Death Sentence Reversed for Ex-Black Panther

A federal court judge in Philadelphia overturned the death sentence of former Black Panther and journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal on Tuesday, marking another flash point in a controversial case that has sparked bitter debate over the death penalty both here and abroad.

U.S. District Judge William Yohn cited problems in the instructions to the jury, which he said did not make clear how the jurors could consider mitigating circumstances in the 1982 sentencing after the conviction of the political activist for the murder of Police Officer Daniel Faulkner.

Faulkner was shot in late 1981 on a Philadelphia street after he pulled over a vehicle containing the defendant’s brother.

Yohn ordered that either a new sentencing hearing be held within 180 days or that Abu-Jamal remain in prison for life. He left standing Abu-Jamal’s first degree murder conviction.

Although the death penalty decision was a limited victory for Abu-Jamal and his lawyers, it sparked angry reaction Tuesday from prosecutors and police.

“The judge’s decision is legally flawed,” said Philadelphia Dist. Atty. Lynne Abraham, who promptly said she would appeal.

She promised a long court fight, pledging “there’s not going to be any [sentencing] hearing . . . unless all appeals that we are permitted to pursue are totally exhausted.”

Eliot Lee Grossman, one of Abu-Jamal’s lawyers, also said he would appeal.

“We see this as a partial victory,” he said. “We think his conviction needs to be thrown out.”

“He had a trial before a racist judge,” Grossman said.

Few death penalty cases have garnered such attention--and have rallied both supporters and opponents.

While in prison, Abu-Jamal became an international cause celebre, gaining attention for his writings and radio interviews about prison conditions and the American criminal justice system.

For more than a decade, the lines have been drawn sharply over whether Abu-Jamal was wrongly imprisoned after a stormy, racially tinged trial or whether he was merely a highly articulate cop-killer.

In just one measure of the schism and the emotion, last year more than 6,000 people showed support for the 47-year-old activist during a rally at New York’s Madison Square Garden while off-duty police officers picketed outside.

And the argument showed no signs of abating Tuesday.

Faulkner’s widow, Maureen, expressed disgust and outrage at the judge’s ruling, calling Yohn a “sick and twisted person . . . who wants to appease both sides.”

The Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police used even stronger language.

“We think it’s a hell of a Christmas present to every police officer throughout the country in that it increases the already significant danger that officers must face on a daily basis by sending a clear message that those who assault police and murder them need no longer fear the death penalty,” said Richard Costello, the organization’s president.

“This judge has been sitting on this decision for two years, and he issued it one week after the 20th anniversary of Officer Faulkner’s murder,” Costello said.

“It sends a clear message on the dangers of the merit selection process,” he said. “It shows that any cheap political hack with the right connections and enough money can get a job on the federal bench, and there is nothing the American public can do to remove him.”

Amnesty International and other groups that have criticized the prosecution praised the judge but called for a new trial.

“While the federal judge should be lauded for recognizing the flaws of Mr. Jamal’s original sentence, only a new trial can serve justice in this case,” said William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA.

“His flawed trial and sentence speak to the larger problem of the application of the death penalty in the United States, which is riddled with inadequate legal representation, judicial bias and the politicization of the judicial process,” Schulz said.

Steven W. Hawkins, executive director of the national Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, charged that the trial contained violations of due process, racism and prosecutorial misconduct.

“Although we applaud the fact that Abu-Jamal’s sentence was thrown out, today’s ruling is bittersweet. All the errors that occurred in Abu-Jamal’s trial clearly warrant a new hearing on the question of guilt or innocence,” he said.

“This case is a textbook example of racism within our criminal justice system,” he said. “And it is a textbook example of the fundamental issue of fairness and whether we as a society are executing innocent people.”

Abu-Jamal, who was born Wesley Cook, grew up in a housing project in Philadelphia. He had no criminal record before his conviction.

He was arrested Dec. 9, 1981, on Locust Street in Center City Philadelphia after a car driven by William Cook, the defendant’s brother, was pulled over by Faulkner.

William Cook got out of his car and scuffled with the officer, who radioed for backup. Prosecutors said Abu-Jamal ran to the scene from a parking lot across the street and shot Faulkner in the back.

The police officer returned fire and struck Abu-Jamal in the chest. The jury found that Abu-Jamal then stood over Faulkner and fired four more times.

After his conviction and death sentence in July 1982, lawyers appealed unsuccessfully to a series of courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied a review. His latest legal move in federal court sought a hearing on evidence and to set aside as “unreasonable” the factual determination of the state’s courts.

In his opinion, Yohn rejected all but one of Abu-Jamal’s claims, including arguments that the defendant’s confession was fabricated, prosecutors had destroyed or withheld ballistics evidence and that his trial lawyer was ineffective.

But the judge, in his 272-page decision, criticized the trial judge’s instructions to the jury as an “unreasonable application of federal law.”

“The charge and verdict form created a reasonable likelihood that the jury believed it was precluded from considering any mitigating circumstance that had not been found unanimously to exist,” he said.

Abu-Jamal’s case also has generated indignation and passion in leftist political circles in France.

Earlier this month, the Paris City Council took time out from its struggle with urban problems such as traffic, crime and pollution to vote to make him an honorary citizen of Paris.

The recognition was last bestowed on Pablo Picasso in 1971.

Street marches on Abu-Jamal’s behalf are frequent in Paris, and a number of labor unions, political parties and anti-racism groups have formed a coalition to promote his freedom.

Their thinking was reflected in an article written by Danielle Mitterrand, the widow of former Socialist President Francois Mitterrand, about her visit to Abu-Jamal in prison two years ago.

Mitterrand, a veteran left-wing activist, charged that the case shows that “barbarity has an American face.” She went on to depict Abu-Jamal as a sensitive, heroic and stoic revolutionary.

Abraham in Philadelphia sees things differently.

“Today, Mumia Abu-Jamal is what he has always been: a convicted, remorseless, coldblooded killer,” the district attorney said after the judge’s ruling.

*

Times staff writer Sebastian Rotella in Paris contributed to this report.