Death row cases demand most thorough scrutiny
The Tennessean, Editorial
14 December 2004
For non-lawyers, the gist of yesterday's court ruling on Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman is not easy to grasp. The complexity of the crime, of the case and of Abdur-Rahman himself makes the dissection of the court's ruling that much more difficult.
But this aspect of the case is simple: Abdur'Rahman's contention of prosecutorial misconduct has never been seriously considered by any state or federal court. This state and this nation should not allow a person to be put to death when such a basic issue of justice has not been fully explored.
Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals released its long-awaited decision that sends Abdur'Rahman's case back to the district court. The central issue before the court was whether a so-called Rule 60 motion to consider new evidence conflicts with a federal law that limits death penalty appeals.
Abdur'Rahman was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in 1987. On federal appeal, his attorneys made several claims, including a claim of prosecutorial misconduct. His attorneys claimed the prosecutor didn't turn over evidence to the defense attorney, that he made misleading statements and that he improperly prepared witnesses. Those claims were dismissed by federal court because the claims weren't raised in an earlier application to the state Supreme Court.
Afterward, the Tennessee Supreme Court, in response to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, revised state rules and clarified that a death row inmate did not have to include every allegation in every appeal in order to have claims considered at a later date.
The prosecutors for the state have continued to argue that the rules in place at the time of the appeal would not allow a death row inmate to appeal on new grounds. The dissenting Sixth Circuit judges agreed, saying that the federal law limiting death row appeals trumps Rule 60.
Yet the majority of the court agreed that the district court was wrong to dismiss Abdur'Rahman's claims of prosecutorial misconduct on procedural grounds. Since several other death row inmates, including Philip Workman, have made similar claims, the decision could significantly broaden the ability to appeal capital punishment cases.
Taken literally, the judges dissenting in this case seem to argue that new evidence that substantially changes a case should not be considered even when a person's life is at stake. They say federal law trumps rules of procedure, but they are essentially arguing that procedure trumps the effort to get all the facts on the table.
This is not the last day in court for Abdur'Rahman and Rule 60. The rigid position taken by the dissenting judges has been adopted by other courts in other regions of the nation. It may eventually be adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court. But it defies the essence of justice.