|
December
7
Mumia
Abu-Jamal
files new memorandum of law with federal court
-- entire Pennsylvania Court Record Assailed
|
Attorneys
for imprisoned journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal today submitted to federal
district court judge William H. Yohn
a 95-page memorandum of law. The memorandum documents the legal
basis for each of the twenty-nine claims of constitutional violations
asserted in Jamal's petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus.
The memorandum also asserts an interpretation of how the 1996 Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act should be applied to this case.
The 1996 law was designed to restrict the use of federal writs of
habeas corpus to overturn unjust convictions by state courts. It
has the effect of restoring the doctrine of "states rights" that
prevailed before the civil rights movement. One part of the 1996
law requires federal judges to give a "presumption of correctness"
to findings of fact made by state courts. In Jamal's new memorandum
his attorneys assert that the 1996 law still provides two grounds
for habeas relief. The first is if the state court conviction is
"contrary to" clearly established federal law. The memorandum asserts
that this is the case for all 29 claims, and hence there is no need
to determine the correctness of state court factual findings. The
95-page memorandum then details the federal court cases that support
this claim. It also notes that key provisions of the 1996 have not
yet been ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the event that Judge
Yohn does not accept the first argument, Jamal's attorneys go on
to assert how the second basis of relief in the 1996 law should
be applied in this case. This deals with cases in which conviction
was based on an "unreasonable interpretation of the facts." Here
Jamal's attorneys argue that application of the "presumption of
correctness" language presupposes a full and fair hearing in the
state court system. They assert that this was not the case -- an
issue that would have to be decided prior to any application of
"presumption of correctness." The memorandum announces that Jamal's
attorneys will be presenting the court with a motion to set aside
the state court's findings of fact completely as resulting from
totally biased and corrupt proceedings. If this motion is rejected,
Jamal's attorneys will present the court with a motion for an evidentiary
hearing on twelve of the twenty-nine claims asserted. |
