Supreme Court upholds Mumia Abu-Jamal verdict

Let me be clear: I firmly believe Mumia Abu-Jamal is innocent.

Abu-Jamal is serving time for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. I've read the facts of the case many times before, and I have no doubt that he's innocent of this crime. Detractors have raked me through acid over this belief, but I've studied the case for years.

A man named Arnold Beverly has actually admitted to killing Faulkner. But there's other evidence pointing to Abu-Jamal's innocence (which probably doesn't need to be rehashed here).

Today, however, the U.S. Supreme Court may have dashed Abu-Jamal's last hopes at ever getting out of prison. The court refused to take up his claims that prosecutors wrongly excluded blacks from the jury that convicted him. Thus, there's no way he'll ever receive a new trial.

This underscores the larger issue of how hard it is for defendants to remedy a questionable conviction - especially now that courts are so weak at making sure everyone gets a fair trial. If someone commits a serious crime, I'm all for serious punishment. But if there's any doubt at all about the guilt of someone who was convicted, we need to make sure they get tried impartially.

(Source: http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/4150446.php?contentType=4&contentId=3783975)