Brief for Appellant

    I L- 'S--t-L

Memo on Oblections made at the Wilder and Bozeman trials by
defense counsel.

1) Insufficiency of the evidence. This claim was raised at
triat. Wf_llgf at p. 220, Bozeman at p. 197, and at each stage
of the appeal-s process.

2) Jury Instructions. There were several objections made to the
jury instructions given in the Wilder case. The only one of
these objections which was also made on appeal was that the
judge created unfairness by recapitalating the state's evi-
dence in the course of the charge while he oid not recapitu-
tate the oefendant's case. No objection on this ground is
planned in the collateral attack.

An objection was made to_. the perjury charge, but no legal
ground were specified. See p. 315. The judge's definition of
"i1tegal" was also objected to, but no legal grounds weregiven at
that time. The judge had defined illegai as not requiring any
showing of mensrea by the state ("an act tttat is not authorized by
law or is contrary to law, " p. 308).

Shortly after making the two objections above, Wilder's
counsel made a general objection to the charge which could be said
to clarify the above objections, saying "that the charge goes to
Iaws relating to fraudulent notary seals which is beyond the
purview of this and Ithe charge] didn't include a complete state-
ment ot the law as to knowledge and intent as it relates to this
particular defendant." (p. 315-316) Thus although no objections
framed on constitutional grounds were explicitly made, the ob-
jections did focus on those aspects of the instructions which
would form the groundwork for our constitutional objections.

No objections to the jury instructions were made in Bozeman.

3) Use of out of court statements. The statements were oblected
to in Wilder on various grounds: 1) that the state was
impeacfr-Lng-IEs own witness, PP. 30, 195; 2) that the state
was misleading the jury by reading only answers given by the
witness during the out of court questioning and not the
questions asked (i.e. ans!{ers could have been taken out of,
context), at p. 2L6; 3) that the use of the statements
"substantialiy prejudiced the rights of the Defendants
Isic], " dt p. 220. No further objections were made on appeal.

In Bozeman similar objections were raised: 1) that the state
was "trying-T-o impeach the testimony ot his own witness unoer the
guise of refreshing her recollection," at 159; 2) that the
oepositions were taken from "non-literite" people, not respre-
sented by counsel in "unfamiliar surroundings Iand al hostile
atmosphere." Defendant's counsel made it clear that it was not
anything done by the D.A. which made the atmosphere hostile;
because of the institutional setting, and the people being ques-
tioned, it was hostile perse, at 138-39 and at 141; 3) that the



whole process was "just not fairr " because the DA was able to go
out and develop specific testimony against the defendant and use
it selectively against her when witnesses faileo to give the
answers he wanted (interpreting Seayrs statement at p. 158-159).
No objections were made on appeal.

Thus in both cases there was no specific allegation that the
use of the statements denied the defendant her constitutional
confrontation rights olr due process of Iaw. But some of the
objections brought to Iight some of the basic issues of fairness,
and the integrity of the truth determining process, which the
constitutional provisio3s seek to protect.

4) Chilling effect of the prosecution. The plea of both de-
fendants set forth certain objections, among them that the
indictment "has the sole purpose and effect of frustrating
the defendant and other black residents of Pickens County,
Alabama in their effort to exercise the riqht to vote." The
objections named in the plea $/ere incofipo5-ateo 5y reference
into certain objections made in the course of the Wilder
trial, dt p. 220.

5) Note that the 1975 Code of Alabama S12-22-240, (formerly 1940
Code of Alabama S15-389) requires the appeals court to search
the record for errors. The section is fraught with court-made
exceptions. The provision may have been severly narrowed for
criminal cases by Rule 45B of the AIa. Rules of App. Proc.,
but the rule was not effective untiL L/L/82.

-2-