NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... scene that the man who shot the officer was a third black man who ran from the scene (ia center. org). Immediately after the shooting, police brought Singletary to the station for questioning.
In his report, he specifically stated that Jamal was not the shooter. At the 1995 PCRA hearing Singletary testified that the officer ripped up his statement indicating that Jamal was not the shooter and that the shooter had fled. Police then coerced Singletary, after five hours of badgering, into signing a false statement indicating he did not see the shooting so Singletary was never sought as a trial witness because the falsified statement was the one turned over to the defense (ia center. org). If Singletary's original statement had been presented, he would have been able to testify that he saw White nowhere near the scene at the time of the shooting and that right after the shooting, she asked him what happened. Despite Hightower, a witness who was in a nearby parking lot, testified that he saw a black male with dreadlocks running from the direction of the shooting.
Hightower's testimony was the only evidence of a fleeing man allowed to be presented to the jury. Hightower was subjected to police pressure to change his story, including being subjected to a polygraph test during the course of six hours of questioning after having told police that he saw a man fleeing the scene. In polygraphing Hightower, law enforcement never broached the pivotal issue, the issue of a man seen running away from the scene, thus giving the rise to the compelling inference that the polygraph was administered to intimidate the witness (ia center. org). Police did not polygraph any other witnesses even though they all had criminal records, while Hightower was a college student with a clean record.
On the body of the slain Faulkner, a drivers license application was found belonging to a man named Arnold Howard, which brings up the question of could he be the third and fleeing man. At the 1995 PCRA hearing, Edward Damage, a retired police captain called by the prosecution, confirmed that police suppressed the fact that a drivers license application belonging to a third man, Arnold Howard, was found on the slain officer, and that some police initially pursued the theory that a third man fled the scene (ia center. org). According to Howards PCRA testimony, he had given his application to William Cooks vending partner, Kenneth Freeman, which brings the possibility of Freeman being Cooks passenger and the fleeing man.
William Singletary testified that the shooter came from Cooks passenger door. Howard and Freeman were both taken into custody as suspects. In February, 1982, (just two months after the shooting) Central Division Detective Richard Ryan arrested Kenneth Freeman under unusual circumstances. Assisting Ryan in the Freeman arrest was James Forbes, a C. D. stakeout Officer who was one of the first police on the scene after Faulkner's shooting and a key prosecution witness at the 1982 trial.
In May, 1985, in the evening after the Philadelphia police bombing of the MOVE Organization, Freeman was found dead in Philadelphia under mysterious circumstances (amnesty. org). Deborah Kordansky, a resident of an apartment down the street from the shooting, claimed to have seen a man running down the street at about the time of the shooting. Kordansky would not disclose her exact address to police. She did not testify because the trial court refused to provide adequate funds for an investigator who could have located her (ia center.
org). William Cook, Jamal's brother, never testified at the trial because he had the fear of self-incrimination. Cook was charged with assault on a police officer and was advised by his attorney that involving himself could risk murder charges against him. The defense attempted to present Cook at the PCRA hearing and said that Cook would testify that he had a passenger in his car and that the passenger was present when the officer was shot, which could help try to prove his brothers innocence (amnesty. org). If the jury of this trial was able to hear some of these testimonies, not only would the trial have been a little bit fairer, but also clearly Jamal would have been found not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The above evidence would have swayed some, if not all, jurors decisions. Jamal was deprived of his right to a fair and reliable determination of guilt and penalty, as guaranteed by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution, because the States most important identification witnesses, Cynthia White and Robert Chobert were coaxed and coerced into providing testimony implicating Jamal (ia center.
org). The prosecution claims that Jamal stood over the downed officer and shot him execution style in the face with a. 44 caliber gun. They also claim that Officer Faulkner's gun trajectory was upward and he was on his back when he shot Jamal in the abdomen. At Jamal's first trial, the defense had no expert pathologist to investigate the shooting so they could refute this.
The prosecutions ballistics evidence did not even establish that the gun was fired, much less that Jamal fired it. When law enforcement arrives at a crime scene within minutes of a police shooting, it is a matter of routine for officers and crime scene detectives to examine all firearms for recent firing and to test all suspects hands for gunpowder residue. The circumstance here leaves no doubt that such tests have been performed in this case. Yet, rather than reveal the negative findings concerning the firing of the gun attributed to Jamal, and the negative findings concerning gunpowder residue on Jamal's hands, body, or clothing, law enforcement claimed that none of these tests were performed (ia center. org). The medical examiner wrote in his report shot by. 44 caliber, which makes it impossible that Jamal shot the officer; he owned a registered. 38 caliber.
Even the prosecutions own expert admitted that the bullet couldnt have possibly come from Jamal's gun. He wrote this on his report, but this was never presented in court. After the first trial, the defense hired a pathologist who determined that Faulkner's gun trajectory was downward, which contradicts Cynthia Whites testimony and shows that she did not see what she claimed (ia center. org). There are those who still believe that Jamal was given a fair trial and is guilty of the murder of Daniel Faulkner. However, the recent testimonies and evidence clearly shows that Jamal did not receive a fair trial and deserves one because his life is in danger.
An innocent man could be sitting on death row. Jamal has a court date in May 2000 for an appeal to get a new trial. After the fundraiser on May 7, hopefully the U. S.
Court system will grant the new trial and enough funds will be raised to pay the court costs. Bibliography: Amnesty International calls for retrial, 17 February 2000 web Flynn, Dan. Supreme Court setback for cop killer. web Ford, Paul Robeson.
Questioning American Justice: The Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. web web Kissinger, Clark C. How the Court Denied Mumia Right to an Effective Defense. 12 March 2000. web -- - Mumia and the U. S. Supreme Court. 12 March 2000.
web web Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief. 14 October 1999. web
Free research essays on topics related to: supreme court, drivers license, fair trial, crime scene, law enforcement
Research essay sample on Crime Scene Fair Trial
