Verfahren gegen Mumia Abu-Jamal

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

- - - - -

CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)

- - - - -

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Good morning.

A. Good morning, Mr. Grant.

Q. Good morning. Yesterday after we adjourned proceedings with your testimony, Mr. Jackson, a Mr. Joseph Davidson testified and he indicated that the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists collected money for the defense of Mr. Jamal and the amount in question is apparently between two and four-hundred dollars. Now, you requested the Court

Page 8.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

by way of a petition for monies to pay for a photographer, did you not?

A. I did, sir.

Q. And that was granted, was it not?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And how much did Mr. Peraneau receive?

A. I think 150, 200, I really don't recall. Something.

Q. And he was in fact a photographer?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And he took photographs for you?

A. Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Counsel, I hate to interrupt. Maybe this will help your recollection of what he got (handing).

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I am handing him his fee petition that he submitted to the Court. It has on there the figures. And it would help me too.

MR. GRANT: Fee petition that Mr. Jackson submitted?

THE COURT: Yes, in this case.

MR. GRANT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Apparently he received

Seite 9 ist nicht auffindbar.

Page 10.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

MR. GRANT: Very well.

THE WITNESS: I should point out: Mr. Peraneau didn't get the money until the end of the trial, he probably didn't get it until a year after the trial.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. He got the money?

A. Yeah, I'm pretty sure, yeah, I gave it to him.

Q. Mr. Jackson, in fact, it is customary, as unfortunate as it is, that even you and all lawyers who are court appointed to represent indigent defendant's have to wait for their money?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Because we're in a City that at various stages in our history has been nearly bankrupt; you would agree with that, wouldn't you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And so it is not unusual for people to wait, including all the lawyers who represent people that you are appointed to, isn't that so?

A. Yes.

Q. So that wasn't a big deal in that case anymore than it was in any other case, was it?

A. With this photographer, no.

Q. May I take a look at that, please?

Page 11.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

MR. GRANT: May I approach, Your Honor?

MR. WEINGLASS: If the Court please.

THE COURT: Do you want copies of that?

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes, I would like to.

THE COURT: All right.

Frank, could you make copies of this for everybody.

THE COURT OFFICER: All right, let me have this, Counsel?

MR. GRANT: I will proceed in the meantime, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GRANT: Thank you.

MR. WEINGLASS: I think the record should reflect that the Court provided a document to the prosecution this morning in aid of it's cross-examination.

THE COURT: I gave it to the witness to refresh his memory. He didn't seem to know what was paid. Since that is his fee petition and he has it on there, I gave it to him to remember.

BY MR. GRANT:

Page 12.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. Mr. Jackson, you do acknowledge that pursuant to Judge Ribner's statements to you and from your years of practice and your more or less 20 homicide trials here in Philadelphia prior to Mr. Jamal's case, that the standard fee for experts, the initial fee that was given was $150?

A. I think that's correct, yes, sir.

Q. All right, now, just by the document that you submitted to the Court for your fee payment, you acknowledge that Mr. Peraneau, who is nothing more or nothing less than a photographer, received almost three times that amount; correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And based upon your testimony yesterday, Mr. Greer received practically $500; correct?

A. Ahh, yes, sir.

Q. And that was more than three times the standard initial fee?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you said yesterday also that Mr. Fassnacht, who was your alleged expert ballistician, received more than twice what the initial and usual fee was for his services, did he not?

A. I believe he did.

Q. Well, you stated yesterday he received $350?

Page 13.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Yeah, okay.

Q. Now, do you know whether any of these experts that were retained by you received any other monies from any other source while working on behalf of Mr. Jamal?

A. I have no knowledge.

Q. By the way, with respect to Mr. Fassnacht, the ballistician?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You testified on direct examination yesterday, Mr. Jackson, that Mr. Fassnacht received $350 for his services; correct?

A. Yes, sir. Again, I could be wrong, it could have been four.

Q. I won't hold you to that figure.

A. Yes.

Q. But whatever it is, he got money?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you then thereafter testified that he looked at no Firearms Identification Unit reports, that is to say he didn't look at the findings on paper of the ballisticians who testified at trial; correct?

A. He looked at whatever I was given.

Q. Pardon me?

Page 14.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Whatever I was given he looked at.

Q. Oh. So then he did look at the reports?

A. Yeah, I apologize if I misstated. Yeah, I mean he looked at what I was given in discovery.

Q. And what you were giving him in discovery said that the bullet removed from Mr. Jamal beyond a reasonable degree of medical certainty came from the dead officer's handgun; correct?

A. Ahh -- I don't recall specifically what the report says. I wouldn't imagine that a ballistician would be talking about medical terms but I don't know, I don't recall what the medical report said.

Q. No, they weren't talking about medical terms. A doctor that you brought in to testify on behalf of the defense removed the bullet --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. -- from beneath the skin in Mr. Jamal's back?

A. Yes, sir, I thought you were referring to the ballistics report.

Q. I am.

A. It didn't have medical terms in it, sir.

Q. Oh, I'm sorry, did I say beyond a reasonable degree of medical certainty?

A. Yes.

Q. Beyond a reasonable degree of scientific

Page 15.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

certainty.

A. Okay.

Q. That is one of the findings in the report that you gave Mr. Fassnacht?

A. I would assume so. I don.'t recall what's in the report. And I am not disagreeing with you, I just don't know what is in the report.

Q. I appreciate that. And let me see if I can refresh your recollection here if that's possible.

MR. GRANT: May I have this three-page document which I am showing to Counsel which they have already received marked for identification as Commonwealth Exhibit number 3.

THE COURT: You say three pages, that looks --

MR. GRANT: Four pages, yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay, all right.

THE COURT OFFICER: Do you have it?

(FIU report was marked Commonwealth
Exhibit C-3 for identification.)

THE COURT OFFICER: So marked C-3, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Would you staple that for the lawyers, please.

Page 16.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

THE COURT OFFICER: Yes, Your Honor. (Handing).

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Mr. Jackson, you are being handed what has been marked for identification purposes as Commonwealth Exhibit number 4. It purports to be a firearms, I'm sorry, number 3, purports to be a Firearms Identification Unit examination report. I would like you to take your time and look that over. And based on your work as an evidence technician, I am sure you have seen hundreds, if not thousands, of those, have you not?

A. Yes, sir. Mr. Grant, this does appear to be one of the documents that was given to me. However, I think there were additional documents. I think... there was a property receipt given for the weapon. Seems to me there was something else.

Q. I tell you what it was.

A. This was 13 years ago.

Q. Property receipts for all the weapons, they gave you property receipts for all the fired missiles, both spent shells and fired cartridge casings, bullet jackets, and you gave him Dr. Tumosa's report from the Criminalistic's report whereby he found primer gun residue on the clothing

Page 17.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

of both Mr. Jamal and the police officer, which indicated on that report that both gunshots were exchanged from a distance of no more than 12 inches?

A. All right, I will accept that. I knew it was something more than that.

Q. So you gave them that report?

A. Yes.

Q. Along with other reports, he reviewed them?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And after he reviewed them he didn't tell you what his findings were?

A. No. We had some preliminary discussions but no findings as such because I couldn't afford to have him conduct any examinations or any testing.

Q. Well, when you talked to Mr. Fassnacht, you contacted him and you asked him would he agree to help you in this case with his expertise; correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And when you call somebody up to buy a couch at Strawbridges, and they agree to sell you the couch, don't you ask them how much it is going to cost you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Didn't you ask him what his fee was going to be?

Page 18.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So you knew what his fee was going to be before he looked at those documents?

A. No, sir.

Q. His fee was going to be based on reading all your files, giving you an expert opinion as to what he read, and then he would tell you how much he was going to charge you?

A. No, sir.

Q. Tell us how that arrangement went?

A. Sure. He had to see what documents were available and what work had to be done before he could give me a fee, he didn't know what he had to do.

Q. And what fee did he give you?

A. I don't remember at all. Excuse me. I know as a result of our having I think two conversations, and his, his analysis of the reports that he had there without doing any independent testing, and providing me with some expert suggestions with regard to cross-examination of the ballistician, we paid him whatever we paid him, 350 or something. I know for him to perform independent tests as well as to review the actual projectiles, as well as the actual weapons and things of that sort of the Police Department, it

Page 19.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

was an amount that was extraordinary, I don't know what it was. I mean he might have said a thousand dollars, and at the time that would have been extraordinary. I just have no idea. I really don't.

Q. Well, when he gave you that extraordinary projection, did you file a petition with the Court of Common Pleas and say I need extraordinary bucks to satisfy this?

A. Oh, yes, sir. Mr. Fassnacht was -- I do particularly remember being in front of Judge Ribner. Mr. Fassnacht is well known here in Philadelphia and of course he has performed these tests and things of this sort all over the world. During the time I know that I appeared before Judge Ribner I had asked for additional funds. And I know there was a prolonged discussion. And I was told when I got the extra money that's all I was going to get. And again, I think originally 150 and whatever the extra amount was, that was it.

So I mean I was doing enough things in vain without having to go back to the Court again to ask for something in vain. I mean time was limited. I knew I wasn't going to get anymore money, why go back again.

Q. Because you are so successful at that time and

Page 20.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

you are a lawyer, and you know everything in life is negotiable in life, don't you, Mr. Jackson?

A. Yeah, sometimes in life you have to draw a line. Perhaps I drew the line too soon.

Q. Maybe you didn't. Because on the stand yesterday you said we got less, we were operating on a shoestring budget, we received less than $800 for his defense?

A. Yeah, I think that figure was actually lower by looking at the petition.

Q. By looking at the petition, it looks like we are getting to twice that much and we are not exhausting all the experts?

A. I have to look at the petition. It's been 12, 13 years since I have seen that document, I have no idea what is going on.

Q. Do you think that the recorded transcripts of your words uttered in 1981 would be more accurate than your 13-year-old memory stated here today?

A. About how much I received?

Q. About everything involved in this case.

A. Generally speaking, I would say that's true. It doesn't necessarily have to be true. You would have to give me a specific example.

Q. Is it a fact that after you talked

Page 21.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

preliminarily with Mr. Fassnacht, that you didn't have anymore discussions with him, not because his fee was extraordinary, but because Mr. Jamal was then acting as his own lawyer and he was going to and told you that he was going to make determinations and talk to these experts?

A. Oh, no. Even if he was his own lawyer, why wouldn't he want me to consult with the expert? I mean he couldn't do it. I mean the answer is no.

Q. I would like to direct your attention, sir, to the notes of testimony from June the 7th, 1982 --

-- at page 86, Counsel --

-- and whenever you would like me to give you a copy of the transcript.

A. Sure.

Q. Wherein you stated, based upon request from Mr. Jackson, I'm sorry, from Mr. McGill, who protested in this fashion to you. Wow, you mentioned George Fassnacht. I have not received any reports at all, Judge. So I would like the Court to order if there is a report or will be a report and he is going to be a witness, I would like the Court to order that I get Mr. Fassnacht's report by this Friday, since I gave all my discovery material months ago. He goes on to state: I want to make sure that I have all the

Page 22.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

facts correct because you protested that Mr. Fassnacht didn't get any money. He says there was some money allotted for a ballistician.

And then you say yes, $350.

He then says well, let's have the report.

You say I haven't gotten the report, up to this point I have no report, written or oral. Mr. Jamal has never spoken to Mr. Fassnacht, through no fault of his own. So there is nothing to provide.

Mr. McGill: He -- meaning Fassnacht -- was engaged three months ago.

Mr. Jackson: No, he was not, because as you know, the Court has never paid him his money.

Mr. McGill: From Judge Ribner you got $350 to pay for that expert, did you not. The Court ordered that.

Mr. Jackson: Yes, you're right.

Mr. McGill: The Court ordered that.

Mr. Jackson: That's what he said he would do. Since that time I have not spoken to him -- meaning Mr. Fassnacht -- because now Mr. Jamal is Counsel, I haven't talked to him.

Does that mean that after Mr. Jamal became his own attorney you ceased any negotiations

Page 23.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

with Mr. Fassnacht and left it to Mr. Jamal? Because you mentioned twice during this conversation that Mr. Jamal had not spoken to him, as if that meant something.

A. Spoke to Mr. Fassnacht after that. I spoke to him before that when I had to get the money, when the Court approved the $350. Mr. Fassnacht would not perform, I had to pay the money out of my pocket and received it after the money was received from the Court. As I had to do in a number of instances.

But in any event, I had spoke to Mr. Fassnacht whenever it was, when he said three months prior to that, whatever time it was. Sure I did. I went up to his, to his home. This was during the trial. At that time I was Mr. Jamal's lawyer.

Q. So basically this man did not testify on behalf of Mr. Jamal?

A. No, sir.

Q. He did not look at one single revolver?

A. No, sir.

Q. He did not look at one fragment of a bullet?

A. No, sir.

Q. He did not test fire one weapon?

A. No, sir.

Q. He did not inspect any physical evidence by

Page 24.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

way of clothing, gunshot primer residue, whatever you --

A. No, sir.

Q. And you paid him 350 bucks?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Nice job if you can get it?

A. Well, I think it was cheap at that price. If you know the ballistics. The information he gave me was invaluable during the cross-examination of the witness, it was well worth it.

Q. It was well worth it?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact, he did advise you and consult with you and give you his expertise?

A. I said that, yes.

Q. And he directed you to areas that he thought were ripe for exploitation or attack by you?

A. Yes, sir. It all just made it all the more clear it would have been so much better if I had him to conduct an independent test and perform some other examinations. Couldn't do it. Couldn't do it.

Q. Certainly in the best of all worlds it is always nice to have more?

A. Yes, I guess that's what it is.

Q. But when you coupled his expertise and his

Page 25.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

advice to you -- and he is a world-renowned expert, is he not?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. When you coupled that with your experience as an evidence technician and knowing what of necessity is done and should be done, that in fact gave you more of an edge than the average lawyer would have because of your expertise coupled with his expertise, did it not?

A. Probably did.

Q. And you kept Mr. Larry Paul on the witness stand and cross-examined him on behalf of Mr. Jamal to a fare-thee-well, didn't you?

A. Did the best I could, sir.

Q. Now, you said yesterday, sir, that you couldn't hire a pathologist and you contacted and attempted to solicit at least six of these people to give you an expert medical opinion beyond a reasonable doubt of medical certainty on behalf of Mr. Jamal; is that correct, sir?

A. That is correct, sir.

Q. Name two of them?

A. I couldn't name one of them, I couldn't actually even name the one I talked to.

Q. How do you know you actually talked to

Page 26.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

anybody?

A. Because I said so.

Q. How about the doctor in Pittsburgh that you contacted who said I will give you an opinion -- much like Mr. Fassnacht, I might add -- I won't come and testify for you, I won't look at any physical remains of Mr. Faulkner, I won't come in to Philadelphia, but I will look at all the information you provide me, pathology report, a toxicology report, ballistics reports, and I will give you an opinion by phone: You stated that yesterday?

A. Yep, that's essentially it, yeah.

Q. And what was his name?

A. I have no idea at all.

Q. Well, did you take him or her up on that offer?

A. Yeah, I mean I mailed the materials to him. So I mean his name would be in the file. I have no idea, I just don't recall the name, sir.

Q. Well, the name is not important.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You in fact, after having mailed those reports to him --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. -- had further contact with him and solicited

Page 27.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

and received his expert opinion, did you not?

A. Yes, sir, based on the documents that I sent him, I had a telephone discussion with him. And, generally speaking, the discussion just reviewed what was in the reports. And I don't recall that there was anything in our discussion that was particularly noteworthy. Since, again, he was reviewing old documents and not the actual specimens and things of that sort. As far as I know, the information perhaps turned out to be not as significant as I would have wanted it to be.

Q. Merely reviewed the documents. What do you mean, he wrote you a letter and called you up and said you sent me items one, two, three, four and five, thank you very much, I'll take 350 bucks?

A. No.

Q. What do you mean by review?

A. I guess he looked them over and reviewed it. You know, looked at the pages, read them. I don't know if he did any comparison. I don't know what a pathologist does with information like that. Whatever those guys do.

Q. You do too, Mr. Jackson?

A. I don't know what he does with the report.

Q. Well, you know he reads it, for one thing?

Page 28.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Yeah, I said it, and you questioned what I meant. I don't know what other word to give you.

Q. Tell us what opinion did he give you, did he tell you?

A. He gave me nothing other than response to a telephone call.

Q. Did he tell you that Police Officer Faulkner was not dead?

A. I don't think he said that.

Q. Did he tell you that the cause of death was not a gunshot wound?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did he tell you that in fact a bullet was not taken from the brain of Officer Faulkner?

A. No, sir.

Q. What did you expect him to say even if he had agreed to testify for you with any reasonable degree of medical certainty?

A. Mr. Grant, that's why I hired a pathologist. Because I am not a pathologist, I don't know what he was going to tell me. Pathologists do their pathology thing, I don't know.

Q. How much did you pay him?

MR. GRANT: Indicating for the record Mr. Jackson is reviewing his fee petition filed

Page 29.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

with the Court.

(Pause.)

THE WITNESS: I assumed it was $150. It is not recorded on the petition that I filed with the Court.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. But you do recall having paid the man for his services?

A. Yes, sir. I don't know whether it was 150 of the -- I think it was about 150. Whatever the Court approved, whatever the amount was that was approved, that's the amount that I paid him. And again, I had to do the same thing with him as I had done in other instances: I had to pay him the money then. I think it was $150, Mr. Grant.

Q. Okay. So now we are up around what? Let me see. 450, 350, that's 800, photographer, Fassnacht. We got 450 for the investigator. That's around 1,200. Now we have 150 for the pathologist so we are up around 1,400. Did you retain the services of, that you paid for, of any other experts in your pursuit of a defense for Mr. Jamal?

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

Q. When I say did you pay for: Did the Court of Common Pleas, did the Citizens of Philadelphia pay

Page 30.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

for any other experts?

A. No. According to this petition, Citizens of Philadelphia paid 562 for an investigator, $400 for a photographer, and 350 for a ballistician, and that was it.

Q. So the investigator got nearly $600 now?

A. Yep, that's what it looks like.

Q. And that doesn't include what if any retainers he received -- and I am referring to this letter you sent to Mr. Steven Collins -- that was not counting if he received any retainers from the Mumia Abu-Jamal Defense Fund?

A. I could only tell you what this document reflects. I have no idea what he got from anybody else.

Q. Now, you testified on direct examination, Mr. Jackson, that in addition to making a request for additional monies for experts, you also petitioned the Court for the services of another lawyer to help you, counsel, associate --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that was denied, you stated; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you explain this statement made by you on

Page 31.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

June 22nd, 1982? Page 5.022. Quote, Your Honor --

MR. WEINGLASS: I'm sorry, give that cite.

MR. GRANT: 6-22-82. Page 5.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Your Honor, Jonathan Black, a member of the Bar, is going to assist me in further cross-examination. I will continue to do the questioning, Mr. Black is going to assist me in some other matters.

Now, you said that from that table right there, and he was with you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So my question is: The same person that you petitioned to assist you, perhaps without money, but he was assisting you; is that correct?

A. That day.

Q. Oh, that one day he was here?

A. That one day, sir. Mr. Black has been a life-long friend, high school, college, law school together. We were partners. Mr. Black assisted me that one day.

Q. I see. So your request that he assist you by way of your petition was not in fact denied, what was denied was Mr. Jamal's right to have two lawyers work

Page 32.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

for him at the City's expense?

A. When I filed the petition it had nothing to do with Mr. Black. Mr. Black didn't take any Court appointments anyway. So it wasn't for him. I filed a petition for the services of another lawyer. I didn't tell them anymore about it.

Q. And he gave it to you?

A. No, the Court did not give me any help. The request to the Court was made prior to the date Black, Black came in and assisted me during the trial. The request for additional counsel was made before trial.

Q. I know, but in fact Mr. Black did come in and assist you during the trial?

A. That one day, yes, sir, yes, sir.

Q. So June 3rd when you informed the Court that the Defendant was out an investigator or something, or ballistician, and no funds were made available, by your very fee petition that statement was not true, was it?

A. No, that -- I'm sure I wasn't trying to mislead this Court. I am sure this Court, I asked Judge Sabo and Judge Ribner a number of times for money. So if I said that there were no funds, that was just a slip; it was no secret that I got whatever

Page 33.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

I got.

Q. And which Judge is the one that gave you these additional increments of money? Judge Sabo? Judge Ribner? Judge Ribner was the calendar Judge, Judge Sabo was the trial Judge.

A. I. . .

Q. It was Judge Sabo, wasn't it?

A. It may have been, sir, I just -- it may have been. Because I think in fact when I did go back -- and that was part of the problem, I filed the original petitions with Judge Ribner. When I asked for additional amounts he said see the trial judge. Well, who is the trial judge? In the beginning there was no trial judge. And then after awhile he said well see the trial judge and it was Judge Sabo. And then we had to, I think it was three weeks after we were assigned, it took about three or four weeks before we even got to Judge Sabo. So, well...

Q. So you could say, based on yesterday's testimony, in which you stated after my initial request Judge Ribner put it off on Judge Sabo --

A. Yeah, I think there may have been one or two -- I think all of the requests for funds, the additional amounts for funds were sent to Judge Sabo. I think.

Page 34.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

MR. GRANT: Okay. If I may, Your Honor, I would request that the fee petition submitted by Counsel be marked as Commonwealth Exhibit number 4 for the purposes of this Post-Conviction Relief Act hearing.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, I am going to object to this. First the Court facilitated the cross-examination by the Commonwealth without even being requested by Commonwealth Counsel, the Court on it's own brought in an exhibit to help the Commonwealth. Now this petition for fees is a matter that should not be presented publicly because it is a petition that an attorney files with the court in order to obtain reimbursement for expenses and his fee. So I believe this petition ought to be protected by the Court. I don't think it was appropriate to bring it here in the first place.

THE COURT: You are saying it's not public property?

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes, exactly.

THE COURT: I disagree. It is public property.

I just wanted to correct the record: I only gave it to Mr. Jackson because I saw he

Page 35.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

was having difficulty remembering what the fees were. How could he remember 13 years ago. So I gave it to him as an assistance.

MR. WEINGLASS: Exactly. But this is what happens all too often here. The Court brings in a document to assist the witness, then the document is given to the prosecution.

THE COURT: I gave it to both of you. Since you asked for it.

MR. WEINGLASS: Yeah, but we hadn't requested it and we are not doing the cross-examination. You gave it as an aid to the party who is doing the cross-examination, who is the Commonwealth. After that happened --

THE COURT: I gave it, I gave it to the witness.

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes.

THE COURT: I didn't give it to the Commonwealth.

MR. WEINGLASS: But now the Commonwealth has taken it from the witness. And now the Commonwealth seeks to make it an exhibit. So the Court started a process.

THE COURT: Well, let me say this: It's already an Exhibit with the Court. Because

Page 36.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

these are Court records. This is filed with the Court.

MR. WEINGLASS: This is filed with the Court, but as I understand it, Your Honor --

THE COURT: There is no privilege here. No. There is no privilege.

MR. WEINGLASS: In order to preserve the sanctity --

THE COURT: This is no sanctity. These are public funds that are expended. And it's public record.

MR. WEINGLASS: Yeah. But you see, Your Honor, these matters are not ordinarily given to the Commonwealth. Because when you give them these matters, they now know how a defense is structured. They now know of resources that the defense spends. You read this and you know just what calculations were made by a defense side in a trial. What was important, what they spent time on. Now we are going to get --

THE COURT: Wait awhile. Are you saying this is a lie?

MR. WEINGLASS: No, I am not saying that at all. I'm saying it's the truth. But it

Page 37.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

is a truth that if we have a new trial, will put Mr. Jamal with a disadvantage because now the Commonwealth will see what the defense spends it's money on. And will be able to calculate in our new trial just what the defense strategy will be. This should never be turned over to the Commonwealth without reason. So I object to their being given this document and I object to it being put into evidence.

MR. GRANT: Your Honor, if I may: First of all, I don't have to try to speculate and calculate on what defendant lawyers do. Because I was a Federal Public Defender for years. I know what they do, because I do it, I have done it. There is no mystery.

And if it makes Counsel rest any easier, I will only ask that portions be admitted with respect to monies paid for experts to assist Mr. Jamal's defense. Since one of the averments in their Petition is that inadequate funds were made available to these individuals to help Mr. Jamal. Clearly there's no attorney-client privilege anymore. He is saying that lawyer was no good. We have a right to see if in fact that allegation is true. Mr. Jackson

Page 38.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

is testifying on behalf of them that yeah, you are right, I wasn't no good, I didn't spend the money. And now we are finding out now that he spent adequate sums and more than the average person gets.

I certainly think this is admissible evidence. It is material, it is relevant, and I can't even think of a legal excuse why an objection should be sustained.

THE COURT: All right, it is admitted for the limited purpose that you say, all right.

MR. GRANT: Yes, Your Honor.

(Above-described portion of fee petition was
marked Commonwealth's Exhibit C-4 for identification.)

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Now, Mr. Jackson, you said that basically you had a conversation with Mr. Fassnacht and he looked at the documents. And that was the extent of his money, that was before the trial, that was the extent of his time contributed and that was before the trial; correct? You could refer to what's been marked as C-4.

A. I don't think it's any -- no... I know I originally talked to George whenever I filed the

Page 39.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

petition. I'm assuming that I talked to him when I went up to his home. And again, I think I went up there twice. I am assuming that I did it before trial.

I just don't know, Mr. Grant. I really -- I would assume I did, I just don't know.

Q. Have you practiced civil law?

A. Yes.

Q. You practice criminal law?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you have retained experts in both fields?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And when you have an expert and the expert is going to testify on your behalf and he is going to assist you and counsel you, the law, the rules of evidence provide that you must turn over his report within a reasonable degree of time, because we don't have trials by ambush, we have trials by discovery; correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And true lawyers, and good lawyers, and these aren't lawyers who are doing anything bad --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. -- have oral consultations with their experts and have a conversation something like this...

Page 40.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you look at the materials I sent you. Yes, I did. Did you come to any conclusions. Yes, I did. What are they. X. Are they helpful to me. No. Well, I don't need a report. Thank you.

Now, that happens all the time, doesn't it?

A. I guess with some folks it does.

Q. It's happened for you?

A. Not in this instance.

Q. Not in this instance?

A. That's right.

Q. But you were consulting with this man right up to the very day of the penalty hearing, weren't you?

A. Mr. Fassnacht? Up to the penalty stage?

Q. Yes.

A. I don't know why I would be ---

Q. Because, I could tell you why you might be.

A. Let's not speculate.

Q. Okay, let's not speculate. He was operating from a corporation or a company called Keystone State Arms Consultants, was he not?

A. Yeah, I think that's what he calls his company.

Q. And I don't know if yours are marked, and

Page 41.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

since this is not paginated, I am going to give you my copy, which I have. The old tab mark is on it, if I may. And I would like you to look at your figures as to the dates and times when you had correspondence and consultation with Keystone Arms Consultants (handing).

First one is a letter to you with a bill that says give me 350 bucks, it is from Mr. Fassnacht?

A. Yes, sir, April 2nd.

Q. Okay. Now would you go to the next tab, please. And you will see now an hourly breakdown that you provided the Court as to those times when you consulted with Keystone Arms Consultants; correct?

A. I'm sorry, sir, what is the next?

Q. The tabs are clearly marked in those areas, sir. And red ink is highlighting the entries you made with respect to Keystone.

A. Well, I'm looking for Keystone. You have a lot of tabs that are marked with red.

Q. A lot of Mr. Fassnacht's consultations.

A. Oh.

Q. And they go up until June 30th. You could look that over for yourself and tell me if you agree

Page 42.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

with that?

A. I'm looking at it. Preparation, filing, complaint, police department. That's one of the tabs. I thought they were all about Mr. Fassnacht.

Q. Well --

A. Mr. Grant, I'm looking for it, I am not trying to be -- all right, I'm sorry. Here it is. March 30th, consultation with people and Keystone.

Q. Yes, sir.

A. That's on the 30th of March.

Q. How much time, how many hours did you put in for that payment?

A. For him and the others, 3 point -- 3.5.

Q. March 30th, right?

A. Right. And for him and what, four people?

Q. However, he was first retained and monies made available on January 20th, 1982; correct?

A. No, sir.

Q. Well, that was when the Judge, Judge Ribner signed the order granting your fee petition, your petition?

A. Yes, sir. I could go through this again if you want about when the petition was signed and when he was retained. Mr. Grant, I will just refer you to the letter you just gave me. It says he received

Page 43.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

some money. This is a bill in April so you know he didn't receive the money in January.

Q. So he had to wait until the end of the trial?

A. Pardon me?

Q. So he did not wait until the end of the trial?

A. No, that is the problem.

Q. When is the next time that you consulted with him, that is Keystone Arms Consultants? We have one day now: March 30th.

(Pause.)

A. June 2nd.

Q. And how many hours did you spend with him?

A. Two hours.

Q. Go to the next tab, please. What date is there?

A. June 30th.

Q. June 30th. Did you know that the trial ended, closing statements were given on July lst?

A. No, I didn't know. I don't recall.

Q. Would you take my word for it?

A. Yeah.

Q. Did you know that June only had 30 days then and only has 30 days now?

A. I'll take your word for that too.

Q. So the next day, that day that the trial was

Page 44.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

over, the day before that you were still talking to Mr. Fassnacht, weren't you, for how many hours in that day?

A. 1.5 hours.

Q. Do you know how many words could be said in seven hours?

A. I know I could say a lot of words: I talk fast.

Q. Does Mr. Fassnacht?

A. No.

Q. So you spent seven hours with him, and you were deciding or consulting and being advised by him and deciding whether or not it may be worth putting him on the stand up until the very day closing arguments were given, isn't that so?

A. Mr. Fassnacht was never going to take the stand, I couldn't afford to put him on the stand.

Q. Okay, all right. So you would admit upon reflection and with your memory being refreshed that your statement to the Court on June 3rd before the trial actually started that you were without experts and no funds were made available was not true?

A. Again I will say say that, yes, and I am sure the Court was aware that if I said no funds were available, I'm sure this Court knew that that wasn't

Page 45.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

true since this Court had already approved funds, and Judge Ribner. Look, if I said that I was incorrect.

Q. Mr. Fassnacht also went up and spent some time with the Defendant, didn't he?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Do you remember requesting from Judge Sabo a Court order to allow Mr. Fassnacht to go up to the cell room or the prison, he didn't like going to the prisons, he preferred to meet with the Defendant in a courtroom, that was denied so then you asked for him to go up to the cell room and an order was in fact given; do you recall that?

A. I don't. I'm not denying that it happened, I just don't remember.

Q. I don't want there to be any question. And I would direct your attention to...

(Pause.)

MR. GRANT: I seem to have lost a document or two.

(Discussion held off the record at
this time among Commonwealth's Counsel.)

MR. GRANT: The Court's indulgence, please, Your Honor. I'm sorry.

(Pause.)

BY MR. GRANT:

Page 46.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. Do you have some of my notes up there, Mr. Jackson?

A. These (displaying)? I was trying to get some more of them. Yeah, I have some, ballistics report and --

Q. I will take some of them.

A. (Handing.)

Q. I am going to have to get back to that, I don't know what I did with my documents.

MR. GRANT: I will move along, sir, we will return to that area.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. In your affidavit on page 2, Mr. Jackson -- which was only executed a couple of months ago?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. April 17th, I believe you said. I will digress for a moment: I think I found my document. With respect to whether or not Mr. Fassnacht advised Mr. Jamal at the prison, I would like to direct your attention or invite your attention to June lst, 1982, page 99. And thereafter the following day, to June 2nd, 1982, page 2.78 and 79.

Mr. Jackson to the Court: George Fassnacht is a ballistician and he was appointed as a

Page 47.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

ballistician for Mr. Jamal.

I guess that in fact was not true, right, since he really didn't work for Mr. Jamal and do too much, right?

A. Well, I guess the Court appoints -- I don't know whether the Court appointed him or they just appointed a ballistician.

Q. Mr. Jamal had never spoken to him. On the next day, Your Honor, during the lunch period the ballistician by the name of John Fassnacht -- now this is Mr. Jamal speaking -- he is mispronouncing his name but he is talking about the same individual -- wanted to meet with me. The issue is he tried to see me during the lunch hour and he couldn't get in to see me. I need an order from the Court so I could meet him.

The Court: I don't see why you need one. Implying that if he is your expert, Mr. Jackson is working with him, they should let him in. But I will give you one anyway, all right.

And thereafter there was an order in the Quarter Sessions file, which has been marked as Commonwealth Exhibit 1 in this case, verifying that the order was signed. Do you know of any reason why the order was not complied with?

Page 48.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. No. I, I just, I draw a blank on it.

Q. You just have no recollection?

A. No, sir.

Q. Okay. That's fair enough. Now, in your affidavit on page 2, sir, supporting the Post-conviction Relief Act alleged by Counsel Mr. Weinglass, you state either I can not or did not know how to effectively obtain additional funding for experts.

You wrote that, didn't you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that's totally untrue, isn't it?

A. I still think it's true.

Q. Well, you got more money than everybody else usually gets for these kinds of things, now why did you say either I could not or did not get more money when you knew Judge Ribner's statement to you was Counsel, I will give you the initial fee, if you need more money and it is a reasonable expense, and you itemize a bill as to how the money is being spent, we will give you more money? Isn't that what he told you?

A. That's what he told me. Sir, I said that was true in the affidavit. That was true then, it is still true today. The fact that I had gotten more

Page 49.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

money than I had gotten in other cases before doesn't mean it's enough. And the record reflects that I spent seven hours with George Fassnacht and what did he get? 350. And you said that was an exorbitant amount of money. I don't think that it was. This was a trial, as you know, that had 150 statements in it. There was a lot of work to be done. A lot of work. And we are talking about $150 for a pathologist?

Q. No, I agree with you that seems like a relatively paltry sum.

A. You are talking about, what's the amount for the ballistician? Mr. Grant, I am not going to even argue with these amounts of money. If you think that's enough money for these experts, so be it.

Q. I am not saying that's enough money, I'm saying that your representations were untrue and --

A. No, they weren't, sir. I couldn't get another dime.

Q. Okay.

A. Another dime. Not another dime for anybody. If I could I would have gotten the money, I'm not a fool.

Q. Now, yesterday you said you had to review over 150 witness statements and interviews?

Page 50.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. I think it was about that.

Q. Well, all you had to do was read your own words from the affidavit you submitted in this case and which you looked at yesterday and it is limited to a hundred, so now your work is cut down by 33 percent; do you recall --

A. I don't know whether it was a hundred, a hundred and fifty pages.

Q. Maybe it was 200?

A. Maybe it was 200.

Q. It could have been 500?

A. I don't think it was that many. I don't know how many pages it was, I am talking about how many statements. I don't know. I did not count it. I didn't know I would be required to count them. I didn't count them then, I didn't count them now: Forgive me.

Q. I wasn't counting either but you wrote it down?

A. All right, I approximated. I guessed that.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, the affidavit says over 100, over 100 witness interviews were turned over in discovery. So it's Counsel who is mistaken, not the witness.

MR. GRANT: That's what I said.

Page 51.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

MR. WEINGLASS: Over 100. You said 100.

MR. GRANT: Oh, okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: But throughout this cross-examination Counsel has been shaving the actual record.

THE COURT: Counsel, you have a right to redirect if you want to bring something out.

MR. WEINGLASS: And I appreciate that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: But Counsel cannot ask a question which misstates the record.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINGLASS: That is fundamental.

THE COURT: Would you ask him the question again.

MR. GRANT: Yes.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. In your statement, your affidavit supporting Mr. Jamal's claims, you state that there were -- I will ask you precisely -- you state that there were in excess, that there were... oh, here it is. Over 100 police interview?

A. At the time that's what I believed the number

Page 52.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

to be.

Q. I shouldn't have said that there were only 100, I should have said there were over 100. What does that mean, l0l? ll0?

A. It could.

Q. My guess was as good as yours, wasn't it?

A. That's it.

Q. All right. You state on your affidavit, page 2, the last paragraph, that because the witnesses' addresses were deleted from the statements that you were given, this resulted in your investigator spending most of his limited budget, nearly $600 by your estimation, searching for a single witness?

A. He spent a lot of time looking for Sandra White.

Q. You said most of his limited budget looking for one-witness?

A. Yes, sir. She never gave the Police Department the correct address. He found out where she lived. And he did visit her a number of times.

Q. Oh, he did.

A. He visited the house, I'm sorry, the house.

Q. So he wasn't looking for her because he knew where she was?

A. Well, first of all it took him a little while

Page 53.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

to find out where she actually lived because she never, out of all those arrests she had -- and I think there might have been 26 arrests -- but she never gave her proper address.

But in any event, when he went to the house she was living she was never there. I would characterize it as looking for her; you characterize it some other way. So be it. She wasn't there.

Q. I am reading your words, Mr. Jackson.

A. I may have misspoke, then. Now, he went to the house looking for her and she wasn't there. That's what he tells me, sir, I wasn't with him.

Q. Well, how much of his time did he spend looking for the house before he found out where she lived?

A. I have no idea.

Q. So he may have found the house the second week he was looking for her?

A. He could have, yeah. I mean you are right, I just don't know.

Q. So most of his time wasn't spent looking for - that person where they lived?

A. Well, I don't know, Mr. Grant.

Q. Well, Mr. Greer says in his affidavit that he located her and there were always two plainclothes

Page 54.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

police standing around protecting her while she prostituted herself on the corner of 12th and Locust?

A. That's where she was working. I am talking about when he went to her house.

Q. If you are an investigator -- and you have been one?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. -- you assume a lot of poses, and you suggested yesterday that maybe he used the Mumia Abu-Jamal Defense Fund to get access and entre to certain circumstances, so he could investigate this house, or he could just visit her where she works, in the hotel, if she uses a hotel -- he is an investigator, so what are you talking about?

A. You need to ask him. I don't -- fine, you are asking me to tell you why he didn't talk to her. I don't know, sir. He saw her a number of times on the corner working and he didn't talk to her. Why, I don't know.

Q. I am asking you why you wrote down he spent all this time doing this and you don't know what he did, that's all I am asking you?

A. Say it again, sir. I misunderstood.

Q. You made representations about what he did and spent his time on?

Page 55.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. And now when I ask you directly what it is you profess ignorance, that's what I am asking you?

A. I am not professing ignorance. I will tell you once again, Mr. Grant, I will tell you once again. Mr. Greer told me that he spent most of his time looking for Cynthia White. Now, I am professing any further ignorance beyond that. I was not specifically there. I can't tell you where and when he looked for her. I know he saw her once at 13th and Locust Street. That's what he told me once. You have the reports, I don't know what else I could tell you.

Q. On May 13th Mr. Jamal became his own lawyer, at least he petitioned the Court to become his own lawyer, and that petition was granted by Judge Ribner.

A. Okay.

Q. Now, from December the 9th of '81 until May 13th, what's that? Five months. Five months. Now, you say in your affidavit, sir, that at the time of trial you were kept busy each evening feverishly reviewing over 100 police interviews as well as abundant materials on forensic and physical evidence, which, you gratuitously add, which had been earlier

Page 56.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

turned over in discovery. And then you --

MR. WEINGLASS: What page are you reading, Counsel?

MR. GRANT: Well, you filed the affidavit, sir. Page 4.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Now, if you were feverishly from night to night pouring over these documents, pouring over these documents preparing yourself for examination, what were you doing for five months and four days prior to that time?

A. You really want me, you really think I know what I was doing?

Q. Well, no, I don't think I know what you were doing, I think you did a lot more than you are admitting here on direct examination. That's why I'm asking you. I think you put substantial work into this case and I could tell by your cross-examination, sir. Now, you tell us what you did?

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection, Your Honor.

MR. GRANT: I will withdraw that statement. Move to strike it.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Tell us what you did?

A. Okay, Mr. Grant, as best as I could recall,

Page 57.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

when I was appointed by the Court to represent Mr. Jamal I reviewed the statements, as any lawyer would do. I did not review every statement in this case prior to trial.

Q. When you say review --

A. Read them.

Q. This is a term that we use as lawyers?

A. Okay, I read them.

Q. And usually, basically, is applied to civil law but we do it too. It's like what I did (displaying) with the notes of testimony from this trial: We call it digest and index?

A. Right, I did not do that immediately.

Q. Well, how many times did you read the reports? You must have read each report ten times at least?

A. At least.

Q. Mr. Jackson, you are a thorough lawyer, I have seen you operate, I know you must have read them 10 times, and I am glad you admitted it.

A. Yeah.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, the person conducting the questioning is testifying. That is not allowed.

THE COURT: Mr. Jackson said it is true.

Page 58.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

MR. WEINGLASS: I have seen your work before, I know you are thorough. He is acting as a character witness. That is not permitted. He could ask questions, not make statements.

THE COURT: I understand that.

MR. GRANT: I will proceed, Counsel: The objection is well taken.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. You read each statement at least 10 times, didn't you?

A. Yes, I read the statements over a lot, Mr. Grant.

Q. Mr. Jackson, you had just left an institution where you had worked for three or four years, you had a substantial reputation for being an excellent lawyer litigating against the Police Department of Philadelphia, had you not?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And now you were going out on your own for the first time? More or less?

A. More or less, yes, sir.

Q. And this case was probably one of the biggest events in the criminal justice system in the City of Philadelphia for a quarter of a century, wouldn't you agree?

Page 59.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Indeed it was, sir.

Q. And if you succeeded and did a good job, whether you won or lost, because all lawyers are also businessmen, this could have been an immeasurable boost to your career, couldn't it?

A. I'm sure, I'm sure it could have. But I had a bigger problem. A problem -- go ahead, I'm sorry.

Q. And therefore you had every interest and every incentive to do the best job that you could possibly do?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you determined to do that, didn't you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, you state, when I became backup Counsel -- this is in your affidavit --

I don't have the page marked here; if I read it you will recognize it, Mr. Weinglass, where it is.

-- you state, when I became backup Counsel, I assumed that my responsibility for trial preparation was over, and hence I abandoned all efforts. What do you mean by that?

A. It means --

MR. WEINGLASS: The proper reading is all efforts at trial preparation. Counsel only

Page 60.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

reads portions.

MR. GRANT: Isn't that what I just asked him?

MR. WEINGLASS: No, it is the gist of what --

MR. GRANT: No, it is not the gist.

THE COURT: Read it over again, Counsel, please.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. I will ask you it my way.

A. Sure.

Q. This is what I want to ask you. When you became backup Counsel --

A. Right.

Q. -- according to the affidavit you filed with that man two months ago or three months ago, you said in effect, I abandoned all efforts at trial preparation and you assumed your responsibility for doing so was over, did you say that?

A. I did, sir.

MR. GRANT: Mr. Weinglass, would you leave me alone.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. What did you mean by that?

A. Well, just as I said to you yesterday, again,

Page 61.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

in that never-never land of being backup Counsel, I told you I was just going to sit back with my hands folded (indicating).

Q. You were going to do that when you knew what this meant to both your career and the person you had come to befriend?

A. Sir, when I am backup Counsel it didn't mean much to me at all. I was put in a position I didn't want to be in. I was no good. I wasn't doing myself any good, I wasn't doing him any good.

Q. It didn't stop you from submitting a fee petition, did it?

A. The Court was ordering me to be there. I didn't mean at the present time I didn't want to be there. If they are going to make me be there they are going to pay for it.

Q. But in fact you were advising and consulting him and you were assisting him, and you know there are notations in the record -- have you read any of the record since yesterday?

A. No, sir.

Q. Do you intend to read any of the record while you are a witness in this case?

A. I didn't hear you.

Q. Do you intend, do you intend to read any of

Page 62.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

the record of your performance or the transcripts of these proceedings while you are a witness in this case?

A. If I could get out of it without reading anymore, believe me I will. I don't need to read anymore, trust me.

Q. Let me read something to you.

A. Okay, I figured that was coming.

Q. You then go on to state in your affidavit -- and I am paraphrasing --

MR. WEINGLASS: Beg your pardon.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. I am paraphrasing because I don't really care about the exact wording, Mr. Jackson, I am concerned about the gist.

MR. WEINGLASS: If the affiant gave a sworn statement, if that affidavit is true, I believe you have to give him the precise statement of the words, otherwise it is not proper impeachment.

MR. GRANT: Could Counsel cite some law for that proposition?

MR. WEINGLASS: You can't paraphrase and say you are impeaching at the same time.

MR. GRANT: This is Mr. Weinglass on

Page 63.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

evidence, Judge. I never heard this rule.

MR. WEINGLASS: Let the record reflect that there was a loud laughter from the right side of the Courtroom and no admonishments from this Court. This Court only admonishes the left side of the Courtroom. But when the friends of the Fraternal Order of the Police laugh, the Court laughs with them, without comment. I think the record should reflect that. It's happened before.

THE COURT: It is not the exact record. There was an outburst from the right side. And I will caution them.

Please; no comments.

Your own client has been spotted laughing at this. Because I have been watching him. I have been watching you.

MR. WEINGLASS: And he smiles and he laughs with his supporters, but they get an admonishing. But when the persons on the other side of the Court make --

THE COURT: The admonishing is when they give a loud disruption of the proceedings.

MR. WEINGLASS: There was a loud laughter in this Courtroom. Much louder than

Page 64.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

I've heard from the other side.

THE COURT: All right, I am admonishing everybody. No laughing, no speaking out, no nothing.

And that goes for you too, Mr. Weinglass.

MR. GRANT: May I proceed, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Sure.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. You further state words to the effect of the Defendant had at some point authorized me to assume his role...

A. Thanks. I'm sorry.

Q. It's all right. The Defendant authorized me to assume his role for the limited purpose of voir dire?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And would it be fair to say that that means Mr. Jamal said to you okay, Jackson, you can finish asking these Jurors questions so we could pick a Jury, but I want you to know that after that I'm the lawyer again?

A. That's right.

Q. That's what it means to you?

A. Yes, sir.

Page 65.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. Well, where does Mr. Jamal get the authorization to dictate the rules of your profession and mine, and to tell you what your duties are going to be over and above the Courts that control your behavior?

A. I believe since he got it from Judge Sabo.

Q. Oh, he did?

A. Yes.

Q. Let me refer you to page 6-28. I'm sorry, June 28, 1982, page 28.4.

MR. GRANT: And this is a quote, Mr. Weinglass.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could I have just one moment. What was the page?

MR. GRANT: Six -- I'm sorry, page 28.4. Four-zero, 40. I am not going to waste time.

MR. WEINGLASS: I appreciate that. It is not the first time.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. The Court: I told you initially that when I appointed you as Counsel -- speaking to you, Mr. Jackson -- and this is in response to your belief that Judge Sabo told Mr. Jamal oh, it is only going to be for this limited time period -- I told you

Page 66.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

initially when I appointed you as Counsel once you became Counsel you were going to follow this thing all the way through. I think it's only fair that the continuity of the representation of this Defendant include not only the opening remarks, since you are going to be the one that has to let the Jury know what you intend to prove, and the closing remarks, as to your arguments as to what you have proven, or as to what the evidence shows.

Now, do you recall the Judge having admonished you when you were trying to defer to Mr. Jamal and allow him to be Counsel despite your appointment and despite the Supreme Court's order to you?

A. Mr. Grant, you know, I don't remember that specifically. And my recollection is that when Mr. Jamal was removed as, removed from representing himself, it was, I was only to resume or take his place for the completion of the voir dire and Mr. Jamal would then be returned to represent himself. I don't, now, I don't know, I just didn't make this up out of the air. That was my understanding. If I misunderstood the Court, fine. But that was clearly, clearly my understanding, that Mr. Jamal would be representing himself at the beginning of this trial.

Page 67.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

I thought he did.

Q. Okay. Well, he was removed from that representation on June the 7th. And the trial didn't take place, witnesses were not actually called until June the 19th, so in addition to the five months you had, and --

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection: That is a misstatement of the record. What the Court did on June 7th is, as the record reveals, was not to remove Mr. Jamal as his own Counsel. The Court exercised it's prerogative under the local rule to take over the voir dire, which it can do with any attorney. Mr. Jamal remained as Counsel while the Court took over the voir dire. Mr. Jamal was not removed as Counsel until June 18th.

MR. GRANT: Oh. Thank you, Mr. Weinglass. My mistake.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. For the five months, minus those 11 days Mr. Weinglass so helpfully provided for me --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. -- you had prepared that case as if you were going to be the lawyer and the only thing changed is that there was a two-week hiatus in your taking that

Page 68.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

role and running with it? In other words, from the time you got this case up until the time of trial, there were only two weeks when you didn't think you were going to be the lawyer, right?

A. Excuse me. That may have been it. I prepared the case with the intention of being Mr. Jamal's lawyer, the answer is yes.

Q. Okay. And you said in your affidavit nevertheless, on page 4, with the Jury sequestered -- and this is a quote, by the way -- with the Jury sequestered and opening arguments scheduled to begin, I had no choice but to proceed even though unprepared -- and I emphasize that -- for trial; you said that, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you recall your statements on June 26th, 1982 -- pages 136 through 137 -- as to your preparedness for trial? Quote, as far as I'm concerned -- speaking to the Court -- I have an idea of what my opening remark would be to the Jury, and that would include generally a list of some witnesses, not necessarily their names, but the types of witnesses as to what they would say, as well as character witnesses. You continued. Of course, Mr. Jamal solely and exclusively knows the character

Page 69.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

witnesses, but he would generally and normally call, and I don't know. I of course have some concern about telling the Jury what I am going to present as to character, that I am going to present character witnesses, when in fact he -- Mr. Jamal -- may later on decide that those character witnesses should not appear. And then you say, I am suggesting that perhaps I shouldn't say it in the opening remark. But I know that my training and experience suggests that this would be a good time to let the Jury know that you have somebody who is going to come in and say that a person's reputation is generally good for veracity -- which means truth telling -- and things of that sort. Now, it may be somewhat, it may be a somewhat premature concern, but I just wanted the record to reflect I do have a strategic problem with regard to what is in my opening remarks, and that it may be compromised somewhat by the Defendant at a later time.

Would it be fair to capsulize that statement as I'm ready to go to trial and give my opening and I know what I would say, and what my experience dictates I should say, but I think Mr. Jamal is going to undercut me?

A. No, I don't remember the specific context in

Page 70.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

that matter. Correct me if I am wrong, I thought Mr. Jamal was going to return as his own Counsel. I didn't know whether I was making the opening remark or him. I don't know who was lawyer. That's the way I remember it. And I am saying I have an idea of what I would say to the Jury at that point, and again you could give me the context, I don't think I knew what my role was. I think that was the complaint.

Q. Let me give you the context.

A. Okay.

Q. That same day, page 136 and 137. The Court was asking if both sides are ready to proceed.

A. Okay.

Q. You say, Mr. Jamal is currently speaking with Janet Africa relevant to my comment to him that I am now required to present an opening remark. And you said I am required, so you knew that it was you who was going to give the opening, did you not?

A. Yeah, I think I just found out. That was the problem.

Q. In my opening remark I indicated to him that only generally am I required to indicate to the Jury what I intend to prove. And generally the witnesses or types of witnesses that I would intend to call. Mr. Jamal indicated that he wanted to speak to Janet

Page 71.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Africa before commenting further with me.

Meaning I'll let you know if I agree or disagree with you making an opening; was that fair to say?

A. Well, I don't think so, Mr. Grant.

Q. Okay.

A. As I recall, Mr. Jamal, that day Mr. Jamal was going to make an opening remark to the Jury, or that was, that was what we were planning. All of a sudden I was told I had to do it. I had not planned it. So he took the opportunity to talk to Janet Africa for whatever reason he wanted to. He was his own Counsel at that point. And then all of a sudden I was put in that position to make the opening remark and do all those things. And you said maybe it was strategy. I haven't, I knew who the witnesses were but, no, I didn't know who his character witnesses were. I haven't known this man all my life. You call it strategy if you want. I couldn't call character witnesses for you other than perhaps myself. I just don't know who they are.

Q. That is precisely the problem with the character witnesses. Because do you know Ruth Ballard?

A. Pardon?

Page 72.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. Do you know a Mrs. Ruth Ballard?

A. Yes, I think -- I know that name. I think I know her.

Q. When did you became familiar with her name?

A. I think I had -- oh, no, no, no. I heard the name. She testified in the hearing, that's where I heard the name.

Q. You didn't know her from a can of paint until yesterday?

A. Yeah.

Q. And so you wouldn't call that person as a character witness because you don't even know the person exists on this planet until they come to you and say I am a character witness; correct?

A. Or a client tells me.

Q. Okay.

A. Yeah.

Q. Now, that statement that you made to the Court about I'm ready to go on with my opening, I'm fully prepared except for the problem Mr. Jamal is causing me, was made on June 26th. June 19th is one week prior to that. And on page 7 and 8 you say, apparently again regarding your preparedness to act as trial Counsel, all right, may it please the Court, I would also like to bring to the Court's attention

Page 73.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

that I am at this very moment prepared to defend Mr. Jamal to the best of my ability. I will also bring to the Court's attention that unless and until Mr. Jamal specifically indicates to me that that it will be his strategy for me not to participate, or in other words to remain silent, with regard to the presentation of witnesses and facts, until or unless that is done, and placed on the record, I will defend Mr. Jamal in the traditional manner of an attorney and I ask then that the trial begin.

Does that tell you that you were prepared?

A. It tells me I thought I was prepared for the trial to begin. At that time, to say yes at that point, I was then made a real lawyer again. And I had reviewed the documents. But, and I think you know, it is one thing to prepare for a case that you may have some participation in. It is another thing to prepare for a case where you are actually conducting the examination. Up until that time, if Mr. Jamal was his own lawyer, I'm, I'm not, I can't substitute my strategy, my views for his. I mean that's just common, that's just common sense.

And I am saying yes, I read the statements. Of course I would read them again. If

Page 74.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

the Court asks me if I read them, well, I'm sure, I'm ready, let's get it on. Because understand that you make the opening remarks the Commonwealth puts. So you know you do have some time to prepare on a daily basis.

But, Mr. Grant, I think clearly when Mr. Jamal was his lawyer, he was his lawyer. I was not his lawyer. I was a backup lawyer. And again, when I'm a backup lawyer, I don't do a thing.

Q. When you weren't his lawyer, he was still his lawyer?

A. That isn't true. When I was his -- look, I have some integrity, I have some self-respect. If I'm his lawyer, I'm his lawyer.

Q. Okay. Would it be fair to say, then, that you may have been doing the talking but Mr. Jamal controlled, directed and ordered you, an attorney at the Bar of this Court, when and how to proceed?

A. No, sir. I mean this was, there were things that I consulted with Mr. Jamal as I would with any client. Any client can direct me in certain instances. When I acted as his lawyer, contrary to what you and perhaps any other person might believe, I was his lawyer.

Q. Okay. July lst, 1982. Page 32. Mr. Jackson.

Page 75.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Regarding the last-minute attempt to subpoena Police Officer Gary Wakshul -- these statements are made to the Court -- we have now found there is another police officer that we would like to testify.

Now, you have been his lawyer now since -- July 1st; this is the day they are going to give closing arguments -- you have been his lawyer throughout the trial at this point?

A. Right.

Q. We have now found that there is another police officer that we would like to have testify. There was some discussion. Mr. McGill just advises me that he is not present today and I would ask the Court that he be called in.

The Judge says, you knew this. You knew about this before, I am not going to hold up this trial.

You say I didn't.

The Court says what do you mean you didn't. Didn't you get statements regarding these detectives months and months ago.

You say absolutely Judge. But then you say, I was forced to try and remember everything that everybody said and I couldn't do it.

And that sounds like a strange comment

Page 76.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

but I think the context in which it was said will help you understand the implication.

Mr. McGill then states, I object to this. I think if Mr. Jamal, the Defendant in this case, decides he is not going to give statements until the very last minute to his attorney, that's on him. I don't see any reason why this trial should be delayed.

And then at page 39 you say, regarding not knowing who your next witness will be, I told him -- Mr. Jamal, you are implying -- when we were at sidebar if there were any others to let me know.

And the Court says to the Defendant: You should have told Mr. Jackson you wanted him from the beginning of the trial. And the Defendant states I told him at the motion to suppress and he didn't show up. Meaning Mr. Wakshul.

Do you recall that conversation?

A. I thought you were saying this was some other police officer. Okay. Now, all right.

Q. Gary Wakshul: The person you wanted on the last day of trial?

A. Yeah, okay, right.

Q. Now the Defendant --

A. Right.

Page 77.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. -- at the Bar of the Court, talking to the Judge, and you are saying, I told him before to tell me if he wants anymore witnesses.

And he said: I told you I wanted some more witnesses and I told you back at the motion to suppress that I wanted that guy and he never showed up.

Do you recall that conversation?

A. I take all the responsibility for not calling that officer.

Q. That is the point: You are taking the responsibility?

A. It is my fault. How could it be his fault?

Q. How could you tell me that you didn't do something when what you had to do was go into this person's mind and find out what they wanted to do?

A. No. I don't understand.

Q. Let me read it again to you, maybe it will make it clear to you.

A. All right.

MR. WEINGLASS: What page?

MR. GRANT: Same pages.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. The Judge said to you, come on, Mr. Jackson, you have been in my room before, I know you're good.

Page 78.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

You should have told me this before. You should have told the D.A. before. If you wanted that cop you should have had him in here before.

You said no, Judge, I couldn't have done it before.

And he said why not, and you say, basically, I told the Defendant when we were at sidebar if there were any others -- meaning police officers or witnesses -- to let me know.

And then --

A. But Mr. Grant.

Q. -- the Court says to the Defendant, why didn't you tell him from the beginning of the trial.

Now, how are you claiming -- oh, I understand what you are saying.

A. No, you don't.

Q. How are you claiming responsibility for that?

A. Okay. You said there's something in there that somebody told me something in the motion to suppress. I think Mr. Jamal represented himself in the motion to suppress.

Q. Yes, he did.

A. So how could the man be responsible in the motion to suppress to produce the witness? That's the context of that statement. If you let me finish

Page 79.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

I'11 answer your question, sir.

The statement suggests that I was told during the motion to suppress to produce evidence. I wasn't the lawyer then. So it doesn't make sense then, it doesn't make sense now.

Q. Don't get excited, because that statement that he made was a lie. And I am going to reveal it right now.

A. Well, I don't know. You say it's a lie.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, I ask that it be stricken.

MR. GRANT: Well.

MR. WEINGLASS: Counsel again is not only testifying, he is giving summations.

MR. GRANT: I said I am going to show it. And if I may be allowed to continue, subject to his motion to strike, which may be granted if I don't prove what I am saying, then I think it is a good motion. I think I should be allowed to proceed.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. No, I am not saying, Mr. Jackson, that you had a responsibility to bring somebody in at the motion to suppress. What I am saying to you is on that very last day of trial, you are coming in here today in

Page 80.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

1995 saying it's my fault, Judge, I should have got that witness in. You know good and well that means I was ineffective as a lawyer, and that means maybe he gets a new trial, and you know in fact that that's not true and you are in here doing it for him?

A. Okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection to the form: Argumentative.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Isn't that so?

MR. WEINGLASS: Compound.

THE COURT: He said isn't that so. Just a minute.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could I have a ruling on my objection?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WEINGLASS: Overruled?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: Thank you.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Isn't that what you are doing?

A. I'm answering, I'm answering the question truthfully. It was not Mr. Jamal's responsibility to bring in the witness. It's my responsibility. I'm

Page 81.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

the lawyer.

Q. Well, let me suggest to you that you as a lawyer wouldn't have brought that witness in.

A. All right, Mr. Grant, I know you made some, some allusions to Mr. Wakshul yesterday about some testimony I never knew anything about. Let me just give you the context of this officer. I did not conduct the motion to suppress. During the motion to suppress, I don't know why Wakshul would not have been called because -- I don't know.

Q. What?

A. I do not know why he would not have been called. Since this was, what, three, four witnesses who said they heard Mr. Jamal confess. If, again, Wakshul was with him for the entire length of time and that it seemed Mr. Jamal remained silent, then he would have been presented as a witness. Mr. Jamal conducted that motion to suppress. And I am not going to compare Mr. Jamal's efforts with regard to legally-trained attorneys. However, I did not have that same hands-on familiarity with the witnesses and how they were called and things of that sort.

I don't know, it may have been during the motion to suppress Mr. Jamal had Mr. Wakshul's statement, I don't recall. He conducted the motion

Page 82.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

to suppress. As I said to you before, there were some statements that I made copies of, some copies of statements I gave to him. But certainly, why wouldn't I call the witness if I knew?

Q. Let me tell you why you might not want to call the witness, sir.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. First of all, you made a claim that I never knew about that officer prior to that date and I didn't know about any statements that he may have given I guess to the Internal Affairs Bureau. That is not true, is it?

A. Yeah, I still haven't seen the statement to the Internal Affairs Bureau.

Q. What?

A. I don't think I've ever seen it, have I?

MR. GRANT: May this be marked as Commonwealth Exhibit number 5 for identification, please, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. GRANT: This purports to be an April 12th, 1982 letter to Mr. Jackson from the prosecutor in this case: Joseph McGill.

THE COURT: All right.

Page 83.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

(Letter was marked Commonwealth's
Exhibit C-5 for identification.)

MR. GRANT: Yes, Counsel, I believe -- has Counsel seen it?

THE COURT OFFICER: (Handing).

(Pause.)

MR. GRANT: The document that Counsel, all of them, are perusing is a document that they received also in discovery so it is not a mystery.

THE COURT OFFICER: Show it to the witness, Mr. Grant?

MR. GRANT: Yes, please. For the record: Mr. Jackson appears to be perusing the document C-5.

THE WITNESS: Okay, I have read the document, sir.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Now would you read that into the record, sir?

A. Sure. It is dated April 12th, 1982. It is directed to me. Dear Mr. Jackson: Please, be advised that the staff inspector's entire file has been duplicated and delivered to your office pursuant to Judge Ribner's order. You may set a date and time to hear a tape recording of one witness' statement in our office. Since we are voluntarily turning over

Page 84.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

this discovery to you, we expect you to provide us with names, addresses, and statements of any witnesses you will call at trial. If you fail to provide us with same we will assume that none exist. If you seek to introduce such evidence at trial, we will assert your failure to notify us of such evidence as a bar to it's admission. Signed, Joseph McGill.

Q. Now, that was two months before the trial began in this case?

A. That's right.

Q. And you claim that you didn't receive any statement from Gary Wakshul; correct?

A. All right, I don't remember. I don't remember.

Q. Well, say you don't remember, don't say you didn't get it.

A. I will tell you what I do remember. I remember a statement from Gary Wakshul where he said I was with him and he never said a word. I remember that, specifically. I don't remember ever hearing any other words. If you don't want me to say I don't remember, I do remember that.

Q. Okay. And you said yesterday on direct that, or on cross, that you wouldn't know which of his

Page 85.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

statements were given for the Homicide investigation and which were given for the Internal Affairs investigation unless you saw some indication up in the upper corner that this was from a special investigation or something like that?

A. Yeah, because you told me there were two statements, I only remember one. I only remember one statement. You said there were two statements, and you said well, don't you know that there was a simultaneous investigation conducted by the Internal Affairs of the Police Department. The only way that I would know is because they indicate who they are doing the examination. I only remember one statement.

Q. Well, that is a lot different than saying you didn't remember more than one statement, isn't it?

A. Well, it may be, but in my mind, if I remembered one, I would remember the other. But yes, it is a big difference.

MR. GRANT: I'll say. And I would like this marked as Commonwealth Exhibit 6, please. And I'm sorry to keep running you around.

THE COURT OFFICER: No problem. Keep me in shape.

Page 86.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

(Police interview was marked
Commonwealth's Exhibit C-6 for identification.)

THE COURT OFFICER: (Handing).

(Pause.)

MR. GRANT: This document also was turned over to Counsel previously, Your Honor.

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

THE COURT OFFICER: Mr. Grant, show it to the witness?

MR. GRANT: Yes, please.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. You have been presented with a document, sir, consists of approximately six pages. And it's dated February llth, 1982, four months before the trial began. Do you see the first question that's on that document, sir, posed by Mr. Goldberg, who is a special investigator?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What does, don't give me the answer, just what does the question read, read that into the record?

A. Officer Wakshul, I am staff inspector Frank Goldberg and this is Lieutenant Daniel -- I can't.

Q. Looks like Sitella.

Page 87.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Okay. Sitella.

Q. S-A-T-T-E-L-O-E-L-E? I am not sure.

A. Of the Internal Affairs Bureau. I am going to take down what you say directly on the typewriter. Do you understand.

Q. Now, sir, where it says we are questioning you concerning -- and you probably have seen hundreds of these reports: These are typical 75 dash four-eight-three forms from the Detective bureau -- what does it say we are questioning you concerning?

A. Oh, I'm sorry.

Q. It's up there, it's right above --

A. Yeah.

Q. Right above what you just read.

A. Your copy might be better. Allegations... initiated by Anthony Jackson, an attorney representing Mumia Abu-Jamal, Wesley Cook, indicating that police officers --

Q. Abused his client on 12-9-81?

A. Okay. Yeah.

Q. Now, they are basically responding to your complaint and they are interviewing all the people that may be responsible for any abuse suffered by Mr. Jamal, that's their job and that's what you intended for them to do when writing that complaint, right?

Page 88.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that was four months before the trial, and you read a letter from Mr. McGill saying I'm turning over the entire file of the Inspection Bureau's investigation to you?

A. Mr. McGill wrote it to me?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you asked why would I not put this man on at trial. Do you see that yellow sticker on that file C-6 there, sir?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Go to page 3, please.

You indicated earlier that you heard the male, you recall the statement that the male made no comment, you recall that, and that would be great to put him on to prove that these other police officers and security guards who worked at Thomas Jefferson were liars: I mean tactically that's what a good lawyer would do?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What would a good lawyer do if he knew that there was another statement that read, what I am going to ask you to read into the record, start at the question at the top of page 3 and read down to

Page 89.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

the bottom, or read down to the next question, please, into the record, if you can't read it out?

A. I'm sorry, sir. Police Officer Gary Wakshul, okay, question: Upon carrying him --

Q. Upon carrying him, meaning Jamal?

A. -- into the emergency room, where did you put him.

When we entered the hospital we placed him on the floor, somewhat inside the second set of electric doors which led into -- I don't know what that word is.

Q. The emergency room?

A. Oh, emergency room.

Q. Let me do it this way, Mr. Jackson.

A. Sure.

Q. Let me read it and you follow along and you tell me if I'm, if it seems to be correct. Question: Upon carrying him into the emergency room where did you put him. Meaning Mr. Jamal.

Answer -- this is Mr. Wakshul talking -- when we entered the hospital we placed him on the floor somewhat inside the second set of electric doors which lead into the emergency room. By this time I was tired and winded from carrying him. He was very heavy and constantly struggled to

Page 90.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

keep us from carrying him. I was too tired to carry him anymore and said something to that effect. And said something to that effect that I had to put him down. After he was placed on the floor, and as I was standing back up, I did hear him say I shot him, I hope the mother fucker dies. I was disgusted at this point and decided I wasn't going to touch him again. I didn't want to be near him. I stepped away a few feet in front of a small alcove in the emergency room opposite the receptionist's desk. I stood there for a few seconds and then walked out of the hospital.

Did you re-enter the hospital at any time.

Yes, about five minutes later.

For what purpose.

I closed up the wagon doors, got my hat and then went back in to see what else I could do.

Now, when you put on the evidence the male made no comment, you know that any mediocre D.A. is going to put in the rebuttal to that, which is this. Would that not cause a person to pause or hesitate as to the value of putting that person on?

A. Yes, sir. But I did call him. I asked for him.

Page 91.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. You asked for him?

A. It is on the record.

Q. No, Mr. Jamal asked for him.

A. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I was the one who asked. On the record it said me, but.

Q. On the record?

A. But you don't believe I was the lawyer.

Q. You said we?

A. I won't quibble with words. Mr. Grant, honestly and sincerely, I don't remember ever seeing that statement. If I have seen it, sir, maybe. I don't ever remember seeing that statement.

Q. I am not questioning that, Mr. Jackson. I know you to be a man of honor for many years. I'm saying just because you don't remember it doesn't mean you didn't get it?

A. Yeah.

Q. Would you agree?

A. I agree, I agree.

Q. All right, we are at the same page. Now, that part about the Defendant, when the Court said in response to you wanting Mr. Wakshul on July 1st at the last minute, on page 48, the Judge says you should have told Mr. Jackson -- talking to Mr. Jamal now at sidebar -- you should have told him that you

Page 92.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

wanted him from the beginning of trial.

The Defendant states, I told him -- Mr. Jackson -- at the motion to suppress that I wanted that guy Wakshul and he didn't show up.

And you are saying that's not, that's not true. And it's not true, is it?

A. No, sounds to me that he said during the motion to suppress he wanted Wakshul. Just like I said before: What happens is, when we want police witnesses, you tell the D.A. He and Joe McGill weren't necessarily on speaking terms so Mr. Jamal, sounds to me like Mr. Jamal is saying he told me to tell Mr. McGill. That's what I am assuming that statement is.

Q. Let's assume that your assumptions would be well-founded. At page 113 through 115, on June 2nd, this is is what actually happened --

A. Okay.

Q. -- at the motion to suppress. Just before the defense portion of the motion to suppress was to begin. That is to say, when the Defendant wants to put on his evidence at the suppression motion, he is entitled to put on evidence?

A. Yeah.

Q. And the Court said, in asking which witnesses

Page 93.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

would the defense require, the Court said what witnesses do you need. And he is speaking to Mr. Jamal. Because Mr. Jamal is acting as his own lawyer then. What witnesses do you need.

Mr. Jamal says say what.

The Court says what witnesses do you need. Perhaps we could have them for you. Are any of these police officers.

Jamal says yes, some.

The Court: All right, tell the District Attorney and he will have them for you.

Mr. Jamal: Some are private citizens as well.

The Court: First of all, do you want the, do you want the police officers.

Mr. Jamal: Judge, a policeman I would like to have, I have their names here.

Judge Sabo says read them off.

Mr. Jamal says Daniel Soboleski and John McGurk.

This is bringing back memories, isn't it?

A. Something.

Q. The Court says how do you spell that last name. And the Defendant then proceeds to spell both

Page 94.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

names correctly. And then says Soboleski, Officer Soboleski, badge number is badge 5596, and he states that Officer McGurk's badge number is 3185, he is from the 6th District.

The Court says, are those the only two officers.

Mr. Jamal says yes.

The Court goes further in trying to assist him to present his case by saying who else do you want.

And Mr. Jamal says Debbie Kordansky and Veronica Jones. He later goes on to say I changed my mind, I don't want them to come in. After conferring with you, by the way.

Nevertheless, the Court says who else.

The record reflects Mr. Jackson confers with Defendant. And then Mr. Jamal says a curious thing: Judge, I have no objection to the District Attorney's Office supplying the police witnesses. They are available to him. As if he would allow us to do him a favor.

The Court then says, before we get into that, who else after Veronica Jones or is that the end.

Mr. Jamal says that is the end.

Page 95.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Mr. McGill then says, if the Court would wish me, I would be very glad to get them. Meaning the officers and the witnesses. I was going to get them anyway.

Now, considering that exchange, and that was the witnesses for the defense that he asked to be brought in at the motion to suppress, did you hear the name of Gary Wakshul one time?

A. No, sir.

Q. Would you take my word for it that it was never ever mentioned at any time prior to July lst, 1982, the date of closing arguments?

A. I will take your word for it that there is nothing on the record that would indicate that he asked for it. Mr. Grant, you have to understand: I don't remember. And if, if Mr. Jamal has specific recollection of asking me maybe he didn't ask me on the record. I don't know, and I'm speculating, but I just can't tell you anymore.

Q. Now, when you gave Mr. Jamal some statements, you had some and he had some?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Why would an attorney give his only copy of a document that he would need for trial to a person who may not value these documents like attorneys value

Page 96.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

them: To be used for weapons?

A. I will try to explain again. I got the documents --

THE COURT: Go ahead. Finish up.

THE WITNESS: There was a time when I got the documents. Made copies for Mr. Jamal, and I kept copies. There is another time we got some additional documents, gave some to Mr. Jamal and I think I kept some. There were times when Mr. Jamal had some. Mr. Jamal was his own lawyer at the motion to suppress. I don't, I am assuming that at some point in time there may have been some statements. I don't think it was necessarily that statement of Wakshul, but I don't really know. He was the lawyer, I wasn't the lawyer.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. I don't care, if you were backup Counsel, wouldn't you have a backup copy?

A. Well, you see how that backup thing gets you in trouble. I don't know. You say --

MR. GRANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, the Court reporter indicates he needs a break. And I think it's almost, well, nine minutes to 12:00.

Page 97.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

We'll break for lunch until one o'clock.

MR. GRANT: Very well.

THE COURT OFFICER: This Court now stands in luncheon recess until one o'clock at the call of the Crier.

- - - - -

(Luncheon recess was held until 1:30 p.m.)

- - - - -

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

- - - - -

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Jackson.

A. Good afternoon, Mr. Grant.

Q. When you filed the police complaint, the complaint against the Police Department, which generated additional discovery or documents, you billed the City of Philadelphia for that, did you not?

A. I don't know.

Q. Could you take a look at C-4?

A. Sure.

Q. Let me see if I can find the tab.

Page 98.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

MR. GRANT: Here is mine (handing).

THE COURT OFFICER: (Handing).

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. It's tabbed in yellow and it's marked in red, sir. A little check mark. I believe the date is 12-30-81.

A. That's correct, sir, I did.

Q. What's that notation there, sir?

A. 12-30-81: Preparation and filing complaint with Police Department: 1.5 hours.

Q. And you were paid for that, were you not?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you knew that that was going to generate additional police materials and interviews of the other individuals that may have been under suspicion?

A. That is correct, sir.

Q. So you were basically getting the benefit of having duplication of investigation with the obvious and inherent possibilities that it contains; namely, that people may say things in a different way or totally different; correct?

A. That, that's a possibility, yes, sir.

Q. Now, and that was only 21 days after the arrest for the murder in this case; correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Page 99.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. Now, yesterday, sir, I asked you, and I was asserting to you at that point that you may have been the lawyer but Mr. Jamal was running the show.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you recall giving an interview in Philadelphia Magazine in December of 1993, sir, about this case?

A. Philadelphia Magazine?

Q. Well, let me see. Inquirer Magazine?

A. I don't know, umm... I may have, I don't recall.

Q. Let me see if I can -- do you recognize this photograph? It's called 'Presumed Innocent,' picture of Mr. Jamal in handcuffs?

A. No, I never have seen it.

MR. WEINGLASS: May I see it?

MR. GRANT: Yeah, let me identify it for the record if I can. It is a pretty poor photocopy.

THE WITNESS: I know I didn't see the article.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Pardon me?

A. I didn't see the article.

Page 100.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. I didn't see that article.

(Pause.)

MR. GRANT: Okay, while Counsel is looking at that:

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Your final bill submitted on C-4 for experts -- and you claim that they were fair and reasonable amounts -- was 1,312 dollars and 50 cents; would that be correct?

A. What page is it? I'm sorry. I'll find it?

Okay, yes? I see it down there.

(Pause.)

A. I guess that's it, yeah.

Q. Now, you disagreed with me yesterday that Mr. Jamal was calling the shots even though you were the attorney, and you still take that position, sir?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I would like to invite your attention, sir, to an interview you had for the Philadelphia Inquirer this past Sunday, July 23rd, 1995. It's called the Review and Opinion section, at pages 1 and 2, section E. When asked a number of questions, apparently you responded to reporters, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. If I may just read from the article. As

Page 101.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Abu-Jamal's case moves through the appeal stage questions arise. One, why didn't William Cook, Mr. Jamal's brother, testify for his brother. According to Cook's lawyer, the younger brother was ready and eager to testify.

Now they are distinguishing between Mr. Jamal and his brother by calling one Cook and Mr. Jamal by his lawful name?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, Cook's lawyer was Danny Alva, was he not?

A. That is correct.

Q. Now, according to this article, it says the younger brother was ready and eager to testify. The defense attorney Jackson says 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. No, sir.

Q. That is a misquote?

A. It's whatever it is. I didn't say that.

Q. Well, when asked why didn't you pursue a murder three charge or a temporary insanity or self-defense claim as opposed to tell the Jury they should find the Defendant guilty of murder in the

Page 102.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

first degree or nothing at all, there is another response here, and it is in quotation marks -- tell me whether or not you said this one -- during the trial people would say that Mumia was probably enraged that night, that he acted to what he saw happening and was temporarily insane, Jackson said. I remember he said -- Mr. Jamal -- they want me to buy into that, to say I'm crazy, but he would never select that, it was never an option because of the way he is.

Did you say that?

A. I said words to that effect, yes, sir.

Q. No, did you say that?

A. I don't remember -- I don't remember each and every word that I said to the reporter. I'm saying now I said words to that effect, yes. That's as best as I could do. I didn't have a tape recorder so I can't tell you I said exactly that.

Q. Do you recall after the trial was over Mr. McGill walked up to you and said Tony, you did a good job for the man, he wouldn't give you any help, he wouldn't let you put the gun in his hand, he made you argue first degree murder or nothing, and your response was that's right, it's one or the other?

A. That decision for first degree was my decision

Page 103.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

and my decision alone. I never asked Mr. Jamal, I never asked Mr. Jamal what I was going to argue to the Jury. Never. Never once, never once.

Q. You never thought that perhaps a defense of others claim may have been viable?

A. Pardon me?

Q. Defense of others: It is like self-defense?

A. Oh, yeah.

Q. You never thought that was a viable defense?

A. I considered it, yes, sir.

Q. But you made a tactical and strategic decision not to pursue that defense?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you likewise made a tactical and/or strategic decision not to pursue, although I don't even know if it exists in the annals of Pennsylvania law, a temp insanity defense, enragement, irresistible impulse?

A. Well, if you want to call it tactical decision, perhaps it was. You know, by implication perhaps one, you know. And again that's what the response of the article suggests, there wasn't any evidence of that. I mean people surmised that that's what happened. The brother, he was enraged and did it. That's what people surmised. I couldn't respond

Page 104.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

to what people surmised. And Danny Alva prevented me from talking to his brother because his brother had charges pending against him.

Q. Are you sure he had charges pending or had they already been disposed of, Mr. Jackson?

A. There was a time, and I don't know what time, that the brother had charges pending against him.

Q. What were the charges against him, do you know? Simple assault against a police officer?

A. Well, it wouldn't be simple, it was a police officer, so it would be aggravated.

Q. Aggravated as a misdemeanor?

A. Okay. But notwithstanding the charges against him there, here the clear implication that I got when he didn't want him to testify would be that if he testified in this trial, there may be some additional problems. Now, I know about double jeopardy and all of that, I wasn't Mr. Cook's lawyer.

Q. Did Mr. Jamal ever tell you just leave my family out of this, this is not their thing, this is my thing? Think carefully, Mr. Jackson.

A. I'm not going to say he didn't say it, but that -- it is the context in which he may have said it. It had nothing to do with the trial, it had nothing to do with bringing Billy into the Court, if

Page 105.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

that's what you mean.

Q. Didn't what?

A. Didn't prevent me from bringing Billy into Court, if that's what you are talking about, Mr. Jamal's brother. There may have been a time he said he didn't want his family involved. But I think you have to understand his family. He had a very loving and close family and very close relationship with his family.

Q. You did?

A. I did too, but I mean he did. And I think he was trying to protect them as well. It had nothing to do with presenting Billy or something of that sort.

Q. Or Lydia Wallace?

A. Yeah, or Lydia.

Q. Or Elizabeth Cook?

A. That's right.

Q. In other words, you could have at any point in time brought them in, either at the penalty phase, or at the guilt phase, but you made a conscious decision not to?

A. I would assume so. I did use -- I think his mother. Well, I'm sorry.

Q. You used his mother?

Page 106.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Mr. Jamal -- oh, at the bail hearing I think Mrs., I think his mother testified. I believe.

Q. Yes, she did, 1-11 of '82. So?

A. So therefore, again, she testified so she must have had some involvement in this case. So that's what I am saying. You have to consider the context at which time the people were involved or whether they were involved at all or not. I mean I was not prevented from talking to his family. Except Billy, and that was because of his lawyer.

Q. His order?

A. Billy's lawyer, Danny Alva.

Q. Oh, his lawyer?

A. I mean I didn't talk, I mean I spoke to Billy but I never talked to him about the case out of respect for what his lawyer said.

Q. And even though you knew his lawyer had no legal claim specifically: His case was over by the time this case went to trial; it was relatively minor charges as compared to a death penalty litigation?

A. That wasn't my decision to make, that's his lawyer's decision to make.

Q. Very well. So you are saying that at some point you chose to call members of his family, had the bail hearing at which you called his mother, and

Page 107.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

at other times you chose not to, such as character witnesses or the penalty stage for mitigating circumstances, but you are saying that was an oversight?

A. At the character stage..; I don't remember specifically. Umm... seems to me I presented a number of character witnesses during the trial stage. I don't, I don't recall whether I decided not to or whether I had planned to present them. I don't really recall just what happened. Seems to me that he --

Q. How about 15, you called 15 out of the 20, list of 20, is that a lot?

A. Yeah, seems to me the Judge stopped me from putting more witnesses on.

Q. The Judge said to you Mr. Jackson, this is cumulative. The Judge can't stop you but he says how many more do you have to go. And in deference to what was common sense, I mean you could have good character, one person could establish it or 50 people could come in and say the same thing, just like was done here before you got on the stand. I mean how much of that do you want to hear?

A. Okay, I am going to tell you: Maybe it was because I put on 15 character witnesses and maybe I

Page 108.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

thought that 15, 16 or 17 character witnesses were enough without his family. I just don't remember specifically why I didn't do it, sir.

Q. But you did pursue character and you did consider using his family members?

A. I would assume so. Yeah, I mean in any, always. Yeah, sure.

Q. Have you ever had a person facing a capital punishment in any of your trials prior to or since that day where it got to that phase that you didn't put on relatives of the defendant at the penalty or the guilt phase, if the person had good character and you could put them up there without them being attacked?

(Pause.)

A. During the guilt phase I don't remember doing it because the cases that I could recall the defendants had records. So they couldn't put character witnesses on because their record would come out.

Q. So the issue never arose?

A. That's right, the issue never arose.

Q. Now, Mr. Jamal went so far in directing your efforts that he went so far as to presume to tell you to request a Jury instruction in the middle of the

Page 109.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

trial, didn't he?

A. I don't -- in the middle, a Jury instruction in the middle of the trial, no.

Q. It is strange, isn't it? While there is no Jury deliberating, before it is time for them to receive the law, he wants you to tell them the law before he ever gets to that point?

A. I guess so. I don't remember. But, you know, if it is on the record I guess. I just don't have have any specific recollection.

Q. What if I told you that you did, would you say that the tail was wagging the dog instead of the dog wagging the tail?

A. No, if he asked me to make that request of the Judge, I'd ask him. He is not, if he asked me to ask something, that's directing. If I ask you to give me the paper, I am making you give me the paper? I see it differently, you see it differently.

Q. Well, Mr. Jackson, you have been a lawyer for 17 years?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Have you ever, ever -- and I don't care who asked you --

A. Hmm-hmm.

Q. -- requested that the judge charge the jury on

Page 110.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

the degrees of murder when they are still listening to the evidence?

A. No.

Q. One time? Of course you haven't.

A. Oh, no.

Q. Notes of testimony, July lst, 1982, page 55. Mr. Jackson to the Court: I have a statement I would like to read, Your Honor. Your Honor, for the record, as well as for Your Honor's purposes, I would like to make it perfectly clear that my client Mumia Abu-Jamal ordered me to make a motion that the charges against him be dismissed on the grounds that murder as is previously defined by the Courts is not defined to the satisfaction of my client. You said those words. You further went on to state: My client wants to put on the record that he is making a motion for the definition of murder while the trial is still in progress and not after the closing arguments.

Would you deny that you said that?

A. No, sir, and it is consistent with what I have said.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, at the point at which this conversation occurs all the evidence had already been in. We were at the

Page 111.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

point, or they were at the point in the trial just prior to closing argument. It was an entirely appropriate time to discuss what the instructions of the Court would be. But Counsel in his argument miss, in his question I should say, misrepresents to the witness the time frame in which this happened. Therefore, he misleads the witness and then asks him questions. That's why he should show the witness the transcript, so that the witness can see what was occurring in the context of the trial at that time. So that the witness isn't misled into giving information.

So I object to this line of questioning without the witness seeing the transcript. This was, it wasn't in the middle of the trial, it was the end of the trial. And all the testimony had already been taken. It was an appropriate time to discuss instruction. So I object to this question.

MR. GRANT: First of all, Your Honor, Mr. Weinglass wasn't and didn't know that Philadelphia existed in 1981, and he wasn't at this trial. And Mr. Jackson was and he spoke these words while the trial is still in

Page 112.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

progress. And I think that lawyer knows what he is talking about.

Secondly, I offered him early on at the beginning of the day whenever he needed to resort to notes of testimony I would make them available to him. And I wish Counsel would quit making speeches and trying to rehabilitate his witness when it is not his turn. He has a right to redirect.

THE COURT: On redirect you could bring up anything you want.

MR. WEINGLASS: But it is common courtesy, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, he is reading what he said.

MR. WEINGLASS: Common courtesy to show the witness the transcript.

THE COURT: Well, he said if he needs it he will give it to him. So let the witness ask for it.

If you need anything just ask for it.

THE WITNESS: That's just for point of clarification: You said this was in the middle of the trial?

MR. GRANT: No, you said it was.

Page 113.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

THE WITNESS: You asked me the question, you said during the middle of the trial do I remember him saying it?

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Yes, sir.

A. Okay, fine. Now, I don't remember him saying that in the middle of the trial. But I am not saying it didn't happen.

Q. What do you call while the trial is still in progress, to quote you?

A. Well, there is the beginning, there is a middle, there is an end. Any time the trial began, before the trial is over it is the middle. Is that what you are saying?

Q. No, what I am saying is when it is the end the trial is no longer in progress?

A. Well, okay, I guess we just have to, maybe I should do this. At what point in time was this said? I don't know what you are talking, you know, I am not going to remember it.

Q. They don't have a clock that comes with the transcript.

A. No, what I mean by this: I don't remember it being asked in any event, but I don't know if you are talking about during the voir dire, during the

Page 114.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

prosecution's presentation, the defense presentation, character. I don't know at what stage it was made, if it makes a difference, because I don't remember it.

Q. It does make a difference.

A. Okay, fine. But I think you need to understand that what I said was consistent with what I have said all along. When I said Mr. Jamal wants me to ask this, Mr. Jamal's direction. That's when Mr. Jamal was talking. At any other time I was doing the lawyering. When Mr. Jamal wanted me to say something I pointed out that Mr. Jamal wanted me to do it. What you just read was Mr. Jamal wants me to read this. Mr. Jamal directs this. At any other time I was the lawyer, and I made that very clear. So that there wouldn't have to be any misunderstanding about who the lawyer was.

Q. There are so many instances where Mr. Jamal directs and Mr. Jamal demands and Mr. Jamal orders that the question then becomes who was the lawyer. And that's precisely the line of questioning we are engaged in now.

MR. WEINGLASS: I object to the form of the question, Your Honor.

THE COURT: He is answering the

Page 115.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

witness' question, so.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, will the Court sustain my objection as to form?

MR. GRANT: I withdraw the question.

Strike the statement, if I may.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Why do you use the word he is ordering me around if you were the attorney?

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection, unless the witness is shown where those words appear in the transcript.

THE COURT: Overruled. This is a general question first, then he will be more specific.

MR. WEINGLASS: No, the question contains --

THE COURT: The question, the question is all right. So the objection is overruled. Come on, let's get going.

THE WITNESS: The question, the answer is clear --

THE COURT: Just a minute.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor overruled --

THE COURT: Wait awhile, he is moving

Page 116.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

around.

MR. GRANT: May I approach, Your Honor? (Handing).

MR. WEINGLASS: Thank you. Date, page?

MR. GRANT: Same date, Mr. Weinglass. Same page, Mr. Weinglass.

MR. WEINGLASS: Okay, July 1st. Page 55.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Why did you, why do you use the word order whenever there is an occasion when you have to relate to the Court Mr. Jamal's wishes if you are in charge? People give orders and they take them?

A. Okay. Sure. I have an obligation as an attorney if a client requests something that he disagrees with that the Court know the difference. That my client wants something. I use the word order, directed. Say whatever you want to say. I mean it happens, it happens lots of times. Lots of times. Client may want to take the stand, I say I don't think you should. The client wants to take the stand. Let it be known that it is not me.

In this instance Mr. Jamal wanted me to make that statement, whatever it was. Apparently,

Page 117.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

again, I haven't had an opportunity to see the context of when the statements was made. Apparently I would not have made it at that point. That's all. That's all it means. When I say order: I haven't been ordered to do things in a long time, other than Judge Sabo ordered me to.

Q. That's right.

A. But I certainly didn't mean it in the same context.

Q. Only Judge Sabo and Mr. Jamal have ordered you to do anything since you have been a man and been out of the military?

A. Judge Sabo and Mr. Jamal ordered me to do. If I used the word order I used it in a different context. I apologize for the choice of the word.

Q. Again, it wasn't a slip of the tongue, was it, because it appears throughout the transcript?

A. That is the word I used.

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection to the reference. He could only show it in one place. Then he embroiders it by saying it appears throughout the transcript. I would like to have additional references.

MR. GRANT: I could go on ad nauseam and show various places, Judge.

Page 118.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

THE COURT: Go right ahead, then. He wants you to do it, go right ahead.

MR. WEINGLASS: Good.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Now, do you recall saying these words in December of '93? And I'm trying, I can't for the life of me get the header that goes with this article. So I don't know whether it is the Philadelphia Inquirer or Philadelphia Magazine supplement that goes into The Inquirer Magazine.

MR. WEINGLASS: Philadelphia Magazine.

MR. GRANT: Thank you.

MR. WEINGLASS: I'm new to the City but I do know that much.

MR. GRANT: Yes, you're in tune, Mr. Weinglass, you probably read it.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. It says here, Jackson quickly discovered that Jamal had his own plans. Well, actually what it does is give you several compliments. Let's just go on to say what it says. A committee was formed to raise money for his defense. State Representative David Richardson and then State Senator T. Milton Street testified on Jamal's behalf at a bail hearing.

Page 119.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Anthony E. Jackson, who had defended MOVE members and served as director of the Public Interest Law Center police abuse project signed on as Jamal's Court-appointed attorney. Jackson quickly discovered that Jamal had his own plans, quote, it became obvious, he says, that it wasn't going to be my show. Did you say that?

A. I may have.

Q. How come you could never remember when you say something, sir? You are in a profession that deals with words and the precision of using them and you have not yet once said I did say something. What's up?

A. Okay, I am going to tell you what --

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

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. I mean what is going on? I mean can you explain that?

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

THE WITNESS: I will do the best I can.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, Your Honor, now we are dealing with compound questions.

Page 120.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

THE COURT: Overruled. This is cross-examination.

THE WITNESS: Mr. Grant, you are asking me if I said something. I dare say I could ask you if you said something last week, I can't imagine that you could say with an absolute degree of certainly yes or no. And I am saying, some things you asked me about 13 years ago you said if I said it and I said I don't know: And you are wondering why I can't remember.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. How about December of '93, that's not 13 years ago?

A. I did, I don't know. I may have said it. You are asking me did I say it. I have to think in the context who it was I mean I was talking to. You can't just pick out words did you ever say it. I have to think where I was, who did I say it to. I can't just remember just like that.

Q. Devon Leonard?

A. Pardon me?

Q. Devon Leonard?

A. I remember the name. I don't, I mean I don't know the context in which I would have said it.

Page 121.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. But you recall words to that effect being said out of your mouth to that man, don't you? Yes or no, Mr. Jackson?

(Pause.)

A. The best I could do, I may have said it. I won't deny it. The best I could say, I may have said it. I don't know what context I might have said it, I may have said it, sure.

Q. May have, let's deal with probability. Is it more likely than not that you said it?

A. Okay, what show are we talking about? If you want me to be that specific, I may have said it. If he was talking about what Mr. Jamal was doing with regard to his political views, that was his show, I had nothing to do with it.

Q. Oh?

A. I mean you have to tell me. Mr. Grant, I am trying to respond to your question but you are saying but did I say that's his show. I may have. He may have been talking about Mr. Jamal's radio show, that's his show. I mean how can I be certain?

Q. I could see that you probably are getting your memory back because in the next paragraph he goes on to talk about his political views?

A. His what?

Page 122.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. Political views, that this Courtroom and this case became a show of his political views --

A. I said that.

Q. No. But it just so happens and it is uncanny that you would have the same thought process that this article would have right after your comment?

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection: Counsel's observation that it's just uncanny is an unacceptable predicate for a question. Counsel is not permitted to editorialize in a Court in asking a question. I ask that the question be exonerated from the record and the answer be stricken. May I have a ruling?

MR. GRANT: Judge, if I may respond. I think I can ask the question in any form I want as long as it ends with an interrogatory. And even though it may be laced, to Counsel's dismay, with damaging information, the witness may respond. And this witness is more capable than any other witness we will get on the stand because he is a lawyer, and he does what I do for a living.

MR. WEINGLASS: The fact that he is a lawyer does not permit Counsel to ask unacceptable questions under the rules of

Page 123.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

evidence. Counsel is not permitted to comment editorially in the course of asking a question.

MR. GRANT: I will withdraw the question.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Now, you commented yesterday, Mr. Jackson, that, when I asked you if you had received full discovery, you expressed some opinion that you got the Medical Examiner's report and you didn't necessarily get it from the D.A.'s office, did you not?

A. Not not exactly. You asked me if I got discovery and I said I got what I got. I did say I got, I did get a Medical Examiner's report from the D.A.'s office and I got another Medical Examiner's report.

Q. Okay, and when you compared the two did you find that the D.A., true to their word, had given you everything that they had?

A. Well.

Q. You can't recall?

A. You are asking me -- let me tell you the -- in fact I know that I got the report, the Medical Examiner's report that I got had one additional page. The one I got from the D.A.'s Office had one page

Page 124.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

missing. I am not suggesting, because I am not in a position to suggest, that it was the District Attorney's Office that removed it. All I am telling you is the one I got from the District Attorney's Office did not have that page.

Q. The thing you are saying causing me concern: I am not saying it was the District Attorney's Office who removed it?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, that presumes that the District Attorney's Office received it. You see, before you can remove something you must have something. Now, are you saying that you know for a fact that Mr. McGill got what's, the page you are talking about yesterday was an investigator's log from the Medical Examiner's Office noting their having sent their complete case file to you, having sent a preliminary report to the Police Department, and their version of what they thought happened, right?

A. Let me answer the complicated question. And see, I can't... The law has given us a reason not for me to make a decision whether it is the D.A.'s Office or the Medical Examiner's Office. The courts, the law says if there are some agencies within the District Attorney, you know, their apparatus, if I

Page 125.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

don't get the information the District Attorney is responsible. I don't care if it was Joe Blow the police officer on the street, if he doesn't give a report to the D.A., the report maybe he never got, it is his responsibility. You know that to be the law as well as I do. I don't have to decide whether or not the D.A. got it, it wasn't there.

Q. In fact you are absolutely right. What confidential source gave it to you?

A. A confidential source.

Q. Well, nothing is confidential when you testify in a Court of law --

THE COURT: Quiet.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. -- when you are on the stand and under oath.

A. I am under oath, I am not going to tell you.

Q. That's good, I am not going to ask you again. How about the confidential sources that you had in the Police Department since you were an evidence technician there for five-and-a-half years, did you have any of them?

A. I don't know, I've never had to use them to find out.

Q. You never exploited them?

A. Right.

Page 126.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. So you have them?

A. I never had to use them.

Q. So you probably had as much information and as much documentary evidence and knowledge about the case as the District Attorney had, and perhaps a little bit more because you had more avenues because you worked for these people, didn't you?

A. Oh, absolutely not. Think about it. Think about it. You are saying I had more information than the D.A. He gets all the reports, he talks to the detectives who interviewed the people, he gets the flavor, he knows what the witnesses look like, where they live. What their phone number is. And you are saying I have more than him. Come on.

Q. You have his whole file, you know what their phone numbers are, you know what their names are, the only thing you don't know is where they live, and you have confidential sources?

A. Listen, the District Attorney, he had an opportunity, each one of those people who were interviewed, he had an opportunity to talk to the person who interviewed them. Don't you think that's of greater value than just reading the cold page? Don't you think the people who conducted the test, he talked to them, he knew what did happen and didn't

Page 127.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

happen. He knew what was not in the report. I don't know what was in the report. How could you compare what I knew with what he knew? They had everything. I got what they gave me. They were in control. If they're in control how could it be the same? They are in control.

Q. The District Attorney got witnesses for you, he gave you full discovery, attempted to give you guidance, and when you needed it encouragement during your difficulties with that man, yet you wouldn't even abide by the rules of Court and be reciprocal in turning over discovery to them, that you were obliged under the law to do, isn't that so, because Mr. Jamal wouldn't let you?

A. What, I don't know what I didn't -- what did I have that I didn't turn over?

Q. Let's explore it, then.

A. I don't remember.

Q. Notes of testimony, page -- would you like the transcript?

A. No, go ahead.

MR. WEINGLASS: May I have a reference to the page?

THE COURT: He is just getting ready, he just asked him --

Page 128.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

MR. GRANT: Notes of testimony, June 24th, 1982, pages 4 through 7. I will read it in it's entirety, and it has some length to it, but I am going to pose a question at the end. So --

THE WITNESS: I will wait.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. So I will come to that point. Mr. McGill is complaining to His Honor Judge Sabo in your presence, quote, I mentioned this to Mr. Jackson before. I would ask again, I realize this is not his personal fault but the Defendant's. I'd request once again pursuant to the rules of discovery any statements or any names of witnesses that he would call. He indicated to me that as far as he knew -- meaning you, as far as you knew -- the only witnesses that he would call if he decides to call them would be the witnesses he has told me about. And you told him about Dessie Hightower, Robert Pigford, Dr. Colletta and Dr. Cudemo. Cudemo and Colletta were treating physicians for Mr. Jamal at Thomas Jefferson. Hightower and the other one were people who came after the shots were fired and claimed to see a one-armed bandit running from the scene. Mr. McGill then says, I made a request, and I believe I also

Page 129.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

made a request, yes, before Judge Ribner, the names of all possible character witnesses. And this was done at the same time as requests for criminal records. Any witnesses he may call, I made to Mr. Jackson a request for the name of all potential character witnesses so I could make a check on their records. There is an indication he may call some. I received no names. I will petition to exclude, Your Honor, so that everyone's on notice, to exclude the testimony of anyone who I'm not informed of at this point, because I think that I may rest my case tomorrow. And at this point I received no word except what Mr. Jackson has done pursuant to the rules of discovery.

And you say, regarding character witnesses, aside from the difficulties that I'm having with Mr. Jamal, and Mr. Jamal has indicated to me at least previously that he, that he intended to present character witnesses -- as an aside: You were the lawyer of record at this point?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You further state, Mr. Jamal has previously indicated to me at least that he has several witnesses who were character witnesses who were coming from Europe. Whether in fact that occurs, I

Page 130.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

don't know. Then you say Judge, let me assure you and Mr. McGill I have no names at this point, I have absolutely no names.

The Court: All we can hope is that Mr. Jackson will talk to Mr. Jamal and try to get them from him and tell him if he doesn't give them to us that they may very well not be permitted to testify. That's all I can do. I can't force him to give them to Mr. Jackson.

Mr. McGill at, I think, I'm sorry, he is still harping about this because you haven't given it to him yet. Two days later, June 26th, '82, pages 137 and 8. Mr. McGill: I was wondering, Your Honor, didn't we understand that I was going to get the names of at least some or at least I requested that I have the names of witnesses.

Mr. Jackson: For the record, I have no names, I still don't have any.

The Court: You mean for character.

Mr. Jackson: For character witnesses, I still don't have any.

Do you recall that exchange, sir?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You do?

A. Yeah, generally speaking, yeah.

Page 131.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. So why couldn't you give Mr. McGill the names if you were in control and you knew who you were going to call?

A. You are still on this control thing.

Q. Yes, and I am going to stay on it.

A. All right. I was in control. Didn't have the names. It doesn't mean I was out of control.

Q. No, he was out of control and you had no control.

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection, Your Honor. I ask that that be stricken. I ask that Counsel be admonished not to make references of that nature on this record: He was out of control. I ask the Court to strike that from the record. Clearly --

THE COURT: Just a minute. Rephrase your question. Rephrase the question.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Yes. You were not in control, Mr. Jackson, were you? At any point in this trial were you ever in control?

A. Well, let me just tell you this, Mr. Grant, and I am going to try to tell you for the last time. I have been practicing law for a long time. At no time, at no time that I know of I haven't been in

Page 132.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

control, when I was a lawyer. Those times that I wasn't, I went to the Supreme Court. I told them let me out. Then they told me be a backup Counsel. That's when I wasn't in control. I wouldn't do it because I wasn't in control. That's what this whole thing was about.

But for some reason you seem to think Mr. Jamal was in control. Mr. Jamal was in control when he got the Commonwealth to respond to some political thing. When I was the lawyer I was the lawyer, I was doing what I wanted to do. When Mr. Jamal wanted me to do something I said Your Honor, Mr. Jamal wants me to do this. Mr. Jamal is ordering me to do this. If I didn't preface my remark that way, I was in control.

Now, you could go on and ask me anything else. I didn't give those names because I didn't have the names. So that means if I don't have the names I'm out of control. If that's your characterization I accept it, but now you can at least understand what I feel.

Q. Why didn't you have the names, then?

A. Because he didn't give them to me, I suspect.

Q. So you suspect that. When his case -- well, on 7-l-82, at pages 32 through 35, the Judge is

Page 133.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

complaining why aren't you telling us who you want to call next. You call them at the last minute and then you complain because they don't appear out of the woodwork.

You say, I was forced to try and remember everything that everybody said and I couldn't do it. And you said, your reference was back to I don't have the statements anymore?

A. That is something, trust me, I know that is in a different context.

Q. Oh, is it?

A. Yes, sir. It's different than character witness. I don't have to remember anything about character witnesses, all I do is call the name. What I was saying, what I talked about, what I had to remember was I had 150 different interviews and, again, I'm doing this by myself. Remember, the District Attorney, you have two assistants helping him. I'm doing this on my own. I had to remember each and every witness who might testify, who could testify, and make an immediate decision when and how to do it. And sometimes I guess I didn't quite remember when I needed to.

Q. Well, if you had a piece of paper and a pen you could write down the names of people you are

Page 134.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

going to ask questions, that's pretty simple, isn't it, if you were in control?

A. Hmm-hmm. Well, it isn't that simple, is it?

Q. Well, not in this instance, I imagine. Let me ask you this. On June 29th of 1982, pages 5 through 7, there is a discussion here, I would like you to listen to this, I would like you to tell me if in fact you are still going to maintain this position that you were in control.

Mr. McGill: Also, Your Honor, just for the record, there has been a discussion this morning between the Defendant and Mr. Jackson. I don't know what they were talking about but there's been discussions and during the course of that time Mr. Jackson would come to see me and ask me for statements in reference to witnesses, and I would give it to him and then he would go through them and then he would talk to Mr. Jamal. Again, I don't know what they are talking about. However, I want the Court to know and the record to reflect the continuing effort by Mr. Jackson to represent his client in the very best possible way and at the same time have a continual communication between Mr. Jamal and Mr. Jackson without my knowing what it's all about. Nonetheless, efforts are being made. So if

Page 135.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Mr. Jamal does not wish to assist in any way with Mr. Jackson, he certainly has had the opportunity to speak to him.

You say... I would like to say for the record, Your Honor, that most of the communication has been one way in that aside from Mr. Jamal not wanting to cooperate with me, I nevertheless at each instance that he has been brought into the Courtroom, I have tried to tell him what I intended to do or, when necessary, he is not in the Courtroom, either tell him what has happened or what I intend to do. That has essentially been the extent of the conversation, although today there was a question that I posed to him with regard to some information, and he suggested, he suggested a name and he further suggested in which statement I could find the information.

Mr. McGill: And did you find the information.

Mr. Jackson: Yes. Yes. Mr. McGill gave me the information.

Mr. McGill responds, okay, so he asked you information about a witness that you may call, and then you got the information and communicated to him what the information was. Is that, that was the

Page 136.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

question. So you communicated to him what the information was.

Mr. Jackson: No, I gave him the information. He told me the name, that was with regard to his brother -- referring to William Cook -- having blood on his hands. I think he said it was Shoemaker but actually it was Magilton. Mr. Magilton was a witness who testified, a cab driver who was at the scene.

A. Hmm-hmm.

Q. Now, if you recall tell us what that was all about?

(Pause.)

A. I'm thinking, I don't know for certain. I'm thinking that obviously I did not have a statement of a witness. And that there was information I needed to find out about a witness. I mean I guess that would be the only reason for me to ask Mr. McGill to look at his statement. And I suspect Mr. Jamal didn't have a copy of the statement either. We were both without the statement. And it may have been something came up, either one of us or maybe Mr. Jamal remembered it. I really don't remember. I don't know. You said why did I ask Mr. McGill to look at his statement. That's the only reason I

Page 137.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

could think of: I didn't have it.

Q. Mr. Jackson, in that regard, and in the context of the statement, it's become clear during the course of reading these transcripts to you, it's dawning on me that Mr. McGill, through his comments throughout the record, knew you were in a difficult situation?

A. Every trial is a different situation.

Q. And he got witnesses for you. He gave you statements, he looked for witnesses, he gave you addresses. In light of all that --

A. Mr. Grant --

Q. In light of all that, why would you insinuate that the man is withholding or suppressing evidence from you?

A. All right, you are going to go back.

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I will answer that again.

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor is overruling me before I made the objection.

THE COURT: Well, it is a general

Page 138.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

objection, I'm overruling it.

MR. WEINGLASS: It is not a general objection, it is specifically directed to the question.

THE COURT: Well; it is overruled, okay. This is cross-examination. He is asking him a question he could answer.

MR. WEINGLASS: This is the first time I've had a question I haven't had a chance to object to to be overruled.

MR. GRANT: Your Honor, I believe Counsel is merely trying in vain to interrupt my flow of thought and he will think I will forget where I was, I would ask him to make his objection, admonish me, and have a seat somewhere.

MR. WEINGLASS: I tried to make it and you overruled it.

THE COURT: I am overruling it no matter what it is. I don't have to -- it's overruled, okay.

THE WITNESS: I will answer your question, Mr. Grant.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Yes?

Page 139.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Tell you again, unless you could tell me otherwise, I think the statement law holds true: Regardless of who along the chain of command had total control, the D.A. is responsible for any missing information.

Q. Oh, okay.

A. Wait a minute, I'm not finished. You are saying when the District Attorney did all these wonderful things to help me by getting witnesses. Well, remember what I said: The District Attorney is the one that had all of the names, all of the addresses of the witnesses. He is doing me a favor by not letting me talk to them. So he gets those witnesses, so I should be so happy that it's like now I'm not going to let you interview this witness, tell me what witness you want and I will get them for you. He is doing me a favor. I didn't think it was a favor. I had no other alternative. I had no access to the witnesses. That did not please me. So it wasn't, I don't think that that was something that he was doing that was so great.

Q. Well, let me ask you about that. You didn't have to know, you didn't have to be a rocket scientist, Mr. Jackson, to figure out by reading the statement of two out of the three eyewitnesses, or

Page 140.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

four eyewitnesses, that two of them, if not three of them, were cab drivers. Now, you had their names, and you had everything except where they lived. Now, how many cab companies do you think there are in Philadelphia? You paid the guy 600 bucks, don't you think he could figure that out?

A. Okay. You think Mr. McGill had the three of them.

Q. I don't think he has to.

A. No, because somebody gave them to him, that is the point I am making.

Q. But he is not getting money from the Court to go out and do it. He is not being paid money to go out and hire investigators. He got the money, what did he do for it? You paid him.

A. Well, as I said, you want to give Mr. Greer $600, you want him to contact all the cab drivers.

Q. No, all I want him to look for is two names, X name and Y name and the cab companies that existed. He didn't have to walk one step. He could put his face in a phone and punch some numbers, that's all he's got to do?

A. Okay, Mr. Grant, I don't disagree with you.

Q. I am not even an investigator, I can figure that out.

Page 141.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

MR. WEINGLASS: The witness has to be given an opportunity to answer.

THE COURT: Just a minute, he will answer.

Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: Mr. Grant, I am not going to disagree with you. My whole philosophy, my whole position has been and still is: Why should the Court have to pay somebody to find some information that the District Attorney has. Joe McGill preparing for this case, he could talk to the investigator, he could read the statement, he had the address. Why should I be disadvantaged? Why should I be disadvantaged? Because I represented Mr. Jamal? Why should he have all the information? He doesn't have to call up any cab companies. He doesn't have to make any phone calls. And you are saying I should do it because I am getting money from the Court. Mr. McGill works for the Courts, he is a D.A. So what are you saying? Well, we don't want to pay it out on this end, we will pay it out on the other end. It doesn't make sense to me. I understand you disagree with me, it is a point of disagreement.

Page 142.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. When this case was appealed and Miss Gelb became the appellate lawyer, did you meet with her?

A. Yeah.

Q. You said yeah but you gave an expression that was somewhat quizzical, as if you were trying to recall whether in fact it was true.

A. No. How many times I met with her. I know I met with her, oh, sure, I gave her, I mean she got my file so I know I met her. Oh, yeah, I met her.

Q. Did you meet with her son who also worked with her on the case?

A. Yeah, I think Jeremy, her son Jeremy, yeah, I think he was there. Yeah. I am going to say yes.

Q. And when you say you turned over your file to them, did your file include the notes of testimony from the trial and the pre-trial proceedings of this matter?

A. It contained everything I had.

Q. I didn't ask you that.

A. Well. I know you didn't ask me but I am telling you that it had. Because now you ask me specifically what was in the file. I am going to tell you, Mr. Grant, I do not know what was in that file 13 years ago other than everything that I had.

Page 143.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. Did you order anything that slightly resembles what is sitting in front of you, which is called a booklet of notes of testimony from the trial proceeding? Did you order those to complete the file, sir? As a matter of fact, you get it for free when you are Court appointed, don't you?

A. You know what, I am going to assume that I did. Because I think I argued post-trial motions in this case so I assume that I did have the notes.

Q. I most certainly assume you did. So why won't you just answer my question, Mr. Jackson, and say you gave her the notes?

A. Because I don't know if I gave her the notes.

Q. Do you know whether you had the notes? You know you had the notes because they make them available to Counsel free of charge?

A. You are asking me if I had the notes or I gave her the notes? They are two different questions, Mr. Grant, now what question do you want me to answer?

Q. The first one.

A. Did I have the notes. I had the notes at post-trial motions. Now ask me that question.

Q. Did you give them to her?

A. I don't know, I assumed that I gave her them, but I may have given it to Mr. Jamal. I was no

Page 144.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

longer his lawyer after that. So you ask me if I specifically remember if I gave it to her, I tell you no. I tell you I gave her everything that I had. If I had the notes at that time, I gave it to her. If I didn't have the notes at that time, obviously I didn't give it to her. How can you ask me to answer any other way?

Q. I am asking you did you give her the notes or didn't you, and you are telling me you don't know?

A. I answered the question, sir.

Q. Thank you. Did you work on any part of the appellate process for Mr. Jamal?

A. No, sir. No, sir.

Q. According to your affidavit, on page 2, Counselor, you say you devoted substantial time and energy to the preparation of cross-examination, you say.

A. Yeah.

Q. So you are admitting that you put in time and effort and preparation to cross-examine the Commonwealth's case?

A. A little bit.

Q. No, not a little bit. That's not called substantial time and energy. That's called a little bit.

Page 145.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. I put in substantial time, trust me.

Q. So you put in a lot of time and energy?

A. I put in a lot of time, yeah.

Q. So you think you were pretty well versed, at least for cross-examination, then, by your statement in this affidavit -- which you declare under penalty of perjury, right (displaying)?

A. Yeah, for most of it, for those witnesses, yeah, I prepared.

Q. And from your training in the Police Department you were already pretty well versed on how to attack the forensic and physical evidence offered by the prosecution, weren't you?

A. No, sir.

Q. You weren't?

A. I wasn't an expert. I collected evidence, I didn't analyze it. Fingerprints, I didn't do forensic stuff.

Q. Well, that also encompasses your experience as a lawyer with 20 homicide trials under your belt?

A. Well, it wasn't -- I am not an expert. You want to make me an expert. I am no dummy either, all right. So I had to prepare. I told you Mr. Fassnacht, he assisted me. The pathologist that I talked to, he assisted me. I had books. During the

Page 146.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

trial I had the books, I had to read them. I mean I became, I was as well versed in the different areas of forensic science as I possibly could be to examine the witnesses that appeared on the stand. And if it looked like or sounded like an expert then I pulled it off.

Q. Well, you pulled it off. Now, when you are in the same building and don't talk to these witnesses that you claim that you didn't know the addresses for, that was primarily because they don't want to talk to you or your investigator, not because the Commonwealth stashed them in some hole in the ground somewhere, isn't that so?

A. I had no way of knowing since I couldn't get to talk to them.

Q. 600 bucks, find an important witness, and all he does is look at that witness from a distance for six months and gives you two interviews. You mean to tell me you couldn't find one of these people, just to talk to them or to call them on the phone?

A. Well.

Q. I don't believe you, Mr. Jackson. I want you to tell me that that's true?

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection, Your Honor. I believe the comment to Mr. Jackson is utterly

Page 147.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

inappropriate.

MR. GRANT: Yes, I agree with you, I move to strike it. I apologize to the Court and Counsel.

THE COURT: Okay...

MR. GRANT: And to you, Mr. Jackson.

THE WITNESS: Excuse me. I didn't do any investigation in this case. I needed an investigator to do as much as I could do. I had some primary witness. Cynthia White was a primary witness. I only had limited funds. Out of 150 witnesses.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. More than a hundred?

A. Whatever the number is.

A. I had to try to remember files. Under which file it is going to be. And you keep talking about this $650 like it is a lot of money for all of these witnesses. Do you think he was going to find all of these witnesses? If that's what you believe that's what you believe. It didn't happen. He didn't find the witnesses. Maybe he was a poor investigator. When I see him I'm going to tell him and ask him for the money back.

Page 148.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. I will tell him when he gets on the stand, don't worry about it. Now, $600 in 1981, I don't know what the cost of living increase with the inflation rate has been for the past 15 years, but that could probably be worth a thousand bucks today, right? Today if you sent your investigator out and gave him a thousand bucks you could get a lot of investigation, couldn't you?

A. Yeah, unless he was shaving.

That's right.

Q. That's right, you could get a lot of investigation for that money. Now, the fact that your case was limited to the witnesses you called to testify was not because you had no investigator, Mr. Jackson, but because there were no witnesses that existed to support Mr. Jamal's version of events, wouldn't you say that that's true?

A. How could I say that, Mr. Grant? You know as a lawyer, how could you say that the witnesses wouldn't support Mr. Jamal if you haven't talked to them?

Q. Well, you did put up witnesses on the stand?

A. Those that I could, sure. You know, all I am really saying is this. Look, I'm not saying that if we had the addresses, and I don't think I have the

Page 149.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

burden of showing that if we had the addresses and talked to them, that their story, we could have gotten something more beneficial.

Q. No, that is no burden, that is precisely what the issue is in this law proceeding.

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection. The witness was interrupted midway through the response. I ask Counsel to give the witness some courtesy.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. I just want to correct the record as to what the legal standard is for PCRA litigation.

A. I am not talking about that now, I am talking about something else.

Q. In other words, it makes --

A. Sorry, Mr. Grant, what I am talking about: At the time of trial, if I had the address of a witness Joe Blow, he says I saw Mr. Jamal shoot him and say I shot the mother fucker and I hope that he dies, fine. And if I have his address I go to visit him he may say the very same thing. And you say well, you wasted time. Or he may say, no, I didn't say that.

So when you say well, don't you think that those witnesses would hurt him -- how can I tell? The police are in control of all of the

Page 150.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

witnesses. I don't know what they would say to me if I talked to them. That's why I wanted the investigator. That's why I wanted their addresses. Now, again you could tell me about the policy here in this criminal justice system and how much you got. Fine, but it just seems to me common sense tells you that if you had an opportunity to talk to the witnesses, there may be some possible changes in their testimony.

Certainly every time the Police Department -- well, again you are going to say this is a conspiracy. But each time the Police Department 's witnesses testified in this case, they changed their testimony. And, again, it helped them. Because they had access to the witnesses. Who knows if I had access to the witnesses, they may have changed their testimony as well. And I could give you the whole list of them. They all changed their testimony to the Police Department and helped the prosecution. And again, I am not suggesting that anyone did anything wrong. It certainly could have been coincidental. But again, if I had access to the witnesses, I may have had some beneficial coincidences.

Q. Have you ever heard of the case of

Page 151.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Commonwealth versus Brady?

A. Heard of it, sure have.

Q. And it's progeny, there are a number of cases now?

A. Yeah.

Q. Because in 1981, people lied to police first and then they would tell the truth, now they tell the truth first and then when they come in Court they lie. So they have developed that rule of law which was departing from everything the Commonwealth ever followed because they say there has got to be a way to deal with this situation. So you could bring the person's statement up that they made the first or the second time and say come on, which one is the truth. Do you know that is the law now?

A. Yeah.

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection, Your Honor, to the form of the question.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Do you know that is the law now?

A. Sure I do.

Q. And do you realize that no one is accusing the defense lawyers of controlling those witnesses when they come up on the stand now and they say I don't know nothing, I didn't say nothing? But you are

Page 152.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

saying that about the Commonwealth, aren't you?

A. I am saying two different things. I am saying the Commonwealth was in control of the witnesses, that's one thing. And I'm saying yes, witnesses changed their testimony. I am not saying because they were in control that made them change their testimony. I am simply saying that they had access to them and their statements changed. You know, we wouldn't have this argument if I had access to those witnesses. Wouldn't have this argument at all. All you have to do is give Tony Jackson the addresses and we wouldn't have this big debate. And maybe it is philosophical, Mr. Grant, and I don't mean to do it. I am simply saying that I don't have access to those witnesses and I don't think it should have been.

Q. I am not going to revisit that issue.

A. Okay.

Q. But I would like to inquire of you about your possession of the Internal Affairs statement given by Gary Wakshul.

A. Right.

Q. You said Mr. Jackson had some statements and you had some statements. But Mr. Jamal does not receive the statements from the District Attorney?

Page 153.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. That's right.

Q. The lawyers do?

A. Oh, yeah.

Q. So if he had it, you had it?

A. I said yes.

Q. Do you recall Mr. Jamal giving a summation to the Jury after they convicted him of murder in the first degree?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you recall him to quote John Africa, when a lawyer chooses to follow the conditions of the court he compromises his obligation to his client. He is referring to you there, by the way.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. It was a legal-trained lawyer who followed Sabo's direction not to introduce the testimony of Mr. Gary Wakshul. A cop who according to his statement of 12-9-82 -- he meant '81 -- arrested me, carried me to a wagon, accompanied me to Jefferson Hospital, guarded me and returned to Homicide later that morning to make a statement. According to Wakshul, quote, we stayed with the male at Jefferson until we were released. During this time the Negro mail made no comments, unquote. He further states, according to Wakshul's statement of February llth,

Page 154.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

1982 -- which is the one I gave you this morning from IAB, over two months later, Wakshul recalls, quote, oh, yeah, Jamal said I shot him, I hope the M'F'er dies. Did he consider that comment.

Now, this is in the closing argument at the penalty phase of capital litigation.

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection, it was not closing argument. I just want to correct Counsel.

MR. GRANT: Well, Your Honor --

MR. WEINGLASS: Mr. Jackson made the closing argument.

MR. GRANT: If the Court pleases: Mr. Jamal considered it closing argument because he didn't think he would be cross-examined. Much to his dismay, he was.

MR. WEINGLASS: It wasn't closing argument. You can't cross-examine someone on closing argument.

THE COURT: He was just saying what he thought Mr. Jamal said.

MR. WEINGLASS: Pardon?

THE COURT: Do you have problems hearing?

MR. WEINGLASS: I can't hear you,

Page 155.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Judge, I'm sorry.

THE COURT: I said he just made the comment as to what Mumia Abu-Jamal thought he was doing. We understand he was cross-examined on that. Supreme Court had ruled on that issue. Okay.

Go ahead.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Mr. Jackson?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Unless somebody snuck into your office in the dark of night, rifled your files looking for one statement, and ran out with it undetected, and in no other way, could Mr. Jamal get that statement unless you gave it to him; wouldn't that be fair to say?

A. Absolutely you are right.

Q. So you would admit you had that statement?

A. I must have had that statement.

Q. So when you didn't call Mr. Wakshul to the stand, do you think more probably than not that it was because of your strategic decision based on what was in that statement not to present that to the Jury?

A. Again, I don't ever remember, and I am saying this with all sincerity, I don't ever remember seeing

Page 156.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

the statement.

Q. Okay.

A. It is obvious, and I am telling you now, if Mr. Jamal had the statement I had the statement. I don't ever remember seeing that statement. Now, if I did, I just don't remember. And if I read the statement, it may be a tactical decision not to do it. But I don't remember having to make that tactical decision.

Q. Okay. That's fair enough. You stated in your affidavit, paragraph 4 -- sorry, paragraph 3 on page 4 -- that you called to the witness stand Miss Veronica Jones and Mr. Hightower to testify for the defense. And you said yesterday that you didn't know how you got in touch with Miss Jones.

A. Yeah.

Q. But she suddenly appeared and was available for you on the day you needed her?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you consider that an incredible statement?

A. Yes.

Q. In other words, not worthy of belief?

A. Pardon me?

Q. Incredible means not worthy of belief?

A. Well, if that's what incredible means. To

Page 157.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

this day I still don't remember how I got her to come to Court. Other than I told the D.A.

Q. Well, you think you sent out some telepathy vibes and she said man, Anthony wants me in to testify today?

A. No, I don't think that was the way. I think, I'm saying I don't know how I got her into Court. I really don't.

Q. Maybe it's because you had her address?

A. Okay, fine. Maybe I did. I don't know how I got that address. Maybe, I don't remember.

Q. Okay.

A. Tell me. I don't remember 13 years ago.

Q. And you said these were the only two eyewitnesses available for the defense in your affidavit?

A. Yeah, you know, I think Dessie Hightower and his friend, the way we were able to get their addresses, I think because of some admixture of their statements we could glean their addresses.

Q. Ahh. Just like if you had a guy who said I drove a cab for United and you know United Cab's office is at 12th and Locust and his name is X, then you could call up and say do you have so-and-so there?

Page 158.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. No, it is different, but I am not going to argue with you.

Q. All right.

A. But anyway, the address was in the statement somewhere, that's how we got their, that's how we got those addresses. If you say I had Veronica Jones' address then fine, I don't remember. I didn't remember that we had her. I think it was just Dessie and one other person. If I had Veronica's then fine.

Q. When you said that these were the only two eyewitnesses available for the defense, what you really meant to say was that of the people who saw the killing, these were the only ones from whom you could create an impression that Mr. Jamal was not a murderer, isn't that what you mean?

A. No, sir. Debbie Kordansky is one.

Q. Oh, really?

A. I would think based on the statement that I had, that she saw somebody else running away. And everyone else -- the cab driver, one time, as you know, he said he saw a man run up, shoot the police officer and run away. Of course he changed his testimony. But when you say these are the only two, when you said these are the only two witnesses I could find for the defense, Debbie Kordansky in my

Page 159.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

mind --

Q. You said these were the only two eyewitnesses --

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. -- available for the defense?

A. I'm sorry, I forgot the eye --

MR. WEINGLASS: Once again the witness was interrupted midway through.

THE COURT: Well. He is refreshing his memory.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. These are the only two eyewitnesses that you mentioned. Now, isn't it a fact that not even Mr. Hightower was an eyewitness by his own statements: He hears five shots and he is around the corner of a building and he comes out when there is no more shooting because he was afraid to come out, and that's what he testified to at trial, didn't he, sir?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Didn't he, sir?

MR. WEINGLASS: It omits the fact --

Page 160.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

MR. GRANT: I would object to him preparing the witness. If you want to prep him prep him before.

THE COURT: If you want to see me at sidebar ask, but please don't try to tell the witness what to say.

MR. WEINGLASS: I am not doing that. I don't know on what basis the Court makes that observation, also, unless it is an improper observation. With all due respect, I object.

THE COURT: With all due respect, the objection is overruled.

THE WITNESS: To answer your question --

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. He was not an eyewitness, was he, to the shooting?

A. To answer your question: If I called in the eyewitness I must have had a reason to call in the eyewitness at that time. And his testimony was whatever it was.

Q. What was it, was it an eyewitness, or did he say he didn't see the shooting? You certainly could remember that. It is the only death penalty you have ever tried and lost. You remember that, tell us you

Page 161.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

remember that?

A. I don't think he saw the shooting.

Q. Thank you.

A. You're welcome.

Q. And neither did Debbie Kordansky, according to her statement, did she?

A. No.

Q. So those weren't eyewitnesses that weren't available to you, were they?

A. Now, see, Mr. Grant --

Q. Yes or no, sir?

A. Mr. Grant --

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, he could answer yes or no and then explain it if he has to.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Yes or no, sir?

A. She was an eyewitness.

Q. Oh.

A. Now, see, but you're making the distinction and trying to make me buy into what you want me to say. She was an eyewitness to -- you are saying she wasn't an eyewitness to the shooting. Fine. But she was an eyewitness to seeing the man run away. There are differences. And I am not going to buy any of

Page 162.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

what you say. So when I say she was an eyewitness, I still say she was an eyewitness. She eyes the man running away. Doesn't that make her an eyewitness?

Q. Yes.

A. Thank you.

Q. She witnessed something with her eyes, is what you mean. You implied during the trial that the person seen running away was the shooter of Officer Faulkner?

A. I sure would like to know who he was.

Q. No.

A. Maybe I did.

Q. Did you or didn't you?

A. I must have. At times I don't know who he was.

Q. At times you didn't even know the person existed but that's what you implied throughout the trial?

A. All I know is what those people say. If they said it, I wasn't there. They said they saw the man run, so what should I say, oh, they're lying?

Q. Well, not exactly.

A. Oh, okay then.

Q. Mr. Hightower claimed to see someone running away and he didn't know if it was a man or a woman;

Page 163.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

that was his testimony, wasn't it?

A. Fine, but who was it who ran away?

Q. What was his testimony? It could have been a woman who shot Police Officer Faulkner in the back and stood over him and shot him in the face: That was his testimony, wasn't it?

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, may the testimony be given by the witness?

THE COURT: Well, if he doesn't remember.

THE WITNESS: Look, I will accept that. If you are saying he said it, fine. I mean I am not going to try to remember the specific testimony of these witnesses. If you say he says it I have no reason to disagree. He said whatever he said.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Thank you. Now, the truth is that no matter how much investigation you did, over how much time, and notwithstanding all the resources and groups available to Mr. Jamal and to you, and notwithstanding all the organizations offering monetary and other support, you just did not find any evidence that showed him to be innocent; isn't that the simple truth in this case?

Page 164.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. I did. The simple truth is I didn't find it. That's right. If I had more resources I may have. I don't know.

Q. And you may have found out that there was no such evidence that you could unearth no matter how much money or how much time you could have had?

A. You are absolutely right.

MR. WEINGLASS: You may have found out: I object, it is a speculative question. You can't ask the witness to speculate.

MR. GRANT: He gave a speculative response and I was giving him the converse of what he stated.

MR. WEINGLASS: May I have a ruling?

THE COURT: Objection overruled.

Go ahead.

Quiet.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Now, the people that you called as character witnesses in the guilt phase that testified on Mr. Jamal's behalf, none of them were called in the penalty phase and in your -- this is a declaration as opposed to an affidavit; is that right?

A. Yeah.

Q. Okay. Those people did not testify at the

Page 165.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

penalty phase and you say in your affidavit, sir, I had no tactical or strategic reason for not putting on mitigation evidence on behalf of Mr. Jamal. And you know very well what the legal effect of saying that in a proceeding like this is, don't you?

A. Yeah.

Q. What is the legal effect of it?

A. No tactical reasons, must have been for ineffectiveness, sure, I understand that.

Q. Yes. If that is accepted by the Court, if that bald assertion that is in your affidavit is accepted, what happens as a result of that?

A. The Court has the option of granting a new trial or some other remedy.

Q. Yes, precisely. Now, you didn't build ineffectiveness into this record so that if you lost he would be guaranteed a new trial, did you?

A. Never have, never will.

Q. And the people that you didn't put on at the penalty phase that were called at the guilt phase who testified as to character, more than likely you passed them as you came into the Court and you probably looked in their faces as you walked into the room on the very day of the penalty hearing, because they attended the trial in this case, they came to

Page 166.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Court and followed the case, didn't they?

A. No, no, no, no.

Q. They didn't?

A. No, most of the people weren't. I think there may have been one or two. Most of these people did not attend the trial everyday, no. Not the character witnesses, no, sir.

Q. Now, Mr. Jamal -- well, strike that question. Are you telling the Court that you don't know why you didn't call these people at the mitigation phase?

A. No. I don't know why. I don't know why.

Q. Well, tell us some reasons that could have gone through your mind, since your recollection is faulty and you don't want to read the notes of testimony to refresh it for whatever reason that may be, tell us why you tactically may not have used them?

A. Tactically?

Q. Yes, sir.

(Pause.)

A. I can't think of any tactical reason not to put them on.

Q. How about practical instead of tactical?

A. Practical, they weren't here.

Q. Well, how about another one?

Page 167.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Such as?

Q. Such as Mr. Jamal was saying all along that you were working for Judge Sabo, that you were going to get him killed, and that you were a no-good, law-trained lawyer, and even shouted this on a number of occasions in this very Courtroom out loud, that you were going to get him convicted, didn't he, to your face, didn't he?

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection, Your Honor, to the form of the question, number one.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WEINGLASS: He never shouted.

MR. GRANT: How do you know?

THE COURT: You weren't here, Counselor, I was. And your objection is overruled. He could answer.

MR. WEINGLASS: The questioner wasn't here either.

THE COURT: Well, he was the attorney.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, the questioner puts it in the record.

THE COURT: Well, that's all right, he could answer. His answer is what counts, not his question.

MR. WEINGLASS: No, I objected.

Page 168.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

THE COURT: Counselor, I have overruled the objection. Please sit down.

Go ahead.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. He shouted in your face a number of times, didn't he?

A. He may have, sure.

Q. No, Mr. Jackson, you have never been so humiliated in any case, you can't remember that?

A. Mr. Jamal called me a bunch of names, a whole bunch of things to me.

Q. In other than conversational tones at times, didn't he?

A. Oh, yeah, sure.

Q. Would it be fair to say that he shouted things at you during the course of the trial in a public forum?

A. Okay, fine.

Q. Why do I have to spar with you for every answer if you are telling the truth here?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Mr. Grant, let me tell you, this is why you are sparing -- and I don't

Page 169.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

mean to spar with you -- but you are asking me about specific words that somebody said 13 years ago and you want me to give you an answer with absolute certainly. Don't you think that that may be part of the reason why I said I don't really know? That is the reason. I do not know word-for-word what he said or anybody. I don't know what I said 13 years ago, let alone what somebody else said. That is the reason, sir.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. A shout doesn't have to even be a word, shouting at someone could be nonverbal?

A. Mr. Jamal shouted at me a number of times, I agree.

Q. Thank you.

A. If that's all you wanted to know, if he shouted, say shouting. Yes, he shouted at me.

Q. Okay. Now, 13 years ago your memory is not too good when it comes to answering my questions, but you detailed chapter and verse in your affidavit or your declaration here all the things from memory 13 years ago after talking with Mr. Weinglass on only a few occasions?

A. Sure.

Q. How come your memory is so great for him and

Page 170.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

so lousy for me?

A. Good explanation: Mr. Weinglass talked to me and showed me the notes. You didn't bring me over to your office to look at the notes.

Q. I showed you notes every day since you have been here and I have been talking to you for eight hours?

A. But Mr. Weinglass wasn't cross-examining me when he was, when the affidavit was there and he could find the transcript and say well, during the time of this part of the declaration, here is the transcript. What you are doing is you are asking me a question and giving me a transcript all at the same time and asking me to remember. I'm not that good.

Q. Well, a practical reason why you may not have put those witnesses on, sir, is after he berated, humiliated and degraded you in public, and basically had been saying throughout the trial that no law-trained lawyer could acquit him except John Africa who wasn't a lawyer, when he got the verdict of murder in the first degree and was facing death, he told you in no uncertain terms anybody could have done that and if that's what 20 years of education gets you I don't need you, from now on this is my show, I don't need you for the penalty phase, I will

Page 171.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

tell you what I am going to do, I am going to give my own statement, you don't do nothing for me -- isn't that what happened to you?

A. Didn't happen.

Q. Isn't that why you were afraid to go to the cell room?

A. I was afraid?

Q. Apprehensive, whatever you want to call it? You testified that you were yesterday?

A. Yeah. I maybe, I mean I wasn't afraid but I am telling you that never happened what you said. Never happened.

Q. Never happened?

A. Never happened.

Q. So you were in control of the penalty phase too?

A. There you go with the control again.

Q. Yes, I am.

A. Listen, one of the things, if you are saying that he told me he didn't want me to do something: As I recall, I did speak during the penalty phase. So if I was following orders then I wouldn't have said anything. I did. I talked for a good while.

Q. But when you found out that Mr. Jamal was going to read a declaration to the Jurors, was it

Page 172.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

something that was written?

A. I think. I think he had something written. I don't know if the entire address to the Jury was from a prepared statement, though. But he did have something written.

Q. And did you see that before he delivered it?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ask him for it?

A. No, sir.

Q. And you knew you'd better not, didn't you?

A. I have never been -- I mean if that's what he wanted to do what difference does it -- yeah, that's right, why would I want to ask and see it? I don't know what it contained. He wanted to exercise his right. That's his right. I am not going to trample it. Who am I to do that?

Q. Well, who are you, you are the person that said basically because I didn't do those things I was totally ineffective as Counsel at the penalty phase. That's why I'm asking you these questions. Why didn't you look at it? Because you were afraid of the man, because you failed him in his mind and you didn't want to quarrel with his decisions thereafter; isn't that so?

A. At no time up until now have I ever been

Page 173.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

afraid of Mr. Jamal or any other man.

Q. Well, how about being apprehensive of contact physically or verbally?

A. What was he going to do? I have been called a lot worse names than Mr. Jamal has called me, believe me, a lot worse names. So that was it. I wasn't afraid of being called names. I wasn't afraid of him beating me up. I don't know what else I was supposed to be afraid of. I mean what are you trying to say?

Q. I am trying to say you didn't have a clue as to what he was going to say but sit in that chair and say nothing at all at the penalty phase, let him get up and read a statement, or basically outburst as he had been doing all trial, because he was going to tell you what he was going to do because he no longer had any confidence in you?

A. Well, he didn't have any confidence in me. Mr. Jamal wanted to make this address to the Jury. All along he had been claiming that the Court, through me, through Mr. McGill and Judge Sabo, had been trampling on his rights and not letting him exercise his rights. If he wanted to address the Jury and he had a right to address the Jury, I was not going to stand in the way. Plain and simple.

Q. In other words, you didn't abdicate your

Page 174.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

responsibility, you were giving him the freedom and the latitude to do what he thought he had to do to save his life?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Would that be fair to say?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Why would you call it ineffectiveness, then?

A. I didn't call that ineffectiveness.

Q. You most certainly did.

A. When Mr. Jamal rose to address the Jury during the sentencing phase I had no knowledge of what he was about to say. He indicated to me that morning when I met with him in the holding cell prior to the start of Court, he wanted me to call him up to the stand for the purpose of making a statement. I complied.

Q. Sounds like you are taking orders again. But I did not see the statement --

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection. Objection for the record: Form of the question.

THE COURT: I will interpret it. Go ahead.

MR. WEINGLASS: Is my objection overruled?

THE COURT: I said that I am not

Page 175.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

listening to what his interpretation is, I will interpret it myself at the proper time.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. I did not see the statement, I did not see the statement, counsel him on the consequences of his doing so, did not discuss what impact his appearance might have, and did not advise him of the risk inherent in such a move, including cross-examination. No strategic or tactical reasons governed my actions in not preparing for the sentencing phase. And you already told us, sir, that you know that that means the possibility of a new trial just by those magic words. What do you mean you are not claiming your own ineffectiveness?

A. Okay, Mr. Grant, I didn't say it was ineffective of me to allow Mr. Jamal to address the Jury. The penalty phase is where I said there was -- see, you are, you are trying to confuse me. You know how you lawyers are.

Q. Yeah, I know how.

A. Listen, what I am saying was during the time that he made the address I had no, he made the address to the Jury, I felt that there was no reason for me to interfere with his right to address the Jury. I still feel that way. Because of all that

Page 176.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

had gone on before that time. And I concluded the declaration of course by saying that there was no strategic reason or tactical reason for me not to prepare for the penalty phase. That's all inclusive.

Q. I am almost through, Mr. Jackson.

A. Well, take your time, sir.

Q. Page 6, paragraph 1 of your affidavit. You state -- I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the exact quote -- Gary Wakshul, the police officer whose name has been bandied about so often in this Courtroom in the last three weeks, went on vacation despite a notation on Wakshul's report that he not be allowed to go on vacation during the trial. Now, what report are you talking about, and what notation are you describing?

A. As I recall, and I think Mr. Weinglass had shown me a statement, but I didn't have the statement when I did it.

Q. Oh, he showed you a statement that had some writing on it?

A. Or something of that sort. I mean that's the only way.

Q. Was that a police statement that he gave about this crime?

A. I mean I had to get it from somewhere, it

Page 177.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

certainly wasn't something that I recall. And of course I don't have the statement.

Q. Well, Mr. Weinglass had it then he showed it to you, right?

A. He showed me a statement or another report or something. I don't know whether it was... I don't think it was his statement. I don't know what it was, I don't remember. See, I don't even remember something within the last year, so. I mean that's the only reason I would have said it.

Q. Well, maybe Mr. Weinglass remembers?

A. Maybe.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, it was read into the record at trial. And if Counsel will look at the page reference for July lst, he will see that Mr. Jamal read into the record with the statement in front of him the words no vacation which appears on the front of the December 9th statement of Officer Gary Wakshul.

I'm sorry Counsel has overlooked the statement himself. Maybe he's read it 10 times and he overlooks parts of the statement. But the fact remains it is on the statement.

MR. GRANT: December 9th statement of Gary Wakshul.

Page 178.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes.

MR. GRANT: Ahh, I see. Now we are getting down to cases, aren't we.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. You know what this means, don't you, Mr. Jackson? You worked in the Police Department. I want you to look at this so you could tell Counsel from New York City what this means?

A. No, I am not doing that.

Q. Yes, you are going to do that.

A. Not unless you order me.

Q. Yes, you are going to do that.

THE COURT OFFICER: Quiet in the Courtroom, please.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Why don't you look up there in the upper left-hand corner, sir?

A. Upper left-hand corner.

Q. Now we are starting to figure out what this mystery is all about. Tell us in Philadelphia how things work. Up in the corner it gives the police officer's name, badge number and district, doesn't it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And it has in the parentheses no dash V-A-C:

Page 179.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Vacation, right? Now you tell this man what that means, sir, and you tell the Judge what that means to you?

A. No vac?

Q. Yes.

A. Umm, well, just like I couldn't elaborate on the 44 C-A-L, I don't think I better elaborate on this either.

Q. I don't think you want to elaborate on it.

A. It doesn't matter whether I want to or not, and I think the same thing is true.

Q. Tell me what you think it means now? Because you are telling everybody else what you thought it meant, now tell us what you thought it means?

A. No vacation.

Q. No. Not scheduled in 1981? Not scheduled for the next three months? What does it mean to you, having been a former member of the Police Department, or at least an employee?

A. That he worked in 3 squad.

Q. Yeah?

A. Group zero. No vacation.

Q. And does that mean if this trial goes to Court in the next 10 years he is not going to be on vacation?

Page 180.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. I don't know.

Q. Was the trial date set on 12-9-81 for a murder that happened on 12-9-81?

A. No, sir.

Q. Well, how could anybody say he wasn't going to be on vacation when the case went to trial? Tell me that?

A. I made a mistake, then.

Q. Yeah, you sure did. Give me that, sir?

A. Yes, sir (handing).

Q. So that notation that Mr. Jamal is reading, did you interpret it the same way in 1982?

A. No, sir, I didn't. I didn't pay any attention to it.

Q. Because you knew it had no significance in terms of whether this man was allowed to take a vacation at any time in his life. At that time in the interview he was not scheduled to be on vacation in the foreseeable future. And as a matter of fact, you know as a matter of practice by you working there you don't even submit your vacation requests until May of the following year for the next year's vacation, don't you know that?

A. You flatter me a little bit too much. I was a civilian, it was different. I am not quibbling with

Page 181.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

you. But again, at the time of the trial, I am telling you that it had no particular significance to me. His or anyone else's. I mean that is the first time I really remember seeing anybody else's or whatever. I mean the other police officers, I don't know what they had to do. If you just randomly selected another police officer's statement, it may have the same thing. You don't have to do that, I am just simply telling you I have never paid it any attention.

Q. That is a good point.

A. There was no reason, because all the other police officers I wanted were in Court.

Q. Why didn't you tell Mr. Jamal the significance of that instead of putting it in the declaration?

A. Mr. Grant, I don't really know it has no significance. Let's be truthful, I really don't.

Q. It was clear enough, it was significant enough to make it a basis to have a new trial for him. It had significance back on December 18th, how could the significance disappear by whatever date we are here today?

A. The significance was the officer wasn't here.

Q. And the significance was that Mr. Jamal didn't ask for him to be here either until that very moment;

Page 182.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

isn't that so?

A. We asked for him to be here, he wasn't here, sir. I don't think it really makes any difference whether he was scheduled to be on vacation or not scheduled to be on vacation. I requested that he be here, he wasn't here. That is the thing that is significant, isn't it?

Q. Yes, that's significant, that's very significant. Is that what, the statement that I showed you, is that what Mr. Weinglass showed you?

A. You know, I don't know. It may have been. It may have been a reproduction or something. I just don't know.

Q. Well, the one that I showed you earlier that's been marked C-6 for identification was from the Special Investigations Bureau.

MR. GRANT: Could you show that, Mr. Bullard, to Mr. Jackson?

THE COURT OFFICER: (Handing.)

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. This was taken closer in time to the trial?

A. This doesn't even have anything like that.

Q. Isn't that a miracle. Of course it doesn't. Because maybe he had vacation scheduled then. Did you ever think of that? They write no vacation when

Page 183.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

he has none scheduled and they don't put anything when he does have it scheduled, how about that?

A. Mr. Grant, I really don't, I have no knowledge of that.

Q. You are saying things about which you know not, and you put that in your affidavit, didn't you?

A. No, I am saying that I have no knowledge of the hypothetical you are presenting to me right now.

Q. Oh.

A. Your hypothetical is not in my affidavit. But I am simply saying I don't know why they would have it, have it on that statement on those occasions and not on this statement. I don't have any, I have no clue. I have no clue. Why is it on one and not on another?

Q. You had both of those statements at the time of trial, or at least Mr. Jamal had them, therefore you admit you must have had them, and the one of them in 1981 is the year, that had no vacation scheduled, and the other one is the year 1982 and it doesn't say anything about vacation. Now, does that mean in your mind, being a reasonable person, that Gary Wakshul is not allowed to go on vacation on July 1st of 1982 because back on December 9th of 1981 it said he had no vacation scheduled?

Page 184.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Okay, Mr. Grant, to answer your question, what does this mean. Because it doesn't say no vacation on it, then, does that mean he isn't going on vacation or that he is?

Q. Well, it means we shouldn't speculate if we don't know, doesn't it?

A. Well, wait. Why does it have it on one and not the other?

Q. I guess you will have to ask Officer Goldberg.

A. Well, it seems to me that what I said now becomes valid. He had no vacation on it. Because it doesn't have it on there doesn't mean he was going on vacation or not on vacation. I don't know what else to say. It has no vacation. That's what it said on the statement. The statement speaks for itself, that's all I could say.

Q. What do you mean it makes it better? Better for Mr. Jamal?

A. Pardon me?

Q. You just said that, having seen this now it makes it better?

A. Yeah.

Q. No, better for Mr. Jamal?

A. You asked me the question and said no, no, no, whichever answer I was giving you. Tell me what the

Page 185.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

answer that you want, order me to --

Q. You answer the question that you want to answer and then you answer my question.

A. I want to ask you the answer. You ask me, sir, and I am going to give you my answer, though.

Q. All right, what do you mean that makes it even better, that's my question?

A. Sure. I am simply saying you have two statements, one of them has no vacation, this one has nothing. I am simply saying what does this one mean when it has nothing on it, that he is not on vacation or he is on vacation? It seems to me if the other one has no vacation, he is not going on vacation, so this one has nothing on it so he is going on vacation. If I follow your line of thought.

Q. What is an R-D-O?

A. Pardon me?

Q. What is an R-D-O?

A. I have no idea. I don't know what that is.

Q. That is kind of an acronym for regular days off.

A. Oh. I didn't know that.

Q. For the majority of the human race, regular days off are Saturday and Sunday, but policemen have to work whenever they are told so they have regular

Page 186.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

days off but they may be Monday-Tuesday.

A. Right.

Q. Or Wednesday and Thursday of the week.

A. Okay.

Q. That is an RDO.

A. Okay.

Q. Do you know whether Officer Gary Wakshul was entitled to any RDOs because he was a police officer, or should he work seven days?

A. No, he should work five days a week, sir.

Q. And you didn't know that when you wanted him, whether or not that was his RDO, do you?

A. No, sir.

Q. And do you think if you got off on a Saturday that you have to stay at your house and not be allowed to go down the shore if you wanted to just because there may be an Anthony Jackson or a Mr. Jamal somewhere waiting to summon you unexpectedly?

A. No, Mr. Grant, look, I can see that I should have made plans to call the officer early and I didn't. I mean that's all I can say. You know, but this other --

Q. But you didn't see --

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection.

BY MR. GRANT:

Page 187.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. I'm sorry, continue. Finish.

A. I am simply saying that I didn't request that the officer be present earlier and I should have. And that's what I am admitting to. I don't understand all this other jargon.. About his regular days off and his vacation and this. The fact is he wasn't here. He was requested to come and I was told that it was at the last minute, I couldn't get him in. Now, when I made the request I didn't know if he was on vacation. I didn't know if he was on his regular day off. I didn't know if he was outside in the hallway. If he was here we would have put him on the stand and we wouldn't have this discussion.

Q. Well, we would because you said on cross earlier today that if you had read the statement he gave to SIU -- or, I'm sorry, the staff inspector in the Internal Affairs Bureau, you as a good lawyer may very well have made the tactical decision I don't want them to hear what is in his second statement?

A. I may have, that's right.

Q. So maybe it wasn't a mistake that he wasn't on the stand, isn't that so?

A. Listen, I didn't, I wouldn't know this officer if he walked right through this door.

Q. That is not the point.

Page 188.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. No, but if I requested that he be brought to Court then I must -- when I asked the question, it isn't because I knew he was on vacation. The only tactical advantage I would have to ask for him to be in Court is because I knew he was on vacation. I didn't know he was on vacation. So if he was available they would have brought him in and I would have put him on the stand, right?

Q. Right.

A. Okay.

Q. Page 7, paragraph 8. Your affidavit. Also during our last conversation -- this is you in your affidavit -- I thought perhaps other members of his family -- meaning Mr. Jamal -- who were present might also want to testify. We are talking at the penalty phase here I believe. Yes. Other members of his family were present may also want to testify. When asked Mr. Jamal if he wanted me to put them on, he declined.

A. When is this? What are you reading from?

Q. Yeah, it is puzzling to me too.

A. What are you reading from?

Q. I am reading from your words, if I am not mistaken. Page 7, paragraph 8.

MR. WEINGLASS: May I see that?

Page 189.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

MR. GRANT: Yeah, I will read it with you. Come here.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Also during our last conversation I thought perhaps other members of his family who were present may also want to testify even though they hadn't been prepared.

MR. WEINGLASS: They hadn't been prepared was omitted in the question.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. When I asked Mr. Jamal if he wanted me to put them on in any event --

MR. WEINGLASS: In any event.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. -- he declined. Now, was he controlling whether you put them on in the penalty phase or not?

A. Tell me...

Q. I will rephrase it, it is a control word. Let's forget the control word. He told you don't put my people on?

A. Because they weren't prepared.

Q. So he said you haven't prepared my family so I don't want to take the risk that they will not know how to say good things about me because they've known

Page 190.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

me all their life?

A. I am not saying he said those specific words. You could ask me but that's where we get into problems.

Q. Mr. Jackson --

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection, Your Honor. The witness was interrupted again. Please show the witness courtesy.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. You are under oath, Mr. Jackson.

MR. WEINGLASS: May the witness answer the question?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Grant, you keep and continue to ask me to recall what someone's specific words were 13 years ago. And I am going to tell you again, sir: I do not, do not generally have any specific recall of what anyone's specific words were 13 years ago, not only my own. That's my usual objection, sir. Now, so when you asked the question you said well, he said so and so and so and so. So what am I answering? I don't know if I am answering your question or trying to recall the words. That's the reason that you have problems getting an answer from me, sir.

Page 191.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Isn't the very purpose and reason that everybody is sitting in this room because of words that were said 13 years ago, which you remember selectively for him and not for anybody else? That's what we are talking about. That's called a PCRA. That's why you are testifying. That's why you are an affiant, do you understand that?

A. Yes, sir.

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

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. Well, why didn't you read the record? If you knew you were going to be on the stand making assertions bald in nature, why didn't you do your own work so you could help everybody reach the truth?

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection to the form of the question. May I have a ruling from the Court?

THE COURT: Objection is overruled.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. You could answer the question.

A. I did my homework, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: Is the objection overruled?

Page 192.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

THE COURT: I said he could answer.

MR. WEINGLASS: I object on the grounds of form, compound, improper question, argumentative, lacking in foundation, all or any of those grounds.

MR. GRANT: I withdraw the question.

THE COURT: He is withdrawing the question.

Go ahead.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. I withdraw the question --

A. Yes.

Q. -- that you heard.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, based on what you heard of my withdrawn question -- and you knew you were going to be asked questions about things that occurred 13 years ago?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who do you think it would benefit if you didn't read the record, Mr. Jamal, or the Commonwealth, or the truth?

A. Mr. Grant, I did review the record.

Q. What record?

A. You know, I am trying to answer the question but you are interrupting me. I did review the

Page 193.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

record. I did not review the entire record. Now you are upset because I haven't reviewed the part of the record that you wanted me to review. All you had to do was to ask me in advance and I would have done that. I wasn't going to sit here today, take my time and read the transcript of the record for you.

THE COURT: Mr. Weinglass, I appreciate it if you don't nod at the witness.

MR. WEINGLASS: Pardon?

THE COURT: Don't nod to the witness,

MR. WEINGLASS: I am nodding in agreement after I hear what the witness said. I am not nodding in advance.

THE WITNESS: I didn't notice, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Just please don't.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. What transcripts did you read, then, since you told us yesterday you hadn't read any?

A. When I told you -- Mr. Grant, you are missing -- I never told you. I told you that I did prepare and I did read excerpts of transcripts. I did not read this entire transcript. And you are asking me if I wanted to read -- how long would it take me to read the entire transcript of this trial?

Page 194.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

I've already lost three days I am not getting paid. Before I didn't get paid. Nobody gets paid in this thing. Do you understand what I am saying? Why would I read the entire transcript? Why would I want to know what the medical examiner said now? I mean is that relevant? So I only read the portions of the transcript that I thought were relevant.

Now, because it didn't coincide with yours you are chastising me. Well, I will take it. I will take that hit.

Q. I am not chastising you, because I just want to know, tell me which portions you did read so maybe I could examine you on those?

A. The ones that are consistent with the statement that I made in the declaration, sir.

Q. So the things that support the motion for a new trial you read?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay, those are the things that we have been talking about for the last two days, basically, anyway? So you read the important parts, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Let's just look at a summary of the good things you did like a good lawyer should. Tell me if I'm wrong.

Page 195.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You filed a motion for discovery, omnibus discovery, meaning typical discovery: You got all the documents a lawyer should get to defend his client?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then within 21 days of the shooting you filed the complaint against the police by which you generated a new investigation, and that brought you many possibilities for you to have conflicts in the witnesses' statements so that that could benefit your client; correct?

A. At least that.

Q. And then you filed a motion for a lineup, didn't you, for the eyewitnesses?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then you filed a motion to have all kinds of experts appointed to assist your client, didn't you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Including an investigator?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then you wrote a letter to the then District Attorney Ed Rendell, now Mayor, demanding that in addition to the Homicide investigation and

Page 196.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

the Police Internal Affairs Bureau investigation, you wanted him to launch an independent investigation, and then you wrote a letter after that to him, didn't you? Think carefully.

A. Umm, I may have written a letter to him but it certainly wasn't an additional investigation. I don't --

Q. Well, the D.A.'s not the police and the D.A.'s not the Internal Affairs Bureau so it would be an additional investigation if you asked for it, wouldn't it?

A. Well, the way I understood it, or the way it was intended, I didn't expect that there would be two investigations going on by Internal Affairs and the D.A.'s Office. It was just a question, when there is a use of deadly force there is a question whether the District Attorney's Office would conduct the investigation or Internal Affairs. As I understood it. That was the reason for the other request. I wasn't asking for, I didn't want all those investigations going on.

Q. Do you remember writing a letter to the D.A.'s Office demanding the results of discovery from their investigation?

A. Say that again, sir.

Page 197.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. Yeah. You demanded an investigation and then you presumed one was conducted, and then you wrote a letter demanding the results from the District Attorney in addition to the Internal Affairs Bureau and the Homicide detectives who investigated the murder; do you recall that?

A. No, I don't recall. But it just seems to me if I did that it must have been I had some reason to suspect that they conducted an investigation. With all the things I had to do, I don't think I would just waste time asking for the results of something that hadn't been done.

Q. I agree with you.

A. So I don't know why I would do it, unless maybe they did. I don't know.

MR. GRANT: C-7, Your Honor, please (handing).

(Letter was marked Commonwealth
Exhibit C-7 for identification.)

THE COURT: Do you want to staple that together? Is that stapled?

THE COURT OFFICER: I will staple it, Your Honor. (Handing)

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GRANT: And could I have this

Page 198.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

marked as C-8, please (handing).

THE COURT OFFICER: Yes, sir.

(Letter was marked Commonwealth
Exhibit C-8 for identification.)

MR. GRANT: By the way, Your Honor: C-7 purports to be a document over the letterhead of Mr. Jackson addressed to Edward G. Rendell, Esquire, District Attorney; and C-8 purports to be a document with the District Attorney's Office letterhead addressed to Mr. Anthony Jackson.

BY MR. GRANT:

Q. While they are looking at those, sir.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You constantly stayed in communication with Mr. Jamal even when he shunned you, disrespected you, you tried to tell him things that were going on when he was ejected from the room, you whispered and told him things when he was in the room, when he told you to get away from him you didn't abandon him, you stayed with him, you tried to interpret the rules for him, you basically tried to make it understandable to him, did you not?

A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

Q. And you realized while you were dealing with

Page 199.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

this man that he was a very intelligent human being, didn't you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. One of the smartest defendants that you had ever seen?

A. Probably so.

Q. And from reviewing this record, one of the smartest people I have ever seen.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. This man was not a lawyer?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. He was by profession a journalist?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And he mastered to a certain degree the practice of examination, voir dire, tactics and strategy?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In the Court six months after having been arrested for his case, isn't that true?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You admired him and you respected him, did you not?

A. Well, I respected him, yes. I admired what he was doing for himself, yeah, trying to protect his life. I admire a man for doing that.

Page 200.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. With his native intelligence and demonstrated ability, and with your assistance, advice and counsel, don't you think you gave him a good trial?

A. Don't you think what?

Q. Don't you think that you give him an effective representation as a lawyer?

A. Mr. Grant, and I am going to tell you this, I did the best that I could. I am simply saying that in retrospect if there are things that I should have done and I didn't do, then I didn't do what I was supposed to. I knew at the time that I did everything that I could do the best I could. Plain and simple answer. And if you are saying well, the best you did wasn't good enough, then I have to accept that.

Q. I am not saying that.

A. Well.

Q. They are saying that. They are saying that.

A. Well, if the law requires a certain degree of proficiency, effectiveness, and I haven't provided it, then it really doesn't matter how good I thought I was. And I'm only saying, I am telling you what happened, what went on. It's not my decision to make. When I use -- it's up to the Court to decide if I am ineffective, and I am simply admitting to

Page 201.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

whatever errors I may have committed.

Q. All right. All right, you are looking at C-7 and C-8, sir. Do you recognize the document that purports to be over your signature?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is it, sir?

A. C-7 is a letter that I have written to Ed Rendell.

Q. For what purpose?

A. I am reading it now.

(Pause.)

A. Oh, you want me to lead read it out loud?

Q. Not necessarily.

A. Oh.

Q. You are demanding an explanation?

A. Yes.

Q. And an investigation into the alleged brutality of Mr. Jamal; correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. By the way, what was the result of all those complaints and demands and all that, was there ever a finding of brutality in that case?

A. Could I finish this for a second?

Q. I don't want to distract you, you could answer that later.

Page 202.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. Oh, okay.

(Pause.)

Q. What that basically says, sir --

A. Hmm-hmm.

Q. -- is that the D.A. says when police are investigating, when police are investigating these type of cases, we don't belong to the Police Department, we don't interfere, if they make a finding and we think we should prosecute then we will, but they are doing a separate investigation because you asked them, the Homicide Division did an investigation because it is their job, and if things arise that we think we should deal with then we will do that and give you all the results, did he not say that?

A. Yes, essentially.

Q. So basically you were going to get a third set of discovery, weren't you, or you hoped?

A. You know what I was trying to do? I was trying to get as much information as the D.A. had.

Q. That's right.

A. That's what I was trying to do. I was trying to as much as possible be as prepared as the D.A. was. Because I knew I was at a disadvantage. That's what I was trying to do every minute of every moment

Page 203.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

that I was trying this case, yes, sir.

Q. And you filed a motion to suppress every one of the statements that the Commonwealth wanted to use at trial, didn't you?

A. Yes, I did. Or in cooperation with Mr. Jamal, yes, sir.

Q. And you filed a petition not to act like the regular routine lawyers have to be dealt with, you wanted all your experts to be paid up front, or as close to up front as possible, and you wanted them to get more money than the normal person gets, and you accomplished both things, didn't you?

A. No, sir.

Q. Well, you got more money than is normally paid, and you got the money before it's normally paid, right?

A. No, I could just tell you something, Mr. Grant, since you asked this now. And this issue came up yesterday, I was talking to some colleagues. I found out there were a lot of other lawyers getting a lot more money for their experts than me.

Q. Oh, yeah?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are they here to be cross-examined on this or is this going to be some hearsay you will throw into

Page 204.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

the record?

A. Let me just tell you this. You have Mr. Greer coming in tomorrow. Ask him how much money he's gotten for other investigations for Court appointments, you'll find out.

Q. Well, if he was collecting --

A. He's gotten thousands of dollars for investigation, Court-appointed cases.

Q. If he was collecting it from more than one source, as apparently Mr. Greer was, I am sure he did.

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection, Your Honor. There is no evidence for Counsel's statement. I ask it be stricken. I object to the form.

THE COURT: He said there was some indication that some of the money went to him.

MR. WEINGLASS: There is no indication whatsoever in this record that any money went to Mr. Greer. There is some allusion to the fact, no more than that, that some money went to Mr. Bill Peraneau, the photographer, for work that he did for a committee, which was no part of Mr. Jackson's effort.

THE COURT: Well, whatever is in the record is in the record.

Page 205.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, I ask the Court rule on my request that Counsel's question be stricken because there is no basis for it in the record.

MR. GRANT: Actually, there is, Your Honor. And I read to Mr. Jackson yesterday from the affidavit of Mr. Robert, Mr. Robert T. Greer, and I read a letter that he had written to an individual making reference to an E. Steven Collins who testified, in which letter he stated I have been retained by the Mumia Abu-Jamal Defense Fund, of which Mr. Jackson claims he knows not about any money. So all he knows about is what he was paid by the Court. And the word retained has a connotation. I think I am entitled to draw the inference that he was getting more money from somebody else.

MR. WEINGLASS: I think Counsel has a point.

MR. GRANT: Thank you.

MR. WEINGLASS: And we are going to hear from Mr. Greer. Who will disabuse him of that point.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. GRANT:

Page 206.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. Lastly, last thing, Mr. Jackson. I told you by three o'clock. It's only a few minutes after.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. During the course of the trial, the first six Jurors, the first six Jurors were selected but they had not been sequestered, meaning locked up, at that point. And you went on the radio station WDAS, where Mr. Jamal formerly worked?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you recall that?

A. I remember going to a radio station at some point in time, yes, sir.

Q. Do you remember basically being asked by the commentator why there were no blacks on the Jury, do you remember that question?

A. Yes. I assume you are asking me because it was asked, yes. Yes, I really remember that question.

Q. I don't want you, I know you've had a storied and voluminous broadcast and print journalistic history, and it's hard to remember all the quotes you have given to all the various sources that you've had?

A. It really is. I mean sometimes it just, I just don't remember.

Page 207.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

Q. Do I like look like I'm kidding? I'm not teasing you.

A. Okay.

Q. You did not claim in that interview, by the way, that race had anything to do with the reason why no blacks were on that Jury, but because blacks don't vote for the death penalty, and basically that's the reason? Didn't you say that?

A. Maybe I, I may have, sure.

Q. Well, no, did you?

A. Did I say that was the only reason?

Q. Well, let's read what you said here. Well, tell me: Did you say that was the only reason? Did you say Mr. McGill was exercising peremptory, racially-motivated strikes, have you ever said that anywhere in the history of this world?

A. That he -- I may not have said it outside of the Courtroom, if that's --

Q. Have you ever said it inside the Courtroom, that Mr. McGill, Your Honor, is using peremptory challenges based on race-motivated reasons and I object and I want the record to reflect that? Did you at any time at any point in this trial raise the Spector that Mr. McGill 13 years ago was exercising peremptory challenges in a race-motivated way?

Page 208.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

A. All right, let me answer you this way. Trying cases in City Hall, I know most D.A.'s, most homicides, will get rid of as many blacks as they possibly can, first to the death qualification and then peremptory. Actually, in the beginning of this trial in the Jury selection I asked the Judge to state the race of the Jurors there for that very reason. I wouldn't have asked unless I thought it might be happening.

Q. That was based on your history in trying cases, so you say, and the question now is are you saying that Mr. McGill was exercising peremptory challenges in a racially-motivated fashion?

A. Sure.

Q. You are saying that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you say that 13 years ago or is that your memory now 13 years later?

A. I don't think I said it then. But I am --

Q. I don't think you did either, sir. When is the last time you practiced criminal law in this town?

A. It's been a few years.

Q. Yes, it has. Would it surprise you to know that the majority of juries that come back have

Page 209.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

almost 50 percent black people on it?

A. Yes.

Q. Even the ones that return death verdicts?

A. No.

Q. So maybe your statement then to WDAS was as ridiculous as it is now?

A. But it was true. You may call it ridiculous but it was true, wasn't it?

Q. I don't think so. Mr. Jackson --

A. Yes, it was true.

Q. Okay. I have been practicing in this town since 1981.

A It was true.

MR. GRANT: Mr. Jackson, I have no further questions for you.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. Grant.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, there will be a very lengthy, in light of the cross, redirect.

THE COURT: How lengthy?

MR. WEINGLASS: Pardon?

THE COURT: How lengthy?

MR. WEINGLASS: It will go at least several hours, probably.

THE COURT: Do you want to recess

Page 210.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

until Monday?

MR. WEINGLASS: I would prefer to do that. I could start with a very small part of, just to deal with some of the most recent issues and then stop at that point maybe 15, 20 minutes down the road. Or I could start on Monday.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, may I say something? I have some practical problems. I have been here for three days. I haven't been able to work, Your Honor, and I am not Court appointed in this case.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor.

THE WITNESS: I have some other things to do in my life. And this is no disrespect to Mr. Jamal or Mr. Grant or anyone else in this Courtroom. But, you know, I hadn't anticipated being here this long.

MR. GRANT: The only problem I have, Your Honor, is that Mr. Jackson, being an excellent lawyer, knows full well the import of filing something like this (displaying) and he should expect to be here for a month and a day if necessary. Notwithstanding his schedule.

MR. WEINGLASS: All right, and, Your Honor, Mr. Grant has had Mr. Jackson's affidavit

Page 211.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

for six weeks. And they are friends. And he never called him in.

THE COURT: I know that, Counselor.

MR. WEINGLASS: He never called him in to review the transcript which would have shortened this questioning, and made it more accurate, as a matter of fact.

MR. GRANT: I apologize.

THE COURT: Do you want to --

MR. WEINGLASS: He is entitled to an apology.

THE COURT: Do you want to proceed today or Monday?

MR. WEINGLASS: I don't want to inconvenience Mr. Jackson anymore. If he refers to continue now, I will continue. If he wants to put it --

THE WITNESS: I will do it. I will stay. I am used to staying with Judge Sabo until six o'clock.

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, there is a deep groan from the well of the Court.

THE COURT: I am not, I don't know what a well of the Court is.

Page 212.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

MR. WEINGLASS: I will not finish until probably by 6:00. I would prefer to put it over if that's possible. I have an obligation here also.

THE COURT: Well, I know that, but he is your witness and you tell me what you want to do. Do you want to go over until Monday? It's all right with me.

MR. GRANT: What is convenient for you, Mr. Jackson?

THE WITNESS: I just can't be here all day Monday. I mean seriously, I have four days.

THE COURT: Let me say this: Monday morning we have something else, so I don't know what time --

MR. GRANT: Is there any day next week that you have three hours, three hours worth?

MR. WEINGLASS: A couple of hours.

MR. GRANT: From 10:00 to noon any day next week?

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

MR. GRANT: I am not going to recross.

THE WITNESS: Thanks. I am glad to know that.

THE COURT: Well, don't believe that

Page 213.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

entirely. Wait until --

THE WITNESS: I know lawyers, Your Honor. He is trying to suck me in. But you say Monday morning. Is Monday afternoon -- I will try to do it Monday afternoon. Is Monday afternoon --

THE COURT: Monday afternoon better for you?

THE WITNESS: All right.

THE COURT: Monday afternoon would be better for him. Could we say one o'clock? Is that all right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay, how about that?

MR. WEINGLASS: That's fine.

MR. GRANT: That's fine, Judge.

THE COURT: Okay, you could come back Monday at one o'clock.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: You're welcome. All right, adjourn until Monday morning.

THE COURT OFFICER: 9:30, Your Honor? This Court now stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. on Monday morning at the call of the Crier.

Page 214.

Anthony Jackson, Esq. - Cross

- - - - -

(The hearing was adjourned at this time.)

- - - - -

I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the trial of the above cause, and that this copy is a correct transcript of the same.

Official Stenographer

Date

The foregoing record of the proceedings upon the trial of the above cause is hereby approved and directed to be filed.

Judge