Click below to read the
ISSUES AGAINST ATTORNEYS
Abdullah Hameen
"...The board has not only considered,
but accepts much of, Mr. Hameen's petition..."
- Above excerpts from AP article, see 'News Updates' below for more news and information...
| News Updates |
| LEGAL ARGUMENTS |
| LIVING WITH DEATH |
| ISSUES AGAINST ATTORNEYS |
|
MURDER IN DELAWARE
Ruth Ann Minner Joins Ranks of Nationwide Serial Killers - Note by Sis. Marpessa |
My Name is Abdullah Tanzel Hameen,
which means "slave servant of the revealed intimate friend".
At the time of my crime which has lead
me to death row, I was known as
Cornelius Edward Ferguson Jr.
I am a 36 year old, African-American
Muslim, with an Associates Degree in Accounting / Management.
I am the Treasurer and Chairman of the Da'wah (propagation) committee,
as well as one of its lecturers (Iman's) for Mosjid Mohammed Uz-zumar,
a member of the lifer's association, a HIV / AIDS peer education, and the
editor of "Just Say No to Death Row" news publication.
I was born and raised in Chester, PA,
to Cornelius Edward Ferguson Sr. (Deceased) who passed away since my incarceration,
and Lydia M. Jones, though I was raised by my great grandmother (mother's
side of family), and I'm the second eldest of seven children (6 biological
and a half sister).
I'm the biological father of two sons,
the youngest of which passed away (at 13 months) since my incarceration,
the stepfather of two sons and the grandfather of two granddaughters, and
the husband of a beautiful and loving wife, Shakeerah Hameen.
At the outset I feel compelled to emphasize that I am not seeking to find or make excuses for my behavior, nor do I feel or believe that my actions are the result of being a victim of poverty, racism, or the tremendous challenges each of these two factors pose for poor families attempting to raise their children in crime-ridden neighborhoods.
As was pointed out in my sentencing hearing, "Many individuals survive similar if not worse conditions without resorting to criminal activity" On the other hand for me to ignore or minimize the circumstances that cased me great pain as a child and the violent, impoverished environment in which I found myself as a young man, would be dishonest, as these experiences were paramount in my feelings about myself and others, and central to the decisions that I made. In recounting these experiences, then, I am not seeking to minimize my responsibility for what I've done, I accept full responsibility, rather, I am seeking to explain the choices that I made and the reasons why some of my perceptions and reactions were misdirected and flawed.
On that very unfortunate evening of August 5, 1991, I still had a contract, (a murder for hire) out on my life and in that vein I kept a gun with me at all times for self protection. This particular day started out like every other in that I would get in around 6-6:30AM, take a shower and nap, then take my lady friend to work, with us leaving the house, around 7:15. After dropping her off I would stop by a female friends house where I would leave my gun so it would be close by. Upon leaving work I would pick my gun up. While at work I would call my cousin on lunch break to make sure everything and everyone were all right. He asked me to meet him at 9:00PM that evening in a sports club at the Penn Towers Hotel in Philadelphia.
This was a place that we often met, because of its location and pleasant atmosphere, and I knew that being with would keep him off the streets and prevent him from getting into any kind of trouble on the street.
I left work at 5:00PM that day and on
the way home I made several stops, First to pick up my gun, then to see
two female friends before going home.
This process usually took place later
in the evening, since I was planning on being out of the city, I just got
it out the way.
Usually I would leave from work to go
home and help my two stepdaughters with their homework, and spend tine
with my son who would stop by after school. After spending
time with the children and my lady friend, I would go and visit family
and friends, as well as frequent my favorite night spots.
However, I received a phone call from
Tyrone (co-defendant) who asked me to go with him to pick up some money
from a friend of his around 8:00PM.
This was not an unusual request, we
often called one another without warning to go places, (concerts, plays,
sporting events, and dinner) I didn't ask where or the nature of the meeting,
thought I'm not suggesting that I was unaware that Tyrone occasionally
sold drugs, but this was not discussed. I agreed to go as I
did not want to let my friend down, further, I didn't know if the reason
for asking was because he felt threatened. I had an hour before I
had to meet my cousin in Philadelphia, so I agreed to go with him.
Upon hanging up the phone, as I often did, I called my youngest brother
and two friends (one male, one female)
and let them know I was taking a ride
with Tyrone to pick up some money from a friend, and if they didn't hear
from me to contact him and find out why not.
This is a practice I adopted after
the contract was issued on my life.
Around 7:45PM that evening Tyrone picked
me up at my house in Chester, PA, and we proceeded to meet his friend,
which winded up being at the Tri-State
Mall in New Castle, Delaware, upon
pulling in the parking lot Tyrone informed me that he was going to run
into the mall to meet his friend and he'd be right back out.
I sat in the car and waited, about 10 minutes later they emerged.
I didn't go into the mall because I
had a gun on my person and I knew that mall security would be less than
pleased to make this discovery, neither did I want to get caught
in such an open and crowded environment without my gun being on me.
So 10 minutes later Tyrone and Troy (victim) emerged from the mall and were walking towards the car, t which time I got out of the car, because he said he was picking up money, not the friend, at which time I saw they were engaged in an extremely heated argument as they came closer, I learned it was drug related.
At this point I became nervous and extremely alarmed, because Tyrone had not made me aware of the situation, and I did not know anything about his friend and what his intention were in meeting with Tyrone.
I can only guess that Troy sensed my discomfort and nervousness, so he turned to Tyrone and said "Since you don't have the drugs, I don't have the money" We were inside the car, Tyrone behind the driver's side, Troy the passenger side, and I was in the middle of the backseat.
At this moment Tyrone started the car
and said to Troy "You're full of shit"
as troy climbed out the passenger seat
and I was getting in the passenger seat from within the car, Troy uttered
something that I did not fully hear or understand, as he reached behind
his back and underneath his T-shirt for what I expected to be a gun, given
my paranoia about the contract on my life, and that in that brief moment
I could see an object that was black, and placed above his right him, on
impulse thinking he had a gun, I fired one shot towards the direction of
his hand (Which can be confirmed by the autopsy report, on the entry of
the bullet".
Later, after my trial and I had been
sentenced to death (I learned by way of my co-defendants attorney, the
object I perceived as a gun was a beeper) at this point my intent was only
to prevent him grabbing and firing his gun. After I fired that
shot, the victim started running and we drove away before he could return
fire. Since he was running and that I purposely fired at his
hand and not at any vital organs, I did not have reason to believe that
the bullet was fatal.
Thereafter, we returned to Chester,
we did not learn of his death until days later and were officially notified
on September 10, 1991 when Chester police along with the State Police picked
up Tyrone for questioning at the Criminal Investigation Division in Media,
PA. It was at this time Tyrone gave a taped statement implicating
me in the murder of Troy Hodges.
On September 23, 1991, I was informed that the State Police wanted to question me concerning a murder, and on the 26th, I called my parole officer to confirm the information at which time he stated the Chester police wanted to question me concerning a murder. Learning this, I turned myself into my parole officer at 1:30 pm on September 26, 1991, at which time he transported me to Media, PA. where I was interrogated by Detectives until 3:30 pm, at which time they left to search my lady friend's house, where I lived. They returned around 5:00 pm, and resumed the interrogation until 7:45, at which time I was taken to the Media police station to await the arrival of Detective Mark Daniels, of Delaware state police, he arrived around 8:00 pm at which time I was questioned again and given a copy of the affidavit and listened to Tyrone's taped confession against me. Around 10:15 pm I gave a taped statement confessing to the murder of Troy Hodges. Following the confession, I was transported to the Magisterial District of Chester's police station, where I was arraigned and ultimately transported to Delaware county prison.
On September 30, 1991, I was transported to Media courthouse, Court Of Common Pleas, where I waived extradition.
On October 1, 1991 I was extradited to the State police station Troop 2 New Castle County, Delaware, where I was fingerprinted, photographed, and transported to the Gonder Hill prison.
On October 15, 1991 I was indicted by the Grand Jury in and for New Castle County, Delaware, on the following counts:
Murder in the first degree (intentional
and felony murder), two counts
possession of deadly weapon during
commission of felony, two counts
conspiracy in the first degree, two
counts.
On October 23, 1991, I was officially arrested Superior Court of Wilmington, Delaware.
On February 2, 1992, a Proof Positive Hearing was conducted by Judge Gebelein found Proof Positive in favor of the state.
On November 2-3, 1992, my trial began and ended. At the conclusion of the guilt and innocence phase I was found guilty by a vote of 12-0 of all charges, except Count two, Conspiracy of felony murder, which was nolle pros.
On November 16-18, 1992, penalty hearing was conducted which ultimately ended with a jury vote of 12-0 in favor of the death penalty.
On December 1, 1992, I was sentenced to two death sentences for each count of murder (I and IV) and two consecutive mandatory terms of incarceration for twenty, for count III and IV and to a consecutive mandatory term of incarceration for five years for count V, to be followed by six months at a halfway house.
Prior to my trial, my co-defendant was allowed to enter a plea bargain and was sentenced to fifteen years for the reduced charge of second degree murder.
The following (click on link) is a list of issues raised at a hearing for appointment of counsel in the District Court of Delaware, which new counsel was appointed on July 3, 1996
Click below to read the
ISSUES
AGAINST ATTORNEYS
However, there are five key issues (arguments)
Which sum up my case , ans outright shows the injustice, and legal lynching
which landed me on death row.
1. Ex Post Facto
- The application of Delawares Amended Death penalty Statutes to my case,
which has taken place after the commision of the offense, and constituting
a substancial change in law, which made the punishment to be imposed, more
burdensome. Hereby, depriving me of an absolute defence to the imposing
of the death penalty to the law existing at the time the crime was commited
(see note 1)
This issue was argued before the Third
Circut Court of Appeals, one of two issues they issued the certificate
of appealability upon.
2. Potential Jurors
- Ineffective assistnce of counsel for failure to object during jury
selection to the striking for cause jurors who had reservations regarding
the death penalty.
3. Conflict of
Interest - Where at trial I was repesented by the
Office of the Public Defender while, at the same time, the Office of the
Public Defender was representing Albert Wiggins, a key prosecution witness
who testified against me.
4. Felony Murder
Count of Indictment - The failure of the court to require
a unanimous verdict in the underlying felony count where the state argued
the victims death resulted from one of three felonies.
A. A drug deal gone
bad;
B. A Robbery or Attempted
Robbery
C. A conspiracy.
The guilty found me guilty of
"a" felony, when they should have been required to state which underlying
felony I was guilty of commiting (see note 2).
5. Double counting
Aggrivating Circumstances - Where the jury
was permitted to consider the duplicative statutory aggrevating circumstances
that the murder was committed during a robbery and for pecuniary
gain.
The jury was required to count them
both, while the Judge, stated the testimony and evidence was conflicting
thereto, so he only counted one, only the damage was already done when
he permitted the jury to double count. This issue was also argued
before the Court of Appeals.
Note 1- Ex Post Facto
- This issue extends to arbitrarilyness and vindictivemness
as result of what has come to be known "Brooks Armored
Car Case" in Delaware an execution
style murder. Upon a verdict of guilty, and then the impositionment
of life sentences, which outraged politicians.
It ws this that leaa the legislature
to enter extraordinary special session where it suspended its own rules
to push through the Amended Death Penalty Statute, which eliminated the
discretionary element which I would have benefited from,
just so that no longer would anyone
escape the death penalty as the Armored Car defendants had.
To get a fuller understanding
of the issue its recommended that you read:
1. Synopsis of Substitute 1 to
Senate bill 79, October 24, 1991;
2. Legislative Debate before
the Delaware State Senate, (Transcript from audiotape, October 24, 1991);
3. Legislation Debate before the Delaware
House of Representatives, (Transcript from audio tape, October 24, 1991);
4. Ms. Nancy Jane Perillo's letter
to the Honorable Chief Justice Christie, Justice Horsey, and Justice Moore,
December 19, 1991; nd
5. Order of State Supreme Court, December
2, 1991
Also, Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S 282,294, (1997) the case which the State incorrectly uses to support their position, which is far off the mark in relation to their position. The cases which support the State has violated the Ex Post Facto laws are: Lindsey v. Washington, 301 US 397 (1937) and California Department of Corrections v. Morales, 115 S.Ct 1597 (1995), also Weaver v Graham 450 U.S.24 (1981).
Wherefore the change in the method of sentencing should not be a change with deprives a defendant of substantial right, as Delware Amended Statute does, when it eliminated a right accrued to me when the offense was committed.
Note 2 - Felony Murder
As written, the felony murder does
not comply with the requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule
(7c) by setting forth and deliniaaing with specificity ll the elements
necessary to constitute the offense of felony murder, charged in the indictment.
It reads:
Cornelius Ferguson, on or about the 5th day of August, 1991,
in the County of New Castle, State of Delaware, did in the course of
__?__
nd in the furtherance of the commission of
? or attempted
? felony or immedite flight therefrom they
recklessly caused the
death
of TroyD. Hodges.
There is no dispute tht Count IV of the indictment, felony-murder, did not specify the underlying felony during whose commission the homicide occured.
Because the underlying felony is an essential element of felony - murder, proof of the underlying felony is thus sine qua non to felony-murder conviction. With felony - murder being a compound crime, it requires proof of two distinct offences:
1. That a homicide has occured;
2. That the homicide occured during
the commission and furtherance or immediate flight of a predicate felony.
See: DeJesus v State 655
A.2d 1180 (1995), Collins v. State, 420 A.2d 170, 175-6,
State v Deedon 89 A.2d 660 (1963). In these cases, the indictments
failure to provide the defendant with a plaain, concise, and definite written
statements of the essential facts constituting the offense charged, was
an intentional omission by the State to effectively prevent the defendant
from preparing a defense to either count of First Degree Murder, within
the indictictment. This very fact was disclosed during a Prayer Conference,
to determine the judges charge to the jury. While discussing the
felony-murder count, the prosecutor's comments were as follows:
Does he know what this case is about ? Is he protected
by Double Jeopardy
from the Bill of Particular that was filed? All of those things are
in place.
He has gotten as fair a trial as he can get, and to say that this somehow
flies
in the face of fundamental fairness or jurisprudence is really, really
stretching
it. I mean, what counsel seeks is a windfall by the ambiguity of
his clients
actions inside the car. I don't think he should get away with murder
because
he successfully argues that they were drug trafficking and not robbing.
I can't
imagine
how that is a fair trial. (At 31-32, see also pages 34, 35)
Although the method employed by the State to draft the felony-murder count was not the only means available. The drafter, with a few additional minutes of commitment, would have complied with Supr. Crt Crim Rule 7 (c) by chosing to properly indict in the alternative. However, this course would have proven fatal to the other counts in the indictment, including the first degree (intentional) murder count. "Thats why the conspiracy count II (felony murder) was nolle prose."
Through our statements we gave two very different accounts of the events on the evening of the homicide. While I claimed only to be along for the ride and knew nothing of a drug deal, Tyrone claimed he and the victim were to meet for the purpose of consummating a pre-arranged drug deal.
These differences presented a particularly troubling challenge for the State when constructing the indictment. To succeed on counts I, II, IV, and V, of the indictment, the State would need to demonstrate to a jury that both Tyrone and I shared a common scheme and motivation. To indict in the alternative would have proven fatal for common scheme and motivation.
Whereby to remedy the conflict that existed, between our statement and the assumption of a conspiracy and the seperate plans of trafficking and robbery, the State exploited the only option available in the indictment, the felony-murder count. The State's intentional non feasance made the felony-murder count a "generic" accusation, that did not contain a plain, concise, and definate statement of the essential facts to allow Hameen to prepare a defense properly. This omission should not be viewed as harmless error and should have been grounds for reversal of both intentional and felony murder convictions, as it mislead to my being prejudiced.
As the United States Supreme Court has
held that, in certain instances, prejudice is presumed when a violation
of a defendants rights to the assistance of counsel and a fair trial are
impaired due to government interference, see:
Strickland v Washington ,
466 U.S. 668,692. Wherefore my conviction and death sentences should be
reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Click
here to email Anne Coleman
ABDULLAH and Family
Contact Governor
Ruth Ann Minner Immediately
Tell her to stop the execution !
Governor Ruth Ann Minner
Legislative Hall,
Dover, Delaware,
19901.
(302) 744-4101 (FAX) 739-2775
820 N. French Street,
Wilmington, Delaware,
19801.
(302) 577-3210. (FAX) 577-3118
Or Email: gminner@state.de.us
| News Updates |
| LEGAL ARGUMENTS |
| LIVING WITH DEATH |
| ISSUES AGAINST ATTORNEYS |
|
MURDER IN DELAWARE
Ruth Ann Minner Joins Ranks of Nationwide Serial Killers - Note by Sis. Marpessa |
