FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE
PROSECUTION SEEKS TO DENY MUMIA ABU-JAMAL COUNSEL
OF CHOICE
(PHILADELPHIA)
- In a move eerily reminiscent of his 1981 trial,
which resulted in the incarceration of an innocent man on Pennsylvania's
death row for close to 20 years, the Philadelphia District Attorney's
Office
is once again seeking to prevent Mumia Abu-Jamal from exercising his right
to be represented by counsel of his choice. Mr. Jamal's case is currently
pending before Judge William H. Yohn in the United States District Court
of
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in a federal habeas corpus action.
The District Attorney's office has objected to Jamal's selection of Nick
Brown, Esq., a pre-eminent British barrister, as a member of his defense
team. Attorneys from foreign nations, including Britain and Canada, are
routinely admitted to practice before various American courts, including
the
U.S. Supreme Court, for the purposes of a particular case. Generally
speaking, the only issue with respect to such admissions is whether an
attorney is qualified to practice law.
"It
is indisputable that Nick Brown is qualified to be a member of Mumia's
defense team and to appear before the court," said Jamal's attorney
Marlene
Kamish. "In fact, it seems that the real issue for the District Attorney's
Office is that he is too qualified."
Brown graduated
in the top 5% of his class at Cambridge University's law
school, and has been a barrister at one of London's leading law chambers
for
more than ten years. Barristers are members of an elite society of
specialized trial attorneys. Mr. Brown's chambers are the equivalent of
a top
"AV- rated " law firm in a major American city. Brown has tried
hundreds of
civil and criminal cases.
Brown not
only has extensive experience in the legal system from which the
American judicial system was born, but also has a thorough understanding
of
Jamal's case and relevant American constitutional provisions and laws.
He was the author of a comprehensive amicus brief submitted by 22 members
of the British Parliament in Jamal's case.
The irony
of this latest move by the D.A's office is not lost on Jamal or his
defense team. One of the 29 constitutional violations which took place
during
the original trial, and one of the grounds for Jamal's pending habeas
corpus
petition, is the denial of the constitutional right to represent himself
and
be represented by counsel of his choice.
"Throughout
the history of this case, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and
its counsel have defended the ineffective representation of counsel afforded
[Jamal] at trial and on appeal," Jamal's attorneys state in a brief
on the
issue filed with the court on Monday, June 4, 2001.
"Opposition
to motions for admission of attorneys from outside a court's
jurisdiction are almost unheard of," Eliot Grossman, also a member
of Jamal's
new legal team, stated. "If the D.A's office is so sure of its case
against
Mumia, why is it so concerned about who represents him in a habeas corpus
proceeding?"
Another individual,
Arnold Beverly, has admitted to committing the
crime
Jamal was charged with in 1981. Although Mr. Beverly's sworn confession
was filed with the court on May 4th, 2001, and corroborated by a polygraph
examination, Mumia Abu-Jamal remains on death row.
For more
information, contact:
Marlene Kamish, (412) 264-6686 OR Eliot Grossman, (626) 943-1945