Bozeman v. Lambert and Wilder v. Lambert Non-Argument Calendar
Public Court Documents
April 13, 1984
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Bozeman v. Pickens County Board of Education. Bozeman v. Lambert and Wilder v. Lambert Non-Argument Calendar, 1984. f646cd1a-f192-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/307eb4fd-c2ee-4217-8eb7-d52c9eb6eb46/bozeman-v-lambert-and-wilder-v-lambert-non-argument-calendar. Accessed December 04, 2025.
Copied!
,
DO }lOT
PlJBTIS}IIN TTIE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 84-7286
Non-Argument Calendar
MAGGIE S. BOZEMAN,
Petitioner-Appellee,
versus
EALON It{. LAMBERT; JACK C. - --:
LUFKIN; JOHN T. PORTER, in
their official capacities as
members of the Alabama Board of
Pardons and Parolesi TED BUTLER, a
Probation and Paro1e Officer employed
by the Alabama Board of Pardons and
Paroles,
Respondents- Appe I I ants .
No. 84-728?
Non-Argument Calendar
JULIA P. WILDER,
Petitioner-AppeIIee ,
versus
EATON l{. LAMBERT; JACK C. LUFKIN;
JOHN T. PORTER, in their official
capacities as members of the
Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles;
TED BUTLER, a Probation and Parole
Officer employed by the Alabama Board
of Pardons and Paroles,
FOR TTTE
Respondents- AppeI I ants .
\
Appeals from the United States District Court
for'n:-I:::1:_:l::::::_::_:labama
(uay 6, 1985)
Before VANCE, HENDERSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIA}I:
Defendants appeal the district courtrs grant of writs
of habeas corpus on pLaintiffs' motions for summary
j udgment .
Both l{aggie S. Bozeman and Julia P. Wilder rrere
convicted of three counts of vote fraud in state court in
Pickens County, Alabama. Bozeman was sentenced to four
years imprisonment and Wilder to imprisonment for five
years. Both vrere on parole at the time they filed their
petitions for federal habeas in district court.
Applying the standard of Jackson v. Virqinia, 443 U.S.
307 (1979), the district court.held that the evidence
against Bozeman was insufficient to support her conviction
and therefore issued the writ as to her.
The district court concluded that the evidence against
Wilder vras sufficient to sustain her conviction. The court
also held, however, that both petitionersr juries h,ere
1..'
Dv instructed on a crime not charged in their indictments.
, Because of such violation of her eixth anendment rights the
distrlct court also iesued the writ as to Wilder conditioned
on her retrial within ninetY daYs.
The dietrict court carefully, and we conclude
correctly, ruled on the various contentions of the parties.
We thefore affirm on the basis of the joint Memorandum
Opinion of the district court dated April 13, 1984.
AFFIRI,IED.