A fair trial was impossible before the notorious King of Death row Judge Albert F. Sabo!

1. Sabo was infamously known for his Pro-Prosecution stance in his court room.
2. Sabo was known to have a jurisprudence of his own.
3. 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 name Norris Gelman, explains: "A trial in front of Sabo means that the Prosecutor has the home court"

Another attorney named Phillip L 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 courtroom.

Judge Sabo earned the title, King of Death Row because he has more people on death row than any judge in the state and country.

Eleven of Sabo's death penalty cases were 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 rate does not include the many defendants, such as Carmen Woods, serving life sentences because of Sabo’s judgment.

Sabo fails on every count; many defense attorneys, judges, and prosecutors agree. The Inquirer’s 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, fair, and 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 briefly review a few cases, as well as Woods’ and Jones’ trial, where Sabo perpetuated his pattern of undermining the defense and aiding or abetting the prosecution in his rulings.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Sabo's sympathy towards the prosecution is at times so evident, that is not unusual for prosecutors to warn Sabo that he has gone to 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 pleads his defense and convinced the judge to back down.

CONTRAST
At Woods and Jones’ trial, the DA mentioned Jones’ arrest for a gun he was not convicted of; and unrelated to any of the charges Homer Lane alleged. (The DA’s motive was only to prejudice the defense).

Judge Sabo would rule in favor of the DA and allowed the prejudicial evidence in.

Jones’ lawyer asked 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.

Later, Sabo tried to correct this with instructions to the jury. However, he allowed the damage to be done. Remember Sabo said "You cannot bring up arrest to impeach unless one was convicted."

George Fassnatch was an expert forensics defense-witness at trial; he testified for many agencies Federal & State and mostly for the Commonwealth until 1971. 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 confiscated and charges were dropped; however,not all of his property was returned and he later sued the city to obtain the rest of his belongings, as well as the illegal raid of his home.

The lawsuit went on for ten years and a settlement was established; his arrest could never be expounded during his career as an expert witness.

Mr. Fassnatch took the stand in Woods and Jones’ trial and explained how the lead residue 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
During cross examination the DA showed hostility toward Mr. Fassnatch and did not take long before he questioned him about a confidential experience (The illegal arrest and raid). Mr. Fassnatch was never convicted for any criminal wrong doings; therefore, the defense lawyers objected.

Sabo held a sidebar conference only to allow the DA to question Mr. Fassnatch before the jury on this prejudicial information; the DA’s intention was for Mr. Fassnatch to look bad in front of the jury.

Sabo would later try to correct this by giving 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 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 killed the son?

A. I told him 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 cut off all cross examination during this series 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. Under cross-examination of Jones lawyer (Mr. Moser).

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.

We the committee of the Free Carmen Woods movement asks anyone willing to help to join us in overturning this wrongful conviction.

Read more:

The Judge Who Became Death Row's King

Judge Sabo's Legacy