Court agrees to review constitutional questions in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal
by
Amy L. Dalton | 12.11.2005
The defense has until January 17 to submit arguments that Jamal's initial trial was marred by racial bias in the selection of jurors, that prosecutor Joe McGill improperly instructed jurors in his final summation, and that presiding judge Albert Sabo was inappropriately biased against the defense in the 1985 Post-Conviction Relief Act hearing.
The possible outcomes of these appeals are myriad, and well outlined in David Lindorff's recent article for Counterpunch Magazine.
The decision to review these allegations reversed two previous rulings by the Federal District Court, and as noted by journalist Jeff Mackler, marks a significant challenge to the 1996 Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. This controversial act, signed by President Clinton in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bomging, severely weakened the obligation of courts to hear late-stage appeals under the writ of habeus corpus.
[Statement by defense attorney Robert R. Bryan]
[Journalist Linnn Washington reports on biased media coverage in Philadelphia]
[International Concerned Family & Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal]
Comentarios
Enviar un comentario nuevo