Verfahren gegen Mumia Abu-Jamal

Anthony E. Jackson, Esquire, having been duly affirmed,
was examined and testified as follows:

- - - - -

DIRECT EXAMINATION

- - - - -

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Good morning, Mr. Jackson.

A. Good morning, Mr. Weinglass.

Q. Are you appearing in Court this morning pursuant to a subpoena?

A. That is correct, sir.

Q. Mr. Jackson, drawing your attention back to

Page 31.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

December of 1981: At that time what was your occupation and employment?

A. Attorney. I was in December of '81, I believe at that time I was still working, I was the Director of the police project at the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia.

Q. And when were you first admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?

A. July 27th, 1974.

Q. What law school had you attended and graduated?

A. Temple University.

Q. And did you also graduate in 1974?

A. Yes, '74.

Q. Prior to your admission were you employed by any governmental agency of the City of Philadelphia?

A. Yes, Philadelphia Police Department.

Q. And how long had you worked for the Police Department?

A. Approximately five-and-a-half years.

Q. Do you recall what years they were?

A. Yes, sir. 1963 through '68, maybe '69.

Q. And in what capacity were you working for the Police Department?

A. Evidence technician. I began as an assistant

Page 32.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

or something of that, there was one title and then eventually I got another title, I forget what the first one was but eventually it was an evidence technician.

Q. And after your admission in 1974 and prior to December of 1981, were you ever employed by the District Attorney's Office?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Of the City of Philadelphia?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And in what capacity?

A. As an Assistant District Attorney.

Q. And for how long were you so employed?

A. About six months.

Q. And prior to December of 1981, did you have a professional relationship with an attorney in Philadelphia by the name of Marilyn Gelb?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. And could you describe briefly for the Court the professional relationship you had with her?

A. Prior to going to law school, I was also an investigator for the Public Defender's Office for about five years, and I was also a private investigator for a number of years. During that period of time I met Marilyn Gelb as an investigator.

Page 33.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

And I had occasion to investigate a number of cases for her, as well as a number of other attorneys. In fact, during this relationship, she was one of the people who encouraged me to go to law school as well. I continued to investigate cases for her, even while I was in law school.

Q. And did you continue to maintain a relationship of a professional nature with Marilyn Gelb through the 1980?

A. Yes, I did. I mean I would see Marilyn, we would consult sometimes on different cases and things of that sort.

Q. Would it be fair to say that you were close personally?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, could you also indicate what your professional experience was as an attorney after 1974 and up to December of 1981? You have indicated that you worked for the District Attorney.

A. After I left the District Attorney's Office, I think it was in January of '75, I was associate counsel for the Philadelphia Prison Master. At that time the Philadelphia Prison System had been declared un-Constitutional. And a Master was appointed and I was associate counsel. I worked there for

Page 34.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

approximately a year-and-a-half or two years, I'm not really clear. And during that period of time I also maintained a private practice as well.

After that I began at Pilcop I believe in 1978 as the Director of the police project. And I held that position for approximately three years and in fact I was about to leave in, I think in January of '82, yeah, so I think in fact I was working at Pilcop for about three weeks or so after the appointment to Mr. Jamal's case.

Q. We will get back to that in a moment.

A. Okay.

Q. While you were at Pilcop, what did your practice consist of for that office?

A. Primarily suing police, instructing attorneys on how to sue police departments and police officers for wrongful conduct. In addition to which we gave information and testimony before the United States Congress, the State Congress, the City Council -- City Council, State Legislature. We conducted studies, we did investigations of police officers here in the City of Philadelphia who had committed wrongful acts. As well as we assisted in enacting legislation that now to a large extent governs police conduct here in the City of Philadelphia.

Page 35.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

And in addition to which, we were instrumental in having the United States Justice Department sue the City of Philadelphia Police Department, first time in the history of the United States.

Q. That case became United States versus Philadelphia?

A. That is correct, sir.

Q. Now, during the period of time that you were the Director of the police project, would it be fair to say that your work mainly involved civil litigation?

A. Absolutely. Well, mainly, yes. There were, with this exception. In our representation, in our obligations, we would from time to time represent citizens who were arrested for what we called cover charges: Resisting arrests. Oftentimes they had confrontation with the police and the police would issue those cover charges, as we called them. And we would from time to time represent people on those charges.

Q. Was your work as the Director of Pilcop full-time work or part-time?

A. It was full-time.

Q. Now, prior to December of 1981, how many cases

Page 36.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

had you tried that went through to the sentencing or penalty phase in a capital prosecution?

A. One or two. One of the cases that I'm thinking of was before Judge Sabo. I don't know whether that was, quite frankly, if it was before or after Mr. Jamal. It seems to me that it was before Mr. Jamal. I really, I can't remember the name of the case, I can't put it in a time sequence. And there was one other, I think that was before Latrone. So two cases.

Q. And at the time of your appointment to this case, December of 1981, were you at that time still working at Pilcop?

A. Yeah, I think -- yeah, I think, again, that was my last few weeks there or something of that sort, yeah, I was still actually working there.

Q. And sometime after your appointment, did you then open an office for the practice of law in Philadelphia?

A. That is correct, sir.

Q. So would it be fair to say that at the time that you accepted the appointment to represent Mr. Jamal, you were in a transition out of Pilcop and into your own private practice of law?

A. That's right.

Page 37.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

Q. And do you recall when you opened your office, approximately?

A. I think it was January, February. Again, I'm thinking...

Q. That would be January or February of 1982; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And do you recall when you were appointed by the Court to represent Mr. Jamal?

A. I think in December.

Q. Of 1981?

A. '81, yes.

Q. So would it be fair to say that you were in fact appointed to represent Mr. Jamal at a point in time prior to the opening of your office?

A. Well, yeah, I mean, maybe I should just explain this. The police project was funded through LEA: Law Enforcement Administration assistance funds. The funding for the police project ended I think in August or September of '81. I then performed most of the same duties as I had previously performed; however, I was doing other matters at Pilcop as well. And I had to make a decision whether or not I wanted to transfer to some other project or just what would happen. And I knew that it was about

Page 38.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

time, or at least I wanted to return to private practice. At the time that I took the appointment, I knew that I was going into private practice. I was not in fact working full-time, or not working as much as I had been for them.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now I would like to have a document which has been marked D-8, which is a copy of the seven-page declaration appended to the Petition and marked in the Petition as Exhibit 1 (handing).

(Exhibit D-8 for identification.)

THE COURT OFFICER: (Handing.)

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Do you have it?

A. Yes, sir, I have it.

Q. Directing your attention to the last page of that document, do you recognize the signature on that document?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And whose signature is that?

A. It is my signature.

Q. And do you note the date on which that document was signed?

A. April 17th, 1995.

Page 39.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

Q. Now, did you review that declaration prior to signing?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And have you reviewed it once again prior to your appearance here in Court today?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. And do you recognize that document as an important document for these proceedings?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And you are of course aware of the significance of these proceedings for Mr. Jamal?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Is that document a true and accurate document to the best of your knowledge and belief?

A. Yes, it is. With a couple of minor exceptions. One of which we have already discussed. I think in here I mentioned that I took the appointment when I was in private practice. Again, I think I was off for about three weeks; I was actually at Pilcop then.

Q. Other than that the document is accurate?

A. That is correct, sir.

Q. Now, do you recall the date that the Jury returned a verdict of first degree murder in this trial in 1982?

Page 40.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And what date was that?

A. Oh, you want, I remember the day, the date I'm not certain of. I could look through my notes, through this affidavit.

Q. Yes, page 6 of your declaration.

(Pause.)

Q. Well, if it is not there.

A. Yes, my guess would be -- wait a minute, July 2nd, I believe.

Q. Yes, I believe you are correct.

A. Yes, July 2nd.

Q. And do you recall what day of the week July 2nd was?

A. Friday evening.

Q. And do you recall what time of day the Jury returned the verdict?

A. As I recall, five, six o'clock, something like that. It may have been later, I just, it seems it was sometime in the early evening.

Q. And do you recall when the sentencing or penalty phase of the case was set to begin?

A. Saturday morning.

Q. The next morning?

A. That's correct, sir.

Page 41.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

Q. Now, prior to the Jury reaching their verdict of guilt of the first degree, and from the time of your appointment back in December of 1981, did you have any discussion with Mr. Jamal concerning the sentencing or the penalty phase of his case?

A. None at all.

Q. And from December 15th, 1981, to July 3rd, 1982, had you interviewed anyone for the purpose of having them appear as a witness in the penalty or the mitigation phase of the trial?

A. No, sir.

Q. Had you subpoenaed anyone to appear as a witness for the penalty or the mitigation phase?

A. No, sir.

Q. Had you engaged in any discovery with the District Attorney's Office for the purpose of obtaining information or evidence or testimonial evidence for the mitigation or penalty phase?

A. No, sir.

Q. To your recollection, had you received any Brady materials from the District Attorney's Office respecting the penalty or the mitigation phase?

A. No, sir.

Q. Had you requested it?

A. No, sir, not for the penalty stage.

Page 42.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

Q. Now, after the Jury returned it's verdict Friday evening and -- strike that. Do you recall what you did that Friday evening after the Jury returned it's verdict?

A. No. And for some time I have just tried to recollect what I did as opposed to what I assume I did or what I was in the habit of doing. I just don't know. I remember speaking to Mr. Jamal's mother in the rear of the Courtroom after the Jury's verdict. Typically, I would see Mr. Jamal up in the cell room or up at the prison. I think that day I think the relationship had become so strained, I don't know, I may have been reluctant to go see him. But I wasn't reluctant not because I had any fear or anything, but because he had just been convicted. I know I spoke to him, I think it was just here in the cell room. I did not have an opportunity to discuss, quite frankly, the penalty stage at that point. And I really don't remember -- I don't think that I even went to see him up at the prison that evening, I don't recall. I have no independent recollection of it. It seems to me that I did not.

Q. And you mentioned that you spoke to Mrs. Edith Cook?

A. That's correct.

Page 43.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

Q. His mother. Was that more to console his mother after the verdict was announced?

A. Yeah, I have a specific --

MR. GRANT: I would object to the leading and move to strike that portion that was.

MR. WEINGLASS: I'm sorry, it was leading, I will withdraw it.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. When you spoke to his mother after the verdict was announced, I think you indicated here in the Courtroom, could you relate what the conversation was?

A Sure. Essentially, she was here of course to hear the verdict. And I did, again, I have a specific recollection of talking to her in the rear of the Courtroom. And it was primarily to provide whatever comfort I could for the verdict. I would assume that I would have talked to her later on because I sometimes did. But quite frankly, I don't think that I did. I think when I saw her in the Courtroom, that may have been -- Mr. Weinglass, I mean I just don't know. I mean I just don't know.

MR. GRANT: Move to strike his assumptions as well. I move to strike Mr.

Page 44.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

Jackson's assumptions since he bases it on nothing.

THE COURT: The part about assuming could be stricken.

Go ahead.

MR. WEINGLASS: The rest of the answer --

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: -- may remain.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Mr. Jackson, did you ask Mrs. Cook if she would appear the next day as a witness in the mitigation hearing when you saw her here in the Courtroom after the verdict was announced?

A. No, sir.

Q. To your recollection, as best you could recall that Friday evening, July 2nd, did you reach out and try to locate any witnesses for the mitigation or the penalty phase hearing which was set for the next morning?

A. No witnesses, no, I did not talk to any witnesses. Nor did I reach out for any witnesses, sir.

Q. Now, could you state for the Court and the record, what were the reasons why you hadn't prepared

Page 45.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

for the penalty or the mitigation phase of the proceeding?

A. Okay. Twofold. Believe it or not, I didn't think that he would be convicted of murder in the first degree. That was the first reason. The other is because we had been I think working six days a week for a couple of weeks. And I first assumed that in the unlikely event that would have happened, we would have had at least an extra day to prepare whatever preparation would be available and necessary.

Q. Now, prior to the time the verdict was reached in the case of guilt, you were aware, were you not, that there might be an aggravator in the penalty phase of this case: Because the victim was a police officer?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Did you have any plan or formulate any strategy to rebut that aggravator in the penalty or mitigation phase of the case?

A. You said did I plan?

Q. Yeah.

(Pause.)

A. I considered arguments at that -- I mean I knew that that was an aggravator and I knew... I knew

Page 46.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

that there was some consideration I had as to what I do to rebut it in argument only, not with testimony or evidence or things of that sort. And I knew at least in my mind what the mitigating factors were.

Q. Now, was there any, to your recollection, any conscious, deliberate or tactical or strategic reason why you did not call any witnesses other than Mr. Jamal during the penalty or the mitigation phase of the case?

A. I don't know if -- it's, it's difficult for me to recall why witnesses were not called for the penalty stage. I know that obviously after Mister, I guess it was the morning of the 3rd is when I do recall seeing Mr. Jamal, and Mr. Jamal had requested the opportunity to address the Jury. I notified Judge Sabo that and Mr. Jamal was able to speak to the Jury. Now, of course that is one of, your question also went to if I had a plan. I knew what the aggravating circumstance was. In my mind there was one aggravating circumstance, that the police officer, because he was a police officer. In my mind there were several mitigating circumstances that could be offered in Mr. Jamal's behalf.

Certainly the testimony or mitigating factors might have been, may have been more

Page 47.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

effectively presented with witnesses. If you recall, I am sure you know, there were limited funds in this case. There was limited time in this case. And unfortunately, as I said, the first thing that struck my mind after the Jury's verdict was to make sure that I was legally prepared to deal with the penalty phase. I didn't want to just helter-skelter go after witnesses without particularly knowing what I would do with the witnesses. But I, in retrospect, I don't know why I did not call the witnesses. I don't know if there was a plan, I don't think so. I just don't know about it. I don't know.

MR. GRANT: I didn't hear that last....

THE WITNESS: I said I don't recall what the reason is why there were no witnesses called during the penalty stage.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. In any event, so that we are clear, Mr. Jackson --

A. Sure.

Q. -- prior to the verdict of guilt Friday afternoon, July 2nd, you hadn't done anything to prepare a penalty or a mitigation-phase hearing?

A. No, sir.

Q. Now, you indicated on the morning of the

Page 48.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

penalty phase hearing, July 3rd, which was a Saturday, you had a meeting with Mr. Jamal prior to coming to Court; isn't that correct?

A. That's correct, sir.

Q. And in the course of that conversation, did Mr. Jamal indicate to you that he wanted to make a statement to the Court?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And when he did that, did you advise Mr. Jamal of the risks that might be involved in his doing so?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you review any statement he was planning to make with him?

A. No, sir.

Q. When you put him on the stand during the penalty phase, did you know what he was going to say?

A. No, sir.

Q. And after he began to speak, did you do anything to call a recess so you may review his narrative with him?

A. No, sir.

Q. Now, you recall, Mr. Jackson, that in January of 1982 you had put on the stand during a bail reduction hearing Mr. Jamal's mother Edith Cook, as well as the legislator of the Commonwealth of

Page 49.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

Pennsylvania David Richardson?

A. That is correct, sir.

Q. Did you contact either Mrs. Cook or Mr. Richardson and ask them if they would also appear and testify during the mitigation or penalty phase hearing?

A. No, sir. Mrs. Cook was here but I never asked her to testify.

Q. And you also during the guilt phase of the trial put on a number of reputation witnesses to testify for purposes of establishing Mr. Jamal's reputation in the community; do you recall that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you inquire of any of those witnesses as to whether or not they were available to testify in the penalty or the mitigation phase of the hearing?

A. No, sir.

Q. Now moving back to the guilt phase of the trial.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you recall, Mr. Jackson, that you did put on several witnesses for the defense during the guilt phase of the trial?

A. Yes, sir, I have a vague recollection.

Q. Do you recall putting on an eyewitness by the

Page 50.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

name of Dessie Hightower?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Had you talked to Mr. Hightower yourself prior to putting him on the stand?

A. Just here in the Courtroom or just outside the Courtroom for a few moments.

Q. Do you recall also putting on the stand another eyewitness named Veronica Jones?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Had you talked to Miss Jones prior to putting her on the stand?

A. No, sir. In fact, even before she took the witness stand in the Courtroom I tried to speak with her, again either in the Courtroom or out in the hallway, and she refused to talk to me. Of course, well, she took the stand.

Q. Yeah. Had you prior to the moment that you had called them here to the Courtroom made an effort to talk to either Dessie Hightower or Veronica Jones?

A. Veronica Jones I don't, I don't, I don't think so. I don't remember. I just don't remember... how I even got her to Court. And Dessie Hightower, I assume that I tried to contact her but I don't remember. But I don't remember. Veronica Jones, I know for whatever reason I couldn't talk to her: I

Page 51.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

don't know whether she was unavailable or I don't know whether the prosecution found -- I don't know. But I know she wasn't available for me to talk to her whenever it is that I wanted to.

Mr. Hightower I think, on the other hand, we did, we were able to obtain his address and I think he was available to talk to me. I don't know what happened, why I never talked to him, I just don't recall.

Q. But so that the record is clear: The fact is, Mr. Jackson, the two eyewitnesses that you called for Mr. Jamal in the guilt phase were two people who you hadn't interviewed prior to putting them on the stand?

A. That's correct, I didn't interview them, no, sir.

Q. Now, you also recall during the defense case calling the physician who had treated Mr. Jamal at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital on the night of the occurrence: Dr. Anthony Colletta?

C-O-L-L-E-T-T-A.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And had you talked to Dr. Colletta before you put Dr. Colletta on the stand?

A. No, sir, I wasn't permitted to. No, sir.

Page 52.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

Q. And had you seen Dr. Colletta's medical report concerning his treatment of Mr. Jamal prior to putting him on the stand?

A. I don't believe I did, sir.

Q. As a matter of fact, you recall seeing the transcript recently where you admitted on the transcript that you hadn't read his medical report prior to putting him on?

MR. GRANT: I move to strike anything that he admitted outside this Courtroom and off that witness stand.

THE COURT: It is stricken, the last statement. Please, Counsel, just ask questions...

MR. WEINGLASS: I'm sorry.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Were you shown the transcript page wherein it appears that you informed Judge Sabo that you hadn't seen the medical report before?

A. Yes, sir. I saw the transcript, and I recall I made some note to the Judge that I didn't, I was barred from talking to the doctor prior to his appearance and that I just at that time received the medical report.

Q. Now, also in the guilt phase, do you recall there came a time when you used Judge Sabo's chambers

Page 53.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

and the telephone in his chambers to attempt to locate a witness named Debbie Kordansky?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Had you ever done that before?

A. First time in my life, sir. It's a strange situation. That I could explain.

Q. Yeah.

A. In this case, unlike any other -- excuse me -- unlike any other homicide case that I had tried before, the District Attorney was pretty much in control of all of the witnesses. They had redacted the addresses and phone numbers of the witnesses and cut them out literally. There was no way for the defense to contact these witnesses without going through the District Attorney's Office. Miss Kordansky, as an example, was one person I wanted to speak to. Why? Among other things, she said she saw a man running from the scene. Obviously I wanted to see her.

I remember bringing this up to, bringing it up to the Judge and Mr. McGill I needed to see this witness. And Mr. McGill as I recall said words to the effect that she didn't want to talk to me, she had nothing to say, she'd hurt me or something of that sort. I know when I first brought

Page 54.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

it up, I think it was at the initial time I said words to the effect that Mr. McGill keeps telling me that these witnesses don't want to testify for the defense or won't be good for the defense when in fact they were witnesses who would be helpful to the defense if we could talk to them.

And back to the phone call. I asked if I could contact Miss Debbie Kordansky. He would not give me the address, he would not give me the phone number of the witness. He said that he would contact her or have the County detectives contact her to see if she would want to talk to me. So the County detective said well, Miss Kordansky, the defense wants to talk to you about your statement that you made about a man running away. You don't have to talk to them, do you want to talk to them.

MR. GRANT: I object unless he was there and heard that conversation, which I am sure he was not. Move to strike it.

THE COURT: Strike that part where he wasn't present.

MR. WEINGLASS: We will be calling the witness, for the Court's information.

THE COURT: Okay, call her later on.

MR. WEINGLASS: The person who spoke

Page 55.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

to Debbie Kordansky was Detective Thomas, who is under subpoena for the defense.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: And we will be calling Detective Thomas.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Please continue.

A. As a result of what I was told, I nevertheless persisted that I was not, I would not take the word of the prosecution that my witness, that a witness wouldn't talk to me. And that I would still like the opportunity for her to say no to me personally, to my investigator, if I had an investigator, or someone. The concession I was able to secure was a phone call in the Judge's chambers. And I talked to her on the phone, she said words to the effect that she didn't like black people because she had been arrested -- I'm sorry, she had been assaulted or raped by a black man in the past, and words, words to that effect.

She went on to say other things that I don't specifically recall. But I do know the fact that she didn't like black folks and had been raped in my mind did not excuse her as a witness: She could dislike us as long as she told the truth. I

Page 56.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

had no opportunity to know where she was. I still did not know where she was, they called. No, I did not see it, Mr. McGill called the number. I never knew where she was. Well, now I know where she is supposed to have been but I could never contact her.

Q. So she wasn't produced at trial?

A. She was not produced.

Q. Did she also, to refresh your recollection, Mr. Jackson, say that she didn't want to help you?

A. I think that was the words that she -- yeah, that's the words that she used, yes, I don't want to help you.

Q. Did that leave in your mind the impression that if she were called she wouldn't help you?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. GRANT: Objection. Objection.

Thank you, Mr. Jackson.

THE COURT: Stop leading, will you. Just ask him. Let him answer the questions without suggestions.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Now directing your attention to another witness, a cab driver who did appear and testify for the Commonwealth by the name of Robert Chobert: C-H-O-B-E-R-T.

Page 57.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you recall Mr. Chobert?

A. I certainly do.

Q. Do you recall Mr. Chobert at some point after he had completed his direct, prior to cross-examination, indicating to the Court at sidebar that he had a prior record?

A. Yes, sir, I know I became aware of it somehow, yes, sir.

Q. And do you recall, Mr. Jackson, what that record was?

A. I think for bombing a school or something of that sort. Or a school bus. Firebombing or something of that sort. And I think he was still on probation for that offense. Maybe over in Jersey or Delaware. I think, I don't think it was here in Philadelphia.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection that Mr. Chobert had told the Court at sidebar that he had thrown a Molotov cocktail into a public school for pay?

A. Okay, yeah, yeah. That now -- yeah, that's what it was, yeah, that's what it was. He had been hired to do that, yes, sir.

Q. And do you recall what, did you request that

Page 58.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

that fact be laid before the Jury during cross-examination?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And do you recall what Judge Sabo's ruling was?

A. He ruled against it.

Q. Did the Jury ever hear that?

A. No, sir.

Q. Now, do you recall on what basis you had asked the Court to permit you to lay that fact before the Jury?

A. On the basis of crimen falsi.

Q. Crimen falsi?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And it was on that basis that the Court denied your request?

A. That's correct, sir.

Q. Did you also raise with the Court on that occasion the fact that this evidence could be admitted under cross-examination under the doctrine of Commonwealth V Murphy and Davis V Alaska as proof of the witness' bias or motive since he was still on probation?

A. I did not, sir.

Q. I know this is not easy for you, but, Mr.

Page 59.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

Jackson, was that just an oversight?

A. I don't know if it was just an oversight as much as I don't think I knew that at the time. I think, I knew that in some situations, just as the cases hold that the record could be admitted for purposes of showing bias. At the time, at the time the situation came up, quite frankly I don't think I knew, I knew that law.

Q. Moving into another area. During, the course of your preparation for this trial, did you have occasion to try to employ the services of a pathologist as an expert witness?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And could you relate to the Court what your efforts were and what occurred?

A. I think the first initiative was to file a petition with the Court for funds. I requested, filed a petition for funds. The Court gave I think $150 for a pathologist. I telephoned five, six, seven pathologists in this area of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware. The best that I could get was a pathologist in Pittsburgh who said if I would mail it to him he would read it and tell me something over the telephone. For $150 he says he doesn't walk out of his neighborhood. And he, he was

Page 60.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

willing at least to do that for $150. But I had no success in finding a pathologist who would even consider reviewing, talk to me or anything, for $150.

Q. So are you indicating the case went to trial without the services of an expert pathologist for Mr. Jamal?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Now, would you indicate what effort you made if any with respect to obtaining an expert in firearms?

A. Yes, sir. Almost identical situation. George Fassnacht was a ballistician I had known, from the Police Department and other. And there was substantial questions with regard to the weapons, the projectiles and things of that nature. And obviously I needed the services of a ballistician. Again I requested funds from the Court. I think I was initially given the 150 or 250, I'm not certain what the amount is. I spoke to Mr. Fassnacht once or twice at his home. And I think eventually I requested another -- I think he may have gotten a total of $350. However, I did not have enough funds for him to perform any tests, any examinations, nor for his appearance in Court.

Q. So there was no test done on the alleged gun

Page 61.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

that Mr. Jamal had that night, and no test done on the bullet that was removed from Officer Faulkner, to your knowledge?

A. Not by the defense.

Q. Do you recall making a request also that you have an investigator?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you made that request early on?

A. In fact I think I made a request in December, I think. Or certainly by January.

Q. Was it because this was an alleged offense that occurred on a public street at four o'clock in the morning and it would be important to have an investigator early on to get out in the street and find potential witnesses?

A. Absolutely. The area, the area is known to be inhabited, a lot of transient persons who frequent the area. There were just a lot of, a lot of people that could have, could have seen something, known something, that were not in fact interviewed by the police. Just a number -- I could give you a litany of reasons why I needed an investigator.

Q. And fast?

A. Fast, right away.

Q. And it is a fact, is it not, that the Court

Page 62.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

did not approve your request for an investigator until January 20th, 1982, six weeks after the alleged occurrence?

A. That's correct, sir.

Q. Incidentally, in looking at all these police interviews that you were given by the prosecution in this case: They did an awful lot of their interviewing in the month of December; isn't that correct?

A. That is correct, sir.

Q. Before you had an investigator?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How much money was allocated for your investigation of this case?

A. The grand total for all of the experts, investigators, ballistics, less than a thousand dollars. Perhaps $800. For everybody.

Q. For everybody?

A. Everybody. And they didn't get paid until after the case was over. I think the investigator, think I may have paid him in advance. But that was the other obstacle: Even the amount, assuming even the amount given by the Courts was acceptable, you then had to ask that they wait approximately a year before they receive the money.

Page 63.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

Q. Incidentally, what was the name of the investigator who you retained with the money the Court authorized?

A. Bob Greer. Robert Greer.

Q. To your recollection, of all the witnesses, potential witnesses, do you recall how many of the witnesses he was able to locate and interview with the funds that were made available to you?

A. I think two.

Q. Do you know how many witnesses the police had interviewed in connection with this case, a round figure?

A. 150.

Q. Now, in your experience as a defense attorney up to June of 1982, how would you go about bringing a police officer witness who you wanted to call for the defense into Court?

A. Okay, if I am on trial, a jury trial, simply tell the D.A., the Assistant District Attorney who is trying the case, what police officer, Officer so-and-so, and they would have the officer in.

Q. And that was a matter of practice and a working arrangement between defense attorneys and District Attorneys in your experience?

A. Yes, sir. The exception would be if there was

Page 64.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

perhaps an ongoing trial and I had a minor matter, you would then take a subpoena down to the Court Attendance and bring the police officer in that way. But in,any trial you simply would tell the police officer -- tell the Assistant District Attorney who would then bring the officer in.

Q. So if I understand you correctly, then, the procedure would be you would just inform the District Attorney informally and the District Attorney would see to it that the police officer would appear in court?

A. Yes, nine times out of 10 that would be the only way. There may be some reason in a particular case where the Assistant D.A. may have objections for reasons that fit that particular case. Generally speaking, in a homicide, just call the D.A. to tell the D.A. who you want if it is a police officer.

Q. And did you come to this Court in June of 1982 in the defense of Mr. Jamal in the expectation that that same arrangement would be followed in his case?

A. Absolutely.

Q. And did there come a time in the course of that trial when you requested of Mr. McGill, the District Attorney prosecuting the case, that he produce a police officer by the name of Gary Wakshul?

Page 65.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

A. That is correct, sir.

Q. And did the District Attorney produce Officer Wakshul?

A. No, sir.

Q. Do you recall when you, what phase the trial was in when you made that request of Mr. McGill?

A. Sure. It was definitely during the time where the defense was presenting it's case. Having refreshed my recollection through some of the notes of testimony, it appears to be late in the defense of the case. I can't tell you which day, which day into the defense or which day before the verdict. But it was after a number of witnesses had already been presented.

Q. Did the District Attorney Mr. McGill tell you that you were too late in making that request?

A. Well, yes, he did tell me it was too late. Because the officer, contrary to what I understood, none of the officers, or the officers were instructed not to go on vacation during the period of the trial. When I requested that this officer be present, I was then told that he was on vacation. That he was on vacation. And that I should have told him a lot earlier. I guess he would have canceled his vacation, I don't know. But as I understood it, he

Page 66.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

had already been instructed not to go on vacation but somehow he got away.

Q. Did you ask the Court for a continuance so that this officer could come back off vacation?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was it granted?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ask the Court to have Mr. McGill call Officer Wakshul to see if he was still in the City of Philadelphia?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. While on vacation?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was that granted?

A. No, sir.

Q. So the Jury never heard from Officer Wakshul?

A. No, they didn't, sir.

Q. Why was Officer Wakshul important to the defense?

A. Extremely important. There were a security guard and I believe another police officer testified that after Mr. Jamal was removed from 13th and Locust to the Jefferson Hospital, that Mr. Jamal made a statement, a confession: I killed the mother-fucker and I hope he dies. I'll never forget those words

Page 67.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

because they said it so cute. And I say cute because -- well.

But in any event, Officer Wakshul, who had been, according to the report, had been with Mr. Jamal from the time that he was transported from 13th and Locust until I think the doctor saw him, in his report he said Mr. Jamal never said anything.

Q. So you wanted to lay that fact in front of the Jury as a rebuttal to this alleged confession?

A. Absolutely.

Q. The Jury never heard it; isn't that true?

A. That is correct, sir.

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time between defense counsel.)

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. As a trial attorney, in your way of thinking, that alleged confession was an important piece of evidence against your client?

A. Extremely important.

Q. Was it also an important piece of evidence for the Jury to have heard and considered during the penalty phase as well?

(Pause.)

A. Well, let me answer it this way. During the, during the trial it is critically important if an

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

Page 68.

officer is contradicting the alleged confession to another officer and this other security guard. The question as to would it be critically important at the penalty phase, the question is whether, whether you reintroduce that information or you just incorporate it. I guess it's just, I don't know if it is a tactical matter or what, but certainly the jury would need to know that information in either stage.

Q. Now, do you recall coming before Judge Ribner on or about April 29th, 1995 -- that's about five weeks before the trial was about to begin -- and requesting that a second attorney be appointed to assist you in this case?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And do you recall indicating to Judge Ribner five weeks before the trial that you needed that assistance in order to properly prepare the case?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you recall stating why you needed that assistance?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did Judge Ribner grant you the assistance of another attorney?

A. No, sir.

Page 69.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

Q. Now, it's a fact, is it not, that shortly after that, on May 13th, 1982, Mr. Jamal had asked the Court if he could represent himself?

A. That's correct, sir.

Q. This was after your applications for resources for a pathologist, for a forensic expert, and for assistance of investigators and attorneys had all been turned down?

A. That's correct, sir. We were batting zero.

Q. And did Mr. Jamal then begin in fact to represent himself?

A. He did indeed.

Q. And what became then of your role?

A. I was told that I was to be backup Counsel.

Q. Backup Counsel?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Mr. Jackson, had you ever been backup counsel before?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you know what the responsibility and obligations of a backup counsel were?

A. I didn't know then, still don't know, sir.

Q. Did you ask the Court to assist you in telling you what your obligations and responsibilities were?

A. Yes, sir.

Page 70.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

Q. Did you get any assistance?

A. No assistance in Common Pleas Court. As a result of that I appealed to the State Supreme Court for clarification. Because, again, I had never taken a course in backup counseling, never been backup counsel, didn't know what I was supposed to do, not do, who I was supposed to talk to, who I was not supposed to talk to. No instructions, no guidelines, no books on being backup counsel. I was put in a tenuous situation.

Q. Because you were put in a tenuous situation, you asked to be released?

A. Absolutely.

Q. And you asked more than once to be released?

A. I asked so many times, yes, sir.

Q. And you weren't released?

A. No, I was not.

Q. Did there come a point in time during the Jury selection when Mr. Jamal was asked to desist from further representing himself with respect to asking questions of jurors?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And to your impression, during the several days that Mr. Jamal was questioning jurors, was he proceeding in an appropriate fashion?

Page 71.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

A. As appropriate as any attorney I've ever seen do it before.

MR. GRANT: I would object to that. Counsel, if you would please not answer --

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I didn't see you. Forgive me.

MR. GRANT: Yes. I object and move to strike, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It is stricken from the record. That's already been ruled on by the Supreme Court.

MR. WEINGLASS: With all due respect, Your Honor, the Supreme Court ruled on it without hearing Mr. Jackson's impression of how his client was proceeding in a pro se status and we are entitled to put --

THE COURT: The Supreme Court has ruled on it and that's the end of it.

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: In a PCRA, it specifically provides --

THE COURT: In a PCRA, any matter that has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court

Page 72.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

is not part of PCRA.

MR. WEINGLASS: Right. We are entitled --

THE COURT: Where is local Counsel for this gentleman to give him advice as backup Counsel?

MR. GRANT: I could give him some. If he is saying that he is incompetent now, why should we receive his impressions about anything?

MR. WEINGLASS: That is a matter of weight, Your Honor.

MR. GRANT: Legally.

MR. WEINGLASS: That is a matter of weight. That is their position.

THE COURT: Whatever the Supreme Court has already ruled on is not proper in a PCRA. You give me a case that says that's wrong, Counselor, Xerox me a case, and I will be glad to reconsider.

MR. WEINGLASS: Right. Your Honor, I will Xerox the statute, which says new evidence must be presented in a PCRA. This is new.

THE COURT: This is not new evidence. It has already been --

Page 73.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

MR. WEINGLASS: The Supreme Court didn't have it.

THE COURT: This is not new evidence. The Supreme Court already had it and ruled on it, Counselor.

MR. WEINGLASS: Moving on.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Did there come a time later, after voir dire was completed -- I don't want to go back into that issue: I am being precluded --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. -- where the Court took from Mr. Jamal his right to represent himself and ordered you to represent Mr. Jamal? Did there come that time?

A. Yes, sir, the relationship began to go downhill even before.

Q. All right, but there came a time where you were ordered by Judge Sabo to begin to defend Mr. Jamal as his lead Counsel?

A. Yes, sir. During the time the trial began, Mr. Jamal was conducting the voir dire, and I believe he had conducted maybe one or two other pre-trial matters, he was questioning the witnesses, conducting the voir dire in my mind as effectively as any other attorney. And I think there was this one instance

Seite 74 ist nicht auffindbar.

Page 75.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Did you become lead Counsel at a certain point later in the trial, after the Jury was selected?

A. Yes, I was lead Counsel while I completed the voir dire. Mr. Jamal was then supposed to have an opportunity to represent himself again. And I played lead Counsel again. Mr. Weinglass, it's kind of difficult for me to recall just the machinations how I was going back and forth. Sometimes I was lead Counsel, sometimes I was backup Counsel, sometimes I was in never-never land, I don't know.

Q. But I don't want to go back into the part that the Court has already ruled on.

A. Sure, yes, sir.

Q. Looking at the rest of the trial, past the time of Jury selection, could you describe for the Court what your relationship was with Mr. Jamal after you assumed the role of lead Counsel?

A. The relationship become progressively strained after that time. I think it was particularly because Mr. Jamal had been removed from representing himself. I think Mr. Jamal, obviously, clearly felt that the rules of Court, the Judge's rulings, as well as my role as an attorney following those same rules and regulations, were causing him problems. And I think

Page 76.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

at that point he realized that he was in a jam. When I say he was in a jam, it's because he was not being able to exercise the rights that he felt that he was entitled to. And as a result of that, he didn't think that the system, the rules, my competence or incompetence, or a lawyer, quite frankly, was going to do him much good. And I think he had to have lost confidence in me because I, as backup Counsel, I couldn't assist him in remaining Counsel for himself.

Q. So you were put in a very difficult, compromised position?

A. Oh, absolutely.

Q. As a lawyer, did it appear to you that you were put in a conflict position with your client Mr. Jamal?

A. It didn't appear, I certainly was. I had to do many things contrary to what he wanted me to do.

Q. Now, were you under orders from the Court to proceed as a lawyer in this case?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you heard Judge Sabo say to you that you must proceed in this case as a lawyer fulfilling all the obligations that a lawyer would fulfill under the circumstances?

A. That's right. As best I possibly can. And I

Page 77.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

say as best as I possibly can because it was clear that the relationship between me and Mr. Jamal had deteriorated. Mr. Jamal had strong reservations and suspicions about what was going on in the Courtroom.

MR. WEINGLASS: May I have this document marked as D-9, I think it is. D-9.

No, 9. And handed to the witness.

And I want to show a copy to Counsel (handing).

- - - - -

(Document was marked Defendant's
Exhibit D-9 for identification.)

- - - - -

THE COURT OFFICER: (Handing).

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Mr. Jackson --

THE COURT: Just a minute. Is there any objection to this?

MR. GRANT: None, Your Honor.

THE COURT: What's that?

MR. GRANT: I have no objection.

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead, then.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. I want to show you what's been marked D-9, which is denominated Coroner's Report, and ask you to look at the first page.

Page 78.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Direct

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Lower, left-hand corner.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you see the handwritten notation in a box there?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What does it say?

A. Shot... letter I, 44 caliber.

Q. 44 caliber?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. GRANT: I object: That's not what it says. Would you read --

THE WITNESS: 44 cal.

MR. GRANT: Thank you, sir.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. 44 Cal?

A. C-A-L, period. I'm sorry.

Q. Do you recall if you saw this prior to or during the trial?

A. Never. Never.

MR. WEINGLASS: If I may have just a moment, Your Honor.

Excuse me, Mr. Jackson.

THE WITNESS: Sure.

Page 79.

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time between defense Counsel.)

MR. WEINGLASS: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. I have no further questions.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

THE COURT: Could we recess for lunch.

MR. GRANT: Do you want to, Judge?

THE COURT: Well, it's 12 after 12:00, and --

MR. GRANT: Whatever Your Honor's pleasure.

THE COURT: And I usually grab something at this time.

MR. GRANT: That's fine with me.

THE COURT: A quarter after 1:00?

MR. GRANT: That's fine.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE COURT OFFICER: This Court will take a luncheon recess until 1:15.

(A luncheon recess was held until 1:35 p.m.)

THE COURT: Good afternoon, everyone.

THE COURT OFFICER: That gentleman in the green shirt, please escort him out of the

Page 80.

Courtroom now.

(Pause.)

THE COURT OFFICER: Sorry, Your Honor, for the interruption.

THE COURT: Are you moving for somebody's admission?

MR. RUDOVSKY: I have original copies for Your Honor.

THE COURT: Where do the originals go?

MR. RUDOVSKY: I have it here.

THE COURT: You will file it?

MR. RUDOVSKY: I will file it, Your Honor. If I may hand up a copy. I served them to the District Attorney.

May it please the Court: My name is David Rudovsky, I am local Counsel in this matter. And I hereby move for the admission pro hoc vice of Daniel R. Williams and Jonathan B. Piper to appear in these proceedings, these proceedings alone in the defense in this PCRA matter. The supporting material is in the affidavit. Both Mr. Williams and Mr. Piper are members of the Bar in good standing in their own jurisdictions. They have been working on this matter for a number of years and will aid the

Page 81.

defense in the presentation of the evidence.

THE COURT: I see Mr. Williams. Mr. Piper is not here, is he?

MR. RUDOVSKY: Mr. Piper is not here right now.

THE COURT: All right. You will take care of filing the papers?

MR. RUDOVSKY: I will, Your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, before we begin with witnesses, there is another matter to be brought to the attention of the Court. I believe that there is a disparate and biased procedure in terms of people entering the Courtroom before these proceedings. This afternoon, members of Officer Faulkner's family were allowed to enter without going through the metal detector. Immediately after that the Cook family attempted to enter. The doors were closed behind them, or in front of them, and as they attempted to come in, as members of Mr. Jamal's family, they were, members of the family were physically accosted by whatever portion of, I don't know if it was the Sheriffs or Court

Page 82.

Officers out there in the hall. Specifically Mr. Jamal's son was physically stopped from entering after the Faulkner family had entered unimpeded without having to go through the metal detector. And then Mr. Jamal's first wife Abeeba Hart was also touched by the Court Officers. And they were then, the metal detectors were put on for the Cook family.

Contrary to the procedure being followed for the Faulkner family. I believe this is fundamentally unfair, biased and disparate. And if there is a procedure for the families it should be for both families, not for one, not only for the black family, not only for the family of the Petitioner here, but for both families. We should have the same procedure. If there is going to be metal detectors it has to be for both families, or no metal detectors for both families.

The other thing is it has come to our attention that in fact representatives of the FOP have been allowed to enter this Courtroom -- they are not in uniform, they are not part of the Court Officers here -- without going through

Page 83.

metal detectors. Again, they are members of the public coming in here and they should be treated in the same way as any other members of the public. If the public is being subjected to going through a metal detector, then so should the FOP representatives. I would ask the Court to remedy this situation. Or to indicate that it is not going to for the record.

MR. GRANT: If I may, Your Honor: The Faulkner family was searched. I don't know where Counsel gets her information but I wish she would start researching some of the statements she makes prior to opening her mouth. Number one.

THE COURT: She does that all the time.

Go ahead.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: What was that, Your Honor?

THE COURT: I said you do that all the time.

MR. WEINGLASS: Is that stated on the record, please?

THE COURT: Yeah, sure, he takes down everything.

Page 84.

Go ahead.

MR. GRANT: Number two, Your Honor, obviously, and I would ask the record to reflect that since July the 12th when we started these proceedings, there has been a constant tumult, incessant horns blaring, crowds shouting, right underneath the window where the proceedings are taking place. So that even Counsel for Mr. Jamal who is trying to have an orderly and fair proceeding can't even hear the statements of Counsel or the other witnesses.

We've had three outbursts, four outbursts in the last three days: People shouting and directing comments to Your Honor. People have been escorted out today. There's been a sum total of about 16 people ejected from the Courtroom.

Now, I am not suggesting that the defense team is orchestrating any of this, but certainly emotions are very volatile and spirits are very high. I would suggest for Counsels, own protection and everybody else that there be two separate entrances and they have metal detectors at both, because clearly this is not going to resolve itself in this Courtroom.

Page 85.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: You are indicating --

THE COURT: What are you suggesting?

MR. GRANT: I am suggesting that there be two entrances, one for each family, if that's what they want to do. They could be searched at either place. But if you were here earlier today you would realize that people are willing, because of their beliefs or disbeliefs in whatever is going on, anti the death penalty, pro death penalty, I could understand these emotions, but if it is going to come to physical confrontation, we are here to maintain order: That's what this Court exists for.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: There has been no physical confrontation between the Jamal family and Faulkner family.

THE COURT: Will you please keep quiet for a minute. He has made a suggestion and I think it is a good one.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: I object.

THE COURT: You are talking about the second entrance?

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: I object. It is not with the acquiescence or acceptance of the

Page 86.

Petitioner.

THE COURT: You could decide anything you want, it is my Courtroom, I will make the decisions.

You are suggesting they come through this way?

MR. GRANT: Yes, Your Honor. Only the families be allowed in this area. These people of the spectators, the members of the gallery, are primarily the people who have been ejected.

THE COURT: I will change that. The families on both sides could come through this second entrance here.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Families on both sides, fine.

THE COURT: That's what I said, Counsel. If you just listen to what I am saying.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Families on both sides.

THE COURT: That's right. I don't have to repeat it. Okay. Now, are there any other problems?

THE COURT OFFICER: Your Honor, if that is the case, then it should be known that

Page 87.

all families should show ID when they come through.

THE COURT: Yes, we have to: You don't know who they are.

THE COURT OFFICER: We need to know.

MR. GRANT: I agree with you.

THE COURT OFFICER: If they are a member of the Cook family we want to know, if they are a member of the Faulkner family we want to know.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: The families have been coming in on a regular basis, they have been identified.

THE COURT: Let the Court Officer know who they are because I am not there at the door.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: We will do that.

THE COURT: All right. Okay, let's proceed with cross-examination now.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, there is --

MR. GRANT: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. WEINGLASS: There is just one other matter, which I brought up with Mr. Grant before Court began this afternoon. We have a witness who is on our witness list, his name is

Page 88.

Joe Davidson. He is a reporter, as I understand it, with the Wall Street Journal, stationed in Washington. He came up today and we --

THE COURT: Why don't you let him finish cross-examination: Maybe we could get to him.

MR. GRANT: That was my suggestion precisely.

MR. WEINGLASS: I was just concerned because --

THE COURT: Well, Counselor, you weren't concerned. I told you to call him early in the morning before we had Mr. Jackson here. You didn't want to put him on. Now come on.

MR. WEINGLASS: If I may finish. I was concerned because of Mr. Grant's representation that he might be cross-examining Mr. Jackson --

THE COURT: He might, he might.

MR. WEINGLASS: -- all day today and all day tomorrow.

THE COURT: He may, I don't know. But let's go. We are never going to know. If you would stop talking so we could proceed with this witness.

Page 89.

MR. WEINGLASS: Yea. Your Honor, if we could just have Mr. Davidson on for 10 minutes on his direct, that's all that --

THE COURT: Counsel, I am not going to interrupt the District Attorney's cross-examination at this point. I offered you to let him go on this morning when we were having difficulty in finding anyone. And I had to wait and sit in my chambers for nothing. You could have had him on and off.

MR. WEINGLASS: Correct, but we thought --

THE COURT: Well, I know what you thought, but you didn't think right, so let's proceed with the cross-examination of this witness.

MR. WEINGLASS: We had three witnesses that the Court refused to hear.

THE COURT: Fine, okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: We expected that the Court would hear those.

THE COURT: You should have had him on here, he could have gone on. I suggested him, I told you who you could put on. But you won't tell me how to run this Courtroom. He is on for

Page 90.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

cross-examination, let's proceed.

- - - - -

Anthony E. Jackson, Esquire, having been previously
affirmed, was examined and testified as follows:

- - - - -

CROSS-EXAMINATION

- - - - -

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Good afternoon, sir.

A. Good afternoon, Mr. Grant.

Q. For the record, Mr. Jackson: You and I have known one another for a number of years, is that not true?

A. That is correct, sir.

Q. As a result of trying murder cases; is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. By the way, just to start off: Mr. Weinglass asked you how many times prior to the case for Mr. Jamal had you tried a murder case and went to the penalty phase, and you said once or twice; is that correct?

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, that is a misstatement of the record.

Seite 91 ist nicht auffindbar.

Page 92.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. How many murder cases had you tried, sir, prior to December, or I should say June the 2nd of 1982?

A. My best recollection is a minimum of 16, perhaps 20 cases, 20 murder cases before Mr. Jamal's case.

Q. And how many of those defendants were convicted of first degree murder? Just round numbers if you can. Percentages if you can.

A. A half dozen.

Q. So out of 20 murder cases, six people convicted of first degree murder. And ostensibly, those six people faced the judgment of life or death by a jury, I presume?

A. That is correct, sir. Let me correct it. This is tough. I think there may have been two, possibly three that were convicted of first degree on waivers, with the judge.

Q. Nevertheless, the two possible penalties for first degree conviction are only a life or a death sentence; is that correct?

A. That is correct, sir.

Q. Of those six people -- that was prior to Mr. Jamal's --

A. That is correct.

Page 93.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. -- none of those people received the death penalty, did they?

A. No, sir.

Q. And that's because you saved their lives through your oral skills, your intellectual prowess, and your advocacy as a lawyer; would that be fair to say?

A. I appreciate the compliment but I would assume that the facts of the cases helped a little bit too.

Q. Oh. So you think that basically when a man is killed and that person happens to be a police officer, and that police officer's bullet is found in the center of the chest or removed from the back of a person who is found within three or four feet of the officer with the gun used to kill the officer, you think basically there is no way you can win that kind of a case?

A. No, never thought that.

Q. You never thought that?

A. Never thought it.

Q. Because as a lawyer you have to have a certain degree of ego and you think you can win any case that you try, don't you?

A. Pretty much so, yes, sir.

Q. And there was nothing different about this

Page 94.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

case than there was about the other 20 murder cases in terms of your feelings and abilities and belief in yourself?

A. That's true.

Q. Now, you graduated from Temple Law School in 1974; is that right, Mr. Jackson?

A. That is correct.

Q. Where did you go to undergraduate?

A. University of Pennsylvania.

Q. And what did you major in there, sir?

A. Political science.

Q. And you worked for the D.A.'s office the next year after you graduated from law school; is that correct?

A. Actually, it was the same year.

Q. Same year?

A. I think I graduated in May or June and I think I began in the D.A.'s Office in July.

Q. And you only stayed with the D.A.'s Office six months; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Well, that's kind of an unusual tenure. Is there some reason for that?

A. Yeah. Umm, first reason is for me going to the D.A.'s Office -- I will just give you the

Page 95.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

history -- my last semester of law school Arlen Specter conducted a criminal law seminar. I did a paper in my last year on the lack of black prosecutors throughout the United States and got a good grade on the course. But as a result of that, he then contacted me to, since I said there were few blacks prosecutors in the United States, would I consider coming to the D.A.'s Office.

At the time it was probably the last place that I thought of working. But I guess to some extent I was a little bit embarrassed about it so I did take the job. It lasted, I lasted, I stayed six months because of the situation with the prison came up and I moved on to that.

Q. Well, you moved on to that because that was the last place you thought of working because you never fancied yourself being a criminal prosecutor in the first place?

A. Never did.

Q. And what you saw of it you didn't like; would that be fair to say?

A. Some of it, that's correct.

Q. And you had another job where you worked in law enforcement, and you worked for the Police Department?

Page 96.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. That's correct.

Q. As a civilian?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what did you do, sir?

A. I worked in the identification unit in the evidence lab. Took fingerprints, compared fingerprints, did latent prints, did searches, employment searches, photographs of evidence, photographs of defendants, dead bodies, things of that sort.

Q. Crime scene photos?

A. Crime scene photos.

Q. Sketches?

A. I did not do sketches.

Q. Collecting evidence at the scene?

A. Collecting evidence.

Q. You did all those things that are the very core and the essence of a criminal prosecution for five-and-a-half years, did you not? The only thing left is talking to witnesses?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So you would agree with me that in terms of the scientific and forensic sciences that are involved, you were pretty well skilled and experienced in that field before you even became a

Page 97.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

lawyer?

A. I had some skills and some talents, yes, sir.

Q. Well, did you get promoted through the ranks in that field?

A. One promotion.

Q. You got pay raises?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you a slug?

A. No, sir.

Q. All right. You were competent at what you did?

A. I think so.

Q. And even though you had a stint at the D.A.'s. Office, you weren't particularly enamored of prosecutors or policemen, are you, as a general philosophical --

A. Policemen but I didn't like prosecutors.

Q. Okay. And you also did a stint as an investigator?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you investigated for various lawyers in town, criminal practitioners?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And Marilyn Gelb was one of them? And she was the appellate Counsel who succeeded you while you

Page 98.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

served as trial Counsel for Mr. Jamal, was she not?

A. That's right, sir.

Q. And you maintained this professional relationship with her even after you stopped being a private eye and you became a lawyer, did you not?

A. That is correct, sir.

Q. And you did that because you thought she was pretty damn good and you liked her style and you felt that she would be a good mentor for you, didn't you?

A. Absolutely, I respect Marilyn Gelb a great deal.

Q. And do you still?

A. Still do.

Q. You think she is a good lawyer?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you think you are a good lawyer?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now what I would like to discuss with you is this organization, this Public Interest --

A. Law Center.

Q. Law Center. The police project?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Would you tell us a little bit about that?

A. Sure. The police project at Pilcop was established I think approximately in 1977 or

Page 99.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

seventy -- 77? I think it was '77. It was funded, as I said, by LEA funds, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. It was specifically funded to explore avenues of increasing police-community relations, implementing wrong -- not wrong, I guess I am just trying to think of what the expression was in the grant. But we were trying to create an avenue for citizens here in Philadelphia to file complaints and have them meritoriously examined.

Prior to that time in Philadelphia when one made a complaint against the police, normally we would have to go right back to the police station where the incident happened; and there was no telling who might take the complaint, an officer might write it on a yellow sheet of paper and after the person leaves throw it in the trash.

As a result of that, we thought that was an inequitable way of conducting an investigation of citizens' complaints. We tried a number of avenues, one of which was litigation. Another of which was lobbying. Another of which was community organizing. Some of which was representation, criminal representation of those who were charged with what we call cover charges. And of course we did other types of research and information

Page 100.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

dissemination.

Q. If I am not mistaken, you sued the police, instructed other attorneys how to sue the police, and investigated the police in Philadelphia and enacted guidelines for police conduct, assisted the Department of Justice in suing the City of Philadelphia Police Department, first in the country, assisted citizens and represented them in criminal court on cover charges?

A. And we represented police officers too.

Q. Did you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many?

A. The entire Guardian Civic League, black police officers.

Q. Black police officers?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And in what fashion did you represent them?

A. Primarily in employment discrimination.

Q. I see. No criminal cases?

A. No, sir.

Q. No civil cases for money?

A. No, sir.

Q. And these cover charges you are talking about, what you are talking about is pretextural arrests?

Page 101.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Exactly.

Q. Fabricated, framed people?

A. That's right, sir.

Q. And you became the Director of Pilcop, did you not?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How long were you the Director?

A. Three, three-and-a-half years.

Q. And is that the job you left the D.A.'s Office to take?

A. No. I left the D.A.'s Office to take a job as staff counsel with the Prison Master. The prison system here in Philadelphia had been declared un-Constitutional because it constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

Q. You mean crowded conditions?

A. No, sir. No, sir.

Q. What do you mean?

A. No, I am talking about Jackson V Hendricks. This was, it was more than overcrowding; it was rodents, bad food, bad accommodations, it was everything. And of course Mr. Rudovsky was here and I am sure Mr. Rudovsky could tell you a great deal more about it than I can. But again, that was the first time that the prison system here in

Page 102.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Philadelphia had been declared un-Constitutional and that was an unusual situation when a Master was appointed. The Master was appointed to oversee the correction of those problems in the prison system.

Q. How long did you stay there?

A. Approximately two years.

Q. Now, when you took the job at Pilcop, probably for the first time in your adult life you had a job, I would venture to say, that suited your profession, because you were in fact an attorney, and suited your philosophy, because you believed in what that job represented, did you not?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And over that period of time of dealing with the persons you perceived as the victims of the system that forced the institution of that project, and your criminal practice, you began to philosophically identify with this type of organization and what it hoped to achieve, did you not?

A. At least that, yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And since you had had 20 murder trials, more or less, before Mr. Jamal was tried, where did you have time to squeeze all those in between the D.A.'s Office and the Police Department and the

Page 103.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

prison system and Pilcop?

A. I worked real hard. I did, I could try to tell you. 1975 was the year because I think I left the D.A.'s Office in January, maybe February of 1975. During that time again I was staff counsel for the Prison Master, it was not full-time. During that first year of being in private practice, I think I was appointed to three, maybe four criminal cases, criminal homicide cases. I was privately retained for one.

Q. Major cases, sir? And by that I mean every case is major if there's a murder involved?

A. Right.

Q. What I am suggesting to you, though, is there are some cases that put more pressure on lawyers than others. There are cases that have political overtones, community activism, socialist orientations and crowds, high emotions?

A. I've never had another case like Mr. Jamal's case.

Q. Well, each case is going to be different than any case you've ever had?

A. Absolutely.

Q. But did you ever have a case that approached this scale on sensitivity and emotion?

Page 104.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. As Mr. Jamal's?

Q. (Nodded head affirmatively.)

A. No.

Q. On those three cases you were appointed to, two you were appointed to, one you were retained?

A. Three, three or four I was appointed, one I was retained.

Q. In either of those was the issue of the death penalty involved?

A. Well, neither of those that I just spoke of. I was also acting as Co-counsel, another case that I had forgotten about, that was a death penalty case. I played no major role in the case. Another lawyer, Bobby Mozenter, was the lawyer.

Q. Okay, so tell me about the other 17 or 18 cases that you had when you were working also with juggling these balls and trying these murder cases?

A. Sure. '75, as I said, must have been four or five cases. I tried to make a note.

Q. By the way, excuse me, Mr. Jackson.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are you reciting all of these informational facts and all your direct examination based on a 13-year-old recollection?

A. No, not all of them. Well, some of my

Page 105.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

testimony on direct was refreshed by my reviewing some old transcripts. Things of that sort. But --

Q. And some were refreshed by reviewing your trial file, I take it?

A. No, not my trial file. I. haven't seen my trial file since I gave it to Marilyn Gelb.

Q. You gave it to her?

A. I gave her everything.

Q. Everything?

A. Everything that I recall. I may have retained some -- I think I gave Marilyn everything that was in the file.

Q. Well, there wasn't much in the file since you gave it all to Mr. Jamal during the trial?

A. That isn't true. That isn't true.

Q. That isn't true?

A. No, sir.

Q. Well, did you say to the Judge that it was true?

A. That I gave -- that what, did I say what to the Judge?

Q. That Mr. Jamal took all the statements of the witnesses who testified in that case and you had to go from memory and your own rough notes to proceed as to how to cross-examine them and to know which ones

Page 106.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

were there, which ones were available for you?

A. That is partially correct. Let me explain what happened. When I first received discovery from the District Attorney's Office I made copies -- remember, I mean it was at least 150 statements. I made copies of most, some of those statements, gave them to Mr. Jamal. As we proceeded in preparation for trial or during the trial, I'm not certain when, I gave him some statements that I had not made copies of. Those would be the statements that I was talking about that Mr. Jamal had. I had copies of some statements that I had also provided him copies with. There were other statements that I had no copies of. And I believe there may be statements that I had that he didn't have.

Am I confusing you, sir?

Q. No, I am not confused. I think you are, Mr. Jackson.

A. Okay.

Q. Do you recall this situation? I will see if I can refresh your recollection.

MR. WEINGLASS: When Counsel has the line and page I would appreciate it.

MR. GRANT: When I have it I will give it to you.

Page 107.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

I'm sorry for the delay, Mr. Jackson.

THE WITNESS: No problem, sir.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. I would invite your attention, sir, to the date of June 26th, 1982. Pages 139 and 140. And you are acting as Counsel at that time, Mr. Jackson. Not backup but as primary Counsel. When being asked by the Court why you didn't know who your next witness was you stated -- and I have the volumes physically here for you in the event that you would like to refresh your recollection further -- you stated one of the difficulties that I have in determining what witnesses to call is that I have to reflect and think --

A. That I had to what?

MR. GRANT: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Give it to him.

MR. GRANT: (Handing.)

139, sir.

THE WITNESS: Okay, thanks, sir. All right, 139, sir.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. It says Mr. Jackson: One of the difficulties -- is how it begins. Do you see it?

Page 108.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Yes, I'm sorry, I see where you are.

Q. One of the difficulties that I have in determining what witnesses to call is that I have to reflect and think and search my notes as to the statements of witnesses since I no longer have a copy of the statements. Mr. Jamal has copies of the statements. I think that I indicated I showed you all of the names.

You were speaking to Mr. McGill at that point in time.

A. Right.

Q. So does that refresh your recollection as to what was in your file that you turned over to Marilyn Gelb and how much you gave to Mr. Jamal and how much you retained?

A. That's entirely consistent with what I said, sir. At the time that I made these statements, again, I specifically recall that there were some, when I originally received copies of some of the discovery, there were a number of them that I made copies of and I gave to Mr. Jamal. Now, I kept all of the others. At a point in time there were some statements that were the only copies, the originals I had given to Mr. Jamal. At this time I'm not -- I don't know exactly which, which witnesses we were

Page 109.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

talking about at this time. This may have been a time that he had all of the statements and I got some. I just don't know. But I mean it is not that he had all of the copies so long that I didn't have them. I mean he had some and I had some. If he had all of them then I would have had duplicates of statements because I made copies of them.

Q. Well, this is pretty plain English right here. It says I no longer have a copy of the statements, Mr. Jamal has copies of the statements. That sounds like the entirety, it sounds like it is inclusive, whole; it doesn't say some or others, it says the statements, does it not?

A. Yes, talking about specific statements, I would assume. I don't know if it's talking about all the statements.

Q. Oh, I see. So you have an independent recollection 14 years later as to what you meant at that paragraph in the 4,000-page transcript?

A. No, I didn't say that. I said it doesn't say all the statements, I don't know what it is. And if you were to let me clarify I will tell you. I don't know, but I don't believe that it refers to all of the statements.

Q. Did you bring any file here today?

Page 110.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. No, sir. I have no file.

Q. I see you looking at some papers you are referring to?

A. Piece of paper, I wrote this, I wrote this earlier today to count up the cases. And this is the affidavit. That is what I made (displaying). This is my file.

Q. May I see them?

A. Absolutely.

MR. GRANT: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE WITNESS: (Handing).

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. You were telling us before I rudely interrupted you about how you were able to balance 20 homicides, more or less, and your other jobs. Would you continue, please?

A. Well, you have my crib sheet right there.

Q. Oh, I see. So what you have is a little numerical data sheet and you have a copy of your affidavit?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who prepared the affidavit for you, sir?

A. Mr. Weinglass.

Q. And in what respect did he prepare it for you,

Page 111.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

since you are a lawyer as well?

A. He prepared it on behalf of Mr. Jamal, as far as I know. He was representing Mr. Jamal.

Q. And these statements that are found in the affidavit here, they are dictated by you to his secretary?

A. No, sir.

Q. They were typed by you in their present form?

A. No, sir.

Q. You gave him a rough draft and he filled in the text?

A. No, sir.

Q. Well, tell me how that came about?

A. Sure.

Q. And I hate to keep diverting, digressing from our mission.

A. Mr. Grant, no problem. I met Mr. Weinglass perhaps two years ago. I talked to Mr. Weinglass and a couple of his associates. He generally asked me about my representation of Mr. Jamal. We conversed perhaps a couple of hours. Over the last two years I have spoken to Mr. Weinglass a number of times. I've seen him a number of times. And obviously the subject of the conversation was my representation of Mr. Jamal.

Seite 112 ist nicht auffindbar.

Page 113.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

THE COURT: You no longer have privilege. There is no longer a privilege.

MR. GRANT: This is a statement of the witness, and he is taking notes as to the witness' statement. And I just want to see if the notes comport with the reality that I see typed here in front of me.

THE COURT: Well, if you have them turn it over to him.

MR. WEINGLASS: I don't have such. I don't have the notes. And I believe the notes are privileged. I am Counsel to Mr. Jamal. That privilege still pertains.

THE COURT: That is not anything that Jamal said to you, it is what a witness said to you.

MR. WEINGLASS: If it has anything to do with what I take down in terms of my representation of Mr. Jamal.

THE COURT: No, no.

MR. GRANT: I would like to state that when Mr. Jamal claims his Counsel at trial was ineffective he has waived the attorney-client privilege with respect to what this man did and what his file showed he did on behalf of Mr.

Page 114.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Jamal.

And he is no longer representing Mr. Jamal (indicating Mr. Jackson). And this attorney is not representing Mr. Jackson (indicating Mr. Weinglass). So there is no attorney-client privilege here.

MR. WEINGLASS: He is missing one gap and that is that I represent Mr. Jamal, and the privilege between Mr. Jamal and myself pertains.

THE COURT: That's right, but we are not talking about anything that Mr. Jamal said to you. Only what Mr. Jackson said to you. If you have the notes turn them over. Otherwise the Court can conclude that you just manufactured this thing. If you have them give it to him.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, I appreciate the Court indicating the possibility that it was manufactured.

THE COURT: Well, because he is going to argue that later on. And I am trying to help you now. Because if you have them give it to him.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor beat him to it. You are making the argument from the bench

Page 115.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

for the prosecutor. But I appreciate that observation. But I don't have the notes. There are no notes.

MR. GRANT: Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: He doesn't have any notes.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. So he sent you a rough draft based on rough notes that he had taken from conversations with you over the couple years?

A. That's what I suspect, that's where the rough draft came from, his notes and from his recollection.

Q. Did you see him taking notes while he was taking to you?

A. Yeah, from time to time, sure.

Q. When he sent you the rough draft did he send you a copy of the rough notes as well?

A. No.

Q. Never saw those?

A. No.

Q. You don't know what he was writing?

A. No, sir. I sure don't.

Q. He didn't let you review it?

A. No, he could have been writing a recipe for a cake as far as I know.

Q. And you didn't ask to see the recipe for that

Page 116.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

cake or taste it, did you?

A. No, sir.

Q. Okay, back to juggling.

A. I'm with you. Where would you like me to begin?

Q. I would like you to tell me about the other 17 cases, minus the three or four that you have mentioned?

A. Okay, sure. All right, 1975 I was appointed, I think I told you about that. Okay, '76, I was appointed to at least three cases, possibly four. I was privately retained in two cases. 1977, appointed to four or five cases, privately retained in two or three. If you add up '75, '76 and '77, it is a minimum of 11 cases I was Court-appointed, a maximum of 13. I was privately retained through those same years a minimum of 5 cases, a maximum of 7 cases. That's why you got 11 and 5, 16; 13 and 7 is 20.

Q. And you know what, Mr. Jackson --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. -- comparing notes with your colleagues back in the late '70s --

A. Hmm-hmm.

Q. -- you probably had more homicide experience than 80 percent of the lawyers practicing criminal

Page 117.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

law here in Philadelphia?

A. Didn't know that.

Q. Wouldn't you say that?

A. I had a lot.

Q. Did you know of any lawyers that tried as many murder cases as you that were your peers at that time?

A. No, I had no way of knowing, sir.

MR. GRANT: Okay. I am not bringing you anything, I am just giving you these notes for your ease and comfort. If I could have that one back, please.

THE WITNESS: (Handing).

MR. GRANT: This.

THE WITNESS: Oh, I thought you wanted my crib sheet.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Now, how did you come to represent Mr. Jamal? And I know you were appointed, sir.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. But, you know, there's ways to get appointed. Like Defendant's friends come to you and say Mr. Jamal is in trouble, we know you are a good lawyer, do you think you could go to Court and see if you could represent him, see if you could somehow get an

Page 118.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

appointment to represent him. Tell us how you got to be appointed?

A. Okay. What you just said is kind of sort of how it happened this time. It is the first time in my whole career it ever happened this way.

Q. Are you sure? Was it the last?

A. Pardon me, it was the first and only time I ever talked to a client and got the Court to appoint me. All of the other Court appointments were given to me out of the blue. I had no prior knowledge. This is the only case where -- and let me back up to answer your question fully.

I was approached by some friends of Mr. Jamal's after Mr. Jamal was arrested and shot who suggested that he needed representation. Not that I could necessarily be his lawyer, but he needed someone to receive some advice and counsel while he was in Jefferson Hospital. I recall that I went to Jefferson Hospital where he was. He was, you know, had the tubes, he was wounded. Things of that sort. I had known Mr. Jamal before that time. I went, I told him that I was there as a result of some concerned friends of his that he at least have counsel available to him if he had any questions or concerns to make sure that at least in that situation

Page 119.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

that things didn't get any worse. That may have been... it could have been a week or so, two weeks before I was actually --

Q. Formally appointed?

A. Appointed, that's right.

Q. And who were these friends and supporters who suggested that you go visit him, and that was your introduction to him professionally for the representation ultimately that arrived?

A. Yes. Ahh... now, I think it was E. Steven Collins was the one who actually talked to me. And I think he told -- well, I know he told me that he conferred with others, and he called me or saw me, I don't really recall. And as a result of that he came, Mr. Collins came and asked me. And I said well sure. At that point I think the concern was not necessarily representation for him in the homicide case, but representation for whatever was going to be his needs while he was in the hospital. I think, I don't think that he, Mr. Collins or anyone else, could tell Mr. Jamal who to retain or who to have represent him. Nor could I impose myself on him. I think at the time it was just a need that he should have somebody to advise him.

Q. Yeah, but being the popular man, outspoken

Page 120.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

community activist and generally respected and liked person, he could probably have selected a number of lawyers that he could have come to him and asked them to go get the same appointment that you got; correct?

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection, Your Honor. It is highly speculative: He could probably.

MR. GRANT: All right, I will rephrase it.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. You weren't the only lawyer in town, were you?

A. No.

Q. And you weren't the only black lawyer in town, were you?

A. No.

Q. And there were some good lawyers back in the day?

A. Still are.

Q. Yes, there are.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I am talking about lawyers with reputations that are legendary right now?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And they were your contemporaries then?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And do you know any of those people?

Page 121.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Oh, absolutely.

Q. Name some?

A. You mean black lawyers, Ben Johnson.

Q. Ben Johnson?

A. Starting in, he was of course a great lawyer. But I think the one thing that you are missing: Mr. Jamal was in the hospital, he was wounded. Mr. Jamal did not have access to a phone. I don't know, if Mr. Johnson wanted to volunteer his services I don't know how Mr. Jamal would have talked to him.

Q. The same way that you were contacted and not by Mr. Jamal?

A. Mr. Jamal didn't initiate the conversation.

Q. That's what I am saying. Mr. Collins did.

A. Yes.

Q. And he could have walked to a phone and called somebody else just as easily as you; correct?

A. Sure.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, Mr. Collins was here yesterday. Counsel had an opportunity to cross-examine him. This witness does not know what Mr. Collins was doing or thinking or why he was acting.

THE COURT: If you want --

MR. WEINGLASS: This is very bizarre.

Page 122.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

The very witness we are questioning Mr. Jackson about was here in Court yesterday. He could have questioned him all afternoon.

MR. GRANT: I could have had I known that he was the one that got Mr. Jamal his Counsel and then didn't even come in to testify on behalf of Mr. Jamal.

THE COURT: Bring him back if you wish.

MR. WEINGLASS: I assume the Court is sustaining the objection.

THE COURT: No, I am not sustaining the objection. I'm overruling the objection. I am saying you could bring Collins back if you want to.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, it is the District Attorney who is asking about Collins. Not me.

THE COURT: No, it is what came up now through cross-examination.

MR. WEINGLASS: Right.

THE COURT: He can't ask Collins about something if he didn't know Collins was the one that called Mr. Jackson.

MR. WEINGLASS: Exactly. So the

Page 123.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

District Attorney could bring Collins back and ask questions about Collins.

THE COURT: Anybody could bring him back but the objection at this point is overruled. 0kay.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Mr. Jackson?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was E. Steven Collins, who is a broadcast journalist, a friend of yours at that time?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was Mr. Jamal a friend of yours at that time?

A. No, not a friend. I knew him. I wouldn't say he was a friend.

Q. How many lawsuits could you estimate that you brought against the Philadelphia Police Department during the years that you were Director of Pilcop?

(Pause.)

A. That we actually -- oh. Probably... no more than six or seven. We were primarily involved in assisting other lawyers in suing the Police Department, the theory being, you know, the old private attorney general theory that if we trained more lawyers in the City to do this type of litigation, the citizens would just have a better

Seite 124 ist nicht auffindbar.

Page 125.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. How soon after you got in the case were you suing the Police Department for brutality against the person who was accused of killing the police officer by shooting him between the eyes at pointblank range?

A. I'm not quite following you.

Q. Yeah. You filed a lawsuit, and the lawsuit and the discovery as a result of that lawsuit which was even engendered by your filing the claim got to you before the trial was tried, wasn't it?

A. You mean I filed a lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Jamal?

Q. Yes. You recall filing a lawsuit, don't you?

A. I remember filing a complaint. Quite frankly, I don't recall filing a lawsuit. If I did, fine.

Q. Okay.

A. I remember filing a complaint.

Q. Administrative complaint?

A. Yes, sir, not a lawsuit.

Q. I see. Well, had you ever filed any of those before that, before that shooting on December the 9th of '81?

A. Had I filed any what?

Q. Administrative complaints before.

A. On behalf of Mr. Jamal?

Q. On behalf of anyone.

Page 126.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Oh, sure, plenty, plenty.

Q. Plenty of them?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And do you know what happens when you file those complaints?

A. I know what happens, I know what happened -- no, I didn't know what happened during that period of time. Because that's the basis of Pilcop being, being there. Because there was no predictability about what would happen.

Q. Okay.

A. I understand based on the time, by the time I represented Mr. Jamal, by that time we had been successful in getting the Police Department to establish a system whereby the police officers were to investigate the case or give me some notice within 30 days that they are doing something, send me a letter saying we got your complaint and we are going to do it.

Q. What happens when you investigate your complaints, generally speaking, after you established this procedure?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What generally happens when you file an administrative complaint? The Police Department

Page 127.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

investigates, what they do is go around with a microphone saying did you see anybody getting beat up and walk away if the person says yes or no?

A. Obviously what they would want to do is to interview the complainant. That's what they would want to do. As if it would make a difference. And interview, I guess, the officers who were charged with the wrongdoing.

Q. And if they didn't know what if any officers were charged with wrongdoing, they would interview every officer that was in the periphery of that incident, would they not?

A. I have no idea at all what they would do in that situation.

Q. Okay, let me say this to you: You did file an administrative complaint in this case?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And they did go out and interview almost every single person that had already been interviewed related to the murder in this case, hence, 150 interviews; would that be fair to say?

A. Mr. Grant, I'm going to, I'm guessing. I assume it, I don't, I don't have any specific recall of how many people they interviewed as a result of the administrative complaint, how many people they

Page 128.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

interviewed as a result of the criminal charge. I really, I have no idea.

Q. But you saw innumerable instances of duplicated or duplicate interviews of the same person on two or three different occasions, didn't you, when you had the statements?

A. I know there were some, yeah.

Q. Now, don't you think it would be a smart tactic for a clever lawyer, even if there was no basis to filing a lawsuit, to file a lawsuit while the criminal case is pending so that cops would be interviewed twice, the civilians would be interviewed three times, and then you could look and find little discrepancies so that it is better for you to be a criminal practitioner?

A. Absolutely not right. Worse thing in the world. Why would you want to file an administrative complaint that has no basis? I wouldn't do it.

Q. I am not saying you would. Even if there weren't a basis, that would be very beneficial to you as a cross-examiner, would it not?

A. Yeah, it could if there was a basis for it. And he had a right --

Q. Yes.

A. -- why not exercise the right. Would it be

Page 129.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

beneficial? Hopefully.

Q. And in this case it totaled a lot more interviews than in the average homicide case, wouldn't you say? Because they were doing dual investigations?

A. Mr. Grant, I assume. You know, I know that there were duplicate statements. I don't know that all of these statements were as a result of the complaint. As an example, I know Cynthia White probably had three or four statements, each one of the statements were different. I don't know if that were as a result of the administrative complaint or just the fact that each time she told a lie the Police Department wanted to go back and ask her again, I don't know.

Q. And you kept her on the stand for two-and-a-half, three days, didn't you, on cross only?

A. It was a tough following it, yes, I did.

Q. It was as a result of this administratively filed complaint which took place pretty much parallel to and in conjunction with this criminal accusation against Mr. Jamal, in other words, these two things were going on in tandem, which is the occasion for the officer, Mr. Wakshul,

Seite 130 ist nicht auffindbar.

Page 131.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

tell you which interviews were generated as a result of the administrative complaint or the regular police investigation. I have no idea at all what motivated the police. And maybe if I had the specific interview in front of me that said Internal Affairs as opposed to Joe Detective I could make that distinction. I don't recall ever seeing a statement Wakshul said that Mr. Jamal said that yeah, I shot the mother-fucker, I'm glad. In fact, I recall the exact opposite, where the officer said that he was with him until he was treated and he never said anything. That's my recollection.

Q. Well, I appreciate that. And we are going back 13 years, but didn't it occur to you since you were going to be testifying about something 13 years old or more that you might want to read the 4,000 pages which constitute the notes of testimony in this trial?

A. It occurred to me.

Q. But it didn't occur to you that you should do it or that you would do it but just that you should do it?

A. Maybe I should do it. 4,000 pages. No, I lived through it once, it's difficult for me to go back and live through it again reading the pages. I

Page 132.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

admit my recall isn't perfect and if I am making a mistake I apologize but I just don't remember that statement.

Q. Well, that makes it entirely impossible, of course, although it may seem convenient to a prosecutor's mind when you say I don't recall, then I'm stuck, right? As opposed to you making a statement saying yeah, I read it, based on the information I have, this is my answer. Now, you see, that is something somebody could deal with, but when you say I don't remember it's tougher, isn't it?

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, if Mr. Grant is having difficulty as an examiner he should take a little time and restudy the record. He shouldn't put it to the witness to confirm that he's having difficulty conducting his cross-examination.

MR. GRANT: Thank you.

MR. WEINGLASS: I object to the form of the question and it's relevance and it's materiality.

MR. GRANT: Thank you, Counselor.

MR. WEINGLASS: May I have a ruling from the Court?

THE COURT: The objection is

Page 133.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

overruled.

Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: Is there a question for me?

THE COURT: No, there is no question.

MR. GRANT: There is no question pending.

(Pause.)

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Based on what you are telling us thus far, when you opened your new offices in January or February of '82 --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. -- and you had already received the appointment to represent Mr. Jamal, this was not something to which you were unaccustomed: After all, you were working at Pilcop but the money had run out, you knew you were leaving?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you went with Mr. Crawford as a partner?

A. Well, we shared expenses.

Q. Shared space?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So did you give Mr. Jamal second-rate service because you were moving your offices from one part of

Seite 134 ist nicht auffindbar.

Page 135.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

McGill stated this to you on page 85 and 86, June 2nd, 1982. The purpose of backup Counsel as stated yesterday -- so it wasn't the first time he was saying this to you --

A. Mr. McGill is saying this to me?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. He is telling me.

Q. He is giving you some instruction as to the difficulty you are in, he is saying this is the purpose of backup Counsel.

A. Okay, I'm listening, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, I object to the question. It is a sad day, Your Honor, when defense counsel has to take it's instructions from a district attorney.

THE COURT: Look, this is cross-examination, Counselor.

MR. WEINGLASS: No, Your Honor, but he asked if he got --

THE COURT: Objection is --

MR. WEINGLASS: -- if he got any direction from the Court and he indicated that the Court gave him --

THE COURT: I don't know the whole statement yet, he is just starting.

Page 136.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

MR. WEINGLASS: But it is a statement from the District Attorney Mr. McGill.

THE COURT: Okay. He is starting.

MR. WEINGLASS: Mr. Jackson doesn't have to take anything from Mr. McGill.

THE COURT: He doesn't have to take anything from anybody if he doesn't want to. He is saying, Counselor -- let's not argue this in front of the witness. The objection is overruled. Now, please, let's proceed.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Since you expressed to Mr. McGill that you had never been backup counsel, and they don't teach backup counseling in law school --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. -- he stated the purpose of backup counsel as stated yesterday is, number one, to literally protect. And the law feels this is necessary to protect a defendant against himself, is one reason why the law allows or requires that. Secondly, a reason for backup counsel to be a professional member of the bar is necessary in the event the defendant would want to relieve himself of this right that has been permitted him by this Court to represent himself. Counsel would then be present, would be

Page 137.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

legally equipped to handle the case throughout. And lastly, if for whatever reason, and I am not saying that there will or is a reason, that the defendant would be for any reason ejected from the courtroom, at that point backup counsel, a professionally competent individual who was a member, who is a member of the Bar and aware of the procedures in the law, would then take over for the defendant maintaining all his rights. And for these reasons it's necessary that a member of the Bar be present for Mr. Jamal's own sake.

Do you recall that conversation?

A. I recall a conversation similar to that, yes.

Q. And the actual taking of testimony did not occur for two-and-a-half weeks later?

A. Yes.

Q. After that?

A. What --

Q. That was on June 2nd, the trial actually began with testimony on June 19th. Now, you had all that time to ponder and deliberate over these weighty words since you didn't know what backup counsel did or what they were for; correct?

A. Mr. Grant, Mr. Grant, Mr. McGill to tell me what backup counsel was.

Page 138.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. Nor I am not suggesting that he can.

A. If I could answer the question.

Q. Yes.

A. I am not saying Mr. McGill was wrong. But what I am saying is each and every person in this Courtroom could tell me what backup counsel was and it could be all different and they could all be right. My problem was, and that's why I went to the Supreme Court: Tell me what a backup counsel is. Everybody else is telling me what I do. Mr. Jamal is telling me what to do. Mr. McGill is telling me what to do. Judge Ribner is telling me what to do. Judge Sabo is telling me what to do.

Q. What did the Supreme Court tell you to do?

A. The Supreme Court said go back and do whatever you can.

Q. The best you can do?

A. So I went back and I just did this for awhile (Witness indicating by folding arms).

Q. Do you know why you were having a hard time?

A. I know some of the reasons.

Q. I have read this record extensively, Mr. Jackson.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And I don't envy the position you were in and

Page 139.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

I certainly could empathize with what was happening there, but tell me if this is a fair statement. Basically, Mr. Jamal, whether you were called backup Counsel on June 1st, or primary Counsel on June 19th, or no Counsel on July 3rd, you may have been the lawyer, but he was telling you what to do and dictating both the strategy and the witnesses to be called?

A. No, sir.

Q. No?

A. No, sir. Mr. Jamal was not dictating anything to me, sir.

Q. I see. Well, let me see if I could give you a little series of excerpts that may alter your opinion. First of all, on June 2lst, 1982, page 4.02, you were speaking to the Court. Judge Sabo. Well, there may be an additional comment from Mr. Jamal but I would like, you stopped, you stated my consultation with Mr. Jamal leads me to my representing to the Court that indeed, notwithstanding the Supreme Court order -- for you to represent him as primary Counsel, and backup Counsel if necessary -- and notwithstanding Your Honor's order, Mr. Jamal will continue to act according to the strategy of John Africa, and that is consistent

Page 140.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

with his consultation with Theresa Africa as well as my participation in his defense.

Now, who was calling the shots on strategy, you or him?

A. As far as I know, I was. I consulted with Mr. Jamal, obviously, and when I made the remark about the MOVE strategy, the MOVE strategy as I understood it was that they represent themselves and wouldn't waive any right at all.

Q. And he later said to you, a week later, as a matter of fact, June 28th, page 28, dot 48, I am fighting for my life according to the strategy of John Africa. I don't want you to participate -- meaning Mr. Jackson. You are not working for me. I want you to get your ass up and go out of here?

A. Yes, sir. I remember that specifically.

Q. On June 24th, page 2, 1982, Mr. McGill stating for the record: I am putting on the record again that the Judge has permitted Theresa Africa to speak with. And you state no, Janet Africa. Mr. McGill said I'm sorry, it's Janet this morning. The Court: That's Janet. The other one wasn't here. To speak with Mr. Jamal. And she has been doing it for about 10 or 15 minutes. And I believe this was a time when you and Miss Africa and Mr. Jamal were talking. And

Page 141.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

he is referring to you. All three of you. And you state just briefly: They were talking only to tell me they didn't want me to sit there. Meaning as a lawyer (indicating). That's all.

Were you running the show? You weren't running the show, you were part of the show, Mr. Jackson, weren't you?

A. Well, see, your characterization. I could tell you specifically about that conversation if you wanted to know. If you wanted to talk about a show, I don't know what you mean about the show.

Q. Okay.

A. He did not dictate to me what, he did not dictate strategy to me. If he did I would have walked out of the Courtroom then.

Q. Did you have some kind of allegiance to him above and beyond your professional relationship with him?

A. Yes, I respected him as a man.

Q. And you would go to jail for him, wouldn't you?

A. No, sir, that's why I didn't walk out of the Courtroom. That's what the conversation was about. He wanted me to walk out of the Courtroom. I said I'm not doing it and I didn't. So I wasn't going to

Page 142.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

jail. I respected him but I wasn't going to jail.

Q. Do you recall this conversation that you had with the Court in that regard? This is June 9th, 1982. During voir dire or the questioning of witnesses at page 3.19 through 3.22. The Court had at that point, Mr. Jackson -- I know this was difficult for you and I know this is difficult for you and I am not trying to trivialize this matter, believe me.

A. Mr. Grant, go on, I have no problem.

Q. The Court had removed the right to Mr. Jamal of questioning witnesses. The Court said to Mr. Jamal: I will do it but if you want to limit my questions I will allow you to present to me any questions you have, Mr. Jamal, or you, Mr. Jackson. The Court said do you have any additional questions. And this was at sidebar. Mr. Jamal then walks away from sidebar and stands over at Counsel's table, right here in this very room, right there in that very spot. And the Judge said is he going to get some questions. You go over to Counsel's table and then you stand there side-by-side with him, and you remain at Counsel's table while the Judge and the D.A. are standing at sidebar waiting for you. And at that point you say I have been instructed -- and I

Page 143.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

emphasize that term --

A. Hmm.

Q. -- by Mr. Jamal not to participate. He asked me not to participate, Your Honor. With all due respect, I think that I have to follow his wishes. He is my client.

Now he is saying to you let them put on the evidence against me, don't say squat, and let them convict me: You were willing to do that?

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection to the form of the question.

MR. GRANT: I will rephrase the question.

MR. WEINGLASS: Thank you.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. He said don't participate as a lawyer, you went to school 20 years to do that and he said don't do it, and you stood beside him and said Judge, I have to respect the wishes of my client. The Court went on to say that is not exactly true, Mr. Jackson. You said sir, under the circumstances I feel compelled to follow his wishes, Your Honor. The Court: Well, you realize that you would be in direct contempt of this Court, and I may very well sentence you to six months in prison.

Page 144.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

And you said I appreciate that, Your Honor, but I think under the circumstances, my right to represent Mr. Jamal even in this modified circumstance -- meaning backup Counsel -- I feel compelled to follow the wishes of my client. I appreciate and respect Your Honor's intention with respect to this issue, but I think under the circumstances my allegiance to my client is superior, quite frankly, Your Honor, than my abidance by the rules of the Bar of the Court.

You were saying I'm going to throw my ethics out the window, I am going to throw my obligation to serve my client dutifully out the window because a lay person tells me to do that, and the Supreme Court told me otherwise, and the Common Pleas Court told me otherwise, and you are telling me that you were running the show, Mr. Jackson?

A. I am telling you I was running the show.

MR. WEINGLASS: I object to the questioner testifying.

THE COURT: Well, he asked him a question.

MR. WEINGLASS: I have no objection to that part of the question that was read from the record. That's appropriate. But then Counsel

Page 145.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

adds his own editorial comment as to what Counsel thinks Mr. Jackson was saying. And that's Counsel's impression, but it's not appropriate to ask Mr. Jackson on the basis of his impression of his reading the record. The record speaks for itself.

I have no objection to him confronting Mr. Jackson with the record. I do have an objection to confronting Mr. Jackson with what Mr. Grant thinks he believes the record says.

MR. GRANT: Well, I read it in the record, it is words, they are on paper. I know you have the record.

MR. WEINGLASS: That part of your question I sat quietly through.

MR. GRANT: Thank you.

MR. WEINGLASS: I have no objection to that part. It is last part of his question where he editorializes.

MR. GRANT: I move to strike the editorial, if I may.

MR. WEINGLASS: Thank you.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. When I say were you running the show, Mr. Jackson, what I am trying to say, sir, is the reason

Page 146.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

you were having a hard time, from reading this record it appears to me -- you correct me if I am wrong -- is that you had a person who wanted to tell you what to do, and tried to humiliate you while they are telling you what to do, but yet you were expected to be professional and to carry out the wishes and to save that person's life, of necessity. Now, do you think that you were controlling that situation? Have you ever had a client deal with you like that, where you walk up to the Judge and say I have been instructed to do this, I have been ordered to do that, my client's demand is this? Have you ever been in that situation?

MR. WEINGLASS: Compound question now.

MR. GRANT: It is all one question:

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Have you ever been in that situation?

A. All right, have I ever been in that situation? No. But the situation that you described is not reality. The situation -- Mr. Jamal asked for me to do some things sometimes that I thought perhaps were unreasonable. I nevertheless had abiding faith in, well, what this Court, what the system was supposed to provide.

When Mr. Jamal would ask, he would ask

Page 147.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

me to walk out the Courtroom, I am not walking out of the Courtroom. I am not going to jail. At the time, and again the context of the statement that you read I am not really familiar with, but I believe that if he had a right to exercise, I was going to defend that right. I don't think he had a right to tell me to walk out of the Courtroom. There is a difference. There is a difference. That's what I am talking about.

Q. I am reading words, sir, I wasn't there.

A. I understand you are reading words, and I am telling what you the words mean. I would not go to jail if he tells me to walk out of the Courtroom. But for Mr. Jamal or any other client that I represent, that I would try to represent them and represent their interests as best as I possibly could. If that in fact meant that I might have to go to jail, then fine, if I am protecting their rights consistent with the law. I do. No question. Done it many times. Been cited for contempt of court throughout my career in this Courthouse.

Q. June 1st, 1982, page 22 and then page 95. Talking to Judge Sabo. Quote: I mean of course Judge Ribner has appointed me as backup Counsel. I am serving in that capacity, quite frankly, not

Page 148.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

directly as a result of that order, but because of my sense of responsibility to Mr. Jamal. My request to be removed from this case was not out of any sense of disinclination, but indeed to remove the Court from jurisdiction over me in my role with Mr. Jamal. I feel my role with regard to backup Counsel to Mr. Jamal is that indeed I represent him. I anticipate that there is the possibility that Mr. Jamal's role in the activity in this Court may come into conflict with the Court's rules and with Your Honor, Judge Sabo. And I'm suggesting at this point I will follow the rules that address the order and command of my client, and I want that to be clear.

At page 22, by you. May it please the Court: Your Honor, Mr. Jamal has made certain representations to this Court with respect to my representations to Judge Ribner -- that one I read -- and my present attitude and feelings towards representing him. I would like the record to clearly reflect that it has indeed been my decision and my request that I be removed from this trial as backup Counsel. If I were removed, to the extent that I would participate or assist Mr. Jamal, that would be my decision and Mr. Jamal's decision.

So you asked to be removed as backup

Page 149.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Counsel from reading this so the Court couldn't tell you what to do, to remove the Court from jurisdiction over me with my role with Mr. Jamal -- those are the words you uttered?

A. Right.

Q. Tell us what that means to you?

A. Sure, real clear, real clear. If Mr. Jamal is representing himself, I'm a friend of his. I'm a lawyer. If he wants me, he wants to ask me something, fine. I have no problem doing that. If I am backup Counsel it sounds like I've got some obligation, some duty that I don't know what it is. So if I'm just, if Mr. Jamal wants to consult, if he is his own lawyer, he wants to ask me a question, I am a friend of his, I come in, an associate of his or something, he wants to ask me a question, he wants me to sit down at Counsel's table, he wants to break to consult, fine, in Court then he is just conferring with me. But as soon as you say I'm backup Counsel, that sounds like there is some obligation, some standard that I have to meet. Nobody is telling me what the standard is to meet. I am in an untenable situation, that's why I wanted to get out of it.

Q. Let's be realistic, Mr. Jackson.

A. Pardon me?

Page 150.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. Let's be realistic here.

A. That's what I -- trust me, I was being realistic.

Q. Do you think it's harder to be a secondhand lawyer, so to speak, than it is to be a firsthand lawyer: Do you think it's harder to be somebody assisting somebody who is the main lawyer or do you think it is harder to be that main lawyer?

A. You see, now you are saying all kinds, secondhand, firsthand, assisting, backup. Now you see what happens: Nobody knows what it is.

Q. I do and you do. Primary and backup, those are the words.

A. Mr. Grant, you could call it primary, backup, assistant, you start using all these different names, but, Mr. Grant, and I'm sure you know, to this day, to this day I don't think anyone could give you a definitive answer to what a backup counsel is supposed to do. A backup counsel is supposed to do almost anything that the client or the court or somebody else may want them to do. And I have never been in that situation. And it's like I've got to be ineffective at the point where I'm being backup counsel. What do I do?

If I sit like this (Witness folded his

Page 151.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

arms) as backup counsel and never open my mouth, am I being effective backup counsel? Possibly so.

Nobody is going to tell me what to do. I mean what do you do? And I'm saying as backup Counsel, do I wait until he asks me a question, or do I tell him he is about to make a mistake? I mean what do I do? If the Judge tells me something or he tells me, what do I do as backup Counsel?

And, Mr. Grant, what I am saying to you: It may be clear to you, it may be clear to some others what backup Counsel is. I admit I have no idea at all what the standard for being a backup counsel is.

Q. What did you do for Mr. Mozenter when you were his so-called co-counsel?

A. I sat there and assisted him, did research, talked to the client, did some investigation, did some writing, things of that sort.

Q. Advised and consulted with him together?

A. It is co-counsel, not backup counsel.

Q. Well, you weren't Mr. Mozenter's peer at that point, I hesitate -- was a lawyer.

Q. And you were a junior lawyer to him?

A. Oh, absolutely.

Page 152.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. And you were not basically going to be lead counsel in that situation?

A. That's right. But, Mr. Grant, you are talking about lead counsel and associate counsel as opposed to backup counsel. I am telling you backup counsel is an entirely different animal.

Q. Okay.

A. For me.

Q. Let's approach it easily.

A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

Q. You went to law school?

A. Yes.

Q. You were trained to be a lawyer?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Nobody was asking you to be greater than a lawyer?

A. That's right.

Q. They weren't asking you, a backup doesn't sound to me like something that's far beyond the ability of a lawyer; it sounds like something that's maybe less than is required, to a certain degree, than of a person who has the primary responsibility to carry out litigation of a claim. Wouldn't you agree with that, Mr. Jackson?

A. Yes and no. Mr. Grant. No matter how you ask

Page 153.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

me, you are not going to get me to say I knew what being a backup counsel was. I'm never going to say it. And there is nothing, you could ask me another way, I still, I didn't know then, I still don't know.

Q. And if you were to practice 50 more years you still wouldn't know, would you?

A. Absolutely. Maybe by that time the court will make some pronunciation to tell you and describe it. And I am telling you now: You tell me a case, you show me a case that tells you what a backup counsel does. There is none. Is none. So where did I get my guidance from? What standard of effectiveness do I use? There is none so I wanted out. I'm saying well, I'm going to be judged by, Judge Sabo is going to tell me to do something, Mumia is going to tell me to do something, and Mr. McGill is going to tell me to do something, and everybody else in the Courtroom is going to tell me to do something. Backup Counsel.

Q. And you were, in your own opinion, a very good lawyer?

A. In my opinion, egotistical as it may sound.

Q. It doesn't sound egotistical to me, it sounds factual to me. In fact, you stated -- 6-1-82, page 03 -- I have been I believe an effective counsel for many, many years here in the City of Philadelphia;

Page 154.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

and at 6-21-82, during the pendency of the trial, at page 402 and - 03, what I am saying essentially, Your Honor, is that of course Mr. Jamal's being represented by me under protest. It is still against his wishes that I represent him. Nevertheless, as Your Honor well knows, it is at least my present intention to defend Mr. Jamal to the best of my ability with all the vigor that I could put forth.

And you meant those words?

A. When I am his lawyer he's got it all. As backup Counsel, I don't know what he's got.

Q. Hmm. Well, that was after you had been appointed no longer backup?

A. That's what I am saying. I am a lawyer, I know at least when I am a lawyer I know what to do.

Q. The point I am making is you were only backup for a heartbeat, you were only backup until when he was removed from voir dire, from that point on, from 6-2 to July 3rd you weren't backup anymore, you were primary Counsel?

A. Mr. Grant.

Q. So what was the quandary here?

A. The quandary is you brought it up.

Q. I brought up the fact --

A. You brought up, and I am telling you when the

Page 155.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

issue of being backup Counsel was an issue, it started, it started before we came here to Judge Sabo. I went up to the Supreme Court during the time I was at pre-trial. That's when it started. When Judge Ribner said I was going to be backup. So that was a precursor to what happened actually in the Courtroom. I went, before we even came here I said Supreme Court, tell me what to do. Because I do not want to be backup Counsel. Either I am going to represent him or I'm not. For me to be a backup Counsel with no guidance, no standard, I felt uncomfortable. As long as -- quite frankly, if I was appointed as Mr. Jamal's Counsel, quite frankly even against his wishes, I knew what I could do. But I was not going to be backup Counsel and not know what standard to follow. That was my problem. If the Court -- in the petition I said tell me what I am supposed to do. And listen to what I'm asking. Tell me what I am supposed to do. Since you folks are telling me I'm backup Counsel, tell me what backup Counsel does. Nobody would tell me.

Q. Well, Judge Sabo told you you don't have to be backup anymore, right?

A. Well, yes, fine.

THE COURT: Just a minute. Mr. McGill

Page 156.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

came in. You are not going not going to him?

MR.WEINGLASS: We are not going to call him now. But if he is in violation of the sequestration order --

THE COURT: He just walked into the Courtroom.

MR.WEINGLASS: -- I would ask him to be removed.

THE COURT: I didn't want to interrupt the witness.

MR. WEINGLASS: I appreciate that.

THE COURT: I don't think they are going to need you today. Okay.

MR. GRANT: Or tomorrow. With all due respect.

THE COURT: I don't know when. You will be on call, we will let you know when.

MR. JOSEPH MCGILL: Your Honor, I do have a few hearings tomorrow. Should I stay in contact with the Court Crier?

THE COURT: No, we will be in touch with you if we need you.

MR. MCGILL: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. I realize that.

Page 157.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, in case the Court reporter didn't hear it, Mr. Grant did indicate that it was his present belief that he wouldn't be needed tomorrow either. I just think that should be on the record. Because we are trying to prepare our schedule.

THE COURT: I know.

MR. WEINGLASS: We've had trouble with the Court before on scheduling.

THE COURT: This is cross-examination, I can't cut anybody short.

MR. WEINGLASS: I am not asking you to cut him short; I am just indicating to the Court that when we prepare for tomorrow we are accepting the representation of Counsel that he is going to go all day tomorrow.

MR. GRANT: I will try.

THE COURT: You have other witnesses here. Jeremy Gelb. Gary Wakshul. Joe Davidson. So. We will have them available tomorrow if you need them. Try to get their phone numbers and we will call them. Okay. Go ahead.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Now, Mr. Jackson --

Page 158.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Yes, sir.

Q. -- that dilemma that you had at backup Counsel status, that only lasted for a little while because --

A. Yeah.

Q. -- during the second day of Jury selection you became primary Counsel, didn't you?

A. Right, sir.

Q. And therefore you knew how to do that, didn't you?

A. Yeah, now, and you could correct me if I am wrong, it seems to me that even prior to the voir dire Mr. Jamal may have conducted some examination. It seems to me he did.

Q. Yes, he did the motion to suppress?

A. Okay.

Q. And he did a few witnesses, maybe 15 or 20, 30 witnesses perhaps, at the voir dire stage, the initial day.

A. Okay, then he got to voir dire. Now, during that period of time, during that motion to suppress and that voir dire, I'm backup Counsel.

Q. Yes.

A. That's what I'm doing (Witness indicating by folding arms).

Page 159.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Okay. So then the next day after Mr. Jamal was removed from representing himself, I, quite frankly, pleaded with him because the alternative was for Judge Sabo -- no disrespect to the Court -- was for Judge Sabo to select the Jury.

THE COURT: Wait awhile. I didn't select the Jury. You voir dired the Jury.

THE WITNESS: For voir dire. Forgive me, Your Honor, I should be more precise in my language.

THE COURT: I don't select any juries.

THE WITNESS: And the defense says the same thing. Not you. In other words, the Judge would do the questioning. And I said hey, let me do it. I know you don't want it, I don't want to be in this position, but in my opinion it would be better for me to participate in the voir dire rather than to leave it to the Judge to do it.

Mr. Jamal conceded to that on the condition that after that was completed, Mr. Jamal would then begin to represent himself.

Now, during that period of time I had no preparation, I'm doing the voir dire, I'm conducting the voir dire. And during that

Page 160.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

period of time, I was the lawyer. No problem doing that. And again, and once we, once, well, the Judge removed him from representing himself after the Jury was selected, you know, I was back as his lawyer. But there were these times when I was in never-never land. Where I was, I call it never-never land, backup-counsel land, I don't know what to do there.

MR. WEINGLASS: Excuse me. I just want to state for the record that at one point in his response Mr. Jackson indicated that he just sat that with his arms folded across his chest and I don't think the Court reporter got that. I thought the record should indicate that he was, that he was mimicking a position of having no role at all but to sit quietly.

MR. GRANT: And for the record --

THE COURT: How do you know that's what he meant?

MR. GRANT: That was a hypothetical example that he gave. He didn't indicate he did this at this trial.

THE COURT: He may have been praying.

THE WITNESS: I prayed a lot, Your Honor.

Page 161.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. For the month of June and all of July you were his lawyer?

A. Right.

Q. And as a result of that, you knew what you were doing because you've done it 20 times before in situations like that?

A. Right, yes, I have.

Q. And you were going to try to do the best that you can do because, A, you respected him as an man?

A. Right.

Q. You had come to know his family, had you not?

A. Yeah, very well.

Q. And you know that he was referred to you by E. Steven Collins?

A. Yeah.

Q. Who you knew?

A. Yeah.

Q. Who you respected?

A. Sure.

Q. And you knew he was counting on you?

A. Yes.

Q. And you know that by saying I was a lousy lawyer, that certainly increases his chances here today to get a new trial all over again, don't you?

Page 162.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. I'm not going to say I'm a lousy lawyer.

Q. Well, you said you were ineffective?

A. Yeah. I said, when I use the word ineffective, I said I was an ineffective backup lawyer.

Q. Oh.

A. Each time I was a backup lawyer I was ineffective.

Q. Do you think that you were effective as the primary lawyer or the lawyer?

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection, Your Honor: The question of effectiveness is a matter for the Court to decide upon review of the record.

THE COURT: Everybody is asking him his opinion so I will let him ask it.

THE WITNESS: Most times I was. I made mistakes. The question is if I make mistakes does that make me ineffective. Maybe.

Mr. Weinglass asked me the question about Mr. Chobert about his record. I blew that issue. I don't know, does that make me ineffective? It certainly didn't help Mr. Jamal any.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Well, let's look at that a little bit. He

Page 163.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

commented to you about the case of Commonwealth versus Murphy. And you remember Craig Murphy, don't you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you know that Craig Murphy wasn't convicted until about another seven or eight years after your trial, don't you?

A. I don't recall today.

Q. So that wasn't the law then?

MR. WEINGLASS: I also mentioned Davis V Alaska.

MR. GRANT: Counsel, could I do this? Do you mind?

MR. WEINGLASS: I think the question ought to be complete.

THE COURT: Counselor, you have redirect if you wish. Don't tell the D.A. how to ask his questions. He doesn't tell you how to ask yours. You merely object.

And if there is an objection to his question the objection is overruled.

Now, please, let's go forward. You will have a chance for redirect. Okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: When he starts a question by saying --

Page 164.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

THE COURT: Counselor, I have already ruled the objection is overruled. You have a chance to redirect, you can phrase the question any way you wish.

MR. WEINGLASS: Thank you.

THE COURT: Do it then, okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: Thank you. I would do that. But when he starts a question by saying did Mr. Weinglass ask you and then he only gives half of my question, that's inappropriate. That part is inappropriate.

THE COURT: You bring it out on redirect, okay.

Let's go, come on.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Davis versus Alaska?

A. Pardon me.

Q. Davis versus Alaska?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. That is the seminal case that decided whether you really blew it or not in that instance, according to the representations here today. Do you know anything about the facts of that case, sir?

A. No, sir.

Q. Well, let me just give it to you, a little

Page 165.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

overview. Two guys went out and committed a crime together, and one of them was going to testify against the other. Plead guilty. And the guy that wanted to plead guilty was on probation or on parole, okay. Juvenile. And the Court felt, Supreme Court of the United States said hey, when a guy's got that much to gain and that much to lose, and he's got this thing in the background here motivating him to cooperate with the Commonwealth because he could get additional time for whatever he gets plus time for the crime, you got to tell the fact-finder that and the lawyer should know that. Now let's contrast and compare that with the scenario that you were involved in.

We have a man who is driving his cab down the street, he sees a man run out of a parking lot, run over and shoot a police officer in the back, almost at pointblank range from 12 inches away, then stands over the police officer, shoots him between the eyes, there were flash burns on his face, within 45 seconds the cops come and he runs up to them and says I'm on probation or parole, don't believe what I say, he runs up and says I just saw that man shoot that cop. Now, before the cops ever knew who the man was, and before they had a reason to look for a

Page 166.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

record, he said those words to them. He interjected himself into that situation.

Now, what you would have to suggest, I guess, in that situation is that he went up and told them what he saw, not because he was stunned, shocked and amazed, but because I'm on probation, I saw a crime, I'd better go tell the police.

Now, on appeal I guess that will be decided by the Supreme Court, but you could see how you are still a good lawyer and those issues on which reasonable men would differ are going to be the things that turn this case; do you understand?

A. I understand what you are saying, sir.

Q. So I'm saying to you: Are you confessing error because he threw a case at you?

A. Sir, I am not confessing error. Well, if that was an error, yes, I'm confessing it. I am confessing what I did and what I didn't do. That's what I have been doing the entire time I have been up here. If it makes me an ineffective lawyer it makes me an ineffective lawyer. I have enough ego to know who I am and what I do. I am just admitting and telling you what the facts and reality is. You know, I'm taking it whichever way it comes: I'm a man.

THE COURT: All right, quiet, please.

Page 167.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

THE COURT OFFICER: Quiet in the Courtroom.

THE COURT: Or you will be evicted. Please.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. You do realize -- getting back to my previous question -- that if you say I'm ineffective, or I didn't do a good job in some areas, that is the basis on which their claims are premised, and of course that would give the person who you have come to respect as a man, and whose family you have come to know, and who you like as a person, and who was referred to you by friends of yours, another chance when you couldn't succeed for him, and since this is the first time that you ever had a man on death row, the first time?

A. Hmm-hmm.

Q. You still remember this case vividly, don't you?

A. I sure do.

Q. Like every other lawyer, you see those things that you think that you should have done in the back of your mind when you're shaving in the morning, because you don't like to lose, because you are just like everybody else, aren't you?

Page 168.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Yeah, I got a big ego.

Q. So this would be a chance to help this man, wouldn't it?

A. Sure would.

Q. Well, you said you didn't have any resources and basically you guys were batting zero, right?

A. I . . . yes, you are talking about two different things but the answer is yes yes.

Q. Yes yes I had no money, and yes yes I could give him a new chance, those are the possibilities in --

A. I could give him a new chance?

Q. A new chance, a new trial?

A. Oh.

Q. You could assist?

A. Oh, now, Mr. Grant.

Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Jackson, I'm sorry.

A. Mr. Grant, let me tell you, Mr. Grant: If I wanted Mr. Jamal to have a new trial, I would have came in here and said I've been ineffective, that's it.

Q. But you couldn't do that --

MR. WEINGLASS: May the witness have a chance?

MR. GRANT: Yes, I apologize.

Page 169.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

THE WITNESS: All I am simply saying is the facts speak for themselves. You have the record. And I'm not trying to embellish the record, I'm trying to explain to both of you, Mr. Weinglass and to you, what happened, what was going through my mind.

If as a result of my explanation it makes me ineffective, then I'm ineffective. And that's, and that seems to me is a legal conclusion. As far as I am concerned, Tony Jackson is concerned, in terms of whether I was effective, it's totally different than the Court's stand. I know what I did and I'll live with it.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. You did what?

A. Pardon?

Q. You say you know what I did?

A. I said I know what I did.

Q. Okay. Now I want to discuss with you the statements that you made that you weren't getting any resources to help you in your quest to save Mr. Jamal from conviction.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And in that regard I would like to bring to

Page 170.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

your attention an examination that Mr. Jamal himself did of the then Superintendent of Philadelphia Prisons, Mr. David S. Owens, and that was on June the 3rd of 1982. It was during the pendency of a motion to suppress.

A. Okay.

MR. GRANT: At page 3.57, Counsel.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. And they were discussing what if any resources Mr. Jamal did have to assist him, aside from the money given to him by the Court and the lawyer given to him by the Court.

A. Hmm-hmm.

Q. Now, Mr. Jamal had gone on with Judge Sabo saying, you know, you are not going to let me do this and let me do this and I want you to bring somebody here to explain why they are not doing this up at the prison. The Court asked David Owens to come down and he came down. And the Court said did I discuss with you the issue of Mr. Jamal having runners on his behalf.

Answer: Yes, sir.

He said well, for the record would you tell us exactly what those arrangements are, or were.

And he says yes. There's been ongoing

Page 171.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

dialogue with Mr. Jackson -- you -- with regard to the visitations in the institution for Mr. Jamal. After some discussion and some communication -- with you -- we have arrived at the following visiting at the institution. Number one, the Mumia Jamal Defense Committee, Committee, will be permitted to visit on every Saturday morning no more than four visitors at any time. Number two, the Association of Black Journalists will be permitted to visit on Thursday mornings, no more than four individuals at any time. Number three, the Prisoners' Rights Council, they would be extended visits but they would have to conform to the agreed upon process, since that is a group that comes to the prison frequently.

A. Sure.

Q. And number four, legal runners, Mr. Jackson provided me with the names of two individuals who he indicated would be of value entering the institution to work at Mr. Jamal's case and that request was approved.

And at that point Mr. Jamal asked well, what is your definition of a runner. Just what are you going to allow them to do for me.

Mr. Owens said, my definition of a runner is an individual who is a paralegal who is

Page 172.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

able to take the information to a prisoner, carry it back to the community to effect and do those things that the prisoner, by nature of being incarcerated, could not do.

The Judge then asked Mr. Owens, of the total amount of privileges including these that have been allowed Mr. Jamal, in your experience how would you rate that in relation to other prisoners in your experience.

Mr. Owens: I am not aware of anywhere in our system now or that there has been in our system in the past that would have amounted to the groups of individuals coming in to visit and assist him.

And Mr. Jamal then says, well -- I'm sorry, he doesn't say at that point. Same day, earlier on, when he brought to the Court the motions he had put in for runners: I made those motions to you for legal runners not just so they could have access to me at the prison but so they could be field workers for me, be my legs, my ears and my eyes. And he names two runners, Alfonso Robbins and Gerald Ford.

Didn't the fact that he had that support structure that you were working with --

Page 173.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. I wasn't working with it. He was working with it.

Q. What do you mean?

A. They were working for him, they weren't working for me. When I asked for an investigator, when I asked for a pathologist, ballistics, I wanted them to work for me. Where I would talk to them. Mr. Jamal, he had runners, as you say, to assist him in doing things with his family, in the community, and, I'm sure, serve some beneficial purpose. But none of those people could I send out as an investigator.

Q. I didn't --

A. None of those people were pathologists, ballisticians. I mean if everybody in this Courtroom went up to see him everyday, how did it help me?

Q. Well, you had an investigator?

A. For a little while. $450 worth.

Q. How about five months? How long did the investigator work for you on Mr. Jamal's case?

A. $450 worth.

Q. How much?

A. $450 worth.

Q. Where did that come from?

A. It came out of my pocket and the Court

Page 174.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

reimbursed me.

Q. So how much was he charging by the hour?

A. I don't really remember.

Q. Was he making more than you an hour?

A. Probably -- no. I think the Court, there is a rate that the investigators get, I don't recall what it was. And Mr. Greer, Bob Greer is his name. Sometimes Mr. Greer would, in effect, volunteer his time. He was also doing some work on some other matters. But with $450, if he was charging $15 an hour, or $25 an hour, how long would that last? And you said it's over five months. It may have, I got the appointment in, I think the petition was approved in January, I think.

Q. Yes. January 20th?

A. In January. I don't recall specifically after when I retained Mr. Greer.

Q. Okay.

A. But I mean it isn't like I had the services of an investigator full-time for five months. I've never had such pleasure in my life.

Q. Well, how much investigation can you get for $450?

A. Not much.

Q. In 1981 dollars we are talking, we are not

Page 175.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

talking 1995 dollars, Mr. Jackson.

A. Not much.

Q. Okay. So did people from the Mumia Abu-Jamal Defense Committee also pay this man?

A. I don't know. I don't think so. But I don't know.

Q. You didn't ask him?

A. No, sir.

Q. Well, if you knew that wasn't buying much investigative time, and five months is pretty long investigative time, didn't you inquire why he wanted to work for you so long for no bucks?

A. You said that, I didn't say that.

Q. All right. Let me read you something. Mr. Greer, apparently he had some contact with Mr. E. Steven Collins, and he sent out some, some inquiries to several people.

A. You are asking me about conversations between Mr. Greer and Mr. Collins?

Q. No, I am asking you about who was paying Mr. Greer, if you know, besides yourself?

A. I have no idea at all of anyone paying him except me.

Q. Except you.

A. Yes, sir.

Page 176.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. So he could have been getting more money than what you were paying him and what the Court permitted?

A. Could have been getting.

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection: Speculative. If Counsel has any proof of that, it's highly speculative. He could have been.

MR. GRANT: Okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: Nothing could be more speculative than a question beginning with those words.

THE COURT: The witness filed a financial statement in this case. So if that is of any use to anybody.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. I don't know if you have seen the filings of defense Counsel in this case, sir?

A. No.

Q. But Robert T. Greer -- who formerly worked for you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. -- sent out a letter on March 16th -- and I am reading from exhibit number 2, the last page.

A. Hmm-hmm.

Q. Robert T. Greer's stationery, private

Page 177.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

investigator, Suite 805, One East Penn Square -- is that where he worked: One East Penn Square?

A. Yeah, I think that's where he worked.

Q. He sent a letter -- I am not asking you to verify the contents of the letter, I know you can't do that -- this letter is in response to your phone call on E. Steven Collins, on the Georgie Woods Show, I have been retained -- and that has a specific legal connotation, would you agree?

A. Yeah, it does for me. I know what a retainer is.

Q. Somebody gave me money?

A. That's what it means.

Q. Okay. I have been retained by the Mumia Abu-Jamal Defense Committee to investigate the incident of his arrest.

Now, is that the same thing he was investigating for you?

A. You are asking me -- no, you know, I retained Bob Greer as a investigator. As to what he meant in that letter, I am afraid to venture a guess.

Q. Well, let me say this: He was retained to investigate the arrest of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Do you think, using logic and common sense --

A. Right.

Page 178.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. -- he was talking about the same murder charges that you are talking about when you were paying him?

A. I would assume so. But then I assume that he is talking about the same charges. But then I have to assume the truth of everything that he's been retained.

Mr. Grant, what you are doing is asking me what did he mean when he wrote this letter. I have no idea that the letter even existed.

Q. Well, that is unfair.

A. It sure is.

Q. What I am really asking you is if the guy was working on the murder case for you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I would assume that since he is employed by you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. That you would be aware of what he is doing since you are paying him?

A. Yes, sir. But let me explain this. I was an investigator, Mr. Greer is an investigator. I asked him to do some tasks for me. I'm not so certain that that letter isn't consistent with him working for me. He may have decided to put that hat on to say well,

Page 179.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

on behalf of the Mumia Abu-Jamal Defense Fund I am going to talk to you, I am going to do something, because that is the hat he put on. Tomorrow he may put another hat on. I mean it is something you just have to switch in midstream to accomplish your purpose.

I am speculating now. But I don't know that letter is inconsistent with what he was doing for me. It sounds like you are trying to suggest that he was being paid by this fund. I don't know if he was. I don't know.

Q. You gave him money out of your pocket, you gave him money from the Court?

A. Well.

Q. And now this letter says I was retained by the defense fund?

A. Mr. Grant. Let me just tell you. I gave him money out of my pocket because, as you know, what happens in Court appointments, you file a petition and they wait a year to get their money.

Q. I understand, Mr. Jackson.

A. You know, Mr. Greer is a big man: He looked at me and said he needed his money so I gave the money out of my pocket.

Q. I understand.

Page 180.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Then you are asking me to buy into that because he was retained that he got some money. And you and I are both lawyers and you know we get retainers, I don't know if that necessarily means the same thing to him. I don't know if it's the truth or not. It may have been a subterfuge. It may have been a convenient entre. I just don't know.

Q. Did he ever work for you prior to that?

A. Mumia's case I think was the first case Bob ever worked with me.

Q. Did he ever work with you as an investigator when you were an investigator?

A. Oh, no, no, no.

Q. You didn't meet him through your prior career as an investigator, did you?

A. No, sir.

Q. Okay. Now 1et's talk about the other resources that you didn't have to help you. On January 20th of '82 you filed a petition, you filed a petition to ask for Court funds to employ a ballistician, a photographer, a special investigator, and a pathologist. And you knew that the going rate for the Court of Common Pleas -- and they have thousands of criminal cases a year, and hundreds of lawyers appointed -- is $150 per expert, or per

Page 181.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

investigator, initially? And you knew that was an initial amount, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. That's why you initially got 150 bucks for Greer and then you came back and got triple that eventually, right?

A. I think so -- yeah. I think so. I think it was four. Now please don't mess with me if I'm wrong.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. I am not going to mess with you.

MR. WEINGLASS: I just have this objection: Counsel inadvertently misstated on January 20th it was filed. On January 20th the Court ordered it. The filing was much earlier. And that is a matter of Court record.

MR. GRANT: Oh.

MR. WEINGLASS: I don't think Counsel should misstate the Court record.

THE COURT: If it is in the Court record.

MR. GRANT: And if I haven't done it I would move as Commonwealth Exhibit 1 in these proceedings the entirety of the Quarter Sessions

Page 182.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

file, including the transcript notes of testimony, transcripts and related Exhibits into this proceeding so that they may be part of this record.

THE COURT: Okay.

(Quarter Sessions file was marked
Commonwealth's Exhibit C-l for identification.)

MR. GRANT: And I'm sorry, Counsel.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Filed, ordered: You got money for these people; correct?

A. Yeah. Approved.

Q. And what did the Judge at the time, Judge Ribner was the one who ran the calendar room, that is the room where preliminary matters are discussed and arrangements of this nature are made; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you filed that, didn't he tell you in this kind of case I think all those experts would be appropriate to have?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And I am going to give you money for each, and I am going to give you our standard initial fee?

A. Right.

Q. But if you need more give me an itemized bill

Page 183.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

so I could tell we are not just giving people money for nothing and X will accommodate you and --

A. That's right, he put it off on Judge Sabo.

Q. He put it off on Judge Sabo. He put it off on the trial Judge?

A. Let me say: Before he put it off on Judge Sabo I went back to him -- my recollection is that I went to Judge Ribner several times for money before we even got to Judge Sabo where I asked him for money. Yes, I could initially request, you know, money for the experts and things of sort thing, and they give you 150. But initially it was like this was not a 150 case.

Q. Yes?

A. And it's like why, why go through this. I mean it's like why go through a charade because this is typically the way things are done. Because it is not always done, because I know, and I am sure you know, during that time some people got more money for certain things. But anyway, he said if this is not enough money I come back in. It's like a game. I'm giving you 150, if you need more come back. You're coming back. You better go see the trial Judge. So like come on.

Q. So you went to see the trial Judge and you got

Page 184.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

more money?

A. Yeah, another 150.

Q. So in your affidavit when you said you didn't get more money and you were without funds -- and that's why Mr. Jamal decided to be his own lawyer: Because he saw that you were ineffectual in getting bucks for him -- well, this is what you are implying in this affidavit, or declaration?

A. I am implying, yes, that I was ineffectual in getting money. Yes, I got a total of about $800 for a pathologist, ballistician, investigator and photographer.

Q. And you don't know how much money he got, though?

A. Who, Mr. Jamal?

Q. Mr. Jamal.

A. No, I have no idea at all.

Q. Could it be -- well, you have no idea?

A. None whatsoever. I didn't know he got any money, sir.

Q. If people came in here and testified that they contributed thousands of dollars to the Mumia Abu-Jamal Defense Fund to defend him --

MR. WEINGLASS: Nobody testified to thousands of dollars.

Page 185.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

MR. GRANT: I said if, Counsel.

THE COURT: Counselor, listen to his question. He said if.

MR. GRANT: If.

THE COURT: If they did.

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection: Speculative. There are no if questions allowed in a court of law so far that I know. It leads to speculation.

MR. GRANT: Counselor, you are right. I am going to go back to law school. I apologize, let me rephrase that.

MR. WEINGLASS: I accept it.

THE COURT OFFICER: Quiet in the Courtroom, please.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Do you know Mr. Joseph Davidson?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How do you know him, sir?

A. I know Joe as a journalist and I think at the time of Mumia's arrest I think, maybe, I think Joe was then the president of the Association of Black Journalists. I think. But I mean I have known Joe for a long time.

Q. Then you know him to be an honest and

Page 186.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

trust worthy individual, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you read the papers?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you read the Sunday paper?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you read the article substantially quoting you Sunday in the Review and Opinion section? I have it here for you.

A. Oh, yeah, I read that.

Q. You read that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you read about the bucks that was contributed just by the Association of Black Journalists to give to the support of the defense of Mr. Jamal?

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection: Hearsay. You can not question a witness on the basis of a newspaper article unless you bring in the author.

THE COURT: He is asking him if he read it.

MR. GRANT: Every exhibit he puts up here is a newspaper article. I'm just asking about one.

Page 187.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

MR. WEINGLASS: He did and I did not object. But it is objectionable when they get into the content of what he read, which is when I objected.

THE COURT: That's what you gave me. They were your exhibits, they were hearsay.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor refused to accept my newspaper articles as exhibits.

THE COURT: They are in the file.

MR. WEINGLASS: But when I offered them you refused them even though they were directly relevant to the injustice which is occurring in this Courtroom.

THE COURT: That is your opinion.

MR. WEINGLASS: No, it was the opinion of a headline of a local newspaper.

MR. GRANT: Here we go with the papers, Judge. I told you, Judge, I told you.

MR. WEINGLASS: And those newspapers, according to the standard set by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, reflect the fact that the community believes Your Honor cannot sit fairly. When a community newspaper --

THE COURT: Well, isn't it up to the Supreme Court to rule on that?

Page 188.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

MR. WEINGLASS: When a community newspaper says Sabo must go, that is evidence of the fact that the community does not believe in the fairness of these proceedings. It's evidence. What he is questioning him on is not evidence.

MR. GRANT: Is this my cross-examination or what?

THE COURT: Don't take up anymore time.

MR. WEINGLASS: I have no objection to proper cross.

THE COURT: Please don't interrupt cross-examination.

MR. WEINGLASS: I object to hearsay. What is in the newspaper is classic hearsay unless it is directly relevant to community attitudes, which is why I offered mine.

THE COURT: Let's see where he is going.

MR. GRANT: Okay, I will get some quotes from the papers and ask the person who made them if they are so.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. GRANT:

Page 189.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. You don't know anything about Mr. Davidson's fund raising efforts or any statements he made in the press about giving money to Mr. Jamal, I assume?

A. I know the statements that appeared in the press that were reportedly made by him. I don't know that he said it.

Q. And you don't know that it is in fact true that just that Association raised a thousand bucks?

A. I have no idea. I have no idea.

Q. There are some attributions to you, Mr. Jackson, in that same newspaper.

A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you interview with Marc Kaufman or Julia Cass in this regard?

A. Yes, with Marc.

Q. And you basically said to him, or they elicited from you, or however it came about --

MR. WEINGLASS: Could we have the date of the newspaper?

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes, you may. Sunday.

THE COURT: This last Sunday.

MR. WEINGLASS: Last Sunday.

MR. GRANT: You could have the newspaper, it's right here (handing).

MR. WEINGLASS: Thank you.

Page 190.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

THE COURT: You mean you didn't buy the newspaper?

MR. WEINGLASS: Pardon?

THE COURT: You didn't buy the newspaper?

MR. WEINGLASS: Oh, yes, Your Honor, I have the newspaper.

THE COURT: Well, you have that one?

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes, I have this newspaper.

THE COURT: He has that one.

MR. WEINGLASS: Photograph of Mr. Jamal that says the City known for past excesses.

THE COURT: Since you bought it already we won't read it here.

MR. WEINGLASS: I am just noting the headline.

THE COURT: Yes, okay. That's hearsay as you said. Okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: Oh.

THE COURT: If we are going to let part of the hearsay in, let's leave the whole hearsay in. Okay. Let's go.

Page 191.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

MR. GRANT: Thank you, Your Honor.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Mr. Jackson?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. With respect to the comments you made, the reason that I'm raising this is because, just so you know, if you haven't already defined it, my theory of this entire matter --

A. Hmm-hmm.

Q. -- is that despite the fact that you were nominally an attorney for Mr. Jamal, Mr. Jamal effectively right here ran the show, and now through your mouth is alleging that he was ineffective as Counsel because you really didn't control anything. And to that extent I am going to ask you if you said this.

A. I didn't -- okay, go ahead.

Q. Go ahead, please.

A. I was trying to follow you. You are saying that Mr. Jamal was always in control, and he was ineffective, is that what you are saying?

Q. I am saying he dictated to you what he wanted you to do.

A. All right, you said that several times, and if you believe that's true, that's your belief.

Page 192.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Well, let me ask you. Philadelphia Inquirer, 7-23-95 Review and Opinion section. Page E dash 1. Byline Marc Kaufman and Julia Cass. Column 5.

It was Abu-Jamal's decision not to call his brother.

Did you say that?

A. No, sir.

Q. You didn't say that?

A. Danny Alva.

Q. Danny Alva said --

A. Danny Alva wouldn't let me call him. Danny Alva represented Billy.

Q. Mr. Jamal never said I don't want my family involved in this, this is my thing? Think carefully, Mr. Jackson.

A. No, I don't know why that occasion... you are talking about in this trial?

Q. I am talking about did he ever say that to you at any time?

A. That he didn't want his family involved in his trial or something. Because, Mr. Grant, I know you are a good lawyer and I am just trying to answer your question.

Q. Just answer what is in your mind.

A. I am trying to.

Page 193.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. I am not going to tell you where to go.

A. If you are asking me if Mr. Jamal said that he didn't want his family involved in this trial, I could answer that question. If you are asking me if Mr. Jamal didn't want his family involved in going to Atlantic City -- I need to know what you are asking me, sir.

Q. Well, your only involvement with Mr. Jamal and his family was through this trial process?

A. No, if you are talking about this trial then he never said that.

Q. He never said that?

A. No, sir.

Q. So you made some tactical and strategic decisions on your own as to what witnesses were going to be called, whether you are going to put on character references from his family, whether you are going to call them at the penalty stage; these were all your decisions, correct?

A. In cooperation with my client. Some in cooperation with my client.

Q. Well, which ones were not in cooperation with your client? If you recall.

A. You are asking me to go back through every witness that I called?

Page 194.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. You are the witness. You are the one that signed the affidavit.

A. But you are asking the question and I am trying to find out the question. I am trying to answer you, Mr. Grant. You need to tell me what question you are asking. If you want me to go through every witness that testified then you have to bring out the transcript and tell me each and every witness. And to the best that I possibly can I will tell you whether or not that was a cooperative decision.

Q. Gary Wakshul. Wakshul. You know him, right, the guy that --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. -- said I didn't hear the Negro male make any comment?

A. Yes, sir. What is your question?

Q. He was not called until the very eve, at the moment before closing arguments were about to take place, do you recall that, on July 1st?

A. I didn't recall it until the other day, that it was that late, but, yeah.

Q. You know that was on the day that closing arguments were given?

A. I didn't know that it was. I'm not denying

Page 195.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

that it was. I know it was late, I just didn't remember what day it was.

Q. Okay.

A. And that was my fault, sir.

Q. You said that before and you said that in your affidavit.

A. That's right. I thought that's what you were asking.

Q. Well, not yet.

A. Okay.

Q. I am at page through 35, July 1st, 1982, Counselor.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Not you. You are Mr. Jackson. And you are speaking to the Court. Your Honor, there are several other matters that I would like to bring to Your Honor's attention. We -- that's not fair.

(Pause.)

MR. GRANT: If I may, Your Honor. May I approach?

THE COURT: If you are going to give him a copy.

MR. GRANT: Yes, Your Honor.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. (Handing) Right there (indicating).

Page 196.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

We have found there is another witness we need to call. Let me make sure I have that right. We have found that there is another police officer that we would like to have testify.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. It is anticipated to be very brief. Mr. McGill advises me that he is not present today. I would ask that of course he be called in.

THE COURT: When did you ask for this witness. Let me see you over here.

This is obviously taking place in open Court. And the Judge is asking for a sidebar.

The following discussion ensues. What is this officer that you want. What's he going to testify to.

He picked Mr. Jamal up at the scene.

So.

During this time the Negro male made no comment. He was with him the entire time.

Mr. McGill says he's not around. I'm not going to be bringing this guy in, he's not around. That's what he says. Mr. McGill says I'm not bringing him in at the last minute. The Court then says Mr. Jackson, you knew about this before. I'm not going to hold up this trial. You -- Mr.

Page 197.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Jackson -- says I didn't.

What did that mean: I didn't know about it before?

A. No, I knew about it, I just overlooked it, I forgot about it.

Q. That doesn't say I forgot, it says I didn't.

A. Well, I didn't read you the answer. Are you asking me to read the answer or are you asking me for an answer, sir.

Q. I am asking you: When the Judge says you knew about this and you said I didn't, what does that mean?

A. I forgot, that's what I said. I had forgotten the statement of Officer Wakshul.

Q. Well, the Judge asked you the same question I am asking you right now. What do you mean you didn't. Didn't you get the statements from the detectives months and months ago?

Mr. Jackson: Absolutely right.

A. Yeah.

Q. Now, I forgot. That's what your statement is. And that this was a joint decision or singular decision on your part?

A. Which question are you asking me?

Q. You forgot. You forgot that Mr. Wakshul

Page 198.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

existed? You forgot what?

A. I forgot that I had this statement. Let me put it this way. I am going to say either I forgot or an oversight. Obviously Mr. Wakshul was an important witness. It wouldn't be something that -- I wouldn't deliberately not call him in. I called him in at the last day when he came to my attention. I don't know if Mr. Jamal brought it to my attention, whether I saw it myself, or someone else. When I realized I needed the officer I asked that the officer be in Court.

I mean there certainly would not have been any strategy not to call an important witness. I mean that would have been silly.

Q. What tells you, with all your legal skills and abilities, that this was an important witness for the defense?

A. Because he, because we had two witnesses who said that Mr. Jamal made a confession. So when this man says --

Q. Four, actually, two of them didn't testify; correct?

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection: There were two before the Jury.

THE COURT: He is asking.

Page 199.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

THE WITNESS: Well, I am not going to comment. You said there were four, fine. I mean I know during the motion to suppress there were some others and all, and I think I have, I have my own suspicions about why those others weren't put on. But be that as it may, I knew that this officer, if those two witnesses said that Mr. Jamal made the statements, and this would have been prior to him receiving care from the doctor, this officer as I recall the statement said that he was with Mr. Jamal the entire time until the doctor came. So either these two people are lying or the officer is lying. And as far as I was concerned, this officer, he simply made a statement that he made no statement whatsoever. That's the only statement that I saw. I know you referred earlier about some other statement. I never saw any other statement.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Well, you got entire discovery in this matter, Mr. Jackson; do you deny that?

A. I got what they gave me.

Q. Well, do you have any basis in 1995, 13 years later, do you have any independent basis or any kind

Page 200.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

of basis to say discovery was withheld from you in this case?

A. Yes, sir.

A. All right, the Medical Examiner's report.

Q. Yeah?

A. The Medical Examiner's report, there was a page indicating that the police officer said that -- I believe that a police officer shot Mumia other than, other than Faulkner. I was never -- the discovery I got from the District Attorney's Office didn't contain that paper.

Q. You know what, Mr. Jackson, I was hoping you'd bring that up.

MR. GRANT: May I have this marked as Commonwealth Exhibit number 2 for these proceedings?

(Documents were marked Commonwealth's
Exhibit C-2 for identification.)

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. This purports to be a package from the Medical Examiner's Office to a Mr. Anthony E. Jackson. 13 years later, same package (displaying).

Were you at Suite 911, Western Savings Bank Building back then at Broad and Chestnut?

Page 201.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Yes, sir.

Q. With Mr. Crawford?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Could you read into the record, sir, what Counsel has had for awhile and what I respectfully submit that you had?

A. Could I read it into the record?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. What do you mean?

Q. That is a letter from you, right?

A. Yeah.

Q. Okay. Now, what's it say?

A. Dear Mr. Ainge: Please be advised that I have been appointed by the Court to represent the Defendant charged in the death of the above-captioned person. Accordingly, I'm requesting that you forward a copy of the report to this office. Your prompt communication -- cooperation in this matter will be appreciated.

Q. You asked for a report, right? And that implies to you, the average lawyer doing homicide, the Medical Examiner's report was basically a protocol, that's what you are asking for, isn't it, the findings of the Medical Examiner? But they didn't just send you that. Would you flip the page

Page 202.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

there?

A. Would I what?

Q. Right there. There are two entries, Mr. Jackson. The top one says what? It's handwritten and it is from?

A. Copy of preliminary... police report I guess. Preliminary, looks like P-O-L report. Given to Detective Thomas, 744 of Homicide unit.

Q. Please. I don't think this gentleman is getting that.

A. Oh, I'm sorry.

Q. You know who Detective Thomas was, don't you? He was the assigned detective in this prosecution, right, Bill Thomas?

A. Yeah, I know Bill Thomas.

Q. Taller, kind of black guy, chubby cheeks?

A. Yeah. You said that.

Q. All right.

A. Okay.

Q. And they said on the first line -- what is that, by the way, you are reading from?

A. A log.

Q. A log? What is it entitled?

A. Investigative log.

Q. From the Medical Examiner's Office?

Page 203.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. That is correct.

Q. What is the second entry on there, Mr. Jackson, and what date is it?

A. 1-27-82. Copy of complete case sent to Anthony E. Jackson, Esquire, Suite 911, Western Savings Bank Building, Broad and Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, 19107.

Q. And it does not say report sent, it says complete case sent, and it puts your name, address and where you are, doesn't it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, do you deny that you received that packet, sir?

A. I haven't examined the packet. I'm telling you there was one sheet that I did not receive.

Q. Look on the fourth sheet back and maybe you will find it there?

A. Is this what I had, sir?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. This is what I received?

Q. Yes, sir. Do you see a cover sheet that is called preliminary -- and I stress that word -- preliminary findings, presented to you by Mr. Weinglass earlier today?

A. Pardon me?

Page 204.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. You read from a Medical Examiner's notation earlier today?

A. Yeah, right here.

Q. Okay. Now look and find that in that same package that you are looking through right here, sir?

A. (Witness complies with request.)

Q. Do you see it? It is going to be right there at the top, it will be the first three or four pages.

A. Oh, I'm sorry, yes, sir, I see it now.

Q. Now, it is one thing to say that you don't recall having reviewed any of the notes of testimony in this case, apparently having no file, having given half your file to Mr. Jamal -- and then of course that was burned up in the MOVE fire -- what are you basing your statements on here today 13 years later?

A. On what am I basing my statements? Mr. Grant, I am thoroughly confused. You are talking about the medical, Mr. Grant, now you are asking me -- come on, tell me what you are asking.

Q. Why are you making these statements, Mr. Jackson?

A. What statement?

Q. That I know that I didn't receive this piece of paper right here. How do you know that?

A. Is this the paper I didn't receive?

Page 205.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. Yes.

A. When did I say this is the paper?

Q. When Mr. Weinglass was asking you about it.

A. Is this the one I said I didn't receive? Let me see...

Q. Which one are you referring to, by the way?

A. Oh, oh. There's another sheet. This is not it, sir.

Q. It is the last one in your hand?

A. That's not what I am talking about, Mr. Grant. That's where you have me confused, sir. There is a sheet that says that Mr. Jamal was shot by another officer or something. I can't specifically -- this is not the sheet that I am talking about, sir.

Q. Okay, may I approach?

A. Yes.

Q. That is right next, that is the next page, fourth page right there?

A. Yeah.

Q. Right there in front of you. Now, you received that, right?

A. Yeah, but not from the Medical Examiner.

Q. Who did you get it from?

A. The one I got from the Medical Examiner did not have this sheet.

Page 206.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. Who gave this sheet to you?

A. Someone.

Q. Someone snuck into the Medical Examiner's Office, stole it and sent it to you in the mail?

A. That is your statement, sir.

Q. How did you get it, sir?

A. I got it through a confidential source, sir.

Q. What does that mean?

A. It means that I got it from somebody I am not telling you where I got it from.

THE COURT: All right. Quiet back there or you are going to go out.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Did they give you the rest of the M.E.'s file too?

A. Yes, sir, I got the entire report.

Q. So you got the entire report. I thought you said you didn't have that statement at the time of trial?

A. I didn't say that. I said the District Attorney did not turn it over to me.

Q. I see.

A. Big difference.

Q. Do you think the District Attorney had that also?

Page 207.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. No, in fact Mr. McGill said he didn't have it. That's what he said.

Q. And you disbelieved him, right?

A. It wasn't, whether Mr. McGill had the report or not, it was part of his obligation to turn over all the files of the Police Department and the Medical Examiners, whether he had it in his hand or not, it doesn't satisfy the rule.

Q. Is that the law?

A. It is Jackson's law as I understand it, sir. Now, if you tell me that it is different, that he shouldn't turn it over.

Q. I am not telling you that, sir.

A. It is my understanding if a police officer has a report, he has a statement from somebody, Joe -- excuse me -- Joe McGill doesn't have it, the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth is held responsible for that. The fact that he didn't see it or he didn't get it is no excuse.

Q. I see, but you did have it. Both of them. You had the Medical Examiner's statement about some other policeman shot Mr. Jamal because you had a hearing on that on June 28th, didn't you, where you brought these very police officers in that you thought this statement came from and you had a

Page 208.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

previewed examination to see if you would want to use them as defense witnesses, and you had it on the record and Judge Sabo gave you his chamber to conduct it; correct?

A. It was, it went a little different than that. He made me go back there and he decided that I could not put them on. I wanted to put them on, obviously, because they sent me a report that did not contain a sheet that says that Mr. Jamal was shot by another police officer. Isn't it awfully strange that they would send me a report without that?

Q. Well, you claim they didn't send it to you?

A. I have no reason to lie to you, Mr. Grant.

Q. Well, would Mr. McGill have a reason to lie to you?

A. Pardon me?

Q. Does Mr. McGill have a reason to lie to you, Mr. Jackson?

A. I don't --

Q. You are kind of making some insinuations here and I just want to clear this up.

A. All right, let's clear it up. I am saying I did not get the sheet. Mr. McGill said that he didn't get it. I don't know whether he got it or not. But it's not important whether he had it. If

Page 209.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

the Commonwealth, with it's resources, it was in their possession, it is his responsibility to have it. If it was, if it was a person with the Medical Examiner's Office who had the report, it is still on Mr. McGill. It is his responsibility to turn it over to me.

So Mr. McGill might have been telling the absolute truth. That does not absolve the Commonwealth of it's responsibility to turn over all of the information.

Q. I am just trying to find out if you are accusing Mr. McGill of lying to you?

A. I don't know if he is lying, I am not accusing anybody. I am simply talking about what the responsibility is. I want that to be very clear. If I had the proof that Mr. McGill was lying I would have brought it to the Court's attention then or now. I don't know. I simply know the obligation of the Commonwealth and that is to turn over all of the information. And they didn't do it.

When you start asking me what in this case did the Commonwealth not turn over, that was number one. And I am telling you I don't know what else.

Q. What is number two?

Page 210.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Pardon me?

Q. What is number two?

A. Let me see if there was something else...

(Pause.)

All right, the names, the addresses and phones numbers of witnesses.

Q. Oh, please, Mr. Jackson. That, they would turn that over to you, what, so you could do -- well let me strike that.

A. Yeah, be careful. Oh, I'm sorry.

Q. They didn't turn over the names and addresses of witnesses to you?

A. Names.

Q. They turned over the names to you?

A. Names, yeah.

Q. Yeah. They didn't tell you where they lived, did they?

A. No, sir.

Q. And in what case when you were trying murder cases in the late '70s did they ever give you the place where the person lived?

A. Some of them.

Q. Some of them?

A. Yeah.

Q. How many of them? How many cases had you

Page 211.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

tried where they give you the name of the --

A. I understand the District Attorney has a policy to redact all that and I am not suggesting --

Q. Why do you think they do it?

A. Because, as I understand it, because they fear that the defendant may get the address and somehow intimidate that possible witness.

Q. Do you think that is a reasonable policy?

A. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. And if you wanted to know why I will tell you why I don't think it is reasonable.

Q. Why?

A. All right, the reason is this. The Police Department conducts these interviews, right. Now, of all the people that a person might talk to, you think about a police officer, isn't a police officer an intimidating individual? I am not talking about a police officer in particular. Police generally are intimidating to folks. Me, I am a member of the Bar of the Court. They give me the address. They gave me the report. It's Mr. Jackson as a member of the Bar of this Court, we don't want you to give this information to your client, but we don't want you to be hampered in your investigation in providing an effective representation. Here is where the witness

Page 212.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

lives. If you want to go talk to that witness, here it is. But I am going to ask you, just like me, I am not a District Attorney, I am a member of the Bar, I am not going to intimidate this witness. So why shouldn't I be given the same respect and given the opportunity to represent my client and investigate the people?

You have all, you the District Attorney, you have all the advantages. You have the witnesses. And you are saying well, we're honorable people, but those defense lawyers, they are dishonorable people so we are not going to give them that information. That's why I don't like that policy, sir.

Q. Just because you are an honorable man doesn't mean you could make generalizations. And do you read papers anymore?

A. That's absolutely right. Why assume that everyone in the District Attorney's Office is honorable?

Q. You know how many witnesses have been dead in the last year, don't you?

A. I don't know.

Q. Directly related to their testimony?

A. I don't know.

Page 213.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. Well, I do. So --

A. I understand what you are talking about, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection, Your Honor.

THE WITNESS: You are missing my point, you are missing my point. What I am saying to you: If I am defense counsel, you tell me -- and I am telling you it has been done -- you tell me here is a statement with the address, with the phone number. You, Mr. Jackson, as a member of the Bar of the Court, I want you to give me your word that you won't give this information to your client.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Are you saying that by withholding or protecting the address of the people who witness murders, are you saying that we are violating the discovery rules by doing that?

A. I am not saying that.

Q. It is not, is it? It is absolutely not, is it?

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor --

THE WITNESS: That is not what I was talking about.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, if I may.

THE COURT: He could answer that

Page 214.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

question.

If that is an objection it is overruled.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, there is a Police Directive that requires that information to be turned over: Directive 135.

THE COURT: Bring it up in redirect.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well.

THE COURT: He is asking him a legal question. He is a lawyer, he could answer it.

MR. WEINGLASS: But he is misrepresenting the Police Directives.

MR. GRANT: I don't work for the police and we give out discovery so I don't care what that says. We give out discovery.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Is that against --

MR. WEINGLASS: He should ask him if Police Directives are in error.

THE COURT: You could bring it out in redirect. Will you, please.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Is that an ethical or legal violation of the law, sir?

Page 215.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Mr. Grant, I am not suggesting, and I don't know for certain that it is a violation of the discovery rule. But that wasn't the question I was addressing. You asked me --

Q. The question I asked you was what did we withhold from you? And I am not implying things legally permissible to be withheld, as you well know, when I asked the question.

A. Okay, this is what I meant when I say you are withholding something, whether it is on a statement, your policy or whatever. If I am a lawyer for a defendant, I have a statement from him, from this witness, I have the police, I have what the police says that witness says. I would like to talk to that witness myself, just to find out if in fact that witness said so. District Attorney says no you won't. You will not contact this witness. You will contact us and we will contact that witness and find out if the witness wants to talk to you and if you could get to her. Now, do you think that that's fair?

Q. No, I don't think it is fair and I don't --

A. That is my own point.

Q. I don't think it's fair because I don't think it happens very often. And I want to ask you about

Page 216.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

withholding statements from you and the D.A. saying I won't let you talk to this witness, because you made some accusations today.

A. I didn't say withholding statements.

Q. You made some accusations about Mr. McGill about Miss Kordansky, he wouldn't help you get the witness and the detective said you ain't got to show up if you don't want to, and I want to visit that issue. What I am trying to do initially, Mr. Jackson, before we proceed --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. -- is clear up these insinuations, this innuendo, these implications that you are raising here. Now let's talk about June 30th of 1982.

A. Okay.

Q. Page 3, we are talking about this very type of thing.

A. Okay.

Q. Mr. McGill is talking to the Court and says Mr. Jamal has been here for about 10 or 15 minutes. And you state: Your Honor, I would like to bring to your attention that we have a prospective witness, a Debbie Kordansky. Yesterday Counsel for the prosecution, Mr. McGill, gave me her phone number and the St. James Hotel as the place where I could locate

Page 217.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

her. I contacted her by phone. She indicated to me by phone that she no longer lived at the St. James Hotel, although I have not been able to confirm it. In any event, she indicated to me last Monday she was in a bicycle accident, she injured her head, she would find it extremely inconvenient and impossible to appear in Court. My sense is that she simply wants to avoid appearing as a witness.

Now, you then go on to state: Given the fact yesterday, I guess it was about 6 p.m., six o'clock last night was the first opportunity I had of contacting this witness, I wondered whether or not there may be some means that the Court could suggest that I could have her brought in or her injury confirmed or if she is not going to testify. Then the Court goes on to say let's find out what she would testify to, and you read the Court the statement.

And her statement that you felt was exculpatory was this: I was watching TV, I heard about five gunshots. And where she lives is approximately, it is on the corner of 13th and Locust.

A. Not quite on Locust but I know where it is, yes, sir. Closer to Walnut Street.

Page 218.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. Approximately. I was watching TV, I heard five, about five gunshots, sometime between 3:45 and four o'clock. Which is the time of the alleged murder -- or the proven murder at this point. The gunshots seemed to be in succession. I thought it was firecrackers. I didn't look out the window at first. I heard sirens a short time later. I saw about 10 squad cars and two vans at 13th and Locust. And then she says I saw a male running on the south side of Locust.

Now, that's her statement. Now you say to the Court -- my point is maybe that's not the sequence, maybe when the 10 squad cars and two vans or whatever were there, obviously that's after the crime has occurred and they are all converging on the scene, and clearly if a person is running, they are going to either run right into the arms of the police, or run right past the police -- but you are saying no, Judge, I think what she really meant was I saw the person running and then I noticed all this other stuff.

The Judge then says... Did you ask her whether that was out of sequence.

And you go on to relate to him what you heard.

Page 219.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Mr. McGill then interrupts and says did you get an address from her.

This is you: She won't tell me anything. She said nobody said anything about Mumia's case but it sounds like some Moslems. I don't know whether they are white or black, they are calling me and harassing me. She says I don't know if it has anything to do with this case.

Mr. McGill then says to you, Mr. Jackson, first of all, the first time I heard that name as a potential defense witness was yesterday. That would have been June 29th. Yesterday afternoon. I then said let me check to Mr. Jackson. I checked my book, this was yesterday afternoon, I checked to see if I could get the address and give to it them right away. I said it was not here and I would check the book which had been taken over -- like these boxes I bring back and forth (indicating). They took the box over right after Court, the police officers. And I said it's over on my desk. I went over and got the information, called Mr. Jackson immediately and gave it to him.

Mr. Jackson: That is correct.

Mr. McGill then says: I could appreciate the fact that you would like to have a

Page 220.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

witness. I have never contacted the woman. Although we have had a telephone number. I suppose that the Commonwealth would be willing to try and give somebody a call, to call her, but we don't have any more information than Mr. Jackson does.

Now, Mr. Jackson, that doesn't sound to me, the words from this transcript don't sound like the words you told Mr. Weinglass that occurred when you were trying to find Debra Kordansky and the people, Mr. McGill was telling you not to bring her in, that the detective was saying you don't have to come -- where is any of that in there?

A. I haven't heard it.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, there is another part of the transcript.

MR. GRANT: Let's read it. Where is that?

MR. WEINGLASS: That is the part I read.

THE COURT: Bring it up in redirect.

MR. WEINGLASS: But Counsel says it doesn't sound to me like my question, I questioned him on another part of the transcript.

MR. GRANT: Could I have the page?

Page 221.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

MR. WEINGLASS: Oh.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Now, could you reconcile those two versions of the same event, sir?

A. No, I can't, Mr. Grant. I just know what I remember, sir. And again, I haven't reviewed the transcript. Look, and I know, I know that I tried to find, to locate Deb, Debbie Kordansky. I had an investigator even look for her.

Now, the transcript that you are reading now suggests as soon as I asked Mr. McGill for the address and phone number he gave it to me. I don't know what that says, that didn't happen.

Q. Why did you say 13 years ago that's correct?

A. I'm saying if that is what that transcript says, that that was the only time, then I am telling you it didn't happen that way.

Q. Well, it is in black and white and your memory is not?

A. You know, and that's true. Look, could I make a mistake? Absolutely. It is not, but it is not the thing that I was likely to make a mistake today. Debbie Kordansky in my mind was a vital witness. I just didn't all of a sudden decide I wanted to see Debbie Kordansky and then I asked Mr. McGill and he

Page 222.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

gave me the information. Why, if that were the case, why would I get the Judge involved in chambers? I never had a judge go back in chambers to call a witness since I was practicing law. Believe me, the events did not come down like you are reading it.

Q. You had the Judge intervene to get Gary Wakshul for you, and you claimed at that time that you were making the decisions and you forgot to get Mr. Wakshul in, isn't that the same?

A. No, sir, that is not the same. No, sir, that is not true. That is not true.

Q. All right, Mr. Jackson.

A. That is not true.

Q. By the way, you didn't know that had you brought Mr. Wakshul in, he would have said as a result of Mr. Jackson filing a suit against all the officers, the Internal Affairs Division interviewed all of us to see if we beat up Mr. Jamal, and had that not had happened I probably wouldn't have even mentioned the fact that the guy did say yeah I shot the mother-fucker and I hope he dies? Because when he said it I was, I claimed I went out to get my hat and coat from the Police van but I lied. I broke down and cried and I went out and wrecked my car because I didn't believe it. And then for the first

Page 223.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

time when they asked me, that's when I mentioned it. I probably never would have.

A. You know --

Q. Did you know he was going to say that when you brought him in? It was in his statement.

A. Okay, first of all, again, I never filed a lawsuit against them.

Q. Complaint, I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Do you want a recess?

THE WITNESS: Just for a minute.

MR. GRANT: Perhaps we could recess until tomorrow.

THE COURT: Let's recess until tomorrow morning so you could get your composure back.

All right, we will adjourn until tomorrow morning. Could we try about 9:30.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could we, before the Court leaves, could we put on Mr. Davidson? He

Page 224.

is here.

THE WITNESS: I am all right now.

THE COURT OFFICER: Quiet in the Courtroom. The Court is still in session, quiet in the Courtroom.

THE COURT: Do you have any --

MR. GRANT: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: He wants to put on Mr. Davidson.

Where is he?

MR. WEINGLASS: He is in the witness room. Just outside.

THE COURT: I thought the witness room was back here (indicating).

THE COURT OFFICER: Yes, Your Honor, he is in the witness room.

MR. WEINGLASS: I think he's back here.

THE COURT OFFICER: Yes, he is.

THE COURT: Would you bring him out.

(Brief recess.)

THE COURT: All right, Counselor, will you take a seat there.

THE COURT OFFICER: This Court is now reconvened.