Topica Email List Directory

Welcome Guest!

Mumia Columns

	Previous Message	All Messages	Next Message

*!Dangerous News: US Supreme Court Might Reinstate Death Penalty for Mumia**	nattyreb
	Oct 11, 2009 08:23 PDT

--Apple-Mail-81--57985229
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
format=flowed;
delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

From: Hans Bennett/Mumia NYC -- Remember to check out Pam Africa
tomorrow (Monday) from 8-9AM at WWW.900AMWURD.COM
------
We have been saying that there is a strong possibility that the US
Supreme Court will reinstate the Death Penalty for Mumia. This while
the leading candidate running to replace Lynne Abraham as Attorney
General is calling for Mumia's execution and a new hit piece film by
Tigre Hill "The Barrel of a Gun" is scheduled to be released around
December 9th, the 28th anniversary of Mumia's arrest and the beginning
of the subsequent conspiracy to have him executed. Now this article.
Please pay close attention and stay tuned for our messages. --
Suzanne Ross, for the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition

This is most alarming news:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434453364&Ohio_Death_Penalty_Case_Might_Determine_AbuJamals_Fate

Ohio Death Penalty Case Might Determine Abu-Jamal's Fate

Shannon P. Duffy
The Legal Intelligencer
October 12, 2009

Lawyers for convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal will be watching
closely on Tuesday when the U.S. Supreme Court takes up an Ohio death
penalty case because its outcome may very well decide whether Abu-
Jamal's death sentence will be reinstated.

In April, Abu-Jamal lost his final appeal seeking a new trial for the
December 1981 murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner
when the justices refused to take up the issue of whether blacks were
unfairly excluded from the jury.

But, at the time, the justices took no action on a companion petition
filed by the Philadelphia district attorney's office demanding
reinstatement of Abu-Jamal's death sentence despite having discussed
it weeks before.

Now it appears certain that the high court has decided to hold the
Philadelphia prosecutors' petition in abeyance pending the outcome of
Smith v. Spisak -- an Ohio case that raises strikingly similar issues
to those in Abu-Jamal's case.

If the prosecutors in that case are successful and win reinstatement
of the death sentence imposed on Frank G. Spisak, the justices may
then see no need to take up Abu-Jamal's case.

Instead, at that point, it's likely that the justices would simply
issue a one-page order in Abu-Jamal's case that would summarily
reverse the decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and
order the appellate court to reconsider whether Abu-Jamal's death
sentence should be reinstated.

Why is Abu-Jamal's case so similar to Spisak's? Both were on death row
for notorious murders, but both won rulings in federal court that
granted them partial new trials limited to the penalty phase.

In both cases, the federal courts' decisions to overturn the death
sentences hinged on Mills v. Maryland -- a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court
decision that governs how juries should deliberate during the penalty
phase of a capital trial.

The Mills ruling struck down a Maryland statute that said juries in
capital cases must be unanimous on any aggravating or mitigating
factor. Voting 5-4, the justices declared that unanimity was properly
required for any aggravating factor, but that mitigating factors --
those that weigh against imposing a death sentence -- must be handled
more liberally, with each juror free to find on his or her own.

Since then, Mills has proven to be a powerful tool for defense lawyers
aiming to overturn death sentences in numerous other states.

The question now before the courts is whether Mills truly requires
that death sentences in other states be overturned if the juries in
those states might have been confused by faulty instructions or
verdict forms and led to believe that mitigating factors require
unanimity.

Perhaps even more important to the justices is a corollary question of
federalism: Is it fair for the federal courts to overturn a state
court's decision on how to interpretMills by imposing its own
interpretation that extends Mills beyond its original scope?

It's possible that the justices will provide the answers to those
questions in Spisak's case that will be immediately applied to Abu-
Jamal's case -- with Abu-Jamal and his lawyers forced to simply watch
and wait until that happens.

Spisak, 57, was sentenced to death in 1983 for a killing spree at
Cleveland State University after a monthlong trial that reportedly
included testimony that he was a neo-Nazi and cross-dresser.

According to briefs in the case, Spisak killed Horace T. Rickerson,
Timothy Sheehan and Brian Warford and also shot at John Hardaway and
Coletta Dartt. Hardaway was shot seven times but survived and
identified Spisak as the shooter.

After his arrest, Spisak confessed to all five shootings and declared
that his actions were motivated by his hatred of gay people, blacks
and Jews.

As Ohio prosecutors argued in their Supreme Court brief, Spisak
"proudly testified at length as to his neo-Nazi beliefs and told the
jury that those beliefs had motivated the murders."

In 2006, the 6th Circuit overturned Spisak's death sentence based on a
Mills violation as well as findings that his lawyers were ineffective
and had "demonized" Spisak during the trial.

The Supreme Court overturned the ruling and ordered the 6th Circuit to
study the case again in light of two other decisions by the high court.

But the 6th Circuit in 2008 reinstated its prior decisions, finding
they were correct.

Now the Supreme Court has taken the Spisak case up a second time to
tackle the question of whether the 6th Circuit failed to give proper
deference to the Ohio state courts "when it applied Mills v. Maryland
to resolve ... questions that were not decided or addressed in Mills."

Abu-Jamal's lead lawyer, Robert R. Bryan of San Francisco, said in
April that the issue in Spisak is "very similar" to the issue raised
in the prosecutors' petition in Abu-Jamal's case.

"The question we've got," Bryan said at the time, "is whether we'll be
left dangling in the wind until Spisak is decided."

In the prosecutor's petition in Abu-Jamal's case, Deputy District
Attorney Ronald Eisenberg argued that the 3rd Circuit failed to give
the proper deference to the rulings of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
which had addressed the Mills issue in 1995 and -- relying on a 3rd
Circuit decision -- concluded that the Pennsylvania jury instructions
did not run afoul of Mills.

But by the time Abu-Jamal's case made its way into the federal courts,
the 3rd Circuit "had changed its mind," Eisenberg argued, with a
series of decisions that said the Pennsylvania courts' analysis of
Mills was not only wrong but unreasonable.

Eisenberg urged the justices to see a difference between Mills --
where the Maryland jury was specifically instructed that it had to be
unanimous on mitigating factors -- and the situation in states like
Pennsylvania, where the issue is much subtler and hinges on
speculation by the federal courts that the jury might have been
confused.

"The difficulty with the 3rd Circuit's 'risk of confusion' view is
that Mills, quite simply, stated no such rule," Eisenberg argues.
.

--Apple-Mail-81--57985229
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div =
style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; =
">From: Hans Bennett/Mumia NYC -- Remember to check out Pam Africa =
tomorrow (Monday) from 8-9AM at WWW.900AMWURD.COM</div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; =
margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal =
normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; ">------</div><div =
style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; ">We =
have been saying that there is a strong possibility that the US Supreme =
Court will reinstate the Death Penalty for Mumia. This while the =
leading candidate running to replace Lynne Abraham as Attorney General =
is calling for Mumia's execution and a new hit piece film by Tigre Hill =
"The Barrel of a Gun" is scheduled to be released around December 9th, =
the 28th anniversary of Mumia's arrest and the beginning of the =
subsequent conspiracy to have him executed. Now this =
article. Please pay close attention and stay tuned for our =
messages. -- Suzanne Ross, for the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal =
Coalition</div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; =
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal =
12px/normal Helvetica; "> </div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; =
margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal =
normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; ">This is most alarming =
news:</div></div><div> </div><a =
href=3D"http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=3D1202434453364&;Ohio_Dea=
th_Penalty_Case_Might_Determine_AbuJamals_Fate">http://www.law.com/jsp/art=
icle.jsp?id=3D1202434453364&Ohio_Death_Penalty_Case_Might_Determine_Ab=
uJamals_Fate</a> <h1>Ohio Death Penalty Case Might Determine =
Abu-Jamal's Fate</h1><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; =
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: =
0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">Shannon P. =
Duffy</div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; =
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: =
0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">The Legal =
Intelligencer</div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; =
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: =
0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">October 12, =
2009</div> <div =
class=3D"articletools"></div>Lawyers for convicted cop-killer Mumia =
Abu-Jamal will be watching closely on Tuesday when the U.S. Supreme =
Court takes up an Ohio death penalty case because its outcome may very =
well decide whether Abu-Jamal's death sentence will be =
reinstated. In April, Abu-Jamal lost his final appeal seeking =
a new trial for the December 1981 murder of Philadelphia Police Officer =
Daniel Faulkner when the justices <a class=3D"linelink" =
target=3D"new" =
href=3D"http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=3D1202429709644">refused =
to take up the issue of whether blacks were unfairly excluded from the =
jury</a>. But, at the time, the justices took no action on a =
companion petition filed by the Philadelphia district attorney's office =
demanding reinstatement of Abu-Jamal's death sentence despite having =
discussed it weeks before. Now it appears certain that the =
high court has decided to hold the Philadelphia prosecutors' petition in =
abeyance pending the outcome of Smith v. Spisak -- an =
Ohio case that raises strikingly similar issues to those in Abu-Jamal's =
case. If the prosecutors in that case are successful and win =
reinstatement of the death sentence imposed on Frank G. Spisak, the =
justices may then see no need to take up Abu-Jamal's =
case. Instead, at that point, it's likely that the justices =
would simply issue a one-page order in Abu-Jamal's case that would =
summarily reverse the decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals =
and order the appellate court to reconsider whether Abu-Jamal's death =
sentence should be reinstated. Why is Abu-Jamal's case so =
similar to Spisak's? Both were on death row for notorious murders, but =
both won rulings in federal court that granted them partial new trials =
limited to the penalty phase. In both cases, the federal =
courts' decisions to overturn the death sentences hinged on <a =
class=3D"linelink" target=3D"new" =
href=3D"http://supreme.justia.com/us/486/367/case.html">Mills v. =
Maryland</a> -- a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision that =
governs how juries should deliberate during the penalty phase of a =
capital trial. The Mills ruling struck =
down a Maryland statute that said juries in capital cases must be =
unanimous on any aggravating or mitigating factor. Voting 5-4, the =
justices declared that unanimity was properly required for any =
aggravating factor, but that mitigating factors -- those that weigh =
against imposing a death sentence -- must be handled more liberally, =
with each juror free to find on his or her own. Since =
then, Mills has proven to be a powerful tool for =
defense lawyers aiming to overturn death sentences in numerous other =
states. The question now before the courts is =
whether Mills truly requires that death sentences in =
other states be overturned if the juries in those states might have been =
confused by faulty instructions or verdict forms and led to believe that =
mitigating factors require unanimity. Perhaps even more =
important to the justices is a corollary question of federalism: Is it =
fair for the federal courts to overturn a state court's decision on how =
to interpretMills by imposing its own interpretation that =
extends Mills beyond its original =
scope? It's possible that the justices will provide the =
answers to those questions in Spisak's case that will be immediately =
applied to Abu-Jamal's case -- with Abu-Jamal and his lawyers forced to =
simply watch and wait until that happens. Spisak, 57, was =
sentenced to death in 1983 for a killing spree at Cleveland State =
University after a monthlong trial that reportedly included testimony =
that he was a neo-Nazi and cross-dresser. According to briefs =
in the case, Spisak killed Horace T. Rickerson, Timothy Sheehan and =
Brian Warford and also shot at John Hardaway and Coletta Dartt. Hardaway =
was shot seven times but survived and identified Spisak as the =
shooter. After his arrest, Spisak confessed to all five =
shootings and declared that his actions were motivated by his hatred of =
gay people, blacks and Jews. As Ohio prosecutors argued in =
their Supreme Court brief, Spisak "proudly testified at length as to his =
neo-Nazi beliefs and told the jury that those beliefs had motivated the =
murders." In 2006, the 6th Circuit overturned Spisak's death =
sentence based on a Mills violation as well as =
findings that his lawyers were ineffective and had "demonized" Spisak =
during the trial. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling and =
ordered the 6th Circuit to study the case again in light of two other =
decisions by the high court. But the 6th Circuit in 2008 =
reinstated its prior decisions, finding they were =
correct. Now the Supreme Court has taken the Spisak case up a =
second time to tackle the question of whether the 6th Circuit failed to =
give proper deference to the Ohio state courts "when it =
applied Mills v. Maryland to resolve ... questions =
that were not decided or addressed =
in Mills." Abu-Jamal's lead lawyer, Robert R. =
Bryan of San Francisco, said in April that the issue =
in Spisak is "very similar" to the issue raised in =
the prosecutors' petition in Abu-Jamal's case. "The question =
we've got," Bryan said at the time, "is whether we'll be left dangling =
in the wind until Spisak is decided." In =
the prosecutor's petition in Abu-Jamal's case, Deputy District Attorney =
Ronald Eisenberg argued that the 3rd Circuit failed to give the proper =
deference to the rulings of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which had =
addressed the Mills issue in 1995 and -- relying on a =
3rd Circuit decision -- concluded that the Pennsylvania jury =
instructions did not run afoul of Mills. But by =
the time Abu-Jamal's case made its way into the federal courts, the 3rd =
Circuit "had changed its mind," Eisenberg argued, with a series of =
decisions that said the Pennsylvania courts' analysis =
of Mills was not only wrong but =
unreasonable. Eisenberg urged the justices to see a =
difference between Mills -- where the Maryland jury =
was specifically instructed that it had to be unanimous on mitigating =
factors -- and the situation in states like Pennsylvania, where the =
issue is much subtler and hinges on speculation by the federal courts =
that the jury might have been confused. "The difficulty with =
the 3rd Circuit's 'risk of confusion' view is that Mills, =
quite simply, stated no such rule," Eisenberg =
argues. . </body></html>=

--Apple-Mail-81--57985229--


	Previous Message	All Messages	Next Message

Concerned about privacy? Topica is TrustE certified.
See our Privacy Policy.