Fucking Great News! Zolo Agona Azania Wins Battle Against Death Penalty!

Print PDF

Just received the following news about New Afrikan political prisoner Zolo Agona Azania:

10/17/08 Indianapolis, Indiana

On the eve of his third death penalty trial the State of Indiana finally abandoned their 27 year campaign to execute Zolo Azania. Dismissing all the death penalty charges, the State agreed to have Zolo sentenced on his 1982 murder and robbery conviction. Under the sentence imposed, with good time credit, Zolo will now be released from prison in 7 years. He will be immediately released from death row. Also, under the terms of the agreement he will be allowed to challenge his 1982 convictions in federal habeas proceedings.

This is a real victory for all Zolo's supporters and all of those who oppose the death penalty.

Below is a statement released by Zolo:

Media Press Statement by Zolo Azania

i am glad that the State has finally offered me this opportunity to plan a life on the outside. i can use that freedom to work for justice for others, and, of course, to establish a way of sustaining my life on my own.

i feel that God has given me many gifts; and with these gifts then i would be able to take care of myself and do good for others. i have matured in many ways over these stressful 27 plus years. i see things quite differently now than in that early stage of my life.

i still resolutely maintain my innocence. By this agreement the State gives up the death penalty request. My next course of action will be to go on into the federal court system to expose the many injustices. i will continue to contest my innocence in the murder. i am angry over the numerous ways that i've been mistreated by the judicial sanction system. i was illegally placed in this untenable position by the Indiana Supreme Court when they took back my dismissal of the case for fast and speedy trial violation, and authorized the prosecution to retry me for the death penalty for the third time! Nonetheless, i will continue to contest my innocence in this murder. i am angry over the numerous ways i've been mistreated by the system that some call justice--a term of relativity. Therefore, the protracted struggle continues!

Thank you.

Zolo Agona Azania #4969
Indiana State Prison
P.O. Box 41
Michigan City, Indiana 46361-0041

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

What's Up With Mumia

Print PDF

The following is the legal update posted at Philly IMC:

Mumia Abu-Jamal legal update

by Lead Attorney Robert R. Bryan | 04.12.2008

This Legal Update is made on behalf of my client, Mumia Abu-Jamal, who remains on Pennsylvania’s death row. Many people have inquired as to our reaction and position concerning recent legal developments, and what will happen now.

This Legal Update is made on behalf of my client, Mumia Abu-Jamal, who remains on Pennsylvania’s death row. Many people have inquired as to our reaction and position concerning recent legal developments, and what will happen now. This should answer many of those questions and alleviate some of the confusion.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Philadelphia
As widely reported in the media, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued its long-awaited decision on March 27, 2008. (Abu-Jamal v. Horn, Nos. 01-9014, 02-9001, 2008 WL 793877 (3rd Cir. 2008).) Mumia and I had legal conferences that day, and we have been in frequent contact since including a death-row meeting earlier this week and a discussion this evening. We view the opinion of the three-judge panel as a mixed bag with some good, some very wrong, and a remarkable dissenting opinion by a judge on racism that gives us great hope for eventual victory.

A new jury trial has been ordered by the federal court on the question of whether Mumia should be sentenced to life or death, due to the trial judge’s unconstitutional and misleading instructions to the jury. It is a positive step in any capital case when a court finds that the death penalty was wrongfully imposed. Mumia is pleased with this part of the ruling because it could help others on death rows across the U.S. The prosecution now has various options including seeking reconsideration by the federal court and petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to have the death sentence remain intact.

It was a great disappointment that the federal court rejected our quest for a reversal of the conviction and a new trial on the question of guilt and innocence. To say that Mumia and I are unhappy with this would be an understatement, for the decision flies in the face of the United States Constitution and case precedent. The facts are that the prosecutor did engage in racism during jury selection, and made a false and misleading argument to the jury which turned the concept of reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence on its head. The trial judge was biased and bigoted, even stating in reference to my client that he was “going to help'em fry the nigger.” Unfortunately the court used against Mumia the failings of the lawyers who represented him in state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus proceedings. Their mistakes should not serve as an excuse to rationalize away the fundamental constitutional violations that occurred in this case.

The silver lining of this ruling is that Judge Thomas L. Ambro wrote a 41-page dissent on the racism-in-jury-selection issue. This brilliant opinion began:

Excluding even a single person from a jury because of race violates the Equal Protection Clause of our Constitution. See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 84-86, 99 n. 22, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). This simple justice principle was reaffirmed by our Supreme Court this past week. Snyder v. Louisiana, No. 06-10119, 2008 WL 723750, at *4 (Mar. 19, 2008).

Justice Ambro concluded that everyone

is entitled to a fair and impartial trial by a jury of his or her peers. As Batson reminds us, “[t]he core guarantee of equal protection, ensuring citizens that their State will not discriminate on account of race, would be meaningless were we to approve the exclusion of jurors on the basis of . . . race.” Id. at 97-98. I fear today that we weaken the effect of Batson by imposing a contemporaneous objection requirement where none was previously present in our Court's jurisprudence and by raising the low bar for a prima facie case of discrimination in jury selection to a height unattainable if enough time has passed such that original jury records are not available. In so holding, we do a disservice to Batson. I respectfully dissent.

Shortly before the decision, we brought the Snyder decision to the attention of the federal court in a Notice of Supplemental Authority. I wrote on March 23, 2008:

In Snyder v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, 2008 WL 723750 (Mar. 19, 2008), the judgment of the Louisiana Supreme Court was reversed with the United States Supreme Court holding that the trial court should have disallowed a peremptory challenge based upon race because it violated Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Justice Alito, in writing for the majority, reaffirmed that evidence of discriminatory intent should be taken from a broad array of factors. Citing Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 239 (2005), he pointed out that “in considering a Batson objection, or in reviewing a ruling claimed to be Batson error, all of the circumstances that bear upon the issue of racial animosity must be consulted . . .” Snyder underscores the point made by Appellee and Cross-Appellant, Mr. Abu-Jamal, urged in oral argument on May 17, 2007, and in briefing, that the existence of a prima facie Batson claim depends upon, inter alia, the connection between race and the pattern of strikes, the nature of the case, comments made during jury selection, and the time and place of the trial. Brief of Appellee and Cross-Appellant, Mumia Abu-Jamal, July 26, 2006, at 17-46; Fourth-Step Reply Brief of Appellee and Cross-Appellant, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Oct. 23, 2006, at 11-58.

The high court also reiterated that “the Constitution forbids striking even a single prospective juror for a discriminatory purpose.” Snyder v. Louisiana, 2008 WL 723750 at *4 (quoting United States v. Vasquez-Lopez, 22 F.3d 900, 902 (C.A.9 1994)). This too was pointed out in oral argument and briefing. Brief of Appellee and Cross-Appellant, Mumia Abu-Jamal, supra, at 41-42. Finally, the case recognized that an "inference of discriminatory intent" is supported when the prosecution's proffered reasons for striking African Americans do not apply even-handedly to non-African Americans. Snyder v. Louisiana, 2008 WL 723750 at *8. Again, this point was presented in oral argument and our briefing. See, e.g., Brief of Appellee and Cross-Appellant, Mumia Abu-Jamal, supra, at 32-36.

The "Mumia Exception"
The latest denial of a new trial to Mumia has been referred to as part of the “Mumia Exception.” David Lindorff, a noted investigative journalist and author of Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer on April 2, 2008, that the “courts have altered the rules just to keep Abu-Jamal on course for death.” What Professor Linn Washington earlier dubbed the “Mumia Exception”, could not have been more on target.

Reaction of the District Attorney of Philadelphia The District Attorney appeared livid that the federal court had ordered a new penalty-phase jury trial. At a press conference on March 27, 2008, the day of the decision, she vowed that her office will continue pursuing the execution of my client. Sadly, the prosecution could not resist distorting the truth as it has from the outset over a quarter of a century ago. The DA falsely said that the court “finally decided in its wisdom . . . that Mr. Jamal was guilty.” That is not what the U.S. Court of Appeals found and is nonsense; there was no retrial or verdict. That is not what appellate courts do. Rather, the federal decision dealt with issues of law and procedure. The prosecution’s suggestion that my client was found “guilty” of anything on appeal is absurd and patently false.

Where we go from here
The dissent of Justice Ambro is a light in the darkness, a roadmap as to where we go from here. On April 9, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals granted my 45-day Motion for Extension of Time To File Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc. The rehearing petition, now due on May 27, 2008, will be seeking review of the case by all the judges in the Third Circuit. The basis will be that “the panel decision conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme Court or of the court to which the petition is addressed and consideration of the full court is therefore necessary to secure uniformity of the court’s decisions,” and, “the proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance”. (Fed. R. App. P. 35(b)(1).) If unsuccessful, we will proceed to the Supreme Court.

Conclusion
The issues in this case concern the right to a fair trial, the ongoing struggle against the death penalty, and the political repression of a courageous author and journalist. Based upon three decades of successfully litigating murder cases involving the death penalty, I am convinced that we can win an acquittal upon a new jury trial. My goal is his acquittal upon retrial. I intend to see Mumia go home to his family. I will not ret until that occurs.

Mumia is still on death row and in great danger. His life is hanging in the balance. We must remember that racism, fraud, politics, and unfairness are threads that have run through this case since the beginning. As reflected by the comments at its recent press conference, the prosecution has learned little from its shameful behavior in this case. The misconduct continues, and the prosecutorial wrongs of the past are thus visited on the present.

Finally, we are grateful for all those who do so much to bring the injustice in this case to public attention, whether it be through demonstrations, writing to newspapers, meetings, or circulating information on the Internet. This is all important. We are of one voice in this campaign for justice: Free Mumia!

Yours very truly,

Robert R. Bryan

Law Offices of Robert R. Bryan
2088 Union Street, Suite 4
San Francisco, California 94123-4117

Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal
RobertRBryan@aol.com

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Once Again: The State Is Trying To Kill Political Prisoner Zolo Agona Azania

Print PDF

Zolo Agona Azania is a Black revolutionary who has spent twenty six years - most of his adult life - in prison, and much of it on death row. His death sentence has been overturned not once, but twice, and yet a recent legal decision gives the State a green light to seek it a third time, and this despite the fact that many key witnesses have died and evidence that could help the defense has been "lost" over the past decades.

In 1981, at the age of 21, Zolo Agona Azania was convicted of murdering a police officer during a bank robbery gone bad. Unlike his two co-defendants, Zolo was arrested unarmed, walking down the street miles from the scene of the robbery, and has always maintained his total innocence of any involvement in the crime.

Yet it was Zolo who was singled out as the triggerman who killed a police officer “execution style,” and who received a death sentence… while the two men who were caught in the getaway car with weapons received prison sentences.

What explains this discrepance is the fact that Zolo was the only one of the accused who was a political activist, who had his picture in the paper as a model for rehabilitation, and whohad an African-sounding name and look. While the men who were caught red handed had close family members on the police force. (For more on Zolo's case, and the various violations of his legal rights which led to the death penalty being overturned twice already, see this posting i wrote about his case last year.)

Here is the press release from the No Death Penalty for Zolo Committee:

No Death Penalty for Zolo!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 15, 2007

CONTACT: Howard Emmer 773-425-6716

Indiana Supreme Court in a 3 to 2 decision allows the State of Indiana to seek the death penalty For the third time in the case of Zolo Agona Azania.

Indianapolis —— On Thursday. May 10, 2007 the Indiana Supreme Court reversed Boone County Superior Court Judge Steve David’s ruling that barred the state of Indiana from pursuing the death penalty in the case of Zolo Azania. Lake County Prosecutor Bernard Carter appealed Judge David’s ruling and that resulted in oral arguments before the Indiana Supreme Court on June 27th, 2006. Zolo, who was convicted of murder in 1982 has spent the last 26 years in Indiana prisons, most of that time on death row. Twice the state has had Zolo's death penalty verdict overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court due to: prosecution’s suppression of evidence favorable to the defendant, ineffective assistance of counsel, and systematic exclusion of African Americans from the jury pool.

In Judge David’s ruling, he argued that the state could not seek the death penalty against Zolo a third time because of the length of time that had passed since the crime was committed (24 years at that time), and that the delay was caused primarily by the state. Many of the witnesses, material and character, are now deceased and much of the evidence is either missing or destroyed. David also found that a jury at a third sentencing trial would be unduly focused on the “future dangerousness” of the convicted, depriving Zolo of an unprejudiced decision by the jury. Judge David concluded that society’s interest would be best served by barring the state from a third death sentence.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Sullivan and supported by Chief Justice Shepard and Justice Dickson, tries to blame Zolo Azania for the 25 year delay by having the audacity to file appeals to his conviction and death sentence which ultimately exposed mistakes and misconduct by the prosecution in his trials. As stated above, it was this same Indiana Supreme Court that found there was just cause for these appeals. To now blame Zolo for the delays caused by pursuing them is tantamount to blaming the victim.

Justices Boehm and Rucker both wrote dissenting opinions supporting Judge David’s ruling. In his dissenting opinion Justice Boehm found the majority opinion’s arguments for attributing the delays to Zolo as “both novel and indefensible”. Justice Rucker was troubled by the inordinate delay (25 yrs plus) affecting Zolo's ability to produce character witnesses and cross examine state witnesses.

The state of Indiana has already convicted and held Zolo for over 25 years for a crime in which he has always maintained his innocence, It is only fair that it drops its pursuit of the death penalty that is cruel, inhuman, racist and has no place being used in a civilized society.

Zolo’s lawyers are considering a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.

More information about Zobo’s case can be obtained at www.Zoloazania.org
e-mail: Mdeutsch45 [at] aol.com

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

The Trials of Zolo Agona Azania, Political Prisoner: Videos Online!

Print PDF

Zolo Agona Azania is one of many Black revolutionaries who have spent most of their adult lives in prison, punished for their politics by the racist American “just us” system.

I have been in touch with Zolo for some years now, and have been privileged to publish a pamphlet of his writings and full-colour postcard book of his artwork, as well as keeping some documents regarding his case up on the Kersplebedeb website.

Certain New Afrikan revolutionary nationalists, prison activists, and opponents of the death penalty have supported Zolo over the years, and in Chicago today there is a No Death Penalty for Zolo! committee. Also, the People’s Law Office has been representing Zolo legally over the past several years, to good effect.

Yet for various reasons – most of which say nothing good about the state of our movements – neither Zolo nor his case are well known within the broader left. Unlike many political prisoners and prisoners of war, Zolo was framed at a time when the liberation movements were in retreat, in a smaller working class city without a big trendy scene. He was a young guy at the time of his conviction, so he had no track record going back to the glory days of the late sixties/early seventies.

Which means that his case is in extra need of publicity, of something to make people take notice… which is why i’m all the more glad to see that videos of Zolo’s lawyers slugging it out with the evil empire are now available on the “Oral Arguments Online” section of the Indiana Courts website. (Thanks to the National Lawyers Guild Chicago Chapter, who also have a blurb about Zolo on their website, for this link.)

There is a real sense of the issues that comes out in these video transcripts – no matter how dry and boring one might expect them to be – which is less obvious in written accounts. Definitely, if you have a couple of hours, they’re worth checking out.

And y’know, pointing you towards court videos wouldn’t be right unless i also mentioned that some good people in Chicago are putting together a documentary about Zolo’s case. While i don’t know the details behind this project, based on the trailer available on myspace i have high hopes.

If these videos help bring attention to Zolo’s case it’ll be about time, for this comrade has suffered too long with too little support.

********

In 1981, at the age of 21, Zolo Agona Azania was convicted of murdering a police officer during a bank robbery gone bad. Unlike his two co-defendants, Zolo was arrested unarmed, walking down the street miles from the scene of the robbery, and has always maintained his total innocence of any involvement in the crime.

Yet it was Zolo who was singled out as the triggerman who killed a police officer “execution style,” and who received a death sentence… while the two men who were caught in the getaway car with weapons received prison sentences.

Did i mention that Zolo was the only one of the accused who was a political activist? The only one who had his picture in the paper as a model for rehabilitation? The only one with an African-sounding name and look?

While the men who were caught red handed had close family members on the police force?

As the article Star Chamber Racism recounts:

• At the time of his arrest Zolo had been active in community and civil rights work in Gary, and in the Chicago area. He was involved in the campaign to make the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's. birthday a national holiday, was a budding artist, and an outspoken supporter of self-determination for Black people in the United States. He had done campaign work for Steel Mill labor union candidates. Zolo had also received some local news media attention because of his successful graduation from a G.E.D. (General Education Diploma) program after his release from prison in 1980 for a voluntary manslaughter conviction when he was eighteen years old (which had been subsequently reversed).


• Allen Superior Court judge Alfred W. Moellering allowed armed uniformed police with their white gloves on to line the courtroom walls and corridors. Moellering let the state prosecutors make hand signals to the witnesses who testified against Zolo. The all white jury was allowed to watch and read the prejudicial headline news at home about Zolo’s case on television and in newspapers everyday.


• a paraffin gunshot residue (G.S.R.) test failed to indicate that Zolo had fired a gun, but this evidence was hidden from the defense.


• prosecution witness James Charles McGrew lied for the police, claiming that he saw Zolo hiding a gun in some bushes and fleeing the police. McGrew later admitted to lying, explaining that he felt that his life would be in danger otherwise, as he had been told by police and a court bailiff to identify Zolo.

As a result of these lies and dirty tricks being exposed, in 1993 the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the death sentence – but incredibly left the guilty verdict in place.

Zolo was to be sentenced again, this time by a new jury… which consisted of 11 whites and no Blacks.

Again, his court-appointed lawyers provided ineffective counsel and presented no mitigating evidence about his life and accomplishments.

Nevertheless, at the time of this second sentencing Zolo did raise the question of why there were only five Black people in his jury venire of 189 people. (A venire, from what i understand, is the group of people who are called to court, and from which the court selects the twelve people who will sit on the jury.) He filed a motion to challenge the exceptionally white make-up of the venire, but at the court hearing the main clerk who was in charge of the jury system came in and testified under oath that the system was working properly and randomly in the selection of potential jurors.

So Zolo’s motion was rejected, and – left before a jury with no Black people on it, and with no effective legal representation – he was sentenced to die for a second time.

Only thing is, it later came out that this pool was neither representative nor random. In fact, it was revealed that Allen County had gotten a part time student to write the computer program that drew up the pool of jurors, and this program was written in such a way that 87% of Wayne township was in fact permanently excluded from the pool. As the urban center of Allen County, the exclusion of Wayne township meant that 48% of Allen County’s Black population were permanently excluded from serving on juries.

Now i have no idea if this was an intentional “glitch” or just a badly built program, but it’s completely immaterial – judges, attorneys, court officials and journalists saw all these juries sworn in with substantially less Black people than there should have been and nobody even noticed?!? That’s the racist outrage here, so far as i can see – you can add bleach to whiten what’s supposed to be a key democratic institution, and America is so racist everyone just thinks it’s normal. I guess they figured Black people weren’t smart enough to read their jury summons or something like that…

After fifteen years of this – that’s right: years, not months or weeks or days – they finally figured out that something was funny. At this point, it is both a sign of the State’s arrogance and of the weakness of our movements that the prosecutors did not simply and quietly agree to letting those convicted under the whitened juries have new trials.

Instead they dared to send Deputy Attorney Christopher Lafuse in to argue that it doesn’t really matter, because there aren’t enough Black people in Allen County for this to make a difference!!!

The first of the two videos on the Indiana Courts site consists of Zolo’s lawyer Michael Deutsch, who in 2002 appeared before the Indiana Supreme Court, arguing that the second death sentence should be reversed due to the racist jury selection process.

It’s great to see Deutsch kicking the Deputy Attorney General Christopher Lafuse’s racist ass over this “computer glitch” issue. And pretty incredible to see Lafuse putting on one sorry excuse after another…

Check out this back and forth between judge Rucker (the only Black judge on the Supreme Court) and the racist Deputy Attorney General:

Robert Rucker: In your brief you argue in favour of absolute disparity as the test this court should employ in addressing this claim. If you do that with the 10% cut off that means that the 8.5% of African-Americans that were in this pool would be all excluded and using absolute disparity that would be ok with you.

Christopher Lafuse: Yes. And I know that’s somewhat a harsh position to take here but I’m going to… I do have some explanation… the eight and a half percent, I mean the ten percent absolute disparity test really created a bright line standard for the Sixth Amendment violation. The Sixth Amendment I think doesn’t quibble about percentages. I think when the Supreme Court in Durham talked about -

Robert Rucker: So if 100% - if all African-Americans – were excluded from the jury list, that’s ok with you?!?

Christopher Lafuse: Well, we’re talking about unintentional exclusion first of all.

Robert Rucker: Yes.

Christopher Lafuse: So it’s not a Fifth Amendment where the county’s out to get minority jurors. That’s clearly a violation of the Fifth Amendment… there seems to me that there is a line somewhere… we’ve… the Supreme Court acknowledged in Durham that if we’re going to have jury selection we don’t require a perfect cross-section, only a fair cross-section. So it seems to me we’re drawing a line at some point, and wherever we draw that line there’s going to be groups that are below that line. So if that’s the case, then yeah, there has to be some groups that are so small in proportion to the entire community that the Sixth Amendment will sanction their unintentional exclusion from the jury source list.Now whether 8.5% is the proper line to draw, the courts really are all over the place on exactly where the line is but most courts have said 10% absolute disparity is really where you need to get before you really start looking closely at Sixth Amendment violations.

(To which judge Boehm said: “Eight percent sounds like a pretty good number to me, it’s one out of every twelve jurors… it’s enough to be a juror.”)

Zolo won that round, and so it’s fun to watch. Really, not boring like i’d imagine a court video would be – we know it’ll be the good outcome and this is so surprising that it makes the whole back and forth as interesting as it is on Law & Order or some such. But really, when you think about it what’s so nice to see is the surprising result, that in this instance the racist DA actually lost. His argument – that “minorities” can be excluded from juries if they live in areas where they form less than 10% of the population – was so racist – as it would essentially disenfranchise people of colour throughout most of the United States – that it just couldn’t fly. Might upset the neo-colonial apple cart, you know.

As Deutsch points out, this “glitch” reduced the possibility of getting even one Black juror by 25%... and yeah, lo and behold, surprise surprise, Zolo was sentenced to die by a jury with not a single Black person on it.

What difference might even one Black juror have made? Well, the issue is spelled out in this exchange between judge Boehm and Lafuse:

Boehm: The fact that this is a death penalty recommendation, gives us the statistical correlation between African-American jurors attitudes towards the death penalty as a basis for thinking that even if you’re generally correct that this is acceptable or at least not reversible error, in this procedural posture it is. Would you comment on that point?

Lafuse: With regard to the constitutional claim I’m not aware of any case anywhere that has held that death penalty cases are different analysis under Durham than non-death penalty cases. I don’t believe that there’s any case that so holds and I suggest to you that this is not a case that you should so hold.

Boehm: Well it gives us some hard evidence as to the prospect that this might really have made a difference in the result, that you don’t normally have.

Lafuse: I don’t think there’s any evidence in the record to that effect and I’m… I would not… well there may be some… I’m… I’m not sure that that’s a proper basis for this court to review this claim…

The judges ended up deciding against Lafuse, holding that Zolo’s death penalty should indeed be reversed (or “vacated”).

In 2005 Zolo’s attorneys went to the Allen County Superior Court, arguing that the State should not be allowed to seek the death over twenty years after the fact, after having had such a sentence reversed twice already. Judge Steve David agreed, and issued an order barring the State from seeking the death penalty.

The legal logic behind this decision is pretty straight-forward. In a sentencing hearing the key questions have to do with “aggravation” and “mitigation.” In this case one part of the State’s “aggravation” evidence is simply that the victim was a cop – it’s clear-cut and just as objectively true today as it was twenty years ago and as it will be a hundred years from now. The further “aggravating” factor is evidence that was presented at Zolo’s 1981 trial which was thought to show that Zolo had shot the cop in a particularly nasty way.

This is important. You see, the State used a make believe horror-movie scenario to secure its death penalty, claiming that Zolo (who was not even arrested at the scene, and who the GSR test showed had not even fired a gun) went over to where the police officer lay wounded on the ground, and shot him in the head execution style. For no reason, we would assume, except pure barbaric sadism. (Which is what tv teaches us white folks to expect from Black people, of course.)

The two eyewitnesses and two scientific witnesses to this “fact” are now all dead. The scientific witnesses who provided the “science” regarding the execution shot did so based on very shaky logic (Deutsch calls it “junk science”), but they obviously cannot be cross-examined today. Likewise, the eyewitnesses actually contradicted each other, but they can’t be cross-examined either.

Nor could they use videotapes or transcripts of these witnesses being cross-examined before they died… because wouldn’t you know it, Zolo’s first legal aid “defense” attorney never even bothered to question anyone about these inconsistencies!

Not only can the defense not cross examine the prosecution’s dubious witnesses, but it is severely hampered in its ability to present mitigation evidence. That is because so many of the people who were closest to Zolo at the time of his conviction, who could most powerfully speak to his character and accomplishments, are dead now. His mother, his aunt, co-workers, even his family doctor have all passed away.

(Need it be mentioned that in Zolo’s first two trials no mitigation evidence was ever entered by his inept court-appointed lawyer?)

So on “both sides” many important witnesses are dead, but because of the rigged nature of Zolo’s first trial all of the weight from this superficially “equal” disadvantage is on him.

As judge Dickson would later admit:

it seems to me that as we look at who is going to be effected by the absence of live evidence, is it going to be the defense or the State, it seems to be the argument can be made that it’s going to be more borne by the defense than by the State because the State really has no burden of proof as to the weighing issue, because the statute really puts that burden on the defense.

Or, to quote judge Rucker:

Both eyewitnesses to the alleged offense are now, to the fatal shooting, the shooting at close range, are dead. Other critical witnesses to establish the defendant’s role in the crime are dead. Relevant evidence has been destroyed. Mitigation witnesses necessary to explain the defendant’s character etcetera are dead. Those are factual findings that the trial court made.

(The Supreme Court judges’ comments were made in the June 2006 hearing to appeal David’s order… see below…)

Finally, there is a real danger that a jury will look at the fact that Zolo has been in prison for over twenty years without any negative incidents, and go “Oh my god, if we don’t give him death he’ll be out on good behaviour!”… in other words, what should be evidence in Zolo’s favour (“good behaviour”) is actually very likely to play against him.

Judge David’s decision, while it was certainly a victory for Zolo, speaks volumes to the kind of morally bankrupt system that prevails in America.

You see, David is a supporter of the death penalty, and his ruling that the State should be barred from trying to kill Zolo at this point is because he fears that doing so would discredit the judicial death-machine. In his ruling he stated that “the interest of the public” weighs against the death penalty, not because the death penalty is racist or wrong, but rather because Zolo received such a blatantly unfair trial that to pursue it would undermine “public confidence in the death penalty.”

Covering one’s ass, one might say…

********

So, to recap: as of 2005 Zolo’s death sentence had been overturned not once but twice. The State had been exposed as having suppressed evidence that would have pointed to Zolo’s innocence. His jury was revealed to have been “accidentally” whitened. A judge who himself supports the death penalty nevertheless issued an order barring the State from seeking it in Zolo’s case, because to do so would risk exposing the US death system for the travesty of justice that it is.

So what the fuck happens next?

Well, no surprise here: the Indiana Deputy Attorney General is appealing judge David’s decision. They say he “abused his discretion” in barring them from seeking a third death sentence.

They want another chance to kill Zolo.

So in June of this year Arthur Thaddeus Perry appeared before the Indiana Supreme Court, the latest in that long list of white men who have lined up “democratically,” “legally,” and most certainly calmly argue that Zolo should executed. (Indeed, to watch these guys talk you’d think they were comparing brands of low-fat yogurt the way they’re so blasé and dispassionate while essentially asking for permission to commit murder.)

You can check out the video of this hearing on the Indiana Courts site, too. It’s largely a recap of what i describe above.

Eyebrow-raiser: Perry had the gall to refer to Richard Moore vs. State to support his argument. This is the case of Dhoruba bin Wahad, another Black radical who the State also tried to sentence to death years after his conviction. Dhoruba unsuccessfully argued that such a sentence passed a full decade after the crime in question constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

What Perry of course did not mention – because it’s really, really telling – is that Dhoruba was never executed, in fact he won his freedom in 1990 after it was revealed that the FBI had suppressed evidence that could have cleared him of his 1971 attempted double-cop murder charge!

You see, Dhoruba – like Zolo – was the victim of a racist frame-up. Like Zolo, the State sought death both as part of its general policy of violently “making an example of” any unlucky Black person and as part of its specific program to neutralize Black radical politics.

For, like Zolo, Dhoruba was singled out because he had radical Black nationalist politics.

What it says about this “model democracy” that the best they can do to excuse one corrupt procedure is to draw on their case law from another… their jurisprudence is truly riddled with the echoes of racist crimes, of America’s five hundred year war against Black people…

********

Zolo Agona Azania should not be in prison. Period.

He is a revolutionary, a person who at a very young age dedicated his life to making the world a better place. Opposing the vicious oppression that America inflicts on Black people. Standng up against the violence that capitalism inflicts on poor people.

That’s why the State went all out to get him, even though the evidence pointed elsewhere. Evidence that, true to form, the cops and prosecutors had no difficulty in hiding away…

As Dhoruba bin Wahad has said, “If you do not stand up for the freedom and dignity of political prisoners who went to prison and sacrificed their lives for the movement and empowerment of their people then one day you might be a political prisoner and there’ll be no movement to support you.”

Worth remembering… worth acting on…

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Queers, Imperialism and Homophobia in Iran: Interesting Article from Gay City News

Print PDF

Vienna Protest Against Execution of Queer Teens in Iran

The following is a very interesting and thoughtful argument about how queers in the US can best to act in solidarity with their “sexual minority” counterparts in Iran. While i may not be in the same groove as the authors, i also don’t disagree with any of what they’re saying. (It’s more one of those i-ain’t-a-‘human rights activist’ kinda things.)

Worth discussing and thinking about, as the issues playing out in this debate are the same issues playing out all over imperialism’s current conflict with the Islamic world, be it in Lebanon or Iraq or Afghanistan. So, without further ado, here it is:

PERSPECTIVE/ THE IRAN DEBATE

People-to-People Dialogue Key to Human Rights Progress

by Mitra Roshan and Kourosh Shemiani
Gay City News August 3-9 2006

The July 19 actions marking the anniversary of the execution of two young men in Mashad, Iran, have initiated an important discussion about the role Western LGBT activists can play in relation to persecuted minorities around the world.

We feel the July 19 actions were fundamentally flawed and showed a dangerous trend in LGBT politics, which could lead to a counterproductive, if not outright destructive, situation for sexual minorities in Iran and other countries. The problems are both in the misuse of facts and in a poorly developed strategy that is unlikely to achieve its purported goals.

First, the proof that the hangings were carried out because the two young men were lovers has not been verified by any credible organizations. Neither Human Rights Watch nor the International Gay And Lesbian Human Rights Commission could find conclusive evidence of the homophobic nature of the executions, or of a marked increase in homophobic policies by Iran’s new administration. The evidence offered was by a handful of gay activists, journalists, and bloggers who, in some cases, cited second or third-hand hidden conversations with anonymous sources inside Iran. It is disturbing to see some of the most respected veterans of LGBT politics be carried away by such reports.

Our suspicion of the cyber-writers is deepened by the language and attitude that they have adopted to talk about Iran. For example, Peter Tatchel, the head of OutRage!, proclaimed, “This is just the latest barbarity by the Islamo-fascists in Iran,” and he goes on to advocate economic sanctions and political isolation for Iran. And Doug Ireland has repeatedly used the word “pogrom” to refer to the situation of sexual minorities. This language is more in harmony with the “clash of civilizations” rhetoric adopted by the Bush administration than with human rights advocacy. It paints the violence of the Iranian regime as in a class of its own, barbaric and distinct from the presumably civilized violence of the war on Iraq, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo.

For this reason, the caveat of “no war with Iran” added to the bottom of the list of demands of the July 19 actions rang hollow and disingenuous. Intentionally or not, this rhetoric adds ammunition to the current U.S. administration’s stated goal of isolating and possibly attacking Iran, a policy that has nothing to do with protecting sexual minorities.

U.S. invasions have always required a liberal-sounding pill to make them digestible for the majority of Americans. In Somalia, Afghanistan, and the rest of the Middle East, that pill has been the condition of women, always quickly forgotten after the actions have gone forward. As recent events have made only more clear, in the Middle East, U.S. actions do not lead to greater security or freedom of any groups of people, least of all persecuted minorities.

So in the same vein, we are seeing Iranian sexual minorities, undeniable victims, held up and named as “gay” (regardless of how they identify themselves) and in need of our intervention. It is perhaps an indication of the times that established, respected veterans of American LGBT activism are following a path laid down by the neoconservatives’ failed attempts at imposed liberation.

This leads us to the second concern, the question of strategy. The actions on July 19 were not thoughtfully tailored to achieve their goal of getting Iran to “stop killing queers and kids.” In fact, the actions were counterproductive and potentially dangerous because their main tactic was to bring international attention to individuals and communities that survive, in part, because of their relative invisibility. Furthermore, if there is in fact no increase in persecution of sexual minorities in Iran, this action could well help instigate it.

In addition, Western activists need to be thoughtful about which Iranians they hold up as “representing” the interests of sexual minorities in Iran. While some groups have come forward with clearly admirable intentions, this very young movement needs time to develop its political analysis and strategies. The Western activists’ claim that they are following the lead of Iranian gays and lesbians is untrue and unacceptable as a justification.

The Persian Gay and Lesbian Organization (PGLO), which supported but did not initiate the July 19 actions, is following a road that is politically and strategically misconceived. We fear that the PGLO is in danger of placing itself outside of a strong and inspirational movement within Iran for democracy. Within this movement of intellectuals, trade unionists, and journalists, none has called for economic and political hostility as advocated by the gay activists with whom PGLO has become allied. In fact, the most prominent Iranian activists — from the Nobel Prize winner Shirin Ebadi to the journalist and former political prisoner Akbar Ganji — have specifically called for an opposite kind of politics that does not buy into the “clash of civilizations” rhetoric of racism and hysteria that the Western gay crusaders have fallen into. It is absolutely essential for the PGLO to also distance itself from such people and positions.

Much as in the U.S., the protection of sexual minorities is fundamentally a cultural issue that must be addressed through personal experiences and public debates that draw on values important to the entire community. Iranians are already engaged in these debates. Just one example is the situation of the transsexual people who are at the forefront of a cultural transformation in Iran, demanding greater respect and rights. The case for sexual minorities in Iran might first come through this movement and not from gay or lesbian-identified individuals. Change is already under way, and although it will be a slow, arduous road, it is unlikely to follow a Western pattern or be hastened by Western intervention.

Does this mean there is nothing impassioned LGBT activists in the U.S. can do to support sexual minorities in Iran? No, not at all. But it does mean that activists have to take a broad view of the issue of and be conscious of their own positioning. We have three recommendations for opening up the discussion:

1. Challenge official policies that limit people-to-people contacts between Iran and the West. The U.S. government has put severe limitations on the ability of American citizens and institutions to help and form relations with their Iranian counterparts. The Iranian government has taken similar steps, and in the process, the ignorance and mistrust are growing on both sides. With the emergence of independent organizations advocating for the rights of groups like women, transsexual people, prisoners, and disabled people, among others, the Iranian people have extended their hands, and we need to fight for our right to reach out to them.

1. Stop U.S. aggression toward Iran. If the shadow of U.S. military and economic pressure on the Iranian regime is lessened, the Iranian people will have increased breathing room to deal with their own regime and to resist it in a meaningful way. U.S grandstanding only plays into the hands of the Iranian hardliners, creating an external enemy around which they can rally support.

1. Most importantly, we must come to terms with the fact that we are limited in our ability to effect positive change in the rest of the world. This is the price we pay for living under the shadows of George Bush’s America and a history of Western domination, as our actions are always implicated in our nation’s global power. Therefore, it is first and foremost our responsibility to rein in our own government’s aggression and militarism and to be extremely careful in how we use our power as Westerners. This is a hard pill to swallow for many die-hard activists, but it is a fact that we have to face honestly and courageously. Only then will we be able to build responsible and productive grassroots politics in relation to the rest of the world.

Mitra Roshan and Kourosh Shemirani are founders of QIAm (Queer Iran Alliance). They are both Iranian-American activists and although they are using pseudonyms because they travel to Iran, they welcome all dialogue and contact at qiam2006@yahoo.com.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST