Judge overturns death sentence for Mumia Abu-Jamal: “A federal judge here upheld the murder conviction today of Mumia Abu-Jamal, a former journalist and Black Panther whose case has attracted enormous international attention, but threw out the death sentence against him.

Finding problems with the instructions to the jury in the original trial, Judge William Yohn ordered that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania conduct a new sentencing hearing within 180 days or impose a sentence of life imprisonment.” New York Times

Abu-Jamal’s supporters are unhappy because the judge upheld the murder conviction despite the defense’s new evidence. I must say, from following this case for years as a death penalty opponent, the prosecution’s claim to have proven a case of coldblooded murder of a police officer seems pretty open-and-shut, and Abu-Jamal’s counterarguments pretty outlandish. But the prosecution and the police lobby are upset because the death sentence was vacated. It does violate a pretty central tenet of fairness, whether you believe in the death sentence or not, to not allow consideration of mitigating factors in the penalty phase, after a murder conviction. But, since Abu-Jamal and his supporters to this day steadfastly insist he’s innocent, would they introduce any mitigating circumstances in the first place and, in so doing, start down the slippery slope of conceding he’s responsible?