Opinion ID: 2000007
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Trial Court Was Unaware of Facts Giving Rise to the Petition

Text: At the time of sentencing (September 6, 1977), the trial court was ignorant of the duress under which both appellee and his counsel were functioning in failing to present the wealth of mitigating circumstances and facts which they would otherwise have brought to the court's attention. [10] The trial court remained uninformed as to appellee's personal history, which made him peculiarly vulnerable to that duress, as well as appellee's perceived character and his limitedessentially passiverole in the takeover. The information relied upon by appellee in support of his petition for writ of error coram nobis recited below was presented to the court after appellee's sentencing and only after he was separated from those who applied the duress. The government argues that the facts that were supposedly withheld because of duress were in fact before the trial court. But the mitigating information presented at the original sentencing hearing during the allotted time of ten minutes consisted of little more than bare bones references to appellee's lack of a criminal record, his military service, the fact that he was not a narcotics user, and his one attempt to help a victim of the takeover. By contrast, the details emerging from the September 10, 1985 hearing, along with correspondence to the judge by appellee and others provided such a picture of appellee, as to make it clear that the court's original sentence was based on assumptions ... which were materially untrue. United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 447, 92 S.Ct. 589, 592, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972) (citing Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 741, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 1255, 92 L.Ed. 1690 (1948)). In its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the trial court identified the facts it had not known due to appellee's inability to inform counsel of certain mitigating information. As to personal background, the trial court found that appellee was one of three children of unwed parents who gave him up when he was two months old. He was given to an aunt to be raised by her until he was eight. At the age of eight, appellee moved in with his father and remained with him until the age of fifteen. The trial court found that during that seven year period, appellee was repeatedly beaten and abused by his father until finally, appellee reported his father to the police. The trial court found that the appellee appeared before a judge in a parental neglect hearing with many lacerations on his body as a result of beatings by his father. The father was declared to be an abusive parent, and, as a result, appellee and his sister were placed in a foster home. [11] Reverend Carl B. Taylor informed the trial court by letter dated August 28, 1979, that he had known appellee since 1963 and that appellee had been a foster child in his home for a brief period. The trial court was informed by appellee's cousin, Shirley A. Krauser, in a letter dated April 15, 1979, that appellee could not with a clear conscience love his father because [appellee] witnessed his father rape his nine-year-old sister. Dr. James F. Cunningham, a psychiatrist employed by the Police Court in Schenectady, New York, to perform psychiatric evaluations of offenders, informed the trial court by letter dated December 3, 1980, that appellee had lived with him and his wife in their foster home. Dr. Cunningham stated that appellee's father could not help appellee because he was too busy, too depressed and tragically overwhelmed by his complicated responsibilities as a father and mother to appellee. He stated that appellee did not have the benefit of the nurturing which a female family member might have provided during critical periods in his personality development. Margaret B. Cunningham, Dr. Cunningham's wife, wrote three informative letters to the trial court, stating that she had known appellee since he was sixteen, that the boy had lived with her and her husband as a foster child for nearly a year, and described him as very intelligent, having very high ideals, and fine moral values. She stated that appellee never touched drugs, alcohol, or other stimulants and was a firm believer in living a clean life. She described appellee as having been loved and respected by many people in [the] community, and described appellee's father as being an extremely rigid disciplinarian. Based on this evidence and testimony, the trial court accepted appellee's statement that he experienced an unstable and unhappy childhood as the product of a broken home. The trial court further found that during a very unstable and impressionable stage of appellee's life, at the age of 16, he met members of the religious sect known as the Hanafi Muslims. Appellee's cousin, Shirley Krauser, stated by letter dated April 15, 1979 that the leader of the sect, Khalifa Hamaas Abdul Khaalis, asked appellee's aunt if appellee could move to Washington, D.C. to live with him. Khaalis promised that if appellee were allowed to move to Washington, D.C. he would see to it that appellee continued his education. In his letter to the trial court, appellee stated that he moved to Washington, D.C. on July 8, 1971 to broaden his knowledge of Islam. In her December 3, 1980 letter, Margaret B. Cunningham described appellee as being very young and impressionable when he became involved with Khaalis. She stated that appellee was seeking positive role modelssomeone to believe insomeone to pattern his life after. In her opinion, appellee's attraction to the Hanafi Muslims was based upon the strong moral values which they stressed, as well as his own need for some family ties. In her March 21, 1980 letter, she stated that appellee's needs for a caring family, as well as his early childhood experiences in a strongly regimented environment and his search for a father figure were among the reasons appellee was attracted to the Hanafi Muslims. Appellee's testimony on December 12, 1981 is consistent with the statement submitted by Mrs. Cunningham. Appellee stated Khaalis told him on several occasions that he was like his son. By letter, he stated that he accepted Khaalis as a father. Kofi Williams Opantiri, appellee's former big brother stated by letter that appellee's involvement with the Hanafi Muslims was in his opinion, the result of his personal quest for an understanding of himself and a meaningful place in life. The trial court understood the significance of these detailed hardships, and accepted these various opinions as relevant to understanding appellee's susceptibility to duress and involvement with the Hanafi Muslims in the first place. None of this information was presented to the trial court at the time of appellee's September 6, 1977 sentencing. The trial court found that appellee completed the twelfth grade and earned a scholarship to attend the University of Iowa. Appellee's cousin stated that neither she nor appellee's mother had sufficient funds to finance appellee's trip to Iowa. She stated that she attempted to obtain financial assistance for appellee from his parish but was unsuccessful. She also stated that appellee sought financial aid from his father but was likewise unsuccessful. Appellee was described as demoralized and dejected in not being able to obtain financial assistance for college. The trial court found that appellee, at the urging of Khaalis, thereafter sought admission to the United States Military Academy at West Point. Appellee was advised to first enlist in the United States Army and obtain admission into the Army Preparatory School at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, which he did. The trial court found that appellee was performing well at the preparatory school when he learned on January 18, 1973, that the men, women and babies in the Khaalis home were brutally murdered. [12] Appellee stated in his letter that when he heard of the murders on the radio he was in shock and immediately raced to Washington knowing that he had to go to Khaalis. He stated that his mind was in shock, that his life had stopped, and that he had no more interest in his military career. On March 5, 1973, appellee resigned from the preparatory school and moved back in with Khaalis to protect the survivors and the rest of the family in case of another attack. Appellee stated in his letter that for the following 1475 days after he moved back in with Khaalis [i]t was extremely rare for me to leave the house. During that period, he did not attend movies, concerts, or other social affairs for fear that there would be another attack. The few times he did leave the premises, he did so to bring members of the family to doctor appointments. This routine was necessary in order to ensure safety, and to help maneuver the sister who was paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair. Appellee stated that he knew all of the murderers had not been caught and that day in and day out for 1475 days every day, I relived the tragedy that happened in that home. How could I forget? Appellee's testimony at the hearing on his motion to reduce sentence was consistent with these statements; the trial court accepted appellee's representations as credible, and found them to be useful in understanding his relationship with Khaalis as well as his role at the 16th Street house before the takeover. In his letter, appellee stated that he took orders from Khaalis without question. He stated he had been conditioned not to ask questions or think, and during this period he had an inability to think for himself. He explained, I did not have the mental capacity to think and discriminate on my own will power. I felt that my `teacher,' my `father' knew what was best. Appellee's sister (Marlene Finch) who stated that she and appellee were always on very close terms, testified that appellee told her he was not free to leave the Hanafi residence on 16th Street. In her opinion he was not there voluntarily. Once when he did leave, appellee's sister received phone calls from the Hanafis, demanding to know appellee's whereabouts and telling her that if she knew where he was to tell him that he must come back. Additionally, Ms. Finch testified that appellee was not allowed to communicate with her by phone, and when Khaalis found Hamid had secretly hooked up a phone in the basement of the 16th Street house, he tore it out. Ms. Finch testified that appellee's involvement with the Hanafi Muslims was the result of misguided loyalty and fear of Khaalis. She stated that there was no way for him to leave [the 16th Street home] without being injured. In light of this new information, the trial court found that even though the record did not conclusively establish that the appellee was physically restrained from leaving the 16th Street house, there was sufficient evidence to suggest that appellee, in a vulnerable state which the trial court found was in part a product of his unfortunate upbringing, obeyed powerful orderscharismatic and religious in naturegiven him by Khaalis, and combined with threats of serious bodily harm and resultant fear was made a virtual prisoner at the 16th Street home. In his letter, appellee stated that he was unaware of any advanced plan or conspiracy and that he had no prior knowledge of the events that transpired on the day of the takeover. Appellee testified on December 10, 1980, that on the morning of the takeover he was on guard duty when Khaalis asked him to come inside the house. Khaalis gave him a gun, and told appellee he was to escort Khaalis and his son-in-law to New York; he was instructed to [s]tay by my side and come with me. Appellee further testified that he heard Khaalis talking with some men concerning a movie entitled Mohammed, Messenger of God and that he thought they were going to protest the playing of the movie at a down-town theatre. As they drove downtown, neither he nor the driver knew where they were going or what they were going to do; Khaalis gave the directions. He stated that Khaalis spoke of the movie Mohammed, Messenger of God once again and at that point, they pulled up in front of the B'nai B'rith Headquarters. The trial court found that appellee's statement in his letter was consistent with his testimony. Moreover, in a letter dated April 15, 1979, Shirley A. Krauser stated that appellee told her, while he was in jail, that he had no prior knowledge of the takeover and that he believed they were going to protest the playing of the movie on the morning of the takeover. Rev. Carl B. Taylor, in his letter dated August 28, 1979, stated that he had a discussion with appellee before trial and was convinced that defendant was totally unaware of Khaalis' plan to take over the B'nai B'rith. Based upon the statements given by appellee in his letters, the testimony elicited during the hearing conducted before the trial court on December 12, 1980 (which the court found credible), and the letters submitted by Shirley A. Krauser and Rev. Taylor, the trial court found that appellee possessed little knowledge, if any at all, of the plans to take over the B'nai B'rith Headquarters. Appellee further testified that his main function during the takeover had been to guard a door and an elevator. He testified that although he was armed with a gun, he did not point the gun at anyone, nor did he hit anyone with the gun. Appellee testified that he delegated the duty given to him by one of the other Hanafi Muslims of tying the people to one of the hostages. When one of the Hanafi Muslims saw the hostage tying people's hands too loosely, appellee was told to make him tie them tighter. He followed instructions but the hostage continued to tie people loosely. When this angered a Muslim, appellee, in order to avert a threat by the Muslim to make (the hostage) suffer, himself hit this man and asked him to tie the people tighter. Appellee testified that Khaalis instructed everyone as to what to do and how to do it. Appellee also testified that he assisted one of the hostages who had a heart problem. He testified that when it was decided that the man was to be treated like all of the other hostages and be tied up and placed on a stone floor face down, he tried to assist him by placing the man on a rolled up carpet so that he would be more comfortable. James A. Slawson, a detective in the Homicide Branch of the Washington Metropolitan Police Department corroborated appellee's testimony in the December 12, 1980 hearing. He testified that he had arrested appellee after the takeover and had interviewed the hostages. Some of the hostages told Slawson during the course of his investigation that appellee assisted the man who had a heart problem. Detective Slawson testified further that some of the B'nai B'rith hostages told him that appellee was the kindest and that he tried to help some of them when he could. Appellee testified that he assisted women to the lavatory and that, in spite of orders to not permit the door of the lavatory to be closed, he allowed women to shut the door. Furthermore, he testified that he reminded the hostages to shake their hands after washing them and to make sure they drank water. In his letter, he stated that he tried to treat the hostages with as much empathy and dignity as the situation would allow. Appellee further stated in his letter of December 21, 1979, that he was as much a hostage as those for whom he was convicted of holding. Shirley A. Krauser, in her letter dated April 15, 1979, stated that she felt appellee's hands were tied and that [he] was just as much a hostage as the others. Appellee testified that Abdul Razzaaq, one of the other Hanafi Muslims, was aware that appellee was not in full allegiance with Khaalis and the others and that Razzaaq knew that he himself would be killed if he did not go along with them. Appellee claims that Razzaaq was blindly obedient and that Razzaaq was upset with him and would have killed him had he received an order to do so. Appellee related that he did not learn of the takeover of the District Building until he heard about it on the news at B'nai B'rith. In light of this information, the court found that appellee's role in the takeover was limited, and that appellee assisted the hostages whenever he could. The court found that appellee, as a result of ignorance and fear, was coerced into participating in the takeover. Detective James A. Slawson described appellee as having been very cooperative after he had been arrested. He testified that appellee told him he was sorry that it [the siege] had happened and that innocent people had gotten involved. The detective stated that after his search of appellee yielded two or three knives, appellee whispered to him that there were two more; one around his neck and one in his groin, both of which he had missed. In light of the testimony adduced from Detective Slawson in the December 12, 1980 hearing and Attorney Stow in the September 10, 1985 hearing, the trial court found that appellee felt remorse in having been involved in the takeover, and after the arrest of the Hanafi Muslims, cooperated with the police during their investigation. [13]