the scene when you arrived?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. So, both Mr. Cook and Mr. Jamal were present when you
arrived?
A. That is true.
Q. Both of them were there, so when you said that he was
gone when you arrived you were absolutely wrong?
A. Correct.
MR. JACKSON: No further questions.
- - -
OFFICER CHINN-RECROSS-EXAMINATION
- - -
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. Officer, in reference to that, would you explain to
the jury what happened?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Upon my arrival on the south side of Locust
Page 74.
Recross-Officer Chinn
Street I saw Officer Soboleski and Officer McGurk
struggling with a negro male who was face down. I helped them handcuff
this prisoner and assisted them in taking him over to the wagon.
I observed another negro male against the wall. I heard
another officer ask him if he was involved in this scene. He shook his
head "No." So, I just didn't pay any more attention to him.
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. You made a mistake, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You didn't know who it was that you put in the
wagon?
A. No.
Q. And you then gave a statement on February 25th, 1982,
also, didn't you?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you, in fact, clarify that mistake?
A. Yes.
MR. MCGILL: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
Page 75.
Recross-Officer Chinn
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. February 25th, 1982 on page two.
Police Officer McGurk told me he assisted Police Officer
Soboleski in handcuffing Jamal, not the driver of the Volkswagen.
Soboleski also told me he handcuffed Jamal.
If you assisted then you must have handcuffed Jamal. Can
you explain this in reference to your other two interviews?
When I arrived at the scene I saw McGurk and Soboleski
handcuffing a black male who was face down on the sidewalk near the
street. I also saw at the same time another black male near the building
wall. He had his back to me.
McGurk and Soboleski were tussling with Jamal attempting
to place handcuffs on him. I assisted them and helped place Jamal in the
wagon. I assumed the one I handcuffed was taken to homicide.
Do you remember that answer to that question?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you mean by""tussling"?
Answer: Jamal was flinging his arms about.
Page 76.
Recross-Officer Chinn
Q. Do you reca11 that question and answer?
A. Yes.
Q. Also, Officer, that was pretty much a hectic situation
when you arrived, wasn't it?
A. Correct.
Q. You really didn't know who you had at the time?
A. No.
Q. But you did eventually clarify that with the
authorities that, in fact, you had the Defendant?
A. Yes.
MR. MCGILL: Thank you very much.
MR. JACKSON: I have a couple of more things if you don't
mind?
MR. MCGILL: I object, Your Honor. It is further
redirect.
THE COURT: Go-ahead.
- - -
OFFICER CHINN-FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
- - -
Page 77.
Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn
BY MR. JACKSON:
Q. First of all, the statement that you gave on 12/9/81
at 5:00 a.m. --- I will read the question and answer.
Police Officer Chinn, would you please explain to me your
assignment in this incident?
It is very short. I was assigned to radio patrol car 611.
I was at 12th and Chestnut when the call came out; I went south on 12th
Street and west on Locust Street. Upon my arrival on the south side of the
street Officer Soboleski and Officer McGurk were attempting to handcuff
the prisoner who is in here now.
Who were you referring to?
A. Okay. Upon my arrival at the PAB en route to homicide
the last thing I heard on the radio was "Take the prisoner to homicide." I
had assumed the Defendant was being taken to homicide.
Q. But you are saying upon my arrival on the --- strike
that.
Upon my arrival on the south side of the street Officer
Soboleski and Officer McGurk were attempting to handcuff the prisoner who
is in here now.
Page 78.
Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn
Which prisoner was in there then?
A. At the present tine William Cook was in there
then.
Q. So, is that the one that you attempted to place
handcuffs on?
A. No.
Q. You were mistaken?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Now, you indicated again before that Jamal was not
there at the scene, but you have told me that both Jamal and his brother
were at the scene when you were there?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. So, who is it that you were saying had left the
scene?
A. It was a case of mistaken identity.
Q. We don't want you to identify whoever it is, but
---
MR. MCGILL: (Interposing) Objection, Your Honor. If she
wants to explain her answer she has to explain it.
MR. JACKSON: I thought she was done with her answer.
Page 79.
Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn
You had something else to say?
MR. MCGILL: No.
BY MR. JACKSON:
Q. The question is, if Jamal and his brother were there
who was it that they took away?
A. They didn't take anybody away.
Q. Why did you say they had taken somebody away?
A. I had not seen the faces of either of the males
there.
Q. I understand that. But just because you didn't see
their faces doesn't mean that they went away, does it?
A. No, it doesn't.
Q. You said on December the 9th -- let me find out for
sure.
In February again in response to my request for an
investigation --- I am sorry. Page two, the 2/18/82 interview.
Did you observe Mumia Abu-Jamal upon your arrival at the
scene?
No, I did not. Jamal was gone upon my arrival.
Page 80.
Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn
Now, on December the 9th you knew that you saw William
Cook because you said that is who you took in. So, you knew what William
Cook looked like. On December the 18th ---
MR. MCGILL: (Interposing) Objection, Your Honor. Is he
asking a question?
THE COURT: Ask a question. Don't testify.
MR. JACKSON: My apologies.
BY MR. JACKSON:
Q. You said that on December the 9th you saw William Cook
in homicide because you said the same prisoner that was in here, is that
right?
A. I heard the prisoner was taken to homicide.
Q. Didn't you just tell me, and correct me if I am wrong,
did you not just say that William Cook was the one that you saw on
December the 9th in homicide?
A. Yes.
Q. So, now on December --- on February 18th you knew
there were only two people arrested, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. On December the 18th the question did you
Page 81.
Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn
observe Mumia Abu-Jamal upon your arrival at the
scene?
No, I did not. Jamal was gone upon my arrival.
You already knew what William Cook looked like. So, who
else was arrested?
MR. MCGILL: I have to object. She didn't say she already
knew it. She said she saw Mr. Cook later.
THE COURT: Let her answer the question.
BY MR. JACKSON:
Q. Did you see William Cook on December the 9th?
A. Yes.
Q. So that you already seen him and you knew what he
looked like, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you see this man on December the 9th?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. So, on February 18th when you were asked the question
you said that he was gone, isn't that true?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. You knew what he looked like?
Page 82.
Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn
A. From the back, yes.
Q. You said that you participated in the arrest of Mr.
Jamal?
A. Yes.
Q. And whether you recognized his face or any other
portion of his body you knew there were only two people arrested, one of
whom you saw on December the 9th, is that right?
A. Right.
Q. So, when the question was asked of you, where was
Jamal on that date and you said he had gone was there somebody else that
you arrested?
A. No.
Q. Are you sure of that?
A. Positive.
Q. Was there somebody else in homicide that had
Dreadlocks?
A. No.
Q. Did you handcuff somebody else who had Dreadlocks?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Do you know, in fact, that this was the man that you
handcuffed?
Page 83.
Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn
A. Yes, I do.
Q. How do you know he was the man you handcuffed?
A. (Pause) From identification.
Q. When?
A. From seeing his pictures.
Q. In the newspaper?
A. Yes.
Q. You are just assuming then, but on December the 9th
what is that you saw about him that tells you that this is the same
person?
A. I only saw the back of him.
Q. You don't know who you arrested do you?
A. It was the Defendant.
Q. How do you know?
A. From his back.
Q. You can tell from his back? Have you seen his back
today?
A. No, I have not.
Q. How do you know that is him?
A. Just from identification.
Q. You arrested someone on December the 9th, you saw the
back of him you say?
A. Yes.
Page 84.
Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn
Q. Is that you think everyone who wears Dreadlocks looks
alike?
MR. MCGILL: I object. As a matter of fact, this is his
witness. I haven't objected so far, but I object now.
MR. JACKSON: I will withdraw the question.
BY MR. JACKSON:
Q. What I want to establish is that you participated in
the arrest of someone and you are saying all you saw was his back. We know
already that you said on February the 18th you said Jamal was gone. So, I
want to know who you arrested on December the 9th?
A. The Defendant.
Q. How did you arrest him if, in fact, you said that he
was not there?
A. I had mistaken him for his brother.
Q. You already knew on the 18th who his brother was,
didn't you?
A. By that time, yes.
Q. So, how could you make that mistake?
A. (No response)
Page 85.
Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn
Q. Could you tell us? Was it a mistake or did you, in
fact, arrest somebody else?
A. No. It was a mistake.
MR. JACKSON: No further questions.
- - -
OFFICER CHINN-FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION
- - -
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. Officer Chinn, was this your first homicide?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there a considerable amount of traffic and busy
activity at the scene?
A. Yes.
Q. As a matter of fact, in your experience prior to that
would you classify that one as the most activity that you have ever seen
upon an arrest?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell the jury exactly what the circumstances were when
you arrested the Defendant with the other gentlemen?
A. When I arrived on the scene I saw a negro
Page 86.
Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn
male flinging his arms and kicking his legs. I saw two of
my fellow officers trying to handcuff him. So, I went over and
assisted.
Q. And what happened to the Defendant?
A. He was still moving about.
Q. Who picked him up?
A. I picked him up and Officer McGurk picked him up.
Officer Soboleski was in the back of us.
Q. Then what happened?
A. Okay. We tried to get him to the wagon as quick as
possible, because he was a prisoner. En route to the wagon, we had a small
area to work with, he accidentally ran into a pole.
Q. After that what happened?
A. The Defendant, the prisoner, fell on the ground and we
picked him up and went over to the wagon and put him in the wagon.
Q. That was the same person that you arrested, the same
person that was struggling, the same person that you held and the same
person whose head contacted the pole and the same person that you put in
the wagon, correct?
A. Correct.
Page 87.
Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn
MR. MCGILL: Can I have that diagram?
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. Officer, you have seen this diagram before?
A. Yes.
Q. This is north and this is south. This is Locust Street
and this is identified as the RPC 610, the Volkswagen, and the Ford.
I will point out that that pole has been identified in
this general area right here. I am indicating now at the rear right wheel
of the Volkswagen.
Would it be accurate to say when you arrived and were
with Officer Soboleski and Officer McGurk you were struggling with the
Defendant in this location between the Ford and Volkswagen?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it also accurate that at that time when you moved
forward quickly toward the wagon this is where he made contact with the
pole with his head?
A. That is correct.
Q. Then after that immediately he was then taken to the
wagon area which was parked alongside the RPC 610?
Page 88.
Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn
A. Yes.
Q. Is there any other individual that you arrested that
you and Officer McGurk and Officer Soboleski carried over toward the wagon
and whose head made contact with the pole?
A. No.
Q. And as I recall your testimony after the Defendant was
placed in the wagon that is when you got the flashlight from Officer
Repsch?
A. Correct.
Q. Then you went to homicide with Mr. Mark Scanlon as a
witness?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, would that be the sum total of your duties in
brief summary on the scene on December 9th, 1981?
A. Yes.
Q. And on the way I believe on the radio you said you
heard that the prisoner was taken to homicide, is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you felt or you thought that it was the one that
you put in the wagon?
Page 89.
Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn
A. Yes.
Q. You had just simply made a mistake as to who was who,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. There were no more than two individuals present, were
there?
A. Correct.
MR. MCGILL: Thank you.
MR. JACKSON: I have a few more.
MR. MCGILL: I object. This is the fourth redirect.
MR. JACKSON: I don't know what the number of times has to
do with it.
THE COURT: Let me see you over here so we can decide.
(The following is a sidebar discussion with both counsel
present.)
THE COURT: I want to find out where you are going and to
see whether it is repetitious or not.
MR. JACKSON: I want to know whether or not she saw blood
on him.
Page 90.
THE COURT: On whom?
MR. JACKSON: On the prisoner when she picked him up,
because I never covered that. He brought up the beating. If you notice,
Your Honor, he went back ---
THE COURT: (Interposing) Wait a minute.
MR. MCGILL: Okay.
THE COURT: You are going to ask if she saw blood.
Anything else?
MR. JACKSON: I would like to know whether she was
struggling with the Defendant. I never got into this struggle thing, he
did. I want to find out if, in fact, she beat him or saw any beating when
she arrived at the scene and under what circumstances she believed that he
was the driver of the Volkswagen.
THE COURT: No. We have gone over that a million times
already. She didn't say he was the driver.
MR. JACKSON: It is in her statement.
THE COURT: I don't care what is
Page 91.
in the statement.
MR. MCGILL: I object to the repetition. She already
clarified it a few times that it was a mistake. It was her first homicide
and it was a busy area.
THE COURT: I am not going to let you go back into that
area that has already been covered. That is all.
MR. JACKSON: I want to find out what reason she has for
believing he was the driver.
THE COURT: You went through that twice already. He went
through that. That is enough. I will let you ask about whether she saw
blood or saw anybody hit him. That I will let you ask. What else?
MR. JACKSON: Whether she saw Dessie Hightower.
MR. MCGILL: Beyond the scope.
THE COURT: You should have brought that long ago.
MR. MCGILL: This is his fourth redirect.
THE COURT: I am sorry. I can't
Page 92.
Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn
let you go back into that.
- - -
(At this time the sidebar discussion was
concluded and
the following is in open court.)
- - -
OFFICER CHINN-FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
- - -
BY MR. JACKSON:
Q. Officer Chinn, the person who you attempted along with
Officer McGurk and Officer Soboleski, the person that you arrested did you
see any blood on that person when you were attempting to handcuff that
person?
A. No, I did not.
Q. No blood at all?
A. No.
Q. Not on the chest, not on the head or anywhere, is that
right?
A. I didn't see his chest.
Q. You didn't feel any blood?
A. No.
Page 93.
Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn
Q. You came in contact with that person?
A. Yes.
Q. Aside from carrying the individual to the wagon you
also assisted in placing the person in that wagon?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you see the person beaten?
A. No, I did not.
Q. No beating whatsoever?
A. No, I did not.
Q. No one kicked him?
A. No.
Q. No one hit him with a night stick?
A. No.
Q. How about hitting him with a flashlight?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall seeing a Dessie Hightower across the
street from you?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Was Officer Faulkner still there?
A. No, he wasn't. He had gone along with the suspect?
MR. MCGILL: Objection, Your Honor.
Page 94.
Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn
THE COURT: You have gone far beyond what I allowed you
to. I have to sustain the objection.
MR. JACKSON: Can I have a brief sidebar?
MR. MCGILL: No, sir. I will not object if it means
another sidebar.
THE COURT: He has no objection.
MR. JACKSON: It is something else.
THE COURT: What do you mean? Do it here.
MR. JACKSON: I want to bring it up at sidebar.
THE COURT: Just a minute. I said sit-down and ask your
question. He is not going to object. I am not going to rule on something I
don't have to.
BY MR. JACKSON:
Q. Officer Chinn, do you recall this question and
answer?
Did you see Officer Faulkner there when you arrived?
This is on 12/9/81.
Page 95.
Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn
No, he had already been taken to the hospital along with
the suspect.
Do you recall that question and answer?
A. Yes.
Q. What suspect?
A. (Pause) I had thought they had a suspect. So, I
thought he was taken to the hospital for identification.
Q. Are these three different people you are talking about
in the testimony that you have given?
A. No. Two.
Q. Was he a suspect in the shooting or a suspect in the
Volkswagen? What suspect are you referring to?
A. The suspect in the shooting.
MR. JACKSON: No further questions.
- - -
OFFICER CHINN-FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION
- - -
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. Officer, again, that was a mistake, was it
ACHTUNG: Die Seite 96 fehlt. Jedoch
geht der Inhalt ohne Unterbrechung weiter. Anscheinend hat der Gerichtsstenograph
einen Fehler bei der Numerierung gemacht.
Page 97.
Further-Redirect-Officer Chinn
not?
A. Yes, it was.
MR. MCGILL: Thank you very much.
- - -
(WITNESS EXCUSED)
- - -
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, could we have a recess at this
time?
THE COURT: We will recess at this time.
(At this time court was recessed and the
following is
in chambers with both counsel present.)
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, for the record, with regard to
Debbie Kordansky, the witness that we spoke to you about earlier, Mr.
McGill was gracious enough to have Detective William Thomas, as well as
Detective Morton contact her by phone. Detective Morton was the detective
who originally interviewed her on December the 9th, 1981.
She indicated to both Detective
Page 98.
Thomas and Detective Morton substantially the very same
thing she said to me, that she was ill and injured and could not appear in
court.
Because both of the detectives, as well as myself, did
not receive her address we have only the phone number. I am unable to
effectuate a subpoena. Based on the statement that I have, a copy that the
Commonwealth made available to me, I cannot in good conscience determine
that, in fact, she would be a hostile witness.
Indeed, based on the statement as it is here there is
some reason for me to believe that indeed she might be a beneficial
witness to the defense.
At this point I am not at all sure how I would go about
securing the presence of the witness. I would just suggest that even
though I only asked the Commonwealth yesterday for the address of the
witness that, indeed, if I had the address of the witness when I asked for
it earlier, which is perhaps
Page 99.
several months ago before Judge Ribner, at that time I
might have been in a position to, number one, interview the witness myself
and/or maintain some contact with the witness so I could have her in
court.
I think at this juncture given the circumstances as I
have just described I think the defense is being compromised and for that
reason I would, in the absence of having her brought into court somehow, I
would ask the court for some sort of instruction to the jury that the
Commonwealth had access to this witness and did not provide us with her
address until requested yesterday, which was the 29th. That the
Commonwealth did have contact with her when I made the request for her
address along with all of their witnesses and it should have been provided
to me then so that the present circumstances we have before us would not
be here.
If I had a chance to interview her before I would have
been able to find
Page 100.
out precisely what her testimony would be. But, again,
the precise testimony that I think is pertinent and relevant is the last
sentence of her statement. "I saw a male running on the south-side of
Locust Street."
The sequence in the statement itself suggests arguably,
that the person could have ran away after the police and all arrived.
However, I have no way of verifying the sequence of events that have been
described in the statement.
MR. MCGILL: In response, it is the practice in most
homicide cases, particularly one of this nature, where there was some
reason, however justified, that there maybe problems with witnesses
because of the emotion generated by this incident the addresses were not
made known to the public. At least through our office. Judge Ribner in a
hearing made the determination and it is also his practice to prevent
witnesses and addresses to be known, to be made known to the public or to
defense counsel
Page 101.
The arrangement that Judge Ribner made was that he would
have me contact those witnesses that Mr. Jackson felt appropriate for his
defense and see if they wished to be interviewed and if they were I would
give Mr. Jackson their phone numbers and if they didn't mind their
addresses.
I did that.
At no time was this particular woman on that list. The
list he gives me really was a verbal list. He told me that the people he
would call were the police, Dessie Hightower and Robert Pickford, which I
attempted to find. I found Dessie Hightower and told him what I believe
Dessie Hightower told me.
To make a long story short, it was a rule of the court
that we not do that. It was an order of the court. I believe for valid
reasons.
However, I mentioned to Mr. Jackson at anytime that he
did wish to see a witness I would, to the best of my ability, make
that
Page 102.
witness available.
I also told him, as I did this morning, that we cannot
guarantee cooperation.
I will make this known to the court, that there have been
witnesses who have not cooperated with me at all that I have attempted to
bring in who will not come in under threat of going to jail. So, I have
had bad experiences also with the inability of getting witnesses to
cooperate.
So, as far as instructions are concerned, it would be
completely inappropriate for an instruction. I never really heard that
kind of instruction and it would not be appropriate for this case at all.
Unless Your Honor thinks there is a basis for it I will continue
arguing.
THE COURT: I think the only thing that you might be able
to do would be, knowing the phone number, the police might be able to get
the address and go there and maybe bring her in for Mr. Jackson to talk
to.
Page 103.
MR. MCGILL: Mr. Jackson already mentioned that we have
had two individuals that have attempted to get in touch with her. We will
continue to try and get the address through a phone number. I don't know
whether we will be successful.
THE COURT: I am just throwing that out as a
suggestion.
MR. MCGILL: I made that suggestion. I want you to know I
have talked to both of them and I might point out since Mr. Jackson
mentioned that this witness apparently is very aggressive and biased
because of the incident that happened to her, I think Mr. Jackson said she
was raped by a black person, I had both a black person as well as a white
person call her up.
Now, I don't know whether she knew that, but at any rate
both people received a pretty, a pretty arrogant reply, particularly
Thomas, saying that she made herself very clear to the defense, or to that
man, or something to that effect, and there was no
Page 104.
way that she was going to come in. She was injured and
didn't want to do it and couldn't and that sort of thing.
So, we are getting no cooperation at all, but we will
continue to try.
MR. JACKSON: With regard to Veronica Jones, Your Honor,
Your Honor has already indicated that I should not be permitted to bring
in the detectives who took her previous statements, so I could not
indicate that, indeed, she has given a statement.
My purpose in bringing on the detective --- I don't have
his name right now --- that would be to, number one, show that, in fact,
she has previously given another statement. Although I have read from the
statement, what purports to be her statement, she has --- in fact, she
says she has not made that statement. So, in the minds of the jury I could
just as well be reading from a piece of paper that I have written on.
So, I would like to renew my
Page 105.
request to have the detective come in and testify with
regard to the statement that he took.
I would point Your Honor to the case of Commonwealth
versus Hamm. The essence of that holding would be that a witness maybe
impeached with proof that on a pervious occasion he made a statement
inconsistent with his present testimony. As well as by the testimony of
other witnesses whose version of the facts differs from that of the
witness being impeached.
The Commonwealth versus Hamm case goes onto cite a number
of other cases, citing the very same legal proposition.
I could cite those cases for you.
Again, it is my understanding that I have to present
proof that, in fact, she made a prior inconsistent statement. I have no
proof she made a prior inconsistent statement and for that reason I think
I have to have the detective to prove she made a prior inconsistent
statement.
Page 106.
This is just for Your Honor's convenience and
consideration, the case that overruled Commonwealth versus ---
THE COURT: (Interposing) Let's do one thing at a
time.
MR. JACKSON: I cite Your Honor to Commonwealth versus
Waller, which is reported in Pennsylvania Superior Court 444, A Second,
653; which specifically overrules Commonwealth versus Lord. I don't know
if anything in that case specifically speaks on the point that I am
addressing other than whether or not it is to be used as substantive
evidence.
I agree with Your Honor and counsel the prior statement
could not be used as substantive evidence, but I still say that I need the
detective to prove that there was a prior inconsistent statement.
THE COURT: It seems they are saying that the prior
inconsistent testimony which is used for the purpose of impeachment could
not be used for substantive evidence. However, the responses of that
witness
Page 107.
concerning these prior statements could be used as
substantive evidence. In other words, whatever they are saying on the
stand.
MR. MCGILL: In response to the point raised by Mr.
Jackson I would oppose, and I have talked to our Appeals Division about
this, I would oppose bringing the detective in.
There are two reasons for that, Your Honor. The primary
reason is that this witness was a defense witness. So, everything that Mr.
Jackson says in reference to prior inconsistent statements maybe accurate,
but only as refers to the inconsistent statement of the Commonwealth
witness and not his own, because he is not permitted to impeach his own
witness as a general rule.
Specifically when he pleads surprise and Your Honor in a
very limited area permitted cross-examination. Now, cross-examination is
one thing that is permitted in reference to a plea of surprise. It is
suppose to be limited to a very specific area and not beyond.
Page 108.
Your Honor permitted him to cross-examine on a
substantial portion of the statement which he felt was positive to his
position. He cannot with his own witness bring in a detective or anyone
who took the statement to have it read for the purposes of placing on the
record a prior inconsistent statement, because it is his own witness.
Particularly since Waller would knockout the substantive evidence.
That leaves impeachment and you are unable to impeach
with a prior inconsistent statement, through a detective, your own
witness.
Secondly, it emphasizes this testimony and the real
testimony was her testimony of record of what she said she observed.
I may not feel and I don't know whether Mr. Jackson
feels, but I personally may not feel too happy about her testimony one way
or the other. However, the fact of having a detective come in you will
have a
Page 109.
detective actually walking in and testifying to an
inconsistent statement, alleged inconsistent statement, which he is not
permitted to use for his own witness and thereby emphasizing that which is
not real evidence, which is the inconsistent statement. The real evidence
is what she testified to. Also, Lord is no longer effective. So, I would
oppose vehemently that detective.
Lastly, the third reason, she had effectively adopted a
portion of that statement in the questioning by Mr. Jackson. She adopted a
portion of the statement that I pointed out about Officer Faulkner's prior
help of her. There were other answers to questions that she adopted during
the course of Mr. Jackson's questioning and it turned out to be
cross-examination of his own witness. One portion was the first long
statement that she read. She did not deny all of that. She said a portion
of it she denied. She didn't mention Charlie Smith. Not Charlie Smith.
Candy. That was one
Page 110.
she never mentioned. She adopted a portion and did not
adopt another portion.
The jury is clearly aware, as well as the newspaper I
might point out, the jury is well aware that there was something said
before, because she has partially adopted it. That is a further reason why
there would be no basis at this time for him to introduce a prior
inconsistent statement for his own witness.
MR. JACKSON: Very briefly, Your Honor.
I concede the fact that she was brought up and presented
as my own witness. Obviously, again, Your Honor, you have in my view
properly ruled that I can plead surprise with regard to specific
statements. That is whether she saw two men run from the scene or not. As
to that issue I was permitted to cross-examine her and I must, in fact,
present proof that there was a prior inconsistent statement.
THE COURT: I think the proof is
Page 111.
she signed the statement.
MR. JACKSON: It hasn't been introduced as evidence. That
would not be proof.
THE COURT: It wouldn't go out with the jury anyway.
MR. JACKSON: It is not proof, Judge. She says she did not
sign the statement if you will recall.
MR. MCGILL: She signed once.
MR. JACKSON: That is why I have to have proof. Your Honor
knows that you give a number of instructions to the jury and ---
THE COURT: (Interposing ) I am not going to talk about
individual witnesses. I don't do that. I will just say "If the jury
concludes that any witness on a prior occasion gave inconsistent
statements" then I will go into the charge, but that is all I am going to
say. It is up to them. They heard the evidence and they know which ones
are inconsistent and they know which ones
Page 112.
they are going to believe.
MR. JACKSON: The problem is, the law requires that I
present proof.
THE COURT: As far as I am concerned you have presented
proof. It is just whether or not they believe it.
MR. JACKSON: With all due respect, as far as you are
concerned I presented proof? I don't see how. All I have done was read
questions from it.
THE COURT: Suppose the witness said, "I don't
remember"?
MR. JACKSON: She didn't.
THE COURT: The witness says, "I don't remember." It is
something that they don't remember.
MR. JACKSON: It is not inconsistent. What I am saying in
this specific area and the case again of Commonwealth versus Hamm says
that the witness maybe impeached with proof. I have to provide that proof.
I must be given the opportunity to present proof that there was indeed a
prior
Page 113.
inconsistent statement.
MR. MCGILL: The reason why this is improper, first of
all, is that he can't impeach his own witness through an inconsistent
statement. That deals with the Commonwealth witnesses.
Your Honor, what I am saying in reference to this is let
us face reality, they know since they have been talking about statements
throughout this entire event, if it were correct, which it isn't, even if
Mr. Jackson were correct, they know very well there are statements made by
witnesses to police as everyone testified and everyone has been
cross-examined on statements. She has adopted a portion of it and just
lied about the rest. Okay. The jury is well aware of what it is. Now, this
is the problem. By putting this witness on to read that statement, which
has already been partially adopted on cross-examination or direct
examination is to make it in the jury's mind substantive evidence and it
puts unneeded
Page 114.
emphasis on an area that shouldn't be before them anyway.
So, I would object.
MR. JACKSON: I am saying the case holds that I must
present proof, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I think you can argue that to the jury.
MR. JACKSON: That is the law, Judge.
THE COURT: You can argue she is inconsistent and that she
said certain things you can argue that to them. I don't care.
MR. JACKSON: You are not giving me the opportunity to
present the proof that the law requires. I don't understand.
THE COURT: We don't have to prove every witness is a liar
on the stand. That is what you are doing. You are getting away from the
crux in this case. We are beginning to try every witness in this case. You
are getting far a field.
MR. JACKSON: The case says I
Page 115.
must present proof. Fine.
MR. MCGILL: My next point is character witnesses, which
is the primary issue of why we are back here. This is the general rule of
cross examining character witnesses, or one of the general rules. It would
be that you are able to cross-examine a character witness on the sources
of his information. In other words, to determine the competency of his
sources, the competency of the areas from which he received this
information as to reputation, because the reason why is that the law
cannot --- the law does not allow specific good acts to be admissible as
part of reputation evidence. Granted that has been done in the direct
examination. However, the law does not permit that. Inasmuch as these are
sources from which he has received I could ask him questions of who did
you talk to and how many people and so forth. Part of that type of
cross-examination would be of these people that you talked to, and this is
how
Page 116.
it would have to be phrased, did they tell you that they
had heard the Defendant saying --- and then the particular area.
THE COURT: Do you have a case on that?
MR. MCGILL: Well, Judge, if you agree with me that it is
the general rule ---
THE COURT: (Interposing) You can cross-examine as to what
people you talked to and how many people and were they in the
neighborhood, or did you talk to people that live out of the county in
reference to his reputation.
Do you see what I am talking about? That part I think is,
right. You are going to specific acts or things that the Defendant
did.
MR. MCGILL: I am going into the source; not what he did.
What he said. That is important.
MR. JACKSON: It is an act.
THE COURT: It is an act.
Page 117.
MR. JACKSON: It is a specific act.
THE COURT: Suppose he had shot a gun?
MR. MCGILL: Where do they get their information.
THE COURT: Suppose he shot at somebody. That is an act.
The same thing as if he had verbally said something.
MR. MCGILL: The fact is this is also published.
THE COURT: I know that.
MR. MCGILL: He is stating this to a reporter. So, he is
then making it public and that public part of it is the hearsay aspect
which makes or breaks reputation. That is why it normally would not be
admissible, because you are talking about something that is not direct and
it is. So, this public information that is surrounding the area the
question would be had you heard from these individuals that this Defendant
had said this and their answer
Page 118.
would be yes or no? If you had heard it, or if you did
hear it how would that affect --- what affect would that have on your
opinion or testimony as to reputation.
The case I have, Judge, is Commonwealth versus Turvilon.
It speaks to a general rule. This Turvilon deals with rebuttal evidence
that was used of a prior extra judicial statement made by the Defendant
that statement was not really specifically relevant to the case in chief,
it had to do with something else, but what it had to do with was proof
that the Defendant was not where he said he was.
As a general rule voluntary extra judicial statements may
be used against the Defendant although they contain no admission of guilt.
These extra judicial statements which differ from confessions which do not
acknowledge all essential elements of the crime are generally considered
qualified for introduction into evidence under the exception to then
hearsay rule. It
Page 119.
doesn't have to be an admission of guilt. Any kind of
statement. In this case the Turvilon prior statement might properly have
been received as part of the case in chief, but this fact does not
necessarily exclude its use in rebuttal. Evidence is admissible in
rebuttal to contradict that offered by the Defendant or his witnesses even
though by doing so the Commonwealth supplies previous omissions from its
case in chief. That is a general statement.
The point here is that you can use his admissions. I can
use his admissions to test the competency of the sources of those
character witnesses who offer him as a peaceful and law-abiding citizen,
because their only sources could be hearsay and their only sources are
what they hear.
THE COURT: Won't that be by way of rebuttal?
MR. MCGILL: It is cross-examination first to see if it
would or would not affect their opinion.
Page 120.
THE COURT: Would that be through your own witness?
MR. MCGILL: That is one way of doing it.
THE COURT: It might be the only way of doing it.
MR. JACKSON: May I suggest, Your Honor, that, in fact,
that the courts just recently specifically indicated and specifically
limited the area where the prosecution may cross-examine or attempt to
impeach character testimony. That is why there is a greater use now of, I
guess, rebuttal character witnesses, or bad character witnesses.
For the Commonwealth to be able to introduce statements
of prior admissions, whatever they are, of the Defendant that would be
allowing them to introduce collateral statements that they could not get
in any other way. So, they are going to use the bootstrap and say we can't
get it in any other way and we are going to try to
Page 121.
get it in this way.
Again, it is my understanding from another case that I
believe is analogous what he is doing is introducing a collateral issue.
If Mr. Jamal had said, "The only way we can obtain justice is at the end
of a barrel of a gun" and he cannot get that statement in any other way
then what he purports to do through character witnesses is to say, "Did
you ever hear him say that?" Whether he said it or not it would be a
specific act which he is precluded from questioning a prospective witness
about. Because he speaks it as opposed to acting it out it is still an act
if, in fact, he said it. He is not permitted to question him on particular
acts or particular activities.
Your Honor has already indicated with respect to arrests
and I suggest to you that any act or action on the part of the Defendant
would be consistent with an arrest and that unless there is something
implicit in what he has said or spoken
Page 122.
that says he has got a bad reputation then he just can't
say, "Well, because he says that, that means he has got a bad reputation."
That is what he is trying to say. That there is something in and of these
words that suggest that he has got a bad reputation.
I think again --- I am quoting now from Wharton's
criminal evidence section 471, a witness may be impeached by evidence
impuning his character or reputation for truth and veracity. Evidence of
particular acts or of particular facts though tending to show
untruthfulness is not admissible for this purpose.
I think that is what he is trying to do. They are
specific acts. He can't impeach them.
MR. MCGILL: You don't determine the competency of sources
solely by rebuttal. They may well answer, "Yes, I did hear that and I
don't believe that."
THE COURT: I think when you are questioning their sources
you are
Page 123.
questioning whether or not they have talked to other
people. That is what the reputation is. It is no specific things that they
do. In other words, did they talk to people in the neighborhood, or do
they live so far away from him that they talked to people in their own
neighborhood who wouldn't even know him. That would go to discredit what
they are saying about reputation. In other words, it is not an
individual's feeling. In other words, I can't say I think he has got a
good reputation because I have talked to him and I like him and he has
been good to me all along. That is not important. It is what other people
in that so-called community where he evidently lived.
MR. MCGILL: Had they heard this or read it?
THE COURT: It is nothing specific. You can bring in
reputation witnesses all you want in rebuttal. I don't know why you are
worried about reputation one way or the other. That
Page 124.
is not going to save this man. It is what they believe
happened on that night. That is the issue.
MR. MCGILL: You have ruled. I have made my point and Your
Honor ruled against me.
THE COURT: Show me where it says it and you can do
it.
MR. MCGILL: It says you can use extra judicial statements
of a Defendant for any purpose.
THE COURT: In that case he put on an alibi that he was in
a certain place. You can put somebody on to say, "No, he was at
such-and-such a place at that time." Sure you can do that. There is
nothing wrong with that.
MR. MCGILL: It doesn't say it is limited to that,
Judge.
THE COURT: That is what that case stands for.
If it had not been for that most recent decision of the
Supreme Court that
Page 125.
overruled all other cases on reputation evidence I would
have agreed, but that case was so far reaching that to me to allow such a
thing like that to enter might jeopardize the whole case and to me I don't
even think it would be worthwhile.
- - -
(At this time the discussion in chambers was
concluded
and court was reconvened at 3:05 p.m.)
- - -
(JURY PRESENT)
- - -
MR. JACKSON: The defense would call Dell Jones.
DELL JONES, having been duly sworn, was
examined and testified as follows:
DELL JONES-DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. JACKSON:
Q. Mr. Jones, what is your occupation?
A. I am a journalist with the New Observer.
Page 126.
Direct-D. Jones
Q. How long have you been a journalist?
A. For the last about eight years.
Q. Do you know Mumia Abu-Jamal?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. How long have you known him?
A. About six years.
Q. Would you tell us how it is that you have come to know
him?
A. Well, he was at WDAS and I was there as a volunteer in
the Public Service Department and we worked together.
Q. Mr. Jones, do you know other people who know Mr.
Jamal?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Have you had occasion to discuss his reputation with
other people?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Among those other people that you know who know Mr.
Jamal what was his reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding
citizen?
What is his reputation for being a peaceful and
law-abiding citizen?
A. It is definitely excellent.
Page 127.
Cross-D. Jones
MR. JACKSON: Thank you. You may cross-examine.
- - -
DELL JONES-CROSS-EXAMINATION
- - -
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. What is your definition, sir, of law-abiding
citizen?
MR. JACKSON: Objection. It is a legal conclusion.
MR. MCGILL: I would like to know what he means by
law-abiding. He has testified to it.
THE COURT: All right. I will let him answer if he
can.
A. Well, to me a law-abiding citizen is a person who
struggles to right wrongs within the context of the given rules of
society.
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. So then, it would be necessary for him or her to work
within the rules of society, is that correct?
A. I suppose.
Q. So, if you had heard any kind of information
Page 128.
Cross-D. Jones
that would suggest that an individual does not of his own
choosing work within the rules of that civilization, or of that society,
would you not change your opinion as to his reputation, sir?
A. Not necessarily. I would have to know more.
Q. In other words, are you saying then, sir ---
MR. JACKSON: (Interposing) I will object. Are we talking
about Mr. Jamal or a hypothetical?
MR. MCGILL: Obviously I am talking about him. We are now
talking about the sources of information of what he testified to. That is
all.
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. Are you saying, sir, that the word "motive," the fact
of motive as a matter of fact may well change whether or not someone in
your view is law-abiding if he does not choose to work within the rules of
society?
MR. JACKSON: Now I am going to object.
THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question?
Page 129.
Cross-D. Jones
MR. JACKSON: He is talking about somebody else, Judge.
Mr. Jamal is the only Defendant in this case.
MR. MCGILL: I believe we are not talking about specifics
now. We have to stay with the hearsay reputation evidence.
THE COURT: Go-ahead and rephrase it.
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. You stated, sir, as I understand, and you correct me
if I am wrong, that in determining what a law-abiding citizen is, that
this individual should right wrongs within the rules of that society, I
asked you if an individual, if an individual, decides to act in a way
outside of the rules of that society would that in anyway change your
opinion as to his reputation for being law-abiding. Did I not ask you
that?
A. (Indicating yes)
Q. And did you not say it would determine, I think you
said, it would depend upon his motive? Didn't you say that?
A. I would have to say that as long as the
Page 130.
Cross-D. Jones
system stayed within the law-abiding rules that they laid
down.
Q. Okay. So then it would be important for the system to
stay within the rules that they the system lay down, is that correct, or
do you mean they the individual lay down?
A. That the system lay down.
Q. All right. Then again, sir, wouldn't it also be
accurate to say that if the rules of the system are within the rules
---
MR. JACKSON: (Interposing) Can we see you at sidebar?
(The following is a sidebar discussion with both counsel
present.)
MR. JACKSON: I object. This is all very interesting, but
this philosophical discussion on the rights and wrongs of society is
irrelevant.
MR. MCGILL: That is what he said. I didn't say
law-abiding.
THE COURT: You asked him what he meant by law-abiding and
I thought he was going to say whoever obeys the law. I
Page 131.
Cross-D. Jones
didn't realize he was going to go into some philosophical
dissertation.
MR. JACKSON: That is the point. It is not relevant.
THE COURT: I am talking about the witness when he
answered the question. That is why I allowed the question.
MR. MCGILL: This is a relevant point.
THE COURT: I said initially I let you ask the question
because I thought the witness was going to say a law-abiding citizen is
somebody who obeys the law. That is it. He went beyond that and now you
are trying to figure out what he means. That is all right. He can do
that.
MR. MCGILL: It is extremely important for the jury to
know, since I have been precluded from using sources of information which
I know have been available to the public and published in newspapers which
I have present before me.
THE COURT: I don't want to go
Page 132.
Cross-D. Jones
into that.
MR. MCGILL: What I am trying to limit it to is to find
out what he means.
THE COURT: You can find that out.
MR. JACKSON: I can come back and I can ask him what he
means by every word that he has used.
THE COURT: He is only asking just as far as law-abiding.
I am assuming we know what peaceful means.
MR. JACKSON: What you have opened the door for is what do
you mean by law-abiding and he explains that and what do you mean by your
explanation. What does your explanation mean.
THE COURT: I mean somebody who obeys the law.
MR. JACKSON: What you are doing now is because he gave an
explanation he wants him to explain his explanation. Now he is getting
further.
THE COURT: No, because now he is saying it depends on the
motive of the
Page 133.
Cross-D. Jones
individual. What does he mean by that? I don't know.
MR. JACKSON: That was the second question. He is getting
into him explaining his explanation.
THE COURT: That is the only way we are going to know what
he means by peaceful and law-abiding. Just stay away from the article.
MR. MCGILL: I know that.
- - -
(At this time the sidebar discussion was
concluded and
the following is in open court.)
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. Now, I believe you said and you agreed that if the
system would stay within the laws of the system. That is what you
said?
A. Yes. I believe it is a two way street.
Q. Okay. So, I guess what I am asking you then is, if a
person acts in a way, or you have heard that a person would act in a way
in which the rules of that system are violated would you in anyway
change
Page 134.
Cross-D. Jones
your opinion as to his reputation?
MR. JACKSON: I object.
A. No. I am a reporter. I go by facts that I see and
touch and that are tangible. I can't go by what people are saying.
MR. MCGILL: I have nothing further. Reputation evidence
is all what people tell you. I would move to strike that testimony.
- - -
DELL JONES-REDIRECT EXAMINATION
- - -
BY MR. JACKSON:
Q. Mr. Jones, do you know Mr. Jamal to be a violent
person?
A. No.
Q. You know him to be a law-abiding person?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Which means you know that he obeys the law?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Has anyone ever told you, any of the people that you
know who know him, has anybody ever said he violated the law?
Page 135.
Redirect-D. Jones
A. Definitely not.
Q. Did anybody ever say he was a violent person?
A. Definitely not.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, sir. I have no further
questions.
DELL JONES-RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. You have said and counsel asked you specifically
whether you know if the Defendant is a violent person.
MR. JACKSON: I object.
MR. MCGILL: Judge, he said that. I heard it clearly.
MR. JACKSON: I asked if he knows other people.
MR. MCGILL: You asked him specifically whether he knew
whether the Defendant was a violent person.
THE COURT: Let's go to sidebar.
- - -
(The following is a sidebar discussion with both counsel
present.)
Page 136.
Recross-D. Jones
MR. MCGILL: Do you know he obeys the law? Do you know
that he is a law-abiding citizen? Two or three times he asked specifically
do you know that, which opens up the newspaper article.
THE COURT: I don't think it opens it.
MR. MCGILL: Oh my God.
THE COURT: I am not going to allow you to go into
that.
MR. MCGILL: He can do anything with his reputation and I
can't go into it on cross-examination? When he opens the door I can move
in, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. McGi11, this jury is not going to decide
this case, as I told you before, on his reputation.
MR. MCGILL: Then he can't ask the questions.
THE COURT: Bring in rebuttal witnesses. They can say that
they know him to be other than a law-abiding citizen.
Page 137.
Recross-D. Jones
MR. MCGILL: You have permitted him to say individually
that he knows him to be a law-abiding citizen. I can't cross-examine on
that?
MR. JACKSON: Because of what you said in terms of making
your speech, with regard to making your speech, I move for a mistrial. I
specifically asked him with regard to what other people know.
MR. MCGILL: I am not restricted, Your Honor, from
cross-examining when he opens the door to his specific knowledge of the
person.
MR. JACKSON: There is no exception to the rule with
regard to cross-examination with regard to specific and particular acts.
They don't say, "except when" they say "never." There it is.
MR. MCGILL: That is completely wrong.
MR. JACKSON: I can read the law to you.
MR. MCGILL: I can't believe you,
Page 138.
Recross-D. Jones
you are letting him do that without me
cross-examining.
THE COURT: You are getting all excited about nothing.
MR. MCGILL: I maybe, Judge, but he opens the door and I
should be able to walk in.
THE COURT: You are getting all excited about nothing. I
don't think you should go into that area. I feel that it it too dangerous.
I am not going to risk this whole trial based on that.
- - -
(At this time the sidebar discussion was
concluded and
the following is in open court.)
MR. MCGILL: Consistent with the court's ruling I have no
further questions.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Jones.
- - -
(WITNESS EXCUSED)
- - -
MR. JACKSON: The defense would
Page 139.
call John Skief.
- - -
(The following is a sidebar discussion with both counsel
present.)
THE COURT: How many witnesses are you going to bring
in?
MR. JACKSON: About five, sir, and about five more
tomorrow.
THE COURT: Can't you stipulate to them?
MR. MCGILL: I am not going to stipulate right now. One or
two is something else, but he comes up with five or ten. Give me a
break?
THE COURT: I don't care how many he brings in.
- - -
(At this time the sidebar discussion was
concluded and
the following is in open court.)
- - -
JOHN SKIEF, having been duly sworn, was
examined and testified as follows:
Page 140.
Direct-J. Skief
JOHN SKIEF-DIRECT EXAMINATION
- - -
BY MR. JACKSON:
Q. Mr. Skief, what is your occupation?
A. I am a school teacher.
Q. And where do you teach?
A. I teach at West Philadelphia High, as well as the
Detention Center and House of Corrections.
Q. Do you know Mr. Jamal?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. How long have you known him?
A. I have known him, I guess, over about five or six
years now.
Q. Could you tell us how it is that you came to know
him?
A. I came to know him through various community
activities in terms of education. He has also covered stories involving my
own school and institutions. And just working together basically in
community activities.
Q. Do you know other people who know Mr. Jamal?
A. Yes, I do know many that know him.
Q. Among those people that you know who know
Page 141.
Direct-J. Skief
Mr. Jamal, what is his reputation for being a peaceful
and law-abiding citizen?
A. He has a very strong reputation for being a very good
and sensitive journalist in terms of getting into a story.
MR. MCGILL: Objection. It is not responsive.
BY MR. JACKSON:
Q. Unfortunately you have to just speak to his reputation
for being peaceful and non-violent, whether it is bad, good, excellent, or
whatever. So, again, among those people that you know who know him, what
is his reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen?
A. Well, everybody that I know that knows him that I know
feels that he is a very --- I guess a law-abiding and peaceful person.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, sir. You may cross-examine.
- - -
JOHN SKIEF-CROSS-EXAMINATION
- - -
Page 142.
Cross-J. Skief
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. How far back did you know the Defendant?
A. I would say around six years. At least that time.
Q. You have stated that he is law-abiding. May I ask you
what you mean by law-abiding, Sir?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
THE COURT: I will let him answer that.
A. What I mean by law-abiding is simply operating within
the confines of the law.
BY MR MCGILL:
Q. Is this the first time that you have been in this
courtroom, sir, or have you been here anytime within the last month?
A. This is the first time I have been inside this
courtroom.
Q. Have you heard anything at all about what has occurred
in this last month?
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I object.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
Page 143.
Cross-J. Skief
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. If you had heard from the sources of information that
you said stated that he was, in fact, law-abiding that his actions were
not in accordance with the law as it is in this Commonwealth would that
change your reputation testimony?
MR. JACKSON: Objection. That requires the witness to know
what is consistent with the laws of this Commonwealth.
THE COURT: Come over here.
- - -
(The following is a sidebar discussion with both counsel
present)
MR. JACKSON: I would like to state the basis of my
objection.
First of all I am specifically moving for a mistrial. Mr.
McGill has been specifically directed by Your Honor with regard to the
scope of his questioning of character and reputation witnesses. We had a
discussion in conference and we had two sidebar conferences and Mr. McGill
nevertheless is persisting on asking inappropriate and inadmissible
questions.
Page 144.
Cross-J. Skief
I would specifically ask Your Honor to rule for a
mistrial.
MR. MCGILL: I am absolutely outraged that I have to face
character witnesses without the ability to cross-examine
.
THE COURT: I am sorry, Mr. McGill, but I don't make the
law on that.
MR. JACKSON: He is blaming you.
MR. MCGILL: I am not.
THE COURT: As far as this case is concerned we have gone
so far away from the crucial issue here of who killed this police officer
on that day.
MR. MCGILL: This is relevant evidence. Reputation
witnesses whether he likes it or not happens to be relevant evidence.
Therefore, they should be appropriately cross-examined.
Your Honor, as far as I am concerned when he starts
saying all these people are saying this and that about being law-abiding
and I am unable to test their sources and
Page 145.
Cross-J. Skief
determine ---
THE COURT: (Interposing) I am saying to you that you can
go out and dig up people to come in and say he has a bad reputation.
MR. MCGILL: It is just like a doctor's opinion if the
facts were different. I think I should have the opportunity to say if you
heard from these people that he had not been ---
THE COURT: (Interposing) I told you to look up the law on
this. I told you to look up the law over the recess.
MR. MCGILL: I did. Your Honor disagreed with my
position.
THE COURT: I disagree with your position because I don't
think it is right. You give the impression to the jury that it is so
important and it is not.
MR. JACKSON: I am reading from the quick index. In the
case of Commonwealth versus Kosh, 305, Pennsylvania 146, among other
things, the proposed testimony shows
Page 146.
Cross-J. Skief
that the doctor was able to give an opinion which was
negative only as to Barnes' truthfulness concerning his use of drugs. Not
his general truthfulness or lack thereof. As with the cross-examination of
Barnes himself as to the use of drugs such evidence would serve only to
introduce a collateral issue into the trial. For that reason the trial
court's refusal to permit Doctor Fignitto to testify was not error.
In that case what they are saying is that even though the
Defendant may have lied about one specific act he could still say he has
good reputation for truthfulness and whatever it is. You can't go to a
specific act. Again, that is what he keeps trying to do.
MR. MCGILL: I do not agree, but I accept the court's
ruling. What I am saying is I only ask the court to be sensitive to the
wording of Mr. Jackson's questions in the future. When the door is open I
think I should be able to walk in.
Page 147.
Cross-J. Skief
THE COURT: All he is asking is from your discussions with
the people in the community what is his reputation for being a peaceful
and law-abiding citizen. I know it is the type of thing you can't
cross-examine, but I don't make the law.
MR. JACKSON: That is what the law says.
- - -
(At this time the sidebar discussion was
concluded and
the following is in open court.)
MR. MCGILL: I have no further questions.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Skief. No further
questions.
(WITNESS EXCUSED)
- - -
MR.JACKSON: The defense would call Viola Young.
- - -
Page 148.
Direct-F. Shionesu
FALAI SHIONESU, having been duly
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
FALAI SHIONESU-DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. JACKSON:
Q. Do you know Mumia Abu-Jamal?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. How long have you known him?
A. Approximately five years.
Q. Do you know other people who know him?
A. Certainly.
Q. Among those people that you know who know him, what is
his reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen?
A. His reputation is beyond anything I can possibly say
at this point. He is upheld in our community. He has always been from the
time I have known him. He is a type of person who if there is an incident
occuring he is the type of person that would help cool it out, because
people respect him. He is the type of person who has done just that.
Brothers who are younger who may
Page 149.
Direct-F. Shionesu
have seemed hostile on certain
incidents he may have said words to then and they have removed themselves
from whatever incident they may have thought they wanted to get into.
Q. Your response is based on his reputation? That is his
reputation?
A. Yes. I have worked with him as a colleague. I have
formerly worked at radio station WKDU. I worked with him in our
community.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you very much.
- - -
FALAI SHIONESU-CROSS-EXAMINATION
- - -
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. I believe you stated that if the Defendant observed an
incident he would do whatever he could to what?
A. To possibly resolve the incident, or lessen it. You
must understand Mr. Jamal is a journalist, which means often times he
would be on the scene of perhaps a possible incident and, therefore,
seeing that could perhaps interject a word by being
Page 150.
Cross-F. Shionesu
in our community to some of those persons and would
possibly lessen the incident.
Q. These people that you have spoken to in relation to
Mr. Jamal, have you ever heard the term hostility or aggressiveness?
A. No.
MR. JACKSON: I object.
THE COURT: She said no.
MR. JACKSON: I understand that. I knew she would.
MR. MCGILL: Objection. Is he going to be the next
character witness?
THE COURT: Come on.
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. What is your definition of law-abiding?
MR. JACKSON: Objection.
THE COURT: I will let her answer.
A. Law-abiding applied to an intelligent person means to
address the rules that are set-up for us, addressing themselves in such a
way that we adhere to them, that we understand what those laws are and
that we try out best to uphold those laws.
Page 151.
Cross-F. Shionesu
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. And if for any reason any of those individuals say
things to you that would indicate that an individual would not be
upholding or following those laws would that in anyway change your
opinion?
MR. JACKSON: I am going to object, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I will let her answer.
A. My opinion is based on what the situation is and how I
view it.
Now, often times someone may feel as though that a law is
being broken, but I often see things that are not necessarily being done
that are said to be done.
For example, I understand a person is supposedly innocent
until proven guilty. So, when you address that question to me you have to
be a lot clearer on exactly what you imply.
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. I am sorry if I wasn't clear. If you would hear from
these individuals that the individual would not be acting within those
very laws that you think are important to follow ---
Page 152.
Cross-F. Shionesu
A. (Interposing) Are we speaking of laws that are kind of
stabilized and not flexible?
Q. The laws of the Commonwealth.
MR. JACKSON: May we see you at sidebar, Your Honor?
- - -
(The following is a sidebar discussion with both counsel
present.)
MR. MCGILL: Nothing further, Judge.
THE COURT: Mr. Jackson, I think this witness here has
left herself in a hole. You asked her a simple question and all she had to
say is excellent, good or very good, and she goes into a dissertation that
leaves the door wide open. Now she is hedging about what she means about
law-abiding. She is saying if the rules are rigid and can't be changed
then she doesn't agree with them.
MR. JACKSON: It is because she went onto explain what she
meant by law-abiding. What he did was give a hypothetical about this and
if this and if that. What is her opinion. Her opinion is not what has
Page 153.
Cross-F. Shionesu
been asked, it is reputation.
THE COURT: Her opinion as to what she means of a
law-abiding citizen.
MR. JACKSON: Her opinion is not relevant.
THE COURT: Yes it is, because she has given testimony to
his reputation. You should tell these people about what they are suppose
to be testifying to and don't blame anybody if they deviate from that.
MR. MCGILL: This one has gone way far a field.
MR. JACKSON: He is soliciting an opinion.
THE COURT: You did it.
MR. JACKSON: I did not.
THE COURT: You asked it and when she went into that long
dissertation she left the door wide open.
MR. JACKSON: I asked if that was based on reputation and
she said yes. Then Mr. McGill said if this and if that would your opinion
change.
Page 154.
Cross-F. Shionesu
THE COURT: That is right.
MR. JACKSON: Her opinion is not being tested, it is the
reputation.
THE COURT: Her opinion, plus maybe others. Maybe he can
rephrase the question.
MR. MCGILL: As far as you are concerned what is his
reputation and if others say various things would that change your
opinion?
MR. JACKSON: She is not asked what her opinion is.
THE COURT: It is hers together with others.
MR. JACKSON: It is reputation and not her opinion. He is
saying would that change her opinion.
THE COURT: Ask her if she thinks that would change the
opinions of the other people.
MR. JACKSON: How would she know?
MR. MCGILL: It is her opinion, Judge, it is not the
others.
Page 155.
Cross-F. Shionesu
It is hearsay information.
MR. JACKSON: I will get the rule on opinion.
THE COURT: I went over that. Let me say that she wouldn't
come in here in the first place if she didn't have an opinion of her own,
too, along with the other people.
MR. JACKSON: I can't ask her about her opinion and
neither can he.
THE COURT: She brought it out.
MR. JACKSON: Not her opinion. She said based on the
reputation.
THE COURT: You bring the people in.
MR. JACKSON: I am bringing them in.
THE COURT: She has gone into a long dissertation and she
is leaving the door wide open.
MR. JACKSON: She is saying that is his reputation.
THE COURT: I don't care. How does
Page 156.
Cross-F. Shionesu
she know that then?
MR. JACKSON: It is his reputation. He asked specifically
would your opinion change.
THE COURT: I am telling you that you better watch how you
put people on. When they open the door I can't hold him down.
- - -
(At this time the sidebar discussion was
concluded and
the following is in open court.)
BY MR. MCGILL:
Q. Have you been in this courtroom at all the last
month?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Does your opinion remain the same?
A. Does my opinion remain the same?
Q. As to his reputation, the reputation of this Defendant
for being peaceful and law-abiding?
A. Yes.
MR. MCGILL: No further questions.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you very much.
- - -
Page 157.
(WITNESS EXCUSED)
- - -
MR. JACKSON: Can we see you at sidebar briefly without
the stenographer?
- - -
(At this time there was a sidebar discussion
with both
counsel present off of the record.)
- - -
MR. JACKSON: Before presenting the balance of our
character witnesses I would request that I be given the opportunity to
present them tomorrow consistent with Your Honor's rulings? I believe Mr.
McGill has a request of the court.
MR. MCGILL: Yes, Your Honor. I wonder if I may call out
of turn a rebuttal witness who is here today. I would hate to have them
wait until tomorrow. She has to go to work. It is just one witness and it
will be brief. It is the custodian of records, Elizabeth Williams.
Page 158.
Direct-E. Williams
THE COURT: Sure.
- - -