Letter from Lani Guinier to Solomon Seay re Bozeman

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at .

Matter
- Lani Guinier Correspondence
Case
- Lani Guinier Correspondence
U.S. state
- General
Collection
- Legal Department General
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 0a653fff-e392-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873

Cite this item

Legal Department General, Lani Guinier Correspondence. Letter from Lani Guinier to Solomon Seay re Bozeman, 1982. 0a653fff-e392-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/89288066-7fce-4857-808b-588458ee2760/letter-from-lani-guinier-to-solomon-seay-re-bozeman. Accessed November 23, 2025.

Copied!

L*,EerenseH.

Solomon Seay, Esq.
352 Dexter Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 3610/,

a .,. . .-.>.iiL:L ,

NAACP LEGAL OEFENSE ANO EDUCATIONAL FUNO, INC.
10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019. (212) 586-8397

July 15, 1982

Re: Bozeman v. State of
Wilder v. State of

Al-abama
Al-abama

Dear Mr. Seay:

r expect to have a draft of the peti-tion for writ oferror coram ,-,obl?_ for you to review the f irst or second weekin euguEE.-- T-GETrr intend to spend a few days in Montgomeryinterviewing some of the witne=ses r named in my June Bl-etter as wefr as paur Rorrlns. r do not have a defini_tetime set aside but r can come to Montgomery August 10 and/or23 and 24, whichever is convenient for you.

Please Iet me know what your plans are for those days.
The i-ssues which r am briefing for the petition are asfoI lows :

I. STATUTORY INTERPRETATTON ( $17-23-I )

A) What is fraud? What are elements of thecrinre? Intent? Knowledge?

B) Who is culpable: Notary or voter?
C) Is improper notarization a crime? Ifit is, is it within this statute?
D) Was there proof, taking evidence in lightmost favorable to prosecutor, of all thenecessary elements of a violation of

S17-23-1 for each defendant?

E) Was the verdict in Bozeman or Wi1deragainst the weight oFtEe eviderrcET-

Contributions are d.eductible tor U.S. income tar purposes

Tho NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not parl ol the National Association ,or lhe Advancement ol Colored People although it
was lounded by it and shares its commilmenl to equal rights. LDF has had lor over 25 years a separate Board, pro0ram, slal,, olfice and budget.

Solomon Seay, Esg.
JuIy 15, L9B2

Page 2

II. DID THE COURT ERR TN TTS INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY?

A) Did court instructions exceed charges in

J-). Perjury with regard to Wilder

2) Conspi.racy with regard to Bozeman.

B) Where no exception taken by counsel. (Fed.
RuIe 51, CRIM RuIe 52(b) ).

C) Was failure to provide Iimiting instructions
' regarding use of depositions plain error, in

Iight of age and vul-nerability of the witnesses?

III. WAS STATUTE CHARGED IN IND]CTMENT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
AS APPLIED IN LIGHT OF THREE QUESTIONS?

A) Chilling effect on the exercise of the right to
vote.

B) Does the change of Alabama law with respect to
absentee ballots make the convi-ctions no
Ionger valid?
(See Abatement Cases and analysis re:
application to pending cases BelI, Griffin,
Hamm) .

C) Is there a constitutional right to a secret
baI Iot?

IV. PROSECUTIONIS USE OF DEPOS]TION TESTIMONY

A) Defense counsel not present.

B) Depositions used as impeachment evidence with-
out Iimiting i-nstructions, and over objections
by defense counsel.

C ) Was there a sufficient basis for declaning
witnesses hostile?

I ) What are the rules governing impeach-
ment of own witnesses.

2) What about rules for inconsistent testi-
mony in this regard.

SoLomon Seay, Esq.
July 15, LgB2

Page 3

D) Must the prosecution turn over aII exculpa-
tory evj-dence? See Brady v. Maryland.

E) Was the jury decision affected by the use
of the deposition testimony?

a
1 ) In the Bozeman trial, there was no

evidencS-to convict except if deposi-
tions used as substantive evidence.

2) Since the evidence was so confusing,
bhe jury had no way to distinguish
between credibility and substantive
evidence.

3) The prosecutor relied on the deposition
testj-mony to prove his case in chief .

F.) Even in the absence of a request from defense
counsel for a limiti_ng instpuction, it was plain
error for the court to allow the use of deposi-
tion testimony for impeachment purposes without
advising the jury of the limited use of such
testimony. I

In addition, we are researching two other issues: (I)
were the sentences excessive with respect to the crime charged?
and (2) what are the standards for relief in a petition for
Writ of Error?

Pl-ease call- me to let me know whether you see additional
issues that we have missed. Al-so l-et me know your August
schedule.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Lani Guinier

18 53
18 54
18 55

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Letter from Lani Guinier to Solomon Seay re Bozeman

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in