Friday, April 10, 2009
MUMIA ABU-JAMAL, SUPREME COURT SAYS NO!
The last open door for the supporters of Mumia Abu-Jamal to try and spring him out of death row, have now slammed shut? The United States Supreme Court refused to entertain their petition that prosecutors in his case, improperly excluded blacks from the jury that convicted him of murdering Philadelphia city police officer, Daniel Faulkner? It appears that Mumia will now face a certain death, having exhausted all his reasonable options, since that his 1982 murder conviction by a Philadelphia jury? This is however contigent on the appeal court's decision to void the sentence of death being thrown out. Abu-Jamal, 54, was a former Black Panther and one-time radio reporter. Reacting to the Supreme Court decision not to take up the case, Abu-Jamal's attorney, San Francisco's Robert R. Bryan , said his client's trial was "a mockery of justice" and promised to seek a rehearing by the high court. While the prosecutor, Hugh Burns said that "for practical purposes, this was the last remotely realistic chance for getting a new trial." Which position of this two gentlemen meets with truism will be a function of time? According to the prosecution's account of what happened on that fateful day in 1981, 25-year-old police officer Daniel Faulkner had pulled over Abu-Jamal's brother on a darkened Philadelphia downtown street. Abu-Jamal saw the traffic stop and shot Faulkner, who managed to shoot back. A wounded Abu-Jamal, his own gun lying nearby, was still at the scene when police arrived. Authorities considered the evidence against him overwhelming and he was convicted by the jury? In March 2008, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia upheld Abu-Jamal's conviction but ruled his death sentence invalid; citing the flawed instructions given to the jury during the penalty phase of his trial. A new death penalty hearing would give jurors the option of sentencing Abu-Jamal to life in prison or affirming the death penalty.
Icheoku says in view of the controversial distance this particular case has travelled, there should be a meeting of the grounds now for both sides; so that both the slain officer's family and Mumia's supporters, could conclusively get some form of justice. An officer was killed 26 years ago and a wife lost her husband, a family lost their brother, son and uncle? Mumia's people also lost the incarcerated Abu-Jamal companionship and services, but at least they still have him around? But be that as it may, and based on the circumstance as well as the evidence of a wounded Mumia lying within the vicinity of the crime-scene; there being no reasonable explanation as to the coincidences; a life term would just serve right?
Hopefully, the ballistics test of the slain officer's gun matched the slog in Mumia as well as the gun-powder residue? There must be justice for both sides and Mumia appears to argue, not that a crime was committed, but that the jury was devoid of black folks? Icheoku says, what the constitutional provision on trial by jury says is jury of your peers and not necessarily jury of your color?