[Ppnews] Supreme Court Ruling Benefits Abu-Jamal Case (?)

[Political Prisoner News]

Supreme Court Ruling Benefits Abu-Jamal Case

January 27, 2010 By Linn Washington
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/23734

In a perverse way, the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling reinstating 
the death sentence of Mumia Abu-Jamal could ultimately benefit the 
world's most recognized death row inmate.

This ruling orders the federal 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals to 
reexamine the issue of whether the judge at Abu-Jamal's 1982 trial 
provided faulty jury instructions regarding death penalty 
deliberation procedures.

The 3rd Circuit had found those judicial instructions flawed and 
voided Abu-Jamal's death sentence, prompting an appeal from 
Philadelphia prosecutors that the Supreme Court granted.

Returning this controversial case back to the 3rd Circuit enables new 
legal maneuvering which Philadelphia prosecutors concede could 
include examination of issues federal courts have not considered in 
this matter that draws attention internationally arising from the 
explosive intersection of racism and politics.

Although the case against former Black Panther Abu-Jamal arguably 
contains compelling elements, this case is circumstantial, centered 
on testimony from criminally flawed eyewitnesses and lacking 
conclusive forensic evidence.

Those demanding a new trial for self-proclaimed revolutionary 
journalist Abu-Jamal consistently cite credible evidence of egregious 
improprieties by police, prosecutors and jurists as corrupting the 
quest for justice of this once award-winning radio reporter who's 
authored six books while on death row for over 25-years.

Amnesty International, in its seminal 2000 report on the Abu-Jamal 
case, detailed "a pattern of events" comprising Abu-Jamal's fair 
trial rights including irregularities by police and prosecutors plus 
"hostility by the trial judge and the appearance of judicial bias 
during appellate review."

The least scrutinized aspect of Abu-Jamal's case is unusual rulings 
issued by appellate courts - federal and state - often creating new 
standards seemingly crafted to deny this convicted cop killer the 
legal relief granted to others including a few convicted of murdering police.

When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court first upheld Abu-Jamal's 
conviction in March 1989 it eliminated an ancient legal standard 
permitting defendants' to make statements before sentencing that it 
had reinforced in a ruling issued just one month earlier.

Curiously, the same Philadelphia and Pennsylvania courts that found 
major flaws in 86 Philadelphia death penalty convictions between 
Abu-Jamal's December 1981 arrest and October 2009 declare that not a 
single error - evidentiary or procedural - exists anywhere in the 
Abu-Jamal case.

Despite Pennsylvania state and federal courts voiding 22 death 
penalties because of defense lawyer failures to present any 
mitigating evidence for their clients during death penalty hearings, 
courts found no fault in Abu-Jamal's trial lawyer failing to present 
any mitigating evidence during the penalty hearing.

When the 3rd Circuit Court upheld Abu-Jamal's conviction in 2008, it 
created a new standard for defendants challenging racist jury 
selection practices by prosecutors - a standard more stringent than 
the standard used by that Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Abu-Jamal's appeal of that 3rd Circuit ruling highlighted 11 separate 
rulings where federal and Pa state courts specifically faulted 
Philadelphia prosecutors for engaging in intentional discrimination 
during jury selection.

Six of those 11 rulings cited in that appeal came from the 3rd 
Circuit yet the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Abu-Jamal's appeal in 
April 2009 without comment.

The U.S. Supreme Court engaged in contradictory rulings related to 
Abu-Jamal in the early 1990s making a mockery of its duty to ensure 
equal justice under law.

That Court granted a new hearing to a Delaware murderer who 
challenged prosecutorial reference to his current membership in a 
violent white racist prison gang, citing the racist's First Amendment 
free association rights.

Following favorable ruling for that avowed racist, Abu-Jamal 
unsuccessfully sought Supreme Court reconsideration of its rejection 
of his challenge of prosecutors violating First Amendment protections 
by referencing his teenaged membership in the Black Panther Party.

Months after spurning Abu-Jamal's request, the Supreme Court granted 
relief to a white Nevada murderer challenging prosecutorial reference 
of his membership in a devil worshipping cult - citing its prison 
racist ruling precedent.

Equal protection of laws seemingly should have provided an ex-Black 
Panther with the same protection of rights extended to a racist gang 
member and devil worshipper given similarities in their respective appeals.

While it's true that courts enjoy wide discretion in interpreting law 
as those courts deem appropriate, disparate rulings in the Abu-Jamal 
case raise real questions about courts acting in accordance with 
America's bedrock principle of equal-justice-under-law.

The most disturbing aspect of the Abu-Jamal case is that evident 
improprieties by police, prosecutors and jurists ignored in this 
matter are deprivations endured daily by defendants nationwide, 
undermining equal justice under law - that phrase chiseled above the 
entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court building.

Linn Washington Jr., columnist for The Philadelphia Tribune, is a 
former Yale Law Journalism Fellow who writes frequently about the 
Abu-Jamal case and other issues involving race-based inequities in 
America. He is author of Black Judges on Justice: Perspectives from 
the Bench, published by The New Press.




Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/ppnews_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20100127/5f51b5e6/attachment.htm>