INTRODUCTION
I. JUSTICE CASTILLE SHOULD BE RECUSED FROM ANY FURTHER PARTICIPATION IN THESE PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE THE POST-CONVICTION/STATE HABEAS PETITION UNDERLYING THIS APPEAL CONTAINS A BATSON CLAIM.
II. THE PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS' STRIKE RATE FOR BLACK JURORS EXPERIENCED ITS MOST DRAMATIC INCREASE DURING THE CASTILLE ADMINISTRATION AFTER THE BATSON DECISION CAME DOWN AND THE MCMAHON VIDEOTAPE WAS PRODUCED.
III. OF THE THREE BATSON DECISIONS BY THIS COURT INVOLVING THE MCMAHON VIDEOTAPE WHICH ARE KNOWN TO APPELLANT'S COUNSEL , THE ONLY ONE IN WHICH RELIEF WAS GRANTED WAS THAT IN WHICH JUSTICE CASTILLE RECUSED HIMSELF.
A careful review of the particular circumstances of each of these cases provides strong additional support for granting this motion to recuse Justice Castille.
IV. THIS COURT RULED IN BASEMORE THAT THERE IS AN UNQUESTIONABLE INFERENCE OF "INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION" ON THE PART OF ANY PROPONENT OF THE PRACTICES DESCRIBED IN THE MCMAHON VIDEOTAPE.
V. THE TERM "ANY PROPONENT" OF THESE PRACTICES MUST NECESSARILY INCLUDE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHOSE NAME AND TITLE APPEAR IN THE FIRST FRAMES OF THE VIDEOTAPE ALONG WITH THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA ・JUSTICE RONALD D. CASTILLE.
VI. JUSTICE CASTILLE PARTICIPATED IN THIS COURT'S DECISIONS IN LARK AND ROLLINS WITHOUT DISCLOSING TO THE COURT OR THE PARTIES THE FACT THAT HIS NAME AND TITLE AS DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPEAR IN THE FIRST FRAMES OF THE MCMAHON VIDEOTAPE ALONGSIDE THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA AND THE LOGO OF "DATV PRODUCTIONS."
Appellant also claims that the existence of a training tape created [emphasis added] by then-Assistant District Attorney Jack McMahon (who did not prosecute Appellant) in 1987, which instructed prosecutors to manipulate the jury selection process in order to minimize the seating of African-American jurors, supports his Batson claim. Appellant is incorrect as the existence of the tape does not demonstrate that there was discrimination in his case. 738 A2d at 443, n. 10.
"We reject Appellant's suggestion that Attorney McMahon's statements during a training session in 1986 or 1987 governed the conduct of a different prosecutor in 1985 merely because both attorneys worked in the same office. We have also previously determined that the tape is not sufficient to establish a policy of discrimination in jury selection by the prosecutors in the District Attorney's Office of Philadelphia County ... [citing Rollins] Thus, the McMahon tape in and of itself 租oes not demonstrate that there was discrimination in his case ... [again citing Rollins] and cannot form an independent basis for a Batson claim." 746 A2d at 589.
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, Appellant's motion for remand to take testimony under oath of Justice Ronald D. Castille should be granted.
Dated: July 3, 2002
Respectfully submitted,
MUMIA ABU-JAMAL Appellant
NICK BROWN
ELIOT LEE GROSSMAN
MARLENE KAMISH
Attorneys for
Appellant Mumia Abu-Jamal
MIKE FARRELL
Local Counsel for Appellant