Letter from David Boyd to Judge Thompson RE: Preliminary Injunction and Addition of State of Alabama as Party-Defendants

    \

Memo on Objections
defense counseL.

made at the lVilder and Bozeman trial s by
f\ 15 s^ (. [u 

T-^,], 
te *o - "I

' r) tnsuf f iciency of the evidence. This cr-aim wastria1. Wilder at p, ZZO, gozaimat at p. lg7, andof the appeal[-s prbcer".' .:

Jury rnstructions. There were severar objections made to thejury instructions given in the wiider 
".-=u. Thq only one of

!hgse objections which was atso- nEae on--upp""r was that thejudge created unfairn_ess by recapi tarating the state ,s evi_-dence in the course of the charge- whire-he-oid not recapitu_late the oefendant's case. No objection on this grotind isplanned in the collateral attack.
An obJection was made to_ the perjury charge, but no regalground were specif ied. see p. 315: ir,e- 3uag;ii'a"finition of"il1egaI" was.als9 objected to, but no legar grounds were given at,, that time. The juage haa defined irteglr. is not requiring any

",;,showing.of mensrei f! tfre state (',an actlfrat is not authorized by:;, Iaw or is contrary [o law, " p. 30g) - 
- . 1

.:.;.,,,,., 
. 

r --

'': shortly after making the two object,ions above, wilder,sco.unsel.made.a ge.neral obJ6ction to the 6harge *r,i"i-r 
"ould 

be saidto crarify the abov-e objections, .uying ,'tliat the charge goes rolaws relating to fraudurent notari seals which is beyond thepurview of this and Ithe charge] aia'n't include a compl_ete state_ment of the law as to knowiedge and intent as it relates to thisparticular defendant." (p. 3I5-3I6) Thus although no objectionsframed on constitutional grounds were expricitrv *ua", the ob_jections did focus on those aspects of the instructions whichwould form the groundwork for'6ur constitutional objections.: '.ri.. .

No objections to the jury instructions were made in Bozeman.
i- 3) use of out of court statements. The statements were objectedto in wilder on various grounds: r) that the staie wasimpeacffifliTs own witness-, pp. 30, I95; 2) that the statewas misreading thg jury uy reaaing onry answers given by thewitness during the- otit or court questioning and not thequestions asked (i.e. answers courd have beei take" olt-"/context), at p. 2L6; 3) that the use of the statements"substantiariy prejudiced the rights of the DefendantsIsic], " at p. izo. llo f urther objeltions were macre on appear.

; .-.---*:. .. 
In Bozeman similar objections were raised: I) that the statet , ?: was "try-ing to impeach the testimony ot his own witness unoer the!i-' \\ . quise o.f refreshing her recortec[iorr, " at 159; 2) that the..-..,.,,\ , ::ri... ' .:oepositions were taken from ,'non-literite,' people, not respre_

,'t;i'' 'i sented by counseL in "unfamiliar surroundings'turia ii nortir", : ,.' atmosphere." Defendant's counsel made it clear that it was not
: ( :i*liy done bv rhe D.A. which maoe rhe armosphere hosrire;

" because of the institutional setting, and the people being ques-t,, ," tioned, ir,r.; il;;ir. pur=., "r f:i'a1:g'.]li'u"t 141; 3) rhar the

raised at
at each stage

2)

tt

I -.. .

.+.r,".'t;;,.,.:'i i r

,, :: i l'ir.':i';r \,



,,:

whore process was "just not fairr', because the DA was able to goout. and develop--specific testimony against the defendant and useit serectively against her when wiinesses faireo to give theanswers he wanted (interpreting_$eay,s statement at p. 15g_159).No objections were made on appeal

Thus in both cases there was no specific allegation that'theuse of the statements derried the defendant her constitutionalconfrontation rights otr due process of law. But some of theobjections brought to Iight some of the basic issues of fairness,
and' tf,. i.nteg.rit,y or the truth determining process, which theconst,itutionaL provisions seek to protec t.

c_hilling effect of the prosecution. The plea of both de-fendants set forth certain objections, among them that thelndlctment "has '!h* sole purpose and effect of frustratingthe defendant and other black residents of pickens countyl
Alabama in their effort to exercise the riqht to vote.,, rhe
objectlons named in the plea were incofrpo[Ltea ]5y referenceinto certain obJect,ions made in the cturse of the wildertrial , dt p. 220.

'r 5) Note that the 1975 code of Arabama sr2-22-240, (formerry r940'Cod,e of Alabama SI5-389) requires ihe appeals'court to search
tt t'he rec.ord for errors. The section is fiiught with court-made€xccptlon!. Thc provlglon may have been eeverly narrowed forcrlmlnar cases by Ru)"e 458 of the Ara. Rures dr app. proc.,
. but the rule was not effective untiL L/L/52.

-2-