;)
Mumia Abu-Jamal's death sentence
lifted
U.S.
District Judge William H. Yohn Jr., in ordering a new death-penalty
hearing, also affirmed the inmate's conviction of the first-degree murder
of a police officer.
|
| Mumia
Abu-Jamal on death row in the 1990s. (April
Saul/Inquirer) |
Related Links
A
chronology of the Abu-Jamal case
On the
Web | Justice for Police Officer Daniel Faulkner
On the
Web | Mumia Abu-Jamal's Freedom Journal
On
the Web | Judge William Yohn's order
By L. Stuart
Ditzen, Leonard N. Fleming and Jacqueline Soteropoulos
INQUIRER STAFF
WRITERS
In a ruling that was immediately challenged by
both prosecutors and the defense, a federal judge today lifted the death
sentence from Mumia Abu-Jamal for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia Police
Officer Daniel J. Faulkner.
U.S. District Judge William H. Yohn Jr., in ordering that Abu-Jamal be
given a new death-penalty hearing within six months or be sentenced to
life in prison, also affirmed the death row inmate's conviction on a
charge of first-degree murder.
Yohn's ruling in the intensely emotional case that has spanned nearly
20 years and has drawn international attention among death-penalty
opponents inspired immediate and opposite reactions.
District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham said her office would appeal.
"We believe, most respectfully, that Judge Yohn's legal theories are
unsupportable in law," Abraham said, noting that the judge's ruling upheld
Abu-Jamal's guilt. "Today, Mumia Abu-Jamal is what he has always been - a
convicted, remorseless, cold-blooded killer."
Pam Africa, who leads International Concerned Family and Friends of
Mumia Abu-Jamal, said Yohn's ruling was no victory for the man she and
thousands of followers around the world believe is innocent.
"Mumia is innocent, and we want him released," she said. "Trading Mumia
from death row to life in prison is not acceptable."
Yohn denied Abu-Jamal, a former radio commentator and member of the
Black Panther Party, a new trial and rejected all claims his defense
lawyers had submitted in pursuit of one.
In nullifying Abu-Jamal's death sentence, Yohn ruled on narrow legal
ground saying the jury may have misunderstood how to consider "mitigating
circumstances" issues raised by the defense at the 1982 trial.
Yohn said that, based on the trial judge's instruction and the verdict
form, the jury may mistakenly have believed it was required to agree
unanimously on any mitigating circumstance. He said all 12 jurors did not
have to agree on such issues in penalty deliberations.
Reacting to the ruling, Abraham said at a news conference today: "The
judge subjectively entertained his own notions about what a juror may have
[thought] without any objective proof."
Abraham said there is no evidence that any juror was confused by the
trial judge's instructions.
In his opinion, Yohn outlined federal case law that governs
death-penalty deliberations.
In death-penalty deliberations, juries are required to weigh
aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Jurors are not required to agree
unanimously on factors that might mitigate in the defendant's favor.
Yohn quoted Common Pleas Judge Albert Sabo, who presided at Abu-Jamal's
trial, as instructing the jury: "Remember again that your verdict must be
unanimous. It cannot be reached by a majority vote or by any percentage.
It must be the verdict of each and every one of you."
Yohn said that comment and other aspects of Sabo's charge created a
"reasonable likelihood" that the jury believed it had to agree unanimously
on mitigating circumstances.
The state Supreme Court, in upholding the death sentence, failed to
recognize this flaw in the case, Yohn wrote.
Yohn's ruling came just nine days after the 20th anniversary of
Faulkner's murder at 13th and Locust Streets on Dec. 9, 1981.
A sidewalk plaque was dedicated in Faulkner's memory on Dec. 9 at the
spot where he was killed.
Faulkner's widow, Maureen, who now lives in California, reacted angrily
today, saying she was "outraged and upset" by Yohn's ruling, particularly
as it comes just before the holidays.
"My feeling is that I do think it's sick for the judge to make this
decision," Faulkner said. "Our family has gone through turmoil for so many
years."
Abu-Jamal's attorneys, Marlene Kamish and Eliot Lee Grossman, could not
be reached for comment.
One of his former lawyers reacted to the ruling in lukewarm fashion.
"This is the smallest possible relief that the court could have granted
to Mumia and on the most technical grounds," said Leonard Weinglass, who
previously handled an unsuccessful appeal in state court. "I'm sure Mumia
wouldn't consider this a victory and neither would I."
"What I expected," Weinglass added, "was that Mumia would receive a new
trial."
Abu-Jamal, while on death row, has attracted a wide following of people
who believe he may be innocent and who oppose the death penalty.
In some parts of Europe, Abu-Jamal has become famous, so much so that
the city of Paris recently declared him an honorary citizen.
Closer to home, the courts have consistently upheld Abu-Jamal's guilt.
Fraternal Order of Police president Richard Costello called Yohn's
ruling a "bizarre decision" and "a miscarriage of justice."
"People in Philadelphia generally have no doubt as to what occurred,"
Costello said. "We lived through it."
In his opinion, Yohn reviewed the evidence as follows:
On the day he was killed, Faulkner, 25, a decorated officer who had
been married one year, pulled over a vehicle driven by William Cook,
Abu-Jamal's brother, at 13th and Locust about 4 a.m.
Faulkner radioed for back-up. Cook got into a scuffle with him.
Abu-Jamal, who was in a parking lot across the street, ran to the scene
and shot Faulkner in the back.
As he fell, Faulkner drew his gun and shot Abu-Jamal in the chest.
Abu-Jamal stood over Faulkner and fired four more shots, one of which
hit him between the eyes.
Abu-Jamal's gun, registered in his name, was found at the scene along
with five spent shell casings.
Four eyewitnesses testified at his trial. Two others testified that
when Abu-Jamal was taken to Thomas Jefferson University Hospital he
declared that he had shot Faulkner and "I hope the . . . dies."
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 1998 unanimously upheld Abu-Jamal's
conviction, rejecting every point his attorneys had raised in seeking a
new trial.
Yohn wrote in his opinion that he had carefully examined 29 points put
forth by the defense claiming that Abu-Jamal's conviction and death
sentence should be set aside. He rejected 28 of them.
Abu-Jamal's appeal to the federal court was based on the claim that his
constitutional rights had been violated in the course of his prosecution.
Joseph McGill, a former assistant district attorney who prosecuted
Abu-Jamal, said today he was pleased that Yohn had affirmed the
conviction, but was taken aback by his ruling on the sentencing.
"The decision, in my view, is inconsistent with what the jury felt,"
said McGill, now in private practice. "They were not confused in my view.
The jury knew exactly what they were doing based on the evidence and on
the conduct of the defendant."
McGill said Yohn's decision on the death penalty was "troublesome
because it's difficult to make a decision on what a jury likely had
thought."
The judge's decision floored Michael Smerconish, a lawyer and radio
talk show host who has used his program as a forum for anti-Abu-Jamal
sentiments.
Smerconish said that the decision is "terrible turn of events" for
Maureen Faulkner and other members of the slain officer's family.
"The man did it. He's been convicted. With that conviction should come
the verdict that was imposed upon him by the jury of his peers, period,"
Smerconish said. "It sends the message that if you murder a cop you live
to see another day, and that's just not right."
The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty took an opposite
view.
"Mumia Abu-Jamal's trial was riddled with violations of due process,
racism and prosecutorial misconduct," said Steven W. Hawkins, executive
director of the organization, in a prepared statement. "Although we
applaud the fact that Abu-Jamal's sentence was thrown out, today's ruling
is bittersweet. All of the errors that occurred in (his) trial clearly
warrant a new hearing on the question of guilt or innocence."
Temple University law professor David Kairys said Yohn's ruling
identified "a very clear error" that prevented Abu-Jamal from getting a
fair sentence.
"What really happened here is Mumia Abu-Jamal just got the same rules
applied to him that apply to everybody else," Kairys said.
"They're not technicalities; they really go to the heart of whether the
jury meant to impose the death penalty or not."
Africa, one of Abu-Jamal's closest allies, said supporters would stage
a protest rally in front of Mayor Street's office tomorrow at 11 a.m.
L. Stuart Ditzen's e-mail address is [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Inquirer staff writer Barbara Boyer contributed to this article.
|
local_news.gif
1ptrans.gif