Supreme Court Rules Against Jamal
(From AP Press)
WASHINGTON - January 19, 2010 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out a court ruling that invalidated a former Black Panther's death sentence for killing a Philadelphia police officer in 1981.
The move was the latest twist in Mumia Abu-Jamal's racially tinged case that has drawn international attention.
The justices ordered the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia to take another look at Abu-Jamal's claim that the jury weighing his punishment was given flawed instructions.
The high court acted on Pennsylvania's appeal of the 3rd Circuit ruling following a decision last week in a capital case from Ohio that turned on a similar issue. The 3rd Circuit could order a federal trial court to consider Abu-Jamal's case anew, including other claims he has raised that have yet to be decided.
A Philadelphia jury convicted Abu-Jamal of killing white Philadelphia police Officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981 after the patrolman pulled over Abu-Jamal's brother in an overnight traffic stop.
Prosecutors say Faulkner, 25, managed to shoot Abu-Jamal during the confrontation. A wounded Abu-Jamal, his own gun lying nearby, was still at the scene when police arrived, and authorities consider the evidence against him overwhelming.
Since Abu-Jamal's 1982 conviction, activists in the United States and Europe have rallied in support of his claims that he was the victim of a racist justice system. Abu-Jamal has kept his case in the spotlight through books and radio broadcasts.
The appeals court upheld Abu-Jamal's conviction but held his death sentence invalid. The Supreme Court earlier rejected Abu-Jamal's appeal of his conviction.
The issue over the instructions relates to whether jurors understood how to weigh mitigating circumstances that might have kept Abu-Jamal off death row. Under the law, jurors did not have to agree unanimously on a mitigating circumstance.
"The verdict form together with the jury instructions were misleading as to whether unanimity was required in consideration of mitigating circumstances," the appeals court wrote.
But last week, the Supreme Court reversed a similar ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. That case dealt with Frank Spisak, a neo-Nazi who killed three people in 1982.
The case is Beard v. Abu-Jamal, 08-652.
posted by Tony Allen @ 11:27 AM
13 Comments
13 Comments:
good, now send him back to hell.
Wow...big demo...NOTHING in the papers or on the MOVE or Justice for Mumia Abu Jamal sites. Fools led by fools
Jon pisano
Personally speaking (and I do mean personal), none of you were there, talked to any so called witnesses, nor talked with either party involved, which "makes" me further know racism is and the fact of difference still exists in this backwards world. You are not the deceased or the accused, think about that.
I must state I have frist hand knowledge of that case as the two arresting Officers were my co-workers who arrested the murderer within 30 to 45 SECONDS after he killed..no executed..Officer Faulkner, and , I attended most of the trial. Where were you? No racism in this case...just the murder of a human being and the verdict was upheld in so many courts over the years that if there were any problems or "racism" don't you believe the many State and Federal Courts would have ruled so? Come on...you can do better than using the race card.
Jon Pisano
Each society has its own word for HERESY!
Communists called all HERESY! fascism. Fascist Italy called all HERESY Communist.
Today, under the Politically Correct tyranny, HERESY! is called HATE! or “racism.” Nobody wants to try to deal with an honest point, so they start demanding that nobody say it, just like any other tyranny does. They call people who speak HERESY! names.
You Political Correctness fanatics are playing a very old game.
When you call people names who disagree with you or scream Hate or racism, a.k.a., HERESY! it says nothing about the point we heretics make.
But it tells us ALL about YOU.
And now that we've got that out in the open FACTS still say he is innocent.....whether so called "HERESY" or racism (take your pick) is the case, FACTS must be recognized. To tell all about "me" would be like you being "me" which you are not. Understand that "difference" will remain as long as the feeling exists and no amount of "HERESY" can change that.
Ahh...changenp...what facts show Mumia Abu Jamal is "innocent". Could you post factual information that the many defence attorneys and all of the State and Federal Courts also missed? Please, no...what if"s
Jon Pisano
Justice for Officer Daniel Faulkner
can we fry this load now is this the end of his legal appeals
In polish mumia means mummy (embalmed corpse) ... I still keep wondering "Didn't he get the lethal injection in 1999?"
@Jon Pisano
Mumia like all of us are innocent until proven guilty but pigs like the ones who shot Mumia on the scene, Sean Bell and the Imam Abdullah think they are the judge and jury.
FTP
It's obvious you, Satori, do not have a clue as to this case. Jamal WAS proven guilty and that guilt was affirmed. BTW, the only person who shot Jamal was Officer Faulkner and that was after Jamal shot the Officer in the back then executed Officer Faulkner as he lay on the ground. If you believe Mumia Abu Jamal is innocent of murder, then, in my opinion, you are a fool led by fools. Your discriptive word(pigs) says a lot as to your bias.
Jon Pisano
Justice for Officer Daniel faulkner
danielfaulkner.com
Free Mumia !
Fry Mumia!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home