Michael Smerconish: The Mumia test for D.A. hopefuls

LAST WEEK, after a debate between the candidates for Philadelphia district attorney at the National Constitution Center, I submitted the following question in writing and requested that each candidate answer in 150 words or less:

Though the Supreme Court recently upheld Mumia Abu-Jamal's conviction for the murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner, it has yet to rule on a separate appeal over whether he deserves a new sentencing hearing. If Abu-Jamal is granted a new sentencing hearing - and the choice is one of accepting a life sentence or retrying him in pursuit of the death penalty - which would you pursue?

Here are their responses:

BRIAN GRADY: "I will pursue the death penalty. I have spoken about this with Maureen Faulkner, who has publicly endorsed my candidacy, and Joe McGill and Hugh Burns, assistant district attorneys who handled the original trial and appeals.

"Mumia was convicted of the first-degree killing of a police officer, as the Supreme Court affirmed. The death penalty exists for cases like this, as a deterrent and so those who commit this heinous act pay a price.

"Murderers need to know if they take another's life, particularly a police officer's, they will forfeit their life. Police officers deserve this protection.

"I am well aware that this process would likely take several months, and I can think of no better use of our resources than to show the citizens of Philadelphia and our police officers that justice will not tire even in the face of international propaganda and bullying."

DAN McCAFFERY: "If the Supreme Court vacated Mumia Abu-Jamal's death sentence, I would have to study the opinion to determine whether any error could be remedied.

"Assuming it could, I would immediately seek a re-sentencing hearing for two reasons.

"First, today as 28 years ago, the case cries out for the death penalty. Abu-Jamal murdered Officer Faulkner and is unrepentant. That Abu-Jamal murdered a young police officer for enforcing the law makes the heinous crime even more unspeakable.

"Second, Abu-Jamal cannot have his unprincipled, devious attempts to forestall justice rewarded. In his appeals, Abu-Jamal has lied and suborned others to lie. The truth, or even whether he wins, is unimportant to Abu-Jamal: the 27-year delay of execution of the death sentence is his victory. Not seeking the death penalty again against Abu-Jamal would be to reward his stalling tactics and violate the rule of law, which the D.A. must both enforce and uphold."

DAN McELHATTON: "My decision on whether to accept a life sentence or retry the penalty phase and seek the death penalty would be guided by the following considerations:

"(1) Impact on family of Daniel Faulkner of a retrial of penalty phase and discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of such retrial; (2) ability of district attorney to secure sufficient evidence at penalty phase because of passing of decades of time since original hearing; (3) consultation with trial counsel Joseph McGill to gain insight into case; (4) whether the decision will create a culture of 'martyrdom' for defendant; (5) finality of case in event of life sentence as opposed to the renewal of appeals (albeit limited) if there is an appeal."

MICHAEL TURNER: "As district attorney, I would seek the death penalty for any defendant convicted of killing a Philadelphia police officer in the line of duty. Mumia Abu-Jamal is no exception. More importantly, I will not make an exception for Officer Daniel Faulkner.

"To do otherwise would make Abu-Jamal less of a convicted cop-killer and Officer Daniel Faulkner less of the police officer he was."

SETH WILLIAMS: "I have studied the case, reviewing case notes and the legal filings. I have even attended court hearings and studied the forensics. From my review of the evidence, if there was a new sentencing hearing I would ask for the death penalty." *

Listen to Michael Smerconish weekdays 5-9 a.m. on the Big Talker, 1210/AM. Read him Sundays in the Inquirer. Contact him via the Web at www.mastalk.com.