A Defeat for Mumia Abu-Jamal

by Leo Stegman/PoorNewsNetwork

A major setback for Mumia Abu-Jamal’s legal defense has occurred. Mumia is an award winning journalist, lifelong activist and well renowned author whose trial has become a symbol and example of racism, political persecution, and class struggle in the United States legal system and prison industrial complex. Federal District Court Judge William Yohn upheld the unjust murder conviction of Mumia. In their 272-page ruling, the court has created a major obstacle for Mumia’s defense team to gain a new trial.

However, the ruling did vacate the death sentence and give the state trial court 180 days to hold another death penalty phase for Mumia’s trial. These rulings stem from the unjust and wrongful conviction of Mumia in the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. If the trial court in Philadelphia fails to hold the re-sentencing hearing within the allotted period, Judge Yohn stated he would impose life sentence without parole.

The ruling states that Philadelphia Trial Court Judge Albert Sabo gave the jury a flawed instruction in the penalty phase of Mumia’s 1981 murder trial. However, 28 other issues brought forth in Habeas Corpus Petition by his former defense counsel, Leonard Weinglass, were denied. In addition, the court denied the new defense team’s supplemental brief to consider on its merits and place into the record the new issue, including but not limited to, the confession of the admitted assassin of Officer Faulkner, Arnold Beverly.

The Federal District Court’s ruling severely limits the probability of even having the Appellate Court overturn Mumia’s wrongful conviction. The Court not only has denied 28 issues in the original petition but only one issue of racially biased jury selection has received a certificate of appealability. Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals. The Federal District Court refused to even consider or take into evidence the confession of Arnold Beverly because it was not brought forth in a timely manner by his former defense team led by Weinglass.

Thus, this severely limits the issues that the defense team can bring forward in any subsequent appeal to the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeal. According to the 28 U.S.C.S. 2253 (c) (2) a codification on the Anti- Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), an appellate court cannot not consider and does not have jurisdiction of issues in a petition that has not received a certificate of appealability at the district court level.

With this ruling the defense team, led by Elliot Grossman, faces an uphill battle in being allowed to present to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals the overwhelming evidence of innocence, prosecutorial misconduct, police frame up, and denial of Mumia’s constitutional rights.

The vacating of the death penalty by Judge Yohn gives the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office an option to re-hold the death penalty phase of Mumia’s trial. At any new re-sentencing hearing there is a distinct probability the state court in Philadelphia (known literally as a hanging court for defendants of African descent) will possibly re-impose the death penalty on Mumia. Furthermore, at the death penalty phase of a murder conviction, the jury, to spare the defendant’s life, must determine if there are mitigating circumstances and factors and thus impose a sentence of life in prison or whether the aggravating circumstances and factors require a sentence of death.

In accordance with Pennsylvania Statute, specifically, 42 Pa. C. S. Section 9711, one of the aggravating factors is whether the victim is a law enforcement officer. This puts Mumia’s defense at a disadvantage at the onset of any death penalty hearing. It is probable that the Philadelphia District Court judge will not allow any evidence of innocence in a new penalty hearing because innocence is not a mitigating circumstance in Statute.