d had stated that he would not be able to view the facts objectively. When Mumia protested the judge's ruling he was banished from the courtroom leaving him without adequate defense counsel during opening statements. To further the appearance of racial impropriety the prosecution used eleven of fifteen peremptory challenges to excuse nearly 75% of the eligible black jurors. The resulting jury consisted of only three black jurors, one of which, as stated above, was later dismissed from the case. Obviously, this constitutes a violation of Mumia's right to a jury of his peers. Additionally, at least three jurors, headed by the jury foreman, met separately and discussed the merits of the case throughout the trial. One of the jurors has come forward to say that a group would meet behind closed doors and discuss the case. She further stated that the group was pro-conviction from the outset and actively searched for ways to convict Jamal, this of course, being a clear violation of due process. Throughout the trial Judge Sabo acted to sabotage the defense's case. He excluded Mumia from important in camera (in judge's chambers, private) conferences held with the prosecution where discovery of evidence was allowed and objections were ruled upon. This constitutes a violation of Jamal's right to a public trial. The prosecutor used evidence of Jamal's former affiliation with the Black Panther Party to urge conviction and the sentence of death. Even though Mumia had joined the Black Panther Party during the turbulent civil rights movement of the late sixties and hadn't been a member in nearly ten years, the prosecution used his membership as evidence, saying that he had been waiting for 12 years to kill a cop, this being a flagrant violation of Jamal's 14th Amendment right to equal protection before the law. Naturally, Judge Sabo, "a defendant's worst nightmare" (Philadelphia Inquirer), didn't see things this way. The prosecutor also used Mr. Jamal's...
