|
Page 3.
(The following is a discussion in chambers with both
counsel present.)
THE COURT: It is now 10:48 a.m. and we were suppose to
start at 9:30. You are late again, Mr. Jackson. What is the excuse this
time?
MR. JACKSON: This morning, Your Honor, at about 6:30, a
quarter to 7:00, fire engines came to my house again and I think I
indicated that to you, before. There was no fire. I left and I finally got
to the office about ten minutes to 9:00. At about a quarter after 9:00 my
son called me. I am a single parent. My son called me and indicated that
someone called and asked for me and I wasn't there. He said, "You are the
one that we want. We will be over to get you." He is fifteen years of age.
I told him to leave the house and go to my mother's house.
Less than five minutes later he, called back and said it
was a different person that called. I then decided to go
Page 4.
home and pick him up and take him to my mother's
house.
I don't know who made the calls. He couldn't tell whether
they were black, white, old or young. I thought that the best thing for me
to do was to take him over to my mother's house.
THE COURT: Why didn't you give us a call?
MR. JACKSON: I told my secretary to call.
THE COURT: Why don't you call here? You know the
courtroom number. Let the court crier know.
MR. JACKSON: You had no call at all?
THE COURT: Absolutely not. We had to call your office and
get your phone number. Your son said you left for here.
MR. JACKSON: I called this morning. I mean my secretary
was suppose to call.
THE COURT: Here is the crier.
Page 5.
You can ask him. He spoke to your son. Your son said that
you had left and you were here. I thought you took him to your
mother's.
MR. JACKSON: I didn't want to leave him alone. I don't
know what is happening to my house.
THE COURT: He is back at home now. You weren't in any
other courtroom, were you? You didn't go to any other courtroom?
MR. JACKSON: I have no other trials. None.
THE COURT: The next time I wish you would call here and
let us know what you are doing.
MR. JACKSON: I assure you that I wasn't thinking to call
here. I was thinking about getting home.
THE COURT: Okay. The next time you call here and let us
know. I mean it is terrible. It is 10:45.
MR. JACKSON: There would be no
Page 6.
reason for me to be late.
THE COURT: Remember yesterday there was mention about
inconsistent statements or consistent statements. Either one. I looked at
the Waller case and it seems to be that the inconsistent statements can't
be used as substantive evidence. However, if the person testifies in
regards to those inconsistent statements that can be received in evidence.
So, it would seem to me that if you give a charge to that you have to say
on the one hand you can only use it for one purpose and it can't be used
as substantive evidence. However, whatever he said on the stand or she
said on the stand in regards to that prior statement can be used as
substantive evidence. It is rather confusing to the jury to explain that
and I felt there request that you had made for the false in one false in
all would cover that situation, which I think they would understand a lot
better if I tried to explain to them that, no you can't consider it
substantive on one
Page 7.
hand and on the other hand whatever she said on the
witness stand you can.
MR. JACKSON: I am sure the jury would say "What is
substantive evidence?
MR. McGILL: That is a good point, Judge.
THE COURT: It is confusing. You didn't request it, but
you mentioned it to the jury. So, I am assuming that you want it. The
false in one false in all would be the thing that would cover that
situation. In other words, they would have the alternative to disbelieve
or believe whatever they wanted to. Do you want anything on motive?
MR. McGILL: No.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you want anything - - I wouldn't do
it in my charge in chief, but in my closing remarks do you want me to say
anything about if they come in with first degree that there is a second
charge?
MR. McGILL: Absolutely not.
Page 8.
THE COURT: I will stay away from that.
- - -
(At this time the discussion in chambers was
concluded
and the following is in open court.)
- - -
(JURY PRESENT)
- - -
THE COURT CRIER: While His Honor is charging the jury no
one will enter or leave the room. Remain seated at all times. If you wish
to leave please leave now.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the time has
now arrived for me to give you my charge. After I have finished you will
gather together and undertake the task for which you are chosen. That is
to discover the truth and announce your finding in the case of
Commonwealth versus Mumia Abu-Jamal.
When you undertake your deliberations I want you to keep
one point clear in your
Page 9.
mind. No matter what verdict you reach it must be
unanimous. Each of you must agree and concur on the ultimate finding of
the Defendant's guilt or non guilt.
The verdict then must be a composite of your individual
views based on the evidence as it was presented in this courtroom during
the course of this trial.
After you retire you must do one thing before beginning
your deliberations. You must select a foreman from among yourselves. The
foreman's task will be to sign and date the verdict report which will be
given to you and on which you will note your verdict. The foreman will
also conduct your deliberations and act as your spokesman and announce the
verdict as you all find it when called upon in open court.
Remember as I have told you, the verdict must be
unanimous. You are responsible for it individually and collectively. After
it has been announced by the foreman you may each be polled for
Page 10.
your personal view.
I am holding in my hand the verdict report which will go
out with you. You will see it has the Judge's name, the courtroom number,
the attorneys' names, the date, the crier's name and it says Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania versus Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Down on the left-hand portion to your left you will see
it has the first charge possession of instrument of crime generally under
bill number 1357, January Term of 1982. To the extreme right you will see
the printed word "Verdict." Underneath there you will put either guilty or
not guilty as you all find it. Below that you will see the charge of
murder. That is under bill number 1358, January Term of 1982. To the left
of that word "murder" you see a little asterisk which if you follow it
down to the bottom it says "See, reverse for crier's notes. On the reverse
side it says "Only one of four possible
Page 11.
verdicts." One, guilty of murder in the first degree.
Two, guilty of murder in the. third degree. Three, guilty of voluntary
manslaughter and four, not guilty. Whichever one of those verdicts you
reach you will go to the front and to the extreme right under the printed
word "Verdict" you will write in that full verdict.
Down the bottom in the middle it has a place for the
foreman's signature. He or she, whoever is the foreman, will write in
either his or her name and to the right of it you put the date that you
reached the verdict and bring this back with you into the courtroom.
At the very outset I want to say to you that the speeches
of counsel are not part of the evidence and you should not consider them
as such. However, in deciding the case you should carefully consider the
evidence presented in light of the various, reasons and arguments which
each lawyer presented.
Page 12.
It is the right and duty of each lawyer to discuss the
evidence in a manner which is most favorable to the side he represents.
You should be guided by each attorney's argument to the extent that they
are supported by the evidence and insofar as they aid you in applying your
own reasoning and common sense.
However, you are not required to accept the arguments of
either lawyer. It is for you and you alone to decide the case based on the
evidence as it was presented from the witness stand and in accordance with
the instructions on the law which I am now giving to you.
You must also remember that it is a fundamental principle
of our system of criminal law that the Defendant is presumed innocent. The
fact that he was arrested and he is accused of a crime is not any evidence
against him.
Furthermore, the Defendant is presumed innocent
throughout the trial and
Page 13.
until and unless you conclude based on careful and
impartial consideration of the evidence that the Commonwealth has proven
him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is not the Defendant's burden to prove that he is not
guilty. Instead, it is the Commonwealth that always has the burden of
proving each and every element of the crime charged and that the Defendant
is guilty of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
A Defendant is not required to present evidence or to
prove anything in his own defense. It is entirely up to the Defendant in
every criminal case whether or not to testify. He has an absolute right
founded on the constitution to remain silent. You must not draw any
inference of guilt from the fact that the Defendant did not testify.
If the Commonwealth evidence fails to meet its burden
then your verdict must be not guilty. On the other hand, if the
Page 14.
Commonwealth evidence does prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the Defendant is guilty then your verdict must be guilty.
Although the Commonwealth has the burden of proving that
the Defendant is guilty this does not mean that the Commonwealth must
prove its case beyond all doubt and to a mathematical certainty. Nor must
it demonstrate the complete impossibility of innocence. A reasonable doubt
is a doubt that would cause a reasonably careful and sensible person to
restrain before acting upon a matter of importance in his own affairs. A
reasonable doubt must fairly arise out of the evidence that was presented,
or out of the lack of evidence presented with respect to some element of
the crime. A reasonable doubt must be a real doubt. It may not be an
imagined one, or a speculative one. Nor may it be a doubt manufactured to
avoid carrying out an unpleasant duty.
So, to summarize, you may not find the Defendant guilty
based on a mere
Page 15.
suspicion of guilt. The Commonwealth has the burden or
proving the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as I have defined
that term for you. If it meets this burden, then and only then must the
Defendant be no longer presumed innocent and you must find him guilty. On
the other hand, if the Commonwealth does not meet its burden then you must
find the Defendant not guilty.
It is part of the function of the jury to decide the
credibility of the witnesses. You are the triers of the facts. It is up to
the jury alone to determine whom you believe and what weight you will give
to the testimony of the witnesses in determining their credibility.
You should consider the witnesses' manner of testifying,
their candor and frankness or lack of it, and the corroborators of other
witnesses. You will take all of the surrounding circumstances and
determine which witnesses you will believe and, what weight you will give
their testimony.
Page 16.
In considering the credibility of witnesses you have seen
you should consider what opportunity the witness had to observe the facts
to which the witness has testified. Also, whether the witness was capable
of observing them accurately in the first instance and remembering them
and now recounting them and whether the witness did so fully and honestly,
or untruthfully or evasively.
All of these considerations are matters to be passed upon
by you.
Where the opportunity for positive identification is good
and the witness is positive in his or her identification and his or her
identification is not weakened by prior failure to identify, but remains
even after cross-examination positive and unqualified, the testimony as to
identification need not be received with caution. Indeed, the law says
that his or her positive testimony as to identity may be treated as the
statement of a fact.
Page 17.
Where there is a conflict in the testimony of different
witnesses the jury has the duty of deciding which testimony to believe,
but you should first try to reconcile, that is fit together, any conflicts
in the testimony if you can fairly do so.
Discrepancies and conflicts between the testimony of
different witnesses may or may not cause you to disbelieve some or all of
their testimony. Remember that two or more persons witnessing an incident
may see or hear it happen differently. Also, it is not uncommon for a
witness to be innocently mistaken in the witness recollection of how
something happened.
If five witnesses to the same occurrence give different
details and descriptions you must bear in mind that some persons have
better powers of observation. Some have more accurate powers of
expression. Some have better memories. Some have an interest or motive
which may have colored
Page 18.
their recollection and testimony. And all such personal
equations must enter into your determination as to how much reliance you
can place on the testimony of each witness.
If you cannot reconcile a conflict in the testimony it is
up to you to decide which testimony, if any, to believe and what to reject
as untrue or inaccurate.
In applying or making this decision consider whether the
conflict involves a matter of importance or merely some detail and whether
the conflict is brought about by an innocent mistake, or by an intentional
falsehood.
If you conclude that one of the witnesses testified
falsely and intentionally about any fact which is necessary to your
decision in this case then for that reason alone you may, if you wish,
disregard everything that the witness said. However, you are not required
to disregard everything the witness said for this reason. It is entirely
possible that the witness testified
Page 19.
falsely and intentionally in one respect, but truthfully
about everything else. If that is the situation then you may accept that
part of the witness's testimony which is truthful and which you believe
and you may reject that part which is false and not worthy of belief.
You should also keep in mind the other factors already
discussed which go into deciding whether or not to believe a witness. In
deciding which conflict in testimony to believe you should not necessarily
be swayed by the number of witnesses on either side. The number of
witnesses is not a controlling factor. It is the quality of their
testimony and the credibility and believability of the testimony which
must guide you in your deliberations. On the other hand, you should also
consider the extent to which the conflicting testimony is supported by
other evidence in the case.
Remember, a witness is credible
Page 20.
if the witness honestly tried to tell the truth and if
you believe the witness was able to observe and recount with reasonable
accuracy the matters to which the witness testified.
In summary, you must bring to bear all the faculties you
acquired as adult human beings which enable you to determine who is and
who is not telling the truth.
Although you are the sole judges of the facts in this
case you are bound to apply the law as I give it to you to the facts which
you determine. In doing so you are not to be concerned about the wisdom or
correctness of the law. Your oath as jurors requires that you apply the
law as it is in accordance with my instructions to the facts as you find
them.
The defense offered evidence as to the good reputation of
the Defendant for being a peaceful, law-abiding citizen. The law
recognizes that a person of good character is not likely to commit a
crime
Page 21.
which is contrary to his nature. Evidence of good
character may by itself raise a reasonable doubt of guilt and justify a
verdict of not guilty. You must weigh and consider the evidence of good
character along with all the other evidence in the case.
If on all the evidence you have a reasonable doubt of the
Defendant's guilt, then you must find him not guilty. However, if on all
the evidence you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the
Defendant is guilty then you must find the Defendant guilty.
As a general rule a witness can only testify about what
he saw or heard. He may not give an opinion or draw conclusions. An
exception to this rule is the so-called expert witness. Such a witness is
one who by training, education or experience has acquired a special level
of skill or knowledge in some art, science, profession or calling. By
virtues of his special skill or knowledge an expert is permitted to
Page 22.
give explanations and draw inferences not within the
range of ordinary knowledge intelligence and experience, and to give an
opinion and state his reasons for it.
Whether or not to accept the expert's opinion, namely
Joseph Grimes, the fingerprint expert, Anthony Paul, the ballistician,
Doctor Morton Hoyer the assistant medical examiner, Doctor Charles Tomosi,
the criminalist, and Doctor Anthony Colletta, the surgeon, you should
consider the evidence as to each of their training, education or
experience, as well as the reasons and facts on which their opinion is
based.
Also in deciding whether or not to accept the experts'
opinion you should bear in mind that you are not bound to accept it merely
because it is the testimony of someone having special skill or
knowledge.
The evidence in this case is of two different types. On
the one hand there is direct evidence, which is testimony by a witness
from his own personal knowledge.
Page 23.
Such as something that he saw or heard himself.
Let me give you an example of what I mean by direct
evidence.
If you were to leave City Hall on a summer afternoon and
the sky was very dark and you heard thunder and you saw lightning in the
distance and moisture was falling from the sky you could say that you saw
it raining. That is direct evidence.
The other type is circumstantial evidence, which is
testimony about facts which point to the existence of other facts in
question.
Let me give you an example as to what I mean by
circumstantial evidence.
Let us assume that you entered a moving picture theater
in Philadelphia at 1:00 p.m. on a summer afternoon and the sun was shining
very brightly. You came out of the movie about 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon
and the sun was still shining very brightly, but when you came out of the
theater you
Page 24.
noticed that the streets were wet, the pavements were
wet, the buildings were wet, some people were wearing raincoats and some
had their umbrellas up. Now, you could not actually say that you saw it
rain, but certainly the things that you had seen would be very persuasive
circumstantially of the fact that it did rain.
Whether or not circumstantial evidence is proof of the
other facts in question it depends, in part, on the application of common
sense and human experience. You should recognize that it is sometimes
necessary to rely upon circumstantial evidence in criminal cases
particularly where the crime was committed in secret.
In deciding whether or not to accept circumstantial
evidence as proof of the facts in question you must be satisfied first
that the testimony of the witness is truthful and accurate, and second
that the existence of the facts the witness testified
Page 25.
to leads to the conclusion that the facts in question
also happened. Circumstantial evidence alone maybe sufficient to prove the
Defendant's guilt.
If there are several separate pieces of circumstantial
evidence it is not necessary that each piece standing separately convince
you of the Defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, before
you may find the Defendant guilty all the pieces of circumstantial
evidence when considered together must reasonably and naturally lead to
the conclusion that the Defendant is guilty and must convince you of the
Defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In other words, you may find the Defendant guilty based
on circumstantial evidence alone, but only if the total amount and quality
of that evidence convinces you of the Defendant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
In addition, where one of the
Page 26.
elements of the crime requires intent, knowledge or a
specific state of mind you will note that it is not always possible to
prove intent, knowledge or state of mind by direct evidence unless for
example there is evidence that the Defendant made a statement concerning
his state of mind. However, intent, knowledge or state of mind like any
other matter maybe proved by circumstantial evidence. That is by
inferences that reasonably maybe drawn from all the facts and
circumstances including the Defendant's acts and conduct which have been
shown by the evidence in this case.
Thus, you may conclude that the Defendant had the intent,
knowledge or specific state of mind required for one of the elements of
the crime charged based on circumstantial evidence alone, but only if the
circumstantial evidence is strong enough to convince you that the
Commonwealth has established this intent, knowledge or state of mind
beyond a reasonable doubt as I have
Page 27.
previously defined that term for you.
Under Bill of Information number 1358, January Term of
1982, the Defendant is charged with various offenses involving various
classes or kinds of criminal homicide, which is the taking of a human life
without justification or excuse.
You are advised and instructed that you have the power to
return but one of four permissible and proper allowable and available
verdicts in your deliberations pertaining to this Bill of Information.
That is, one, guilty of murder in the first degree. Two,
guilty of murder in the third degree. Three, guilty of voluntary
manslaughter. And four, not guilty.
Note well that there are but two types of murder which
may possibly be involved in this case, murder in the first degree and
murder in the third degree. You are advised that there is no issue of
murder of the second degree in this case and that a verdict of murder in
the second degree is
Page 28.
not a possible verdict in this case. Accordingly, I shall
not extensively charge you thereon.
Later in the charge it will be briefly referred to and explained for
the purpose of exclusion. That is, I will explain briefly what it is so
that you will definitely know that it is not involved as a possible
verdict in this case.
Thus you see, members of the jury, that your duties are
numerous. Not only are you to determine in this case the guilt or
innocence of the Defendant, but if you find him guilty you must also
determine of what class or kind of criminal homicide he is guilty of. That
is, murder in the first degree, murder in the third degree or voluntary
manslaughter. But I repeat that during your deliberations in order to find
the Defendant guilty of any class of criminal homicide encompassed in said
general murder bill you must first find that the Commonwealth has
established by the evidence introduced
Page 29.
or has proven each and every essential element of that
class of criminal homicide beyond a reasonable doubt as I have previously
defined and explained the meaning of that term for you.
Further I shall now instruct you as to the elements of each of those
offenses involved in this case. As I do so you should keep in mind that
after considering all of the evidence you are entitled to find the
Defendant guilty of any one of those offenses which you find is
established beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence presented in this
courtroom based on the instructions which I shall now give you as to the
elements of each offense.
The term "homicide" refers to the taking of human life. A homicide is a
killing or causing of death by one human being of another human being. It
is a generic term that embraces every killing of one human being by
another. By "generic" is meant --- it refers to a class of crimes and
the
Page 30.
term itself does not designate a particular crime.
The classifications of homicide are threefold. One,
justifiable. Two, excusable. And three, criminal.
If human life is taken by due legal process, on command
of the law or in self-defense with permission of the law it is called
justifiable.
If human life is taken by accident without culpable
negligence or certain other circumstances it is excusable. But when human
life is taken without legal justification or excuse it is criminal.
Criminal homicide is divided into two classes, murder and
manslaughter.
There are three types of murder. Murder of the first
degree, murder of the second degree and murder of the third degree.
Note well as previously stated that you are once again
instructed that there is no issue of murder in the second degree in this
case and you are not to consider such
Page 31.
a possible verdict during your deliberations.
As stated the second class of criminal homicide is
manslaughter. It will be your duty in this case to determine whether
Officer Faulkner died as a result of a gunshot wound inflicted upon him by
the Defendant. Gunshot wounds. If so, whether such killing amounted to
murder of the first degree, murder of the third degree or voluntary
manslaughter.
The difference between murder and manslaughter lies in
the fact that to constitute murder the unlawful killing must have been
done with malice. Where an unlawful killing has been done without malice
the crime rises no higher or greater than manslaughter.
Thus, if the killing is intended with malice, a term
which I shall define for you, it is murder. If the unlawful killing is not
intended with malice the crime rises no higher or greater than
manslaughter."
Malice is the thing which
Page 32.
distinguishes murder from any other type of homicide.
Malice then becomes an important item for you to
consider.
In addition to the common or ordinary concept of the term
malice from which we derive our word "malicious," malice has a specific
legal meaning involving more than a particular ill will.
Malice maybe of two kinds, either expressed malice as
where there existed a particular ill will against a particular person, or
implied malice as in the case of a crime committed with the depravity of
heart, the wickedness of disposition and indifference to social duty.
Hardness of heart, evil purpose, cruelty, recklessness of consequences, a
reckless disdain for consequences of action and a disposition of mind
regardless of social duty.
If any person has so acted he is regarded in the eyes of
the law as having acted with malice. Thus malice is the thing
Page 33.
which distinguishes a murder from other types of
homicide. Therefore, to determine whether a homicide constitutes murder
you must first determine whether malice was present. You must decide
whether at the time of the killing the slayer was motivated by malice.
That is whether there was wickedness of disposition, depravity of heart,
cruelty, hardness of heart, evil purpose, recklessness of consequences or
a mind regardless of social duty.
If there was no malice there was no murder of any
degree.
Please note that legal malice may be inferred and found
from the attending circumstances. As a matter of law you may infer legal
malice from the intentional use without legal excuse or legal
justification of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the body of the
victim.
A vital part of the body means a portion of the body
containing organs necessary to the continuance of life.
Page 34.
A deadly weapon means any firearm or any device designed
as a weapon and capable of producing death or serious bodily injury, or
any other device or instrumentality which in the manner in which it is
used or intended to be used is calculated or likely to produce death or
serious bodily injury.
This inference of malice that arises from the use by the
killer of a deadly weapon upon a vital part of the victim's body is one
which you are at liberty to apply or not to apply as you see fit. If you
find that there were any qualifying facts indicating a contrary intent
such facts would prevent application of this principle by you.
In conclusion, you may infer from such conduct that the
act was done with malice, but if you find facts from the circumstances
surrounding the Defendant's conduct indicating a contrary intention on his
part you would not infer malice.
Thus, if you find the Defendant
Page 35.
guilty of murder, that is an unlawful killing with
malice, you must then determine whether he is guilty of murder of the
first degree or murder of the third degree.
What is murder of the first degree? The Act of Assembly
or statute on which the Defendant is being tried expressly defines what is
murder of the first degree. This statute which is known as the crimes code
enacted June the 6th, 1973 and amended on March 26th, 1974, under section
2502A, expressly defines verbatim, or word-for-word, as follows:
A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first
degree when it is committed by an intentional killing. Thus, in order to
find the Defendant guilty or find that the Defendant caused the death of
another person. And thereafter you must determine if the killing was
intentional.
Now, what is an intentional killing?
Section 2502D of the same crimes
Page 36.
code provides verbatim, or word-for-word, as follows:
Intentional killing. Killing by means of poison or by
lying in wait or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated
killing. Therefore, in order to find the Defendant guilty of murder of the
first degree you must find that the killing was a willful, deliberate and
premeditated act.
You must ask yourselves the question, did the Defendant
have the willful deliberate and premeditated specific intent to kill at
the time of the killing.
What is meant by these words willful, deliberate and
premeditated?
If an intention to kill exists, or if a killing was
consciously done with knowledge of such consequences, or if the killer
consciously decided to kill the victim then the killing is willful. If
this intent to kill is accompanied by such circumstances as evidence or
demonstrate a
Page 37.
mind fully conscious of its own purpose and design to
kill, it is deliberate. if sufficient time has been afforded to enable the
mind of the killer to fully frame the design to kill and to select the
instrument or to frame the plan to carry this design into execution, it is
premeditated.
Our cases have consistently held that the requirement of
premeditation and deliberation is meant whenever there is a conscious
purpose to bring about death.
Note well that the law fixes no length of time or no
appreciable length of time as necessary to form or frame the intent to
kill, which design to kill can be formulated in a fraction of a second,
but it leaves the existence or non existence of a fully framed intent to
kill as a fact to be determined by the jury from all of the facts and
circumstances in evidence.
Accordingly, no appreciable, amount of time is needed
between formulation of intent and the killing if you as finders
Page 38.
of fact determine that the killing was done with the
required intent to kill.
The required intention to kill maybe found in the
Defendant's acts, declarations, words or conduct, or by the circumstances
under which the killing was accomplished.
There is evidence in this case that the killing was
caused by a gun. As to that the law holds where anyone without sufficient
cause or provocation unlawfully kills another by using a deadly weapon
upon a vital part of the body with a manifest intention to so use it, an
inference of intent maybe drawn in the absence of qualifying circumstances
by common knowledge that such use of a deadly weapon is likely to cause
death.
Thus, an intent to kill maybe inferred by reason of the
killer's use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the body of the
victim.
You will recall my prior
Page 39.
definitions of a deadly weapon and vital parts of the
body.
Note well that you are not to infer this intent to kill
if the facts and circumstances indicate a contrary intent. In short, you
are not bound by this inference of intent to kill arising from the use of
a deadly weapon upon the vital part of the body of the victim by the
killer, but you may or may not apply it under the facts as you find them
and as you see fit.
Further, although the nature of the weapon used maybe
quite material in ascertaining whether there was or was not an intent to
kill, that intent must still in every case be collected from all the
attending circumstances no matter what may have been the instrument of
death.
A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second
degree when the death of the victim occurs while the Defendant was,
engaged as the actual perpetrator, or, as an accomplice in the application
of or an
Page 40.
attempt to commit or flight after committing or
attempting to commit robbery, rapes deviate sexual intercourse by force or
threat of force, arson, burglary or kidnapping.
In the case before you we do not have so far as the
evidence discloses any perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate any of the
other crimes mentioned in the Act of Assembly. Therefore, I will not
charge you further concerning murder of the second degree, since it is not
a part of this case.
All murder which is not murder of the first degree or
murder of the second degree shall be murder of the third degree.
Section 2502C of the crimes code provides verbatim, or
word-for-word as follows:
Murder of the third degree. All other kinds of murder
shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the third degree is an
unlawful killing of a human being with malice, but with, an intention
merely to inflict bodily harm to wound,
Page 41.
maim, frighten or to cause bodily injury to a victim and
not to take human life and yet as a result of the infliction of the injury
death results.
Third degree murder includes any unlawful killing of a
human being with malice, but where no specific intention to kill exists or
can reasonably and fully be inferred as I have defined that intent for you
under first degree murder.
Malice in murder of the third degree is the malicious
design to do harm but not to kill.
Third degree murder is, therefore, the unlawful taking of
a human life with malice afterthought with no specific intention to kill,
but with intention to inflict bodily harm and not to take human life yet
as a result of the injury inflicted death results.
Voluntary manslaughter is of a lesser grade than murder.
Voluntary manslaughter is the intentional and unlawful
Page 42.
killing of a human being without malice either expressed
or implied, but under the immediate inference of a sudden and intense
passion resulting from serious provocation by the individual killer.
The absence of malice is the controlling element which
reduces an unlawful killing to voluntary manslaughter.
Since voluntary manslaughter is frequently a willful act,
to reduce a criminal homicide to manslaughter it is necessary that the
circumstances indicate an absence of malice either expressed or implied.
Voluntary manslaughter exists where there is an intentional act which
causes death, but such act was administered with a sufficient provocation
by the individual killed and while the Defendant was in a state of terror
anger, fear, rage or resent without time to cool, so that he was placed
beyond the control of his reason and suddenly impelled to do the deed.
If any of these factors be lacking
Page 43.
if there is provocation by the individual killed but no
passion, or if there is passion without sufficient cause or provocation by
the individual killed, or if there had been time to cool and reason has
resumed then the killing will be murder.
What is sufficient provocation? It cannot be defined
exactly, for it must vary with the circumstances. However, no mere words,
jesters or charges however false or insulting, and no mere slight assault
can constitute what the law knows as sufficient provocation.
What is serious provocation involves an objective
standard of evaluation which you must apply by asking yourselves if the
provocation involved under the facts and circumstances of this case would
create an intense passion in a reasonable man.
Just as malice is the impelling power of murder, either
terror or anger or fear or rage or resentment is the impelling power of
voluntary manslaughter. The
Page 44.
passion involved must be sufficiently intent to obscure
temporarily the reason of the person affected and it must be due to a
legally adequate provocation on the part of the deceased.
In short, the causal provocation by the individual killed
must be such as would induce a reasonable man to lose control over his
reasoning faculties and to enter into an uncontrollable frenzy which leads
him to the use of deadly force without time to cool and reason to
resume.
Finally, the Defendant under bill number 1357, January
Term 1982 is charged with possession of instrument of crime.
In order to find the Defendant guilty of possessing a
criminal instrument you must be satisfied that the following three
elements have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that the Defendant possessed a certain item, that
is, a hand gun.
Second, that the item was an
Page 45.
instrument of crime.
An instrument of crime is anything specially made or
specially adapted for criminal use, or anything commonly used for criminal
purposes and possessed by the Defendant under circumstances not
manifesting the appropriate or lawful uses it may have.
Third, that the Defendant possessed the item with intent
to commit - - to employ it criminally. That is with the intent to commit a
crime with it.
For a person to possess an item he must have the power to
control and the intent to control that item.
If you are satisfied that the aforesaid three elements of
possessing a criminal instrument have been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt you should find the Defendant guilty. Otherwise you must find the
Defendant not guilty of this crime.
Now, before I give you my final remarks I would like to
see counsel at sidebar.
Page 46.
- - -
(The following is a sidebar discussion with both counsel
present.)
MR. JACKSON: I still think something has to be done with
the statements. I heard the charge with regard to believing some or
believing none, but I am just wondering if they were sufficiently guided
to know how to handle the statement.
THE COURT: What statements?
MR. JACKSON: Prior statements of witnesses.
THE COURT: You didn't give me anything in writing.
MR. McGILL: It would emphasize it now. I think in the
closing it was made very clear about the inconsistent statements. Besides
that, the "falsus in uno" does cover a pretty large area and it may well
be that inconsistent statements may hurt you as well as me, because your
defense witness --- what is her name?
MR. JACKSON: Veronica Jones?
Page 47.
MR. McGILL: Yes. That could completely wipe out her
testimony.
I thought initially when Your Honor on the record asked
there was an agreement it would not be used and at this point it would
sort of be emphasizing that point.
THE COURT: Do you have anything else?
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, maybe it was my hearing, but
when you talked about evidence of good character I don't think you said
that it could raise ---
THE COURT: (Interposing) Raise a reasonable doubt.
MR. JACKSON: I couldn't hear.
THE COURT: Anything else?
MR. JACKSON: No.
- - -
(At this time the sidebar discussion was
concluded and
the following is in open court.)
THE COURT: Now, at this point
Page 48.
before I give you my final remarks I just wish to say
that the jurors who will consider the verdict in this case will comprise
of jurors number one to twelve. The alternate jurors were selected in the
event their replacement became necessary if one of the principal jurors
became sick, or for any other reason. Therefore, it is my duty to
discharge you alternate jurors from further service. The court extends to
you its thanks for your services as alternate jurors and you are
excused.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, before you retire to
decide this case I would like to provide you with some final guidelines
for the way in which you conduct your deliberations and how you may
properly arrive at your verdict.
It is my responsibility to decide all questions of law.
Therefore, you must accept and follow my rulings and instruction's in the
matters or law. I am not, however, the judge of the facts. It is not for
me to
Page 49.
decide what are true facts concerning the charges against
the Defendant. You the jurors are the sole judges of the facts. It will be
your responsibility to consider the evidence, to find the facts and apply
the law to the facts as you find them to decide whether the Defendant has
been guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Your decision in this case, as in every case you hear, is
a matter of considerable importance. Remember that it is your
responsibility as jurors to perform your duties and reach a verdict based
on the evidence as it was presented during the trial. However, in deciding
the facts you may properly apply common sense and draw upon your own
everyday practical knowledge of life as each of you has experienced
it.
You should keep your deliberations free of any bias or
prejudice. Both the Commonwealth and the Defendant have a right to expect
you to consider the evidence conscientiously and apply the law as I
have
Page 50.
outlined it to you.
Remember upon retiring to deliberate you should first
select one of you to be the foreman. He or she is the one who will
announce the verdict in this courtroom after you have finished
deliberating. Remember, your verdict must be unanimous. This means that in
order to return a verdict each of you must agree to it. You have a duty to
consult with each other and to deliberate with a view to reaching an
agreement if it can be done without doing any violence to your own
individual judgment.
Each of you must decide the case for himself or herself,
but only after there has been impartial consideration with your fellow
jurors.
In the course of deliberation each juror should not
hesitate to reexamine his or her own views and change his or her opinion
if convinced that it is erroneous.
However, no juror should surrender an honest conviction
as to the weight or
Page 51.
effect of the evidence or as to the guilt or innocence of
the Defendant solely because of the opinion of his or her fellow jurors or
for the mere purpose of returning a verdict.
In closing I would also like to suggest that you will be
able to deliberate more easily and in a way that will be better for all
concerned if each of you treats your fellow jurors and their views in the
same courtesy and respect as you would other persons in your everyday
life.
THE COURT CRIER: Everyone remain seated until the jury
leaves the courtroom.
(The jury commenced deliberations at 11:48 a.m.)
THE COURT: Gentlemen, would you leave your phone numbers
with the court crier so if we have a question or if they reach a verdict
we can reach you.
I assume we will not sent out any exhibits until they ask
us.
Page 52.
Is that your feeling?
MR. JACKSON: That is correct, Your Honor.
MR. McGILL: That is right, Your Honor.
THE COURT: If they ask for any of the exhibits we will
get together and I will make a decision.
- - -
(At this time court was recessed.)
- - -
(The following is a discussion in chambers with both
counsel present, commencing at 2:45 P.M.)
MR. McGILL: Judge, would you consider on section 505 of
the use of force that the use of force is not justifiable under this
section. To resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a
peace officer, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful. That is part of
the section.
THE COURT: Where are you reading this from?
Page 53.
MR. McGILL: This section is Bl.
MR. JACKSON: Of course I object, since it would exceed
the request of the jury in that they specifically asked to redefine the
crimes and not justification, not use of force or any other matter.
THE COURT: I should have maybe given them examples and I
didn't.
MR. JACKSON: I would think at this point even to give an
example would exceed their request. They simply asked for a redefinition
of the crimes. I would think that in all due respect that you would be
required simply to give your charge as you have done. If they want
something else they can ask.
THE COURT: If they want something specific they will have
to ask. If they have a problem with voluntary manslaughter they have to be
specific. At this stage of the game I don't know which one.
MR. McGILL: I understand.
- - -
Page 54.
(At this time the discussion in chambers was
concluded
and the following is in open court.)
- - -
(JURY PRESENT)
- - -
THE COURT: I have a note from the jury requesting
definitions of the charges for first degree, third degree and voluntary
manslaughter.
The difference between murder and manslaughter lies in
the fact that to constitute murder the unlawful killing must have been
done with malice. Where an unlawful killing has been done without malice
the crime rises no higher or greater than manslaughter.
Thus, if the unlawful killing is intended with malice, a
term which I shall define for you, it is murder. If the unlawful killing
is not intended with malice the crime rises no higher or greater than
manslaughter.
Page 55.
Malice is the thing which distinguishes murder from other
type of homicide. Malice then becomes an important item for you to
consider.
In addition to the common or ordinary concept of the term
"malice" from which we derive our word "malicious," malice has a specific
legal meaning involving more than a particular ill will.
Malice maybe of two kinds. Either expressed malice where
there existed a particular ill will against a particular person, or
implied malice as in the case of a crime committed with the depravity of
heart, wickedness of disposition and indifference to social duty, hardness
of heart, evil purpose, cruelty, recklessness of consequences, a reckless
disdain for consequences of action and a disposition of mind regardless of
social duty.
If any person has so acted he is regarded in the eyes of
the law as having acted with malice.
Page 56.
Thus, malice is the thing which distinguishes murder from
other types of homicide.
Therefore, to determine whether a homicide constitutes
murder you must first determine whether malice was present. You must
decide whether at the time of the killing the slayer was motivated by
malice, that is, whether there was a wickedness of disposition, depravity
of heart, cruelty, hardness of heart, evil purpose, recklessness of
consequences or mind regardless of social duty. If there was no malice
there was no murder of any degree.
Please note that legal malice maybe inferred and found
from the attending circumstances. As a matter of law you may infer legal
malice from the intentional use without legal excuse or legal
justification of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the body of the
victim.
A vital part of the body means, a portion of the body
containing organs
Page 57.
necessary to the continuance of life.
A deadly weapon means any firearm or any device designed
as a weapon and capable of producing death or serious bodily injury, or
any other device or instrumentality which in the manner in which it is
used or intended to be used is calculated or likely to produce death or
serious bodily injury.
This inference of malice that arises from the use by the
killer of a deadly weapon upon a vital part of the victim's body is one
which you are at liberty to apply or not to apply as you see fit.
If you find that there were any qualifying facts
indicating a contrary intent such facts would prevent application of this
principle by you.
In conclusion you may infer from such conduct that the
act was done with malice. But if you find from the circumstances
surrounding the Defendant's conduct facts indicating a contrary intention
on his part you would not infer malice.
Page 58.
Thus, if you find the Defendant guilty of murder, that
isn't unlawful killing with malice, you must then determine whether he is
guilty of murder of the first degree or murder of the third degree.
What is murder of the first degree?
The Act of Assembly or statute under which the Defendant
is being tried expressly defines what is murder of the first degree. This
statute which is known as the crimes code enacted June 6th, 1973 and
amended on March the 26th, 1974, under section 2502A of that crimes code
provides verbatim, or word-for-word, as follows:
Murder of the first degree. A criminal homicide
constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed by an
intentional killing. Thus, in order to find the Defendant guilty of murder
in the first degree you must first find that the Defendant caused the
death of another person. That is you must find that the Defendant's act
is
Page 59.
the legal cause of death of Officer Faulkner. Thereafter
you must determine if the killing was intentional.
What is an intentional killing?
Section 205D of the crimes code provides verbatim, or
word-for-word, as follows:
Intentional killing. Killing by means of poison, or by
lying in wait or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated
killing.
Therefore, in order to find the Defendant guilty of
murder in the first degree you must find that the killing was a willful,
deliberate and premeditated act. You must ask yourselves the question did
the Defendant have the willful, deliberate and premeditated specific
intent to kill at the time of the killing?
Now, what is meant by these words willful, deliberate and
premeditated.
If an intention to kill exists, or if a killing was
consciously done with
Page 60.
knowledge of such consequences, or if the killer
consciously decided to kill the victim, the killing is willful. If this
intent to kill is accompanied by such circumstances as evidence or
demonstrate a mind fully conscious of its own purposes and design to kill
it is deliberate and if sufficient time has been afforded to enable the
mind of the killer to fully frame the design to kill and to select the
instrument, or to frame the plan to carry this design into execution it is
premeditated.
Our cases have consistently held that the requirement of
premeditation and deliberation is meant whenever there is a conscious
purpose to bring about death.
Note well the law fixes no length of time or no
appreciable length of time as necessary to form or frame the intent to
kill, which design to kill can be formulated in a fraction of a second.
But it leaves the existence or non existence of a fully framed intent to
kill as a fact to be determined
Page 61.
by the jury from all of the facts and circumstances in
evidence.
Accordingly, no appreciable amount of time is needed
between formation of intent and the killing if you as finders of fact
determine that the killing was done with the required intent to kill.
Further, the required intention to kill maybe found in
the Defendant's acts, declarations, words or conduct, or by the
circumstances under which the killing was accomplished.
There is evidence in this case that the killing was
caused by a gun. As to that the law holds where anyone without sufficient
cause or provocation unlawfully kills another by using a deadly weapon
upon a vital part of the body with a manifest intention to so use it an
inference of intent maybe drawn in the absence of qualifying circumstances
by common knowledge that such use of a deadly weapon is likely to cause
death.
Page 62.
Thus, an intent to kill maybe inferred by reason of the
killer's use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the body of the
victim.
You will recall my prior definitions of a deadly weapon
and the vital parts of the body.
Note well that you are not to infer this intent to kill
if the facts and circumstances indicate a contrary intent.
In short, you are not bound by this inference of the
intent to kill arising from the use of a deadly weapon upon the vital part
of the body of the victim by the killer, but you may or may not apply it
under the facts as you find them and as you see fit.
Further, although the nature of the weapon used maybe
quite material in ascertaining whether there was or was not an intent to
kill that intent must still in every case be collected from all the
attending circumstances no matter what may have been the instrument of
death.
Page 63.
All murder which is not murder of the first degree or
murder of the second degree shall be murder of the third degree.
Section 2502C of the crimes code provides verbatim, or
word-for-word, as follows:
Murder of the third degree. All other kinds of murder
shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the third degree is an
unlawful killing of a human being with malice, but with intention merely
to inflict bodily harm, to wound, maim, frighten or to cause bodily injury
to its victim and not to take human life and yet as a result of the
infliction of the injury death results.
Third degree murder includes any unlawful killing of a
human being with malice, but where no specific intention exists or can
reasonably and fully be inferred as I have defined that intent under first
degree murder.
Malice in murder of the third degree is the malicious
design to do harm but not
Page 64.
to kill. Third degree murder is therefore the unlawful
taking of a human life with malice aforethought with no specific intention
to kill, but with the intention to inflict bodily harm and not to take
human life. Yet as a result of the injury inflicted death results.
Voluntary manslaughter is of a lesser grade than murder.
Voluntary manslaughter is the intentional and unlawful killing of a human
being without malice either expressed or implied, but under the immediate
influence of a sudden and intense passion resulting from serious
provocation by the individual killed.
The absence of malice is the controlling element which
reduces an unlawful killing to voluntary manslaughter.
Since voluntary manslaughter is frequently a willful act
to reduce a criminal homicide to manslaughter it is necessary that the
circumstances indicate an absence of malice, either direct or implied.
Page 65.
Voluntary manslaughter exists where there was an
intentional act which caused death, but such act was administered with
sufficient provocation by the individual killed and while the Defendant
was in a state of terror, anger, fear, rage or resent without time to cool
so that he was placed beyond the control of his reason and suddenly
impelled to do the deed.
If any of these factors be lacking, if there is
provocation by the individual killed but no passion, or if there is
passion without sufficient cause or provocation by the individual killed,
or if there has been time to cool and reason has resumed then the killing
will be murder.
What is sufficient provocation by the individual killed
cannot be defined exactly, for it must vary with the circumstances.
However, no mere words, gestures or charges, however false or insulting,
and no mere slight assault can constitute what the law knows as
sufficient
Page 66.
provocation.
What is sufficient provocation involves an objective
standard of evaluation which you must apply by asking yourselves if the
provocation involved under the facts and circumstances of this case would
create an intense passion in a reasonable man. Just as malice is the
impelling power or murder, either terror or anger or fear or rage or
resentment is the impelling power of voluntary manslaughter.
The passion involved must be sufficiently intense to
obscure temporarily the reason of the person affected. It must be due to a
legally adequate provocation on the part of the deceased.
In short, the causal provocation by the individual killed
must be such as would induce a reasonable man to lose control over his
reasoning faculties and to enter into an uncontrollable frenzy which leads
him to the use of deadly force without time to cool and reason to
resume.
Page 67.
THE COURT CRIER: Everyone remain seated until the jury
leaves the courtroom.
MR. JACKSON: May I see Your Honor at sidebar for a
moment?
- - -
(The following is a sidebar discussion with both counsel
present.)
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I have concern that even though
I know that you discussed premeditation and deliberation I don't think you
made it clear that it must precede the actual act.
THE COURT: You said in chambers that I could only answer
the question that was asked. If they have any further questions they can
come back later.
MR. McGILL: I would object.
MR. JACKSON: I am only saying that that is part of the
definition.
THE COURT: They only asked for that.
MR. McGILL: You covered that.
- - -
Page 68.
(At this time the sidebar discussion was
concluded and
the following is in open court.)
THE COURT CRIER: Everyone remain seated while the jury
leaves the courtroom.
- - -
(At this time the jury continued with their deliberations
and court was recessed at 3:10 p.m. and reconvened at 5:18 p.m.)
- - -
(JURY PRESENT)
- - -
THE COURT CRIER: Your Honor, may I take the verdict?
THE COURT: Yes.
THE COURT CRIER: Jurors, have you agreed upon a
verdict?
THE JURY: Yes, we have.
THE COURT CRIER: Do you all twelve agree?
THE JURY: Yes, we have.
THE COURT CRIER: Will the foreperson
Page 69.
please rise?
On Bill of Information number 1357, January Term 1982,
charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with possessing instruments of crime generally
what is your verdict?
THE FOREPERSON: Guilty.
THE COURT CRIER: On Bill of Information number 1358,
January Term 1982, charging the Defendant Mumia Abu-Jamal with murder,
what is your full verdict?
THE FOREPERSON: Guilty of murder in the first degree.
THE COURT CRIER: Please be seated. May the verdict be
recorded?
MR. JACKSON: I would like the jury polled.
THE COURT: Poll the jury.
THE COURT CRIER: Defense counsel has asked that the jury
be polled. When your name is called please rise and give your verdict.
BY THE COURT CRIER:
Q. Juror number one, Edward Courchain, on
Page 70.
Bill of Information number 1357, January Term 1982,
charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with possessing instruments of crime generally,
what is your verdict?
A. Guilty of murder in the first degree.
Q. Excuse me, sir. I will read that over. On Bill of
Information number 1357, January Term 1982, charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with
possessing instruments of crime generally, what is your verdict?
A. Guilty.
Q. On Bill of Information number 1358, January Term 1982,
charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with murder, what is your full verdict?
A. Guilty of murder in the first degree.
THE COURT CRIER: Please be seated.
BY THE COURT CRIER:
Q. Juror number two, James Mattiace, on Bill of
Information number 1357, January Term 1982, charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with
possessing instruments of crime generally what is your verdict?
A. Guilty.
Q. On Bill of Information number 1358, January Term 1982,
charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with murder, what
Page 71.
is your full verdict?
A. Guilty of murder in the first degree.
THE COURT CRIER: Please be seated.
BY THE COURT CRIER:
Q. Juror number three, Richard Tomczak, on Bill of
Information number 1357, January Term 1982, charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with
possessing instruments of crime generally, what is your verdict?
A. Guilty.
Q. On Bill of Information number 1358, January Term 1982,
charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with murder, what is your full verdict?
A. Guilty of murder in the first degree.
THE COURT CRIER: Please be seated.
BY THE COURT CRIER:
Q. Juror number four, Joseph Mangan, on Bill of
Information number 1357, January Term 1982, charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with
possessing instruments of crime generally, what is your verdict?
A. Guilty.
Q. On Bill of Information number 1358, January Term 1982,
charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with murder, what is your full verdict?
Page 72.
A. Guilty of murder in the first degree.
THE COURT CRIER: Please be seated.
BY THE COURT CRIER:
Q. Juror number five, Maurice Simovetch, on Bill of
Information number 1358, January Term 1982, charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with
possessing instruments of crime generally, what is your verdict?
A. Guilty.
Q. On Bill of Information number 1358, January Term 1982,
charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with murder, what, is your full verdict?
A. Guilty of murder in the first degree.
THE COURT CRIER: Please be seated.
BY THE COURT CRIER:
Q. Juror number six, Miriam Adelman, on Bill of
Information number 1357, January Term 1982, charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with
possessing instruments of crime generally, what is your verdict.
A. Guilty.
Q. On Bill of Information number 1358, January Term 1982,
charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with murder, what is your full verdict?
A. Guilty of murder in the first degree.
Page 73.
THE COURT CRIER: Please be seated.
BY THE COURT CRIER:
Q. Juror number seven, Savanna Davis, on Bill of
Information number 1358, January Term 1982, charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with
possession of instruments of crime generally, what is your verdict?
A. Guilty.
Q. On Bill of Information number 1358, January Term 1982,
charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with murder, what is your full verdict?
A. Guilty of murder in the first degree.
THE COURT CRIER: Please be seated.
BY THE COURT CRIER:
Q. Juror number eight, Lois Pekala, on Bill of
Information number 1357, January Term 1982, charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with
possession of instrument of crime generally, what is your verdict?
A. Guilty.
Q. On Bill of Information number 1358, January Term 1982,
charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with murder what is your full verdict?
A. Guilty of murder in the first degree.
THE COURT CRIER: Please be seated.
Page 74.
BY THE COURT CRIER:
Q. Juror number nine, George Ewalt, on Bill of
Information number 1357, January Term 1982, charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with
possession of instruments of crime generally, what is your verdict?
A. Guilty.
Q. On Bill of Information number 1358, January Term 1982,
charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with murder what is your full verdict?
A. Guilty of murder in the first degree.
THE COURT CRIER: Please be seated.
BY THE COURT CRIER:
Q. Juror number ten, Basil Malone, on Bill of Information
number 1357, January Term 1982, charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with possession
of instruments of crime generally, what is your verdict?
A. Guilty.
Q. On Bill of Information number 1358, January Term 1982,
charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with murder, what is your full verdict?
A. Guilty of murder in the first degree.
THE COURT CRIER: Please be seated.
BY THE COURT CRIER:
Page 75.
Q. Juror number eleven, Domenic Durso, on Bill of
Information number 1357, January Term 1982, charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with
possession of instruments of crime generally, what is your verdict?
A. Guilty.
Q. On Bill of Information number 1358, January Term 1982,
charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with murder, what is your full verdict?
A. Guilty of murder in the first degree.
THE COURT CRIER: Please be seated.
BY THE COURT CRIER:
Q. Juror number twelve, Louis Godfrey, on Bill of
Information number 1357, January Term 1982, charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with
possessing instruments of crime generally, what is your verdict?
A. Guilty.
Q. On Bill of Information number 1358, January Term 1982,
charging Mumia Abu-Jamal with murder, what is your full verdict?
A. Guilty of murder in the first degree.
THE COURT CRIER: Please be seated. Your Honor, the jurors
have been polled. They have individually announced
Page 76.
their verdict and all twelve agree. May the verdict be
recorded?
THE COURT: Let the verdict be recorded.
THE COURT CRIER: Harken to the verdict as the court has
recorded it.
On Bill of Information number 1357, January Term 1982,
charging the Defendant with possessing instruments of crime generally you
have found him guilty and so say you all.
On Bill of Information number 1358, January Term 1982,
charging the Defendant with murder you have found him guilty of murder in
the first degree and so say you all.
THE COURT: Gentlemen, can I see you at sidebar?
(The following is a sidebar discussion with both counsel
present.)
THE COURT: It is practically 5:30. It is almost time for
dinner for the jury. What is your pleasure? Do you want to do it tonight
or do it the first thing tomorrow
Page 77.
morning, or what?
MR. McGILL: Judge, I think the first thing tomorrow
morning would be in order.
- - -
(At this time the sidebar discussion was
concluded, and
the following is in open court.)
THE COURT: Since the time for dinner is near we are going
to adjourn and we will begin tomorrow morning at 9:30, at which time you
will be given the penalty phase.
THE COURT CRIER: Everyone remain seated while the jury
leaves the room.
(At this time the jury left the courtroom.)
THE DEFENDANT: Can the jury be called back in?
THE COURT: They are going to dinner.
THE DEFENDANT: Can they be called back in for my
statement about their decision?
Page 78.
THE COURT: I don't think that is proper at this time.
THE DEFENDANT: Is it possible, Judge? They just left.
THE COURT: It is not proper for you to give your opinion
to the jury.
THE DEFENDANT: I said my statement.
THE COURT: Or your statement. They are not finished yet.
The second phase they have to go into is the penalty phase.
MR. McGILL: Mr. Jamal will have the opportunity to speak
and say anything he wishes.
THE COURT: We will adjourn court until tomorrow
morning.
- - -
(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED)
- - -
I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are
contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the trial of
the above cause, and that this copy is a correct transcript of the
same.
Official Stenographer
The foregoing record of the proceedings upon the trial of
the above cause is hereby approved and directed to be filed.
Judge |