Skip to Content

U.S. HIgh Court Ruling Opens Door to New Appeal by Mumia Abu-Jamal of His 1982 Conviction

Supreme Hypocrisy in Pennsylvania

Sabo’s disdainful antics against Abu-Jamal’s defense team during his 1995 PCRA were so egregious they drew wide rebuke from the news media, including Philadelphia-based columnists and editorial writers who had earlier dismissed any claims that Sabo was biased against Abu-Jamal.

Castille and his Pennsylvania high court confederates in 1998 blithely dismissed the dozens of news media criticisms of Sabo’s 1995 antics with the curious observation that the “opinions of a handful of journalists do not persuade us” that Sabo lacked impartiality. That ruling denied overt hostility by Sabo despite acknowledgement that Sabo in 1995 repeatedly made “intemperate remarks” and Sabo’s outbursts exceeded “judicial decorum.”

The failure of the U.S. Supreme Court to render any relief to Abu-Jamal highlights an observation contained in that Amnesty International report issued in 2000: “The politicization of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s case may not only have prejudiced his right to a fair trial, but may now be undermining his right to a fair and impartial treatment in the appeal courts.”

It remains to be seen whether the "Mumia Exception" continues, again blocking his benefit from rulings that overturn other state convicts' convictions. Will that unlawful "Mumia Exception" finally cease, permitting Abu-Jamal to obtain justice from this latest U.S. Supreme Court precedent?

story | by Dr. Radut