|
MORE EVIDENCE OF INJUSTICE
A fair trail was impossible before the notorious King of Death Row Judge Albert F. Sabo!
- Sabo is infamously known for his Pro-Prosecution stance in his court room.
- Sabo is known to have a jurisprudence of his own.
- Woods & Jones could not have had a more unfair judge.
A Philadelphia Investigative reporter for the Inquirer (Frederik Tulsky) quoted a judge regarding Sabo’s courtroom ”A Vacation for Prosecutors”.
One of Carmen Woods appellate lawyers names Norris Gelman, explains: “A trial in front of Sabo means that the Prosecutor has the home court”
Another attorney named Phillip I. Weinberg charges in a sworn affidavit which names seven defendant lawyers, six of whom are former prosecutors ready to testify that they had the advantage in Judge Sabo’s Courtroom.
There was never an even playing field in Sabo’s court room.
Judge Sabo earned the title, "King of Death Row" because he has more people on death row than any judge in the State & Country.
Eleven of Sabo’s death Penalty cases have been reversed by appellate courts in part or total because of errors he either made himself or permitted in his courtroom.
This reversal rate of 34% represents one of the highest of any judge in Pennsylvania and the rest of the country. This is not including the defendants sentenced to life in his courtroom such as Carmen Woods.
Sabo fails on every count, many defense attorneys, judges and prosecutors agree. The inquirers Tulsky reports. “Sabo ran trials differently from most judges”.
The goal of any court should be to seek truth and serve Justice. Hence Judges are expected to be impartial and fair, free of bias. Not Sabo!
Judge Sabo contends he was “only the mechanic through which the jury verdict was carried out”. But this description ignores the immense power of presiding trial judges exerts as a Chief Arbiter of both the law and facts that the jury is instructed to consider. Let’s see some cases as well as Woods & Jones trial, where Sabo perpetuated his pattern of undermining the defense and aiding or abetting the prosecution in his rulings.
- Com. V Bryant, Sabo allowed the prosecutor to present evidence of prior unconnected and dissimilar crimes for which Bryant had been convicted. This was so egregious that the PA Supreme Court reversed Bryant’s conviction, saying “Commission of one crime is not proof of the commission of another”. The court ruled noting that such evidence serve to create prejudice.
- In Com v. Tilley Sabo warned the DA to be careful about raising the issue of the defendants drug use as it could lessen the charge from first degree to third degree.
- Sabo’s sympathy towards the prosecution is at times so evident, that is not unusual for prosecutors to warn Sabo that he has gone too far in support of their side: When Sabo held Abu Jamal’s attorney at trial in contempt and imposed a six month sentence, the DA pleaded his defense and convinced the judge to back down.
Sabo’s Iniquities at Woods & Jones Trial
- Michael Jones and Carmen Woods were tried together. When Jones was arrested May 24, 1982 he was found with a gun, unrelated to any of the charges Homer Lane alleged.
July 5, 1982 Homer Lane was arrested for having an illegal loaded 38 revolver (handgun) on 60th & Lansdowne Ave. He would not be prosecuted for this until after Woods & Jones trial.
Contrast
At Woods & Jones trial the DA wanted to bring out Jones arrest of the gun he had not been convicted of and was unrelated to any of the charges Homer Lane brought (The DA motive was only to prejudice the defense).
Judge Sabo would rule in favor of the DA and allow the prejudicial evidence in.
Jones lawyer would ask the judge for permission to bring in Homer Lane’s gun arrest for the jury to hear. Sabo would rule against this and go on to say “You can only impeach a witness” which he has been convicted of. But Jones was not convicted for the gun charge.
- George Fassnatch was an expert forensics defense witness at trial, he would testify for my agencies Federal & State and mostly for the Commonwealth until 1971 when his home was illegally raided by Frank Rizzo and the Philadelphia Police Department, many of his guns and explosives were taken and he was arrested. He had a license for everything that was taken and charges was dropped, not all his property was returned, and he sued for the rest of his property and the illegal raid of his home.
The suit went on for ten years, and a settlement was established that his arrest could never be expounded on in his career as an expert witness.
Mr. Fassnatch took the stand in Woods & Jones trial and explained how holes in Lane’s stolen car could have easily come from a ballpoint hammer, and one could not honestly determine this from just looking at a photo as the DA’s forensics expert did.
Contrast
On cross examination the DA showed hostility toward Mr. Fassnatch and did not take long before he questioned him on a restricted experience he had (The illegal arrest & raid). Mr. Fassnatch has never been convicted of this, the defense lawyers would object.
Sabo would hold a sidebar conference only to allow the DA to question Mr. Fassnatch before the jury on this prejudicial information, the DA wanted him to look bad in front of the jury.
Sabo would later try to correct this by instructions to the jury. However, he allowed the damage to be done. Remember Sabo said “You cannot bring out arrest to impeach not unless one was convicted.”
- Homer Lane was being questioned by Jones Lawyer about what he told Chester Laws, Sr. The day he went to the police:
Q. Did you say you told his father before you got shot at, who had killed the son?
A. I told, I had an idea, but I didn’t know for sure, he saw me talking to him.
Lane admitted he did not know who killed the son, this is substantial.
Contrast
Sabo would cut off all cross examination on this line of questioning, only to undermine the defense.
- Homer Lane made a statement on May 16, 1982 stating he knew nothing about this shooting. At trial he would deny any knowledge of this statement.
Contrast
At a side bar conference Sabo would vouch for the witness and say:
Moser: Judge, this is his statement
Sabo: Let me finish, it is not his statement, it is a statement made by the detective whether that detective made a mistake.
- At Trial, Woods lawyer admitted at a side bar conference that he represented Homer Lane on a rape case and got him off four years prior to representing Woods.
Contrast
Sabo did nothing in the face of an inherent conflict of interest.
All the aforementioned is the product of a Pro Prosecutor Judge that has a history and pattern of aiding and abetting the prosecutor and undermining the defense in his courtroom.
|
