[1:19 a.m.] : [2002-01-05]
|
Death Sentence Overturned, but Danger Still Clear and Present On December 18, U.S. District Judge William Yohn overturned Mumia Abu-Jamal's death sentence, citing errors in Abu-Jamal's 1982 sentencing hearing. State prosecutors have 180 days to conduct a new sentencing hearing for Abu-Jamal's first-degree murder conviction; if not, the sentence will revert to life imprisonment. The ruling upholds Abu-Jamal's 1981 first-degree murder conviction for the death of Philadelphia police officer, Daniel Faulkner. While acknowledging errors in the jury charge and verdict form in his 272-page ruling, Yohn denied all other claims and refused to grant a new trial, which Abu-Jamal supporters are still seeking. Yohn's ruling does not eliminate the possibility of Abu-Jamal being re-sentenced to death. Within the claims denied by the ruling is a petition to hear new evidence in the case, including the testimony of Arnold Beverly, a man whom Abu-Jamal's defense lawyers say has confessed to Faulkner's murder. In previous rulings by Yohn and Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Pamela Dembe, this new evidence was excluded due to time limitations imposed by the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). While Yohn's ruling sets aside Abu-Jamal's death sentence, AEDPA has prevented evidence from being heard that might lead to an overturn of Abu-Jamal's conviction. State prosecutors have vowed to appeal the ruling, and supporters of Abu-Jamal have said they will not be satisfied until the murder conviction is overturned and Mumia is free.
Anti-Terrorism Law and Mumia Abu-Jamal While Attorney General John Ashcroft champions the USA PATRIOT act as a remedy for the "clear and present danger" of terrorism, lawyers for Pennsylvania death row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal know full well that there is a clear and present danger within the bill itself. Abu-Jamal's lawyers have learned first-hand about some of the true implications of anti-terrorism legislation. In 1996, in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) was passed with the express purpose of preventing acts of terrorism inside the United States. While the law failed to prevent 9-11, it succeeded in undermining the writ of habeas corpus. And now the law is a major stumbling block in Abu-Jamal's appeal process. Abu-Jamal, a journalist and author, is the subject of a now internationally known death penalty case, stemming from the 1981 shooting of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. His case shows how anti-terrorism legislation can find its way into the mainstream of domestic criminal cases. On July 19, 2001, during a federal appeal hearing granted Jamal by the AEDPA, U.S. District Judge William Yohn rejected affidavits, including one purporting to be a confession from Faulkner's true killer, Arnold Beverly, based on time limitations imposed by AEDPA. The affidavits were introduced as new evidence by Abu-Jamal's legal team. However, the statute allows only one year for the presentation of new evidence, and there was a time lapse of more than a year between the "discovery" of the evidence and its presentation in court.
Abu-Jamal's lawyers have argued that Mumia's former defense team, dismissed by Abu-Jamal due to violation of attorney-client privilege issues, was to blame for the time lag. Nevertheless, the evidence was barred by AEDPA. Abu-Jamal's legal team then pursued another challenge to his conviction by motioning to reopen the case in Pennsylvania state courts while the federal appeal was in limbo.
so i got a new image up in my guest book because of stupid junos stupid merging stupid crap, check it out and sign it. |
