Miscellaneous

Mumia Supporters: Start Thinking about New T-Shirts

By Anne Skove, Esq.

Mumia Abu-Jamal (not to be confused with Mumm-Ra) is set for a new penalty hearing.

Convicted in 1982 of killing a white police officer, Mumia has a slew of fans and supporters who agree with his claim that racism was a factor in his trial, that he was framed by Philly police, etc. Supporters include Latinos por Mumia, Journalists for Mumia Abu-Jamal (we thought journalists were supposed to be for nobody), and France.

The new hearing is being granted on the basis of allegedly flawed jury instructions and confusing verdict form. The question is whether the jury understood how to weigh mitigators. Did they have to be unanimous? No, but it's not clear that they knew that, as the word "unanimous" appeared throughout.

The jury consisted of ten whites and two African-Americans. Ten African-Americans were struck. Hmmm.

See Court: Mumia Deserves New Hearing, Kathy Matheson, AP (March 28, 2008), and Spectators Pack Courtroom as 3rd Circuit Hears Appeal in Mumia Abu-Jamal Case, by Shannon P. Duffy (who seems to think the 80s are ancient history), Legal Intelligencer (May 18, 2007).

And if you're wondering what all this has to do with this week's South Carolina court-o-rama theme, the answer is almost nothing, but Mumia has written his thoughts about this state under an inflammatory title which we will not repeat here (and really, it has more to do with the Clintons and the South Carolina primary).

Full post as published by court-o-rama.org on March 27, 2008 (boomark / email).