Justice

Mumia Abu-Jamal  -- tick, tick, tick?

by Jason Gay

The past few months have been rough for celebrated death-row convict Mumia Abu-Jamal. This summer, Vanity Fair magazine unearthed a jailhouse confidant who said Abu-Jamal had acknowledged killing Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981 -- a confession that Abu-Jamal (who blasted the VF piece as "snuff journalism") denies ever making. And last Monday, October 4, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear Abu-Jamal's appeal -- fueling speculation that his execution is imminent.

That speculation may be a bit overblown. After all, not even Abu-Jamal, who claims he was denied a fair trial, expected the nation's highest court to hear his case. "The Supreme Court hears only a tiny percent of the cases that are brought before it, roughly 75 out of 7000 in one semester or term of the court," Abu-Jamal stated in a posting on the Web site www.mumia.org. "I entertained no expectations that mine would be granted."

It's true that Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge has vowed to sign a warrant for Abu-Jamal's execution, and could do so within the next 30 days. But Abu-Jamal hasn't run out of options yet. His attorneys, including famed defense counselor Leonard Weinglass, plan to file a habeas corpus writ in federal court, in which they will argue that Abu-Jamal's constitutional rights have been violated. Philadelphia deputy district attorney Ronald Eisenberg told the Philadephia Inquirer that such an appeal might take several years to resolve.

Local Abu-Jamal advocates, although disappointed in the Supreme Court's ruling, see other positives. "It's in the news now, so people have a chance to debate the issue and put pressure on the federal court of appeals," says George Bryant of Cambridge's Revolution Books. "There's a shot there."