Motion for Appointment of Counsel and for Allowance of Attorney's Fees

    FILED
JUN 5 19d4

THC!\4AS C. CAVER, CLEIiK
BY-

DEPUIY'CLERK

v.

EALON M. I.AMBERT, Et d1.,
civlt Action I{o. 83-H-579-N

Respondents,

JULIA P. WILDER,

Petiti-oner,

v.

EALON M. LAMBERT,

Civil Action !rc. 83-H-580-N

Respondents.

MOTION FOR APPOINTI{ENT OF COUNSEL AI{D

FOR ALLOWAITCE OI' ATTORNEY I S FEES

The petitioners, MAGGIE BOZEMAI{ and JULIA WILDER, move

this Honorable Court for appoj.ntment of counsel and for

allowance of attorneyts fees pursuant to and in accordance

with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Section 3006A. Although the

Court did not consolidate the above-styled cases, the lega1

representation rendered to both petitioners was done jointly

and in furtherance of both petitions. Therefore, this motj-on

is being filed in both cases inasmuch as both petitioners are

financially unable to obtain counsel and are prevailing parties.

In support of said motion, petitioners set forth and assign

the following:

1,,, L

II

IN THE

FOR TH

UNIEED STATES DISTRICT COURT

f'rilib+ DrsrRrcr o' A,,ABArvlA

'B\ Jbionth*ffitBr\F&-o*



1. on 8 June 1983, the petitioners, by and through

thej-r undersigned attorneys, filed Petitions for writs of

Habeas Corpus, Motions for Leave to Proceed in Forma PauPeris,

Motions for production of Documents, and Affidavits in support

of said motions. On 28 June 1984, this Court granted petitionersr

requests for leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and' ordered

respondents to show cause why the petitions should not be

granted.

2. On 1 July 1983, Lani Guinier, one of petitioners'

counsel, filed a Motion to Appear Hac Vice, which said motion

was granted on 13 JulY 1983.

3. On 18 July 1984, respondents moved to dismiss the

petitions. On 9 August 1983, petitioners filed a Response

to Respondents' Motions to Dismiss and on I September 1983,

this Court denied the lvlotions to Dismiss, ordered respondents

to comply with the Court's Order of 28 June 1983 to show cause

why the writs should not issue, and directed the respondents

to file their response to the petitionersr Motions to Furnish

Transcripts.

4. on 3 october 1983, petitioners again moved for

production of Documents because resPondents had failed to furnish

or to explaj.n why they were not furnishing the documents requested'

5. On 30 November 1983 respondents furnished Petitioners

with one of the documents requested, a transcript of closing

arguments.

-2-



6. On 20 December 1983 petitioners responded to this

Courtrs Order of 2 December, setting out their position on

the issues in the case.

7. Subsequently on 20 January 1984, petitioners filed

tlotions I'or Summary JudgUnent and Memoranda of Law in Support

Thereof. This Court held a hearing on said motions on 2

March 1984, and on 13 April 1984, this Court granted both

petitioners, Motion for Summary Judgiment. Petitioner BOZEMANTS

state court conviction \rras vacated and she was released from

all restraints imposed as a result of her conviction. Petitioner

WILDER|s Writ of Habeas Corpus was ordered by this Court to be

issued within 90 days of its Judgrnent unless she was retried

in state court on the same charge.

8. As part of its Judgment of 13 April, the court ordered

that costs of the proceeding on behalf of petitioner BOZE!'IAN

be taxed, against the State of Alabama. Petitioner BOZBI"IAN

submitt,ed a bill of costs as of April 25, 1984 in the amount

of $4908.90 which the Clerk taxed against the State on 1I May

1984. Respondents have moved the Court to review the action

of the C1erk.

9. Pursuant to 18 U-S.c. S3006A(d) (4), petitioner sets

out in the attached attorney Affid.avits the time expended,

services rendered and expenses incurred while the cases were

pending before this Court. Neither petitioners nor their

attorneys have received compensation or reimbursement in these

cases.

-3-



I0. Ttre fees and expenses set out in the undersigned

attorneysr attached Affidavits were reasonabty and necessarily

incurred in obtaining relief in this case.

11. Petitioners could not have proceeded effectively

and expeditiously to obtain the relief requested without the

services of their attorneys. Petitioners submit herewith a

memorandum describing the lega} basis for appointment of

counsel and specifying the nature of the extended and complex

rePresentation they were afforded and the important stePs that

caused them to prevail that could not have been taken by

petitioners pro se.

L2. petitioners' counsel seek reimbursement for costs and

expenses reasonably incurred in the amount of $241.05 for l'ls. Durant

and $4931.43 for Ms. Guinier and, in the interests of justice, fair

compensation of $754.00 for Ms. Durant and $4708.00 for Ms. Guinier.

For these reasons, petitioners move for appointment of counsel,

for payment to their attorneys for tj.me reasonably expended

in excess of the maximum amounts provided in 18 U.S.C. 3006A(d) (2)

and for fuII recovery of exPenses reasonably incurred by their

attorneys.

t'lontgomery, AL 36104
(20s) 262-7337

-4-

RespectfullY s

z



99 Hudson Street, 15th Floor
New York, N. Y. 10013
(2L2) 219-1900

Attorneys for Petitioners

Certificate of Service

I hereLryrcertify that a coPy of Petitioners' Motion for

Appointment of Counsel and for Allowance of Attorneyrs Fees

was served upon P. M. Johnston, c/o Attorney Generalrs Annex,

669 South Lawrence street, [lontgomery, Alabama 35104, bY

depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid,

on this the 1 day of June, 1984.

-5-