Abu-Jamal v. Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
643 F.3d 370
3rd Cir.2011Background
- Abu-Jamal was convicted of first-degree murder in 1982 and sentenced to death; post-conviction relief claims alleged improper mitigation instructions and unanimity requirements in sentencing; district court granted relief on mitigation instruction; Third Circuit on remand reviewed under AEDPA and intervening Spisak authority; Supreme Court remanded to reconsider Mills-based issue; the court now holds Mills violation occurred and relief affirmed; Pennsylvania’s uniform verdict form changed after Mills to separate unanimity rules for aggravating vs mitigating evidence.
- The district court proceedings granted habeas relief concerning the mitigation instruction; the conviction itself was upheld in prior stages; remand directed reconsideration in light of Spisak; the Third Circuit ultimately concluded Mills-based error warranted relief.
- Mills v. Maryland established that juries must be allowed to consider all mitigating evidence and unanimity on mitigating findings cannot preclude weighing mitigating factors.
- Spisak v. Ohio clarified that not all sentencing forms/instructions trigger Mills; focus on whether instructions in Abu-Jamal unduly precluded mitigating evidence.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court relied on verdict form alone and did not assess full charge language, leading to an unreasonable Mills application under AEDPA.
- The Court discusses reforms to verdict forms and instructions adopted after Mills to ensure mitigations are considered non-unanimously and clarifies current standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mills violation occurred due to verdict form and instructions | Abu-Jamal: form and charge precluded mitigating evidence | Commonwealth: no Mills violation | Yes, Mills violation shown |
| Whether Mills violation was unreasonable application under AEDPA | District court's Mills finding deserves deference | Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling adequate | Unreasonable application per Mills/Spisak |
| Impact of Spisak on analysis on remand | Spisak requires different analysis than Mills | Spisak not controlling here | Spisak controls in remand context; Mills violation upheld |
| Effect of Pennsylvania's post-Mills verdict form changes | Changes show long-term remedy to allow mitigations | Forms did not retroactively prejudice jurors | Changes relevant but did not cure the prior error at issue in Abu-Jamal; relief sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988) (unanimity and consideration of mitigating evidence required in capital sentencing)
- Spisak v. Ohio, 130 S. Ct. 684 (2010) (differences in instructions; Mills not violated by some forms)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (unreasonable application standard under AEDPA; objectively unreasonable)
- Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (2007) (AEDPA deference; heightened standard for unreasonable applications)
- McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433 (1990) (mitigating evidence and burden of proof interplay)