by C. Clark Kissinger
In a case that has implications for Mumia Abu-Jamal, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to parts of the Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The case is Williams v. Taylor, and it comes out of the very reactionary 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. This same Circuit Court is trying to overturn the Miranda decision that requires that defendants be advised of their rights.
In the Williams case, the defendant was convicted of a murder to which he confessed. But in the sentencing phase, his lawyer, who was suffering from clinical depression and was subsequently forced to give up his license to practice law, did nothing to prepare an argument against the death penalty.
A federal district court granted a writ of habeas corpus, ruling that Williams' rights were prejudiced by his inadequate counsel. On appeal, however, the 4th Circuit overturned the district court decision, citing the Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The 4th Circuit ruled that a federal court cannot interfere with a state court decision unless the errors made by the state court were an "unreasonable" violation of federally protected rights.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Virginia Supreme Court had not acted unreasonably when it ruled earlier that, even if Williams' lawyer's performance was unreasonable, this had still not prejudiced Williams' rights.
If that sounds pretty contorted, it is. In plain English, what the 4th Circuit Court is saying is this: For Williams' to get the federal courts to come to his aid, he has to prove not only that 1) his lawyer's performance was so bad as to be unreasonable, but 2) that the Virginia Supreme Court acted unreasonably in failing to act on the unreasonable performance of Williams' lawyer!
In other words, just having your rights taken away is not enough to earn you the help of the federal courts. Now you have to show that the state court was "unreasonably" wrong, whatever that means, in taking away your rights. This is an example of the current political climate that is openly seeking to restore the doctrine of "states rights" that was knocked down by the Civil Rights movement of the sixties.
While the 4th Circuit has been the most zealous federal circuit in the U.S. in denying reviews to death row inmates, their rulings are based on the wording of the Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 which was expressly designed to put an end to federal review of death sentences by state courts. The 1996 law effectively guts federal habeas corpus protection for prisoners convicted in state courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court has now agreed to review this case, which challenges the constitutionality of the 1996 law. But all the current motion in the courts, Congress, and the White House has been toward quicker executions with less federal scrutiny. How they rule will affect the case if Mumia Abu-Jamal and thousands of others on death row.
(April10, 1999)
[posted Sat, Apr 10, 1999]
Mumia Index | Mumia Events | R&R Main Page
Join Refuse
& Resist!
305 Madison Ave., Suite 1166, New York, NY 10165
Phone: 212-713-5657
email: info@refuseandresist.org