top of page
Search

Assata Shakur: Fugitive or Freedom Fighter? A Legal and Cultural Lens on a Complicated Legacy

  • 2 days ago
  • 5 min read

By Sha'Necia Sims '26


Introduction


           Assata Olugbala Shakur, originally known as JoAnne Deborah Byron (later Chesimard), was born on July 16, 1947, in New York City. (1) Coming from an upbringing that emphasized equality and justice, she began her involvement in political activism during her years of higher education. Throughout her life, Shakur has made her mark through involvement in organizations such as Black Panthers and Black Liberation Army (BLA), leading her to fugitive status. (2)The BLA is a Black nationalist organization active during the 1970s, a pivotal decade for African Americans, marked by the ongoing struggle for liberation and self-defense. (3) Shakur’s role as a fugitive complicates her legacy: some view her as a criminal, while others see her as a freedom fighter. Assata's role in the BLA was similar to that of the other members. As stated in a BLA communiqué, “The enemy is no match for armed, determined warriors.” (4)  Assata was a frequent flyer in the criminal justice system because of her activist mentality. She refused to back down from confrontation when it came to her beliefs. 


The Turnpike Incident 


On May 2, 1973, Shakur, Sundiata Acoli, and Zayd Malik Shakur were stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike by State Troopers James Harper and Werner Foerster for a motor vehicle violation. Assata was a passenger in the car. (5) Clark Squire, who was later convicted of the death of Trooper Foerster, was the driver. After a confrontation escalated into gunfire, Trooper Foerster and Zayd Malik Shakur ended up dead, with Assata wounded and arrested. (6) Documents report that she and Acoli (BLA member) attempted to flee the scene but were later apprehended. In 1977, Assata Shakur was convicted of first-degree murder for the murder of Trooper Foerster and other offenses. Seven women and five men found her guilty of eight counts. (7) The counts include two for murder (the death of Trooper Foerster and James Costan); the rest involved various assaults, illegal possession of a weapon, and armed robbery. With the help of  BLA members posing as visitors who restrain guards and use a prison van in the operation, Assata escaped in 1979. (8)


During jury selection in October 1973, defense attorneys argued that the panel had been tainted, and the judge granted a motion to change the venue. (9) Shakur proceeded to face multiple trials in New York for unrelated charges, many of which ended in acquittal or dismissal. However, in New Jersey, prosecutors depicted her as a leader of the BLA, creating pressure on the jury to convict. William M. Kunstler (chief defense lawyer) further questioned the credibility of the jury. Juror John McGovern left the isolated residence and was returned by attendants of the sheriff twice. (10) It further emphasizes that Assata was not given a fair trial. (11) Jurors are expected to remain isolated from outside influences during a trial; these departures can raise concerns about whether the jury remained impartial. The presence of adverse publicity and racism meant that Assata stood no chance in the criminal justice system. Judge Theodore Appleby was not held accountable for the accusations against him by Shakur’s defense and the court. Shakur, often exhausted by repeated hearings, described her experience as dehumanizing. (12)


Legal Implications 


          Assata Shakur’s most widely known moment in American history is her 1979 escape from Clinton Correctional Facility in New Jersey. Long before her escape, however, her case had already raised significant constitutional and procedural questions. Her challenges to the court’s scheduling practices were shaped by the precedents set in Younger v. Harris (1971) and Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd. (1975), which restricted federal courts from intervening in ongoing state proceedings when a state remedy is available. (13) These decisions formed the basis for denying her request when she sought an accommodation for Jumuah, a sacred day in Sunni Islam. The New Jersey court wanted Assata to have a speedy trial. On April 12, 1976, Judge Theodore Appelby refused her motion to recess Friday proceedings, and the Appellate Division of the Superior Court affirmed this ruling. (14) Shakur maintained that the refusal infringed upon her First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. 


         Shakur’s case in State of New Jersey v. JoAnne Chesimard (1977) illustrates the convergence of law, race, and politics that influenced her prosecution. During a traffic stop, a shootout occurred that resulted in the deaths of Trooper Werner Foerster and Zayd Malik Shakur. (15) Assata was present during the incident and even sustained an injury. (16) The central legal question is whether her conviction for the death of Trooper Werner Foerster constituted a neutral application of criminal law or whether it reflected the political pressures associated with her involvement in the Black Liberation Army. While prosecutors defended the verdict, her advocates pointed to weak criminal mentality, inconsistent testimony, and extensive media portrayals that cast her as a political threat. (17)  These concerns raise a broader inquiry: to what extent can legal proceedings remain neutral when the state views the defendant as a political adversary? 


          The court’s application of New Jersey’s accomplice liability statute (N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6) further complicates this question. The statute permits an individual who assists another in a criminal act to be punished as if they were the principal. (18) In Shakur’s case, her association with the Black Liberation Army was used to infer intent and political motive, blurring the boundary between individual culpability and ideological affiliation. This dynamic also implies the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Her political identity and membership in a militant Black organization shaped assumptions about her guilt and undermined the principle of individualized justice. 


          Concerns regarding her Sixth Amendment rights emerged throughout the 1977 trial. Her defense argued that the jury pool was compromised by pervasive media coverage that portrayed her as dangerous and radical before the presentation of any evidence. (19) Combined with contradictory eyewitness testimony and limited physical evidence, these issues call into question whether the state satisfied the constitutional requirement of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—a core component of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. 


Shakur’s Legacy


             Following Shakur’s conviction, additional legal complications arose when she obtained asylum in Cuba. The absence of an extradition treaty between the United States and Cuba for political offenses meant that her protection was consistent with international precedent governing asylum for individuals facing politically motivated prosecution. Her relocation placed the case within an international legal framework and magnified the tension between domestic criminal law and global standards governing political refuge. 


              Ultimately, Shakur’s case captures the intersection between state criminal statutes, constitutional guarantees, international law, and the politics of dissent. It remains a prominent example of how legal processes can be shaped by broader political narratives, raising questions about neutrality, due process, and the boundaries of state power. 


Endnotes

1. Assata Olugbala Shakur | EBSCO, EBSCO Information Services, Inc. | www.ebsco.com (2024), https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/biography/assata-olugbala-shakur. 

2. Assata Shakur (1947-2025)| Black History Unveild | www.blackhistoryunveilded.com (2025), https://www.blackhistoryunveiled.com/p/assata-shakur-1947-2025.

3. Ibid.

5.  Assata Olugbala Shakur | EBSCO, EBSCO Information Services, Inc. | www.ebsco.com (2024), https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/biography/assata-olugbala-shakur. 

6. Ibid.

7. Joanne Chesimard Convicted in Killing of Jersey Trooper | The New York Times | www.nytimes.com (1977), https://www.nytimes.com/1977/03/26/archives/joanne-chesimard-convicted-in-killing-of-jersey-trooper-mrs.html. 

8.  Assata Olugbala Shakur | EBSCO, EBSCO Information Services, Inc. | www.ebsco.com (2024), https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/biography/assata-olugbala-shakur. 

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. State of New Jersey v. JoAnne Chesimard | vLex United States |  www.case-law.vlex.com (1979), https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/state-of-n-j-894849043. 

14. Ibid.

15. Joanne Chesimard Convicted in Killing of Jersey Trooper | The New York Times | www.nytimes.com (1977), https://www.nytimes.com/1977/03/26/archives/joanne-chesimard-convicted-in-killing-of-jersey-trooper-mrs.html. 

16. Assata Olugbala Shakur | EBSCO, EBSCO Information Services, Inc. | www.ebsco.com (2024), https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/biography/assata-olugbala-shakur. 

18. New Jersey Revised Statutes Section 2C:2-6: Liability for Conduct of Another; Complicity | Justia | www.law.justia.com (2025), https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/title-2c/section-2c-2-6/.


 
 
 

Comments

  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn

Florida Undergraduate Law Review 2026 | University of Florida

​

All opinions expressed herein are those of individual authors and are not endorsed by the Florida Undergraduate Law Review. The Florida Undergraduate Law Review is a student-run organization and does not reflect the views of the University of Florida.

bottom of page