Because the floodwall built around him, keeping at bay an aware public, and walling him inside prison for 30 years, has recently been breached. Moreover, two swells of public opinion now rise like quiet, powerful waves, widening the breach, making release not only thinkable, but perhaps, also, achievable.
First, the breach. In October, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling held Abu-Jamal's death sentence unconstitutional. Jurors, the court held, were misled to believe they had to be unanimous to consider mitigating circumstances against execution: his lack of previous criminal record, his distinguished journalism career, his devotion to family.
October's ruling meant that prosecutors were forced to consider holding a new penalty hearing if they wanted to keep the death sentence. Failing a new penalty hearing, Abu-Jamal would be left with a life sentence without parole.
The breach made by the Supreme Court ruling and the district attorney's decision allows the first wave of public concern: renewed criticism of the entire trial. If death-sentence deliberations were handled so poorly, should not the trial itself, which featured the same judge, prosecutor, and jury, also be viewed with greater suspicion?
In 2000, Amnesty International reviewed Abu-Jamal's 1982 trial and found it "in violation of minimum international standards that govern fair trial procedures." That judgment looks more credible after October's ruling. Moreover, the state's case against Abu-Jamal can be further questioned because other disturbing disclosures have come to the fore.
In 2001, court stenographer Terri Maurer-Carter swore in an affidavit that she heard Abu-Jamal's judge, Albert Sabo, say of him during a break in proceedings, "Yeah and I'm gonna help 'em fry the nigger."
