This Is Lower Merion And Narberth

Serving the Main Line Community

PA Supreme Court Denies Faulkner Widow’s Request To Pull Mumia Case From D.A. Krasner

by

PA Supreme Court Denies Faulkner Widow’s Request To Pull Mumia Case From D.A Krasner

On December 16, a divided Pennsylvania Supreme denied a request by Maureen Faulkner, widow of slain Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner, to pull the Larry Krasner-led Philadelphia District Attorney’s office off the prosecution case against Mumia Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal was convicted of killing Faulkner’s husband in 1981, but Abu-Jamal maintains  that he was framed by the Philadlphia Police.

Abu-Jamal’s case has become a cause celebre, drawing the attention and the support of celebrities such as Whoopi Goldberg, Michael Moore, Ed Asner, Al Sharpton, and more recently, Colin Kaepernick.

Pennlive.com wrote that Faulkner – 

filed an unusual King’s Bench petition urging the justices to pull the office of DA Larry Krasner off the case and have the AG’s office defend Abu-Jamal’s conviction against appeals instead. In seeking that switch, Maureen Faulkner voiced concern that Krasner’s office “has been conflicted, has not litigated the case with due vigor.”

Faulkner was seeking to have the court to re-assign the case to the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office.

PhillyTrib.com reported that –

A judge appointed by the high court to look into the matter found no evidence the city prosecutor’s office won’t continue to defend Abu-Jamal’s conviction. Krasner told the appointed special master, Judge John Cleland, that he thinks Abu-Jamal is guilty of the killing.

Justice Sallie Mundy, the only judge who would have granted Maureen Faulkner’s request, said there is reason to conclude Krasner and his office are unable to handle the matter with impartiality. She would have replaced them with the attorney general’s office.

 

Judge Kevin Dougherty in a concurring opinion wrote –

Here, petitioner has exposed several grave and alarming allegations concerning District Attorney Krasner and his office’s ability to act impartially in this case. While I do not believe that now is the appropriate time for this Court to further explore those seriousand important claims, I do wish to reiterate a salient point raised by the Attorney General:
only the courts have “the power to police attorney conflicts of interest so that they do not distort judicial proceedings. In other words, should the DAO [District Attorney’s Office] seek to continue to represent the Commonwealth in this case, itmay well be encouraging more exacting judicial review of that decision in the future.