1.
Failure to object and fully address issues of insufficient indictment at
trial.
(where
indictment failed to charge underlying felony).
2. Failure to object to hearsay evidence. (Albert Seeney and Alvin Wiggins), allowed to testify to other than original statement, and non-defendant or witness.
3. Failure to call Co-defendant as witness (Hostile), whereas his original statement supported defendants assertions. (where he stated it was an accident).
4. Intentional cause of jury confusion, (where attorneys intentionally interjected information with Trier of Facts knowledge and approval, to reverse language of law on Aggravating and Mitigating circumstances).
5. Failure to properly inform defendant of conflict of interest between attorney and defendant, and one of States witnesses, as well as the victim, even after defendant filed for appointment of new counsel.
6. Failure to adequately put forth proper defense and representation, (by failing to fully investigate issues of guilt phase of trial).
7. Failure to object to juror remaining on jury, (whom thought phone call may have been related to defendants and his trial) allowed defendant to be prejudiced.
8. Failure to fully address and carry through on issues of State doctoring of indictment.
9. Incorrectly informing jury that defendant agree to meeting with victim and co-defendant, (which went against defendants very defense).
10. Failure to object to improper jury instruction, (where judge listed robbery and attempted robbery as part of underlying felony and intent).
11. Failure to object to prosecutorial misconduct, (where prosecution introduced prejudicial and inflammatory evidence. )
12. Failure to prefect defendants appeal, (not fully addressing and researching guilt and penalty phase issues).
2. Conflict of interest existed, where attorney was out of same office as trial counsel, and was unwilling to correct their errors, which would have shown their ineffectiveness.
3. Unwillingness to establish proper communication with defendant, thereby forcing defendant to file written complint and issues to amend and perfect appeal with Chief Justice of State Supreme Court.
A. Thus creating an unspoken conflict.
B. Also placing defendants appeal in jeopardy.
C. Forcing defendant to violate the foundation of attorney-client confidentiallity. Failure to read the entire record thereby being unable to address issues of merit and being unable to raise issues of constitutional demession.
5. Placing defendant in continuous jeopardy and ensuring that death hung over defendants head from such jeopardy.
6. Counsels' failure to fully attact trial counsels ineffectiveness and to fully argue States response and assertions, allowed counsel to become one with the prosecutor, thereby violating defendants 14th Amendment Rights, Due Process and Equal Protectien guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Delaware, as well as in violation of ABA Standards
III.
Post - Conviction Counsel - Joseph A. Gabay and
Anthony A. Figliola, Jr.
I. Failure to properly and fully represent defendant, inform of his appealable rights, the appeal process and address issues of merit submitted by defendant.
2. Failure to establish or maintain meaningful contact and communication with defendant, to discuss and construct issues for appeal.
3. Failure to fully read entire record, allowed for continuous denial of defendants request to address issue of felony-murder in its proper form.
4. Failure to properly raise ineffective assistance claims, not only caused issues to become barred, but also placing defendant in jeopardy in future proceedings.
5. Acting under color law, by conceding to State's position and abandoning defendants claim on defective indictment and violation of corpus deleti issue.
6. Acting under color of law, by trying to force defendant to prove that requested issues would produce new trial, ever their securing of new penalty hearing.
7. Failure to properly address issues and claims in appeal, thereby being forced to file re-argument after re-argument to fully address missed and unarmed issues.
8. Placing defendant in continuous jeopardy, through late filing of Stay of executions.
9. Causing defendant to be prejudice by representation of counsel who was under suspension, also placing defendant in jeopardy being such counsel filed and raised issues in defendants post-conviction motion, and who represented key issue of guilt phase of trial, as well as due to such suspension a key issue was pulled from defendants pest-conriction claims, without his knowledge.
10. Counsels' continued unwillingness to allow defendant to participate in all levels of appeal process, by forwarding appeal, motions and stay only after their filing dates and the court had issued orders, denying them.
11. Forcing a continuous violation of attorney-client confidentiality wherefore, defendant had to file pro se motions, stays and notice or appeal in court, so that counsel would address such issues and concerns of defendant, and such issues wouldn't become barred.
| Return to Abdullah Hameen's Homepage |
