On April 26 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia unanimously issued a ruling upholding its earlier decision calling for a new sentencing hearing for Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of killing Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1982. On Pennsylvania’s death row for almost 29 years, Abu-Jamal — a world-renowned political prisoner and former Black Panther Party member — has consistently maintained his innocence.

This latest finding upholds a 2008 ruling by this same court supporting U.S. District Judge William H. Yohn Jr., who in 2001 set aside Abu-Jamal’s death penalty sentence after determining that instructions given to the jury and a jury ballot document used during Abu-Jamal’s 1982 trial were confusing and misleading. In 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Third Circuit to re-examine its earlier ruling in light of the higher court’s rejection of a similar claim in an Ohio death-penalty case.

While likely to be challenged, the Third Circuit’s latest ruling requires Philadelphia prosecutors to call for a new sentencing hearing if they want to push to reinstate the death penalty.

It’s unlikely that Philadelphia’s current District Attorney, Seth Williams, will allow this to happen since it would require impaneling a new jury that could consider new evidence regarding mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the case. While the issue of guilt or innocence would not be on trial, the defense could bring in witnesses whose testimony could raise questions about the validity of the conviction.

Prosecutors could also decide not to hold a new hearing and convert Abu-Jamal’s death sentence automatically to a life sentence. In Pennsylvania this means no chance of parole. However, Williams has already indicated that he will appeal the Third Circuit Court’s ruling back to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, Abu-Jamal remains on death row as he has since Yohn’s 2001 ruling.

Abu-Jamal’s lead attorney, Widener University law professor Judith Ritter, who represented Abu-Jamal during the appeal process that led to the Third Circuit Court’s most recent ruling, stated that the Third Circuit decision reinforced rulings that “found his death sentence to be unconstitutional.

“The Third Circuit’s most recent opinion reflects a detailed analysis demonstrating that their unanimous decision is well-supported by Supreme Court precedent. We believe this carefully reasoned analysis will stand,” Ritter told the April 27 Philadelphia Inquirer.

Earlier in April the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund announced it was joining Ritter on Abu-Jamal’s defense team. In an LDF press release, Director-Counsel John Payton stated, “This decision marks an important step forward in the struggle to correct the mistakes of an unfortunate chapter in Pennsylvania history.”

Evidence of racial discrimination

Without a doubt prosecutors fear the introduction of evidence gathered over the long years of Abu-Jamal’s confinement that raises serious questions about police misconduct and questionable testimony by prosecution witnesses during the 1982 trial.

In recent years photos of the crime scene taken by independent photographer Pedro Polakoff strongly contradict the scenario presented by police, who claim that Abu-Jamal fired multiple shots into the sidewalk where Faulkner lay. Polakoff’s photos show no visible bullet marks that should have been evident in the sidewalk.

Philadelphia journalist Linn Washington Jr. noted, “The same Philadelphia and Pennsylvania courts that found major flaws by either defense attorneys, police, prosecutors and/or trial judges in 86 Philadelphia death penalty convictions during a 28-year period after Abu-Jamal’s December 1981 arrest declare no errors exist anywhere in the Abu-Jamal case — an assertion critics call statistically improbable.

“The federal Third Circuit, for example, declined to grant Abu-Jamal a new trial based on solid legal issues from racial discrimination by prosecutors in jury selection to documented errors by trial judge Albert Sabo, the late jurist who relished his infamous reputation for pro-prosecution bias.” (thiscantbehappening.net)

While Mumia’s attorneys kept the state from reinstating the death sentence, the recent court ruling is not truly a victory for Abu-Jamal since it fails to call for a new trial. A new sentencing hearing would still only offer the option of life in prison versus the death sentence. Neither is acceptable!

While the state clearly fears the introduction of new evidence into the court proceedings, their greater concern continues to be the growing international movement supporting Abu-Jamal’s claim of innocence and demanding his freedom.

Since the summer of 1995, when major protests forced then Pennsylvania Gov.Tom Ridge to back down on his plans to carry out Abu-Jamal’s execution, this movement has proven time and again that people’s power is critical to winning any favorable ruling in this case.

Around the world there are growing examples of people’s movements forcing governments to respond to their demands. The movement to free Mumia Abu-Jamal must continue to organize globally, be vigilant, keep alert, and above all not let the prolonged years of court hearings wear them down. Free Mumia! Free all political prisoners!