• WHAT ELSE DOES BARRY BONDS HAVE TO DO TO CONVINCE YOU THAT HE’S THE G.O.A.T.????? Barring injury, Bonds is on pace to obliterate Hank Aaron’s record before August.
• The only person tearing of the league more than Bonds right now is Alex Rodriguez, who hit two HRs last night in order to become the fastest player to 14. I’m sure the league is loving his current hot streak, as it gives everyone an excuse to ignore Barry Bonds’ pursuit.
• Am I the only one who feels like Venus and Serena are squandering legendary careers?
• The Houston Rockets are playing at an extremely high level right now. With T-Mac playing his usual superstar role in the playoffs and Yao-Ming dominating the middle, H-Town is a major dark horse. Although they’re not quite deep enough to win it all, expect them to continue destroying the Utah Jazz and make a serious run toward the Western Finals.
• The Denver Nuggets seem to be gelling at the right time. Like the Rockets, Denver’s not good enough to win it all –their defense is extremely inconsistent– but can scare the hell out of the league’s best on any given night.
• Does anyone realize how good Chris Bosh is?

As reported in two recent Associated Press articles (1, 2), the Philadelphia District Attorney has filed a motion asking the entire 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to recuse itself from black death-row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal’s case on grounds that Gov. Ed Rendell, whose wife serves on the court, was district attorney during Abu-Jamal’s 1982 trial. The DA argues that if the court rules unfavorably for Abu-Jamal, the defendant could then argue that the ruling was a result of bias from the court, and as the Associated Press wrote, the DA allegedly “wants to leave Abu-Jamal no grounds for any future appeal.”

Assistant District Attorney Hugh J. Burns Jr. wrote in his motion that since “Mr. Rendell was the elected district attorney at the time in question, and so would have been responsible for the supposed ‘routine’ racially discriminatory practices of Philadelphia prosecutors, Abu-Jamal’s accusations necessarily implicate Mr. Rendell personally.”

This request followed the March 22 announcement that Abu-Jamal would have oral arguments in Philadelphia on May 17, where the court will consider four different issues that have already been certified for appeal. Supporters have already begun organizing a mass-demonstration in Philadelphia on May 17, and many feel that the DA’s request is actually designed 1) to delay the oral arguments and 2) to move Abu-Jamal’s case to a more conservative circuit that will be less sympathetic to the issues being presented for a new trial.

Abu-Jamal’s attorney, Robert R, Bryan, strongly opposed this move by the District Attorney and filed his response with the court on April 13.

In this interview (conducted on April 16), Bryan responds to this recent move from the DA and provides background on the issues being considered on May 17.

San Francisco attorney Robert R. Bryan has appeared as chief counsel in numerous murder cases and specializes in death-penalty litigation. He is a member of the bar of the United States Supreme Court, California, New York, Alabama, various federal courts, and is the former Chair of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, Washington, DC.

Mumia Abu-Jamal first began writing Mr. Bryan in 1986 and in 1991 formally asked him to take his case. The attorney had to decline at that time due to a full schedule of other capital case commitments. In 2003 Mr. Bryan was again approached, and finally agreed to become lead counsel for Mr. Abu-Jamal. He can be contacted via email: RobertRBryan@aol.com

---

Hans Bennett: Last week, you filed a response to the DA’s request to have the 3rd Circuit Court recuse itself? What’s this all about?Robert R. Bryan: I was surprised that the Philadelphia District Attorney actually asked for the disqualification of every judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This seems really over the top. On Friday, April 13, I filed a response aggressively opposing this effort by the DA. One of my concerns is that the prosecution not be allowed to use this ploy to delay oral argument which is set for May 17.

Mumia has been locked up for over a quarter of a century and on death row for 24. This day for oral arguments has been a long time coming and we do not want justice delayed. That is the bottom line. Also, I feel that this court can be fair. The grounds presented by the DA for disqualification of every judge are baseless and absurd.

I have been doing death penalty work for three decades and this is a novel approach. Of course, in some cases a judge might not be fair and must be disqualified. An example would be when I reopened in New Jersey the Hauptmann-Lindbergh Trial of the Century on behalf of Anna Hauptmann, the widow of Richard Hauptmann. He was executed in 1936 for the kidnap-murder of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr.; that was long before I was born. In the 1980s I uncovered evidence suppressed by the government establishing that Mr. Hauptmann was in fact innocent. We were litigating the case in the U.S. District Court, Newark. I asked for the recusal of the judge assigned to the case in the belief he could not be fair because his father had been involved in the initial 1932 Lindbergh kidnap investigation as a police chief.

Recusal is statutorily required where a judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed facts, or where there is the appearance of impropriety. However, I do not see those conditions in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, where the DA wants to disqualify not just one judge, but rather the entire court.

Bennett: Has the three-judge panel even been selected yet?

Bryan: No. We do not at this point know whom the three judges will be to hear and decide the case. For the District Attorney to be asking for disqualification under the circumstances seems absurd.

Bennett: In December, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals shocked many by agreeing to consider two claims not “certified for appeal” by Judge Yohn in 2001. Do you think the DA is threatened by the 3rd Circuit because they may fairly consider the issues and grant your client a new trial?

Bryan: The prosecution seems intent on doing just about anything to avoid that result: a new trial not riddled with racism. The DA’s efforts seem not only for the purpose of delaying the May 17 oral argument, but is also a transparent attempt to maneuver the case into being heard by really conservative judges from other circuits. This court, the Third Circuit, has a reputation for being fair and evenhanded, much more than some of the other courts. That is all Mumia and I want—fairness.

The United States is divided into different circuits. This particular circuit is known for being just, particularly when there have been constitutional abuses and has been willing to grant relief. It is clear what the DA is trying to do. The prosecution wants Mumia’s case out of the Third Circuit and heard instead by judges from elsewhere who are more conservative and less concerned about constitutional violations, particularly with death penalty cases such as this.

A word of caution. Being in the Third Circuit certainly does not guarantee a favorable outcome. What Mumia and I want is that his case be fairly heard and adjudged. If that occurs then we have a good chance of being granted a new trial, since the constitutional violations are so egregious. Racism and unfairness are threads that have run through this case since the beginning.

For the rest of the interview, click here. 

MSNBC’s Bold Post-Imus Move: Another White Guy
By John Ridley
So, this Monday through Wednesday Philadelphia morning radio host Michael Smerconish will be simulcast on MSNBC in the spot once held by humanitarian Don Imus.

Zero sarcasm by the way with “humanitarian.” That Imus was a mensch. Yes he was.

But about Smerconish: I don’t live in Philly. Don’t listen to him on the radio.

Seen him on TV some. And though a certain left-leaning watchdog media site has early on tried to slant public opinion against him, the supposedly incendiary remarks they use as examples of bias came off to me more as preaching to the choir rather than true “isms.” Fairly tame when compared to what else is out there. At the moment I can’t say as I have anything in particular against Smerconish.Personally.

It’s Smerconish as a concept that I abhor.

On the day Imus was fired – on MSNBC ironically – I wished aloud that NBC News would make an attempt at diversity and replace the I-Man with someone who was not more of the same.

Clearly, if anyone was listening, they didn’t care.

So, now, instead of a fresh perspective, we are treated to yet another version of the I-man with a better-kept dome.

I’ve read an article from one outlet that tries to lamely explain why MSNBC had to go in a Smerconish-like direction: if they didn’t hire a Conservative the Right would accuse MSNBC of caving to bias.

Okay. Fine. Hire a Right-leaner. But are there no Conservative Asian commentators? Is Conservatism prohibited among Latinos or Near Easterners? I know there are Right-leaning women. And what better way for MSNBC to both placate Conservatives and give the Left a poke in the eye than by giving airtime to a person of color who refuses to remain trapped on the Liberal Plantation?

For the rest of the story, click here. 

Our newest Barbershop feature, “Say What?,” is devoted to lyrics that are either wack or don’t make much sense. Our inaugural line comes from Beanie Sigel. Although Beans is one of my favorite rappers, his chorus on “Change the Game” has always stuck in my craw:

“Uh-huh, sick bastard / Get your wig pushed back by the wig push-backer”

How long did it take him to write that?

Today’s photo of the day shows two of our favorite Barbershop regulars. Anybody want to guess who they are? (If you already know them, don’t guess!)