From today's Supreme Court order list:
CERTIORARI DENIED
08-818 ADENA REG. MED. CENTER, ET AL. V. JOHNSON, ACTING SEC. OF H&HS
08-822 McLAUGHLIN, SCOTT A. V. MISSOURI
08-948 ANDERSON, HENRY J. V. LOUISIANA
08-955 CYGNUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECH. V. TELESYS COMMUNICATIONS
....
08-8479 PANG, KENNETH L. V. CALIFORNIA
08-8482 BATSHEVER, VICTOR V. OKIN, AVERY E.
08-8483 ABU-JAMAL, MUMIA V. BEARD, SEC., PA DOC, ET AL.
08-8492 GREEN, TOMMY L. V. FLORIDA
08-8495 GRATE, JOSEPH M. V. JOHNSON, DIR., VA DOC
08-8498 THOMPSON, NIJAYAH V. CALIFORNIA ....
Without passing comment, the Supreme Court of the United States today rejected Mumia Abu-Jamal's petition for a writ of certiorari. This ruling -- while not a ruling on the merits of the Third Circuit's opinion (PDF) (in turn mostly upholding a 2001 district court ruling (PDF)) upholding his conviction but overturning his death sentence on the grounds of that "the jury instructions and verdict sheet in this case involved an unreasonable application of federal law," because "[t]he charge and verdict form created a reasonable likelihood that the jury believed it was precluded from considering any mitigating circumstance that had not been found unanimously to exist."
Still pending before SCOTUS is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking to overturn that portion of the 3d Circuit's order which requires them to seek a re-sentencing hearing of Abu-Jamal if the state seeks to impose the death penalty. Otherwise, Abu-Jamal's present sentence of life imprisonment stands.
To be clear, as always: the denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits of Abu-Jamal's claims; it just means that there were not four Justices who believed the case warranted review based on the factors it typically considers -- is there a circuit conflict or conflict with a prior SCOTUS decision? has the court below "decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled" by the Supreme Court? or has the lower court "so far departed from the accepted and usual course of proceedings" as to require the Court’s "supervisory power"? In the overwhelming majority of cases, cert is not granted.