For 14 years, supporters of death row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal charge he has been the victim of a judicial railroad presided over by the nation's oldest state supreme court. Now a justice on that court has been asked to recuse himself from hearing the appeal on grounds he has political debts to Philadelphia's police who have long campaigned for Abu-Jamal's execution. PNS analyst Linn Washington Jr., a graduate of the Yale Law Journalism Fellowship Program, writes frequently on criminal justice issues.

PHILADELPHIA -- The fate of celebrated death row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal now hinges on whether a Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice will recuse himself from hearing the appeal because of his political debts to Philadelphia's police union. Supporters of Abu-Jamal see this as the litmus test for the nation's oldest state supreme court to prove its adherence to the rule of law after presiding over the railroading of a black militant for the death of a white policeman.

When former Philadelphia District Attorney Ronald Castille campaigned in 1993 for a seat on the Supreme Court, he boasted frequently of his endorsement by the state's 36,000 police -- including the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #5, Philadelphia's police union. Seven years earlier, the Lodge had named Castille its "Man of the Year" and subsequently backed his reelection as DA in 1989 and his unsuccessful mayoral bid in 1991.

For years Lodge #5 has also vigorously campaigned for Abu-Jamal's immediate execution. Last week attorneys for Abu-Jamal sought Castille's removal from the appeal citing his "electoral debt" to the FOP as one of several factors.

Pennsylvania's Code of Judicial Conduct states that a judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding where his "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The Code also states that a judge formerly employed by a governmental agency should disqualify himself if "such association" raises questions of impartiality.

As Philadelphia's DA, Castille's signature appears on the briefs opposing Abu- Jamal's appeals to the Pennsylvania and U.S. Supreme Courts. And on numerous occasions he publicly defended DA personnel accused of misconduct in the case (the appeal details nine such instances, including the suppression and fabrication of evidence).

Justice Castille has rejected other recuse requests in appeals involving prosecutions during his tenure as DA, arguing that although his name appears administratively on court papers, he had no personal involvement in the actual cases. Abu-Jamal's attorneys say their appeal is different: given the high-profile death penalty nature of Abu-Jamal's case, it is highly unlikely Castille would not have been actively involved in it.

In 1989, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court sidestepped its own legal precedents to uphold Abu-Jamal's 1982 conviction. Most notable was Abu-Jamal's right of allocution -- the right to address the sentencing judge or jury after conviction. When Abu-Jamal exercised that right during the death penalty phase of his 1982 trial, the presiding judge ruled it was merely a statement and permitted the prosecutor to cross-examine him. The cross-examination allowed the prosecutor to argue that Abu-Jamal had harbored a desire to hurt cops ever since his teenage membership in the Black Panther Party. Abu Jamal's attorneys claim that ruling and subsequent improper cross-examination robbed Abu-Jamal of his allocution right.

In February 1989 the court had ruled that allocution was of "ancient origin" and any failure to permit a defendant to speak for himself required reversal of sentencing. Exactly one month later, the court upheld Abu-Jamal's conviction, stating for the first time that the "right of allocution does not exist in the penalty phase of capital murder prosecution."

Abu-Jamal's attorneys believe they can get a fair ruling from the court based on the voluminous new evidence the appeal presents -- evidence not previously available either to the Court or to the original jury. But the core of their appeal lies in the recuse request which asks the Court to rule on its own ability to be impartial. If that request is denied, Abu-Jamal's supporters argue, it will demonstrate once again that police vengeance, not the rule of law, dictates the fate of a black militant.