After spending almost a year’s time deliberating

After spending almost a year’s time deliberating following a hearing last May 17, a 3-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia has shot down all 3 claims by death row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal challenging his conviction for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. At the same time, the appeals court upheld a 2001 decision by Federal District Judge William Yohn that had overturned former Black Panther and Philadelphia journalist Abu-Jamal’s death sentence, agreeing with the lower court judge that the form used by the trial jury in 1982 to establish whether jurors felt there were any mitigating circumstances was flawed, and could have left panelists mistakenly believing that before they could consider any such mitigating factors in their deliberations, they would all have to agree such a factor existed. In fact, by law if even one juror believes that there is a mitigating factor, that factor can be considered by jurors in deciding on death or life in prison. The Court of Appeals said that because the jury that sentenced Abu-Jamal to die was given flawed instructions in the penalty phase, he must either get a new sentencing hearing or be sentenced to life in prison. Abu-Jamal's lead attorney, Robert R. Bryan, said he was glad the judges did not reinstate the death sentence, but added that he will continue fighting to get his client a new trial. Abu-Jamal had appealed his conviction, arguing that racism by the judge and prosecutors corrupted his 1982 conviction at the hands of a mostly white jury. Prosecutors, meanwhile, had appealed a federal judge's Dec. 18, 2001 (see) decision to grant Abu-Jamal a new sentencing hearing because of the allegedly flawed jury instructions. U.S. District Judge William Yohn denied all of Abu-Jamal's other claims and refused his request for a new trial. A Philadelphia jury convicted Abu-Jamal in 1982 of the Dec. 9, 1981 killing of Officer Daniel Faulkner, 25. 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. (See also July 19, September 13, November 21, December 4, 18, 20 and 21 2001; December 8, 2005).