Bozeman v. Lambert Affidavit in Support of Petitioner's Motion for Production of Trial Transcripts

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MONTGOMERY DIVISION

-x

MAGGIE S . BOZE!4AN,

Petitioner, !

-against- 3

EALoN M. LAMBERT, JAcK c. LUFKTN . civil Action No'

and JOHN T. PORTER, IN THEIR
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS 3

OE THE ALABAMA BOARD OA
PARDONS AND PAROLES, and TED :
BUTLER, A PROBATION AND PAROLE
OFEICER, EMPLOYED BY THE ALABAMA - :
BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES,

:

_*:":":ui"l": *

AFTIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERI S MOTION
FOR PRODUCTION OF TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS

C. Lani Guinier, being duly s\rorn, states :

1. I am an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense and

Educational Fund, Inc., and am one of the attorneys representing

petitioner in the above-captioned matter.

2. In November L982 I contacted, by telephone, Ms.

EIise Snith, the court reporter of record during petitioner's

trial in Pickens County, Circuit Court, State of Alabama v.

Maqgie S. Bozeman, No. Cc-77-LOg (Circuit Court, Pickens County,

Nov. L-2, 1979).

3. I requested a copy of the transcript of the

prosecutor's closing argument. Thereafter, I wrote to Ms. Smith,



confirming ny telephone request and asking t'hat she expedite

the matter, offering to Pay in advance, if necessary. since

December L982, Siegfried Knopf, who is also an attorney reP-

resenting Pet,it,ioner, and I have renewed the request' 3t least

once per month, to court reporter I'ts. glise smith, asking that

the trangcripts of the closing arguments be mailed to me at

the offices of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund,

Inc.r for the appropriate fee. The transcripts of the closing

arguments still have not been provided, although Ms. smith has

repeatedly promised to furnish them'

4. The District Attorney of Pickens county, Mr. P' IU'

Johnston, has refused to furnish copies of the notes of out-of-

court interrogations he conducted to build his case against

petitioner. In a letter, dated June 2L, L982 addressed to Mr'

Solomon S. Seay, J:&-, one of petitioner's attorneys at trial'

attached hereto as Exhibit A, Mr. Johnston made clear that no

requests for the notes would be honored even though he was aware

that the out-of-court statements would be of use to maintaining

acollateralatt.ackonPetitionertsconviction.

5. The refusal to provide these materials is unexcusable

and unreasonable, and has Prevented pet'itionerrs attorneys from

making a complete review of petitioner's trial, and thus has

potentially caused the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed

in the above-captioned matter to be incomplete by failing to

raise aII possible meritorious objections to petitioner's confine-

ment.

6. Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing section

-2-



2254 cases in the

should be ordered

attached motion.

Uniteil StateB

to furnish all

District Courts, respondents

materials requested in the

Subscribed to and sworn before
Z.

ne ,this Jl 'a^y of May 1983

Notary Public
j,i,lLiiri i?. PASSE

,l,ri,iri l):.lric, jl ile of ii.:;v 'r,c,*
;::. it.,i5ll!t8

l::i;ii:c..i ;f r.,;, -';;S C;
lon,'',,.r;on ir:;i.t Lllir': id.'!, t/

Lani Guinier

-3-