News in Brief

Philadelphia – In what may be the largest tort verdict ever in the Eastern District, a federal jury awarded more than $27 million to a Scranton-area widow whose husband and 5-year-old son were decapitated in a 1998 accident when a truck smashed their car into the back of a tractor-trailer.

But Kimberly Rapp is not likely to collect much, if any, of the huge verdict because the jury cleared the only defendant in the case that would have been able to pay it.

Although the jury found that Pablo Morales, the driver of the idle tractor-trailer, was negligent for failing to turn on his flashing hazard lights when highway traffic came to a stop, it also found that his negligence was not a “substantial factor” in causing the accident.

Instead, the jury found that Gurdev Singh and his now-defunct company, G.S. Freight Lines Inc., were 100 percent responsible for the accident.

Singh had conceded during the trial that he was at least partially responsible for the accident, but testified that he would have been able to stop his truck sooner if Morales had activated his hazard flashers.

Morales testified that he had turned the flashers on, but police reports and helicopter video of the accident showed only that the flashers were activated on the Rapps’ car.

By finding Morales negligent, the jury clearly rejected his testimony. But when it turned from the factual dispute to the legal dispute, the jury sided with the defense and said the accident would still have occurred even if the flashers were on.

One reason the verdict was so high is that Edwin Rapp was earning nearly $700,000 per year as a top executive with Bankers Trust New York. An economist testified that he would have earned up to $10.6 million more before retirement.

Attorneys for Abu-Jamal Launch New Defense

Philadelphia – One of America’s most famous death row cases has taken a dramatic turn as the new lawyers for convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal launch a new defense in the 20-year-old murder case – a fight over facts.

The change – marked by the release of the first-ever sworn statements by Abu-Jamal and his brother – contrasts with previous arguments that Abu-Jamal was framed by racist police and a biased judge.

‘Based on what was released, I think he should get an evidentiary hearing,’ Temple University law professor David Kairys said. ‘I just don’t think it helps stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal.’

Abu-Jamal, a former Black Panther and radio journalist, has long asserted that he didn’t kill Philadelphia police Officer Daniel Faulkner, who had pulled over Abu-Jamal’s brother in a traffic stop Dec. 9, 1981. Faulkner was shot twice in the head. Abu-Jamal, wounded by a bullet from Faulkner’s gun, was found alongside his gun, which had five spent shells.

Though Abu-Jamal has become an international cause celebre at the center of the anti-death penalty movement from his jailhouse writings, he did not testify in his 1982 trial or the 1995 appeal hearings. In the statement, he said he was advised not to testify by his former attorneys.

Abu-Jamal fired his decade-long defense team last month and hired three lawyers who had filed amicus briefs in the past year.

In the affidavits, Abu-Jamal and his brother, William Cook, do not explain the presence of Abu-Jamal’s gun. Both said they could not see who shot Faulkner or Abu-Jamal, but they said Abu-Jamal did not do it.

If evidentiary hearings or a new trial is ordered, Abu-Jamal still could decide not to testify – and avoid prosecutors’ cross-examination – but in that case, the recent affidavit would not be part of the court record.

Joseph McGill, who prosecuted Abu-Jamal in 1982 and has since become a defense attorney, said this could be one of the last big plays the defense team can make before Abu-Jamal exhausts his appeals. Abu-Jamal has an appeal pending in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Justices Remove Candidate From Ballot