Pa. Supreme Court rejects conviction challenge from Abu-Jamal

PHILADELPHIA (AP) | -- The state Supreme Court has rejected Mumia Abu-Jamal's most recent challenge to his murder conviction, saying the petition from the death-row inmate was not filed in time.

Abu-Jamal, a one-time radio reporter convicted in the 1981 shooting death of a Philadelphia police officer, has sought to have his conviction overturned on the grounds that his defense counsel was ineffective.

"Merely filing a petition in a capital case or couching claims in ineffective terms does not save an untimely petition," Justice J. Michael Eakin wrote in an opinion released Wednesday.

The Supreme Court's ruling upheld a decision from a Philadelphia trial court, which had also rejected Abu-Jamal's petition, which was filed in 2001 under the state's Post Conviction Relief Act.

more: http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-court1010,0,2290337,print.story?coll=all-news-hed

cop killers shouldn't get off because they feel another lawyer could have done better.

And neither do you. But that's not the point. He was certainly railroaded -- that was the conclusion reached by Amnesty International after thoroughly reviewing his case.

It's also worth noting that the claims of Arnold Beverly (the guy who supposedly really killed Daniel Faulkner) are backed up by a polygraph test.

http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/mumia/guilty.html

The article above argues that Mumia is most likely guilty of the crime, but that there were several errors in his trial. He thinks he should get a new trial but that he's guilty.

Here is the pro-Mumia site:

http://www.freemumia.org/

Here is the pro-Faulkner site:

http://www.danielfaulkner.com/

My own opinion: Mumia is most likely guilty. So I think that while the process to reach his guilt might have been flawed, the conclusion was the right one. So the verdict should stand.

Officer Faulkner's family has suffered enough.