Abdul-Salaam v. Beard, 4:02–CV–2124.

• Decision Date: 24 April 2014
• Docket Number: No. 4:02–CV–2124.,4:02–CV–2124.
• Parties: Seifullah ABDUL–SALAAM, Petitioner v. Jeffrey BEARD, Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ; William S. Stickman, Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Greene ; and Joseph P. Mazurkiewicz, Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

16 F.Supp.3d 420

Seifullah ABDUL–SALAAM, Petitioner

v.Jeffrey BEARD, Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ; William S. Stickman, Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Greene ; and Joseph P. Mazurkiewicz, Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, Respondents.

No. 4:02–CV–2124.

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed April 24, 2014.

Michael Wiseman, Attorney at Law, Swarthmore, PA, David L. Zuckerman, Defender Association of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.

Jaime M. Keating, Carlisle, PA, for Respondents.

MEMORANDUM

JOHN E. JONES III, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is a counseled petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on behalf of Petitioner Seifullah Abdul–Salaam (“Petitioner” or “Abdul–Salaam”), a state inmate under sentence of death and currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Greene (“SCI–Greene”) in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 8.) Abdul–Salaam is challenging his 1995 convictions and sentence in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. For the reasons set forth below, and after careful consideration of the petition, this Court concludes that Petitioner's claims are without merit. Thus, the petition for writ of habeas corpus will be denied.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 15, 1995, Abdul–Salaam was found guilty of first degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy, following a six-day jury trial in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (“trial court” or “Cumberland County court”). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court summarized the relevant facts as follows:

The record reveals that on the morning of August 19, 1994, [Abdul–Salaam] and Scott Anderson drove toward the town of New Cumberland, Pennsylvania in a borrowed Suzuki Sidekick. First, in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, then outside of New Cumberland, the two men asked for directions. At approximately 10:30 a.m., [Abdul–Salaam] and Anderson arrived in New Cumberland and parked their car in Maple Alley. Maple Alley runs perpendicular to Fourth Street. [Abdul–Salaam] walked across Fourth Street to the D & S Coin Shop which was owned by Mr. Dale Rishel. The coin shop was a one-room building with storefront windows. [Abdul–Salaam] knocked on the door to the coin shop and entered. A resident of Fourth Street, Mr. Vinh Tran, observed [Abdul–Salaam] pass him on the street and noted that [Abdul–Salaam] knocked on the coin shop door, since few people knocked before entering. Anderson followed and entered the coin shop shortly thereafter, carrying gloves and a bag. Again, Mr. Tran observed Anderson and found remarkable Anderson's heavy clothing on such a warm summer's morning.

Once inside the coin shop, [Abdul–Salaam] asked Mr. Rishel about specific gold coins. Mr. Rishel responded that he did not carry that inventory but suggested another dealer. [Abdul–Salaam] then pulled a revolver from under his shirt and he and Anderson came across the counter onto Mr. Rishel to subdue him. The front window of the store was broken during this altercation. Mr. Rishel was taped across the face and around his legs, and his hands were tied behind his back with a cord. [Abdul–Salaam] kicked Mr. Rishel in the head, while Anderson began to go through Mr. Rishel's goods.

Immediately upon hearing the breaking of the front window of the coin shop, Mr. Tran alerted his landlord, Mr. James Howie, of the situation. Mr. Howie called 911. Officer Willis Cole of the New Cumberland Police Department ultimately responded to the 911 call. Officer Cole parked his squad car on Fourth Street in front of Mr. David Michael's barbershop, which is on the same side of Fourth Street as the coin shop. As Officer Cole approached the coin shop, the perpetrators apparently became aware of his presence and, finding no rear escape, exited the front door, first [Abdul–Salaam], then Anderson.

[Abdul–Salaam] was able to escape from the scene, however, Officer Cole intercepted Anderson. Officer Cole ordered Anderson to lie face down and prepared to handcuff him. Mr. Michaels watched as [Abdul–Salaam], with his back against a building and revolver drawn, reappeared from Maple Alley as if he had circled part of the block. [Abdul–Salaam] then sprinted from the alley toward Officer Cole shooting at Officer Cole as he ran. Having been warned by individuals in the street, Officer Cole was able to return [Abdul–Salaam]'s fire, hitting [Abdul–Salaam] in the leg. However, [Abdul–Salaam] continued shooting. Officer Cole staggered into the middle of Fourth Street and collapsed after receiving a bullet through his heart. These events, literally unfolding in front of them, were observed by various witnesses who lived and/or worked in the neighborhood, including Mr. Rishel, Mr. Tran, Mr. Howie, and Mr. Michaels.

[Abdul–Salaam] and Anderson fled the scene, dropping the revolver used to kill Officer Cole as they ran. They returned to their car and proceeded in the direction of Harrisburg.

After receiving a description of the Suzuki and of [Abdul–Salaam] and Anderson via police radio, Officer Rodney Smith of the Middlesex Township Police Department spotted and pursued the two individuals outside of Harrisburg. After a high speed chase, [Abdul–Salaam] and Anderson lost control of the Suzuki which then came to a stop. The men abandoned the car, fleeing on foot. As [Abdul–Salaam] exited the vehicle, he looked directly at Officer Smith. Anderson was found several blocks away and was arrested. Shortly thereafter, [Abdul–Salaam] was arrested in an alley near the home of his girlfriend, Christina Reeves, while the two were walking her dog.

Ms. Reeves agreed to allow the police to search her home, where [Abdul–Salaam] occasionally spent the night. She also signed a consent form indicating that the police were searching for a handgun and clothing. Pursuant to the search, the police found a briefcase in Ms. Reeves' bedroom closet which contained ammunition and correspondence belonging to [Abdul–Salaam].

After his arrest, [Abdul–Salaam] invoked his right to counsel and his right to remain silent. [Abdul–Salaam] requested treatment for his leg wound

and was taken to a local hospital accompanied by a custodial officer, Detective Victor Rivera. [Abdul–Salaam] and the officer engaged in small talk when [Abdul–Salaam] asked the officer, “What are my options?” The officer readvised [Abdul–Salaam] of his rights and told him that he could tell his attorney whatever it was that he wanted to tell him. [Abdul–Salaam] then stated: “All I'm going to say is that ‘Scotty Love’ did it.” No follow-up questions were asked by Detective Rivera.

At trial, various witnesses, including Mr. Rishel, Mr. Tran, Mr. Howie, Mr. Michaels, and Officer Smith, testified as to the events surrounding the robbery and the murder of Officer Cole. Among those witnesses, a ballistics expert was able to match the revolver left at the scene with the bullet recovered from Officer Cole's body and a Pennsylvania State Police Officer employed in the Latent Print and Automated Fingerprint Identification sections of the Laboratory Division was able to match [Abdul–Salaam]'s fingerprint with a latent fingerprint found in the Suzuki.

Commonwealth v. Abdul–Salaam, 544 Pa. 514, 678 A.2d 342, 345–47 (1996) (“Abdul–Salaam–I ”). The penalty phase commenced on the following day, March 16, 1995. During the penalty phase, the jury found four aggravating circumstances: (1) the victim was a peace officer who was killed in the performance of his duties, see 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 9711(d)(1) ; (2) Abdul– Salaam committed a killing while in the perpetration of a felony (robbery), see 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 9711(d)(6) ; (3) in the commission of the offense, Abdul–Salaam knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person in addition to the victim of the offense, see 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 9711(d)(7) ; and (4) Abdul–Salaam has a significant history of felony convictions involving the use or threat of violence to the person, see 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 9711(d)(9). The jury also found one mitigating circumstance: “[a] background that includes both physical and mental abuse does have a negative impact on a person's development and therefore his future behavior,” see 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 9711(e)(8) (relating to the character and record of the defendant). The jury concluded that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances and returned a sentence of death, see 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 9711(c)(1)(iv).

On March 24, 1995, the trial court formally imposed the sentence of death for first degree murder rendered by the jury. In addition, Abdul–Salaam was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of four (4) to eighteen (18) years on the robbery conviction, one and one half (1–1/2) to five (5) years and prosecution costs on the conspiracy conviction.

Represented by his trial counsel, Spero T. Lappas, Esquire, Abdul–Salaam filed a timely direct appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,¹ raising six (6) claims for relief. Specifically, Abdul–Salaam presented the following issues for review, as characterized by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court:

1. Does a suppression court err by denying a pre-trial motion to suppress eyewitness identifications where the witnesses had a poor opportunity to observe the perpetrator, and where the identifications follow prejudicial pre-trial exposure to the defendant, in-person and in media reports?

2. Does a suppression court err when it refuses to suppress a statement which results from custodial interrogation after the defendant's expression of his desire to exercise his rights to silence and to counsel?

3. Does a suppression court err when it denies a motion to suppress the fruits of the warrantless search of a closed container, where there is no effective consent for the search?

4. Does a trial court err in denying a defense motion for payment of eyewitness expert witness expenses, when the

...