Yohn's decision

The New York Times
December 19, 2001

NATIONAL

Death Sentence Overturned in 1981 Killing of Officer

By SARA RIMER

PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 18

In a case that has been contested in the courts for nearly 20 years, a federal judge here today threw out the death sentence for Mumia Abu-Jamal, the former journalist and Black Panther who is perhaps the world's best known death-row inmate, but upheld his murder conviction.

Finding that the instructions to the jury were unconstitutional, the judge, William H. Yohn Jr. of Federal District Court, ordered that the State of Pennsylvania conduct a new sentencing hearing within 180 days or impose a sentence of life imprisonment.

Mr. Abu-Jamal, who is African- American, was convicted in 1982 of the fatal 1981 shooting of a white Philadelphia police officer, Daniel Faulkner, after the officer pulled over Mr. Abu-Jamal's brother, who was driving the wrong way on a one- way street.

Unlike most other death-row inmates, Mr. Abu-Jamal, 47, has been a vocal and some say charismatic spokesman for his own cause. He has attracted supporters around the world, who see him as a symbol of the racial inequities and other injustices of the American death-penalty system.

Officer Faulkner was 25 when he was killed. His widow, Maureen, said today that the judge's ruling "comes as a tremendous emotional blow to my family."

She called Mr. Abu- Jamal a "remorseless, hate-filled killer," who through the judge's action "will be permitted to enjoy the pleasures that come from simply being alive pleasures he stole from Danny nearly two decades ago."

The district attorney of Philadelphia, Lynne Abraham, a supporter of the death penalty, said she would appeal the ruling on the death sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Reversals in death-penalty cases more often involve errors at the sentencing than at the conviction phase, said Elisabeth Semel, the director of the death penalty clinic at the University of California School of Law. Because of the lengthy review required by law, reversals after more than a dozen years are not uncommon, Ms. Semel added. If the judge's decision to void the death sentence stands, the state will have to select a new jury for the penalty phase of the trial and present evidence of Mr. Abu-Jamal's guilt.

"It's obviously a complicated process for both sides because of the passage of time," Ms. Semel said. "Who knows what witnesses are lost, what evidence is lost, what is not available to both sides that should have been presented when this case was tried."

Mr. Abu-Jamal's supporters, who have been fighting for the reversal of his conviction, greeted the judge's ruling as only a partial victory.

"All of the errors that occurred in Abu-Jamal's trial clearly warrant a new hearing on the question of guilt or innocence," said Steven Hawkins, the executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, who represented Mr. Abu-Jamal in the early 1990's.

Today's decision was a response to Mr. Abu-Jamal's habeas petition, which was his fifth major legal challenge, Mr. Hawkins said. Mr. Abu- Jamal has twice appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and twice to the United States Supreme Court.

Gov. Tom Ridge, who left the governorship this fall to head the new federal office for domestic security, set two execution dates for Mr. Abu- Jamal, one in August 1995 and the other in December 1999.

The case has been winding its way through the courts, according to procedures that are standard in death penalty cases, Ms. Semel and other experts say. Judge Yohn, in his ruling, noted that many people "will find it difficult to understand why this and numerous other capital cases are still under review almost 20 years after trial and conviction." He wrote that recent judicial, executive and legislative action would reduce the time for review in future cases.

Legal experts described Judge Yohn's 272-page ruling as dispassionate and meticulous. Repeatedly affirming the state court's review of the issues, the judge dismissed all of Mr. Abu-Jamal's claims of constitutional defects in the guilt phase of the trial and refused to grant a new trial.

The one area where the judge did grant relief was to find that the instructions the jury received regarding mitigating factors, together with the verdict forms the jury was given, produced a "reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the . . . instruction [and form] in a way that prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence."

Mr. Abu-Jamal's lawyers could not be reached for comment today. But Mr. Hawkins said it was likely that the defense would argue that the Court of Appeals should take the case and find that the judge should have reversed Mr. Abu-Jamal's conviction.

Mr. Abu-Jamal's trial lawyer was inexperienced and overwhelmed by the case, said George Kendall, staff lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. In addition, Mr. Kendall said, the trial judge had a reputation as being pro-police and pro-prosecution.

"There were a lot of things that weren't done correctly," Mr. Kendall said, adding that it is for these reasons that the case has resonated across the country and in Europe.

Mr. Abu-Jamal's celebrity and continuing court battle invoke bitter feelings among police officers and residents here. On Dec. 9, 1981, Mr. Abu-Jamal shot Officer Faulkner in the back, the jury found. Officer Faulkner shot Mr. Abu-Jamal in the chest. As Officer Faulkner lay bleeding, Mr. Abu-Jamal shot him four more times. Mr. Abu-Jamal acknowledges being at the scene but maintains his innocence. He says someone else, whom he does not identify, was the killer.