George Bochetto: Larry Krasner Sees Mumia Abu-Jamal As 'Crown Jewel' In His 'Trophy Case' Of Murderers & Rapists Who Walked

By Ralph Cipriano
for BigTrial.net

George Bochetto, the lawyer who represents the widow of slain Police Officer Danny Faulkner, has no doubt about what D.A. Larry Krasner is up to when it comes to convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.

The D.A., who's ostensibly supposed to be the prosecutor in the latest appeal filed over the nearly 40-year-old murder case, is doing whatever he can to free Mumia, Bochetto charged today in a blunt interview.

If the D.A. is successful, Bochetto said, Mumia "would be the crown jewel in Krasner's trophy case of convicted murderers and rapists that he's walked." But in his attempts to free Mumia, Bochetto said, Krasner has simultaneously trampled on the rights of Faulkner's widow, Maureen. 

"There's a whole body of law, both statutory and case law, regarding victim's rights, which Larry Krasner's taken a lawn mower to," Bochetto said.

So on Tuesday, Bochetto filed an application in state Superior Court on behalf of Maureen Faulkner that not only requests that Mumia's latest appeal be quashed, but also seeks to disqualify the D.A. from continuing to serve as prosecutor in the never-ending Mumia case.

It's the second time in the past three years that Bochetto has gone to court seeking to disqualify Krasner as from prosecuting the Mumia case. But this time around, Bochetto is following a road map laid out by a state Supreme Court justice who previously stated concerns in writing about the D.A.'s multiple and glaring conflicts of interest in the Mumia case. 

What's the D.A. have to say in response? As he has done for the past 19 months, Krasner and Jane Roh, his official spokesperson, did not respond to a Big Trial request for comment.

In an interview, Bochetto ripped Krasner for his latest filing in the Mumia case, a rambling 96-page legal brief that was finally filed last month after the state Superior Court granted five different extensions on filing that brief.

According to Bochetto, Krasner's 96-page opus reveals a "shocking dereliction of duty and an obvious attempt to tank the conviction so he [Krasner] will be able to walk Mumia."

A little background's in order here. It was Krasner who was directly responsible for the latest appeal in the Mumia case.

Shortly after he took over as D.A., Krasner claimed to have found six boxes of newly discovered evidence in the Mumia case lying around the D.A.'s office. The eager D.A. subsequently gave the boxes to Mumia's lawyers who filed a fifth post-conviction appeal on those documents, after the state Supreme Court had rejected four previous post-conviction appeals.

When the latest appeal went to court, Krasner promptly laid down as the D.A.'s office announced it would not oppose Mumia's latest bid for a new trial.

But Krasner had gone off half-cocked. The D.A. did nothing to verify whether anything in those boxes of alleged newly discovered evidence was really new, such as calling Joseph McGill, the original prosecutor in the case. 

McGill subsequently filed an affidavit on behalf of Maureen Faulkner, claiming there was indeed nothing new in those boxes. So did retired Detective Joseph Walsh, the cop who four decades ago carried those boxes into the D.A.'s office.

In 2019, Bochetto went into state Supreme Court and filed a King's Bench petition seeking to disbar Krasner as prosecutor in the most recent appeal of Mumia's 1982 conviction for murdering Danny Faulkner.

In his brief filed in state Superior Court, Bochetto says it's clear that Mumia's lawyers erred by missing a court filing deadline, a point previously noted by state Supreme Court Justice Kevin Dougherty.

In the D.A.'s latest 96-page brief, on page 21 the D.A. concedes that Mumia's latest appeal should be quashed because "it appears that defendant did not timely raise the claim," so the courts were "statutorily barred from granting relief."

But the D.A. buried that point in the 96-page brief and didn't "highlight the issue for this court, so that the panel does not have to even decide the merits of Abu-Jamal's PCRA [Post-Conviction Relief Act] appeal," Bochetto wrote.

"From Ms. Faulkner's perspective, the DAO filing its merit brief without first moving to quash and without even including a separate heading in the brief is extremely troubling," Bochetto wrote.

When the D.A.'s office filed their 96-page brief, nobody in the D.A.'s office bothered to provide a copy to Maureen Faulkner, or her lawyers, Bochetto wrote. 

"A copy of the brief was only obtained after Mrs. Faulkner requested it from the DAO’s victims unit," Bochetto wrote.

Krasner is supposed to be the prosecutor in the latest appeal to get Mumia a new trial. But as prosecutor, the D.A. didn't even bother to file a motion to quash Mumia's latest appeal based on the fact that Mumia's lawyers didn't file it on time, Bochetto wrote.

On top of that, Bochetto wrote, "The DAO has failed to provide any sort of an explanation why a separate motion to quash was not filed."

In a 23-page concurring statement issued last December, state Supreme Court Justice Dougherty wrote that he wanted to "address some of the troubling claims" raised by Bochetto in his King's Bench petition. Dougherty described the conflicts of interest in the D.A.'s office as "claims that may require closer judicial scrutiny should the DAO seek to continue its representation of the Commonwealth in any future proceedings in Abu-Jamal’s case."

"I believe [Faulkner] has actually made a colorable [legitimate] showing that the DAO is afflicted by (at the very least) the appearance of a conflict of interest such as to impede the fair and impartial administration of justice in Abu-Jamal's case," Justice Dougherty wrote.

In his statement, Justice Dougherty viewed as "questionable" the D.A.'s decision to not oppose Mumia's request for a new trial in state Superior Court, based on that alleged newly discovered evidence that turned out to be nothing new. Justice Dougherty also faulted Krasner for not following state Supreme Court procedures when it came to dealing with post-conviction appeals in Mumia's case.

In Bochetto's King's Bench petition to bar the D.A.'s office from prosecuting the Mumia case, Bochetto targeted Krasner's radical past as a "movement attorney" and "strategist" on behalf of R2K, a legal collective organized by the National Lawyers Guild. The left-wing outfit has long listed Mumia as an active board member. The guild also proclaimed it was dedicated to freeing Mumia and other "political prisoners" who are victims of the "prison industrial complex."

In the King's Bench petition, Bochetto also cited several alleged conflicts of interest in the D.A.'s office, starting with Paul George, identified as the D.A.'s current head of the appeals unit. George, Bochetto wrote, "was previously Jamal's lawyer" who "asserted that Jamal is innocent and that his conviction was the result of fabricated evidence, subornation of perjury and a false confession."

Bochetto also cited as another conflict of interest in the D.A.'s office Jody Dodd, Krasner's former paralegal from his private law practice. Dodd became the head of D.A.'s "Reconciliation Unit," despite being an active member of the Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal," Bochetto wrote.

Another conflict cited by Bochetto was civil rights lawyer Michael Coard, whom Bochetto described as a "close political advisor" and a member of Krasner's transition team. Coard, Bochetto wrote, "publicly celebrates the murder of police officers." According to Bochetto, Coard also "advocates in multiple public forums for Jamal's innocence and [claims] that his conviction was based on police fabricating evidence."

In his brief filed this week in state Superior Court, Bochetto argued that the D.A.'s office, in its 96-page brief, was required to "take every effort to highlight the issue for the court" about Mumia's lawyers missing the filing deadline.

"The DAO has not done so here, and once again Mrs. Faulkner, aware of the DAO’s multiple conflicts of interest, is left wondering why?" Bochetto wrote.

"Mrs. Faulkner should not have to worry any longer," Bochetto concluded. "This court should grant this Application, allow her to intervene, disqualify the DAO from further proceedings in this matter (including any remand or subsequent PCRA proceedings in the Trial Court), and lastly quash this appeal as untimely."