WHAT DOES MUMIA FACE LEGALLY AFTER THE NOVEMBER 9, 2010 HEARING BEFORE THE THIRD CIRCUIT?
Petition: International campaign for a civil rights investigation of the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal
From: Mumia NYC
The only legal options that were considered by the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals, a federal court immediately below the US Supreme Court, at the
November 9 hearing were whether Mumia Abu-Jamal is to be executed or get life
in prison without parole. The question of Mumia's guilt or innocence and
the opportunity of a new trial was not part of this hearing. The Third Circuit
decided that issue in March 2008 in a decision made by the same three judges
who conducted this hearing.
To grasp the significance of this hearing, one needs to revisit Federal
District Court Judge William Yohn, Jr.'s decision of December 18, 2001. In
that ruling the judge upheld Mumia's conviction but at the same time threw
out his death sentence on the grounds that the verdict form used by the jury
for sentencing at his trial violated the U.S. Supreme Court's Mills
precedent, thereby prejudicing the jury toward the death penalty rather than
life in prison. Yohn then gave the state 180 days to convene a new jury trial
only on the issue of Mumia's penalty, in which the choices would be either
death or life in prison without parole. On the other hand, if the state did
nothing, Yohn ruled that Mumia would automatically be sentenced to life in
prison without parole.
At the time he made this decision, Judge Yohn stayed his ruling on overturning
the death sentence while the prosecution appealed his decision to the next
higher level of federal court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. (At the same
time Mumia appealed Judge Yohn's decision upholding his conviction). Mumia
was therefore never removed from Death Row and remains there to this
day.
On March 27, 2008, the Third Circuit upheld Yohn's decision on the death
penalty in a 3-0 vote. Again the decision was stayed while the state appealed
to the highest federal level, the Supreme Court. (In the same decision, the
Third Circuit rejected Mumia's appeal on the conviction by 2-1 that is,
finding him guilty and, as before, Mumia appealed that ruling.)
On April 6, 2009 the US Supreme Court refused to hear Mumia's appeal of the
Third Circuit's decision upholding his conviction.
On January 10, 2010, the Supreme Court ordered the Third Circuit to reconsider
its decision on the death sentence in light of its unanimous rejection of an
appeal from a white-supremacist named Spisak. That man admitted to killing at
least two people in Ohio and openly stated that he wished to have murdered
more. He had appealed his death sentence also as a violation of the Mills
precedent, but involving a different aspect of it than Mumia's case. The
Sixth Circuit, as did the Third Circuit in Mumia's case, ruled that the
death sentence should be thrown out. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the
Mills precedent did not apply in Spisak's case, and therefore execution
rather than life in prison was the appropriate penalty. Based on that decision,
the Supreme Court questioned the Third Circuit's ruling in Mumia's
case, and asked it to reconsider the issue of execution for him as
well.
Thus, the hearing on November 9th was on Mumia's penalty only. The choices
before the court were either to sustain Yohn's and its own earlier
decisions or to reinstate the death penalty. According to those in the
courtroom, the attorney who represented Mumia on this issue, Judith Ritter,
argued the applicability of the Mills precedent very convincingly. On that
basis Mumia's death sentence should not be reinstated. The history of
Mumia's case, however, has shown that precedent and effective arguments, as
in the argument of racial bias in jury selection made before the same three
judges three years ago, are often ignored by the court in favor of a political
agenda at least to keep Mumia locked up if not executed and completely
silenced. That racial bias issue easily could have resulted in Mumia's
conviction being thrown out, but in a split 2-1 vote, the judges established a
new precedent just for Mumia. (All three judges blew off the question of
Mumia's innocence).
After hearing the arguments and asking questions, Chief Judge Scirica said that
the court would 'take the matter under advisement'.) It may be months
before a decision is announced.
If the Third Circuit reaffirms its earlier decision to sentence Mumia to life
in prison without parole, the state will most likely appeal to the Supreme
Court. If that court agrees with the Third Circuit, or in the unlikely event
that the state doesn't appeal at all, the state then will have 180 days to
implement Judge Yohn's decision.
In that case the prosecution would have to decide whether to do nothing and let
the life sentence
stand or ask for a new penalty trial (which would take place in a Pennsylvania
state court) in the hope of "winning" a death sentence again. Mumia
would certainly want the latter to happen since it would give him some
opportunity to introduce new evidence challenging the prosecution's version
of what happened on December 9, 1981, which was the basis for the jury's
guilty verdict at his 1982 trial. Thus, while this proceeding would not be a
trial on the question of guilt or innocence, but only a hearing on the
sentencing issue, new evidence that could undermine Mumia's conviction
itself might be introduced.
If the Third Circuit rules against Mumia, Mumia will surely appeal to the
Supreme Court. But the odds for the Supreme Court to overturn the Third
Circuit's decision favoring execution are very small given the reactionary
composition of that court.
However, even if the Supreme Court rules for a death sentence, Mumia would
still have some legal options. Back in 2001, when Yohn threw out the death
penalty based on the Mills precedent, he did not deal with several other issues
raised by the defense. Therefore, Mumia would have the right to go back before
Judge Yohn and ask him to address these other significant issues related to the
improper sentencing process at his trial. Such a hearing, though limited to
life in prison or execution, would inevitably also include challenges to the
prosecution's version of what happened at the crime scene. This would
especially be true if grassroots work continues to expose the fraudulent nature
of the trial and appeals process as has been done dramatically in the last few
years; for example, through the release of the long hidden photographs of the
crime scene, and the evidence that four people, not three, were present at that
scene. This would also be true if grassroots work continu es to press for a
Department of Justice civil rights investigation and draws greater support and
activism. Not only might the death penalty be once again overturned, but
Mumia's conviction itself might get thrown out.
Mumia's legal situation remains extremely dangerous as the re-imposition of
the death sentence would surely be a big setback in his struggle to demonstrate
his innocence. The authorities in Philadelphia are mobilizing for Mumia's
execution, and the Supreme Court seems likely to be sympathetic to that agenda.
But even with that being said, the right that remains for Mumia to go back to
Judge Yohn is very important for opening up space to expose the level of
injustice, the violation of due process, and the racism that has permeated the
entire history of this case. While the US legal system looks very powerful and
impenetrable to justice, the grassroots movement in the US combined with
international pressure could force the courts to make decisions that they
otherwise would not. Surely Mumia's being alive today, despite three
attempts to kill him, twice with scheduled execution days, is a tribute to the
massive struggles waged by people across this globe.
The Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition
International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal
--Mumia is Innocent! Stop the Frame Up! Free Mumia!--
Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition, NYC
P.O. Box 16, College Station, NY, NY 10030
212-330-8029, www.FreeMumia.com, info@FreeMumia.com
