Order

    ,r
IN THE ITNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Fbn-ttte uroolE DlsrRrcr 0F ALABAI'IA

EILED
APR t g E&t

THOMAS C. CAVER, CLEXT.
BY-

MAGGIE S. BOZEUAN

Petitioner

vs.

EAION )'1. LALIBERT; Et a1

ResPondenis

NORTHERN DIVISION

)

)

)

)

)

DEruTY CLERK

CIVIL ACTION NO. 83-H-579-N

JUDGMENT

Pursuani to the attachec.meBorandr'::a oginion, it is

hereby

oRDERED chaC per j.Cioner'S notion for suIIIBary

judgaen: :'s g:arted.

L:is::eOR-DEI',JLDG:|;ST,ancDECREEoftneCou:c

:ial E:e jucgee:t of conv:Ction and t}:e sen.ence prcnouncec

--:.e:eo::y'cieC::cuirCo;:tcfPickensCcr:ncy'Aia;ana'
.l

c,:lic';e::er2i,l-98C.uhe:ein)1agg:eS'Sozeraeuas:ounc
-..j.-t. j. cia:e crin:-na]. caSe :'CC.78-:C9 o., f=auculent C=
: i- - - '

l.:-legaivctinga:)6senrencedEcfour;rears'irp=iso:i;leit'

is :e:e;i. vaca:ed. i: is further oRDER,ED char respondencs

re-ease peiic:-c:er f:ca aii :es;ra:'nts inposec as a resuic

oi sa:c conY:c::cn no. 1a;er chan April 30, 1984.

i;isiu:cherORDEF€Diha::heccstscitirisP=c.

ceec:ng De Easei aga:as: l:e S:ate of ;L e>a;'e '

DONE :his i3;:: ca]' of l-P=i:' ' I9E* '

-/ 1; //.
4 .^, .; qll .it, Ai77t:p
/ /'t.t'|,,1;t- , t

L1(:?ED S::.TES DiSTF.iCT JLDGE



a ,

IN THE
FOR THE

INIITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF AT ABA]"!{
NORTHERN DIVISION

FILED
APR t S Bel

THOMAS C. CAVER, CLEHK

M,AGGIE S. BOZE},IAN

Petitioner
vs.

E}TON },1. ].AMBERT;

Respondents

JULIA P. WILDER

Pecitioner

)

)

) crvrl, AcTroN

et aI )

)

BY
DEruTY CLERK

N0.83-H-579-N

vs.

EAI,ON )'1. I-A)'IBERT; et aI

Res Pondenc s

crvrl AcrloN N0. 83-H-580-N

I'1E]'{OR}-NDUY: O? I N i ON

ThlS CaUSe !s before tie Cc.:rt on pe'-!t,ioners' nct'i c:s

ic: su:r,r,ar-v juc= ent. Alt:-'cug:' :ne Court has no"

ccrsciica*,ec ritese cases, ic r^'i-i issue a loint cpinicn,

i^.::ii separate jucgrnents . Soze:,a: in her nctlcn argiues !ha" '

u:cer iackson v. Virginia, 143 U.S. 3C7 (i979), the evlierce

wasinsufficienttosuPPorthercon\:ictlon'SheaIso

ccri--eni,s +-hat s:te t,'as depr:-vec of her ccns-'itutional r:-gh"

.;C no.'iCe of the chargeS aga j.ns: he=. !f:]oer ra!ses c::11.

5-:e:-a-'--e:cia:r.inherrnc-':c:"Sre=a:sestheJacksc:'

clai:i in he= pe"i:ion , hcwe'\ler , ani --':e Ccuri thus wl- -

cc:s:ier f'. nc$. Fcr the reascns s-ui'-ei pe*ou' the Cour--

)

)

)

)

)

S J *;rr!%tr

-ir'I'^
Ugr^lt"+?



finds for both Petitioners on their noti.ce claj.ms an{ for

Bozeman on her Jackson claim.

FACTS

Bcth petitioners were convicteC under a statute

proscribi.ng voting more than once or voting when one is not

entitled to do so, in connection with their participation in

the casting of absentee ballots in the Democratic primary

runcff on September 26, 19?8 in Pickens Cor;nty. The

contention of the prosecution was, essentially, that

petitioners procured absentee ballots in the names of

registered voters and voted the ballots themselves.

Specifi.cally, the prosecution contended that petitioners

wouii, take applications for absentee baLlots around to

eLce::-"- blacks anc ask then if they wa::ted tc be able to

vor,e w:'-hcut going to the pclls. !'lost cf these elderly'

people \ie=e i11j.tera+,e, so pe-'itionerS crc:nari1-v wculi heip

-!:e::.:r:. it out, ano the vcter wculc::'ake an Ixrr mark'
;Qr-c-'-F. +. .:e apciica"ion wcuji i:rect '.h8" the baiict be

:,a:-ec tC --:e Vot.er ani SOi:r€'-:ieS tO C:e C: -.i:ee aiiresses.

i.,:-ie:'s aciress was among the three; Scze;an's was nct.

r j -.ic- De'.. j'-i one=s or +-he \rc'-er woulc t:rn '-he apPiica:io::s

fc: a: a:se:+-ee bailo*. in tc the Prckens county clerk's

c j::ce. AccorCing '-o the ;DrcSecu:ion, PetitiOnerS obtainec

r1-r-r..f-rj-.6 c,! +-hese pal,ic+-s, fillec .u5€r" cu.', a::i signei

::ie :ei--s--e:ec ":o-r-€rst 
na:'iies to the=. l^;iicer ani Bcze:.ar.

tOCl.l -_j.)€ pa:-rCtS --C a nC?-ari- ?;:L:C, L'nC iC:a::Zei t]:e:r, .tDC:,

-2



petitioners' aSsurance that the signatures were valj'd. The

bailots were subsequently voted.

when a court clerk noticec that all 0f the absentee

bal}ot aPPlications turned in by Wilder had one of three

addresseS on them, she notified her superior, who contacted

the District Attorney. The District A+-torney had the box

ccntaining the absentee ballots inspected, and it was

Ciscovered that thirty-nine ballots had been notariied by

paul Rollins, a notary in Tuscaloosa. All thirty-nine

baLlots were voted identically, and none was signed with an

"x," even though many Ot the corresponding aPPlications

were. Some of the corresPonding aPPlications had one of the

three adcresses on them, and some Cii not' wiider witnessed

sone of the appiications tha'- were s:gnec with an "x";

tscze:-.an oic not witness an-v '

I. TJIDE}iCE OF W]LDER'S GUIL?

)
?he Ccu=-- :-.as .ghorcughil' rei'le';e' '-'1e =eccri cf

t^': :,i.--tc :-: a-. Grven :iat ine Af a:a:ia Ccu:t c j Cr:'::'lnaf
r.-au!- 

-

i-ppeals set ou-. the +-es--:nc.r' ar- t..:icer's r--rlai in i*-s

O!::icn, anc c:'v'en '-hat thrS COurt f iniS tha'- the er'lienCe

cl,ea=J.1, was su:ficient uni,er Jackscn to convict wiloer,

--here is nc neei for -.i-.:.S Cour" tO gc be1'cnc the Court of

Cr:::r,a: Appea-s' reiriew of t'he etiience'

iJ. E\::DENCE CF BC:E.VAN'S CU:L:

Tne Ccur-- u:-- ie*-ail '-he --es*'ino:y at 3cze:La:'s tria j '

Ii.e ;t-.i€sses :nclucei ::ie eice:-", :lacxs 1^':.)cse tr7c--es wer€

-J



arong those removec frorn the box. Not one of the elderly

voters testified that Bozeman ever came to see him or her

about voting in connection with the runoff. l{ost of their

testimony concerned l.lilder's activities. Also, none of the

voters had any knowledge of Paul Rollins, the notary public

who notarized their ballots'

Janice Ti11ey, the court clerk, testified that Bozeman

cane in several times to pick up applications for absentee

ballots. This was entirely 1e9al. She also stated that one

time, just prior to the runof f , Bozeman ani' I'lilder came

together in a car, although only wilcer came into the'

oifice. upon objections b1' defense counsel, however, the

triai 3uoge struck most of this testimony, including alL

refe=ences to l{ilcer. The only testimcn}' that was not

s-,=:cken was +,hat Bozer,'.an was in a car aicne anc Cli not

c3:e inside.

The S"a-.e aLso presen:ec ev:cence Pe:'-a:ning to the

^-3F t -J .3 --.ae pa-Io" DCx a:c 'u:e re:'o'"a' C: th:='--s-n::ie
! -=..--jv 

e-

::--c--s nc"a:izec b1' Paul Fo"r:s'

?aul FcilinS'tes'":fiei -'hat he nc'-a=ized some bailcts

fc: 
"he 

ru::oji electicn in Tuscaioosa' He stated that

'v':-ce:, Scze;,an, ani twc cr :hree c"hei iaiies brcught r-ne

:a.-c-.s. ile refusei tc sa:' 
"h3t 

Bcze:r,a:i hersel-f askei hin

-uc uc-,i:.tz€ the bal-icts, -u€S--:ff ing :-ns.-eac Lhat the 9:ouP

c::. ani --h3.- -'he grouP rei:eSe'.-ei -'i.a.; ine slgna-.ures were

g€:-.;::ie =!--er.ne tc,c'-te:T t'la" the slcna:c:s wer€ supccsec

--::eF=es€f,-,.liea-s:e:a--ea--:ia--jie:ece:';ectidcca-:s--c

se:uFt-henee-'!ng,bui'-)a-*iecc:li:lc--:eie=e=whe-':e=

-L



Bozeman made either calI. He later testifieg, however, that

Bozeman made one call pertaining to Some ballots, but he was

not sure which ballots. Finally, he testified that he went

to Pickens County to notarize a second set of ballots, and

that he believed this occurred at the general election.

MauCine Latham testifieC that she signed an application

that was brought to her by Clemmie Grice and his wife, but

that She was not told what it was. She stated that she

never saw a baIlot, or Bozeman.

Annie Billups testified that wilder made an rtxrr on her

appiication, anc also fi1lec out her ballot with her

consent. She was unsure whether Wiloer reac the names'

althcugh she statec that wilier told her whc the blacks were

vc..irg for. Bozeman was not Present at eitirer of these

.!qat!:e Gipson test:.fiec that she:r'aie an rrxil on an

---':^1+J^7 iha', I,r:.-ier brcug:^.t her, bu'- t-|-a" she nei'e: 3Ct
3--_----3 

--.- 
---1 -

a ==--a:. S.l-.e --Ieu .-eS--f f ieC, icHetre:, '.|.a'- l"-:rnie ii:1-l

!:c.jc:-, he: a salict, anc that srie Put her :a:k on li. lier

_: - - a: .nears nC naf k. She a_sc _e-,Et€i t.ia-, i:iier a: SC:,e

p.::.-- showec her a sa:r,pie baffc" inilca::ng !'cr who:r':he

:: acxs we:e vo--ing . She statei' '-5at Bcze:'al hai no

C:::€:--f C: tC a:-'; C: -si€S€ e"'ei--S '

r'- i :- =c^e\' -.€s'-l::e: --.lia-- :e i:i nc: :e:er5er a:i'--h:::g
:\g - )c,-t'

a:: --- e:--:e= --:e apF-:c3--:a:' ': 
--:-e :'a--:-- ' i:e s--a--=: --:'a--

.le c:u'::)a-- ia'.'e s:g::ec Ljle ca-ic-- be:ause:':e cou:i:c--



write. He deniec ever telling Bozeman anything about

voting.

Janie Richey testified that she "sometimes" writes her

name and that she did not remember making the rrxrr that

aPPearS on her aPPIication, although she remembered Wilder

brrnging the application to her. she testified first that a

balIot came in the mail, and then that "they brought" one to

her. The prosecutor reac her notes of an interview in which

she deniec ever getting a ballot, but she still maintained

cn the stani that she receivec a ba110t. The notes h'ere not

acn.itted into evicence. on cross-exarnination, she testified

that h,ilder told her who the blacks were voting for, and

.-ha*-h,i}cerrrarkeiherba}Iotwithherconsent.SheStated

r-:at she never spcke with Bczenan about l'oting'

Frcni:.eRj.cetes-':fieithatshefl]ieiou.'ancsignei

3C-r-h her apPiication a::o he: ballo.'. She S..uck to thls S.-c,rY

;:.ea--:fprcsec'i--cr:ead''-che:f=oraiepcs:"icninr^h:'ch

s:ece.-.ieie'.'er=ece:"-::'ta:,alic--'ie:apPilcai-:'onhacie:

a*':aoi:ess3:.L-u,S:ea-sotes'-ifiei-sl-'?itsczemanhac
-^rrrar +- dC w:.t.h he:'.'C'.:ng aCr-1\::tfeS'
-rg E-.l:-v

i a.- q.^.7.:.Erv:''1 e .-eS-,if jgC tha-- Sie WaS UnSUf e Wi'e-'he:
!Ue

s:te hac 51llec ou'. a:' app:ica"icn ' Iie: tes'-imony as tc ner

:al-c-- was s::r,9i-v !nco::'prehens:b'..'e ' Aite= the juoge

:ec:a:ei .iie: a hcs'-:Le ';1'-iess ' ihe trcsecu'-ic'n reac tc ie:

1::: a iepos:'-icn 1: $':'-c:' s:'e s--a--e: --:'a-- Soze:'ar' he-pe:

-:.e: :::- O j-, a:. apF-:C=--::f.. -<:;e S--3-'€: ::- --:e :eFCS:--:::-

-'>2t e-,e 1er.:e:' saw tscze:,a: aj-'e: s:e ::l:eg cj: t''e
s-.q E

-e



application, although she also stated that Bozeman may have

filleC in her ba}lot and that she never signed the bal]ot'

Her application bears her own adcress. on the stand, she

testif i.ed that Bozernan haC never signed anything for her '

she also cenied ever having namec Bozeman at the deposition.

In fact, she denied ever giving a deposition. The deposition

was not admitted into evidence'

SophiaSpanntestifiecthatshedidnotsignan

application or a ba}Iot. She also stated that when she went

to her usual po11in9 pIace, she was toid that her abserntee

bailot had been cast. She stated that Bozeman came at Some

time prior to the runoff anC asked if Spann wanted to vote

absentee, anc Spann said she oic not' Julia liilder

w:.tnessec SPann's aPPlica|-ion '

Lucijre Ha:=is teSt:.fiei 
"hat 

s:e s:-gnec an aPpl:'catiCn

::a-- 1.. i:ie= brcugh: tc her . She iurtLer +-esti f :'ei that she

:ie,.-er siq:ei cr recelvei a callct, a--'hcugj: her ot^in adiress
^l

aF.:earei ct --ne apPiica--i-ci:,. She s-.ai€c thi" Bczenan :iac

r.:--i-::: --c ic w::h he: i'ctirg act:r-rtfes'

DISCUSS:ON

Sufficiencv cj rhc !1:i A C? -F

?: A_5e7<

.. ri i -: cF

-:^rql-



, |,'il
t i'('

"l'{;,
-dtY

Jackson. the Supreme Court held that habeas corPus relief is

available where the evidence at trial is such that, viewed

in a light most favorable to the prosecutionr Do "rational

trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the

crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. 319. The Court

explicitly rejected a qtandard under which only a showing of

"nc evidence" of guilt would establish a due Process

viclatj.on. Id. at 320; see ThomPson v. Lousiville, 362 U.S.

199 (1950). Thus, a mere "modicum" of evidence is

insufficient. 443 U.S. at 320.

In applying the Jackson standarC, courts first examine

State law to determine the elements of the crime. Duncan v.

Stvnchcombe, 704 F.2i, 12I3, l2l4-15 (11th Cir. 1983);

iiollcway v. McEiroy , 632 F.2C 605, 540 (5th Cir. 1980) ,

cer.,. de:rj.ei, 451 U.S. 1026 (:.9t1). In Ce"ernining r^'hether

-.:le e.,'iCeiCe eSt-abI i SneC thoSe e 1ei:,e::tS , the COUrt may nO"

:=scl'.'e :ss.:es of crec:-bili'-1'. Dunca:, 101 l-2c at 12:5'
f

l:.':s, i^':e:e --:e ei-iie:ce cc:-,il:c--s t:e cc:='-::s-- -::es:=e

-_:-.a-- --:e lu:)' aCCep',ei the prCSeC-:tiCl' S i'erS:Cn/ anc :r,us--

:e - er -.c !ha'- re sui t. 113 U. S . at 326 .

- ^ -.i r.,i ^-,
=E gj grsi.€rS were con'.;:ctei cf v:c-at!::g S 17-23-L '

:i:at Sectici prOvides --hat " Ia]n!' Pe:scn whc vo+'es more t.lan

c,xce a-- a::y election heic j-n '-h1s sta--e , ci Cepcs:--.s mcre

i:.tax cne bai ic: !c: '-he S3'ir€ c!=- -ce a s h: s vote at suc:

;'iar Ar knCwl::c-''' a:'-el=--S '-a '.:C-!g \^'::ef. ng :S nOt
=-E- --W.., Ur

e:.--:-..ei tc' oc sc, cl :s gu:r---' cj a:-.' k:nc cf :-iega- c:

i-:..j..-or- -....-'rr" '.c :'.':'-r' ^j = ^7j-e. '.nig: i.-a'La.,a CaSer ! E--lv := :e-- r-! !- L e- 
-'Ir'g

-\il$
{'

9.)

-6



n.

JR

.(Y{^
;s'NY
tu'"

$

1aw, "the words 'iIlegal or fraudulent' . . .are. . .descriptive

of the intent necessary for the commission of the offense. "

Viilder v. State, 4OI So.2d 15I, 159 (A1a.Cr.APP.), cert'

denied, 40] So.2d 157 (1981). "The offense denounced by the

Statute...is voting more than once," ILiISon v. State, 52

AIa. 2gg,3O3 (1875), or voting when the voter is not

entit1ed to do so. wilder, 40] So. 2d at 160 '

A. Wilder

The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find

wilier guilty. A significant amount of evidence indicated

that ballots were cast in the narnes of people who denied

casting them, anc sufficien" evicence linked wilder to Lhose

baiiots. 'v\'ilier pickei uP numerouS applications, she took

t.he; tc the Pe:Sons whose votes were purporte{Ly "Stol€1,"

sie :ai access tc :rian]: of t,:ie baliots, anc she was j-n the

-r^.-:^ t\:r took thern 5'c Rciiins tc be notarizec.
vl--E !-.Be ev

cc.:_c ==ascnab11- finc beyoni a reasonable ioubt
,1

-"c- ha"e i:--ec l:.'.:ie ba..l-lc--s:'erse*i aii casl

:;e':-'e:-. ci'.'3--::lc :::e --:.ai C:ce.

A -'tur.v

..hat uilie:
1L^- '-i -l^L:tE-. s _ !-.

E ia?6-:t
-. ,v&9.rrg-.

Sczenan'S case is quJ.te ci jierert. The oniy eviierce

a:a::s-- Bcze:-"a: rias Rc-lins' ieSt:nony tllat she was c:"e cf

r-:e -ac:es whc Erough-- --he palrots tc be nc:ar:-zed ' "hat 
she

::,ai- have ca-iei.-c a::an9e +-:ie nee-'i:!, a::c -'ha-- the l-ai:.es

- A'-'- -cI='€Se:--eC --:e :a.-C-'S --3 ''e 
?e:'j::'€ ai--e: :'=

a: C --u-! -u-

-^-; -';c- tL.e' ''nc- cr:-:'-Cf S W€:E Sl;pCSe: -'3 )e -==eSe:'--'-. '=''

-;- a-rsv -^c<:.'e :l:'^e-'.a-s :f ;::--- \^'g:e g:--:.el

-9



stricken or h,ere ru1eC inaCmissible. All of the court

clerk's testimony tending to show that Bozeman came with

wilder to deposit the ballots was stricken, and Lou

Scnrmerville's deposition was never placed in evidence and

would not have been ad,missible as substantive evidence

an!'\ra)r.

Although there was convincing evidence to show that the

ballots were illegally cast, there was no evidence of intent

on Bozeman'S part and no evidence that she forged or helped

t.o forge the ballots. There is no evidence that she took

appiications to any of the voters, o! that she helped any of

the voters fill out an aPPlication or balIot, or that she

returnei. an applicatio::, or bailot for any of the voters, ani

no .callot was mailec to her resicence' Thus' there was nc

e.;iielce tha-, Bozemai. realizei when she acccnpanieC -viiloer

aid ct.hers tc the office cf Rcli:-ns that the ballots that

shehe.peitogetno--arizei\^'erefrauiu].ent.
l

?::.s case is sc:er^i.E,-- aia-39ous tc::e cases hcl::;c

--^=t il i-'ere :f eSe:jCg ::: a: a:ea \^:Ie:e UnlaWjUi ifUgS a:e

::scc...erei:s ins:fj:clei-. tc s:Fpcr: a ccnvictaon jcr crug

pcssesslcl:,." Un:iei S'-a"es v' Racklei'' Nc'82-6A2A' siip

cF. at :€02 1,1--.h Ci=. Fer. tr3, 1984) (cit!n9 uni--ei Sia:es

v.F.clas,53'il.2i2-e',22C(5:r'Clr'\9'-6)'certce;iec'

129 U. S. 105, ,.9-l I ; . ?:'e s--ania:c :li s:ch cases is

---r'-- ?.:i i- :;-.{c3:.. U:.::g: S--a--g-" v. Sa:s!::, 
'-:9

.l t,

:--::-- :::: --.:'.e e';::e:::e :::C3:S:S--e:-- '':--: e"'e::'' feaS3'-'a:-e



hypothesis of innocence" ) . The onJ.y distinction between

this case and Rackley is that there was evidence that

Bozeman had at least constructive possession of the ballots.

Constructive possession of narcotics will suPPort a

conviction. Rackley, sIiP oP. at 1502; United States v.

Hernaniez, 484 F.2d 86, 87 (5th Cir. 1973). This

cistinction is not decisive, however. ft should be plain to

anyboll' pcssessi.ng cocaine that the substance is iIIegal,

but it wouLd not necessarily be so with forged ba]lots.

Thus, the inference that Bozeman intentionally took Part in

forging the ballots cannot be irawn fron her constructive

pcssession cf them when she was at the notary's office in

the co:-,rpan1; c! Hilder anC others.

Respc:.cents t reLiance Cn aicing ani abetting also is

n^f jr.c. i 5t ei. Thev aSSef tei ts-- Cf 31 a:'lru:'.lent that'- the
];: E

?'.':.ie:ce sl^-cr^'ed'tiiicer tc be g;1it1'anc Bczer"a:i to ha'"e

=,.-e:. u:::er +-:-at ::ec=I', h3r^e'.'er, '.here s--:--
-l

-..i:=-^c ^r j -.FF- - T]-.e:e was :'i3 g'-':,cg::cg 
"c 

:gga-,=h=: :-* s -es-.-=

-.:.e -:.:e:e:.ce ----.a-- =a -g-.31 n'E S : .:s-- ?c::: alcng '*-ith wha:

cL = Lc' - a-..=i .c i -roce:t e j jcrt --c hai'e abser-:ee

L -' ' ^- = .: c:. !:e etlience iri :iot siolr tsczema:: tc have

: -a'.'e: a:\' rc -e :: Ejie prccess c: orie:i::g , cclLecting ' cr

r:.:iaa A..- r'-^ L=r'r arc Tne feCCfi a-SC LaCkS an!'eit::e::Ce

^3 :-..n^-.2i-_ ae:F-ee:. !CZe:a:. a-c v:-ce= exceF-- a-- --:.e
q"'

q--:-"t 
=



II. NOTICE

petitioners claim that the indictments were

constitutionally defective in that they failed to provide

the notice reguired by the sixth Amendment. The indictments,

which were identical, charged that each Petitioner--

COUNT ONE

did vote more than once, or did deposit
more than one baIlot for the same office
as her vote, or did vote illegal1Y or
fraudulently, in the Democratic Primary
Run-off Election of September 25, 1978,

couNT rwo

did vote more than once as an absentee
voter, or did dePosit more than one
absentee ballot fcr the same office
or offices as her vote, o! did cast
illegal or frauCulent absentee bailots 

"in the Denrocratic Primary Run-off
Election of SePtenrber 26, I978,

CCUNT THP.EE

iic cast iiiegai cr frauiulent absentee
:ajlcts ir:, 

"he 
Denccrat:c Fri::'ary Run-

clf Elec'-ion of SeF"e:r.:rer 26 , 19;-E 'tn :.:a" sile cii. oepcs:: wj't'h the ?ickens
^, Co:::'-i' Ci:c;:+- C:e:x, Sbse:'-'ee :allc--s
'' whi-ch were iraui.:le:" a::c w:iclr' she knew

+-c 5e f :aui.::ent '

?e--:--:c:.e:s !-a:se th:ee cna-ien;es 'sc the lniic:f,e::i. !h=1'

c::.--e:,i'-:-a:'-:e'.ri6l ;ucge i:s--ruc+-ec "he lur:es on

-<e',-e=at Sii-- j-,€S jlC-g CCntai:eq j.::' --he iniiC'-:ten", thUS

tc ccn\':c! Pe*-:ticners cn cha:ges c5

..)-ir'a rxa.' i=r. h.
v.----:. --.9 ' ..qq ri! rri--i re Dp::--ic:.e:s a-sc ccn'-e:ri Eia-u -.,-,€

a-U gI9U .

: : : : : --re:'- -- s we : e cc : s -- : -- i -- :' :' a - - 1' de f e c -'i ve bec a ; s e t':'e

:ac--:a- =--e;a--:c:s wer€ ::E::::c:e:'-- alc be:a:se :'eceESa::"

- ' --- - - e ^: -:e C::ne ''iere c:.: -.:ei.
=-=...1=-.-= 

!' u'



A. Habeas Review of challenoes to Indictments

As an initial matter, the Court rejects

respondents I argument that habeas petitioners may not

challenge the sufficiency of a state indictment. Respondents

rely on cases in which petitioners challenged the

sufficiency of indictments under state }aw. Johnson v.

Estelle, 704 F.2d 232, 236 (Sth Cir' 1983); Cramer v'

Fahner, 583 F.2C ]375, 1381-82 (7th Cir' L982'), cert'

oenieC, U.S. (1983); DeBeneCictls v. wainwright, 614

F.2i 841, 843 (1Ith Cir. 1982); Branch v. Estelle, 531.F'2d

1229, L233 (5th Cir. 1980). Where an indictment abridges a

Cc::stitutional guarantee, habeas is available. Cramer, 683

f.2i at L-?8it cf.. Hance v. Zant, 695 F'2i' 940,953 (llth

Cir.i963);Washingtonv.-Viatkins,555F'2i1316,1359(5th
t:- ''i oR'r \ .ert. deniec,456 U.S. -o49 (:982). Furthermcre,
!--. L-V-t 

'

j - :r.'-po,u',: v. Es+-e1le, 'j09 F.2c 1001 (:th C!:' I983) , the

c:'-:-- ccFs:cerec a c.a!:, '-ha'- t:e --u:i'c'-'ar9e allowei a

-.-!i.^- e3 - n-!-.a C:af:e:, ::. a: -jC9, e Ciaif
e r-!-. q L: I:rlE l'9 b

:3-_:-_ia:.e=s :aise nere. T.lus , Fe --l'-:c:e:S :ere :.a!' cn'a11e::9e

-L = j - j i arTc-5-s i:-.sc ja= as tl-.e:: c:a:-e:-;e cc:stitu"es a::
- -,=

a:--a:i. upc:'r "ne 
notj-ce prov:ced ':' 'gx€ i:rCrct:ients'

B. Insrruction UPon S;a:u:es roc Cfa
:ae Lnor cE:ler,E s

1-1- r. '-ea 
='- ccUrrk - t Pvv

a-ia-.c tL,ct'

c ^3 te-qce

Q"V= e



433 U.S. 72 (1977); BrazelJ v. State,423 So-2d 323,325

(Ala. Cr,App. 1982 ) . First, Wilder's attorneys did object to

the inclusion of the statutes on Perjury and notarization.

Second, the Court believes that petitioners' claim is a

challenge to the lack of notice and not to the jury charges.

Hai the indictments charged the offenses included in the

inStructions, the latter would have been unobjectionable.

The Fifth Circuit, in Plunkett v. Estelle, 709 F.2d 1004,

lOOE (sth Cir. 1984), rejected a construction similar to the

one respcndents urge here. Furthermore, the Alabama cgurts

ccnsiier the right to notice as So fundamental that

cb;ections to the lack of notice cannot be waiveC. E.9.,

Earbee v. State, 417 So.2i 511, 6i3 (AIa.Cr-App.1982);

rjwa:is v. S-.E.,€, 379 Sc.2i,336, 338 (Ala.Cr.App.1979);

ce=--. ce::,:ec, 3;9 So.2c 339 (198C) . The Court coes nct

.cel:e,.,e t.he -r.iaba:na ccurts wcuLi bar petit:.cners fror,
1t

as-=e:.--::q ::-ls :ssue o:: ap-oeal*' T::';s, --he Ccurt hc-as t:at',
:^-^-- L ; 5\:c a]:'.-!s -- --v..E- = -.a'.'e nCt- walV€- e-ra; !-y-"'

?e":'-:c:-€rs arc.:e --:a-- '-he -'r:ai ccur-''s lurjt

::-.s:i-3t:c:s a-:cwei t.he:r,'.c be ic::i g'::1-'1'cf charges uPC:'

w:.:c:- '.:e)' \^'e:e ncE incic-'€c. Tre ini:c"ie'ts c'nargec

F.e--:tic:'-e:s u:th vo+-i:19 rno:e tna:- once cr vc'-inE

"f:a-::ule:-'--i' cr j.lieqa:ir"' or cas"l:9 "f:audulent c=

L }e .-:jaa cc'r-s woj'- no- , :)5^'e!'e:, ccns:&:- :::s cia=' o:: -co:-a:e:e-
:e":s; a]c -'-s i: ::ac4';S nc ax.:a:.:s::ol p:o:-c" 'A-' L'ne cc: s:alec :-n ::s
::je: O.=..',.,IF =*.r""'a"-ari--a=*. 

t-C :":SS. :=.S C:a:= :S aC: C33;ri2di.e-5--.

cc--a:e:a- ra-=r*-'= l.a*=,a, 41c'nabeas c3?';s :e-.:g; a--sc is nc: ai'a'e'e =
'- ^'^-- -^ ---^-Ees. F':--::e:-:e' )e::::::':i :-=:--: -acx :i i3::3e r a=pea-

.--1a.C -e J4 -.

a-33'Jg-- . =ef i.: no; =aise 3e sDee i i:': :ss'r ::rev ra:se ne:e '



iIIega1" ballots. The trial court defined "il1e9aJ." by

.instructing the jury on four Statutes not contained in the

indictrnent. The trial judge first explained Ala. Code S

17-10-3, which describes what Persons are eligible to vote

absentee. He then reaC AIa. Code S 17-10-5, which requires

that absentee ballots be sh,orn to before a notary public,

r^..ith certaj.n exceptions. The judge t'hen instructed the

juries on AIa. Code S 17-10-7, which provides that absentee

voters must aPPear Personally before the notary. Finally,

the judge charged the jury that, under A}a. code s 13-5-115,

an-v person who falseJ,y and corruPtly makes a S\4'orn statement

in connection with an election is gui.lty of Perjury.

?e+-iti.oners argue that the instructions ailowed them to be

cc:-'.':c"ei cf an-v violations of these S"3+-u"BS '

;S a generai ruie, a COnvlC+,tC:l caSeC UPCn a Ci-arge ngt

CC:.--a:nei in -.h€ i::iiC-;-e:', \:ieIa'-eS iue proceSS. JaCkSC::

"iy-j-i: !/1 :' e in- 1't i'C-G''
, 2'z- !. jw', --- , i"Jtt !S 

"*'"*
'- 7v-p. --- -.::€ c.r a cnarce :'lo+.--:-3-- a c::'.'fc--:::- .:?c: i L-.c--g

:::€: c::.s--:--i--es a ie:.:a- c: i:e prccess .l'I ; Cole "-'

:-(:-cES. :13'-.-<. -95, 23, '-9 1t, "I'- is as nuch a

--:^ 
l, . ie-:C:::e ';. Cre:.:., 29? '- , S . 3:3 , 3e,2 (i9 3r l

-E

_ca



essential element of the vj.olation charged therein. HamLino

v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, I17 (1974); RusseII v. United

states, 359 u.S. 749, 77L 0962) i united states v' outler,

659 F.2C 1305, 1310 (5th Cir. Unit B 198I), cert. denied,

455 U.S. 950 (1982); United States v- varkonyi, 645 Il'2d

433, 455 (5th Cir. 1981).

The Eighth Circuit has upheld a claim similar to

petj.tioners'. In Goodloe v. Parratt, 605 F.2d 1041 (8tn Ci.r.

1g7g), petitioner was charged with "unlawful1y operatIing] a

motor vehicle to flee in such vehicle in an effort to Evoid

a::est for r;iclating any 1aw of this state." The State

or:gina1J.y claimec at trial that petitioner had fled to

a.;c j.d ar:eSt f or criving wi-'h a suspenCed license, although

|-e ::ai earl:.er been acquittec of that cha:ge. The trial

3C-r-- r:lei, hgwever, that the S'-a'-e haC -.O ShOw an aCtUal

i':c:aticn, SC the State altereo its ccnten"iOns t'o reckiesS

:----i-- :j a-- :?11-4-<. l:.e E:;::t:. C:rc';:.t ruiec tLat,

' - -.]e =:.aa=.'-lc:aticn cf a speS:f:.c s!a-'j"e becane af
E v- -9- 

\ -9-

e-e:-.e:--- o1 :-:e c:ier.se bi' i'i:--;e ci i're -'::al ccurt rui::rg '

-::::-oe \las e:-'!'-Lei nc: o:-.-1' '-c :-c--lce ci -'ha" gene:al

: - ^- .:-- ;, sC EC Speci5iC rjo.-ice Cf wha" J.ar^ he was a:iegei
-Uv Y, 

-v

iC. a'* i015 . The :-nf c:ra"ion uncer



despite the inadeguacy of the information. The arrest

warrant hac notified petitioner of the suspended license

charge, but the state ' s switch in tactics deprived him of

cue ProceSS. Id.; 39s@, liatson v. Jago, 558 F.2d 330 (6th

Cir. 1911\ .

The Fifth circuit recently has followeC the basic

approach of watson and Gooi.ioe. In Plunkett, the Pifth

Circuit found a constj.tutional violation where petitioner

was charged with intentionally causing a death, and the

trial court added to its instructions a charge on caus.ing

iea--h by an act intendec to cause serious bodily injury'

The trial court, in sumrning uP its statements of abstract

iaw bv appl.ving the Ial. tc the facts of the case, usec only

-_he ia:guage of .-he ccrr€c-u statute . 1C9 F. 2d at 1007 . The

r::-_h c:.rcuit reascnec -,hac -.he cnarge r,us-. be consioerec :n

: : -L ' oE .!'Lc e::'.::e tf :al, anC e>:a:iiei the pfoSeCU"Cf 'S
g !-

c-: Srarg \F:;u:,e:-- aS we-: as 'gi'€ Cha=9e ' T':e cc':rt f cu:li

-;--:Le=:aseci--:=--:.c--:'e:;::'--Ia'-?e'-:::cne:cc:'::e
3-..-.i ,-r:i'ri' '.-ic- iie :c:l-cla:gei ie:ini'-ici oi :l';=ce='
:l -.._ u;r-L_\

- r.aC--.. FL^ r 3^..* j 11-:: Cr'.'e--. t;.1€ e'.':Ce::g
c- -w!e JY' -:'e C--:b -eb'iu s"eE' -

a:: --i:ecr:e s P:e sa:'tec t)' '-he p&r-uI€ S 7

^^-^: r: jei :ra-\- De--:--:o::er in"encei tc i::;';re but nc" k:'Li

--:.e..,ic:_:]:,a:jt::S+-Ie]::}.co:iihaveco:r-ictedh::.cf

-..=^.-2-ae_1=i=e:.S€.:3.a.--C:i--.;ac:c::,Ta:;-e:.....--.=

l-.--a--e, -:l:.:: -:-' -:9-': j--:' l::' r93i

w:.e--:.e: --:.e Ii:j' CC:-: :eaS':'a:-i' :'a-''e CC:.'"-3'-e: e:-uL€r



petitioner of a crime not charged in the indictment. The

determination reguires an examination of the trial as a

whole, including the charge, the argunents and theories of

the parties, and the evidence. The case law further makes

cLear that the fact that there may have been sufficient

evi.cenCe *,o cOnvict On the Crime that was charged iS not

sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Respondents argue that the jury instructions did not

alIow Wil.der to be convicted under the non-charged statutes.

The-v point to Pages 311 and 3t2 of the transcript, at which

the court instructei in essence that the State was charging

liilqer with voting more than once, ani with marking the

aDSe:ltee ba1Iot.s without the voterS' consent. The court

coiciucec that, "Such a ballot wouli' be illegai to cast a

ba--c.- [si-c) Cr par*'iCrpat.e in'-he schene to CaSt tha-'

:a_lc: r^:-,h kncwleige of -,hese jacts ani r^:oulc fa11 wi'.hin

--:.8 a3:s p:cLiL:'-ei b1' Sec*-ic:: ::--1-: lsic) cf the Alabana
)

l::e := l9;5. " !:us, r€spcnie:--S CO:cluie, i^:l-cer r.ust i.a'.'e

.ee:.3C:.'.:..-.ec c:...:.c..a:i:q --:.e s-'at.:--e u:ice=;:. lch s.ie v'.as

::=:qej.

F.espcnce:.--S r Ar!trr€l-! is Pate:l!:!' \^'rong . Respcncen"s

:s:.:e -,::e pa:ag:aPL lri^,ed:afl-1'fciJ-ow:ng the o!1e quct'ei

abci'e:

i::-':.er, --ie S-'a--e cha:;es --:3-- --he ief enaa:-'
i^-- --.4cqc j ,-a: K:13-h.g:;g .-ia-; a NCt.afi'

?-:-:: ia-s=-;' ::--a:'-7e3 c: a----=s--e: -;3 --'-'e

:---:.=:.---::--'.' :: :.i€ ;a--:--s ::" a----es--::'9 --:'€
'^-:^-F L.:T ::: 3^'.-' aS a=Oi':ig:
:3-v-L

-ijii +i -L= L>l:-- 'Jiq a--lc€tl'

-------: -'-=r c::. a =a--:-, u:--c pe
.= - -g! u5-

=- 
j 2F" tlpeqa_ r.'_'a c=7- '--a^ ''

:--eJaj ------:' 
r'i- -=- ----e-Eee



a scheme to cast .that ballot with knowledge
of that fact would commit the acts prohibited
by Section 17-3-1 [sic] of the Alabama Code
of 1975 if in fact that ba}lot was cast.

Tr. 3I2. Thus, the court's charge explicitly permitted the

jury to convict Wilder with casting an improperly notarized

ballot, a crime with which she was not charged. Wilder went

intc court exPecting to face a charge that she voted more

thanonce,andyetthejurywastoldthatitwasenoughfor

the prosecution to show the bal-lots were improperly

notarized, even if they brere otherwise valid'

The evidence in the case was such that the jury coulc

har:e convictei l^lilder on the charge of r*hich she had no

notlce. tliloer testified that the voters either fillei out

ti'.eir own bal-Icts or aut.horizec her to fill them out' Thus,

j a +Ls -..rrr heiievec h'j-1der, it could ha'.'e f ouni that wil-der
--1E jt-:J r

i:i:ot cast two or more balio:s aS he= own t'ote but that

s:-e c:a cas-- ::=rcperll' notarizei balLc-'s ' ani hence was

;-::---r- ;Lcer c:-e co.ir-g'S char;e.
'-:c = c-i^Lrjr.'c-,^-3e:' --i:'ar t.::S icc"c

=--=. =.. =---'-:--- --=-'

--:a:. i.-lijer. T::e t:taL ccurt ,::i nc" S-l-.iLijlz€'-he S--ate's

:::---e:--::C:S aS :t C:C il lii-Ce:'S CaSe. l: S:r,pi-v

i:.s--= :c--ed +-he I u=]', as in'vf!iier' s-.-case,'-5a--

,,:--ega-. .nea:s an aC-. that is nc-- au"hor:zec by law cr is

a::.--:=='.' :3 --:.€ lau, " --:. 2C!, a:: '-he:' cha:9ec 3:: :he ic::

^--+=.-:FF -- +L= :-,:j-irrFl.--. i.S -:.'vi:-ng:'SS--a: ---=: :.- - q--rE

a3S3 . --:.:s r^c.:-: leai a reasc:a:'e :::::. -u3 De:iei'e '-:a--

3::g:a:- ::u-: :e c3:..'':3--e3 :: :as--::; ::=::-=e=--" ::c--a:'-zec

:a--.!9. T':.:s u:';.i have esPec:a--1' pre:uc::ei 3c:e-a;'



because the only evidence against her was her participation

in the notarization.

The Court does not by its hoJ.ding indicate that any

unfairness resulteC from the Prosecution's use of the

evidence of improper nctarization to show that petitioners

votei more than once. That evidence was relevant to that

issue, Blthough it was insufficient to show intent on

Bcze:"an's part. But the indictments, by charging

petitioners with "il1ega1 voting," created substantiai

potential for abuse, Potential which was realized by the

jury instructions. A ballot cculd have innunerable defects

causing i., to be " i1lega1. " Petitioners vrere entitleC tC

knc-.- exa:tl-\: r^;.-t Cef ectS 
"h€ 

bal lots a11eged1y containei, So

--:a-- --l^.el' ccu-: prepare their Ceienses. ls it turnec cut,

'-::e-'c:i ro--::scc'.'er -..1e Erec:se char3es the;""v'ere facing

----: ' -f .'.' i^;: :.e<:ei +-.!i€ir cases. Tne a:osecu'.ion, cl ti-e_.-___ _-.E\ :.Cv _=-sgU e-rs-- eur!i.

C --:.e:. :a:: , :-a: '-:,e Cp?3r--;::t-" :C C:a:?e '-:e :UleS ::9:: :p

.r- r' I -;e r; S3 .g:t'- tc --he -'jur\' . .i's thg cour'. s*-aigc in;.. !-l -..u

?-;:l<€----, ":-- :s nct. a spcr'sln9 --ilec:]- o: :.:s--:ce H€

ies:::be. " -39 F.2i a-- :C:C

i^' t-

-2C



committed one or more statutory wrongs in the notarization

of the Uatfots.S/ There is a world of difference between

forging a person's bal}ot and failing to fo}low the ProPer

procedure in getting that person's ballot notarized. If

petitioners htere facing the latter charge, they had a right

tc be tclC. They vrere not. To put it simPly, Petitioners

were tried uPon charges that were never made and of which

thel'were never notifieC. Thus, their convictions cannot

stani.

l
:. Anorher source of poEerEiaI pre;uiI'ce to Pet!Eione:s

;'as --:-e ccnf Iicc ing \rays :.n whici: i:e i-aba:a courEs have
:rie:?:e:ec che teic. "iIleEal. " nccorCirrg :o the Court oi
C=:=i:a: Appeais, iE sinpil- desc:ibes Ene j.n;enE neceSsar)'
Ec a \':c1a!'lon of S 17'23- 1 , \Jiicer. 401 So ' 2d aE l6C. fre
:::a- cc'i=:, hcweve=, Fave :hdE a l:-fe of :Es o\ry'T:' ?hat
ccu=; crarged :he ju:ies that "il'lega)-. . .neans an act tha:
is no; au=forized Ly' lar,r or is conElari'r-o Che Law." Thus,
as pe:i: j.oners poinc ouE, ail i?ti Pel-:aining to voting
becl=e :ncor?c,:htei :-nto S 17'23'!. Unie: :he !nterpre-
:a::on of Eh; Courc of C=:-n:-naL Appeais, chi-s wouic be
::cc::e3:, anc isprcpe: nc:-a::zaticn wcuid no: be a crine
:'5-F' i l - -?')---. 

- Yei tne ir:a; cou:!'s :nst=:.:c;ions r:ace i:r.es- J



C. Insufficient Factual ani Legal Allegations

?he Court rejects petitioners' claim that the

indictments faileC adequately to notify them of the charge

that they voted more than once- "The validity of an

ini,ictment is determined from reaCing the indictment as a

whoIe,...and...must be determined by practical, not

technical, considerations." United States v. llarkham, 537

F.2C 187, 192 (Sth Cir. 1976), cert. deniec, 429 u.s. 1041

[971); see United States v. Out1er, 659 F.2d 1305, 1310-11

(5rh Cir. Unit B 1981), cert denied, 455 U.S. 950 (1982);

'.;--:--i.,ei S+-ates v. Uni Oil, Inc., 646 F.2d 945, 954 (5th Cir.

1981), cert. ceniec,455 u.s. 908 (1982); United States v.

leciiue, 6A3 F.2d 535, 546 (Sch Cir. L979), cert' deniei,

44= 'J.S. 916, 445 U.S. 9L2 (i9EC); t''nited States v' Ciark,

=:-e 
F.2i :13C, 1L32 (sth Cir- 19;;). T\vo oj tne coun'-s

't
a3c jse j '-=e--:E:3ne=s oi \:ct:ng i:'c=e ::an once , ani twc

c-E^r 3 j ca a:ce:.--ee baLic--s. ;--- --|-:ee cc::1 --s accusec

ae--:-,tcl€rs c'- \-cr:f g ira:iuie:.--i; cI i1Le9a1Iy. Aitnougr.

-;:j€ ini:c=:-.,e::s a:e Srawec :: :eai i:--e:ai1)-, thel' con:ai:ec

c" r j i 1-: p.: - i: jc:nat:cn +'c :oti:l -Det:-'icners of the charge

: j ,..O-.::1 3 nC=e t.hai CnCe. Fltr"her:nore, p€t:'tione:s couii

=:;-:1.' --:.= e:.--::.€ :e:c:is ::- ;-ea:::; -:::-e ;ecpar:;" ::' 3

- =--:: 33s=. F--ss.--, 3€'= '- . S. a-- -44 
'

_ aa



The Court does, however, find that Petitioners'

sixth Amencment rights were violated because they $rere tried

for offenses with which they were never charged, and that

Bozeman's conviction violated Jackson v. Virqinia' Because

of the latter finding, the Double Jeopardy Clause Prevents

the State from retrying Bozeman, Burks v. United States, 437

L].S. I (1978), and the writ as to her shaIl issue at once'

The State 1xts)r, hOwever, retry Wiioer, Greene v.llaSsey, 431

U.S. 19 (1978), and the Court will allow it ninety days in

which to do so.

Separate judgments wiIl be entered in accordance with

thj.s memoranCum oPinion.

DOI{E chis 13th day of APriI, 1986'

il,r",r^ /'4'l-
U}iITED S:ATES DISTRICT JLIDGE



JT'LIA P. IIILDER

Petitioner

vs.

EALON M. LAI"IBERT; et aI

ResPondents

)

)
CIVIL ACTION

)

)

)

Jl]DGMENT

EITED
APR t g EBt

THOMAS C. CAVER, CLERK
BY

OEruTY CLERK

NO. 83-H-580-N

IN 1]tE UNITED STATES D]STRICT COURT

Fon-ittu MTDDLE DrsrRrcr oF Ai.ABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

In accordance with the attached oemorandr:o opini.on,

it is herebY

ORDERED that peritioner's ootion for suIEIIary judgpent

is granted.

IcischeoRDER,JUDGMEM,andDECREEoftheCourt

that the wric of habeas corpus requested by oeticioner

s}:aLl lssue r:nless, wirhin ninecy days of the date of th:'s

crier, .}" Srare of Aiabaaa retrr:es peticioner, wich ProPer

noE':.ce as =equirec by t,he Cons:itu;ion, on che charge on which

shev;assen:enceionApri-I28'i980'insEaEecriminaicase
:iCC-78- 1O8, Ci:cuit Courc of Pickens Cor:nry ' ALaba.gla '

DONE ch:s i3th day of APr:I, 1984'

il'*''r^.'- //'
T]NITED STATES DlSTRlCT JLDGE

t. .' I
r{
.r_

rl

I
-i\
..tY

iA

I*