PHILADELPHIA, March 27, 2008

Court Hands Mumia A Legal Victory

Rules Death Sentence For Black Activist Cannot Proceed Without New Hearing

  • Mumia Abu-Jamal, convicted of killing Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981, leaves a Philadelphia court July 12, 1995. A federal appeals court has upheld Abu-Jamal's conviction for murdering a Philadelphia police officer in 1981, but agreed with a lower court that he cannot be executed without a new penalty hearing. Photo

    Mumia Abu-Jamal, convicted of killing Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981, leaves a Philadelphia court July 12, 1995. A federal appeals court has upheld Abu-Jamal's conviction for murdering a Philadelphia police officer in 1981, but agreed with a lower court that he cannot be executed without a new penalty hearing.  (AP Photo/Chris Gardner, File)

  • Interactive Capital Punishment

    Learn about the death penalty in the United States. Check out statistics, history, famous trials and more.

(CBS/AP)  A federal appeals court on Thursday said former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal cannot be executed for murdering a Philadelphia police officer without a new penalty hearing.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Abu-Jamal's conviction should stand, but that he should get a new sentencing hearing because of flawed jury instructions. If prosecutors don't want to give him a new death penalty hearing, Abu-Jamal would be sentenced automatically to life in prison.

The court upheld most of the 2001 decision by U.S. District Judge William H. Yohn Jr., who rejected all but one of Abu-Jamal's legal claims, reports the Philadelphia Inquirer.

The basis for Yohn's ruling was that the jury in Abu-Jamal's 1982 trial may have mistakenly believed it had to agree unanimously on any "mitigating" circumstances. These factors might have persuaded jurors to decide on a life sentence instead of death, the Inquirer reports.

Abu-Jamal, 53, once a radio reporter, has attracted a legion of artists and activists to his cause in a quarter-century on death row. A Philadelphia jury convicted him in 1982 of killing Officer Daniel Faulkner, 25, after the patrolman pulled over Abu-Jamal's brother in an overnight traffic stop.

He had appealed, arguing that racism by the judge and prosecutors corrupted his conviction at the hands of a mostly white jury. Prosecutors, meanwhile, had appealed a federal judge's 2001 decision to grant Abu-Jamal a new sentencing hearing because of the jury instructions.

Hundreds of people protested outside the federal building in Philadelphia where arguments were heard in May and an overflow crowd - including legal scholars, students, lawyers, the policeman's widow and Abu-Jamal's brother - filled the courtroom. Abu-Jamal's writings and taped speeches on the justice system have made him a popular figure among activists who believe he was the victim of racism. Abu-Jamal is black; Faulkner was white.

The flaw in the jury instructions related to whether jurors understood how to weigh mitigating circumstances that might keep Abu-Jamal off death row. Under the law, jurors did not have to unanimously agree on a mitigating circumstance.

"The jury instructions and the verdict form created a reasonable likelihood that the jury believed it was precluded from finding a mitigating circumstance that had not been unanimously agreed upon," the appeals court wrote.

Messages left for Abu-Jamal's lawyer, Robert R. Bryan of San Francisco, were not immediately returned.

Arguments before the 3rd Circuit focused on several constitutional issues, including whether prosecutors improperly eliminated black jurors.

Ten whites and two blacks served on the jury. Prosecutors struck 10 blacks and five whites from the pool, while accepting four blacks and 20 whites, according to Bryan, who argued that prosecutors of the day fostered "a culture of discrimination."

Prosecutor Hugh J. Burns Jr. argued in court that Abu-Jamal was raising issues on appeal that he had not raised during a lengthy 1995 review of the case.

"Today's decision is a travesty of justice," Jeff Mackler, of Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal told the Inquirer. Mackler had been hoping the Third Circuit would order an entirely new trial for Abu-Jamal.

The officer's widow, Maureen Faulkner, has kept her husband's memory alive over the years, and recently co-wrote a book about the case. The book, "Murdered by Mumia: A Life Sentence of Loss, Pain and Injustice," written with radio talk-show host Michael Smerconish, came out in December.

© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Video and Galleries from U.S.

Add a Comment
by notmudrose March 27, 2008 4:43 PM PDT
This case epitomizes the reason to end capital punishment. For 27 years this case has cost personal anquish for the victim and a total waste of money on apppeal for the taxpayer. If a crime deserves life in prison then throw away the key. THis long travesty affecting the victims would not have happened had capital punishment been abolished. There would have been no reason for an appeal of this length. Non-capital cases would have had appeals but they would not have taken 27 years. Put murderers in solitary confinement for life upon conviction. Sentencing them to death gets you this. The sad fact in this case is this criminal will probably end up with a sentence commuted to life in prison after the penalty hearing is completed since extraneous issues will be presented directly and indirectly to the new penalty phase jury.
Reply to this comment
by tbweb March 27, 2008 6:48 PM PDT
Some argue that even if Mumia Abu-Jamal is guilty, he has already paid for this crime with 27 years of his life behind bars. In most cases a person is released from jail for murder after serving 20 years. The fact that this murder involved a Police Officer complicates and almost makes a release from jail impossible. I wonder how much of this has a racial undertone to it, yes I went there, because John Hinckley who shot and tried to kill Pres. Reagan who had the status of U.S. President, a status greater than a Police Officer was eventually released from jail, but I wonder if Hinckley was Black would he still be in jail, probably so! True President Reagan did not die, but being a U.S. President put the weight of the crime and Hinckley''s subsequent release in the same range in my opinion.
Reply to this comment
by feelfree1 March 28, 2008 3:40 PM PDT

Good news!

Congratulations to Mr. Abu-Jama.

Odds are that he should have never spent a single day behind bars for this.

He has served his probably unjust sentence with great courage and integrity, from what I have seen.

Just one more example showing that many of our present leaders should trade places with many of those currently behind bars.
Reply to this comment
by keithle1 March 28, 2008 9:14 PM PDT
Dreads? Check.
Muslim name? Check.

Racism is a convenient excuse any time a black person doesn''t like something or thinks they have been unfairly treated. "I got a raw deal! Waaaaaaahhhh!"
If the jury & judge had been black then what would he have done?

So who killed the policeman? Fred Sanford? Did the Imperial Wizard of the KKK force him to do it? Why do these "black activists" think there is nobility in killing the police? What''s the point of doing it?
Innocent people don''t shoot cops when they get pulled over for a "traffic stop."

Why is he a hero? Let him rot in prison or fry. You made your bed & now you have to lie in it. You want us to kiss & hug you & give you $20 million because you have been unfairly & unjustly imprisoned?
Reply to this comment
by keithle1 March 28, 2008 9:16 PM PDT
Every black man in prison is innocent! Release them now!
Reply to this comment
  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented
Latest News
Featured Blogs