U.S. Court hears sentencing appeal — Free Mumia Abu-Jamal!

Scan page 12

tence. Yohn maintained that the sentencing procedure render its decision. If it reaffirms its earlier decision had violated the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1988 Mills v. to sentence Mumia to life in prison without parole, the instructions given to jurors in the trial might have alty trial in a Pennsylvania state court, in the hope of caused them to believe that “they were precluded obtaining a death sentence again. But the state might from considering any mitigating evidence unless all wish to avoid such a hearing because of the danger gating circumstance.” Mumia’s attorneys had argued, dence that raise strong questions about Mumia’s guilt.

ten form given to jurors in Mumia’s trial had similarly tographs taken by Pedro Polakoff at the crime scene in misled them. The verbal instructions given by trial interpretation of Mills that might open the door for the judge Albert Sabo, the attorneys said, further confused Court of Appeals, which upheld his decision on March barrassing to the prosecution in the “court of public 27, 2008. But Mumia remained on death row while fully argued Mumia’s case before the same three-judge prosecutors appealed the Third Circuit’s decision to panel, demonstrated that the facts in his case applied directly and unambiguously to the criteria in the Mills the Supreme Court if the Third Circuit were to decide for the death penalty. But given the Supreme Court’s Third Circuit to reconsider its decision on Mumia in nal ruling as well as their own previous decision. But highly reactionary composition, it is unlikely that it light of the High Court’s recent rejection of an appeal Court had ruled that Mills did not apply in Spisak’s sak, and on that basis the court should reinstate the tence on this issue, other legal avenues remain open case—thus introducing the possibility of a narrower PHILADELPHIA—On Nov. 9, several hundred people rallied outside the federal courthouse here to “Free Mumia!” Inside the building, meanwhile, a three-judge panel deliberated over the fate of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the political prisoner and noted Black journalist who has been on Pennsylvania’s death row for close to 28 years. Mumia was sentenced to death in 1982 after being convicted on false charges of killing Daniel Faulkner, a Philadelphia police officer. A large amount of evidence has come to light since then indicating that Mumia was the victim of a police frame-up.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals was in session Nov. 9 to hear arguments as to whether unclear instructions to the jury during the sentencing phase of Mumia’s trial might have encouraged the jurors to choose the death penalty for him instead of life in prison. Almost three years ago, the same three judges had agreed that this appeared to be the case, and ordered a new sentencing hearing for Mumia. But Pennsylvania state prosecutors appealed their decision, and this year, the Supreme Court asked the Third Circuit to reconsider.

The legal build-up for the recent hearing goes back to 2001, when Federal District Judge William Yohn overturned Mumia’s death senMaryland decision.

The Supreme Court had determined in Mills that 12 jurors agreed on the existence of a particular mitiand Judge Yohn agreed, that the language of the writthe jurors.

The state appealed Yohn’s ruling to the Third Circuit the Supreme Court.

On Jan. 10, 2010, the Supreme Court ordered the Third Circuit to reverse its previous decision.

Circuit on Nov. 9 by Judith Ritter, a professor at Widener law school. Ritter, who had previously and successdecision and that the court must sustain Yohn’s origistate attorney Hugh Burns asserted that Mumia’s sentencing appeal was “virtually the same” as that of Spideath penalty.

Tony Savino / Socialist Action The state is mustering its forces to send Mumia to the death chamber. It is crucial that we mobilize to save the life of an innocent man.

Mumia Abu-Jamal was represented before the Third lice and the prosecution.

opinion.”

Burns was somewhat embarrassed when one of the judges agreed with Ritter that Judge Sabo had employed the word “unanimous” perhaps “seven, eight, or more times” when instructing the jury of its obligations in regard to finding mitigating circumstances. Ritter said that this was “misleading advice,” and counter to the Supreme Court’s intent in Mills v. Maryland. The rejection of such unanimity is at the core of the Mills decision, which explicitly allows even a single juror to put forward a mitigating circumstance for the jury’s consideration.

The three judges appeared to be receptive to Ritter’s arguments, while directing their sharpest questions to the state attorney. Following the hearing, Ritter was upbeat. She told reporters outside the courtroom: “This court two years ago saw a violation of Mills. I don’t believe the judges believe that their earlier decision was incorrect. Nothing has changed that should change their minds.” But caution is in order. In what some have called the “Mumia exception,” the federal court system has frequently found a way to refuse to apply legal precedents to Mumia’s case. Notwithstanding the fact that other prisoners have obtained redress in similar circumstances, Mumia Abu-Jamal always merits special handling as a political prisoner.

The Third Circuit Court could take several months to state will likely appeal to the Supreme Court.

The state also has the option of asking for a new penthat the defense could present witnesses and new eviThis might include items such as the long-hidden pho1981, which contradict the scenario put forth by poWhile such evidence would not have direct legal ramifications in Mumia’s case, it would be highly emMumia, too, would have an opportunity to appeal to would overturn the lower court’s decision.

Nevertheless, even if the court rules for a death sen(continued on page 9, in “U.S. applauds (and orchestrates) military coups in Latin America”)