150 of the UK’s most distinguished lawyers were signatories to a letter to the US court of appeal. The letter was initiated by Ian Macdonald QC and Legal Action for Women. It highlights the racism in the original trial and subsequent hearings of Mr Mumia Abu-Jamal, an award winning journalist. After 24 years on Pennsylvania’s death row, Mr Abu-Jamal, convicted in 1982 of killing a policeman, was granted an appeal on 17 May 2007.

Read the about the outcome of Mumia's appeal.

Download the UK lawyers' petition (pages, PDF, KB) - this letter sets out in detail the reasons for a fair re-trial for Mumia.

Read the Voice article on this case and other reports in the media.

Seven key reasons Mumia Abu Jamal's trial was unfair

1. Mumia's gun was not the weapon used - according to the medical examiner, the policeman was killed with a .44 calibre gun. Mr. Abu-Jamal's pistol, which he was licensed to carry as a night-time taxi driver, was .38 calibre. The trial jury never heard about this contradiction.
2. Mumia's weapon was never tested - the police never tested Mr Abu-Jamal's gun to see if it had been recently fired. They did not even examine his hands to see if he had fired a gun.
3. Contradictions in police accounts of a confession - at trial, it was claimed that Mr Abu-Jamal stated, at the hospital shortly after the shooting, that he fired the fatal shots. Yet, that was contradicted in a written police report by the officer who was with Mr Abu-Jamal at the time. When asked about the long time spent guarding the defendant, the police office reported: "The negro male made no comment." A week later he was asked by the chief detective on the case if there was anything he wished to add to his statement, to which the officer replied: "Nothing I can think of now." He was hidden from the defence at the 1982 trial. He did not testify to contradict what other police witnesses claimed was said. Incredibly, 13 years later the officer’s memory 'improved' and he claimed to have heard Mr Abu-Jamal state while lying on the floor at the hospital: "I shot him. I hope the motherfucker dies."
4. Police account contradicts doctor's - the treating doctor said that Mr Abu-Jamal was unconscious and said nothing. He reported that a nurse found police with loaded guns pointed at the suspect as he lay virtually lifeless in his hospital bed.
5. Witness lied under police pressure - William Singletary, a Vietnam veteran and local businessman, saw the whole incident and said that Abu-Jamal was not the shooter. However, the police forced him to change his story and intimidated him into leaving Philadelphia. Over a decade after, he testified at an evidentiary hearing that Mr Abu-Jamal did not shoot the cop and was innocent. The police had put pressure on him to corroborate their version of events.
6. Witnesses harassed and bribed - other key witnesses, such as Veronica Jones who at the 1995 hearing, testified in support of Mr Abu-Jamal, were harassed into initially giving false testimony. Two prosecution witnesses were given special favours, including exemption from criminal prosecution, for their testimony against him.
7. Incompetent defence counsel - The defence lawyer did not interview a single witness in preparation for the 1982 trial, and lacked adequate funds for defending a capital case. Mr Abu-Jamal could not afford to retain competent counsel, an investigator, or needed experts in such fields as pathology and ballistics.