Brief and Argument of Attorney for Appellants

    IN lHE UNITED STATXS COUP.T OF APPEAIS
I'OR TIIX

EIEYSNTH CIRCUIT

Case Nurober 84-7287

JIIIIA P. l{II.,DER'

Petitloner-APPollee

V8'

EAION l{. IAUBERI , gt B},

Respondcnte-APPollent e

I APPeel fron the
lliddtc Diatrict of ALebeua

cv 8r-E-580-f,

Bricf anil Arguoent of

P. !1. JoEtsroIT,

AttorneY for APPellants

Adldlrese of Couneel:

Distrlct AttorneY
P. 0. Box 442
Alieeville, Alaba.roa 15442
(2o5) 575_6r5t



grAIEltlENT RECARDING PRETEREIICE

fhis appeal 1s entltled tc preference aB

frou a grant of habees corPue under 28 U'S'C'

an appeal

52254.

sTAT3rENr REGARDINe O4Al AncuI-TEr[

. 
Appellantc have rcqueetedl oral argunrent in the

appcal cf Bozeaan v' laobcrt' Ito ' g4-1286' a eitG bascd

onvlrtuallythcBa.trefectsrbutlnvolvlngaorclggucg.
If thlE court grente oraL erguucnt ln Boucuan, appcllenta

rcepectfully auggeet that orel arguaent in thtc oasG

vculd be Just sndl Juiltctally coonorulcal '

tt



TA.3LF OF CON:!}ITS

STAlSMENT REGARDING PREF'ERENCE------

STAIEI'IENT REGARDING ORA], ARGU}IEI{T

TAB],E OP CONTEI{TS

TABIE OF CASES

TABIE OT STATI]TES

STATEMENT OF lEE ISSUES-_

STATEIIIETIT OF TEE CASE

I. COURSE OT PROCEEDINGS AND
prsposrtror IN CoIIRI BELoW---

II. STATEIIENT OF TEE FACTS-------

III. STATEI,IENT OF TEE STANDARD

OF REVIEW

rEE ARGI]I'IENT------

OF JITRISDICTION----

ARGU}lENT

C ONCI'US ION

CEF.TIFiCAIE OF SEP.VICE-

PI,GI

2

7

i::

iv
v

1

10

11

12

15

SUT'IMARY OF

STATEIi{ENT

17

18

1r1



TABIE OF CASES

Srazeli v. State'
@21,326

(eia. Crin.APP . 1 982)-------

Brvant v. State'
@541 ,

(.tt . er in. App.
eert. den. 428(na. 198r)--

15

PAGS

9

11,15

54'
1982),
So.2d 646

15

15

Cha^ubers v. State,
@8,950(lta. crin. App . 1 982)-------
Jaekscn v. Yirginia,
ffi99 s.ct.

2781, 51 l.Ed.2d 550,
reh. den. 444 U.S' 890,
TO0 sIG . 195 , 52
r.Ed.2d 125 (1979)-----

Wa,
i{rlder v. State'
ffi1 51

t:l?'!6i';tlE;)i,i4'
u. s. ' i ofTt eBt-I---- tj

iv



TA3I,X OI' STATUTES

cocle of Alabena' 19152

$ 1 ?-1 0-6

$1 ?-1 o-?

PAgE

11,14

14

14

14

v



SiATEITI]iT OT' TI{E iSSUIq

I.
WI{ETHER DEFENDANT WAIYED ANY

OT.IPEIiOT.I TO TEE TRIA! COUP.T'S ORA.I

cElnsr By FArrrNG T0 PRoPERIY oBJEct
AND ASSiGN SPECII'IC GROUNDS.



STATEI4E}IT OF Ti{E CASE

I.CourseofProceedingsandDispcsitionsj'n
the Ccurt Selcw

Thj.s is an appeal frcm the sunuary judgment grant of

ahabeasecrpuspetitionintheMidd}eDi.sirictof
Alabana.

The origin of this litigation was in indictnent

againstl{s.\{i}derreturnedbythePickensCounty
(llatana) Grand Jury on Noveuber 5, 19?8' (t' 320-21)

That instrunent read as followE:

The Grand Jury of said County charge

that, before the finding of thls

Indletnent, Julie P' tfilder, vhose

ne.Ee to the Grand Jury is otherrise

unknorrn:

COUNT ONE

d1d vote oore than once, oF di'd

depcsit Bcre than one baIlot for the

seYne cffice as her vote, or did vote

il}ega1lY cr fraudulently, in the

Denocratic Prinary Run-cff Election

cf Septenber 25, 1978,



COUNT ThIO

did vote Bore than once es en

absentce voter, or did depcei't Eore

than one abeentce ballct fcr the satre

office or offtces as her vote ' or Aid

cegt l11cgal or frcudulent abscntee

balLcte, iR the Dcnocretlc Prtnary

Run-off Electlon of ScPtcnbcr 26'

1 978,

COUtrT TEREI

diit east lllega1 or fraudulcnt

abeentee ballcts ln tbc Dcnocratlc

Prluery Rrrn-off ELcction of Septcuber

26, 19?8, ltl that chc dld dePoelt

rlth tha ?lekcns CountY Clrcult

C1erk, abecntee bellote rblch uere

fraudulcnt and Yhlch she kncv to be

fraudulent, (I. 211)

Theee chargee vere basedl upcn Sectlon 11-2r-1 of the

1975, reProduceil here:

$rZ-zr-t. Illega} vctlng or

atteuBtlng tc vote'

1



AnY Perscn rhc vctes ncre than once

at any electicn held in this state'

or depcslts Elcre than one ballct for

tire satre cffice as hi's vote at such

election, or knowlnglY attenPts tc

vote when he is not entitled to do

8or or is gU11tY of any kind of

iIIegal or fraudulent voting' trust'

on conviction, b€ inPrisoned in the

Penitenti,arY for not less than twc

nor Bore than five Years' &t the

discretion of the JurY'

{llderplednotegi}tyandrenttotria]'beforethe
Honorable Clatus Junkin, Circuit Judge' and a Jury on

May29,1g7g.(t.1)Shevasnostab}yrepresented
by twc retained ccun6elcrs, Soloroan S' Seay' Jr' and J'

L. Chestnut, Jr. (t' 2)

On tilay 51 , 1979, the iury returned a verdi'ct of

guilty as charged in the indictnent and set the sentence

at five years. (t,516) trre circuit ccurt then adiudSed

thedefendantgulltyandentered'senteneeaccordlngly.
(r. ,1?-1 8)



Mrs. W j.lder then scugh t the f cllcwing relief :

l.AppealtctheAlabanaCourtcfCrininalAppeals;
af f irrsed vith opinion cn lvlarch 31 , 1 981 . (n. 1ri the

Manuseript opinion is Exhibit D tc respcndents' Motion tc

Dismi.ss the habeas petition [n' 47) and ie repcrted at

4C1 So.2d 1 51 )

2. Writ of certiorBri in the ALaba-na suprene ccurt;

denled on July 24, 1981. (n' 14i 401 So'2d 157)

5.i{ritofCertiorariintheSupreneCourtofthe
United States; denied on November 15, 1981. (n' 11i 454

u.s. 1057)

I,1s. Wilder did not seek a col]ateral review of her

convietion 1n the state courts. (R. 14) After being

deniedbytheSupremeCourt,shefi}edthepetitionfora
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 52254 in the Hlddle

District of Alabaroa on June 8, 1983. (n ' 12, €t seq-')

Afterahearingupcnthepetitioner'stooticnfor
suntrary judguent, (the transcript of that hearing is

vclume 2 cf the Reecrd), the Distriet Court' P€r

Hcnorable Trunan Hcbbs, granted. suEIIBary jud'gment f or Ms '

wilder. (n.185)

JudgeHobbs'opinionunderlyinghisdeci.sionwillbe

fcund at R. 157 and 1n the "Record Excerpt" filed by the

appellants. The jud'gment and cpinion Yere entered on



April 1r, 1984. (n. 157, 180) the habeae respcndente

frled a tlmely l{ctice of AppeaL on Aprl} 21 ,1984 (n'

181)bri'ngi'ngthenattercfthegrantofthevrlttcthig
Hcncrable Court.

sevcralnctionsYereflled!nthedistrlctcourt
after thle appeal nae docketctt (See R' 4-6 of the

Supplcncntal Recordl) tut thoee nattcre arc not ralsed 1n

thls brtcf. Appcllante notc, hovcvQr' that the

petlttoncr fll'ed a-ucndaent on Ju)'y 25' 1984' naslng a

illfferent reepondent, purauant to the dletrlct

courtrg ordler of JuIy 15, 1984. (R, ,06; Supp. R' 5)



I I . Statement cf the i'acts

Ifne facts set cut belcw are taken primari]y fron

twcscurces.Thoserefleetedinthetranscriptfrontne
?ickens ccunty trial are citec by,,T'r and a page nunber.

Those suppcrted by the District Court's opinion (tne

opinion appealed fron) are followed by an rrRrr reference'

That opinion is found at Pages 16' to 185 of the reccrd

on appeal. )

The dietrict court entered e icint llenorandun

Opinion in this c&se and that of Bozenan v' lanbert (on

appeal in this ecurt as No ' 84-7285) ' Appellants agree

nith the court's introduetory sunnary of the factual

backgrcund of the eaoe:

Bcth petitioners Yere convieted uniler

a statute Proecriblng voting nore

than once or votlng vhen one is not

entitled to d'o 8or in eonnection with

their participation in the casting of

absentee ballcts in the Denocratic

primary runoff on Septenber 25 ' 1 978

in Pickens County' The eontention of

the proBecution was' egeentially'

that petltioners procured absentee

ballots in the narnes of registered



vcters and vcted the ballcts

themselves. SPeclflcallY, the

prosecuti.on contended that

pebitioners wculd take appli'cations

fcr absentee bailcts arcund to

elderlY blaeks and ask then if theY

ranted to be able tc vcte uithout

gcing to the Polls ' Ivlost of these

eIderIY PeoPle were llliterate' so

petitioners ordlnarily wculd help

then f iIl j't out, and the voter would

nake an rrx, nark. Sonetines tbe

application would direct that the

balIct be nailed tc the voter and'

sometines tc one of three addresses'

lfilder's address was anong the three;

Bczenan's ?as not' Either

petitioners or the voter rculd turn

the aPPlleaticns fcr an absentee

ballct in to the ?iekens CcuntY

C1erk's offlee. Acccriling tc the

prosecution, petltioners obtained'

thirty-nine cf these ballcts ' filled

then cut, and signed the registered

voiers' nanes to then' Wilder and

8



Bczeman tcok bhe bal}cta tc a notary

publlc, vho notarizetl then uPcn

Petitioners' aEBurance that the

sLgnatures rcre valtd' The ballcts

Here eubecquently votcd' (R'158-59)

Appellants al'ec Bgree that thc evidence uas

suffteientundlcrJackgonv.Ylr8lnla,+4,u.s.,o7,99
S.Ct. 2781 , 61 !.Ea'zd 560, p!' ggg' 444 II'S' 890' IOO

s.ct. 195, 62 l,.!d-zd 126 (tgzg) to convlct the

defcndant.



III. Statement cf the Standard Review

Appellantsunderstandthestandardofreviewtcbe
aquegtlcnelnplycfvhetherthedlstrieteourthes
ccuplieit vlth the case law frou the suprene court and the

Eleventh clrcuit a8 eet out in the arguoent.

10



Sunuary of the ArFrnent

AnypoBsibleerrcronthepartofthePlckensCounty
circult court in eharging the Jury on sectlon 1r-5-15 cf

the Alebroa codle veg vaived by tlcf endanttg fatlurc tc

obJect eacl esstgn grouncls for obJcetlon. lfelnrrtSht,v.

theorlcgoteoungcl,andthctriElcourttgJurycharge
togcther,ltcannotbcgatdthctthcdcfcndantVeB
dcprlvsd cf notlcc by the late eddttlon of a ncr eherge'

11



Statement cf JgfiS-l-rct i

The dlstrict court had jurisdiction to hear this

habeas ecrpus under 2g u.s.c. s?254. the appeal lies ln

thls ecurt pursuant to 28 U'S'C' $1291 '

12



ARGUMENT

I.

WIIETHER DEFENDANT WAIYED ANY

osJrdiJow-to tHE TRrAt couRt's oRAt
cnlior-ivrarrrrqsToPBoPERr'YoBJECT
AND ASSIGN SPECII'iC GROUNDS.

lnedistrictcourtgranted},1s.Wi1der'spetiticn
basedupcnthetrialJudge'sora}chargetcthejury.
Since the trial of thle ease necessarily preeeeded its

appeal (yilrter v. state, 401 So.2d 151 (Ala'crin'App')'

eert. clen. 401 So.2d 167 (Ala), cert' d'en' 454 U'S' 1057

[r9et)),therevasnocase]avtlefinlngtheoeaningof
thephrase.enykindofillegalorfraudulentvotinS''in
the statute that Ms. lfilAer vas charged wlth viclatin8'

In the oplnion Just cited, the court of crininal Appeals

he}dthat,theuortle'illeSalorfraudulent'aSusedin
5ll-21-larenerelydescriptiveoftheintentnecessary
for the ccmniesion of the offense'" Wilcler v. Stqle , 401

So. 2d' at 159.

iiithoutthisguid.ance,thetrialccurtunderstand-
ably scught tc advise the iury on the eontribution that

the clause, "or is guilty of any kind cf illegal cr

fraudulent vcting," nade tc the statute' Ihe court did

ihis by defining "illegal" and "fraudulent" by their

usual legal definitions '

11



iheccurtthenreadcrexp}ai.necSctreccdesectlcns
whi,ch the habeas ecurt now f inds unacceptable. r'irst 

'

the ecurt interpreted $17-10-, (identi.fied in the

transeript as "1721-r"). That statute does ncthing lDcre

thanexp}aintireeligibi}ityrequirenentsandprcced'ures
for vcting in an "absentee" fashlon' (T''09)

The court then explained secticn $tZ-tO-S

(errcnecusly denoninated 1?-10-? in the transcript)'

vhichnere}ypreBcribesthefornoftheabsenteeba}lot
and nandates an affidavit tc go vith it. 11'369-10) The

trialjudgeprcgressedto$1?-1O-Tandreadthe'forn
aff i.davit" set out in that secticn' (T''10-1 1)

Theforegoingsectionsareallrelativelyinnocuous.
f,inally, the trial judge instructed on $tr-f-t5 of the

cocle. That eection eondenns false sYeering rith regard

',to any natters of faet required or authorLzed to be nade

underthee}ectionlaw...nandstatesthatonewhogo
fcrswears shalI be guilty of perjury. (t'111 )

thehabeasccurttakesissuewiththechargeon

$rr-l-r5 in }ight of a subsequent instruction:

Further, the State eharges that the

defendant ritneesed or had kncwledge

that a Nctary Publie falsely notari-

zed, or attested tc the authenticity

14



cf the ballcts bY attestlng the

perscns were before h1m and sc fcrbh

as prcvided ln the affidavit' If the

ballct lras falsely attested to' then

sueh a ballct voulcl be illegai and

any Person who ParticiPated tn a

. Bcheme to east that balLct vith know-

ledge of that fact rould connit the

acts prohibited by Section 17-'-1 of

the Alabana cotle of 1975 if ln fact

that ballct Yas cast'

(r. ,12)

Regarcling theee eharges, IYtr' Seay argued' "fhe

Court aleo charged the iury on the perJury under Iit1e

13.i{eobjecttcthatportionoftheCourt'scharge.
TheCourtalsceharged,ratherextensivelyvhatthe
State,scontentionsinthlscaseare.AnclwecbJectto
aII of that pcrtion of the Court's charge.il (t'ltl)

Irlr.ChestnutaLscfcundfault:"ueobjectthatthe
cnargeSoestclarsrelatingtofraudu}entnotaryseals'
nhlch ie beycnd the purview of thj's'''" (T' 

'15-16)
The}awlnAl'abanaonthequestionofassigning

specifie ground's with respeet to questicnable iury

charges is strict, eettled, and unifornly applied'

15



Simply Put, the trial ecurt w:'1] nct be placed in errcr

where the erininal defendant fails to object 4 assign

epeclficgroundsforhieobjection.ggg,e'8',ILISnt]L
gtate,428 So.2d 641 ,641 (ila'Crin'App' 1982)' cert'

den. 42e So.2d 646 (ata ' tg81); 3raze11 v' State ' 425

So.2d 12r, 525 (lta'Criro'App' .|982); Charnbers v' State'

418 So.2d 948, 950 (lta'Crin'App' 1982)'

Here,theon}ygrounclsassignedVerethatthe''Iarg
relating tc fraudulent notary seals Iare] beycnd the

purview of thls Iease]" Those ground's are patently

insuffieienttopreserveanyallegederror.Therefore,
the petition is due to be denied on all assertions

concerning the trial courtrs oral charge unless

petitloner ean rihov cause fcr failure tc object and

actualprejudiceresultlngfrouthecharge.tiainuright
v. sykes, 453 u.s. 72 (tgZZ)'

15



ApPellantrs

ccurt ehould be

for proeeedlings

rul,ing.

CONCTUSION

eubuit that the

revereed and the

congtetent vlth

deeislon of the trial

eege ghould be reoanded

thte Eonorable Court's

roR APPEL,LAf,IS

17



CXBTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that r have this / I 
C u"' cf

Septenber,lgs4,gervedaccpyoftheforegcinScnthe
attorneys fcr the Petitioner by placing Bnme in the

United States nai.l, postage prepai'd and addressed as

fcllcwe:
Yanzetta ?enn Durant
AttcrneY at lraw
539 l{artha Street
UintgornerY, AL 56104

L,ani Guinler
AttorneY at Irar
99 Hudeon Street
1 5 Floor
New York, trY 1001,

ADDRESS OI COUNSEtr:

P.0. Box 442
AIlceville, AI ,5442
(zo5) ltYelst

AP?SLIANTS

18