|
|
Verfahren gegen Mumia Abu-JamalPCRA-Anhörung vom 26. Juli 1995 |
|||||||||||||
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
- - - - - PCRA Hearing - - - - - Wednesday, July 26, 1995 - - - - - BEFORE: THE HONORABLE ALBERT F. SABO, J. - - - - -
- - - - - TRANSCRIBED BY: CHARLES M. GORGOL |
|
Page 2. ALSO PRESENT:
Page 3. - - - - - (At l0:25 a.m. the hearing was convened in the - - - - - THE COURT: Good morning. Take a seat back there (indicating). She is not a lawyer. I am asking her to take a seat back there. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: She did legal work with the defense team. This is Jeannette Patton. THE COURT: I know. This is not an attorney. This is the attorneys (indicating). I have to keep track of who is here. Let her take a seat right back there. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, the record should show that -- THE COURT: The record should show that I asked her to please remove herself from the attorneys' seats. Move her back over there. Right there. There is a seat right there. MR. WEINGLASS: Miss Patton was not seated at defense table. THE COURT: As far as I am concerned, Page 4. she is right behind Mumia Abu-Jamal, that is the defense table. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: She sits behind Mr. Jamal and myself and assists me as she has for the last several years. THE COURT: I don't think anybody has to assist you, Counselor. You are a well known attorney and I don't think you need assistance from anybody that is not an attorney. So please. Let's not argue about that. MR. WEINGLASS: No, I think it should also be noted that she has sat there without disruption of any kind for the last Court session. THE COURT: I am not talking about disruption; I am saying that is not the proper place for her to sit. Right back there. Right back there, okay. She had too much to say in the last trial and that's why we had a lot of trouble. Let her sit back there. Any outbursts and you will be evicted from the Courtroom. You are not out on the street. What you do on the street I don't care, but in this Courtroom you will show proper respect for the proceedings that are going on Page 5. here now. Okay, Counselor. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, the Court's last comment about the first trial role of Miss Patton is reflective of an attitude. THE COURT: It is not reflective of anything, I am just telling you plain ordinary facts that occurred. Counselor, please. I understand you subpoenaed the Governor and his staff. MR. WEINGLASS: Yes. THE COURT: I have a motion to quash and I think by agreement between you and the State that is to be taken up on Monday, July the 3lst? MR. WEINGLASS: That's correct, Your Honor. We have subpoenaed the Governor and four members of his staff and now the Governor's Counsel has moved to quash that subpoena. THE COURT: Right. MR. WEINGLASS: We have been served with papers yesterday. THE COURT: Right. MR. WEINGLASS: And I understand there is an agreement reached between all parties that Page 6. the question of quashing the Governor's subpoena will be argued next Monday, July 31st. THE COURT: Okay. That's all. I just want to put it on the record, okay. MR. WEINGLASS: I. just wanted to note for the record that we have received papers and we are reviewing them. We know that the Governor's Counsel has cited among other cases the United States versus Nixon, which comes as somewhat of a surprise: I don't think executive privilege was upheld in that particular case. THE COURT: Counselor, you will take it up on Monday, okay. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, the first matter that we would like to bring before the Court this morning is the question of whether or not the Court should continue to sit on this case. And we renew at this time our motion for recusal and we base it on facts that have occurred since the last time we have argued that motion. And the facts that have occurred of course as Your Honor well knows is the extraordinary intervention of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania which stopped this Court from proceeding in a way that disadvantaged Mr. Page 7. Jamal's rights and ordered the case adjourned for one week so that the defense could get adequate time to prepare for the hearing. That action by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, we contend, reflects the fact that this Court is unable to maintain the standard which was set out in Re: Buchenson by the United States Supreme Court in 1955. MR. GRANT: Your Honor, I have the Supreme Court's order right here. The Supreme Court's order is right here. It says this trial Court is ordered to commence the hearing on Wednesday, July 26th, 1995. Counsel has also been apprised that his motion before the Supreme Court for your recusal is denied. His motion to remove Your Honor because of jurisdiction is denied. Motion for discovery at the Post-Conviction Relief Act stage: Denied. Today the hearing is to commence and I would ask that Your Honor order them to do so. MR. WEINGLASS: Yeah, Your Honor, I appreciate the interruption, but, Your Honor, what Counsel overlooks -- THE COURT: I don't like anymore delays. The Supreme Court has said I am Page 8. supposed to start today. MR. WEINGLASS: Yeah. THE COURT: Let's start today, let's obey the Supreme Court. MR. WEINGLASS: And we will. And we will. THE COURT: Okay, let's go. The recusal request is denied. For the 10th time, the 20th time, the 30th time, it is denied, okay. Let's proceed with the case. MR. WEINGLASS: We will. THE COURT: Call your first witness. MR. WEINGLASS: I just ask that the Court accept exhibits which go to our recusal request this morning, exhibits which include headlines from the local newspaper. THE COURT: We are not trying this in the newspaper, Counselor. It is now time to try it in this Courtroom. Put on your first witness as the Supreme Court has ordered you to do. If you don't obey me, at least obey the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. They gave you the privilege of coming here from New York to try this case. Now at least show respect to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and proceed with Page 9. the trial as they have ordered you to do. That's all. MR. WEINGLASS: Yeah. And in order to do that I want to complete the record for Mr. Jamal and I ask that the Court receive these articles which reflect community sentiment concerning the ability of this Court to sit fairly. THE COURT: Community sentiment does not, this Court does not buckle under community pressure. If that ever occurs we might as well close up the court system entirely. MR. GRANT: May the Commonwealth call it's first witness, then, if he declines to do so? MR. WEINGLASS: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Your Honor, has said that it's the appearance of fairness. The appearance to the community. THE COURT: They already held their emergency request you had there and they have denied it; so let's proceed as they have ordered us to do. MR. WEINGLASS: Now we are renewing it on the basis of new evidence. Page 10. THE COURT: That is not new evidence. That has been in the news media from time immemorial. They had that. MR. WEINGLASS: Date of the article is July 19th. THE COURT: They had it before that. MR. WEINGLASS: And July 21st. MR. GRANT: I move to proceed out of order if Counsel does not. THE COURT: One way or another we are proceeding. MR. WEINGLASS: It is the same hurry up -- THE COURT: It is not a hurry up. The Supreme Court has given you an order and I am here to see that you obey that order. MR. WEINGLASS: And we will proceed in the regular fashion. THE COURT: You will proceed as the Supreme Court has ordered you to proceed today. MR. WEINGLASS: The Supreme Court has ordered this Court to stop hurrying us. That's why we got the extra week. THE COURT: I told you the Biblical story about the little baby before Solomon where Page 11. the two women were claiming a baby and he wanted to cut it in half and give each one a half. In effect, that's what the Supreme Court has done for you. They have taken a bone and broken it and given you a piece and given me a piece. And as I told you before, I ate my piece. Now let's proceed. And that's spelled A-T-E, for the news media. Okay. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, I just wanted to tender these for the record without comment. THE COURT: Put them down there. MR. GRANT: I object: Totally irrelevant. I ask that a witness be called. MR. WEINGLASS: May I have these marked as exhibits? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Exhibits 1, 2 and 3. THE COURT: I am not marking anything. If you wanted to leave it over here you leave it. If the Supreme Court wants it when they get the case I will be glad to send it up. I will send it up with all the other paraphernalia that they have. Page 12. MR. WEINGLASS: We can't proceed with the hearing unless exhibits are marked. THE COURT: That is not true. Put your witnesses on. And you know that. Let's put your witnesses on the stand and let them start testifying. Let them start testifying under oath. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, there are other preliminary matters before we could start. One is to note for the record that the Department of Corrections has granted spiritual advisor status to Steven Wiser. THE COURT: That's all right. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: It is necessary for the record. And on that basis we are withdrawing the order and ask the Court to vacate the order which was entered previously on this question. THE COURT: All right, the order that I had issued appointing him as the spiritual director, you are asking me to vacate that order? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Yes. THE COURT: All right, the order is vacated. Page 13. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: It's vacated because it has already been granted. It is not regranted by the Department of Corrections. THE COURT: Whatever you work out -- I told you before -- whatever you work out with the Department of Corrections is okay with me. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, the other preliminary issue is one we raised the last time we were in Court, which was the defense request to examine the exhibits from Mr. Jamal's trial. Arrangements were made through your offices to grant an order for Counsel to be able to look at those exhibits which were then put in the custody, I believe, of Joseph Walsh from the Homicide Division or working out of the D.A. 's Office. I had some opportunity on Friday afternoon to look at some of the physical evidence which was there. And which was a preliminary review of said evidence subject to further review by the defense Counsel, including experts who might test the, conduct tests of this physical evidence. However, during the four hours I was there going through several boxes of physical evidence, it was clear that quite a few items Page 14. which were exhibits at the trial were not there. I have submitted a list to the District Attorney's office dated July 25th itemizing those trial exhibits which were not there as part of the evidence that was shown to me. And also requested as well copies of tapes which were available. Only one of which I had the time to listen to in a very quick fashion. Given the time, the time of going through this. I wanted to submit to the Court as a record the correspondence on this and to indicate that the current instructions from the District Attorney's Office is for defense to go back to the Quarter Session file and to see if various written documents are there as part of the Quarter Session files. And I'm told that the District Attorney's Office as well has to make some arrangements to provide the photographs -- there were a substantial number of exhibits at the trial which are photographs of Mr. Jamal, of William Cook, of the hospital, of the scene; all of which are necessary for review prior to this proceeding, and which were of course all a part of our pre-trial discovery motion which has been denied by the Court. Page 15. So I want to renew the request for the prosecution to help expedite this matter and provide us with the copies. I was told by Detective Walsh that in fact these photographs in their blown-up and their developed stage were missing. They are looking for them. That they have the proofs but that arrangements would have to be made. So I would ask at this time whether or not those photographs have been found by the District Attorney's Office and to ask for them to make arrangements to turn them over this afternoon. Or for me to at least look at them and to make photocopies of them. MR. GRANT: Your Honor, everything's been taken care of that can be. The Commonwealth, although it is not our obligation, went to the Clerk of Quarter Sessions, where the evidence was kept -- as Counsel can do -- and before that went to about five repositories going back 10 to 15 years looking for everything they needed. We found it here in City Hall, we provided it to them, she was there photographing each piece of evidence for four hours on Friday. We don't keep documentary evidence because it's Page 16. documents, exhibits admitted during the course of the trial. They are attached to the Quarter Sessions file, the Quarter Sessions notes. She should go look in the Quarter Sessions file. We are not the repository. I think we bent over backwards to help her. Now she wants photographs. I think she should look at the Quarter Sessions file to see if they are attached. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: I was already told by Detective Walsh that these photographs are not there, that they are missing. THE COURT: Then somebody from the D.A.' s office had been trying to locate them for you, right? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Is that the case: Are you trying to find them? MR. GRANT: Don't address your comments to me. Mr. Walsh does not have possession of any photographs. They are documentary exhibits. They can been found in the Quarter Session file. If, if not, if there is a proof sheet available we will have them made at Counsel's expense. Simple. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Well, the question Page 17. is whether or not they are there. I was told already -- MR. GRANT: You will find out. THE COURT: He has to look. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, there was already a representation of an officer who works for the District Attorney, Detective Walsh -- THE COURT: I know that. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: -- to me that says that they do not exist. THE COURT: Well, if they don't exist they don't exist. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: I am asking this Court to instruct or request the District Attorney to print the photographs from the proofs. I was told that there are proofs. MR. GRANT: If she just goes and looks in the Quarter Session file, if they are not there we will make arrangements. There is no need to argue about this matter, we are trying our best. THE COURT: There is no need to argue this, you work it out with the District Attorney's Office. Page 18. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: I have copies of correspondence between the District Attorney's Office and myself on this matter. I would ask it to be marked Exhibit 4. Your Honor, there are numerous subpoenas which are outstanding for documents, records. To my knowledge, nobody has come to Court, we have not been informed that they have come to Court in response to these subpoenas. THE COURT: Well, you can't bring everybody in at one time. Why don't you put on who you have now. And if you are having trouble with somebody, we will take that up at that time. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, the Office of the District Attorney, the commanding officer of the Department of Police and the Commissioner of Police are all under subpoena from the defense. THE COURT: So? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: The subpoena was returnable for this morning. THE COURT: Well. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: I am asking whether or not any of these designees are here, have Page 19. come to the Court with the documents. THE COURT: You sent me a notice that says that you have the following witnesses for today. A David P. Richardson, Junior. E. Steven Collins. Ken Hamilton. Lydia Wallace. Ruth Ballard. Joe Davidson. Anthony Jackson, Jeremy Gelb. Now, are any of those witnesses here now? That's the witnesses that you said that you would have for Wednesday, July 26th. The list of witnesses that you said that you would have here today. That's why I kept telling you to give us a list. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: And you have the list, Your Honor. And we will call -- THE COURT: You say you have all of these people here now? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We will call our first witness after we go through the preliminaries. THE COURT: No, we are not going -- Counselor, you are not going to waste the Court's time. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: There are subpoenas. Page 20. THE COURT: The Supreme Court has said this is to commence as of today. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We are not, Your Honor, getting a full and fair hearing here. THE COURT: You will get a full hearing. Put your witnesses up for a change. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: The Department of Police and the District Attorney's Office are under subpoena from the defense to turn in documents. THE COURT: They will be here when you say you need them. All right. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We said we needed them this morning, Your Honor. THE COURT: You gave me a list. Now, you gave me a list, I just read them off to you. Do you have those witnesses? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: These are subpoenas duces tecum. THE COURT: I know, fine, I know what that is. You didn't put that on the list. You didn't tell me you wanted them today. You gave me a list: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: With all due respect, the Court does -- Page 21. THE COURT: With all due respect, I asked you for a list and you gave me a list. Now let's start calling those witnesses. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, with all due -- THE COURT: When it gets to a time that you give me a list and say that you need this officer or that officer, I will see that they are here. Okay. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, what the Court, it is my understanding of the practice of law, at least in the State of New York, is that if there is a subpoena outstanding -- THE COURT: You are not in New York now, Counselor, you are in Pennsylvania. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: -- the Court assists the party who has done the subpoenaing to enforce that subpoena, not to obstruct -- THE COURT: You gave me a list of witnesses. Are there any of them you want me to issue a warrant for? Do you want me to issue a warrant for any of these? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: This is an obstruction of the defense. THE COURT: You are obstructing us Page 22. from proceeding, Counselor. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: To give Mr. Jamal a full and fair hearing. I wish to object. MR. GRANT: I would like to proceed. If she wants to talk, I would like to put witnesses on. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: I would like to be informed at the point at which if at all anyone appears here in response to the subpoena duces tecum and if they are not here by noon I am going to make a request that the Court so order them. THE COURT: You will make a request for any of these that you gave me on the list that you were going to call today. If they are not here I will issue a warrant for their arrest, okay. Now let's proceed. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We need the documents. THE COURT: I am not going to tell you anymore about outbursts. Anymore outbursts and you will go out and you won't come back in. Now let's cut this out: You are not out on the street now. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: These documents were Page 23. all requested as part of our discovery motion. THE COURT: I know that, but I told you -- MS. WOLKENSTEIN: The Constitution gives you the right to receive information favorable to the defense per Brady versus Maryland and per Kyles V. Whitley, both Supreme Court decisions which guarantee due process rights to a criminal defendant in a post-conviction proceeding in order to provide and assure fundamental due process and fairness in a proceeding such as this. THE COURT: I told you before -- MS. WOLKENSTEIN: These actions by both the Court and the prosecution obstruct those rights. THE COURT: You are obstructing his rights. Proceed with your witnesses. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We are not going to have a full and fair hearing. THE COURT: Proceed with your witnesses, Counselor. I told you time and time again. Counselor, that's it, I am not going to hear from you unless you will call a witness. MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, Daniel R. Page 24. Williams. THE COURT: Did you enter an appearance? MR. WILLIAMS: I am entering it now. THE COURT: You are not entering it now. Where do you practice law? MR. WILLIAMS: New York City. THE COURT: I'm sorry, we already have two from New York City. If you have anything to say you tell it to them. MR. WILLIAMS: I am on the Petition as Counsel. THE COURT: I don't care if you are on the Petition. You did not enter an appearance here, this Court. You have to seek special permission. You should go to Judge Davis. Okay, Mr. Weinglass and... MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Wolkenstein. THE COURT: ....Miss Wolkenstein are being his Counsel here. You are not going to delay any longer, Counsel. MR. WILLIAMS: I am prepared to call a witness. THE COURT: Well, call him. Which one do you want? Page 25. MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, the Petitioner calls David P. Richardson. THE COURT OFFICER: Your Honor, the only two witnesses that have shown up are Mr. Ken Hamilton and Mr. E. Steven Collins. They are the only two that we have at this time that have appeared. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Richardson is here. THE COURT: Tell your witnesses to check in so we know who is here and who is not here. THE COURT OFFICER: Are there anymore witnesses in the Courtroom who have not checked in yet? MR. GRANT: I move for sequestration of any other witnesses here in the Courtroom this morning, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right, all witnesses that are called for the day are sequestered to remain outside until you are called. Is there a Lydia Wallace here? THE COURT OFFICER: She is back in security. THE COURT: She is outside. Ruth Wallace? Page 26. THE COURT OFFICER: Outside. THE COURT: Joe Davidson? Joe Davidson? MR. WEINGLASS: Tomorrow. I'm sorry. THE COURT: He is not here today? MR. WEINGLASS: I'm sorry. THE COURT: Tomorrow? MR. WEINGLASS: Yes. And Mr. Jackson is on call. As is Jeremy Gelb. THE COURT: On call. MR. WEINGLASS: Both are practicing -- sorry, Mr. Gelb isn't practicing. THE COURT: Oh, on call. Okay. All right. MR. GRANT: Your Honor, if Counsel is not admitted pro hoc vice, has not been recognized by any Court in this jurisdiction, I would suggest that it's error to allow him to ask these witnesses questions because that's going to be the subject of appellate grounds. THE COURT: Yes. As far as I know, if I am wrong, Mr. Weinglass and this young lady here are the only two that have been admitted. Okay. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, Mr. Jamal Page 27. waives any issue respecting Mr. Williams' qualifications. He has absolute confidence in Mr. Williams, who has been working on this case with me for quite some time. And is eminently qualified, is a member of the bar of both California -- And New York? MR. WILLIAMS: (Nodded affirmatively.) MR. WEINGLASS: -- as a matter of fact, was a clerk for the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, Chief Justice Browning. So he is a very qualified person and he has prepared our witnesses. And he is prepared to proceed on Mr. Jamal's behalf. Mr. Jamal expressly waives any question concerning Mr. Williams' qualifications. MR. GRANT: Mr. Weinglass expressly waives it for him. It calls for a colloquy from Mr. Jamal. THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Jamal. (Discussion was held off the record at this time.) MR. GRANT: In any event, no matter whether Mr. Jamal likes him or not, he is not a lawyer recognized in the State of Pennsylvania, Page 28. that is the bottom line. MR. WEINGLASS: The Court has discretion to permit him to proceed, I believe. MR. GRANT: If that is true, Your Honor, could we have a colloquy from Mr. Jamal expressly waiving any appellate rights? THE COURT: Mr. Jamal, would you come up here, please. Mumia Abu-Jamal, appearing at the Bar of the Court,
having THE DEFENDANT: I have full confidence -- THE COURT: Wait awhile. Wait until you get a question. MR. GRANT: Mr. Jamal, Mr. Weinglass has made representations that Counselor here before the Bar of the Court Mr. Williams has worked with you in this matter and that you are fully cognizant of the fact that he is not an admitted member of the Bar either by Court's permission or by examination to appear before us here today. Would you waive and be willing to Page 29. waive any errors occasioned by his actions here in this proceeding from further appellate review? THE DEFENDANT: I do hereby waive any question with regard to the statement made by Counsel for the Commonwealth. I have -- MR. GRANT: Sorry, go ahead. THE DEFENDANT: I have absolute and full confidence in the representation offered by Mr. Daniel Williams. MR. GRANT: Mr. Jamal, there are only a few questions which may seem rather simplistic to you but they are required here to be asked. What is the highest level of education you have completed, sir? MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, this is all unnecessary. THE COURT: He wants to make sure that he understands that he is capable of making this waiver. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, this is another attempt by the prosecution -- THE COURT: It is not, it is a requirement by our appellate courts. It is a requirement, Counselor. Please. If you want Page 30. Mr. Williams to handle this thing, please let us get the colloquy on that satisfies the appellate court. Go ahead, Mr. Grant. MR. GRANT: Could you tell us the highest grade of education you completed, Mr. Jamal? THE DEFENDANT: Two years of college. MR. GRANT: And you read, write and understand the English language, do you not? THE DEFENDANT: I do. MR. GRANT: And you are not today suffering from the effects of any intoxicating beverages or any narcotic substances, are you? THE DEFENDANT: Not to my knowledge. MR. GRANT: You have discussed this with Mr. Weinglass, your primary Counsel in this matter, have you not? THE DEFENDANT: I have. MR. GRANT: And you are satisfied that he is competent to handle your matters? THE DEFENDANT: I am. MR. GRANT: And you are confident and satisfied that his representation as to the qualifications of Mr. Williams is correct; is Page 31. that right? THE DEFENDANT: Absolutely. MR. GRANT: I have nothing further, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Then the Court will allow Mr. Williams to proceed. MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I appreciate that. THE COURT: Okay. You have to follow the proper procedures. I don't know what they do in New York or California. THE COURT OFFICER: May I swear the witness in now? THE COURT: Yes, please. - - - - - State Representative David P. Richardson, Junior, having
been - - - - - MR. WILLIAMS: May I inquire, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, sure. - - - - - DIRECT EXAMINATION - - - - - Page 32. State Rep. David Richardson - Direct BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Mr. Richardson, could you introduce yourself for the Court, please? A. Yes. My name is David P. Richardson, Junior, State Representative of the 201st Legislative District of Philadelphia. Q. And how long have you been a State Representative? A. I have been a State Representative for 23 years. Q. And in those 23 years, how many times have you faced the electorate? A. Twelve consecutive terms. Q. And I take it you have won every time? A. I won every time. Q. Now, are you a member of any committees in connection with your being a State Representative? A. Yes, I am. Q. Can you tell the Court what those committees are? A. I presently serve as the chairperson of the House health and human services committee for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I served as the chairperson of the Black Elected Officials of Philadelphia. Also served as a ward leader of the Page 33. State Rep. David Richardson - Direct 59th ward in Philadelphia. And the committee person for the 59th ward, 5th division. I serve on the executive committee of the National Conference of State Legislators and also the executive committee of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators. Q. Mr. Richardson, are you affiliated with any organizations that bear directly, any other organizations aside from what you just mentioned, that bear directly on your status as a State Representative? A. Yes, sir. Several committee organizations that exist. As well as being a former president of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators in the USA. And also served on the 1997 committee that will host the NBCSL conference here in Philadelphia. And community organizations such as the Greater Germantown Youth Corporation. Board of directors of the Germantown Settlement organization. Pennsylvania Council of the Arts. And also the Afro-American Historical and Cultural Museum here in the City of Philadelphia. Q. Have you received any awards in these past 23 years while you served as a State Representative? A. I received numerous awards related to numerous dimensions here in this particular trial. Page 34. State Rep. David Richardson - Direct Q. What are some that you are most proud of? A. I guess the 1994 Political Action Award given by the Teamsters here in Philadelphia, Local 502. Also, the Outstanding Service Award by the CAP, which is the Community Action for Prisoners here in Pennsylvania. Distinguished service award from the AME Union Church here in Philadelphia. And a number of other certificates and awards from community organizations for outstanding services to the community and political activities as well as community activities and activism here in the City of Philadelphia. Q. Thank you, Mr. Richardson. Now, you are aware that you are here in connection with a Petition that Mr. Jamal has filed for a new trial? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. I want to ask you some questions concerning your knowledge of Mr. Jamal. Do you understand? A. Yes. Q. First of all, do you know this man: Mr. Jamal? A. Yes, I do. Q. And about how long have you known him? A. Going back to the late '60s or early '70s here Page 35. State Rep. David Richardson - Direct in the City of Philadelphia. Q. And are you aware and were you aware back in 1982 that this man was under indictment in the State of Pennsylvania for murder? A. Yes, I was. Q. And can you tell the Court when you became aware of that? A. In Philadelphia it was certainly a widespread news item in Philadelphia for a long time, as well as hearing it over WDAS radio here in the City of Philadelphia, and personal knowledge of the indictment myself. Q. I take it you became aware of it initially through the news accounts? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, did you attend, Mr. Richardson, any of the early pre-trial proceedings in connection with Mr. Jamal's case? A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay, which ones did you attend? That you can recall. A. My recollection is that I attended the bail reduction hearing for Mr. Jamal and as well as proceedings that took place during the trial, at the time of the trial. Page 36. State Rep. David Richardson - Direct Q. Now, okay, let me turn your attention to the bail proceeding that you mentioned. Did you play a role in the proceedings at all other than observing the proceedings? A. Yes, I did. Q. Tell the Court what role you played? A. I testified at the bail reduction hearing on behalf of Mr. Jamal to ask that bail be reduced on his behalf. Q. How were you contacted to come to Court to testify in that bail proceeding? A. I was contacted by Mr. Anthony Jackson to appear at the hearing on behalf of Mumia -- Mr. Jamal, on behalf of the Court for the bail reduction hearing. Q. What was your understanding of Mr. Jackson's role in the proceedings? A. My understanding at that time was that Mr. Jackson was the Counsel for Mr. Jamal. Q. Okay. Now, on that proceeding, and when you were asked to appear for that proceeding, were you reluctant in any way to appear? A. No, I was not. Q. Were you reluctant in any way to testify in any way in that bail proceeding? Page 37. State Rep. David Richardson - Direct A. No, I was not. Q. All right. Now, you mentioned Mr. Jackson. Did you know Mr. Jackson prior to his representation of Mr. Jamal? A. Yes, I did. Q. Tell the Court how you knew him? A. I knew Mr. Jackson through his activities through Pilcop, which is an organization here in the City of Philadelphia that has tried cases concerning abuse relevant to police abuse here in the City of Philadelphia. Q. Did you consider yourself friends with Mr. Jackson? A. I knew Mr. Jackson and had several conversations and interaction with him throughout my career here in the City of Philadelphia, political as well as personal. Q. So it would be your understanding and it would be safe to say that he knew you as well? A. That's correct. Q. And obviously Mr. Jackson knew how to contact you, I take it? A. Yes. Q. Now, let me direct your attention now to the trial itself. Okay? Page 38. State Rep. David Richardson - Direct A. Hmm. Q. In the summer of 1982. Did Mr. Jackson ever contact you to testify as to Mr. Jamal's character and uprightness as a human being in connection with any proceeding in the summer of 1982? A. No, sir. Q. Were you in Philadelphia in late June and early July of 1982? A. If I wasn't in Philadelphia, I certainly was in Harrisburg in session. Because we normally are in session through June 30th. And then we are back, normally, in the City of Philadelphia or the surrounding areas after the session is over. Q. Okay. Well, let me ask you this. Was there anything that would have impeded you in any way to appear in a court here in Philadelphia if you were asked to do so in late June or early July of 1982? A. Nothing. Q. And aside from being available, were you willing to testify had you been asked? A. Yes. Q. Now let me turn to the circumstances under which you know Mr. Jamal. Do you understand, Mr. Richardson? A. Yes. Page 39. State Rep. David Richardson - Direct Q. Okay. Can you explain to us those circumstances under which you began to know Mr. Jamal? Not simply when you first met him but when you began to know him? A. Well, yes, from several activities. One is I began to know Mr. Jamal through my community activism here in the City of Philadelphia because before I became an elected official we were very actively involved in the community through a number of organizations, groups, to try to help promote and direct our attention to trying to help give what we believed at that time was an important direction to help motivate the community around cultural and positive aspects of the African-American community here in the City of Philadelphia. Q. Okay. Can you put some kind of a time frame on that? A. Yes, I can go back to 1965, after we graduated from high school here in Philadelphia to a demonstration of 1967 at the Board of Education to demand that African-American history and African history be taught in the public school system here in the City of Philadelphia. And then in 1968 with the struggle here in the City of Philadelphia to continue to motivate and try to fight on behalf of citizens Page 40. State Rep. David Richardson - Direct who were being shot down in the street here in the City of Philadelphia by police officers who at that time, Pilcop's organization was very much involved in trying to bring those cases to light. So we were involved in a lot of struggles related directly to those issues that impacted on our community. So our community activism was very high. And as I told you before, I was elected to office here in the City of Philadelphia. Q. I take it from your answer, then, that during this time frame you were active in issues of vital concern? A. Yes. Q. And your path crossed Mr. Jamal's path quite frequently because he shared that concern; would that be safe to say? A. That would be safe to say. I interacted, though, because many of the activists here in the City of Philadelphia during the late '60s and early '70s were very much in the same circle, so many of the meetings and many of the activities that did take place allowed us to converse a lot and to interact a lot. Q. Now, what about when you became a State Representative: Did you have any occasions to Page 41. State Rep. David Richardson - Direct interact with Mr. Jamal at that phase of his life? A. On several occasions. I became elected in January of 1973. And I can't remember which station, but either WHYY, or WKDU, or WDAS in Philadelphia, Mr. Jamal worked for. And on many occasions when we were actively involved in activities and demonstrations it was Mr. Jamal who would actually do the interviewing of us with respect to those particular issues that were being confronted with at that time. Q. Okay. For the benefit of the record: You specified various letters. Are those call letters for radio programs? A. I'm sorry, they are call letters for radio stations here in the City of Philadelphia. Q. Okay. Again for the benefit of the record: How do those call letters that you have mentioned a moment ago relate to Mr. Jamal? A. That he either directly or indirectly worked for those particular radio stations at the time I was elected. And at that time that we were dealing with issues that were being confronted with within the community. And I had an opportunity to encounter him as a result of those interviews that were given by him at the time. Page 42. State Rep. David Richardson - Direct Q. Okay. So the capacity in which you interacted with Mr. Jamal was as a journalist, he was a journalist? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, as you sit here today -- and I also ask you to do a difficult thing -- as you place yourself back in 1982, do you feel now and do you feel that you felt back then that your exposure to Mr. Jamal permits you to share your thoughts and your impressions about his unique qualities as a human being, do you feel equipped to do that? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Can you tell the Court why you feel equipped to do that? A. Well, several reasons. One is that I believe that Mr. Jamal was a special gift that had a unique voice to Philadelphia. In fact, his melodious voice that many people heard over the radio stations here in the City of Philadelphia would be identified first by his voice even before they would hear his name. And many individuals grew to respect that name here in the City of Philadelphia and also his works as a journalist, but also as an activist who was actively involved in the community on issues that did impact directly on the community. Page 43. State Rep. David Richardson - Direct Q. Let me isolate your comments about Mr. Jamal as a journalist for the moment, okay. I take it that in hearing Mr. Jamal's broadcasts and interacting with him directly as a journalist, he left a certain kind of impression on you as a human being. A. Yes. Q. Am I right? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. I would like you to explain to us how his skills as a journalist impressed you as a human being, how it affected you? A. Well, you know, it's not often that you see someone who has come through the ranks of the struggle that grows among you. And that Mr. Jamal was one of those persons that had an opportunity to really grasp the issues within the community and, notwithstanding his profession as a journalist, was also able to work with the community organizations and groups who would listen to his wisdom and knowledge. And we grew to know him -- and I'm speaking now on behalf of many other people whom I know who know Mr. Jamal -- we grew to know him as being a peaceful, law-abiding citizen and a person who had a lot of compassion for people and compassion for those issues that did impact directly on vital Page 44. State Rep. David Richardson - Direct issues, such as housing, such as health care, such as feeding the homeless. And also at a time in starting a breakfast program for needy children within the community. So there were a lot of attributes that seemingly tied directly into this individual, Mr. Jamal, as being someone conscious and concerned about the community, and not a phony, as many would describe in Philadelphia that they can depict in the first 10 to 15 seconds that they meet somebody. Q. These qualities that you just mentioned about compassion and dedication to the community, was that evident, was that evident in the way Mr. Jamal used his skills as a journalist? Aside from what you knew of him personally. A. Yes, it was. I mean it had to stem above and beyond -- you see, some, some people that just get a call, some people are just gifted and some people are just given a gift. So Mr. Jamal, I saw Mr. Jamal as just being one of those persons who was given a gift and had an opportunity to use that gift in the community to help promote, and also to educate as a teacher. And a leader for the community, which a lot of people looked up to him. Q. Well, Mr. Richardson, I think we all know that some people have enormous gifts and they use it to Page 45. State Rep. David Richardson - Direct amass great fortunes, and some use their gifts for other things. Can you enlighten us a bit about what direction, as far as you can tell, Mr. Jamal used those gifts that you just talked about? A. Well, if you are talking about monetary gifts and looking for something monetarily, certainly that was not Mr. Jamal's mission. And I can certainly indicate that on a number of times he would work extensively into the wee hours of the morning on cases and issues that we all seemingly hooked up at the same time in. And certainly it was not for any pay. It was not for any money. It was certainly not for any personal human enhancement, but it was for a belief and conviction he had inside of him which seems to be more important than anything else in this day and time. If people don't have a conviction they don't have anything. And he had that and a lot of people recognized that. Q. You used a word in your answer earlier: Struggle. That Mr. Jamal used his gifts in the struggle. Can you help us to understand what you meant by that term? A. Well, for many of us who understand the struggle for African-American and poor people every single day, it is to continue to strive to try to Page 46. State Rep. David Richardson - Direct help better the conditions of life within our City and within our nation. And a lot of individuals such as myself and others try to promote that no matter what profession you may go into, so that is not lost. For example, I see myself as a human being, an African American first, and then a State Representative. I don't see myself in a different context. Many people saw Mr. Jamal as Mr. Jamal and Mumia in the community, as he was called, Brother Mumia, as he was called, but not a journalist first. And I think that that makes the difference in a number of cases for a number of us whose struggle is being something that is continuous and ongoing, is not part time or individually -- Q. So when you used the term struggle, and then you described certain issues that Mr. Jamal would focus on as a journalist, what segment of the population primarily did it seem that Mr. Jamal had a concern for in using his skills and gifts as a journalist? A. Well, you know, one thing about being a humanitarian, you have concerns for all people. And I would have to say that while our emphasis was directly related to the African-American community, certainly emphasis was on all struggling people, all Page 47. State Rep. David Richardson - Direct the restless people all around the world. And I think it transcended the kind of narrow focus that a lot of people have. He was more worldwide than what people thought and he was more universal than what people thought. And he also carried that out in his professionalism as well as his community activism. Q. By the way, do you know if Mr. Jamal was a member of any professional organizations connected with his -- A. Yes, I do. I do know that he was a member of the Association of Black Journalists here in the City of Philadelphia and that he was president of that organization at one time. Because I know that he was succeeded by Mr. Joe Davidson, who worked at the Bulletin, after that. Q. So Mr. Jamal at one time was the president of the Association for Black Journalists? A. Of the Philadelphia chapter. Q. Of the Philadelphia chapter. Okay. Now I'm going to ask you to search your mind here. Are there any broadcasts that you heard by Mr. Jamal that stand out in your mind? That touched you in a particular way, that you think illuminates the character, the character and unique attributes of Mr. Jamal, any particular broadcasts? Page 48. State Rep. David Richardson - Direct A. I guess if there were any I would have to cite the time when there was a missing child, in Northwest Philadelphia, I'm not sure, and the appeal came across the air by Mr. Jamal to ask for anyone who did see or did have an opportunity to know the whereabouts of this 12- to 13-year-old child. If they would call the number to the station and try to reach out directly to anyone who might have seen him to call into the station. The reason why it sticks out more so than a lot of other cases, and I have been involved in demonstrations and other activist things, was because it was the compassion that was shown directly as it related to a human life. And the fact that this child was missing, but that the parents who had called into the station seemed to be not getting any help from the City of Philadelphia in trying to locate the child. And you know how any mother or father misses their child or feels that they have been lost have emotional pain as a result of that. This was an opportunity for Mr. Jamal to make an appeal over the public airways, over the station, and as a result heard his compassionate plea to ask that people call in and try to give the whereabouts of where this child was because the Page 49. State Rep. David Richardson - Direct parents were very upset. Q. You, I take it, detected the compassion in Mr. Jamal in his voice? A. You can feel it. It transcends voice, it actually vibrates through you and you can feel it. If you heard him speak you would know what I was talking about. Others who have heard him would know what I'm referring to. So therefore it transcended just the compassion that they heard, but also the fact that it was felt very closely because of his relationship to this situation and how he felt about it. So it was very evident. Q. Let me see if I could understand you. Sometimes, when you hear somebody speak, they speak with the full force of their humanity. Is that what you are talking about? A. They speak to such a tone that you could tell whether a person is sincere or not or whether they are just doing it because that's their job. A saying a lot in the community is that people speak with fork tongue, or that people speak a lot just to hear themselves speak. And in this situation you could feel it. And therefore the humanitarianism, but also the compassion and the vibrant feeling, that there is a person here that's really concerned about my Page 50. State Rep. David Richardson - Direct situation. And therefore I would like to make sure that the mother and father know that somebody is really trying, that came across loud and clear. Q. Have you ever heard Mr. Jamal speak on other occasions that touched you like that? A. Oh, when Mumia speaks to me, if you don't know Mumia and you have never had a chance to meet him, which in this instance I would say that yes he has touched not only my life but many other lives for those who have heard him speak because of the way he comes across. And I think that that's probably the major point for many of us who knew him back then in the day for what he stood for. That he came across that way and that's what people will remember. Q. Now, in your personal exposure to Mr. Jamal's dedication to the community, did you get a sense or did you ever witness expressions by Mr. Jamal concerning his desire to use violence, has that ever occurred? A. Never. Q. Never. Have you come to learn in your dealings with Mr. Jamal what his attitude is about violence? A. Well, I know what his attitude is about peace. Q. Yes, please tell me? Page 51. State Rep. David Richardson - Direct A. I know that he was a strong advocate to be a peacemaker in many situations that were involved in the black community, African-American community when there were struggling differences between various groups. Many times that the Church of The Advocate at 52nd street, the parish St. Thomas, St. Thomas Parish Church I think it was called, and also 50th and Baltimore Hickman Church AME, that there were several rallies that were called and many times there were struggles and fights that would erupt. And it was Mumia's voice that sort of like quelled and got order back to those settings to try to get people to realize the importance of why we must not be fighting against one another in a unity sense. And I can say that we had many situations where there have been toe-to-toe confrontations in the community and it has been Mumia that has stepped in to be the peacemaker. He, he was one of those that not only abhorred violence but he was for trying to make sure that all the time we saw peace and unity within our community and we would not use the divisiveness or the division of seeing the fights that erupted in our community has taken us away from the struggle and kept us on those points. And I think constantly over Page 52. State Rep. David Richardson - Direct and over again that you will find that it was Mumia who stepped in and was an advocate. Plus the fact that he did that on an ongoing basis. I mean it was not just something that was just during the period of time when he was a journalist, but also as an activist in the community. And I can say to you that I do not know of any time, place -- and I have been in his company a lot of times where he has been locked up or arrested. I have been locked up and arrested more times than Mumia has ever been locked up and arrested here in the City of Philadelphia during the struggle and I think it should be pointed out that we have been in the middle of a lot of controversy. But it was always Mumia that stepped up to speak in the voice that others did not have to try to quell the peace of the community. Q. Were those occasions where you were locked up and arrested, and occasions that you referred to regarding Mr. Jamal being locked up and arrested, was that in the grand tradition of people like Dr. Martin Luther King? A. Well, it was the compassion and the heart and feeling of Dr. Martin Luther King but the tenacity of a Malcolm X, and also the conviction of a man like Page 53. State Rep. David Richardson - Direct Medgar Evers. And I think if you tied them together and you look at what we have here today you would have that in a total, comprehensive sense in Mr. Jamal, who has been actively involved in our City and struggle for a long time. Q. Okay. Now, you have described in considerable detail about Mr. Jamal's dedication to the community. Are you in a position to tell us anything about Mr. Jamal's dedication to his family, to the inner sphere of his life? A. Yeah, I would think that if you were to look at Mr. Jamal, he is definitely a family man and has been for a long time. If you had been around him and knew him like we knew him, I think that you could picture Mumia with his son on his shoulders and his microphone in his hand interviewing people in the community as he was actually out in the community doing his work. So he embodied that with respect to his family. And his conviction for his own young son and the fact that that had meant a lot to him. So therefore he carried, therefore he carried him a lot with him everywhere he went. He did that with his professional job as a journalist most of the time that we saw him. Q. Thank you. I am struck by the image that you Page 54. State Rep. David Richardson - Cross just described. You described Mr. Jamal as having his young son on his shoulder and tapings of his -- A. His tape recorder, his shoulder holster on the side that had a microphone where he would be interviewing people, and have his son on his shoulder and interviewing people at the same time. Q. Now, tell me, with that image in your mind of Mr. Jamal, how did that speak to you, what was it saying to you? A. Well, it was saying that, number one, he not only understands what it means to be a journalist, but he also understands what it means to raise a family and also raise his son; and that he wanted his son to be a part of what he was doing. And he saw that as his responsibility and he did not shun his responsibility. And therefore, 24 hours a day, seven days a week when he was out there in the community he had his son with him. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Richardson, thank you very much. Thank you, Your Honor. MR. GRANT: May I, Your Honor? - - - - - CROSS-EXAMINATION - - - - - Page 55. State Rep. David Richardson - Cross BY MR. GRANT: Q. Good morning, Your Honor. A. Good morning. Q. State Representative, you indicated that basically you became aware of Mr. Jamal early in his career as a budding journalist and as a community spokesperson; is that right? A. Community activist, yes, sir. Q. And at the time when you were first being elected to State-wide office in 1972, Mr. Jamal was just a teenager, was he not? A. I don't know his age at that time. I just know that he was outspoken. This was in the early '70s. Q. Now, Mr. Jackson, speaking of Mr. Jackson: He contacted you and asked you to come and be basically a character witness at the bail hearing for Mr. Jamal; is that right? A. No, that's not correct. Q. He contacted you and asked that you appear before the Court of Common Pleas for a bail reduction hearing? A. That is correct. Q. And did he discuss with you what he wished you to testify to? Page 56. State Rep. David Richardson - Cross A. If I remember correctly, it was the fact that he wanted to have someone talk about the fact that they needed to have the judge know that bail should be reduced on behalf of Mr. Jamal so that he could be put out on the street while his trial was going to be called at some later date. Q. And how did you know Mr. Jackson that he could call you up and ask you to do this? A. Because he was a member of the Pilcop organization here in the City of Philadelphia. And we had had many dealings with Mr. Churchill and Mr. Thomas Gilhool and other members of the Pilcop organization here in the City of Philadelphia. And I had been down to the office and we had been actively involved in numerous cases in the City of Philadelphia that led us to know that that's the office where many people were, where officers referred many cases down there. So I got to know all of the lawyers inside of the building, not only on a first name basis, but also because we were actively involved in a number of other issues here in the City of Philadelphia. Q. What does Pilcop stand for? A. I think it stands for Philadelphia something about cooperating with police. I am not sure of the Page 57. State Rep. David Richardson - Cross acronym of the name any longer. Pilcop, I know that it exists and I know it is an organization that specifically was designed to go out and help people who had cases where there were police involvement. And we went down there because many people called us and asked us what organization is dealing with that. And we always said Pilcop so I never knew necessarily the full name. Q. And when you say the organization helped people out who had cases involving police practices, brutality, abuse, what have you, did you mean that the members of this organization that were actually lawyers actually went to court and represented people that had these needs? A. Some of them did, yes. Q. And Mr. Jackson in fact was a director of, at one point, of that organization, was he not? A. I don't know what his title was, sir. Q. And how long had you known Mr. Jackson to be active in Pilcop? Before the date of December the 9th of 1981. A. I don't know the exact amount of years, all I know is that he was there because he was also a practicing attorney himself here in the City of Philadelphia. And I knew him also in that capacity. Page 58. State Rep. David Richardson - Cross So I don't know directly what first year he went to Pilcop. Q. Mr. Jackson was not only professionally associated with organizations like Pilcop and came to the aid of people who needed his services in the community, but he philosophically also believed in those types of issues, did he not? A. Oh, yeah, Mr. Jackson was actively involved for a number of years himself out in the community. I think even before he went to Pilcop. Q. And the organization members and the people who came to Pilcop for their services considered Mr. Jackson a top flight attorney, did they not? MR. WILLIAMS: I am going to object to that question, Your Honor. THE COURT: Objection is overruled. BY MR. GRANT: Q. You may answer, sir. A. I guess that when you say, when you say he was a what? Q. He was considered by the people in the organization Pilcop, both members and those who sought their services, as a top-flight attorney, is -- A. I don't know how they felt about him because I Page 59. State Rep. David Richardson - Cross never asked them about that. Q. How did you feel about him? A. I thought he was a good lawyer. Q. Now, in any event, he contacted you and you appeared and testified at a bail hearing, and that would have been in January, specifically January the 11th of 1982. And I know it's been 13 years, I am not trying to hold you to dates. A. I can't, I wouldn't remember even if I tried. Q. I wouldn't ask. But in fact you did appear to testify at that time? A. Yes. Q. And Mr. Jackson represented Mr. Jamal at that point in time, did he not? A. Yes. Q. And then five months later, roughly around June the 19th of that same year of 1982, the trial involving the indictment -- as Mr. Williams calls it -- of Mr. Jamal began. Did you attend those proceedings? A. Some of them I did. Q. And when you attended those proceedings in this very Courtroom, Mr. Jackson was seated over there at Counsel's table as the lawyers are arrayed here today, was he not? Page 60. State Rep. David Richardson - Cross A. He was at the table. Q. And did you acknowledge him or did he acknowledge you in the Courtroom on those days that you did show up? A. No, there was no acknowledgement at that time. There was a lot of activity in the Courtroom and I don't think that I was ever acknowledged personally by him because he was handling the case. I did not talk to him and I did not have any communication with him at all. Q. We are having a little competition: Do you think that you could either -- A. Speak up a little louder. Q. Yes, sir, or you could simply pull your chair a little closer to the mike, that's probably the easiest way. Thank you, sir. Now, you indicated that there was no opportunity, basically, for acknowledgement because there was a lot of activity about the periphery of the trial and in the Courtroom itself; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And you said that Mr. Jackson was handling the case at that time? A. I didn't say that. Page 61. State Rep. David Richardson - Cross Q. Oh. A. You said was he sitting at the table. I said yes he was sitting at the table. I don't remember because I don't recollect back that far to remember the case. I was in and out of the proceedings, that's why I attended some of them and I was not there for the full extent of the hearing. Q. So you don't know whether or not he was handling the case? A. No, I do not know whether or not he was handling the case or not, no. Q. At the time of trial? A. At the time of trial. Q. Or at the time of sentencing? A. Or at the time of sentencing, because I wasn't there. Q. Did it puzzle you that Mr. Jackson would call you when the issue was a bail release of Mr. Jamal and have you come to court and testify on his behalf but then throughout a month-long trial and a day-long sentencing hearing, you would have no contact with him whatsoever when you knew Mr. Jamal intimately? A. We raised the question later on to Mr. Jackson after the case was over why we never were called. In fact, we were probably in several meetings after that Page 62. State Rep. David Richardson - Cross proceeding was over to ask why we were not called to testify, as well as other people in the community that knew Mr. Jamal at that time. Q. And did you know what had changed between January the 11th of 1982 and the beginning of Mr. Jamal's trial on June 19th, 1982 involving his attorney status? A. No, I think that there was a number of discussions about whether or not Mr. Jackson was going to continue to represent him or whether Mr. Jamal was going to represent himself. Q. On the occasions when you appeared during the course of trial proceedings, did you not hear Mr. Jamal tell Mr. Jackson to sit down, that he doesn't want him as a lawyer, that he wanted John Africa, and that Mr. Jackson, you don't represent me; did you hear any of those statements? A. I never heard that, no, sir. Q. Did you know that Mr. Jamal himself was actually installed as his own Counsel by his own request beginning on June the 2nd of 1982 and that Mr. Jackson was thereafter not his lawyer as far as Mr. Jamal was concerned? A. I did not know the date. I did hear about it just like others in news accounts that everyone else Page 63. State Rep. David Richardson - Cross would hear that there was a discussion about the fact that Mr. Jamal was going to hear his -- was going to try his own case, but I don't know the circumstances that surrounded that, what made that happen, so I can't speak to that at all. Q. And after you knew that Mr. Jamal was representing himself and in fact he was for all intents and purposes the lawyer, did you contact him to tell him I'm available if you need me to be a reference or a witness or to testify on your behalf? A. No, I did not. Q. Did he ever contact you and ask you to appear and testify on his behalf? A. No, he did not. He was incarcerated. Q. Yes, but he has access to phone service, I assume? A. I don't know that, sir, I can not answer that question. Q. Had you ever been to visit Mr. Jamal while he was incarcerated or awaiting trial? A. Only here in this City Hall. Q. I'm sorry? A. Only here in City Hall. Q. And when you, how many times, approximately, do you recall that occurring? Page 64. State Rep. David Richardson - Cross A. Twice. Q. Did you ever discuss your status as a potential witness for him on those occasions? A. No, I did not. Q. On those two occasions, was that before or after he became his own lawyer? A. See, I don't know when he became his own lawyer. All I could say to you is that the times that I saw him have been since he has been incarcerated after he was found guilty and not before then. So it's been after, since the trial has been going on here in City Hall. Q. Now, since you knew Mr. Jackson, he was a long-standing member of Pilcop, Mr. Jackson had every interest and every motivation, from what you could tell, to defend Mr. Jamal to the full extent the law permitted? A. I can't determine. MR. WILLIAMS: Objection, Your Honor, to what Mr. Jackson's interests were. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I can't determine what is in another person's mind, because we never did have any full discussion other than the time I appeared, sir, at the hearing, at his bail Page 65. State Rep. David Richardson - Cross reduction hearing. There was no other time that I had any accounting with Tony Jackson until after the case was well over in 1982. BY MR. GRANT: Q. Do you know that none of Mr. Jamal's immediate family testified at his sentencing hearing, or in the trial? A. No, I did not know that. Q. Do you know why that was? A. I didn't inquire because I was only concerned with Mr. Jamal and what he stood for for many of us who were actively out in the community talking about his particular case. I did not get into his family situation at all and I did not know whether they did testify or did not testify at the time. Q. And so because Mr. Jamal was so beloved in the community for his activist voice and for his ability to stand up and take the heat when other people may have turned around and shirked their duties, is that why they erected after his arrest the Mumia Abu-Jamal Defense Fund to raise monies for his defense team? A. My understanding was that there were some committees that were put together. There was a transportation committee, there was a fund-raising committee. There were speakers bureaus committees. Page 66. State Rep. David Richardson - Cross There were a number of committees that were formed after that on behalf of Mumia, so I can't speak directly to the fund-raising committee because I was not involved in that, sir. Q. Since you are very aware of Mr. Jamal's journalistic and community activist background, I assume you are aware that at some point those journalistic organizations that had had and enjoyed a relationship with Mr. Jamal felt it necessary to sever their relationship with him prior to the time of the homicide charges in this case, are you aware of that? A. If you are speaking about a dispute -- and I don't know which radio station you are referring to, whether it was WKDU or WHYY or WDAS, because those are the only two stations that I am aware of -- I am not aware of any personal disputes that exist between their management and Mr. Jamal. Q. But you are aware that he was no longer employed by any of these stations on December the 9th of 1981, are you not? A. No, I am not aware. I thought that he was still participating as a journalist at one of those stations, that's why I can only remember those three stations. But I don't know if he had any involvement Page 67. State Rep. David Richardson - Cross in any other radio stations then at that time. So you are saying December 1 of 1981. I don't have any recollection of December 1 or December the 9th of that same year. Q. Yeah, I am not trying to confuse you with dates, Mr. Richardson. What I am trying to refer to is the date that the murder in this case happened. And I am using that as a benchmark for recollections both before and after. And I prefer not to mention the fact of the murder but that's why I tried to couch it in terms of the date. A. Okay. Q. Okay? Now, were you aware as to whether or not Mr. Jamal was employed as a cab driver? A. I did not find that out until later on after the broadcast came across that Mr. Jamal had been driving a cab, as a result of the, of the newscast that I heard about the incident that occurred on that date. Q. And were you aware that he was actually not driving a cab, but he borrowed a cab from a cab driver when the cab driver was asleep so that he could make some money because he was unemployed? A. I have no knowledge of that, sir, and I could not speak to that at all. I only can speak to what I Page 68. State Rep. David Richardson - Cross know of Mr. Jamal and what I knew of him as an individual person who worked together in the community on issues that impacted directly on our community. Those were items concerning the police, cab drivers, et cetera, et cetera. I can not answer that yes. Q. Did you participate personally in any of the groups that were erected to come to Mr. Jamal's defense, which is the transportation committee, the fund-raising committee, the defense committee? A. Speaking of that, I have been involved in most of them with respect to his case with demonstrations and speaking all across this country. Including activities that we have participated in in New York and California. And recently Wisconsin. Q. And you did this because you knew that Mr. Jamal was not only a community activist but peace-loving person and you staunchly have defended him throughout these years? A. Without question. I believed in Mumia because I knew Mumia and knew what he stood for. Q. And did you know that he stood for the purchase in 1979 of a .38 caliber snub-nose and a shoulder holster to go with it? A. Because he bought a gun, many people buy guns Page 69. State Rep. David Richardson - Cross in the City of Philadelphia. Certainly I know you are aware of that. And I don't know what that has to do with me knowing Mr. Jamal. I know many people who are in this Courtroom that have permits to carry guns. Q. Well, it goes to your representation that in your view he was a peace-loving, nonviolent person? A. That's correct, because a person carries a gun does not mean that they are not peace-loving and law-abiding. Q. Now, since 1982 when Mr. Jamal was convicted in this matter, have you been in contact with his lawyers -- Miss Wolkenstein, Mr. Weinglass, Mr. Williams -- regarding testimony here today? A. Yes. Q. And when were you first contacted? A. Concerning? Q. Concerning your representations that you were available for the penalty phase, you were not contacted by the attorney and you know not why. A. I was contacted by Mr. Weinglass I guess about a year-and-a-half ago when he came to Philadelphia and met with the organizing committee at the Friends Services Center at 1501 Cherry Street. Q. And when you say the organizing committee, Page 70. State Rep. David Richardson - Cross what did that committee organize? A. It organized the friends and family of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Q. And did Mr. Weinglass or one of his associates assist you in preparing this affidavit which has been marked as part of their exhibits for the Petition in support of a Post-Conviction Relief, exhibit number 8? Did they assist you in preparing this, sir? A. Yes. Q. To what extent? A. That after I wrote this they checked it for errors and edited, I guess, for the proper way to submit it to the Court. Q. And paragraph number 3 there says, on July 3rd, 1982 I was available and willing to testify as a witness on behalf of Mr. Jamal at his trial during the penalty phase of his trial. Were you not available to testify at the guilt phase of his trial, that is whether he would be found guilty or innocent of these charges? A. Well, as I understood it, I was indicating that I was available to testify at whatever point in time it would be necessary on behalf of Mr. Jamal if I had been called. I think they fixed the dates to them because I don't know the dates. Page 71. State Rep. David Richardson - Redirect Q. So you are saying you would have been available to testify at any time and every time that you were needed, not just at the penalty phase? A. Exactly. In other words, if I had been called. Q. And what would you have been called for at the trial, can you give us an idea? MR. WILLIAMS: Objection, Your Honor: He is not competent to answer that question. THE COURT: Oh, I think so. Overrule the objection. BY MR. GRANT: Q. What testimony could you offer at the guilt phase? A. If there was a guilt phase I would answer as a character reference. MR. GRANT: I see. Thank you. I appreciate it. Nothing further, Your Honor. MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, just a few questions. - - - - - REDIRECT EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Mr. Grant asked you some questions about Page 72. State Rep. David Richardson - Redirect remarks that Mr. Jamal made during the course of the trial. Do you remember those questions? A. About Mr. Jackson? Yes. Q. Okay. During your time that you observed the trial, were you ever present when His Honor Judge Sabo instructed Mr. Jackson that he had a moral and ethical and legal duty to represent Mr. Jamal to the best of his ability? Were you ever there for that? A. Umm, no, I was not. I do not recall those comments. I heard similar statements made but I do not recall that statement. Q. Okay. And the last question is: You were asked about various committees that were formed in connection with the case against Mr. Jamal, right? Was it pretty obvious from your standpoint as a person in the community that there was considerable support for this man during the course of his trial? A. Overwhelming support. In fact, one of the things that many recognize is the fact that that's why there is so much confusion out in the hallways and out in the streets today: Because there's been that support all along. And he has received that internationally as well as locally. Q. So if an attorney was sitting in this seat here during the course of that trial, it would be Page 73. State Rep. David Richardson - Redirect obvious to that attorney that there was considerable public support for his client? A. I would certainly think so. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Richardson, thank you. MR. GRANT: I have nothing further, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: All right, you are excused. THE COURT OFFICER: Watch your step, sir. (Witness excused.) THE COURT: Your Honor, the next witness that the Petitioner calls is E. Steven Collins. MR. GRANT: Since Mr. Collins is not an affiant supporting their Petition and we have received no items to indicate what he would testify to, I ask, A, for an offer of proof, and then I would ask Your Honor to entertain a motion to preclude. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the offer of proof is it is a continuation along the lines of the testimony we have just heard. Mr. Collins was a colleague of Mr. Jamal, he also is in the Page 74. E. Steven Collins - Direct field of radio broadcast journalism and will describe his relationship to Mr. Jamal in connection with being a colleague of his. Along, with being a friend. (Discussion was held off the record at this time.) MR. WILLIAMS: I also would like to remind the Court that they've had his name for eight days. MR. GRANT: That doesn't make him a part of the Petition or an affiant in the matter, but if this will expedite the process let's have him. MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate Mr. Grant's concession. - - - - - E. Steven Collins, having been duly sworn, - - - - - DIRECT EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Mr. Collins, thank you for coming in this morning. You are aware that you have been asked to testify in connection with a Petition that has been Page 75. E. Steven Collins - Direct filed by Mr. Jamal? A. Yes. Q. And that's a Petition for a new trial: You are aware of that? A. Yes. Q. By the way, Mr. Collins, are you a resident of Philadelphia? A. Yes. Q. How long have you been a resident of the City? A. My entire 40 years. Q. And do you work here in Philadelphia? A. Yes, I do. Q. What kind of work do you do? A. Host a talk show on WDAS radio; I also do sales at WDAS radio. Q. How long have you been working at that radio station? A. It will be 19 years in June. Q. By the way -- I will allow you to do a little promotion for the radio -- what station, what kind of a listenership does it have? A. It's the number one 25-54 radio station the last four Arbitron books. Focus is on adults, African Americans in the Philadelphia area. Q. Now, by the way, what is your educational Page 76. E. Steven Collins - Direct background, sir? A. I have a degree from Temple University in radio, television, film; and I graduated West Catholic High School. Q. And are you a member of any professional organizations? Community organizations? A. I am a member of the Association of Black Journalists in Philadelphia. I am a board member of the Philadelphia Ad Club. I am involved in a variety of community organizations: Concerned Black Men, Police Athletic League, a number of them. Q. By the way, Mr. Collins, have we met, you and I? A. Just once to discuss this. Q. This proceeding? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Do you remember when you and I met? A. It was about a week ago. Q. And that's the only time? A. Yes. Q. Now, do you know Mr. Jamal? A. Very well. Q. Did you know him back in 1982? A. Better. Q. You did? Page 77. E. Steven Collins - Direct A. Yes. Q. And were you aware that back in 1982 he was under indictment? A. Yes. Q. And were you aware that there were proceedings that were conducted in this Courthouse in connection with that indictment? A. Yes. Q. Did you attend any of those proceedings, Mr. Collins? A. No, I did not. Q. You did not. Did you know a man by the name of Anthony Jackson back in 1982? A. Yes. Q. What did you know him to be? A. He was an attorney, I believe he worked for the Philadelphia Public Interest Law Center. Q. Did you know if Mr. Jackson had any connection with the proceedings related to Mr. Jamal? A. Yes, I did. He was, he was a Court-appointed attorney at that time. For a period of time. Q. Now, in late June and early July of 1982, were you here in the City of Philadelphia? A. Yes. Q. You were living here? Page 78. E. Steven Collins - Direct A. Yes. Q. Were you working here back then too? A. Yes. Q. Where were you working back then? A. WDAS radio. Q. Okay. So I take it you were available, you had the ability to come to court if someone were to ask you to come to court? A. Absolutely. Q. Back in 1982? A. Absolutely. Q. Had somebody asked you to come to court and testify on behalf of Mr. Jamal as a character witness, would you have been willing to do that? A I would have jumped. I definitely, positively would have been available and would have been willing to do so. Q. When you say you would have jumped, I take it that you would have no reservations at all? A. At all, none whatsoever. Q. Okay, now let's turn our attention to how you knew Mr. Jamal, okay. Can you share with us the circumstances under which you began to know Mr. Jamal? MR. GRANT: Objection, Your Honor. If Page 79. E. Steven Collins - Direct Mr. Collins would have appeared as a character witness it is instructive for us to know his background but his only testimony relevant to this proceeding would be I knew others who knew Mr. Jamal and their opinion. would be X. MR. WILLIAMS: That would be true at the guilt phase, Your Honor, but not as a mitigating witness in the penalty phase. THE COURT: He said he would be available as a character witness. MR. WILLIAMS: At the penalty phase. I could use the term mitigation witness, but. THE COURT: We use the testimony of the character witness in the penalty phase. That is used. MR. WILLIAMS: The term character witness. THE COURT: Reputation. That is used in the penalty phase. And the Jury is instructed whatever they use in the primary case goes over into the penalty case. MR. WILLIAMS: Precisely. What I am asking him now and what I am directing his attention to is if he was, if he had been asked to testify in the penalty phase -- Page 80. E. Steven Collins - Direct MR. GRANT: I withdraw my objection, then. MR. WILLIAMS: Very well. Thank you. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Can you now explain the circumstances under which you began to know Mr. Jamal? A. I heard Mumia on the radio when I was a student at Temple University. He was on WKDU, which was Drexel's radio station. And he did a commentary on a young brother who was shot. And I didn't know the brother and I didn't know the circumstances, but in three minutes it felt like I had a keen, a keen insight into what happened and Mumia's conclusion was compelling and it encouraged people to think about the value of life. And I thought I would like to meet him. Several weeks later a person had a news conference and he coincidentally and I happened to attend and we met. And began for me a mentoring relationship in my pursuit to do commercial news broadcasting in Philadelphia. Mumia was a mentor. Q. Okay. To be clear: This news conference that you attended, you are referring to Mr. Jamal as the person that you met there? A. Correct. Page 81. E. Steven Collins - Direct Q. And you are referring to Mr. Jamal as the person that you developed this mentoring relationship with? A. Correct. He was a reporter and I was a student reporter. And that's the basis of our initial relationship. Q. Was it important to you at that juncture in your life to establish a mentoring relationship with somebody? A. Yes. Q. Help us to understand why? A. Well, the nature of broadcasting in a major market is extraordinarily competitive and therefore you need to know or should know someone who understands that and can direct you in that area. Mumia was my age but had an exceeding wealth of experience, an understanding and a genuine care about me and other people who wanted to be in broadcasting. He also was an extraordinary reporter at that time. Even though we were, we were not in mainstream broadcasting. Q. Mr. Collins, what kind of qualities do you regard as being important for a good mentor? A. Well, I think in this particular field one needs to know writing, needs to understand how to -- Page 82. E. Steven Collins - Direct one needs to have a real serious grasp on the language, on English. And understand how to write concisely. Must have contacts. Must be involved. And Mumia had that. But I think the thing that separated him at that time, the way I remember him at that time was a serious concern for people which transcended just reporting a news story. He wanted to know the condition of people. And he told stories. I mean that's basically what he did. He did it in a very professional way. He had an eloquent style, and he had, has a commanding voice. But essentially, he wanted to tell the story of people. All people and specifically African-American people in the City. Q. Okay. Mr. Collins, I have met many people who have enormous gifts but they would be terrible mentors. Is there something about the fact that he has enormous gifts but he was able to transmit those gifts to you? A. Oh, yeah, absolutely. Q. Tell us about that? A. Well, he had an interest in my career. That was just based on Mumia. If you, if you knew him you would understand that. He just felt that he had a responsibility to give something to me and to other Page 83. E. Steven Collins - Direct people. You know, I mean that's what he did. He went out of his way. We used to, he helped me to get on WHAT radio, which was my first commercial job. He was going to WPEN radio to work the night and he had WHAT. He thought I was pretty good. I thought he was the greatest voice and greatest journalist I had met, beyond some of the people that I had worked with at the Inquirer. And when he got the job at 'PEN he talked to the program director at WHAT, and he didn't really ask, he told them that I would be his replacement. And I was. During the years or the months following my starting at WHAT, Mumia would call me up and tell me how I sounded, what I did, what I didn't do right. If there was a hot-breaking story wherever it was, he told me I should get a police radio scanner. We both had them. We used to stay up real late listening, finding out where news was breaking. Could be a fire, could be any neighborhood. Could be any issue. We broke a lot of stories. We competed to bring stories. We used to have a system in Philadelphia concerning UPI and AP. The United Press International and Associated Press. And if you broke a story, they would credit you with your last name Page 84. E. Steven Collins - Direct and your radio station's logo. And after a few weeks, we would compare who broke the most stories. We did that a lot. Q. Was this in good-natured competition? A. Absolutely. It was good for me because it taught me not just how to read a story and to be concerned about information, but it taught me, you know, how the District Attorney's Office worked, about the police charging function of the D.A.'s Office, how the Police Department worked, how media worked in a major market. It was essential. And it was just really important. Q. What I am hearing from you, Mr. Collins, is that Mr. Jamal is a man very willing to share what he has; am I hearing you right? A. Absolutely, absolutely. Q. Aside from his willingness to share what he has with you, was there anything about his skills as a professional journalist that affected you personally? Do you understand? A. Absolutely. There were so many different stories that were covered by the major media in Philadelphia, yet when Mumia covered a story it was a different story all together. Q. How was it different? Page 85. E. Steven Collins - Direct A. Well, Mumia has an ability to describe details in a way that is unique, complexions, and how people look and they feel. He had a way of translating human emotion through the radio so that no matter where you were you understood the circumstances. I think of him as I think of Dr. King. Because Dr. King did that. Dr. King was able to tell a story from a prison cell through his writings in such a way and delivered with a patient kind of oration in such a way as to create a certain awareness that was beyond what was written in the newspaper. Mumia had that ability, he probably still has it. It's something that he did it, he did relatively natural. It looked easy for him. But for me and for anybody else trying it it was extremely difficult. So I mean on a professional level, that I think impacted on me and just about everybody else who worked with him or hired him in the many radio stations he worked at here in Philly. Q. He made you feel, feel for the story? A. Absolutely. He made us understand the pain, suffering, loss or great victory. Could be a '6ers game, or a fire and the family was burnt out, or a homeless condition or whatever. I mean that's... Q. Now, as a journalist yourself, is it difficult Page 86. E. Steven Collins - Direct to convey to people who are listening to a radio program the pain that's intrinsic in a story, the suffering that is intrinsic in a story, the joy that is intrinsic in a story, is that difficult to do? A. Yes, it can be. It depends on what the story is. Radio is a medium of imagination. And it's also in our medium, where we are music intensive, a short thing: You have to tell a story in 30 or 45 seconds. You have to tell who, what, where, why, when and how. Mumia had an ability to tell that story in a relative short period of time that was piercing. And you, people used to say radio news is a tune out. But when Mumia was on people turned it up. He had a great, great command of language. He had an absolutely recognizable, predictable truism for people and the condition of people and he conveyed that every time he opened the microphone. So in that way I was impacted, but millions of people in the tri-state Philadelphia area who heard him were as well. Q. Is there any event, Mr. Collins, looking back over those many years, that stands out in your mind as particularly moving to you? A. A particular event... Q. A particular broadcast or something along Page 87. E. Steven Collins - Direct those lines? A. The first time I heard him on the air was particularly. It was about one African American who was killed by another for no real reason. I don't know if it was over sneakers, but it was over a superficial reason. Mumia focused on the importance of life. And he focused on it to say to the audience that we take life too superficially. And that was the focus and it was just, I can't remember and I feel bad that I can't remember it exactly word-for-word the way he said it, how he said it and the words he used, but I got the message. It was, and it was on the small college station, Drexel's WKDU. That was the trademark. Q. What did that tell you about him, that he was able to convey, to impress that on you through his voice? A. Well, again, Mumia and I are very close, I am very close to his family. I have known him for a long, long time. And I knew his mother. MR. GRANT: Your Honor, I object. First of all, I have been giving Counsel considerable latitude in his leading questions, which 85 percent of them are. But also I would object that the answer is not responsive to the Page 88. E. Steven Collins - Direct question. What did that tell you and he begins a biographical description of Abu-Jamal. I would move to strike. THE WITNESS: It was not a biographical -- THE COURT: Repeat your question, rephrase your question so he could answer it correctly. MR. WILLIAMS: Let me move on, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. You described a lot of qualities about Mr. Jamal as a journalist? A. Hmm-hmm. Q. You have described how he's been able to convey the pain, the suffering, the joys of a news story. Can somebody in your, in your position as a professional journalist, in your view, can somebody act that? Can somebody mimic that? Do you understand what I'm saying? A. Yes. The answer is no. I don't think that you can, my feeling is that you can't pretend to present on that consistent a basis that kind of caring about people you don't know but you care Page 89. E. Steven Collins - Direct about. Q. You also used the term that radio journalism is imagination? A. Absolutely. Q. Right. So I take it that broadcast journalism, radio broadcast journalism in many respects is not an activity that one performs from the neck up, but that it requires an enormous amount from the heart? A. It can. Or one can be very by the facts, you can just simply tell the facts. In all-news radio that works regularly because that's the format. In radio news or even in television broadcast news, with an editorial or a commentary, one's opinion is the heart of what you are talking about, you would think that you would have some passion about the thing that you have the opinion about. And in that regard Mumia's reports, which were often commentaries on WKDU, were passionate. And that was not without reverence. Q. And was that a unique quality among radio broadcast journalists? A. Some of the special ones it's standard. You know, I think of Osgood or some of the other people in the country who are just incredible in their Page 90. E. Steven Collins - Direct ability to write a story and convey a message. And I clearly put Mumia in that category. But locally I don't know too many radio broadcasters who are quite that patient about a story or conveying a message. Q. Okay. Let me make sure that this is clear. At the time of this unfortunate episode back in late 1981 -- A. Right. Q. -- did Mr. Jamal have the potential to become a broadcast journalist on the scale of Charles Osgood or Ed Bradley or people like that? A. It was, it was, that was expected. I mean everyone who ever heard him or knew him at the many radio stations that he worked at expected that. I mean that was just a forgone conclusion that he would become that as he moved along the ladder. Q. Do you know what was important to Mr. Jamal as a journalist, what his values were as a journalist? A. Sure. He, he felt that we had a responsibility as journalists to hold people accountable generally. Specifically as African-American journalists we had a responsibility to our community and to hold everyone accountable. After working with him I felt almost as though I was elected to a position of reporter. You just couldn't Page 91. E. Steven Collins - Direct accept what the wire services said or the newspaper said about what happened in the community, if you knew Mumia, you had to find it out. You had to report it. And you had to stay with it. And that's the measure I think of his ability as a reporter. Q. He inspired you as a journalist? A. Absolutely. Absolutely. Q. What about linking, did he link his craft as a journalist to anything within the community itself? A. I would think so -- MR. GRANT: I would object, Your Honor: It is leading, it has been asked and answered. MR. WILLIAMS: I am trying to direct his attention to a particular area. THE COURT: Rephrase your question, will you. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Did Mr. Jamal, where did he focus his journalistic craft to? A. Well, often, a lot of stories that Mumia covered were stories that Mumia uncovered. Things that he found that were newsworthy. That were not on an editor's sheet. Things that were happening in the community that were important things. Page 92. E. Steven Collins - Direct He was also the president of the Association of Black Journalists in Philadelphia. And through that position affected journalists in the Philadelphia area who were members at that time and student members who were also members at that time. Students from Temple University and some of the other schools in the area. But he was very, very, very interested in the community. That was seemingly his trademark. Q. In what aspect of the community was Mr. Jamal most interested? A. Usually people who needed a voice. People who were out of work. People who were protesting cuts in subsidies for, you know, all sorts of things. From children's meals in schools. He did a story once I remember on the public school system and it's lacking in relationship to academic expectation and achievement levels. And predominantly low-income schools in the Philadelphia area. It went beyond a report. It was a passionate series of reports on that particular issue. Anybody who heard that I would think would be compelled to want to make some changes with respect to public schools in Philadelphia. Q. Have you ever heard Mr. Jamal described as the Page 93. E. Steven Collins - Direct voice of the voiceless? A. Sure. Q. Have you ever heard that? A. Yes. Q. Does that have any meaning to you? A. Yes, absolutely. Q. What meaning does it have? A. Well, again, if you are standing in an employment line or in a welfare line and you get a short treatment, as the people do on that level, Mumia would articulate and illuminate their condition in an incredible way. And he did it in a variety of ways. He wrote papers, he wrote his news stories, he appeared on public affairs shows. He was a person that anyone could go to to attempt to get somebody to listen. And he seemingly on a regular basis presented that kind of information. Q. Mr. Collins, have you ever related with Mr. Jamal outside the confines of work, that is on a personal level? A. Sure, all the time. Q. (Indicating.) A. He was a good friend, he is a good friend. He knows my family. We got together for a number of times at his parents' home. You know, we were, we Page 94. E. Steven Collins - Direct were very close. In fact, on the night of the shooting incident he was at my house. We had dinner. He and former State Senator Milton Street and his wife and the young lady I was dating. He left about 1:OO a.m. Q. Was there anything unique about his demeanor, about his temperament on that last night that you spent with him? A. Mumia was, you know, consistently the same temperament. He always ended the conversation by saying peace. And he meant it. He always seemed to have a pretty even-keel personality. He had a way of holding his feelings until he sort of sorted it out and then he would tell you how he felt. He has an incredible intellect. He is the life of any social event. Because he would sit down, and people may be partying or eating, but they would stop and listen. Because he just from an early age was very well read. And had an incredible insight in persuasion or debate, if you will. Q. You said you spent some time in Mr. Jamal's home? A. I spent time in his mother's home and at other locations that his family was at. Q. Were you able to observe how he related to his Page 95. E. Steven Collins - Direct mother, for example? A. He loved his mother. He was, he lived for his mother. He was the only person I know who called his mother by her first name. He was, he was....he was very respectful and loving of his mother, he put her first. Q. What about with members of, other members of his family? A. He was very close to Billy, his brother. He was very close to Lydia. He is close to his family. I mean all of his family were, they were very close, very close-knit family, it was obvious. Q. Were you aware that he has a twin brother? A. No, I was not. Q. You mentioned the name Billy. Is that Billy Cook? A. Yes. Q. Do you know what kind of relationship he had with Billy Cook? A. Very close, extremely close. They're brothers. Very close. Q. Did Mr. Jamal have a concern or take a concern for Billy Cook's welfare? A. I would think so. I saw at various times -- Billy was a vendor and Mumia was very -- and he would Page 96. E. Steven Collins - Direct see him on a regular basis. We have a story in Center City, or if I saw him downtown, you would kind of think that Billy would be close, or vice-versa. They were close. Q. What about were you aware that Mr. Jamal had children of his own? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever have occasion to see what kind of father he was to his children? A. Yes. Q. Could you tell us about that? A. He was very, he lived for his son Mumia -- Amassi, rather, his daughter and his other son. He was very close to them. He provided for them. He was at times a little, I thought, preoccupied with making a better income and providing better for them. Which I think was one of the reasons why he moved from one station to another: In search of a better, you know, income to take care of his family. Q. So you knew Mr. Jamal even at that level? A. Yes. Q. Of his concerns for his income and care for his family? A. Yes. Q. There was that kind of interplay there? Page 97. E. Steven Collins - Direct A. I had a very close relationship with one of his children. And I think I know his other children very well. Q. Is there anything in your entire experience with Mr. Jamal that led you to believe that he had any kind of bent towards violence? A. See, that's the whole, that is the whole question here. I knew, I've known Mumia for a long, long time. During that period prior to this incident we were very, very close. And in searching my mind, I can't remember one time where there was ever a discussion, any hostility, verbal or otherwise, towards any law enforcement, or even a philosophical view that would suggest that. He talked about the members of MOVE like people. Family members. Like they should have been talked about. The media talked about them like they were from Mars or something. They were sons and daughters of people, you know. And Mumia approached that when he reported about them. He kind of was conscious, I mean he reminded people that people that were unlike the standard group are people too. So I don't know, I just, you know, as all this occurred, in my mind I thought a million times about, you know, this whole preoccupation with Page 98. E. Steven Collins - Cross philosophical and some bent on hurting law enforcement or whatever. And I don't remember ever, ever, ever hearing that or having a discussion with Mumia or other people where that came up or that was principal or centerpiece as he has been treated in many news stories since this occurred. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Collins, thank you very much. MR. GRANT: May I, Your Honor? - - - - - CROSS-EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MR. GRANT: Q. Good morning, Mr. Collins. A. Good morning. Q. I have heard your voice many times. A. Thank you. Q. I heard your broadcasts myself. So I will take your word as to the immense talents of Mr. Jamal. You say that you were with Mr. Jamal on the night that the shooting occurred? A. Yeah, he was at my house, my apartment. He stopped by. I don't remember exactly the time but he stopped by. We, we had dinner. There were some other people there. And it was a great, a great Page 99. E. Steven Collins - Cross evening. Anytime Mumia was around it was a great evening. Q. Do you know or do you recall how he arrived there, that is by -- A. No, I don't know the mode of transportation, if that's what you mean. Q. And was his brother there also: Billy? A. No, he was not. Q. You indicated, sir, that because you were having a good-natured competition with Mr. Jamal for breaking news stories that you both had police scanners? A. That's right. Q. Did he have a police scanner that night? A. Umm, I don't remember. We didn't -- this was some time, this was some time from those days. When we had all that kind of thing going on, we lived for radio news. And there was very little else going on. That night I don't -- we got into a discussion with Milton Street on politics and world events and that's the focus of it and so we were not preoccupied with local, current-breaking stories. Q. Now, you knew Mr. Jamal from his efforts at his work, his obviously talented journalistic voice, and his activism at WPEN, WHAT, WDAS, and WKBU? Page 100. E. Steven Collins - Cross A. KDU. And WHYY, and on broadcasts for National Public Radio, for the National Black Network. A variety of other outlets. Q. Do you know whether or not on the evening that he came to your house before the shooting is alleged to have occurred, whether he was employed at any of these radio stations? A. No, I do not. Q. Now, since he had such wide-based support and such an impact on the community, there is no question that hundreds of people could have occupied your position in that had they been asked they would have testified on his behalf, I assume. Did you make any effort to contact Mr. Jamal and tell him I'm here for you if you need me, or I'm willing to come to Court and testify for you? A. I never verbalized that phrase but if you needed me I would. And again, I knew Tony Jackson. And I'm sure Tony had my home number, so. Q. Did you ever contact Mr. Jackson and tell him I think I have uniquely insightful information about Mr. Jamal, about his character? A. I don't, I don't remember, I really and truly don't. I believe during that period I had some conversations with Tony, but I do not remember the Page 101. E. Steven Collins - Cross specific nature of what we talked about. Q. Is it implicit within your testimony, Mr. Collins, that Mr. Jackson should be faulted because you didn't testify on behalf of Mr. Jamal? A. I don't know that -- MR. WILLIAMS: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I don't know that I should. I don't know. I don't know in the sense that I don't know all the facts and I don't know exactly what in fact he did do. And then I don't know at what point Mumia expected him not to represent him. So I don't know. I really don't know. BY MR. GRANT: Q. Were you working at WDAS from December of '81 up through July of '82? A. Yes. Q. Was Mr. Jamal working there at that time with you? A. December of '81 through... no, he was not. Q. When had he last been employed there with you? A. I don't remember exactly the date he was, he was working. I kind of felt that I should pay him back for helping me get to WHAT. So he was not Page 102. E. Steven Collins - Cross working, I talked to our general manager about him working at WDAS, which occurred for a period of time, I don't know the exact dates, but. Q. Also you were instrumental in him working at WDAS? A. I would like to think so, yeah. Q. And when he left that employment, was that by mutual consent? A. I suppose. I don't know, I wasn't involved. I didn't hire him and I wasn't his supervisor. Q. I see. A. I was just a person who thought that he was extraordinary. And after they heard him they agreed and he was on the air. I don't know if he took another job because it was a better position or why he did that. Q. On the night that you saw him on the night of the tragic events that later transpired, were you aware or did you know that he was driving cabs at that time for a living? A. No, I didn't know. Q. Did you or have you contributed efforts, whether they be journalistic, social, activism, or money, prior to the date of Mr. Jamal's conviction, to his defense effort? Page 103. E. Steven Collins - Cross A. Yeah. You could say that. Q. Money? A. No. MR. GRANT: Thank you, sir. THE WITNESS: You're welcome. MR. GRANT: Excuse me, if I may, Your Honor, with the Court's indulgence. I have nothing further. MR. WILLIAMS: Nothing further, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Collins. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, the Petitioner now calls Ken Hamilton. MR. GRANT: Your Honor, if this is a non-affidavit-bearing witness, I would stipulate that they would be available to testify and would have been so inclined had they been called. However, Mr. Hamilton, like the last witness, and, I assume, the next witness, under the rules of the Post-Conviction Relief Act, I believe has to be an affiant. And I will stipulate to his testimony, Counselor, if that's what you would like on the record, but I would object to him testifying. MR. WILLIAMS: We decline the invitation for the stipulation. We appreciate Page 104. E. Steven Collins - Cross the offer but we believe that his testimony, the substance of his testimony is vital for our Petition. THE COURT: Vital? MR. WILLIAMS: It is now the first time they are raising the issue of the affidavits. We initially told the Court that there was this rule of an affidavit, and that we would need time to prepare affidavits. MR. GRANT: I raised it last week, if you recall, Judge. I said I would be asking you to entertain a motion to preclude those witnesses who did not have supporting material. THE COURT: What he wants to know is what's he going to say. MR. WILLIAMS: Okay, I will tell him. Mr. Hamilton was Mr. Jamal's high school history teacher. And he became friends with Mr. Jamal in connection with that teacher-student relationship. And he will describe in considerable detail about that relationship. And again it goes to the mitigation phase of the trial. MR. GRANT: Counsel would be considered ineffective if his testimony was not Page 105. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Direct forthcoming, so rather than have a third issue I am going to remove my objection from the record. THE COURT: Okay. - - - - - Kenneth Hamilton, Junior, having been duly sworn, - - - - - DIRECT EXAMINATION MR. WILLIAMS: May I inquire, Your Honor? THE COURT: Sure. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Mr. Hamilton, good morning. Or good afternoon. A. Good afternoon. Q. I appreciate you coming in. Do you live here in the City of Philadelphia? A. Yes, I do. Q. How long have you lived here? A. 53 years. Q. All right. Are you employed? A. Yes. Page 106. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Direct Q. Where are you employed? A. Philadelphia School District, Benjamin Franklin High School. Q. What you do you do at that school? A. For the last 30 years I have been a history teacher, and basketball coach for the last 24 years. Q. Now, you're aware of why you have been asked to testify here? A. Yes. Q. You know that Mr. Jamal has filed a Petition for a new trial? A. Yes. Q. And have you and I met? A. Yes. Q. Okay. When, how many times have we met? A. Once. Q. Once. And when was that? A. Last Monday, I think it was Monday or Tuesday, I guess. Q. Of last week? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And you know Mr. Jamal, right? A. Yes. Q. And you knew him back in 1982? A. Yes, I did. Page 107. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Direct Q. Is that right? A. Yes. Q. And were you aware that back in 1982 he was charged with a crime here in Philadelphia? A. Yes, I was. Q. And you were aware that he went to trial? A. Yes. Q. On charges? A. Yes. Q. Right. Did you attend any of those proceedings, Mr. Hamilton? A. No, I did not. Q. You were aware that those proceedings were occurring at the time? A. Yes. Q. How did you know that they were occurring? A. Through the news and other past students that I had who also knew, students that went to school with Mumia who also knew that I was familiar with him, that I was keeping up with him, and the news, that's how I was aware. Q. Was there any impediment, any illness or anything that would have prevented you from coming to this Courthouse to testify had you been asked? A. None whatsoever. Page 108. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Direct Q. Would there have been any reluctance on your part to come in and testify on Mr. Jamal's behalf? A. None whatsoever. Q. Now, did you know the attorney who was appointed to represent Mr. Jamal? A. Just through I heard his name, who this was, yes.Q. His name was Mr. Jackson? A. Jackson, yes. Q. Okay. Had you had any discussions with Mr. Jackson or anybody affiliated with Mr. Jackson about the possibility of your testifying? A. No. Q. Nobody ever contacted you? A. No one. Q. Now, can you tell us when you first met Mr. Jamal? A. 1969, 1968. As a student of mine at Ben Franklin High School. Q. What class was that? A. History. Q. You were teaching history? A. Yes. Q. And he was a student? A. Yes. Page 109. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Direct Q. How long did it take you to take notice of him as a young, as an adolescent? A. The first day that we ever met. The first day of class. Q. The first day of class? A. Yes. Q. What was it about the first day of class, Mr. Hamilton, that made you aware of Mr. Jamal's presence? A. I was impressed by his intelligence, his sincerity, he was very well read for a young man of his age and he stood out as far as the rest of the class. Q. You could tell that on the first day? A. Absolutely. Q. Now, over the course of time as you were teaching history in that class, did your impression of him as a student change at all? A. No, it got, I was even more impressed as we got to know each other. Q. Can you share with us, Mr. Jackson, what kind of student he was? Mr. Hamilton, I'm sorry. A. Yes, he's very intelligent. You can see that he had been, that he was well-read. And outspoken. He voiced his opinions. His opinions were usually Page 110. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Direct based on facts. Which a lot of young people at his age, they have a lot of opinions but many of them are not basing it on what they read. And that stood out. And also we used to use Mumia, or it was Wesley then, as a student-mediator. Because in those days at Ben Franklin High School we used to have a lot of mobs with gangs and gang war. And Mumia was very good with his peers. And as a matter of fact, when we heard that there might be a gang problem, because Mumia lived in the area where one of those gangs came from, we used to use Mumia to help keep calm, and he had a very calming effect on his peers. Q. Now, you said that he was well-read? A. Yes. Q. As a teacher of high school students, do you feel that you're in a position to detect when a student is well-read? A. Yes. Q. What do you look for to determine whether a student is well-read? A. What they are basing their opinions and statements on. And just whether they make sense as far as experiences beyond their neighborhood and the things that are in the immediate environment. Page 111. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Direct Q. Did you have the benefit of reading any of Mr. Jamal's writings as a tenth grade student in your class? A. Yes. Q. What was the quality of his writing? A. Oh, excellent. You could see that this, he was different, he was someone that had a lot to offer. Q. A lot to offer. What do you mean by that? A. Well, he would impress his peers. Once again, especially the gang members, he could really make them feel bad about wanting to kill each other and beat each other up and things like that. He would put things on their minds. The same things we as adults do, but coming from their peers it would be more meaningful. Q. He was able to communicate with these gang members, as you described them, through words? A. Yes. Q. And you said that he was outspoken, you used the word outspoken? A. Yes. Q. That has many connotations. What was the kind of tone, tenor of his outspokenness? A. It was one of calming. And when I say Page 112. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Direct outspoken, unfortunately, many of my students, they're ashamed of good deeds. They are ashamed of speaking out and being known as someone that is good with words and has read. And when I say outspoken, Mumia has never been ashamed of that fact. He was proud of that. And that's one of the things that we try and work with to get many of our young people to be proud of those types of endeavors. Q. Now, you said that he had a skill in dealing with these gang members? A. Yeah. Q. Was that skill known to other faculty members at Ben Franklin? A. Yes. Q. Was it ever a subject of discussion? A. Yes. Q. Can you share that with us? A. Well, I was dean of students at that time. And I would have many meetings with the principal and vice-principal and other people in charge. And any time that I would bring up or one of them would bring up the fact that we thought Mumia might be able to help us again with one of these conciliatory jobs, there was never any doubt that's what we should do. Q. Wait a minute, Mr. Hamilton. You are saying Page 113. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Direct that teachers would meet and discuss using Mr. Jamal, a tenth-grade student, to help with some of the problems in the school? A. Yes. Q. Is that unusual? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever met a student quite like Mr. Jamal? A. Not quite like, but fortunately, because I have been there for so long, there have been a few of us who have come along like him. But there is a very small group. Q. It is a unique group? A. Yes. Q. A select group? A. Yes. Q. Now, speaking now about back when you were teaching him as a tenth-grade student, did you have expectations of him as a teacher? A. Yes. Q. To go on after graduating from high school? A. Yes. Q. What kind of expectations did you have of him? A. Well, college just seemed to be the natural progression. And when he showed interest in Page 114. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Direct journalism and those areas, doing some of the things that he accomplished on the radio, and in the news, and, well, we helped send him to Goddard to, you know, to pursue his journalistic skills. Q. Goddard is a post-high school institution? A. Yes. Q. Why did you believe that he would ultimately make a success of himself in this career choice of his? A. Because he, he was sincere, he was serious. You know, it was something that he really was going to work at and he had already proven to me that those types, those things that you really wanted to do like that, that he had the ability to accomplish them. Q. As a teacher, do you believe that discipline is an important quality in a student? A. Yes. Very important. Q. Did Mr. Jamal have that quality? A. Yes, he, he was able as begin as a young person, just the fact that he would spend as much time reading and discussing shows discipline that I wish that many more of my students would use in those areas. Q. When you remember teaching Mumia in a class, did Mr. Jamal ever ask questions or contribute Page 115. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Direct comments? A. Constantly. Q. Constantly? A. Yes. Q. How did the other students react to that? A. In the beginning there would be a murmur as to why doesn't he shut up like the rest of us. But after, you know, maybe a couple of days, then they would also be impressed and they would almost look forward to it. Sometimes I am not sure if they wanted to hear him or me. Q. Share with us if you can, Mr. Hamilton, how he related to those students? A. It would be in intellectual terms and in sharing with them many of the ideas out of his readings, and the fact that he was further advanced educationally than most of his peers and he was very willing to share in these ideas. And again it would, he had a calming, you know, his voice, his demeanor was very calming to the rest of his peers. Q. Did he ever appear to gloat over the fact that he had this intelligence? A. No, he was just very eager to share. Q. Now, what about Mr. Jamal's leadership qualities, did you get a sense as to whether he had Page 116. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Direct any innate abilities as a leader? A. Yes, very much so. Because usually the, the leaders of that age group, as unfortunately many of the young people that come from Mumia's neighborhood, the leaders aren't positive. So that's the reason. And they don't get away with -- there might be other young leaders of young people in a positive way, but they didn't have the skills to get away with it. And that was what made me realize that Mumia was a very strong, you know, leader and someone who could gain respect through education. Q. Are there any examples, Mr. Hamilton, that could illustrate what you are saying, that he had these abilities as a leader? A. The fact that he could talk gang members out of a gang war. And the fact that he was overwhelmingly elected the president of our school, so. Q. Mr. Jamal was elected president of the school? A. Yes. Q. Did he perform in that role at the school? A. Yes. Q. And how did he perform as the president of the school? A. Very strong. And, again, someone who the Page 117. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Direct students knew that through, by following him, they, the administration would also be, it was a good, it was a good combination. Q. Was the administration satisfied with him as the president of the school? A. Yes. Q. Did he ever give any speeches as the president of the school? A. Yes. Q. How did he give those speeches? A. Dynamic. Because he's a good speaker. Usually, you know, in our student leader and faculty meetings he was able to get the program and/or things that we wanted across over to the young people. Q. Was there anything in your experience with Mr. Jamal that would lead you to believe that he is a violent person or has a tendency towards violence? A. No. Q. Would you say that everything you have known about this man and his relationship to humanity points in the opposite direction, would you agree with that? A. I don't understand. Q. Would you agree that everything that you know about him and his relationship to humanity at large Page 118. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Direct points in the opposite direction, away from violence, would you agree with that? A. Yes, yes. Q. Mr. Hamilton, do you only know Mr. Mumia in your capacity as a teacher in his history class? A. No. Q. How else do you know him? A. We became friends. Q. You did? A. Yes. Q. When did you start developing a friendship with him? A. Class and a friendship too and it lasted. Based mainly, I would say, without us really being together. By that I mean we developed a friendship that is the kind of friendship we don't have to really see each other to know that we're thinking and we're friends. Q. There is just that kind of special bond that people could have? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever associate with Mr. Jamal outside of the classroom? A. Yes. Q. Outside of the schoolyard? Page 119. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Direct A. Yes. Q. What kind of, can you tell us about that? A. We would go to meetings, African-American awareness programs and things like that. We would discuss various issues. And this was after he -- Q. After he left your class? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. And in your experience, experiences with Mr. Jamal, did you get a sense of what he found important in life? A. Yes. Q. What kind of things from your perspective did he find important in life? A. Humanity. And people just getting along with one another and understanding one another. And also African Americans especially becoming aware of our history and those types of things. Q. Did Mr. Jamal have an interest in politics? A. Yes. Q. When did that manifest itself, in your experience with him? A. I would say as a young student. Q. As a student in your class? A. Yes. Q. Is that unusual, for a tenth grader to have an Page 120. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Direct interest in politics? A. In those days, no. Q. That was the climate that he lived in? A. Yes. Q. What about his dedication to his home community, to Philadelphia and to Philadelphians? A. Oh, very much so. Q. He had a strong dedication to that? A. Yes. Q. How did that show itself? A. In his willingness to attend meetings and lead student workshops and those things. And he never got paid. Q. He never got what? A. Paid. A salary. And was always willing and able to participate whenever asked. Q. Would you say that one of his outstanding qualities is the fact that he is a sharing person? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever seen his relationship with his family? A. Yes. Q. How did you get to see that? A. Well, because we had a relationship beyond -- excuse me -- beyond the classroom. Sometimes I would Page 121. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Direct even take him home or go home with him after some of these meetings, and I was very impressed with his relationship with his mother and his entire family. Q. What impressed you about his relationship with his mother? A. Well, again, a lot of young people at his age I didn't think had feeling or -- he wanted to help and he did help and he tried to help. Because just before I met him his father died and it seemed as though he took it on himself to fill the void that was left in the family to help his mother. Because of what had happened. Q. Is Mr. Jamal the kind of person who could express his emotions to other people? A. Yes. Which is also unusual for, at that point at that time Ben Franklin only had males. And that was very unusual for a young male to be able to show that. Q. And Mr. Jamal was different in that respect? A. Yes. Q. What about the showing of his emotions towards his mother? A. Yes. Q. It was apparent to anybody who witnessed it? A. Yes. Page 122. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Direct Q. Did you know that he had a twin brother? A. Yes. He attended Ben Franklin High School. Q. Ahh, so you knew his twin brother? A. Yes. Q. Do you know what kind of relationship he had with his twin brother? A. Yes. Q. Tell us about it? A. He was helpful, supportive. Again, he was more well-read and he had more of an interest, Mumia had more of an interest in school and education than his twin brother. And he would try and help and share. (Discussion was held off the record at this time among defense Counsel.) BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Did you know that his twin brother went on to a career in the military? A. Yes. Q. And do you know that he was successful in his endeavors? A. Yes. Q. And yet you are saying, in your opinion -- and I know it is subjective -- but is Mr. Jamal more talented? Page 123. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Direct A. Educationally -- Q. Educationally speaking, yes. A. Yes. Q. And as a teacher looking at the two twin brothers, did you have a sense as to who had more potential to success? I know that is a difficult question, but as a teacher. A. Well, in education, in academia. Q. Yes. A. I would say Mumia. Q. Mumia did? A. In academia, yeah. Q. And did he, besides the intellectual capacity, the intellectual appetite that would lead towards success, did he have other characteristics that are important to success in life? A. Well, he was, Mumia seems, just in knowing both of them, was more capable of showing his feelings and emotions and his love. And I think sometimes it might even have irritated his brother sometimes. Q. Was there any competition between the two? A. Ahh, the normal as twins, yeah, the normal competition between siblings, yes. (Discussion was held off the record at this time among Defense counsel.) Page 124. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Direct BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Now, you knew that the baby of the family was Billy Cook? A. Yes; he also attended Ben Franklin High School. Q. Did you have the opportunity to see how Mr. Jamal related with the baby of the family? A. Yes; Mumia took the position of his father. Q. He did? A. And the younger one, Mumia was already out of school, and Mumia used to be the parent who would come to school. Maybe because he was the youngest, Billy developed an attendance problem. And when I got word to Mumia, Mumia was there instantly to try and find out how we could solve this problem of his younger problem not coming to school. Q. In much the same way that a concerned parent would? A. Yes. Q. By the way, do you recognize the name Charles Tomczak? A. As a student at Ben Franklin High School, yes. Q. Was he white or was he an African American? A. He was white. Page 125. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Direct Q. Why is it that you could recognize his name? A. Because I think in my 30 years, I think we've had four white students. Q. Is there anything in your entire experience with Mr. Jamal that would give you any hesitation to testify in front of a penalty-phase Jury as you have just done? A. None. MR. GRANT: One moment, Mr. Hamilton. (Discussion was held off the record at this time among Defense Counsel.) BY MR. GRANT: Q. I'm sorry, let me go back to Mr. Tomczak, Charles Tomczak, who was a student at Ben Franklin. A. Yes. Q. Do you remember if he was a student at around the time that Mr. Jamal was a student? A. Now, I can't, I can't say, I've had a lot. Q. A lot of students? A. I have had a lot of students. Around... In the late '60s or early '7Os, somewhere in there, but I couldn't say exact. Q. Okay. Is it at least possible, then, in the four-years that there would have been some overlap? A. Yeah. Page 126. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Direct MR. GRANT: Objection as to what is possible, Your Honor. Move to strike the answer. MR. WILLIAMS: Is Your Honor granting the objection? THE COURT: What was that objection? I couldn't hear you. MR. GRANT: He asked the witness is it possible that another student who attended the school possibly may have known Mr. Jamal. I am moving to strike it as speculative. THE COURT: Well, I will have to sustain that. That is real speculative. Anything is possible. BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. When Mr. Jamal was a student at Benjamin Franklin, was he a well-known student? A. Yes. (Discussion was held off the record at this time among Defense Counsel.) MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, just for the record: I have made reference to a name Charles Tomczak with the witness. And he is or was a member of the Jury during the trial, the guilt phase and the penalty phase. I just note Page 127. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Cross it for the record for the benefit of Your Honor. Your witness. - - - - - CROSS-EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MR. GRANT: Q. Good morning, Mr. Hamilton. A. Good morning. Q. Did Mr. Jamal graduate from Benjamin Franklin? A. No. Q. Where did he graduate from, if you know? A. He took a G.E.D. MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I'm sorry to interrupt. Just if I may through the Court request that Mr. Grant speak a little louder for the Court. THE COURT: He wants you to speak a little louder. Oh, you. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Grant, he doesn't have the microphone. THE COURT: If you have any influence on that crowd, it would be good if you just talk to them. MR. WILLIAMS: I understand. Page 128. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Cross BY MR. GRANT: Q. Mr. Jamal dropped out of school? A. Yes. Q. What grade, sir? A. The eleventh or twelfth. Q. And though he dropped out of school he had other high school teachers at Benjamin Franklin High School, I presume? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever confer with them or discuss Mr. Jamal with these other teachers? A. Yes. Q. And do you know if even one of them testified at the murder trial that occurred in 1982? A. Did I know -- 1 don't think any teacher from Benjamin Franklin or any other representative of Benjamin Franklin High School participated in that trial. Q. And would it be fair to say based on your knowledge of those teachers and Mr. Jamal's interaction with them, that all of them would have come to Court and testified on his behalf? A. No, I don't know if all -- I don't know. Q. Okay. Of the ones that you came in contact with and with whom you discussed Mr. Jamal? A. Oh, yes. Page 129. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Cross Q. Okay. And do you know whether you contacted Mr. Anthony Jackson to let him know of your sentiments and that you wished to testify for Mr. Jamal? A. Did I contact Mr. Jackson? Q. Yes. A. No, but I did ask another person to ask Mr. Jackson if I or anyone else were needed. Q. Who was that, sir? A. His name is Ron White. Q. Ron White? A. Yes. Q. Attorney Ron White? A. Yes. Q. Did he ever get back to you? Mr. White, that is. A. No, as to what happened when he talked to Mr. Jackson, no. Q. You are assuming that he talked to Mr. Jackson? A. He told me he talked to Mr. Jackson. Q. And did he say what his response was? A. No, he just said because he is an attorney just -- oh, no, I don't know what the response was. Q. Did you ever visit Mr. Jamal while he was Page 130. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Cross awaiting trial on the murder charges? A. No. Q. Did you ever contact him by phone or any other medium of communication? A. No. But again, I did speak to Mr. White as to if I would be needed or I was available or if anyone else was. Q. Mr. Jamal knew where you lived, did he not? A. Yeah. Q. And he knew how to get in touch with you if he needed you, right? A. I -- yes. Q. Did he get in touch with you asking you to be a witness for him? A. At that point, no. Q. Where is Goddard, sir, and what is Goddard? A. It's a, it's in Massachusetts. Connecticut. It's in New England. Q. Okay. A. It is a university for what I guess is a standard university but also is for, we got Mumia in because he could take an entrance exam without having a problem. Q. I see. It is a four-year institution, is it not? Page 131. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Cross A. Yes. Q. Mr. Jamal did not graduate from Goddard, did he? A. I don't think so. Q. Now, you knew his brother. Billy Cook? A. Yes. Q. The baby of the family? A. Yes. Q. And you knew his twin brother Wayne? A. Yes. Q. Wayne, Wesley? A. Yes. Q. That's how you knew him, right? A. Yes. Q. And you indicated that Mr. Jamal had a paternal instinct when it came to the baby of the family, as he did for all his siblings, because he was -- A. I know his support for Billy and Wayne. Q. In what way, sir? A. When you said paternal. Q. And when you say you noticed it more for Billy, in what way did it manifest itself? I know it is a difficult question, if you could answer it. A. Okay, again, I mentioned that he showed up as Page 132. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Cross his family member when there was a problem or when he needed to see a parent. He went and visited his other teachers other than me to find out what work was missing and how Billy could begin to pass and be on schedule as far as his education is concerned. Q. To your knowledge, did Billy have any problems physically with the other boys in the school, that he would get in fights? A. Not that I could remember, no. Not to my knowledge. Q. Do you ever recall Mr. Jamal coming to his defense in a situation that may have resulted in physical violence? A. No. Q. And you found out about the murder trial from news accounts and student gossip, so to speak? A. Yes. Q. And you did not attend one of the proceedings? A. No. Q. And you did not attend the penalty phase of the hearings? A. No. One of the, well, in following this in the press and being interested and concerned, I didn't even know if I could get in. There was a lot of commotion. Page 133. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Redirect Q. Yes. Like today. A. Yes. Q. So you didn't attend? A. They didn't want to let me in today. Q. I understand that. So you didn't attend the preliminary hearing either? A. No. Q. And you didn't attend the bail hearing? A. No. Q. And you didn't go to the homicide calendar room? A. The...? Q. Homicide calendar room. It is a courtroom like this but they don't have trials. A. No, no. Q. They schedule the cases to go to trial. A. No, no. MR. GRANT: Thank you very much, Mr. Hamilton. THE WITNESS: Okay. - - - - - REDIRECT EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Mr. Hamilton, very briefly. You mentioned Page 134. Kenneth Hamilton, Jr. - Redirect that Mr. Jamal dropped out of school. A. Yes. Q. Did that indicate to you an inability to do the work in the school? A. None whatsoever. Q. What did it, what did it tell you about Mr. Jamal, the fact that he dropped out of Benjamin Franklin? A. In discussing and talking to him, he was so sincere about many of the things that he wanted to help people with that he thought at that point it was more important than to finish his education. And I think also that he thought that it would be kind of easy to make it up, because he, you know, that he was ahead of the rest of the students. Q. Did you ever meet people who believe that the world was their classroom? A. Yes. Q. Was Mr. Jamal that type of person? A. Yes. Q. Now going back to 1982, where -- MR. WILLIAMS: Withdrawn. No further questions. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. MR. GRANT: I have no redirect. Thank you, sir. Page 135. THE COURT: Okay. All right, I think this may be a good spot to recess for lunch until... MR. GRANT: We may have -- THE COURT: 2:15. MR. GRANT: Do you think we could have a short lunch today, Your Honor, because there are so many witnesses who are not affiants I have a feeling that we won't be able to reach the witnesses that we should in order to get this thing done. THE COURT: All right, two o'clock. If it's all right with you it's all right with me. MR. GRANT: Very well, Your Honor. THE COURT OFFICER: This Court now stands for a luncheon recess until 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. - - - - - (Luncheon recess was held until 2:40 p.m.) - - - - - THE COURT: Good afternoon, everyone. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, before we proceed with the next witness I have a couple Page 136. of small matters. Not so small matters, actually. First of all, I want to indicate to the Court that an attorney from the City Solicitor's Office was here this morning and she was prepared to turn over a copy of the Medical Examiner's file per the subpoena that was served on them. However, Mr. Grant, I'm told, refused to participate in that and we're going to be taking it up, therefore, with arguments later this afternoon when they return. So I want to indicate to the Court that we will have to interrupt the witnesses in order to hear whatever argument there is going to be on that subpoena as well as an answer to the various police subpoenas. I am also told the attorney from the City is going, or the Police Department will be returning this afternoon to deal with that. Okay, then the next matter, Your Honor, is the question of Jeannette Patton sitting at Counsel's table. I want to correct Your Honor's statement about Jeanette Patton creating a disturbance during Mr. Jamal's trial. As a matter of fact -- Page 137. THE COURT: I am talking about the first trial, not this trial. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: I understand that, I want to correct that misrepresentation. Miss Patton was never ejected from this Courtroom. She never caused a disruption. She was in fact assigned by yourself to be a legal runner for Mr. Jamal and never once was she involved in any disruption of the Court proceedings. THE COURT: Okay, the next witness. MR. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. WILLIAMS: The Petitioner now calls to the stand Lydia Wallace. - - - - - Lydia Wallace, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: - - - - - MR. WILLIAMS: May I inquire, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. - - - - - DIRECT EXAMINATION Page 138. Lydia Wallace - Direct - - - - - BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Good afternoon, Miss Wallace. A. Good afternoon. Q. Do you live here in the City of Philadelphia, Miss Wallace? A. Yes, I do, I live in the East Mount Airy section of Philadelphia. Q. How long have you lived in Philadelphia? A. All of my life. Q. And are you a working woman? I mean do you work? A. I better, yes. I do. Q. How are you employed? A. I am a licensed practical nurse and I am also a director of social services for mentally retarded and mentally ill. Q. How long have you been working in that area? A. I have been working with the mentally ill and mentally retarded since 1988. Prior to that I did practical nursing for about 12 years. Q. Can you tell us a little bit about your educational background? A. Sure. I graduated from the Board of Education School of Nursing and I worked at nursing for a few Page 139. Lydia Wallace - Direct years and I decided that I wanted to do a little more. I went back to school, to Antioch University. I got a BA degree in human services and administration. I am also certified in fitness and nutrition. Q. Are you a member of any community organizations? A. Any what kind of organization? Q. Community organizations. Or professional organization. A. I am on the board of directors of the Philadelphia Black Womens' Health Group Project and treasurer. I have been a Democratic committeewoman for the past several years, until I moved recently where I am now. And I am not affiliated in my community where I am but I will be. Q. And now you are aware this proceeding concerns a Petition that has been filed by Mr. Jamal for a new trial. A. Yes, I understand that. Q. All right. And have you consulted with any members of Petitioner's legal team in connection with testifying today? A. I met with you twice and that was to tell me what was going to happen, what kind of proceedings Page 140. Lydia Wallace - Direct this was. And how I could be utilized in the procedure. Q. Okay. Do you remember how many times you met with me, Miss Wallace? A. Twice. Q. Do you remember when you met with me? A. Umm, I met you last night and I met with you one day last week, I can't remember the exact day. Q. Fair enough. Did you also sign an affidavit that was used in connection with this Petition? A. Yes. I signed that affidavit more than likely, yes. Q. You had dealings with Mr. Weinglass in executing that affidavit? A. Yes, I did. Hmm-hmm. Q. By the way, have you had occasions to review that affidavit? A. Yes, you sent me a copy of it so I would, you know, know -- well, I wrote it. Once I had it notarized and sent to him, he sent me a copy. Q. Okay. The completed, executed draft? A. That's correct. Q. Now, Miss Wallace, do you know this man sitting here (indicating)? A. Sure; that's my kid brother Mumia. Page 141. Lydia Wallace - Direct Q. That's your brother? A. Yeah. Q. So obviously you knew him back in 1982? A. Definitely, yeah. Q. Were you aware that your brother was under indictment in 1982? A. Yes, I was. Q. How did you become aware of that? A. Well, I was here during the trial. I sat through the trial and everything so I knew what was going on. I had occasion to speak with Tony Jackson. My family has been involved all along, so I knew what was going on. Q. You mentioned Tony Jackson. Who is Tony Jackson? A. He was a Court-appointed attorney that Mumia had in 1982. Q. Did you know him personally? A. Umm, I had the occasion to talk with him, like after Court sessions. He also visited my mother's home to speak with my mother on a few occasions. And I had an opportunity to interact with him, yes. Q. By the way, is your mother still living? A. No, my mother died in February of 1990. Q. Did your mother attend any of the proceedings? Page 142. Lydia Wallace - Direct A. Yes, my mother and I, I pretty much came with my mother because she was ill at the time. For myself also but she attended everyday. And I attended almost everyday, because I had to work on some occasions, but she was here. Q. And while you were here in Court during those proceedings, did you have any opportunities to discuss the proceedings or what was happening in the proceedings with Mr. Jackson? A. On occasion Mr. Jackson would talk to us after the Court had dismissed for the day. And he would pull us aside and try to explain to us what had happened that day in case we didn't understand the legal proceedings or the legal jargon. Because this was our first time of being in a courtroom so we didn't understand everything that was going on and he would explain to us what was happening. Q. So, Miss Wallace, is it fair to say that you relied to a large extent on Mr. Jackson's explanations to help you understand what was happening on a daily basis? A. Definitely, because we just did not understand what was going on in the Courtroom. More especially the jargon and just how things transpired during the day. Page 143. Lydia Wallace - Direct Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever explain to you that in a capital case, that is in a death penalty case, that the trial is divided into two phases, a guilt phase and a penalty phase? A. Yes, he did explain that to us. Q. And did he explain to you after a guilt phase, if there is a finding of guilt on a murder count, that the case would then proceed to a penalty phase, did he explain that to you? A. Yes, he did. Q. Okay. And did he explain to you what was involved in a penalty phase? A. I, I don't remember him really detailing it, I can't recall. Q. Do you remember any discussions along the lines that there would be testimony at a penalty phase? A. No, I don't remember hearing that. Q. Now, I take it because you were present at much of the proceedings that you were available to testify at a penalty phase proceeding if you had been asked; is that right? A. Oh, definitely. I was there, I was willing to do whatever I could do. I was never asked. Q. As you sit here today, is there anything that Page 144. Lydia Wallace - Direct as far as you can tell would have prevented you from testifying or would have made you reluctant to testify? A. Heck, no. Excuse me. No. Q. And did Mr. Jackson at any point approach you or your mother about testifying at the penalty phase? A. He didn't, he never approached me. I can not say that he approached my mother, but my mother never discussed that with me, that he did or he didn't. Q. In any event, he never approached you? A. No. Q. He never discussed with you the possibility of testifying, did he? A. No. Q. By the way, did you ever have any role in the proceedings other than as an observer? A. No, I was always just an observer. Q. Now let me move on to questions about the Cook family, okay. Can you explain to us what was the structure of the Cook family? For the record: The Cook family is the family of Mumia Abu-Jamal. A. My stepfather and mother. I have five brothers, I have one older than myself. One brother. Younger than me, the twins, which included Mumia, and Page 145. Lydia Wallace - Direct the baby brother. Q. And the baby brother is Billy Cook? A. Billy. Q. And then the next in age is Mumia? A. Is Mumia. His twin. Q. His twin is Wayne? A. His twin is Wayne, yes. Q. What is Wayne doing now? A. Wayne is a career serviceman. He's out of the States right now. Has been for all of the time this has been going on. He's been in the military. And then our oldest brother is in the military, has been, now he is a retired sergeant. And they haven't been here. Q. I want to direct your attention to when Mumia was a child, okay. How would you characterize during that time period in his life the closeness of the family? Do you understand what I'm asking? A. You say as children? Q. Yes, the children and your relationship with your parents among yourselves, how would you characterize the family? A. Well, we, we were, I guess you would call us a typical family. We lived in public housing. Low income family. Very Southern Baptist mother, very Page 146. Lydia Wallace - Direct strict. We had to be in the house by eight o'clock. We weren't allowed to go outside the boundaries of the public housing until we got a certain age. We had dinner at five o'clock every night. Dishes had to be done by six o'clock. You know, very, very strict. My mother, the neighbors would tell you my mother would come to the door and holler out her children's name in order and call them in. And we would just take our baths one at a time as long as the water would stay hot. The rest of us would watch TV while everybody took a bath. But we usually were in bed by 9:30, ten o'clock at night. Mom was pretty, she was a spiritual woman, she was a real straight Southern Baptist woman. Most of the time, maybe I had some girls sitting on the front step. I guess you would say, if I had to compare it to some of the families I worked for, today we would be pretty nerdy. Q. Pretty nerdy? A. Yeah, just a normal family. Q. I hear you saying that it was kind of a regimented lifestyle? A. Oh, real structured. I mean, you know, like Mom was involved in neighborhood things, like she was Page 147. Lydia Wallace - Direct in PTA. We also belonged to the Friends Neighborhood Guild, which was a Quaker organization that offered social activities for the neighborhood. Mom would go to pottery classes and sewing classes and we would go to TV classes or Cub Scouts. We were involved in neighborhood kinds of things. My mother was, she was a poll watcher and Judge of Elections and, you know, she got involved in everything in the neighborhood. So we were really watched and nurtured by the neighborhood people. Q. Did your younger brother during his early years in life ever rebel against this regimentation, the oversight that your mom provided to the children? A. No, you didn't rebel against Edith. You didn't play that game. No, we didn't do that. We would never think about rebelling against parents, it's just, you just didn't do that. Q. Now, you mentioned, I think I heard it right, you said that your mother was active with the Friends Neighborhood Guild. Is that -- A. It is a Quaker organization located at 8th and Fairmount Avenue and they have a lot of social activities, like arts class. Art classes, pottery classes, sewing classes. When I got older I taught a teen class in aerobics and sewing. You know, it was Page 148. Lydia Wallace - Direct a neighborhood community center. You did a lot of things out of there. Q. And was Mumia involved at all with this Quaker organization? A. Yeah, we all, we all grew up through that. I remember Mumia used to go out to art classes. They also had a library there, there was a librarian named Mrs. Hurley. And he used to spend a lot of time over there in the library. He spent a lot of time reading during that time. Q. During your exposure to this organization, the Friends Neighborhood Guild, did you come to understand what, what Quakers were all about? A. No, they didn't too much -- I guess a lot of the people that were on the board of directors were Quakers. They didn't as much interact with us. They had program people that came in and taught the classes. So I don't think, except for the Quakers that lived in the neighborhood and were on the board of directors, we didn't have that much interaction with Quakers. It was a United Way agency, funded agency. So we didn't have that much interaction with them, except the ones that lived in the neighborhood. Q. Did Mumia seem to enjoy spending time there as a child? Page 149. Lydia Wallace - Direct A. We all did. You know, that was our life. We lived in public housing and outside of public housing there was this guild; that was our only occupation besides 4th and Fairmount, which would be a Department of Recreation swimming pool. And we would go down there. But we weren't allowed outside of that boundary of our neighborhood. Q. Now I want to ask you to try to share with us how Mumia related to you and his brothers. Was he very close to his siblings? A. Oh, yeah. I often, I often felt like Mumia was very close to me. He hates to admit it but I used to change his diapers so he was like my little kid. Until they got too big, and then I had to switch him off to my oldest brother, I couldn't carry him anymore. So we had a real special relationship, you know, he was my baby. Wherever we went, my oldest brother and I, I wanted to take our twin. As we got older Mumia became like, umm, an advisor for us. And we were older, older than him. But his knowledge base and his interests in things outside of the public housing made us, you know, listen to him a little more. He would always talk to his brothers real soft. Real sensitive. Mumia was very, very Page 150. Lydia Wallace - Direct sensitive. If his brothers got into arguments among themselves, he would be the peacemaker. He was a real sensitive kind of kid. He wouldn't lie. He wouldn't lie. He used to get us in a lot of trouble. Sometimes we would be doing something we had no business as children to do. And we would all get in a corner and say well, we going, we going to tell mom that we did this, we did that. And everybody said yeah, this is the lie, this is what we are going to tell. Not Mumia. He'd get us beaten every time. He would not do that, he just wouldn't hang with the crowd. Q. In your family how important was doing well in school? A. How was what? Q. Doing well in school? A. Oh, gosh. My stepfather used to at night sit us down at the table and make us go over our homework. And one of the things that he was real particular about was us like learning like the times tables. I used to dislike him a lot for that because he would just hammer in your head you need to learn these times tables or you're not going to make it in this world, get this in your head, how much is 2 Page 151. Lydia Wallace - Direct times 6, and you have to recite all this stuff. And of course we learned it and of course at that time we were like who needs it. But we had structured time after dinner we had to sit down and do our homework. Mom was, as I said, really on the PTA, so she was always in school checking on us, making sure we were doing what we were supposed to do. And everybody knew Mom, so if we did wrong they would tell her. Q. What kind of relationship did your brother have with your mother? A. Mumia? Q. Yeah. A. Oh. Mumia was loving. He was loving towards all of us. But he was very loving towards my mother. He, he adored my mother, I guess, if that's the word I would, you know. He would never come in the house without hugging and kissing her. He was always bringing her things, like bean sprouts and fresh vegetables and fresh fruit, because he was always concerned about her health. But, always bringing her gifts, berry gifts and things like that. He was always just very loving. Q. You said he always greeted your mother with a hug and a kiss. Did he greet other people like that? A. Yes, as we got older, being the only girl out Page 152. Lydia Wallace - Direct of the whole family, my mom and I might be sitting in the kitchen talking, Mom and myself, and one of her neighbors would be sitting in the kitchen talking, and Mumia would come in, he would hug Mom and kiss her, and we also would get a hug and a kiss. He was a real emotional, real whooshy, real mushy, very emotional. Q. Just for the benefit of the record: Could you describe what you mean by mushy? A. Oh, you know, like teenage kids, you know, they don't -- c'mon, you know, c'mon with the kissing, come off with the hugging. But he was like I loves you, sis, I loves you, that's why I'm hugging you. He would just jokingly tell you why he was hugging and kissing you. He would always like to touch. He was like a people kind of person around the family, even around the neighbors. Q. So he was the kind of person, if I am hearing you right, that was not afraid to show his affections? A. He always did, he was always very affectionate. Q. I want to direct your attention to before he was a teenager, when he was a child. What stands out in your mind about his characteristics as a child? Page 153. Lydia Wallace - Direct A. Mumia liked to read so much. He read everything. If you didn't want him to read it you better not leave it sitting around. Because he's read it and gone. He was, I guess the word I would use is spiritual. He was very curious. He would, he would, umm... when he was, I guess he was elementary school age and we used to go a block away to the elementary school. That was one of our boundaries, going east. And there was a Jewish synagogue, there was a missionary church, there was a Catholic church, there were all kinds of churches around. And I recall Mumia going to these churches, visiting the rabbis and priests and ministers and all that stuff, questioning them about religious things. He would always talk to the older people in our neighborhood, talk to them about religious things. So we always said well, he's just spiritual, you know. And I guess that had a lot to do with our upbringing at home also. But Mumia read everything that he could read about religion, he read everything he could read as far as newspapers and books. He pretty much stayed to himself in reading and studying, and trying to know the world around him. Q. And this is even at a very young age you are Page 154. Lydia Wallace - Direct describing him? A. Oh, he was elementary school age. Q. I'm sorry? A. He was elementary school age when I recall him doing this. Q. And when he grew into adolescence, did those attributes at all change or did he transform himself? A. Oh, no, he was just more of what he was: Quiet, loving, sensitive. He was just a man. He was better able to deal with these things than an elementary school kid. I guess, I guess he was more convicted in what he read and knew. He was stronger about those things. His knowledge. I guess that's the way I would put it. But he never changed. He was always, you know, spiritual. Q. As he grew into adolescence, what was your impression about the power of his intellect? Was he an intelligent young man? A. Well, we used to think he was a nerd. We used to think he was a square because he just, he just knew so much. And we didn't, we didn't, we didn't disbelieve him, because if he told you something, if he told you the sun was shining, he could give you evidence, he could give you facts. He could give you enough facts that if the sun was actually purple he Page 155. Lydia Wallace - Direct could convince you that it was green. But he had enough knowledge that we never questioned what he told us. He loved going to school, he loved learning, so we knew he knew what he was talking about. He was the knowledgeable one. The wise maker. So he was always learning and teaching and we respected that. Q. What kind of relationship during his adolescent years did he have with his twin brother Wayne? A. Ahh, very loving. Very protective. The difference between he and Wayne is he was physically bigger. Q. You are talking about Mumia now? A. The difference between Mumia and Wayne, Mumia was physically bigger than Wayne. Mumia was more outgoing than Wayne. Mumia had more, I guess you could say, academic skills than Wayne. So he was very protective of Wayne. Very nurturing of Wayne. Like bringing his baby brother along. Wayne was just not up to the same level that Mumia was. Q. And what about your brother's relationship to Billy? A. They had more, they had a more playful relationship as they were teenagers. They did more Page 156. Lydia Wallace - Direct playful things together. Like Bill used to work downtown, he was a street vendor. And they would be downtown together, maybe hanging out, you know. It was more loose than Wayne. He was more protective of his twin. But Bill and he were like closer, in my eyes. Q. You mentioned that he had took a very early interest in spiritual matters? A. Hmm-hmm. Q. Did he continue to have that interest as he got older, when he was a teenager? A. Yes, his curiosity about spiritual things increased. And I guess when you say spiritual things we have to talk about love, you have to talk about being sensitive to other people and emotion. Like if we were watching a TV show or something, and something would happen where someone was oppressed or something negative happened, he would be really outraged about that. He felt that even a roach had a right to live. He, he always expressed equal rights for people and fairness, fairness and justice and those kinds of things. I don't know if you would call those things spiritual. In my sense they are. Q. Hmm-hmm. Well, you mentioned that he had this sensitivity towards the right of all things to live. Page 157. Lydia Wallace - Direct Did that have anything to do with, did his dietary habits at all reflect what you have just described? A. Oh. I guess when Mumia was about 14, 15 years old, he started realizing what he was eating. He just became aware of the foods and stuff that he was eating. We were still eating pork chops and, you know, all that kind of stuff. But Mumia stopped. I'm not going to say I know that he stopped because he didn't want to kill animals because that was bothering him, but that was my sense the way he came to eat more healthful, more vegetarian. He was a vegetarian, he ate more healthful foods. But knowing his character about killing things, he probably, that was probably how he came to be a vegetarian. I'm not going to say that's the fact, but. Q. That is your feeling? A. That's just my feeling. Q. And your sense in observing him? A. Yes. Q. You used the term -- and I wrote it down here -- you used the term aware. You said that he was aware. Now, would you agree with me that sometimes you meet somebody and they just seem to be more aware of their surroundings or the world they live in, would you agree some people are just more Page 158. Lydia Wallace - Direct tuned in to what's going on around them? A. The whole time that we were growing up we were more interested in what was going on in the house and confines. Our interest didn't go outside the complex. We were interested in who was having a baby. Joke and roll, you know, that kind of stuff. But Mumia was more interested in other things. I can't say all of the things that he was interested in, but he could play with us for awhile but then he would go and watch TV or listen to the radio or read a book, or do his homework, for that matter. But he was interested in other things just different than what we were. Q. What about when he began to develop intellectually as a young adult: Did he seem to exhibit a certain awareness about the world around him? A. Oh, he was always interested. I don't know whether his interest in journalism came before his interest in the world. I don't, I don't know which came first. So I don't know if he was being watchful because he wanted to be a journalist or try to figure out how to do that kind of stuff, I don't know that. But I know he always watched and listened to the news. And he always discussed it with my mother or Page 159. Lydia Wallace - Direct any adult that was around to feed his curiosity. Q. Would it be accurate to say that even as an adolescent Mr. Jamal was an idealistic person? Do you know what I mean by that: Idealistic? A. No. Q. Well, did he, let me put it this way: Did he during those young adult years express concerns about the welfare of other human beings in his community and in the larger community as a whole? A. Ahh, that started at home. Like right in the complex. That started at home in our house. Like we need to care about each other, make sure that each others' well-beings are looked after. Then that extended to our extended family. So Mumia was always interested and concerned about the well-being of the complex, the larger community. He liked being out in the community with people. He liked being with people. So he was concerned about whether we had good housing or being well fed or whether the neighborhood's kids had food or something like that. He was always concerned about the community. Q. When he went into adulthood and become a journalist, did you still maintain contact with him? A. Yes, I had gotten married and left home and we still, we always came home. We come home for Page 160. Lydia Wallace - Direct Christmas, Thanksgiving dinner, to my mother's house. Or one of us would host it at our home. But we always stayed together. When a baby was born the family came together. And Mumia's named a lot of babies in the family, because it was like a special event for all of us to come together. Q. Did he have a role in naming any of your children, Mrs. Wallace? A. Yes, he named my son. Q. He did? A. Yes. Q. Did he have a chance to have a relationship with that son of yours? A. The youngest son, he didn't have as much time. He was gone during the later years. But my son was like 3 or 4 years old when this happened. So he didn't get to spend a lot of time. Q. Now, are you aware, or were you aware what kind of journalism he practiced? A. Well, when Mu started writing he used to talk about reporters being objective reporters. Reporting the truth. When I started listening to him on the radio, I remember him talking about things that interested me. Like things in the black people, in our community, things that were going on with our Page 161. Lydia Wallace - Direct representatives, the things that were going on in the black clergy, things that would interest the black community. He was more focused on making them aware of what was going on in the world. Even though I do remember him reporting on things in other countries. But I guess by nature of the stations that he worked for, it was more things of the community interest. Q. What was the feeling among the family, your mother and yourself and your brothers, about his being a journalist? A. We were proud of him. We were real, real proud of him. It used to be really typical because my girlfriends all wanted to meet him because they thought he had this real sexy voice and they wanted to see what he looked like. We were really proud. He wasn't boastful about what he was doing but he was proud about being able to do something and make money at it, doing something that he enjoyed. So we were really like, you know, go for it, we were really proud of him. My mother was ecstatic. Q. Did you get a sense -- you have listened to some of his radio broadcasts? A. Yes, I have. Q. And in listening to him as a broadcast journalist, and in just knowing him as your brother, Page 162. Lydia Wallace - Direct did you get a sense, Miss Wallace, of what motivated him as a journalist, what drove him in his wanting to develop his craft as a journalist? A. I would guess it is his concern for people. He cared about people. He wanted, he wanted everyone to have a fair shake. And he, he was good at English so he would always get annoyed when, you know, journalists or people used the wrong words to, to paint pictures or paint scenarios and that kind of thing. So he, you know, he was about fairness, he was sensitive to the peoples' plight, hardship, oppression. I really think that was, that was just my guess. That's what I felt from listening to him. Q. Now, you described a close family while your brother was a child and while he was in his teenage years. What about while he was an adult, was he still close with your mother? A. We were, we were and are still close, very close until my mother died. As a matter of fact, we were very concerned about Mumia when my mother died because he was incarcerated at that time. Q. Well, what about back in 1981 and around that time period, was he still close to the family? Page 163. Lydia Wallace - Direct A. Oh, yes. We were all still, we are still to today very close. As we are allowed to be with Mumia, we are still very close with him and the other family. Even though geographically we are separated, my phone bill will tell you that we are still connecting. As a matter of fact, last weekend, the weekend before last I had a family reunion at my home and everyone was there and we were still doing our thing, you know. Q. Did Mr. Jamal visit his mother during his adult years? A. Always. Q. With any frequency? A. Always. I could recall him living right over in Camden, New Jersey when he was married. And he used to put his son on his back and walk over on the bridge and come to visit my mother and bring her some foods or something like that. He wasn't too much on cars, you know, that kind of stuff. He liked to walk or ride a bike because he liked to be in the community and look at things. And, you know, be around people. But he was always visiting my mother. His house was always open for us to visit. So we always still came together. Q. You mentioned that, you mentioned his son, he Page 164. Lydia Wallace - Direct carried his son on his back. Did you ever have an opportunity to see what kind of father he was to his son? A. He was, he likes kids. He loves children, they didn't have to be his sons. But he was very fatherly, very affectionate, very loving, you know, to his children. He loves children. They didn't have to be his children. They could be anybody's children. Because the kids in the neighborhood, you know, sat and told me that he would read to them. I mean he just loved children. But he was very, very affectionate and protective of his children. Q. Now, in your dealings with your brother, did you get a sense as to his attitude about issues regarding peace and violence? A. There is nothing that is in his character that I recall being violent. He's only been a peacemaker. He always talked, like kids in the neighborhood and they were gang-warring, which was going on all the time we was growing up, he would talk to them, you know. He would talk to people, he was always a peacemaker. Even if he got into a confrontation, unfortunate to his opponent, he would talk them out of confrontation. You know, they might want to fight, but before they knew it, Mumia had talked them Page 165. Lydia Wallace - Direct out of it. And they didn't even know that they had been talked out of it, you know. He was like that. He wasn't, there wasn't anything violent about him. You know, that just wasn't his nature. Q. Your sense from your brother is that he would adopt the idea that the pen is mightier than the sword? A. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Q. The pen is mightier than the sword: Is that the kind of altitude your brother had? A. Yeah, he felt like he could get his point across in writing or talking as opposed to fighting, yes. Q. Have you ever seen your brother, other than perhaps normal squabbling among brothers or things like that, have you ever seen him lose his temper in an outburst of violent rage or anything like that? A. I've never seen him in a violent rage. I've seen, you know, we've had our tussles, even he and I, you know, had boxed each other, but not to the point where I had a bloody eye or anything like that. He wouldn't even go that far, he would never go there. MR. WILLIAMS: Miss Wallace, thank you very much. THE COURT: I just want to correct the Page 166. record, Miss Wallace. I thought you said that your brother went to a public swimming pool at 4th and Fairmount. THE WITNESS: Yeah, we used to go. THE COURT: 4th and Fairmount? THE WITNESS: Yeah. THE COURT: I think you are mistaken. I grew up at 3rd and Fairmount. THE WITNESS: Northern Liberties Recreation Center has a swimming pool down there. THE COURT: Swimming pool on 7th Street between Spring Garden -- THE WITNESS: No, 4th and Fairmount. THE COURT: 4th and Fairmount on the northwest corner is a Marian Bank. THE WITNESS: I used to be on the laundry committee -- THE COURT: Northeast corner -- THE WITNESS: The bank is still there. It is in the middle of the block. THE COURT: It is in the middle of the block on Fairmount. THE WITNESS: Yeah, right on Fairmount. Page 167. THE COURT: I remember going as a youngster, when I was in grade school I used to go to a swimming pool, it was between Reed School and Spring Garden, I don't remember whether it was 7th Street, Franklin Street or 8th Street, but there is a public swimming pool. THE WITNESS: No, there is an outdoor swimming pool, outdoor pool I think at 8th and Brown Street. THE COURT: Now, you mean. THE WITNESS: No, it's been there for quite a long time. 8th and Brown Street. THE COURT: Would it have been there between 1926 and 1934? THE WITNESS: I don't know. THE COURT: Well, that's what I'm talking about. THE WITNESS: No, I ain't going there. THE COURT: I thought there wasn't one on Fairmount Avenue. Because when I was growing-up if there was one on Fairmount Avenue there, I would have gone there. The one I went to was either on 7th Street, Franklin or 8th Street but it was between Green Street and Spring Garden. THE WITNESS: It's 8th, I think it's Page 168. 8th and Brown. THE COURT: Well, I didn't know that one. The one I went to was between Reed Street and Spring Garden. Maybe they discontinued it since then. I don't know. MR. GRANT: May I proceed? THE COURT: But that's the only one. I don't know of any swimming pool on Fairmount Avenue. If it was there when I was growing up, and I did leave that neighborhood but I have been back to that neighborhood, because I always go back to my old neighborhood. THE WITNESS: Yeah. THE COURT: I grew up there. And I went to school there. THE WITNESS: It is a good neighborhood. THE COURT: You are right it is a good neighborhood. It was an excellent neighborhood when I went there. I went to school at 4th and Brown. Do you know where that is? THE WITNESS: We went to Kearny at 6th and Fairmount. THE COURT: 6th and Fairmount, I remember Kearny, but I went to Catholic school, Page 169. Lydia Wallace - Cross at -- THE WITNESS: We couldn't afford that. THE COURT: Well, they didn't charge anything when I went there. Of course I don't know about now. In my days it was free. Well, okay. MR. GRANT: May I proceed, Your Honor? THE COURT: Go ahead. - - - - - CROSS-EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MR. GRANT: Q. Good afternoon, Mrs. Wallace. A. Hi. Q. Is it Miss or Mrs? A. Miss. Q. Miss Wallace. I guess I better use this microphone. A. Please. THE COURT: There is a lot of noise outside: He won't hear you. BY MR. GRANT: Q. Miss Wallace, you are Mumia's older sister, are you? A. Oldest sister. Page 170. Lydia Wallace - Cross Q. How much older are you? A. Hmm, six years. Q. So you were a grown woman when he was still a teenager? A. I'm sorry? Q. You were a grown lady when he was still -- A. Yeah, when he became, when he was about in high school I had just about left home. Q. Okay. You said your parents were sticklers for getting your education, especially your stepfather and -- A. Yes. Q. Did your mother agree with that principle? A. Oh, definitely. Q. I'm sorry, I'm sorry to hear about your mother's passing. I want to ask you, though: How did your stepfather and your mother take it when your brother decided that he was going to drop out of high school though he had this immense intellectual tendency, I am sure they saw it? A. Unfortunately, I wasn't privy to the discussion about that. I wasn't there. And I don't know what was said between them. Q. How did you take it? A. Umm, I recall, what I remember is during that Page 171. Lydia Wallace - Cross time Mumia was struggling to have the name of the school changed from Franklin High to Malcolm X High which was more applicable to the people that used the school. So I thought that was very admirable. But because Mumia was, Mumia probably was more advanced than his peers at that time so he probably was bored anyway. Q. At what age did he drop out of high school? A. I'm sorry? Q. At what age did he drop out of high school? A. Umm, I don't remember. Q. Did he drop out of the tenth grade? A. Well, I don't want to guess but if one would guess I would say between tenth and eleventh grade. Q. And since you were his big sister and you were so close to him, I imagine you realized at or about that time he had joined and become an active member of the Black Panther Party; is that correct? A. Yes, I remember him telling me he was an active member of the party. When he became part of the Black Panther Party I was still home. And he used to talk about the feeding days and having programs for children and that kind of thing. That's all he talked to me about. Q. Did he talk to you about the philosophy of the Page 172. Lydia Wallace - Cross Black Panther Party aside from nurturing children? A. No. One of, having five brothers and being the only girl, they always get things together. Even with my stepfather, like they would go down to the waterfront and just do that male-bonding thing. And I wasn't a part of that. You know, I had a real attitude about that. Q. You are a girl? A. Yeah. Q. You're a girl and we're guys and you don't hang with us: That was the attitude? A. Yeah, so sometimes I would say that Mumia wouldn't tell me everything. Q. How old was he when he joined the Panther Party? A. I don't know. Q. Now, you've testified that both yourself and your mother attended the trial everyday? A. Yes, I didn't attend everyday. I had to work sometimes. But my mother was able to come everyday. Q. And you also came to the sentencing hearings, right? A. Yes. Q. And you knew Mr. Jackson, by the time the trial came around you knew him personally, did you Page 173. Lydia Wallace - Cross not? A. What do you mean personally? Just having had conversation about the trial and proceedings with him. Q. No, I mean when a man comes in your home on a number of occasions and speaks to your family and your mother, probably you, I would assume that you got to know the person in some way? A. He came to my mother's home, I wasn't home. I wasn't living at home then. Q. Okay. A. And he would come to my mother's home. I don't remember how many times. But I know that he used to come to talk to my mother, and I might have stood there, from that day's proceedings, or I might have taken my mother out to dinner or something like that and I just happened to be there when he came. But I would venture to say he never came to talk to me, he came to talk to my mother. Q. And when he pulled you aside during the course or after the proceedings that you may have attended, he would explain to you exactly what transpired so that you and your mom would understand what efforts he was making on behalf of your brother, I take it? A. He would try to explain to us what went on Page 174. Lydia Wallace - Cross earlier in the day. Q. Were you absent at that time, is that why he was explaining it to you? A. No, if I was there. He would not call me or meet with me if I wasn't there that day. If we were sitting in the spectator area and he would just lean over and say so-and-so just happened or whatever. Q. And on the days you attended would you see any communicating, would you see them whispering or communicating while the proceedings were taking place? A. I don't understand what you asked. Q. Yes. There is a trial going on, and I'm going to communicate with the person sitting with me at counsel's table by cupping my hands (indicating), whispering. Could you see him doing that with Mr. Jamal, your brother? A. Not very much, no. Q. You didn't see it? A. I did see them do that but not very much, no. Q. I want to ask you a question, ma'am. You said this, that I, together with my mother Edith Cook, attended the trial of my brother each day during the month of June of '82. A. Yeah. Page 175. Lydia Wallace - Cross Q. We saw his backup Counsel Anthony Jackson. And now what does that mean: You saw his backup Counsel? What does that -- A. You are talking about in the Courtroom? Q. Yes. And what I am trying to determine is what you mean by the word backup Counsel? A. His Court-appointed attorney. Q. Well, some people have court-appointed attorneys and the attorneys are called attorneys. A. Yes. Q. But you call him backup. What does that mean to you? A. Well, I realize that at some time, and I would not venture to say on this day he was a backup and/or the next day he wasn't or whatever. But I realized that at some time Tony was the backup attorney. But I don't know, I'm not clear about when it starts and stops. Q. Well, if somebody asked you does he have your back, that means to you is a person protecting you from behind? A. Yeah. Q. But that means that you are in the lead? A. Okay. Q. Now, backup Counsel, does that imply to you Page 176. Lydia Wallace - Cross that this person was not the primary lawyer but the person was just backing up their primary lawyer? A. I believe I recall sometimes Mumia was in the back and Anthony Jackson was in the back, at his back. Q. Did you ever attend the proceedings when Mumia was in the front and Anthony Jackson had his back, that is when Mr. Jamal was examining witnesses and inquiring of Jurors in Court? A. I think I recall that. Q. And at that point in time on those occasions whenever you recall them, Mr. Jamal was in charge, was he not? A. Not the whole time, no. Q. But on those occasions when you saw him under those circumstances, was it your sense that he was in charge? A. Honestly? Q. He was a lawyer? A. No. Q. He wasn't in charge? A. I didn't feel that Mumia was in charge. Q. Listen to this. I am not asking you if he was in control of the environment or the events. I am asking you was he in charge; that is to say, I'm Page 177. Lydia Wallace - Cross going to dictate my destiny, what the world does around me the world does? A. No. Unh-unh, not at all, no. Q. No? How did you first, how did Mr. Jamal get Anthony Jackson in the first place as a lawyer? A. I wasn't involved in that process. Q. Did friends of your family come to you and suggest to your mother that Mr. Jackson would be the man to get for this type of case? A. I wasn't involved in that process, I don't know. Q. Now, you exchanged greetings with Mr. Jackson. You said you had never been in City Hall before that? A. Yes. Q. Even before trial; is that right? A. Yes. Q. So you don't know if he was a good lawyer or a bad lawyer, do you? A. No, I don't. Q. From coming to your home, speaking with your mother, pulling you aside or your mother aside whenever you would come to Court to explain things to you, did you feel that he was an attentive lawyer? A. To us? Q. Yes. Page 178. Lydia Wallace - Cross A. Umm, I guess you could say when he gave us time, yes. Q. And did he ever not give you time when you requested it? A. I never requested time, I don't know. Q. Are you aware of whether your mother ever requested time and did not receive it? A. Umm... we, we, we put our confidence in him. Q. Why did you -- A. We didn't question him because we didn't know what to question. We didn't know, we didn't know what he was supposed to do: We never worked with a lawyer before. So they are telling us this is a lawyer and he's qualified and he's all of that. Q. Who is telling you he is all of that? A. Well, that's what some of the supporters were saying at that time. Q. Some of Mumia's friends? A. Yes. And they were saying that he had a record of doing some things, and I don't even remember what they were. I think it's working with Pilcop or something like that. Q. Yes, do you know what Pilcop is? A. Excuse me? Q. Do you know what that is: Pilcop? Page 179. Lydia Wallace - Cross A. I didn't know then. I didn't know at all. So I'm just assuming that people in the know are feeding us information. He's an attorney and we just figured he knew what to do. Q. And what people, friends and supporters of Mr. Jamal, were telling you is that he was a good lawyer and he was all of that? A. That's pretty much what they said. Q. All of that is a colloquial expression for cat's meow: He is the best of the best? A. No, I never heard that. They said he was competent, he could do the job, you know. Cat's meow, no, I didn't hear that. Q. Hmm-hmm. Your mother testified at a bail hearing on behalf of her son back in January of '82, about a month after the shooting? A. Okay. Q. Is that right? Do you recall that? A. I wasn't here. I don't think I remember hearing it. Where did that take place? Q. Well, it says here in your affidavit that you signed that Mr. Jackson was aware of your relationship to your brother, had called your mother as a witness to testify in Mumia's behalf during a bail hearing in January of 1982; is that true? Page 180. Lydia Wallace - Cross A. Okay. I don't remember the particulars but, okay, I remember. Q. And that's, you don't remember that particularly because you didn't actually draft this, did you? A. Yeah, I wrote that. Q. You wrote that? A. Hmm-hmm. Q. And where, who supplied you with the dates here? A. Who supplied me with what? Q. The dates, since you don't remember the dates? A. I don't remember the dates. You could do whatever you want with me on dates, I don't remember dates. Q. Okay. I am not going to do that. A. I don't remember dates. Q. I know you think lawyers are full of tricks but that's not going to happen. Let me ask you this. What lawyer assisted you in preparing this affidavit, which is marked for the record exhibit number 7, affidavit of Lydia Wallace in support of Mr. Jamal's Petition? A. Your question? Q. My question is what lawyer if any conferred Page 181. Lydia Wallace - Cross with you or discussed with you and assisted you in drafting this affidavit (indicating)? A. Len Weinglass called me and asked me to write up something, he told me to write what I remember, our relationship to him and, you know, those kinds of things. I wrote it, I had it notarized and I sent it to him. That's what I remember. I said that to the other lawyer. Q. Where did you have it notarized? A. Down at I and Erie Avenue. Q. That's in Philadelphia, right? A. Yeah. Q. Oh. Well, the notary's name here is Sheldon Rosen, looks like, from Phoenixville Borough, Chester County. Is that where you got it notarized? A. I'm sorry? I didn't hear you. Q. Sheldon Rosen, Phoenixville Borough, that's in Pennsylvania, Chester County. It says -- A. I went to I and Erie, that's where I got it done at. Q. Okay. Your mom testified but you didn't testify? A. No, I didn't. Q. You didn't testify at the bail hearing, and you didn't testify at the preliminary hearing? Page 182. Lydia Wallace - Cross A. No. No one asked me to testify. Q. You didn't testify at the trial? A. No. Q. You didn't testify at the sentencing phase? A. This is the first time I've ever done any of it. Q. Yet all this time you were conversing with Mr. Jackson, he was coming to visit your mother? A. Yeah. Q. Coming to her home. Did you ever ask him is it normal that a family member would not testify? A. No, I never questioned, it never crossed my mind to ask him that. Q. Did you not testify -- strike that. Your brother Ronald didn't testify either, did he? To your knowledge? A. I don't remember. Q. But you would remember if he did, wouldn't you? A. I didn't. Q. Okay. Do you recall Mumia's twin Wayne testifying? A. No, he wasn't in the states at that time. Q. How about Keith? A. Keith was in the military, he wasn't here Page 183. Lydia Wallace - Cross either. Q. Well, he was in the military, but you would agree that in your family's history this was a significant event, would you not? A. I don't remember Keith testifying, I don't remember him being here. Q. And we all know that his youngest brother, the baby, William Cook, who you call Billy, he never testified either, did he? A. No. Q. At any hearing? A. At his own -- no, he didn't testify, no. Q. Why do you think that no one from his family, your family, testified on behalf of Mr. Jamal? MR. WILLIAMS: Objection, Your Honor. BY MR. GRANT: Q. If you know, being a family member? MR. WILLIAMS: I am going to object to that, to the operation of other peoples' mental processes. MR. GRANT: I will rephrase the question. BY MR. GRANT: Q. Are you close to Billy? A. Ahh, yes. Page 184. Lydia Wallace - Cross Q. And when Mumia got locked up, did you talk to Billy about it? A. Afterwards, when he was out I talked to him. Q. And Billy told you that he was right there when the whole thing happened, didn't he? MR. WILLIAMS: I am going to object to this as outside the scope of direct. THE COURT: Objection is overruled, Counselor. Go ahead. BY MR. GRANT: Q. Did he not tell you, ma'am, that he was right there when your brother was shot? MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, objection on the hearsay grounds. THE COURT: I said it is overruled, okay. You have an exception. BY MR. GRANT: Q. You could answer that. A. No. Q. You never discussed it with Billy or you discussed it with him but he never told you that? A. We didn't discuss the night of December 9th, 1981. Q. You never discussed that with him? Page 185. Lydia Wallace - Cross A. No. Q. Did you not testify on behalf of your brother for the same reason that Billy Cook didn't testify? A. I don't know why Billy didn't. I could say no one asked me. Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever come to your mother's house and discuss with you what his approach was going to be in defending your brother? That is did he give you some inkling into his ideas and how he thought that he could best approach this and maybe save him? A. Umm, he could have discussed it with my mother but not me. Q. And you don't recall ever asking him any questions along those lines? A. No, I just figured he had, he had it, you know. He, he, handled it. I don't even know what kind of question to ask him, you know. Mumia always said to us during the trial, you know, the truth will come out, that he would be free. So we just sat through those trials knowing that when it was over, we was going to take Mu home because the truth was going to come out. I never asked any questions about anything. Q. When Mr. Weinglass contacted you and asked you Page 186. Lydia Wallace - Cross to write some things down, you didn't just start writing a rambling exposition about when I was 3 this happened to me, and when I was 4 something happened more, you gave a structured affidavit here? A. Yeah, he told me. Q. Where did you get the structure from, who gave you that structure? A. When he called me on the phone he said write about myself, what my employment was. Q. Yes. A. What I was doing in December of '81. And my relationship to my brother Mumia. And if I had attended any trial, any of the trial, that kind of stuff. So that's what I wrote. Q. And you left something out: If Mr. Jackson asked you to testify? A. Yes. That's correct. Q. Mr. Weinglass specifically asked you to write that? A. Yes. Q. So you had no role other than as an observer during the trial? A. As an observer and supporter to my mother and a loving sister I was there. Q. You did say to Mr. Williams on direct Page 187. Lydia Wallace - Cross examination that Mr. Jackson explained that in a capital penalty case, that there are two phases to it, in one the jury has to decide if the person should even get to the second part? A. That is correct. Q. And when he explained that to you, Mr. Williams asked you did he describe what goes on in the penalty phase. And you said you don't remember hearing that explanation? A. He didn't go into detail on it. He just said it was two. I remember him saying it was two phases and basically he gave an overview of what would happen in the first phase and what would happen in the second phase. Q. Okay. That is an overview. Is that the same as more or less an explanation as to what occurs? A. If you want to say that. Q. Well. A. It, it was very brief. Q. When you say you don't remember hearing this explanation, but it's possible in fact that he did in fact tell you those things? A. It's possible, yes. Q. And in fairness to you, we are going back 13 or 14 years, I understand that. Page 188. Lydia Wallace - Cross A. Yeah, yeah. Q. He never approached you -- that is Mr. Jackson -- to testify, but you say he could have possibly approached your mother; is that right? A. I don't know whether he did or not. Q. Okay. Now, when did you leave home, ma'am, at what age were you in relationship to the age of Mumia? A. Ahh, I think I left home, moved into my first apartment, I must have been 19 to 20. Q. So that means that he was 13 or 14? A. Yeah. About, yeah. Q. And you said you were still at home when he had joined the Black Panther Party? A. Yeah. Q. So he joined before he was 13 or 14? A. No. Umm, I'm trying to relate to when my son was born. I was 18 years old. And I left home, I would have to guess, within, within three to five years after that. I can't, dates and stuff I don't remember well. Q. And were you living in Philadelphia in 1979? (Pause.) A. Yes, I think so, yes. Q. And were you still close to your brother Mumia Page 189. Lydia Wallace - Cross at that time, conversing with him about various things that were going on in one another's lives? A. Yeah. Q. Did he tell you why he felt compelled to buy a firearm and to carry it on his person without a license at that time? A. No, he didn't discuss that with me. Q. Did you ever see the weapon? A. No. Q. Were you aware of it's existence? A. Not until after the fact. Q. After which fact? A. After the incident. I heard in the newspapers and that kind of stuff after the incident in '81 that he owned it. But I never heard about it prior to that. Q. Well, you were describing Mumia, about his sensitivity to other human beings and that he was aware of things around him and interested in things other than what occurred within the complex in which he lived, and about his sense of fairness and his peaceful nature. What did you think when you found out that the gun involved was found right next to him, a shoulder holster was found on him, and that there were five spent cartridges in it, meaning that Page 190. Lydia Wallace - Cross gun had been fired five times? MR. WILLIAMS: I am going to object to that, Your Honor: Assumes facts not in evidence. MR. GRANT: Well, at this time, Your Honor, I would move to incorporate the entire trial testimony from the transcripts of the Quarter Sessions file, if that is the case. THE COURT: Okay, if it is in the record. BY MR. GRANT: Q. You may answer. A. I -- Q. I know I lost you. A. I lost the question. THE COURT: Repeat the question. BY MR. GRANT: Q. According to the record in this case, according to the facts testified by numerous witnesses -- and I'm framing this question in light of your descriptions of him as peaceful, sensitive, wouldn't harm a roach, things of that nature -- found within inches of his left arm was a .38 snub-nose revolver. The gun had been fired five times, sitting in a pool of blood, and an officer lying 3 feet from Page 191. Lydia Wallace - Cross him, a hole through his head between his eyes, likewise in a pool of blood. And the weapon was later traced to having been purchased by him in 1979. And a shoulder holster on his person indicated that he carried this weapon without permission to do so or license on the City streets of Philadelphia. Now, my question was, and my question would have been in 1981 had you testified, how do you reconcile the person that you have described here to us with the facts that were found by the Jury? A. No, not my kid brother. No question in my mind, I, you know. Well, the other thing is he told me he didn't do it. So I believed him. But I know that's not characteristic of his -- of him, he is not like that. Q. From all the descriptions of everybody that has come here -- and they all are good people from what I can see, I believe -- I don't think that is characteristic. Nevertheless, he had a bullet in his own chest that was determined to be from the officer's weapon who was lying next to him prone and dying at that moment. In light of that I want to ask you this: Did your brother Mumia, since Billy was the baby, take up for him, fight his fights for him, protect him from society, so to speak? Page 192. Lydia Wallace - Cross A. I couldn't say he did that that night. Q. I am not asking you about that night. A. Oh, okay. Q. I am saying, since you knew both of them intimately, you are the older sister, Billy is the baby brother and Mumia is next to the baby brother in age, they are the two youngest, you are the next to the oldest, you could watch them as an adult would watch them, see through the eyes of a mature individual, did you see Mumia have a propensity to take up for Billy in his interaction with the world? A. I saw Mumia take up more for Wayne than Billy. I would say that Mumia was protective of all of us. But Billy, I see him more protective of Wayne than Billy. Q. Okay. Speaking of your brother's sensitivity: How many days or what percentage of the trial, the guilt phase of the trial, do you think that you saw? It started on June 19th, basically, there were some preliminary motions, selection of the Jury and things of that nature, but the actual testimony from the witness stand right there where you are seated began on June 19th. From June 19th until the end of June, that 12-day period, and three days in July, the trial occurred. How many days do you think you attended? Page 193. Lydia Wallace - Cross A. Probably about 10. Q. About 10. That's a lot. That's 10 out of 15 or 16 days? A. Probably about. I attended at least half. Q. Okay. And if you attended you know now, you saw the way your brother, who was usually serene and peaceful and sensitive, treated his lawyer? A. Treated who? Q. His lawyer, his backup Counsel. Did you witness that, ma'am? A. His lawyer. I saw the way he treated him? Q. Yes. A. Yeah, I sat back and I could see them in the front. I never knew what conversation would transpire between them. Q. You never heard conversations and you were here 10 days of a 15-day trial? A. Between the two? Q. No. It wasn't necessarily a conversation, it may have been a one-way conversation, but you did not hear your brother harangue his lawyer, telling him to get his ass out of here, he is not John Africa, he is not a real lawyer, I want a real lawyer, someone who can acquit me; you didn't hear any of that? A. I never had, I never heard him. I heard him Page 194. Lydia Wallace - Cross talk to the Judge. Q. In that fashion? A. In that fashion. I never heard him talking to Mr. Jackson that way. Q. Were you here when he was removed on a number of occasions for like conduct? A. I was here when Mumia would try to make a point or get a point across and couldn't. And he would be removed from the Courtroom, shouting back so that people could hear what he was trying to get across. That's what I heard. Q. Whenever Mr. Jackson, whenever you observed or heard your brother dealing with Mr. Jackson, his lawyer, his backup lawyer, in that fashion, did Mr. Jackson ever come over to the family and try to explain what the situation was? A. No, not -- no, no, never during those times. Q. Did he at some later on point in time tell you why he didn't feel it was appropriate to come over to you during those episodes? A. I recall Mr. Jackson coming over to us after the whole proceedings of the day and try to explain to us what legally transpired that day. Q. I am talking about his relationship with your brother. Page 195. Lydia Wallace - Redirect A. He didn't discuss that with me. Q. He didn't tell you that Lydia, you're his older sister, I am trying to help this man, can you talk to him and let him know I am not his enemy? A. No, no, no, he didn't come to me that way. MR. GRANT: Thank you, ma'am. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Miss Wallace, I appreciate you coming in. I just have one question for you. Do you know, and did you know back in 1982, what the obligations of an attorney were at a penalty phase, did you know what the law required of an attorney at the penalty phase? A. No. MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions. MR. GRANT: I have no recross, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right, Miss Wallace, I have been reminiscing but I think I know where you are talking about now. Take you back a good many years. For both of us. Do you remember a little street between Fairmount and Brown Street closer to 3rd Street? Do you remember that Page 196. little street? THE WITNESS: No. THE COURT: Well, there was a police station right on that corner there of that little street. THE WITNESS: On 3rd? THE COURT: No, not as far as 3rd. Close to 3rd but before 3rd there is a little street that used to run, I remember when I was going to school I used to go up that street to go to Brown Street. And there was a police station right there. THE WITNESS: No. THE COURT: They closed up that police station and it was empty for a long time. And when did you go swimming there, do you remember the years? THE WITNESS: During, during the years that we went to Kearny School. We used to go down there and get our surplus food always. THE COURT: What year was that, 1960 or -- MR. GRANT: Your Honor, I don't think this lady wants to reveal her age. THE WITNESS: I don't know why he Page 197. wants to take me back there. I keep telling you I am not going. THE COURT: The fact I am trying to get at: I had moved from there by that time but I do go back there many times. And I remember they converted that police station to a swimming pool. And they cut off that -- THE WITNESS: Are we talking about 4th and Fairmount? THE COURT: Not at 4th and Fairmount. Closer to 3rd and Fairmount there is a little street there, okay. They converted that to a swimming pool. That's probably where you went. I don't remember. SPECTATOR: Are we talking about Mumia? Could you remove me? Could I leave now? I would like to leave. I would like to be escorted out. Are we talking about executing Mumia Abu-Jamal? Are we talking about executing him? I want to leave right now. THE COURT: Just put her out, please. (A spectator was escorted from the Courtroom.) THE COURT: Do the rest of you want to go? Page 198. You could put the rest of them out if you wish too. I just wanted to correct you. I think I know now where you went swimming. But that was after my time. Okay. Your next witness? MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, the Petitioner now calls Miss Ruth Ballard. MR. GRANT: The Commonwealth requests an offer of proof, Your Honor. THE COURT: Do you have any affidavits with these? MR. GRANT: No. THE COURT: In the future would you please do that so we don't have this problem all the time? Under the rules here you are supposed to do that. MR. WILLIAMS: We suggested that at the very outset. THE COURT: Well, just a simple little affidavit of what they are going to talk about, okay. MR. GRANT: In the meantime I will settle for an offer of proof, Your Honor. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I would be glad Page 199. to give an offer of proof, that is fair enough. Miss Ballard was a neighbor of the Cook family and was very close with the Cook family. And as a result, was in a position to get to know Mr. Jamal, particularly in his early years of life. And she'll describe Mr. Jamal during those early years. Again it goes primarily to the penalty phase issue. MR. GRANT: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. (Pause.) MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, while we are waiting: Would the Court indicate what time it will close today? THE COURT: As long as you want, I'm here at your convenience. MR. WEINGLASS: I have to let the witnesses know. THE COURT: Who? MR. WEINGLASS: There are witnesses outside who I wonder if I could excuse them. THE COURT: How long will this witness be? MR. WEINGLASS: I think 30 minutes total. Page 200. THE COURT: It's almost four o'clock. How long do you want to go today? MR. GRANT: Six o'clock everyday, work on Saturdays, Judge, let's get it on. MR. WEINGLASS: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, let me say this: After her who do you have? According to this list you have three. Joe Davidson is for tomorrow, right? MR. WEINGLASS: Yes, we are. THE COURT: Do you have an affidavit on that one so we could get -- MR. GRANT: No, I have no affidavit on him, Your Honor. But if they have no more witnesses I have a couple that we could possibly call, depending on how late Your Honor wants to work this evening. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, we would prefer to let our witnesses go without interruption. There is no need for that. THE COURT: Well, the ones that were already testified to, you could have them on call. Who else do you have? MR. WEINGLASS: We will have them on call. Page 201. THE COURT: That's what I am talking about. You have them on call so they are not here. You have Anthony Jackson and Jeremy Gelb on call, so they are not here. They are back somewhere. I don't know where they are, but. MR. WEINGLASS: Well, I wanted to know what time Your Honor will finish today so I will know whether to bring in witnesses or not. THE COURT: Well, who are you going to bring in tomorrow? Maybe we could use this time to try to see where we are going. Who do you have tomorrow? MR. WEINGLASS: Yeah, we could start out in the morning with Mr. Davidson. Move to Mr. Jackson. Move to Mr. Gelb. Your Honor, it is not going to be Miss Gelb. MR. GRANT: Jeremy. MR. WEINGLASS: Jeremy Gelb. THE COURT: Who after that? MR. WEINGLASS: Gary Wakshul. THE COURT: Well, do you have a copy for me? MR. WEINGLASS: (Handing). THE COURT: Would you get the copy for me. Give a copy to the D.A. so he knows who is Page 202. coming in tomorrow. Who do we have here? Joe Davidson. Now, on these here, do you have affidavits on these, please. MR. GRANT: None on Jeremy Gelb, none on Wakshul, none on McGill. And we would ask for an offer of proof. And we have one for Mr. Robert Greer, Your Honor, and he is right in the room over there. There are two witnesses that we've had who have been here for a week. THE COURT: He is here? MR. GRANT: Yes, he is. THE COURT: Why don't we do him today, then. Because -- MR. GRANT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- you have an affidavit. MR. GRANT: Yes, Your Honor, we do. THE COURT: But you don't have any for the other three. Could you give him an affidavit? MR. WEINGLASS: No. THE COURT: Under our Rules you are supposed to do that. MR. WEINGLASS: We read those Rules. We offered affidavits. The Rule requires that Page 203. they be provided 30 days before a hearing. We wanted the 30 days to prepare our affidavits" We were denied that. THE COURT: Well, you say you have them. So if you have them why don't you get it over to them? MR. WEINGLASS: We do not have the affidavits. MR. GRANT: I will waive that, Judge. I will waive it. Could we put on the witness? MR. WEINGLASS: Okay. They are waiving it, there is no problem. THE COURT: Ruth Ballard, he wants. THE COURT OFFICER: Yes, Your Honor, Miss Ballard. THE COURT: Tell Robert Greer to stay, we might as well get him. He is here. MR. GRANT: Yes, Your Honor. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, then is this the last witness for the day? THE COURT: No, there is Robert Greer here. MR. WEINGLASS: No, Robert Greer, we will not put him on out of order. THE COURT: Well, that is the order Page 204. he's here. And you are going to put him on. MR. WEINGLASS: He is here pursuant to a prosecution subpoena. He is a Petitioner witness and we will put him on in our case in the order that we have decided to put our case on. THE COURT: Well, you don't tell the Court how long you want to work. I decide how long we are going to work. MR. WEINGLASS: Absolutely, but I am telling the Court the order of our witnesses. The Court will decide how long we work but we will decide the order of our witnesses. MR. GRANT: I have two witnesses here, Your Honor, and they have been here for awhile. All I would like to do is, with the Court's permission -- and you certainly have the discretion to take witnesses out of order. I don't think it is going to make these proceedings too complex. I think it is going to make it simplified because these are people who they allege can exonerate Mr. Jamal and they are here and I would like the courtesy shown to them that we are showing to their witnesses by having them on call. Page 205. THE COURT: There is no sense in having them keep coming day in and day out. If they are here let them take the stand. MR. WEINGLASS: No, they are here pursuant to a prosecution subpoena. THE COURT: I will put them on. MR. WEINGLASS: I strongly object to the Court dictating our case. You told us to call one witness a day, we called four. Now we are told it is not enough. I had that order from the Court. THE COURT: I see now exactly what it is. No grandstanding, please. All you are trying to do is dillydally. But tell him to come back tomorrow, and if Weinglass wants them back tomorrow. MR. WEINGLASS: I do not. I want my witnesses tomorrow. THE COURT: Well, your witness is Robert Greer. MR. GRANT: Mr. Greer was subpoenaed by the defense for today's date. It happened to coincide. MR. WEINGLASS: Excuse me? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: No, he was informed, Page 206. Your Honor -- MR. WEINGLASS: His name is not on the list. He is on the list for tomorrow. THE COURT: Okay, I tell him he wants him back here tomorrow, okay. I am not go -- MR. GRANT: Can we put him on, Your Honor? MR. WEINGLASS: Of course not. THE COURT: No, put him on tomorrow. MR. GRANT: Very well. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Mr. Greer was notified for tomorrow. If he is here today it is at the compulsion -- THE COURT: I don't need anymore echo in here. Only one of us could get on this record at a time. I said he could go home and come back tomorrow. What are you arguing about? I am trying to do what you asked me to do. Now let's go. She's here. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor -- THE COURT: Wait awhile, Counselor. Wait awhile. Ruth Ballard is on the stand here. Put her under oath. She is already sworn? THE COURT OFFICER: Not yet, Your Page 207. Honor. Ruth Ballard - Direct THE COURT: Swear her in. Where is the attorney who is going to question? All right, okay. Are you ready? Let's go. - - - - - Ruth Dorothea Ballard, having been duly sworn, - - - - - MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, may I inquire? THE COURT: Yes, sure. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. - - - - - DIRECT EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Miss Ballard, thank you very much for coming in. A. You're welcome. Q. Are you a resident of this City of Philadelphia? A. Yes, I am now. Q. How long have you lived here in Philadelphia? Page 208. Ruth Ballard - Direct A. About 50 some years. Q. And do you work? A. Yes, I do. Q. What do you do? A. I'm a telephone console operator. Q. And how long have you worked in that job? A. Six years. Q. Now, are you aware of what these proceedings are all about? A. Yes, I am. Q. You understand that Mr. Jamal seated here has filed a Petition for a new trial? Do you understand that? A. Yes. Q. And have you ever met me before today? A. Yes! I have. Q. How many times? A. Two. Q. And have we ever discussed the nature of these proceedings? A. Yes, somewhat, yes. Q. Did we discuss why I have, we have requested that you kindly come to Court and testify? A. Yes, you did. Q. Now, we asked you to come to testify because Page 209. Ruth Ballard - Direct you know Mumia Abu-Jamal -- A. Yes, you did. Q. -- is that true? A. Yes. Q. Did you know him, Miss Ballard, back in 1982? A. Yes, I did. Q. Well, when did you first meet this man? A. I first met Mr. Jamal as a baby. Q. How old was he when you met him? A. Oh, maybe a little over a year old. Q. Now, I want to ask you some questions about that but first let me ask you this. Were you aware that in 1982 that Mr. Jamal was under indictment? A. Yes. Q. And were you aware in the summer of 1982 that there was a trial concerning that indictment? A. Yes, I was. Q. Did you, Miss Ballard, attend any of those proceedings? A. Yes, I did. Q. About how much of those proceedings did you attend? A. Ahh, maybe about anywhere between two and four. Q. Okay. Did you know when you attended those Page 210. Ruth Ballard - Direct proceedings, Miss Ballard, whether Mr. Jamal was represented by an attorney? A. Yes. Q. Do you know who that attorney was? A. Anthony Jackson. Q. And did you ever have occasions to actually talk with Mr. Jackson? A. No, I did not. Q. But you saw him here in Court? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you see him anywhere else, outside of the Courthouse? A. I have seen him on the street. Q. Oh, I see. A. Hmm-hmm. Q. What about in connection with his involvement in this case: Did you see him outside of the Courthouse but in connection with his involvement in this case? A. No. Q. Now, you were living here in Philadelphia during the summer of 1982? A. Yes, I was. Q. And was there any, any reason, either health reasons or other personal reasons, that would have Page 211. Ruth Ballard - Direct impeded your ability to come to Court to testify? A. No. Q. And if somebody had asked you to testify at that proceeding, would you have been willing to do that? A. Yes, I would have. Q. And did anybody discuss with you the possibility -- A. No, they did not. Q. -- of testifying? A. No, they did not. Q. Now, you mentioned that you first met Mr. Jamal when he was about a year old? A. Yeah, a year, a little older. Q. Now, could you tell us how did that come to pass, how did you come to see or know Mr. Jamal when he was an infant? A. Well, I got to meet Mr. Jamal and his family because we were neighbors. They had moved into this development a little before I did. And then when I moved our back's faced one another, the back of our houses were somewhat facing one another. Q. I see. And you were friends with his folks, his parents? A. Yes. Page 212. Ruth Ballard - Direct Q. Do you remember, what were their names? A. Edith and William. Q. And their last name? A. Cook. Q. The Cook family? A. Yes. Q. And you developed a friendship with the Cook family? A. Yes, I did. Q. How close was that friendship with the Cook family? A. Ahh, it got to be very close over the years. Q. What do you mean by it got to be close? How was it close? A. Umm, by visiting, going to places together, to church together. To a movie together. To the park together. Q. Was the Cook family church-going folks? A. Yes. Q. And when Mr. Jamal was an infant, how often would you see him? A. About once or twice a week. Q. And then over the years as he grew up, became a toddler and then a young boy and so on, did your relationship with the Cook family, did it become even Page 213. Ruth Ballard - Direct closer over time? A. Yes, it did. Q. And did you have the opportunity to see this man grow up from an infant into a toddler and then into an elementary school child? A. Yes, I did. Q. Miss Ballard, I know it is a long time ago, but I want you to search your mind on this. And I am going to ask you what impressed you the most, in thinking back on this man as a child, what impressed you the most about him? What struck you about him? Do you understand what I'm trying to get at? A. Yes, I believe so. Q. Okay. If you could try to share that with us, please. A. Hmm-hmm. Okay. As he was growing up, Mumia was always a quiet child. And he grew to be a respectful young lad. A patient young lad. And he loved to read. He was very fond of reading. Q. Let me interrupt you just for a moment. You said that he was a respectful young lad? A. Yes. Q. You also said that he was patient? A. Yes. Q. Tell me what you mean? What do you mean by Page 214. Ruth Ballard - Direct the fact that he was respectful? How did that, how did he strike you as respectful? A. Umm, by speaking to his elders and how he would speak to his elders. Q. You mean he was very deferential to the adults? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Did you ever see him speak ill of his parents? A. No, no. Q. What kind of relationship did he have with his mother, that you saw? A. He had a very good relationship with his mother. He was affectionate and very loving. Q. And you said that he was patient. How did you come to that conclusion that he was a patient child? A. He didn't seem to get upset about things. He didn't seem to be a child that would get upset about different things. Like some children if you tell them no you can't do this or you can't do the other, they are going to scream and holler. He wasn't that type of child. Q. I see. And you said that he loved to read? A. Yes. Q. About how old was he when you noticed that he Page 215. Ruth Ballard - Direct was very fond of books? A. Well, about 8 or 9. Q. Is there anything, Miss Ballard, in looking at him today and thinking back when he was a child, any events or anything that he did that stands out in your mind? A. Yes. There is one particular incident where in the summertime mainly they would have Bible class. And a teacher would come around and teach them at the community hall different things about the Bible and the Lord. And Mumia would go as well as other children, but Mumia would do something different after the class was over. He would go home and he would gather up the little children and he would read to them from the literature that he had received in Bible class. As though he was the preacher or the teacher. Q. How old was he when you noticed that he was doing that? A. About 10. Q. About 10 years old? A. Hmm-hmm. Q. And where would he do that? A. Pardon? Q. Where would he conduct these? Page 216. Ruth Ballard - Direct A. On his mother's doorstep, or sometimes maybe even underneath a tree. Q. What was it about that, that remembrance that you have just described, what does it tell you about this man Mumia Abu-Jamal? A. It told me that he was different from ordinary children. And that he seemed to have a belief in a a higher being. Q. Did you notice as he grew older as to whether his interest in spiritual matters, whether it grew? Did he continue to have an interest in spiritual matters? A. Ahh, yes, as far as I know for awhile, yes. Q. Now, was there anything in his childhood, you said that he was patient, but was there anything in his childhood that you observed that would suggest to you that he was a violent person? A. No, nothing at all. Q. Did you ever see him in the neighborhood acting like a bully or anything like that? A. No, I did not. Q. Were you in a position to see that if in fact he was that kind of child? A. I mostly certainly believe I would have. Q. And that's because of your friendship with the Page 217. Ruth Ballard - Direct Cook family? A. Yes. Q. Were you able to just go over to the Cook family basically any time that you wanted to socialize with them? A. Yes, I could. Q. And was your home available to them as well? A. Yes, it was. Q. And did you in fact go over to the Cook family at various times of the day, at various times during the week? A. Yes, various times during the week. Q. Now, did you see Mr. Jamal when he became a teenager? A. Yes. Q. What kind of a teenager was he that you observed? A. He still was a quiet child that seemed to think a lot. Q. What do you mean he seemed to think a lot? A. Ahh, well, to me a person that thinks a lot, they don't talk a lot. Q. So he was a quiet person? A. Yes. Q. Did he still maintain an interest in books, a -- Page 218. Ruth Ballard - Direct A. Yes. Q. A fondness for books? A. Yes, he did. Q. He did? A. Yes, he did. Q. Now, Miss Ballard, in watching Mr. Jamal grow up, did you ever think that you would live to see him in a situation like he is in today? A. No, I did not, no. Q. Why is that? A. Because of his character and his attitude towards people. And life. I would never think that he would be in such a situation. MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. No further questions. - - - - - CROSS-EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MR. GRANT: Q. Good afternoon, ma'am. A. Good afternoon. Q. I just have a couple of questions for you, Mrs. Ballard. During the trial that you went to, you said that you went between two and four times during Page 219. Ruth Ballard - Cross the course of the trial? A. Yes. Q. That was 13 years ago, wasn't it? A. Yes, it was. Q. And at that time you did not know Anthony Jackson, Mumia's lawyer, did you? A. Not personally, no. Q. And -- A. I would know him, you know, as I saw him. Q. You would know him to recognize him? A. Yes. Q. But you wouldn't know him to have a speaking relationship with him? A. No. Q. And did he know you? A. No. Q. Did you know anybody that knew him? A. Yes, I did. Q. Who would that be? A. I mean as far as his family, Mumia's family. Q. Oh, Mumia's family? A. Hmm-hmm. Q. Okay. And you would sometimes during the course of the trial see Mr. Jackson walking outside City Hall, going about his business or whatever? Page 220. Ruth Ballard - Cross A. Yes. Q. But that was the only real contact that you had with the man; is that fair to say? A. Yes, yes. Q. And if he didn't know you and you didn't know him, how would you expect him to get in touch with you and know that you even existed to put you on the witness stand? A. Umm, well, he knew Mumia's family and if he had wanted witnesses he could have asked Mumia's family. Q. Okay. So you are saying, so you are -- THE COURT OFFICER: Quiet in the room. Thank you. BY MR. GRANT: Q. You are saying that Mumia himself would have to be the person to let Mr. Jackson know I know Ruth Ballard back there? A. Right. MR. WILLIAMS: I object: That was not the witness' testimony. THE COURT: He is cross-examining. I will give you redirect if you want. BY MR. GRANT: Q. What I am saying, ma'am, what I am trying to Page 221. Ruth Ballard - Redirect say is Mr. Jackson would have no way of even knowing that you were here unless Mr. Jamal or Mr. Jamal's family told him that; would that be fair to say? A. Yes. MR. WILLIAMS: I am going to object to that also because she is not competent to testify -- THE COURT: Overruled. MR. WILLIAMS: -- as to what was available to Mr. Jackson. THE COURT: Because from what her testimony is they didn't know one another. She only knew him in seeing him, okay. So how else could she meet him unless somebody tells him. MR. GRANT: I have nothing further, ma'am. Thank you. THE COURT: Is that it? MR. WILLIAMS: Just one question. - - - - - REDIRECT EXAMINATION - - - - - BY MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Miss Ballard, one, or two questions, actually. You are not legally trained, are you? A. Pardon me? Page 222. Ruth Ballard - Redirect Q. You are not a lawyer? A. No, I'm not. Q. You have never been to law school? A. No. Q. And you've never been a defendant in a criminal trial, have you? A. No, I have not. Q. And do you know what the obligations of an attorney are in connection with securing witnesses for a client, do you know what those obligations are? A. No, I do not. MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions. THE COURT: Anything else? MR. GRANT: No, Your Honor, I have nothing further. Thank you. THE COURT: All right, you are excused. Now, before we recess until tomorrow, I think we have, from what you gave me -- Joe Davidson, Anthony Jackson, Jeremy Gelb, Gary Wakshul, Joe McGill and Robert Greer -- now, if he doesn't have any of those affidavits for them, will you please let him know roughly what they are going to testify to. So we don't have any hangups tomorrow, okay. Page 223. MR. GRANT: Your Honor, if the Court pleases: I would like, I don't anticipate getting it until I get all documents from Counsel, which is the day that I am in Court, the morning that we are here, which would be tomorrow. I would like on the record an oral offer of proof right now as to what -- THE COURT: All right. MR. GRANT: As to what Mr. McGill's testimony is going to be. THE COURT: Why don't you give him that so we don't waste time tomorrow. Tell him, as to the ones you didn't give him an affidavit on, tell him what they are going to testify, give him a rough idea. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Weinglass. THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Weinglass. For instance, do you have anything on Joe Davidson? MR. GRANT: Of course not, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right, tell him about Joe Davidson. MR. WEINGLASS: No, Your Honor. MR. GRANT: And Gary Wakshul, while we're at it. And Jeremy Gelb, while we're at it. Page 224. THE COURT: Well, whatever ones you don't have. Joe Davidson. What is he, roughly, going to say? MR. WEINGLASS: Character witness. Mitigation penalty witness who should have been called and wasn't. THE COURT: I mean did he know him a long time? Relative? What is it? MR. WEINGLASS: Precisely. THE COURT: What is it, relative? MR. WEINGLASS: No, he is a colleague and a friend. THE COURT: A colleague and a friend. MR. GRANT: That's great. THE COURT: Okay. How about Anthony Jackson? MR. WEINGLASS: Anthony Jackson, we filed an affidavit of Mr. Jackson. THE COURT: So you have an affidavit? MR. GRANT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay, forget that. How about Jeremy Gelb? MR. WEINGLASS: Jeremy Gelb, Your Honor, there is a matter which both Counsel have talked to Mr. Gelb about and we would both I Page 225. think prefer to take it up with the Court in private. MR. GRANT: No, I am asking what he intends to testify to. I am not asking about confidential matters. Offer of proof: Mr. Gelb. MR. WEINGLASS: Mr. Gelb is an attorney. He will testify about his role in the appellate process. MR. GRANT: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. How about Gary Wakshul? MR. WEINGLASS: Gary Wakshul, Your Honor will recall, was a witness who the defense attempted to call. THE COURT: Oh, he is the police officer. MR. WEINGLASS: He is the police officer. THE COURT: He now works for the Court system. MR. GRANT: That's right. MR. WEINGLASS: That's right. MR. GRANT: And I know what his expected testimony is. Page 226. THE COURT: How about Joe McGill? MR. WEINGLASS: Joe McGill, if they don't know what Joe McGill will testify to... MR. GRANT: Judge, I don't know. MR. WEINGLASS: He is the Assistant District Attorney, formerly. THE COURT: I know you are calling him for a specific purpose, let him know. MR. WEINGLASS: That's right, he was the Assistant District Attorney in the trial. We are calling him for that reason. MR. GRANT: No, well, I object and move to strike. He is subpoenaed, you are calling him for a reason. You could subpoena the Judge. That is ridiculous. Could I have an offer of proof, Counselor? THE COURT: Give him something. MR. WEINGLASS: That is the offer of proof. THE COURT: Well, that is no offer of proof. Well, you got the thing from Robert Greer. MR. GRANT: Yes. Mr. McGill would like to know if he is being called tomorrow. And I am going to move to ask the Court, or Page 227. invite the Court's attention to my motion to preclude him unless Counsel could give us an offer of proof. We have had magnanimous forbearing with the rules as it is. THE COURT: Tell him why you want to call him. Because under our rules he could ask that I disqualify him as a witness. Now, maybe he will call him, I don't know. But if you want to call him as a witness, tell him why you are calling him. MR. WEINGLASS: Under our rules we would have 30 days to prepare an affidavit. THE COURT: No, no, no, we are now in Court here, don't worry about the 30 days. That's out. MR. WEINGLASS: Well, Your Honor, the District Attorney can't have it both ways. THE COURT: All right, I will take it up tomorrow with you, then. MR. GRANT: Mr. McGill would like to know, from a note that I have here. THE COURT: Well, he should know, because he has to be prepared to come in here with whatever things you want to bring out. I don't know, he may have a record of this, I Page 228. don't know. MR. GRANT: He may not have to testify at all after Your Honor rules. Based upon their lack of notice and their lack of an affidavit. And their lack of an offer. THE COURT: I am trying to save him. But he just won't listen. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, the District Attorney's Office has 18 volumes of his performance. THE COURT: I know that. MR. WEINGLASS: That's what I am going to question him about. THE COURT: 18 volumes of his performance? MR. WEINGLASS: Yeah. During the trial. THE COURT: In this trial? MR. WEINGLASS: Yes, in the 1982 trial. THE COURT: Yes, the trial. MR. WEINGLASS: Right, yeah, I am going to question him about matters of record in the volumes. THE COURT: He is going to talk to him Page 229. about matters of record in the volumes. MR. GRANT: There are 4,000 pages of notes of testimony. The D.A. can take the stand on any particular case and talk about anything from I believe the guy was innocent the whole time or guilty the whole time or I thought there should have been less evidence that we had to put on. I would like an offer of proof, Judge. I don't think I am being unreasonable. THE COURT: Okay, let me say this to you: Bring in Rules, cases, whatever you have, Xerox it for me. I will read the case, I will look at the Rule, and I will make a decision. Okay. MR. GRANT: Thank you. THE COURT: Tomorrow. THE COURT OFFICER: This Court now stands adjourned until 1O:OO a.m. tomorrow morning. (Brief recess.) THE COURT OFFICER: The Judge will come out back out now. Please take your seats. Thank you very much. Close that door please. This Court is now reconvened. Everyone will cease all conversation. Page 230. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, I want the record to reflect that Miss Wolkenstein asked the Court to remain. The Court left. THE COURT: I know, I had already left, Counselor. MR. WEINGLASS: Exactly. Mr. Grant went in, asked the Court to come back, and the Court came back. THE COURT: Even my law clerk came in and asked me about it. MR. WEINGLASS: At Mr. Grant's request. THE COURT: I didn't know what you were talking about. There is too much noise in this Courtroom. If you don't shut up I will put you all outside. Take him out. SPECTATOR: You are a Judge. You are a Judge. THE COURT: Put him out. It is getting to be a circus here, Mr. Weinglass. Stop this nonsense. I had finished for the day. THE COURT OFFICER: Quiet in the Courtroom, please. Page 231. THE COURT: Boy, I will tell you, this is getting to be a circus. It is a shame. It is a disgrace. THE COURT OFFICER: Silence. THE COURT: Please keep quiet so I can hear. What is the problem? MR. WEINGLASS: What we have is a matter that Miss Wolkenstein -- THE COURT: All right, what is it, Counselor? Don't give me all of that. Let's get right to it. What is your problem? MR. WEINGLASS: I think the record should reflect that Miss Wolkenstein was speaking to the Court in the -- THE COURT: I had already left. I said I was leaving and I left the bench. MR. WEINGLASS: And she was speaking. THE COURT: I couldn't hear her. There was so much noise in this Courtroom. I said quiet, please. MR. WEINGLASS: There was quiet too. THE COURT: I disagree with you. There was noise. That's why I was leaving. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: I believe the noise Page 232. was my speaking to you and you up and walked off the bench. THE COURT: Fine. What is your problem? Let's get right to the issue and stop this nonsense. Come on. MR. WEINGLASS: We objected to the Court coming back. Mr. Grant insisted on it. THE COURT: You don't want me to come back, I will leave. You want me to leave? MR. GRANT: Your Honor -- THE COURT: I am not going to stand here and listen to this nonsense. MR. GRANT: I understand, Judge, but Jamal was about to be taken back and I understand that Counsel wanted to deal with these discovery matters. I asked the Sheriffs, since Mr. Jamal would like to be present on each and every proceeding, not to take him up so we could discuss this on the record. They were kind enough to oblige me. Then I asked the Court, your law clerk if she could ask you if you could come back so we could deal with the discovery issue so that the proceeding could go smoothly. THE COURT: What is the problem with Page 233. this discovery? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, I think we have concluded for the day. MR. GRANT: The problem is they are not entitled to any and they keep hassling me about it. MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, we can bring this matter up after cool heads prevail tomorrow morning. We will all be back here. This can be argued appropriately at a better time than now. I think there's been a -- THE COURT: But he wants to know where he stands. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, we want to know where we stand. THE COURT: Tell me. What is your problem? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: You did not want to deal with this this morning. There was now an incident here, I believe we should just begin in the morning. THE COURT: No, I would like to do it now. Because I am not going to do it tomorrow morning so let's do it now. If you got a problem tell me what it is. What is your Page 234. problem? MR. DOMZALSKI: Your Honor, David Domzalski from the City Solicitor's Office. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Excuse me. These are our subpoenas. Could we begin on this, then, and just do it properly? THE COURT: You represent the Police Department? MR. DOMZALSKI: Your Honor, the Police Department received several subpoenas, as well as the Medical Examiner's Office received several subpoenas in this matter to produce certain documents. I contacted several officials in the Police Department regarding production of those documents. A lot of those documents, Your Honor, one, no longer exist; two, are not in the custody and control of the Police Department; or, three, create a very undue burden to produce because the subpoenas are very broad and would require a lot of manhours by the Police Department in order to do that. THE COURT: Why don't you narrow down what you want. MR. DOMZALSKI: Your Honor, we have Page 235. attempted to do that. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We said that actually we would get back to you about the one issue that I think needs to be narrowed down, which is number five, and we could do that later today. So we could do that. MR. DOMZALSKI: Two other issues, particularly with respect to a subpoena for the Detective William Wynn. William Wynn is a detective that conducts line-ups in the Police Department, Your Honor. Basically, the subpoena directed to Detective Wynn was for a certain photo array and any other documents of a broad nature. Basically, we asked the defense Counsel to give us a range for Mr. Wynn with respect to line-ups. And the only files that he has are line-up files. We need the exact dates to go back into the archives to see if he has any records pertaining to line-ups that were conducted in or around that time related to the event. With respect to -- THE COURT: Well, did we have a line-up in this case? MR. DOMZALSKI: The problem, Your Honor, there were no line-ups. The defense -- Page 236. THE COURT: Well, if there was no line-up. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Right, there is no point in looking. The defense requested them. It was denied by Your Honor. And so -- THE COURT: Wait awhile. It wasn't denied by me. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Excuse me, it was a prior judge on that. THE COURT: Please be accurate will you. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Excuse me. All right, however, the question is whether or not there are, there are composites of photo arrays. Now, it may not be necessarily in Mr. Wynn's custody. And if that is the case I will seek them elsewhere. I believe the place to seek -- THE COURT: What are you trying to prove, Counselor? MR. DOMZALSKI: Fine, I would ask that that subpoena be quashed. THE COURT: It would be quashed because it is not specific enough. MR. DOMZALSKI: Or withdrawn. THE COURT: He doesn't have any. Page 237. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: If you don't have it you say you don't have it. THE COURT: He said there was no line-up here in this case so how could they have anything. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: I think we could go to the particulars. MR. GRANT: I object to them even asking and him answering it because all this is is a fishing expedition to try to find some evidence even though it doesn't exist. That doesn't stop them from slapping subpoenas on everybody they could find. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Excuse me. MR. GRANT: The Supreme Court has ruled so we are not providing it. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: You wanted an offer of proof, I will give you an offer of proof. We have an affidavit, we have a witness who says that one of the witnesses here was shown a photo array. He was shown a photo array by the police. THE COURT: Well, put that witness on the stand, let him say it under oath. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: The police never Page 238. informed the prosecution, never informed the defense that there were any photo arrays. As the Court is well aware, there is an obligation -- THE COURT: The only picture they have of him is the picture they took when he was arrested. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, I don't know that. THE COURT: Well, you don't know. I don't know it either, but. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We have contrary information and we believe that information -- THE COURT: I said there would be no discovery here, period, okay. Now, if you have any proof, bring that gentleman in here, let him take this stand, let him testify under oath, and we will take it from there. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, we have an affidavit. THE COURT: I know you have an affidavit. Bring the person in here, I said. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, could I complete a sentence? You are asking for why, you are saying it is a fishing expedition, I am Page 239. I am trying to explain why. THE COURT: I said I would not allow any discovery. I bent over backwards to a certain extent but this is it. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Regardless of what the offers of proof are, regardless of the points that we are trying to make here and the affidavits -- MR. GRANT: I could resolve this issue for her. THE COURT: All right. MR. GRANT: They have an investigator named Robert Bugler, who I imagine is somewhere in the Court today, probably him (indicating), who claimed to have talked to a witness who said that there was a photo display shown. That witness has been sitting there all day long and we don't know if his affidavit is based on hearsay. We could put the witness right there (indicating the witness stand) and that could resolve her issues. THE COURT: All right, who is the witness? MR. GRANT: Mr. Robert Harkins has been here for two days. Page 240. THE COURT: He doesn't have him on the list. MR. GRANT: I know. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Because he is not being called today or tomorrow by the defense. THE COURT: All right, when you get ready to call him let me know. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: The defense has informed Mr. Harkins as to when he should appear and it is not today and it is not tomorrow. As Mr. Weinglass has previously explained. We have subpoenaed for information about photo arrays -- THE COURT: Unless they give you something specific I can't do anything. You just come in and ask that the subpoena be quashed, okay. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Could we go through the particulars -- or let's do this tomorrow morning. THE COURT: No, I am not going to do it tomorrow morning. Tomorrow morning we are going to do the witnesses. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Then let's go through the other things that are on the subpoena and deal with it point by point so we Page 241. have a clear record here. The subpoena that's being responded to indicates that there is a commander of Officer Wakshul who is being subpoenaed along with his records including information about Mr. Wakshul's work and vacation records. MR. DOMZALSKI: That is the second subpoena, Your Honor. That is directed to the commanding officer of Reports Control. The first subpoena was directed to Detective William Wynn. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: That one we hear there are no, we know that there are no line-ups, you are saying there are no photo arrays maintained there, you don't have any information, right? MR. DOMZALSKI: Right. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: So this subpoena we are on you are also responding to -- MR. DOMZALSKI: Paragraph 1, that the Captain at that time Henry Marie is no longer a member of the Police Department. And therefore we can not produce him, he is not under our custody or control. And we submitted an affidavit to that fact, along with his employee Page 242. history record, which indicates he was a Captain of the 6th District around from approximately 1980 to December of '82, and that he retired in 1993. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Okay, the second element of that was information concerning Police Officer Wakshul's work and vacation records for the period of June lst, '82 to July 15th, 1982. MR. DOMZALSKI: That is also contained in subpoena C, which was directed to the Police Commissioner. And what we have produced and provided to defense Counsel is a document called a time usage record. Which we have an affidavit from the budget office of the Police Department, and the finance. And the time usage record basically indicates time that Wakshul used in 1982 during, well, the run is actually from January to July of '82. I'm sorry. Strike that '82. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We have not gotten any information concerning any of the notations, memos, requests for that vacation time, who approved that vacation time, since Mr. Wakshul's investigative statement said no vacation on it Page 243. very clearly. THE COURT: You are calling Wakshul: He will tell you. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We are requesting per the subpoena any of the records concerning the situation of Mr. Wakshul applying for his vacation. THE COURT: He told you what he could give you. MR. DOMZALSKI: This was found so far. That's all we have found so far. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Is there a possibility of any other materials in your file? If so we are requesting them for our subpoena. Would you search for them or produce them? MR. DOMZALSKI: The only other possible place would be in the 6th District, if the 6th District keeps records back to 1982. THE COURT: Why don't you send your investigator down there if they do. No, I mean her. She has an investigator. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: There is nothing else there? MR. DOMZALSKI: Basically, our records Page 244. we have found so far is the time usage record. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: There are other places to search. I request that you do so. MR. DOMZALSKI: That will be done. THE COURT: He is not working for you. You have your investigator to go down to the 6th District and find out. MR. DOMZALSKI: Quite frankly, Your Honor, we won't let their investigator go into the 6th District to look. THE COURT: Well, talk to somebody, then. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Next issue is point 3, a codicil which deals with all the ballistics, firearms, et cetera, reports, and physical evidence. And there, as I understand it, your position is that it's been turned over to the District Attorney's Office? MR. DOMZALSKI: Yeah, basically, Your Honor, there are several paragraphs of this second subpoena. Based on information and belief, all that information has been provided to the District Attorney's Office and is in their custody and control. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We are requesting Page 245. copies of what has not been turned over to the District Attorney's Office. It is very difficult to believe that everything has been turned over to the District Attorney's Office and no copies remain in Police Department files. In fact, what we believe is that there is information that has not been turned over to the defense and will be contained in the District Attorney's files and in the police files. So we would request to look at all information, all records, testing, et cetera. THE COURT: You can't proceed with a shotgun. MR. DOMZALSKI: I could certainly ask the Police Department to go through their records one more time, with some specificity, for some kind of particular document. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We want all the reports dealing with the testing of the bullet, of the weapons, all of the bullets and fragments found, removed, et cetera, from the police officer. MR. GRANT: I object to that. It was given to defense Counsel 13 years ago. Mr. Jamal had physical possession of it. We have Page 246. given them a number of documents just based on common courtesy to out-of-state Counsel. But Your Honor has ruled, the Supreme Court has ruled. All they want is discovery through the back door because they couldn't get it through the front door. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: I believe that the position of the District Attorney in response to our discovery motion is that these items were available to us by subpoena and we should do so. Which is precisely what we are doing. Now they are coming in saying it's discovery and they won't give it to us. I want to just put on the record that yesterday morning we attempted to serve the District Attorney's Office for the District Attorney's file on this case. Our investigator who was serving that subpoena was informed by the representative of the District Attorney's Office that she would not accept that subpoena, and that it required a Court order to do so. It is my understanding that that subpoena has been served and has been accepted. Now, whether there will be a motion to quash or not I don't know, but the point being that the District Page 247. Attorney's Office took the position that despite the fact that they are public officials, they would not even accept a subpoena for their records. Which is what we feel now we are being told here, that in fact all of the Police Department records as to Detective William Thomas, who was the supervising, supervising officer in this investigation, is with the D.A.'s Office, the ballistics and firearms report is in the D.A.'s Office, all reports concerning sketches, photographs of the crime scene, recovery of the weapons, is in the D.A.'s Office. MR. DOMZALSKI: As the Court knows, Your Honor, that is part of a typical homicide binder. MR. GRANT: What it reflects really is discovery. We have the discovery which we gave to them. That's all we have. Mr. McGill, Your Honor, turned his entire file over to the defense at the time of trial. THE COURT: I know. MR. GRANT: They have exactly what we have. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Furthermore, Your Page 248. Honor, there is a request on the same subpoena for information as to the polygraph test, the polygraph test conducted on Dessie Hightower and any other witness in this case. And the answer does not indicate at all whether there was any polygraph test to the best of the information -- THE COURT: It is not admissible. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: The fact of whether or not there was a polygraph test of a person with favorable evidence for this Defendant, for Mr. Jamal, is a Brady question, Your Honor. Whether the polygraph is admissible or not, it is a Brady issue. THE COURT: Well, you have an investigator. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: It is a Constitutional issue going to the fundamental question -- THE COURT: Do you have any witnesses who are going to take the stand? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: -- of whether or not -- excuse me, Your Honor -- of whether or not -- THE COURT: Counselor, please MS. WOLKENSTEIN: -- of whether or not Page 249. Mr. Jamal had a fair trial or not. And we are seeking, based on our information from our investigation, and an affidavit of Mr. Hightower -- who will be here to testify -- THE COURT: All right. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: -- that in fact a polygraph was given to him. THE COURT: Who had a polygraph? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Mr. Hightower. And the fact that polygraph was never disclosed to the defense, that is a violation of fundamental Constitutional rights. MS. PERKINS: If I may, Your Honor, Linda Perkins for the Commonwealth. I submitted, I filed the discovery answer that the Commonwealth filed several weeks ago, or last week, whenever it was. And there are just a couple of things that I want to point out, given what we have here. The Commonwealth, yes, in it's answer to the Defendant's discovery motion did say that much of the documents they were requesting were in the hands of the Police Department. Counsel here for the City Solicitor's Office has now represented that we have that information. That Page 250. does appear to be a conflict. But what has occurred, Your Honor, is that Counsel has consistently made an over-broad request for what has been considered discovery, what is the rough notes that may be in a file. Somewhere buried in a file somewhere. We have the ballistic report, which is a one-page document. We may have a report from the Mobile Crime Unit, which is a typewritten report, which may be six pages. We do not have the individual work files for each of these police units. Now, it is my understanding that these Counsel do not understand Philadelphia procedure. Obviously, they don't. That's why they have local Counsel who is supposed to explain these things to them. There are different agencies in the Police Department who each have their own records and things to get. The Commonwealth has not misrepresented anything. We only have the things that we have given them. We have nothing more than that. And the Commonwealth has not misrepresented anything. Now, if they have a specific request for some document they should say what it is. Page 251. They can't just come in and ask for the world without a showing of relevance. And that's why they first have to put the witnesses on. If they have a witness who says photo arrays were shown to me, fine, put the witness on the stand to say that. The Commonwealth responded in it's discovery answer that it had no information that any photo array was shown. The Commonwealth also represented it had no information that there was any favorable polygraph that constituted Brady material. That has been consistently said to them, that is part of our discovery answer. And Counsel can continue to insist that these items exist. That does not make it so. So the Commonwealth stands by -- I am speaking, ma'am. The Commonwealth stands by -- MS. WOLKENSTEIN: You have -- THE COURT OFFICER: Quiet in the Courtroom. THE COURT: Counselor, please, for a minute. He can't take down everything from all of you so just wait a minute. MS. PERKINS: The Commonwealth stands by it's answer, Your Honor, to their discovery Page 252. request. If they wanted specific documents they have to demonstrate that they are relevant and material. This PCRA proceeding does not give them the license to go on a fishing expedition to examine every file in the City of Philadelphia regardless of who it belongs to, or even to come in and examine the trial file. There is case law on that point. They have to first establish that it is material and relevant; and these blanket requests for every rough note, sketch, memorandum, simply do not suffice. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Okay. THE COURT: Excuse me. Wait awhile. My printout sheet shows David Rudovsky. Is he local Counsel here for you people? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: He is local Counsel, yes. THE COURT: For you people? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Yes. THE COURT: Why don't you take it up with him? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We have taken it up with him. THE COURT: Tell him to come in next Page 253. time. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: I think the problem here is that our discovery motion on our subpoenas are quite specific. And the interruption occurred when I was dealing with an extremely specific and particular question, which was whether or not there was a polygraph done of Dessie Hightower and any other witnesses in this case. That was not answered, but, rather, an interruption occurred. We are asking for a search in the records of the Police Department as to whether or not there was a polygraph done. MR. DOMZALSKI: Your Honor, it is my understanding and information that information related to polygraphs, if any, of Dessie Hightower were provided to the District Attorney's Office. Maybe we are playing semantics here, but that's my understanding and belief. In an effort of due diligence, I will ask the Police Department to go and look for other polygrapher records, but. MR. GRANT: First of all, Your Honor, I could respond to Counsel, if I may. Unless it is a polygraph taken of the accused individual, Page 254. since polygraphs are not admissible in any court of law in any of the contiguous 48 states that I am aware, or perhaps even outside the adjacent states, it is not exculpatory material. And even if he passed the polygraph, only the pre-polygraph questions and/or answers he may have given perhaps are subject to discovery under Brady. But the mere fact that a polygraph was given is not -- MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We are not asking for the mere fact -- MR. GRANT: -- under Rule 305, under which we operate in Pennsylvania, there is no such discoverable item. Therefore, even if it existed, I would object to producing it. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: All right, so what I am hearing is that there was a polygraph. That's what I am hearing. THE COURT: I didn't hear any such thing, but. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Anyway, I want to make it clear. THE COURT: Bring your witness in. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: That the answer from the City Solicitor's Office is this information Page 255. on the polygraph is in the District Attorney's Office. And as I said, they are subpoenaed and we will look forward to the District Attorney's response to that subpoena. There are a couple other things on this codicil that we need to discuss. There is a request for documents concerning complaints filed between January lst, 1977 and '82, and January lst, 1982, against any of the officers involved in the questioning of witnesses involved in this case which involved allegations of brutality, excessive force, prejudice based on race, ethnicity or national origin, and false arrest. And the names and addresses of the persons who lodged those complaints. That is a specific request as to specific officers who were involved in the interrogation of witnesses here. The answer from the City, if I may just say, is that there are no documents available because there is a five-year life of them and they have been destroyed. However, I ask whether or not there is any record maintained on any of the names of officers still, even without the records. What I am looking for, quite clearly, is the names of Page 256. any officers who engaged in acts of coercion or brutality against witnesses who were also involved in this particular case. I believe that it is highly relevant. It is Brady material and it is something that I believe should be able to be released because I can't believe that there is no record existing in any way, shape or form at this point of the names at least and the badge numbers of those officers. MR. DOMZALSKI: Your Honor, we submitted an affidavit from the now commanding officer of the Internal Affairs Division who directed a search for records specific to this, to this particular request. There is a five-year retention of files in Internal Affairs of complaints at the time pursuant to Mayor's Executive Order 1-80. And the affidavit of, I believe it's Inspector Boyle, indicates no files were found regarding this request. Now they are asking for any information on any officer. I would assume, and I am only assuming, that may relate to discipline somehow. Well, discipline in the Police Department is not contained in Internal Affairs materials, it is contained in a Page 257. personnel file or the Police Board of Inquiry records, which have not been subject to subpoenas as of this date. And, you know, basically, with respect to this paragraph, we have complied with it. We have done a search for records and there are no records in Internal Affairs where complaints against police are lodged. THE COURT: Okay. MR. GRANT: I do have for Counsel's benefit a document marked as Commonwealth Exhibit number 1 for this particular hearing, which purports to be a photocopy of something that did exist in 1982. And it is an order from the Honorable Judge Ribner, who is a Judge of the calendar court, which says Commonwealth versus Mumia Abu-Jamal, 3-19-82. I hereby certify that on the 19th day of March of '82, the Court directs that Police Commissioner Morton Solomon produce the Internal Affairs Bureau file on the complaint against police filed by Anthony Jackson, Esquire on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal to be furnished forthwith to the Honorable Paul Ribner, Room 444, City Hall. And it has an asterisk next to the words file of the Page 258. Internal Affairs Bureau, including correspondence between Anthony Jackson, Joseph McGill, Commissioner Solomon, and a copy of order 1-80. This says that they got that 13 years ago. And now that it's been destroyed it is becoming an issue. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Actually, we are not asking for that. MR. GRANT: Could I have this marked, Your Honor? MR. WEINGLASS: That is not what we asked for. We asked for files concerning any of the officers who were involved concerning the questioning of witnesses, not the persons who arrested and beat up Mr. Jamal that night. By the people who questioned, officers who questioned witnesses in this case. Along with whether any of them were subject to investigations concerning charges of brutality, coercion or prejudice or bias of some sort. THE COURT: That's like sort of a fishing expedition. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: No, it isn't, Your Honor. We have reason to believe -- THE COURT: And I said to you give me Page 259. a case that says you could fish and I will let you fish. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, this is extremely relevant. THE COURT: Well, it is relevant if you give me a case. Xerox a case for me. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, not only is it relevant given the information we have and the witnesses we are going to be producing in this hearing, but it's also relevant because it is well-known and documented, a matter of public record, that this Police Department has engaged in a history of coercion, beating -- THE COURT: Now we are putting the Police Department on trial here. I thought this was Mumia Abu-Jamal. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: This was 1979, the U.S. Justice Department action against the City of Philadelphia, Mayor Rizzo and the Police Department, in which substantial evidence of this type of activity was brought forward and proven as such. And these practices obviously continue today. We can not pick up a paper, any paper in this City, in this period of time, in which there is not a report about police Page 260. officers who have manufactured evidence -- I am now talking about the 39th District incident, which has now led to the overturning of 39 drug cases. There just recently were five police officers who pled guilty to violating the civil rights of people they arrested. And in one instance, a 53-year-old grandmother, another instance a Temple University student. These are all instances recently. So from the past to now there has been a process and a practice in this Police Department in this City of coercing witnesses, of framing people up and prosecuting them illegally. THE COURT: Why don't you bring these witnesses in? MR. DOMZALSKI: Your Honor, may I at least respond? I certainly object to the characterization by defense Counsel. In point of fact, I will actually cite you some case law -- the case is Commonwealth versus Petrose, whereby in order for the issue of the civil rights of the defendant to be admissible with respect to discipline of a police officer, it has to be an exception to the prior bad acts rule. There, one, must be an Page 261. administrative proceeding in which a police officer has been found guilty of some wrongdoing by the police department. In Petrose, Your Honor, this was a case involving a bribery defendant, and the subject officer was demoted as a result of taking bribes at some point in time. And that is the narrow exception to the prior bad acts rule in Pennsylvania with respect to impeachment purposes, which I assume would be the underlying motive for trying to get these documents ahead of time and to put these officers on with respect to prior disciplinary practices. And, Your Honor, at that time -- obviously, I don't have the records of these officers -- but it would be that limited scope. And I would also just state for the record that there are many fine police officers who go out there and do their job everyday and do it in a very hard, vigorous and sincere manner. And myself -- also being a police officer, I want to add, at one point in time, for 13 years, and serving this City -- would strenuously object to the characterization. Certainly there are officers in the Police Page 262. Department that do things wrong and we take every sincere effort to get them out. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Well, obviously the record indicates these activities. And we request again to get that information for the reasons given. Well, you said that you don't have those records. And I am looking again for a list of names of the people. MR. DOMZALSKI: As I understand it, we are switching the focus to disciplinary. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We will send you a new subpoena if necessary that says that. MR. DOMZALSKI: Okay. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We will do that until we work through each and every file that is possible, if that's the way we will do it. As opposed to simply grunting, looking and not understanding what the request is, which is very clear, it is very clear from our subpoena and looking at the information in the body. There is another subpoena, as I understand it, which we are dealing with here. And that's the one that's addressed to the Police Commissioner. And this is another aspect Page 263. of the vacation, the personnel files question. MR. DOMZALSKI: I believe we dealt with that. When we combined the subpoenas we mentioned them. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: There is another aspect. MR. DOMZALSKI: Paragraph 2. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Request for any and all records of intelligence, civil disobedience, and civil affairs records concerning Mumia Abu-Jamal, covering the period from January 1971 to December 1981. Attached to our Petition is a series of documents released from the Federal Bureau of investigation. They are the files on Mumia Abu-Jamal maintained by the FBI, over 700 pages. Many, many of those pages indicate that the work, the surveillance, political surveillance of Mr. Jamal was done in tandem with, at the initiation of, using reports of informers and from agents from the Philadelphia Police Department from these divisions. We know as a fact, because we have these files, that in fact that happened. This was from the period of 1968 through 1973. I know as a fact that Mayor Rizzo when he was Police Commissioner and the Page 264. Police Inspector Fencil maintained surveillance records on some 18,000-plus people who lived in the City of Philadelphia. And we have every reason to believe from the FBI files and from this fact of public record that there are records on Mr. Jamal which would be maintained under the supervision of the Philadelphia Police Department in one or another of their divisions from the period of January lst, 1968 to December 3lst, 1981. Now, there is an answer here. And it -- MR. DOMZALSKI: Once again, Your Honor, basically -- MS. WOLKENSTEIN: It says no records were located. It is not clear to me -- THE COURT: All right, let him answer you. MR. DOMZALSKI: Basically, Your Honor, with regard to the subpoena, the intelligence division of the civil disobedience unit of the Police Department: There is no such animal that exists at this time. Basically what I did, I directed the subpoenas to the commanding officer of the Intelligence Unit and to the commanding Page 265. officer of the Civil Affairs Unit. But those commanders had people directed to files related to that time period and no files were located. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: On Mr. Jamal in particular? MR. DOMZALSKI: Yes. THE COURT: That's what it says. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: That just flies in the face of reality given this 7O0 pages from the FBI that cite Philadelphia Police. THE COURT: Use the FBI file, for what it's worth. Okay, anything else? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: That was the Intelligence division. What about the civil disobedience? MR. DOMZALSKI: Well, there is no intelligence division of the civil disobedience unit. I directed it to the Intelligence Unit of the Police Department, Civil Affairs Division. Records were also reviewed I believe with respect to Robert Small -- MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your representation is they do not exist for this period of time? MR. DOMZALSKI: No. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: There are files, Page 266. there are files of political surveillance? MR. DOMZALSKI: I am not representing that at all. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: There are no files on Mr. Jamal? MR. DOMZALSKI: With regard to the language of the subpoena, there are no records. That's what the Commanders have signed in affidavits. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: This is pertaining to Mumia Jamal? MR. DOMZALSKI: Right. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: You are saying there is none for Mumia Abu-Jamal or Wesley Cook for this period? MR. DOMZALSKI: Right. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: All right, we will do another subpoena for the Black Panther Party and organization and people who were active and who raised their voice in opposition to certain policies by the Mayor and the Police Department and try again. All right, there is another, there is another aspect. I think there is maybe another Counsel here to deal with another subpoena. Page 267. Is that right? MR. DOMZALSKI: Your Honor, this issue regards the issuance of a subpoena to the Medical Examiner's Office directed to the personnel file of Paul Hoyer. The City would move to quash that subpoena outright because it wouldn't reveal any pertinent or relevant information. Basically, the scope, as I understand it, of Counsel's, or one of Counsel's representations of what they are looking for, is it's material to determine the question of the competence of Dr. Hoyer in some way, shape or form. And basically, again, I think with respect to any potential disciplinary issues. I have already set forth the case law in Commonwealth versus Petrose. I believe it would apply to a civilian and not just a police officer. And with regard to the personnel file, the only thing of possible relevance regarding competence would be a performance report. And it seems to me if there are any performance reports in the personnel file, the only one of any potential relevance would be the one in 1981, when he did the autopsy. Page 268. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Okay? The reason we made this request, Your Honor, is that while Dr. Hoyer was testifying it became clear that there was an exit wound of Officer Faulkner that showed up on the slides and was not in the autopsy report. This raises substantial questions as to the reliability of the autopsy report. And we believe that it's very germane to our inquiries here to be able to take a look at the personnel files of Dr. Hoyer. MR. DOMZALSKI: Your Honor, the practice, you know, at least in my experience, in the Court of Common Pleas, Your Honor, is that in situations like this, often times the Court does an in camera inspection of the files to make a determination on materials and the relevance. I don't know if the Court wants to entertain doing that. But certainly we have asked to quash the subpoena outright, but if the Court believes that there is a sufficient offer of proof to merit an in camera review, the City would not appeal that. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: And of course, Your Honor, anything that would demonstrate in some way the incompetence of the autopsy report would Page 269. probably be well deemed Brady material in this instance. MR. DOMZALSKI: I think that's about it for me. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor is not commenting. Is your silence denial, agreement or taking it in camera? THE COURT: Counselor, as I said to you before: Xerox me a case that says you are entitled to this and I will be glad to read it. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: There is another issue. MR. GRANT: I will deal with it. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: You will take it? I thought there was Counsel representing the City on this. MR. GRANT: Don't worry about opposition Counsel. You could state your position. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Could you indicate on the record your name and who that you represent from the City. MS. PASQUARIELLO: Good afternoon, Your Honor. My name is Anne Pasquariello, Deputy City Solicitor. I am Counsel for the Page 270. Medical Examiner's office. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: All right, this is in response to the subpoena that we made to get all of the reports and information, slides, tapes of the Medical Examiner's autopsy. I have already indicated the importance of this. That there already was evidence at the trial that this autopsy was significantly flawed. Perhaps totally unreliable. And that we want to see, basically, the material and the reports, notes, tapes and slides of the autopsy. We do have the autopsy report. That's not an issue. We want all the other documents surrounding it. And as I said, there are, as I understand it, there are tapes made by the Medical Examiners doing the autopsy, there are slides made. The Medical Examiner was looking at these slides when he testified and he said oops, I see another exit wound which I didn't put on the autopsy. And we believe that we are entitled to this material. It is also my understanding that we were going to get this material and that there was no objection until Mr. Grant intervened here. And as we can see -- are you going -- he is prepared not to even allow Counsel to argue Page 271. it herself. MS. PASQUARIELLO: Your Honor, if you will: I have the original Medical Examiner's file, which contains things other than the autopsy report. I spoke with Mr. Rudovsky on Monday. He suggested that I bring the original plus a copy. Which I've done. I can give a copy of the Medical Examiner's report to defense Counsel. And to the District Attorney's Office. I also have Kodachrome slides, nine, identification photographs, and photographs of the injuries of Police Officer Faulkner, which at this point I can give to defense Counsel. THE COURT: (Indicating). MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Thank you very much. Okay. That's fine. (Discussion was held off the record at this time.) MS. WOLKENSTEIN: All right, I think that for the moment, until we get to the next round of the subpoenas, which are returnable tomorrow, that concludes this. There is one other thing, Your Honor. I had asked earlier on for certain documents to Page 272. be marked in as exhibits. As the Court indicated reticence to do that, I would really like to know from the record whether or not the various documents that were proffered at the very beginning of today -- THE COURT: I don't know that anybody identified them. I don't even know what they are. Newspaper articles? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: They were given to the Court. THE COURT: Newspaper articles? MS. WOLKENSTEIN: There were three newspaper articles and then there was correspondence. We believe that they are part of the record, they are part of the arguments that we were making before this Court. I am interested in knowing at this point whether the Court has had them marked. THE COURT: I guess the Court Officer would have them. THE COURT OFFICER: We only have one, we only have C-l, Your Honor. THE COURT: Is that all we have? THE COURT OFFICER: Yes, Your Honor. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: In other words, you Page 273. accepted the offer of an exhibit -- THE COURT OFFICER: No, nobody accepted anything. We took nothing from the Bar of the Court which was entered this afternoon. Right, that's the only thing we got. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: No, there were -- THE COURT OFFICER: We took nothing else. THE COURT OFFICER: Excuse me. Excuse me. Could I? Excuse me. THE COURT: Well, do you have copies. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: There were copies placed here, given to the Court and Assistant District Attorney. I believe the District Attorney has their copies. Unless they will say it disappeared. The others were part on the Bar of the Court. It was Your Honor who refused to accept them. THE COURT: Don't give them to me, Counselor: I don't hold these things. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: You said you are not taking them. THE COURT: I don't hold these things. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: They were put here for the Clerk to take. There were four items Page 274. that were marked. Were indicated to be marked. THE COURT: They are looking for it. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Defense 1, 2, 3 and 4. And they should have been. MS. PERKINS: If I may, Your Honor: The newspaper articles that they referred to this morning, I believe Mr. Grant, I saw him myself and he just confirmed with me, he gave those back to the defense table. Where they are, I don't know. As for the correspondence between the Commonwealth and defense Counsel yesterday regarding their request to see additional exhibits -- THE COURT OFFICER: Here they are. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Let's try again. Could we try again? MS. PERKINS: If I could finish my statement, Your Honor: With regard to the correspondence that Counsel wanted marked, I don't know if it was marked or not, I told the Quarter Sessions Clerk we have no objection to that being made part of the record. It is correspondence that is between Counsel. And I believe that was included in the Quarter Page 275. Sessions file, whether it was marked or not. It doesn't have to be marked. A letter can, very obviously, be put in the Quarter Sessions file. THE COURT: Where is the Clerk of Court? Is he here? THE COURT OFFICER: Your Honor, the Clerk has gone. THE COURT: He is gone. THE COURT OFFICER: He was here. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Well, we can try this again. THE COURT: Save it for tomorrow. He is going to be here. Don't give them to me. I don't want them. The Clerk of Court. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Let the record indicate that we proffered four exhibits this morning. THE COURT: All right, just mark them. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor's Clerk did not accept them, did not -- THE COURT: He is not my Clerk. He doesn't work for me. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: I thought Your Honor made it clear you ran this Courtroom. THE COURT: Yes, but I am beginning to Page 276. think I'm not. I can't even run you. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: You are not going to, either. I would ask you to really withdraw that. That is really totally improper. THE COURT: Counselor, we both can't talk. That poor Court Reporter here can't get both of us. I told you what to do. They are marking them. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: They are marked. THE COURT: Okay, I tomorrow morning when the Clerk of Quarter Sessions is here give it to the Clerk of Court. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, I ask you for an apology. THE COURT: Apologize? You got a long wait, Counselor. You have a long wait. MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Could somebody take them? THE COURT OFFICER: I am not accepting them until tomorrow. THE COURT: You should apologize to me, not me to you. I told you to hold them in your possession because they are going to get lost. Hold them. Tomorrow morning when the Clerk is here I will tell you to hand it to the Page 277. Clerk, he will take it and put it in the file, okay. Is there anything else? MR. GRANT: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. See you tomorrow morning. THE COURT OFFICER: This Court now stands adjourned until 1O:OO a.m. tomorrow morning at the Call of the Crier. - - - - - (The hearing was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.) - - - - - Page 278. 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 Date The foregoing record of the proceedings upon the trial of the above cause is hereby approved and directed to be filed. Judge | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||