Letters to the Editor

Contrary to Michael Smerconish's claim, the federal judges who found Mumia Abu-Jamal's death sentence unconstitutional did not act on a "preposterous claim" ("No doubt on guilt, but fighting on was futile," Dec. 11). Instead, the courts were properly applying a Supreme Court decision when they recognized that the instructions given to Abu-Jamal's jury were so misleading that his 1982 death sentence was likely the product of a jury that relied on the wrong legal standard. Death sentences throughout the country were overturned by the Supreme Court's decision.

Empirical evidence bears out the seriousness of this problem. The Capital Jury Project interviews with nearly 1,200 jurors who had decided death penalty cases in 14 states revealed that many jurors do not understand how they are supposed to decide whether a defendant deserves death. Pennsylvania jurors were especially likely to misunderstand the instructions. Most of the Pennsylvania jurors (59 percent) did not understand what they were allowed to consider as mitigating evidence, and 68 percent failed to understand that they did not have to all agree on what was mitigating in making their punishment decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the death penalty is unconstitutional unless the jurors' sentencing discretion is guided by instructions, but the statutory guidance is not effective if most of the jurors do not understand it.

Bill Bowers, director, Capital Jury Project, Albany