6th Circuit Rules in favor of abu-ali

On December 13, 2004, the 6th Circuit finally issued a decision in Abu-Ali's case. In a 7-to-6 vote, the Court reversed the district court and remanded the case to the district court to decide whether to grant or deny Abu-Ali’s Rule 60 motion. This means there is still life to Abu-Ali's case in federal court.

The state will have 90 days to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which would ask the Supreme Court to review the 6th Circuit's decision. It is not yet known whether the State will file such a petition. Assuming the 6th Circuit's ruling stands, the case will be sent back to Judge Campbell, the federal district judge in Nashville, who will then consider whether to grant Abu’s Rule 60 motion. If Judge Campbell grants the motion, he then will consider the merits of Abu-Ali’s prosecutorial misconduct claims, presumably in combination with his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a Rule 60(b) motion does not automatically amount to a prohibited successive habeas petition. Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that in some instances an applicant may file a motion to reconsider a previous ruling of the court.

The Sixth Circuit ruled that a Rule 60(b) motion should only be barred when the motion constitutes a direct challenge to the constitutionality of the underlying conviction.

In this case, Abdur’Rahman’s Rule 60(b) motion attacks the manner in which the district court’s earlier habeas judgment was reached. Because Abdur’Rahman’s motion does not constitute a direct challenge to the constitutionality of his conviction, the Sixth Circuit ruled it is not a successive habeas petition.

"We are very pleased," said Brad MacLean, who with Nashville defense lawyer Bill Redick, has pleaded Abdur’Rahman’s case. "He is very hopeful that all of his claims will be heard."

If Abdur’Rahman’s appeals succeed, he could get a new trial or have his sentence reduced.

Abdur’Rahman contends that U.S. District Judge Todd Campbell should have held a hearing on misconduct allegations against Davidson County Assistant District Attorney General John Zimmermann, the original prosecutor in the case.

Abdur’Rahman’s defense alleges Zimmerman withheld and mischaracterized evidence. Zimmermann, who has been disciplined in three unrelated cases, has said he acted properly.

State Attorney General Paul Summers has argued Abdur’Rahman failed to claim misconduct at each level of the state court system. By the time Abdur’Rahman made those claims in federal court, his window of opportunity had closed, the state said.

Legal experts say Abdur’Rahman’s appeal could affect the fates of others among the 100 inmates on Tennessee's death row.

At issue is how long a death-row inmate can keep his appeal going in federal court.

Under the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, death-row inmates are allowed one federal appeal on arguments that they were wrongly convicted.

Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act in 1996 to streamline the process of deciding death penalty cases in the federal courts.

"In effect, just the opposite has occurred," MacLean told Rob Johnson of The Tennessean. "There has been a tremendous amount of litigation since then over the very procedural issues that the statute has created - before the parties can even get to the merits of the case."

Summers said that the 6th Circuit's opinion, if allowed to stand, "would substantially undermine" the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

Let’s hope so.

Ethically, when a human being’s life is at stake, there should be no restrictions on the introduction of evidence that substantially impacts the fairness of the proceedings and could reasonably impact either the verdict or the sentence. To believe otherwise is to guarantee a system of imposing death prejudiced against those who cannot afford the very best legal assistance.

<http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0428p-06.pdf>