Brief and Argument of Attorney for Appellants

    t,

t'

iN lHI U}:ITED SIATES COURT OF APPEAIS
FOR TAE

E],EVENT}I CIRCUIT

Case Nunber 84-7285

HAeGIS S. B0zErAN'

Petitioner-APPe1lee

vs.

EAION I{. LAUBERI , €t aI 
'

Respc ntte nts-APPellants

APPeal frco the
ttittille bigtrict of Alabana

cv 8r-E-5?9-X

Brief 8$d Argu.ucnt of

P. U. JoE[S!0['

AttcrneY for APPellants

Aclclrese cf Counsel:

Districi AttcrneY
P. 0. Bot L4?
,dliceville, Alabana 15442
(?05) ,75-6r5t



sTA TE{E};T REGARD ING--IEIF'ERENC E

This aPPeai

frorn a grant of

:.s enti tled

habeas ccrPus

tc preferenee as an aPPea)'

under 28 U,S.C. 92254.

slArEllxllT RECARDIIG oRAI, ARouffiIT

AppelLants reepectfully request oral argunent' This

isnotaquotidianetatehabeesecrpusceae.rhefacts
are confuging and subJect to ltone interpretatj'on' lhe

legal issues are both conplex end inportant vith regarcl

to the ccnaequenees for the trial courts and

practitioners cf tbig Circuit'



STATEI{ENT REGARDlNG

STAIEMENT REGARDIIG

TABIE OF COI{TINTS

PREFEREI(CE._-.-

ORAI ARGIII.{EII!

lABIE OF CONTENIS

TABLE OF CASES-.

TABITE 0F S!ATIITES------- ---------
SEAIEI.TENT OT TEE ISSUES--

STATEUEI{I OF TEE CASI

iv
v

't

2

1

)tr,

?5

I. COURSE OT PROCEEDITES AITD

DIS?OSITIOT $T COURI BEIOY

II. STATU{EIT OT TEI FACTS--

III. STATEI{EITT OF IEE STAIDARD
OF REYIEU@-------E 15

SU!{t{ARf Of IEI AROITI'[Etr!@-@--- 15

STATEUENT OF JURISDICTIOI_ ------'- 17

ARGI'IIENT
18

CEP.IiFICAIE OT SSRVICE-

PAG9



SIAIE!{E};T CF iiffi ISSUES

I.
HEETI{EB TI{E DISTRICI COURT IS
REQUIRED IO PRESUI'l3 STATS-COMT
FACIUAi FINDIIYOS 10 BE CCRRECI; f O

Vigr' tEI TVIDENCE IN IIIE LIGHT !10ST

FAVORABIE E0 IEE SIAII; AIID l0
DE!'OISTRATE III ITS OPiIION A

coiistoenAllglr Op 28 u.s.c.$zZSt (d).

II.
UEEIEER IEE IRIAI COURI'S EIPI'AIATION
OF FOIIR STATI STATUTES DI'RIf,G ITS
ORA! CEAROE YITEO0T OBJECTIOI FROI{

DEPETDATT OPERATED TO DEPRIVE TEE

ACCI'StrD OF ITOTICE OT TE3 CEARGES

AGAItrST EER.



Bczeman v. State
ffi57

(Lta. Crlrn. APP. ) , cert '
den 401 Sc.2d 1?1

TTfa. ), .ee=Il. den 454
u.s. ioifiI9

Brazzel} v. State
@ (lra.

Crrn. ApP . 1982)-------

Cuop v. Naughtenffir,

TT.3iE CP CASES

r.Ed.2d
,68, 94 S.Ct.
(197r)

( 5trr cir.
1984)

Sumner v. Ivlata
@5r9, 101 s.ct.

754, 56 l.ld.2d 722
( t 9at )-------

1g

21

,8
,95

Dcuelas v. Wainwrigh!
544-45

( r r ti: cir. 1983 )-------
Duncan v. StYnehccnbe

215
( r r tir cir . 198, )------

Jackson v. Virginia
ffi99 s.ct.

?781 , 51 l.Ed.2C. 560,
reh. den 444 U.S. 890'
To-frslG. 195 , 52
t.rd.2d 125 (1979)-------

lanb v. Jerni8an
@rz (11th cir.

r oa2 \ -------tJvLl

Plunkett v. !steI}e
@

)7

20

21

)7

22

13,21

\{a:nwl:qht v. -aYkesffieil)

20

11

:v

PAGI



TA3!E 0F STATIqTES

PASE

28 U.S.C. $2254 (d)----- 1' 18

Coile of Alabana, 1975t

$ r ,-5-t
$rz-to-

2'
22

2?

22

, r22

$ t Z-t O-6------------E------

$ 1 7-1 O-7

$rz-a



STATEI{ENT OF TH! CASI

I. Ccurse cf Prcceedings and Dispcs:'ticns:n
the Ccurt 3elcw

ThisisanappealfrcnthesuBllaryjudgmenbgrantof

ahabeasccrpuspetitioninthe!{idd}eDistrj'ctcf

Alabana.

Theprcvenanceofthieli'tigationwasanindictnent

against lils. Bozernan returned by the Piekens County'

Alabana, Grand Jury cn Novenber 3, 19?8' (f' 211.-12) That

instruoent read as follovs:

The Grand Jury of said County charge

that, before the finding of thi's

Indietnent, lrlaggie S' Bozenan, uhose

na.Be tc the Grantl Jury is otherwise

unkncwn:

COUNT ONX

did vcte locre than once' cr did

depcs:.t trcre than one ballct fcr the

satre cff:ee as her vcte, cr did vote

il}ega}lY cr fraudulently, iD the

Denceratic Prinary Run-cff Electicn

cf senienbet 25' 1978'



COUIIT TWC

did vc'te ![cj'e than onee as an

absentee vcter, cr did dePcsit more

than cne absentee ba1lct fcr the sane

cff ice or cff ices as her vcte' or di'd

cast iIlegal or frauclulent absentee

ballcts, ir the Denocratic PrinarY

Bun-off S}ecti'on of SePtenber 26'

1 978,

COUNT TH'REE

did eaet iIIega1 or fraudulent

absentee ballcts in the Denocratie

Prinary Run-off Eleetion of Septenber

26, 19?8, ir that she did clePcsit

rith the Piekens CountY Cireuit

Clerk, absentee ballcts whieh Yere

fraudulent and which she knev tc be

fraudulent, (T. 21 1 )

These charges \{ere

Ccde cf Aiaban4 , 1975,

$tl-21-1. I11ega} voting

at tempti.ng to vote '

based uPcn Secticn

reprcduced. here:

1n a'2 I aa rhaI t-a)-i A- e^r!

or



Anl' perscn whc vctes lllsre than cnce

at an:i electj.cn helC in this state'

or depcsi.ts ncre than one bailct for

the sa-Ee cffice as hi's vote at such

elect:'on, or kncvingly attenPts tc

vote vhen he is nct entitled tc dc

so, cr i.s SrriltY of anY kind of

illegal or fraudulent voting' loust'

on convietion, be inPrieoned in the

PenitentiarY for not less than twc

nor Bore than five Years, at the

diseretion of the iurY'

Bozenan pled not gUilty ancl went tc trial before the

Ecnorable Clatus Junkin, Cireuit Judge, and a Jury on

Novenber 1, 1g7g. (T. 1 ) she ras I0OSt ably represented

by two retained ccunselors, Soloman S' Seay' Jr' and J'

I. Chestnut, Jr. (t. 2)

0n Novenber 2, 1979, the iury returned a verdiet of

guiity as enarged in the indieinent and set the sentence

at fcur years. (T . 2O9) the Cireuit Court ti,en ad judge

the defendant ggilty and enterec sentence acccrdingly'

(T. 209)



The f cilcwin{: appe}}ate aetivit'v ensued:

1..Appea)-tstheAiabamaCcurtcfC:ir..naiAppea)-s:

affirmedwithopiniononwlarchsl'1981'(n'12;the
Manuscript Opi'nicn is Exhibit D tc respcndents' I'loticn tc

Disn.ssthehabeaspetition[n.42-41]and].Srepsrtedat
4C1 So.2d 157)

2. Writ cf Certiorari in the Alabaua Suprene Court;

denied on July 24,1981' (n' lli 401 Sc'2d 1?1i

1- Wrj.t cf Certicrari in the Suprene Court of the

United States; deni'ed on Novenber 16' 1981 ' (R' f i 454

u.s. 1058)

Ms.Sczenandidnotseekaeo}}ateralreviercfher
convi.ction in the state eourts' (R' 15) After being

deniedbytheSupreneCourt,shefiledthepetitionfora
writofhabeasccrpusunder23U.S.C.g?254inthel'liddle
District of Alaba"na on June 8' 1985' (R' 11' et seq' )

After a hearing upcn the petitioner's mcticn fcr

sunlrary judgrnent (tire transcri'pt of that hearing is

\rcluoe 2 of the Reecrd)' the Di'striet Court' per

HcnorabieErunanEcbbs'grantecsunmaryjudgr,entfcrljs.

Bozenan. (R. 185)

Judge Hcbbs' opinion und'erlying his deeision will be

f cund at R' 15, and i'n the "Reccrd Excerpt" filed by the

appellants. The judgment and opinicn v'ere entered on



April 15, 1984. (p. 163, 185) The habeas respcndents

filed a timeiy l[ctiee cf Appeal on April 21 ' 198L (R'

18?)bringingthernatberofthegrantoftheurittothis
Hcncreble Ccurt.

Severa].noticneyerefi}edinthedietrietccurt
after this appeal rae docketed (see R. 4-6 of the

Suppleucatal Record) Uut those uattere ere not raieed in

this bricf. Appcllantc aote, bovcver' that the

petitioner filcd ancndnent on July 25, 1984, na.ning a

differentrcepcnilent,pursuanttothedi'etrict
court,s ordar of Jul.y 15, 1g84. (R. 514; Supp. R. 5)



I1. Statenent cf the Paets

Ilnejaotssetcutbel.cwaretakenpri'mari}yfrcm
tr^,c scurees. Those reflected in the transeript fron the

?iekens county tri.al are eited by ,,T'. and a page nunber.

Thcse suppcrted by the District Court's opinicn (tne

opinicn appealetl frcn) are followed by an uR* reference'

That opinion i's found at Pages 163 to 185 of the reccrcl

on appeal. ]

ThedistricteourtenteredaJointl{enorandun

opi.ni,cn in iiris ease and that of ui.lder v. Le-Ebert (on

appeal in this eourt as Nc. 84-7287). Appellants agree

viththeecurt,gintroduetorysuBtrarycfthefactual
background cf the case:

Bcth petitioners Yere convieted under

a statute prcscribing voti'ng nore

than cnce cr vcting rhen one is not

entitled to do so, in eonnection wj'th

thej.r parti.ei.pati.on in the easting cf

absentee ballcts in the Denoeratie

prinary runcff on Septenber 25, 1978

in Piekens Ccunty. The contenti'on of

the prcsecution ras, eesentially'

that petitioners prceured absentee

ballcts in the nanes of registereC



vcters and vcted the ballcts

thenselves. SPeci'f icaI1Y, the

proeecution ecnbendetl tirat

petiticners vculd take applieati'one

for abEentee ballcte arcund to

elderly blackE antl ask then if they

vanted to be abLc tc vcte uithout

going to tbc Polla ' tlogt of these

eliterly people uere illitcrate' so

petiticncrs ordinarily vould help

theo f ill 'it out, antl the voter voul'd

neke an ixr nerk' Soneti.oeg the

applieation vould dircet that the

ballct be ueiLcil to tbe voter artd

souetince tc one of three adtlreeges'

YilAer's addregg ras auong the three;

SczeuantB rag not. Either

petitioners or the vctcr voulcl turn

the aPPlieaticne fcr an abeentee

balloi in to the Pickens CountY

Clerk's office. Aeccrding tc the

prosecution, petitioners obtainetl

thirty-nine of theee ballcte, filled

then out, and aigned the registered

vcters' na'Bes tc thea' Hj'l'tler and

I



Bczenan tcok tne ballcts tc a nctary

PubIic, wirc nctar LzeC iler upf,n

Petitioners' assurance tnat the

signatures were valid' ihe ballcts

were subsequently vcted' (n' l6t-55)

There wculd appear tc be }ittle room tc disagree

that nuElercus bcgus ballcts Yere indeed cast. The

District court found "eonvincing evidence" of the fact'

(n. 172)

At tr j.al, the proof unfolded thusly:

PaulRci}ins,aNotaryPub}iefronTuscalocsa'

Alabana, adnitted that he had notarLzed' soBe absentee

ba}lctstcbeeastintheDenccraticPrinaryRunoffin
Septeuber of 19?8. (T. 54-;il. Ee stated that Maggie

Bozenan, whom he had knovn for several years (f. 55),

Julia Wilder, and twc or perhaps three other Uctren,

brcught the ballots tc his cffice shortly before tney

were due tc be offered. in the elect.ion. (T. 55, 57, 5C)

it seetrs there were thirty-nine ballots in all' (!'

35-17, 5r-54)

Rciiinstestifiedthathetc}dthewo:I}enrhatthe
signers were supposed' to be present (t' 74) ' but that

,'a}1,, cf the wcnen there represented the signatures tc

authentic. (t. 50-51 ) The witness never stated

be



unequivceai}ythabsczemanalcnesailanItninSahcuttne
signaiures'bur,testifieCccnsistenrl;"t::ai"ailcfthen"
Itne fcur cr five present] cr "a]]...toge!her" requestec

hi.s servj.ce and veri.fied the genuineness cf tne

signatures. (T. 50, 51, 6?, 64)

The ballots were introduced intc evidence (t' 41-44)

and. are located at pages 
"6 

to 574 cf the tr1aI

transcript. The gpplieations for tbe absentee ballots

werea}scad'nittedantlvillbefcundat296to,'5cftne
transcript. rhere are severar outstanding things abcut

the docuBents. Of the 59 applicants for ballcts' 18

narkedtheappli.cationsignatureb].ockswithan''x.u(r.
295-,15'8eneral}y)Yetwhentheballctethenselveshad
beenreceiveclandrerepresentedtcRollinsbyBczer0an

and the others, all J9 vere nsigned" uith the vritten

naJDeSofthewculcl-bevoters.Alncstasstrangeisthe
faeithat,ofthesevcterswhcaetuailysi'gnedthe
applieaticns, several spelled their nqmes differently

whentheysignedtheba}}cts.(CcnpareT.229wLthll8;
1. J17 with 355; T' 111 vitn 15li T' JO5 with 143- 1' 12i

wj.th 363i T. 518 with 556)

At triaI, the proseeution asEed' Rcllins whether

Bczenanhadte}ephonedhiminreletiontcthethlrty-nine
ba}}cts,nettj,nganequi.vccalanswer.(t.54-66)Dur:'ng

IO



crcss-exaninaticn hcwever, rhen ouesticned abclrr i'l:€ same

teiephcne caiis, Rcilins renembereC:

a . Ncw , wh ich cf tnese vers i cns ' I'ir '

Roilins, is the truth?

A. I dc renember' now' Maggie

Bczeroan calllng me alcng vith sonecne

else' I dcn't kncn whc the other

PartY nas'

a. Yhat do You nean bY alcng rith?

A. i{el}, there was twc Phone calls '

One call; then, there uas ancther

cal,l later on. I dcnrt renenber rhc

it was.

a. llorr, rho ras the seccnd PerBcn

uhc ealled You?

A. I dcn't rernenber the nane'

a. And dj,d I'laggie Bozenan teIl ycu

tnat I have ballcts cf sueh and such

a perscn tirat I want you to notarize?

A. I dcn't renerober the exaet

ccnversaticn but j't was pertaining tc

bailcts.
0. It was Pertaining -- but Ycu dc

nct know whether it Pertained tc

these ballcts cr sctre cther ballcts?
11



A. Nc, it was Just ballcte' I dcnrt

kncu.

a. Just trallcts' Ycu do nct kncr?

A. Nc.

Q. lfhen ras the conversaticn

recei,ved, !!r. Rolling?

A. I believe about -- prcbably a dlay

before theY rere cerri'ed over to

lusealooaa, I believe' I'n not tco

elurc.

Q. A daY before?

A. I believe.

Q. fhat voulil be the 22ad'?

A. f beli'cve it vae' f,or' Irn not

too eure ebout thal'

Q. It coul'd have been three ilaYs

before?

A. I don't think it vaE aB uuch eB

three - I clcn't think 8o '

(T. 76-7)

lire Dj.strict court etabed that "Ia]:,t thirty-nine

ballcte yere voted idcntieally, : ' 'tr (R' 165) It

appears houever, that, of the 458 votee ca'st on the

Rcl}insballcta,therereretycdefecti.ons.Onecitizen
refused rc vcte fcr anycne in the Lieutenant Governcr's

12



raee(1.15C't,anCanctherpreferredl(:'ttieCopperto
PhiL saker in the ccntest fcr Ccun"y Pevenue

Ccmmissicner. (r. 341)

}Iinecfthoset:rirty-ni'nevctershrerecal}ed.bythe

statetctesti.fyagainstMs.sczenan.Whetherduetc
advanced age (n. 154) (l,cu Sonnerville, fcr example' was

g, It. 1 54] ), limited education (n' 1 54) ' or the nove]ty

of testifying in an inportant felony tri'aI, the testinony

is not a oodel cf clarity. l{e agree fu}ly irlth Jud'ge

Eobbs , description that l'Is. sornnervj.Ile's account Cf

bal,Iot vas ,,ineonprehensible. " (n. 158; tes tinony at

152-77). Nat Dancy was sonewhat reluetant, if not

dcwnrighttruculent,inans',eringquestionsfrcnboth
sides (T. 115-124), saying repeatedly that he didn't know

anything. (e.e. T. 117, 119, 122) One thi'ng he nas

certain cf was that he had never signed his nalBe tc

anything in his }j-fe. (f ' 117-18)

SophiaSpann'stesti,roony,whilei'npreciseinspots'
j.s substanti.ally ncre lue j-d ' (t ' 177-55) It seeBs Ms '

Spann had been vcting j.n her comnun:'ty cf Cochran ever

sinee tirey'd had a pclling piace there' (t' 178-79)

scnetj_ne near the prinary run-cff in o-uesti.on, liis. Spann

was approached by !(aggie Sczeraan' Ms' Sczeuan offered' tc

vcte fcr lris. spann because tne latter's husband ras siek'

(1. 1go, 1g4) 3ut Ms. spann deciinec, expiaining thai

1i

her

m



she did.n't have to gc a}I the uay tc Alieeville, tngt ghe

vcted right there in Ccchran' (T' 18C' 184)

Unfortunately, vhen !ls' Spann rent tc the poI} tc

exercj'geherfranchise,ghevasinfornedthetE'ctrecnehail

already vcted for her over i.n Ali,ceville. (t' 1'84-85)

Yhen ehorn the counterfeit appf icati'on anit ballot at

trial,eheindicatEdthattheyrcrenotaigncdbyher.
(I.180-81)[fnsexhlbitsarelocatcdatT''15entl'55)

Neither l{aggte Bozenan nor any other vitneeees

testified for the defenee'

14



iiI. Statenent of bhe Standard Rev:'ew

r,{i bh respeet tc t'cth issues, aopel}ants unders iani

the standarc cf review tc be a questicn s:.mply cf vhetner

the district court has compli.ed uj.th the case law frcr

tire suprenoe ccurt and the Eleventh circuit as set cut in

the arguoent.

15



Surna:']' cf tne Llgume::t

infinc.lnFtheevidenceait:.j.aiin;ufficien!undei
tneana}ysisrequired'byJaeksonr'.Yj.rginia,441U.S.

1C7 (19?9) the ccurt failed tc ccroply rith the

requi.re,ents of Sunner v. l{ata, 449 U.S. 519 (t9et ) in

that it totally igncred the factual findings of the stare

appellate court.

AnypossibleerroronthepartofthePiekensCounty

circuit court in eharging the iury cn secticn 13-5-15 cf

the Alabaraa ccde was uai.ved by defendant's failure tc

objectandassigngroundsforobJecti'on.t{ainwrj.8htv.

.E$,44rU.S.2(1977)'Consideringtheevidence'the
theoriesofcounsel,andthetrialecurt'sjuryeharge
together, it cannot be sai'd that tne defendant vas

deprivedofnoticebythelateadditionofanewcharge.

15



Statenent of Jurisdicticn

The dist:ier ccurt had jurisC-cE;3r ic hea:'ih's

hat'eas ccrpus under 28 u'S ' c ' 52254' the appeai iie-e :'n

ihi.s ecurt Fursuant tc 28 tI'S'C' $tZ9t'

11



4!@
i.

WEITHEP. TIIE DISIPICT COTJRT IS
REOIJIRED TO PRESUI\,II STATI-COUFT
FA.CT.AI TINDINGS TO BE COP.PICT; TC

YIE,J !!iI EVIDEI{CE IN lHE LIGHT MCS1

FAVCRABII TC TEE STATE; AND TO

DEI'iONSTRATE IN ITS OPINION A

coNsiDiiiliion oF 28 u.s.c'$2254(d)'

The.districteourtdeej,dedthattherecordevidence

frompetitioner'siurytrialsasdefecti'veunderthe
sbandard'anncuncedinlackscnv.Virginia,44SU.S.l0T,

99S.Ct.2781,611.8d'2d550,reh.den444u.S.890,1o0
s.ct . 195, 52 r.Ed.2d 125 (r9?9); thab is, nc raticnal

triercffactccu].dhavefcundthedefendant$riltyof
allthee}enentsoftheoffensebeycndareascnable
doubt. (n. 155-173).

The road tc that ecnclusi'cn began with a review cf

the testincny (R. 164-59) and ended abruptly vhen the

ccurt reduced tne statets case tc one sentenee:

"The only ev:'dence against Bczenan

was BcIl j.ns' tes ii-ncny tnat she was

cne cf the iad j'es whc brcught the

ballcts tc be nctar 'zed', that she toay

have ealled tc arrange tne neeti'ng'

and thab the }adies as a grcuP

represented tne ballcts tc be genuine

18



after he tcld then trat the si'gnatcrs

were suPPcsed tc be PresenE'" (n'

171 )

Tnat facruai fi-ndi-ng is ccnsi'derably at cdds with

the faets fcund by the Alabana ccurt of criminal Appeals

in the sene ease . see Bczenan v. state , 4O'l sc . 2d 1 57

(ata.Crim.App.), cert. den 401 Sc'2d 171 (Ala')' eert'

den 454 U.S. 1058 (fgaf )' the state ecurt found and

recorded tire fcllowi'ng faets:

1.Pau}Rc}lins"testifiedthathehadtalkedwith
theappellantaboutnctarizLngthebal}ots.''401Sc.2d
at 15g (enphasis supplied) (as opposed tc nshe tnay have

caI}ed" )

2.'Irlr.Rollinsstated...thathesubsequently
wenttcPickensCcuntytofindthosepersonsvhohad
allegedly signed the balIcts. Ee had [Bozenan'sl

assi.stance on that occaslon, hcwever, he was nct sure he

dj.dnotgctcPickensCountypriortcsepterabet25'
1g?g.,, 4C1 Sc.2d 169 (no nenticn of this in tire distriet

ccurt cPinicn)

l.Tnestatecourtreiiedheav:.lycnthetestirecny
cf Scpirie Spann. 401 Sc'2d at 159-?0' The disirict

court'i.ncontrast,treatedherevidencebrief}yin
secticn 1I cf its opinion (f'' t59); then' quite

19



inexpiieably, iSrcred' the evidenee entireiy when it

reaeneo the cri!ical- sunmaril of the sbale's case' (R

171 )

InSunnerv.!{ata,449U'S'5tg'101S'Ct'754'55
I.Id.2i 722 ( t 9et ), iire Supreme Ccurt held that ' cD

habeascorpusrevier,thestateeourtfindingsoffact
sha}}bepresunedtobecorrectunlessoneofthegeven
conditions eet out in 28 U's'c' $2254(d) ate found tc

existbythefederalcourt,orunlessthefederalccurt
ccne}udesthatthestateeourtdeterninationisnot
fairly suPPcrted bY the reeord' Sumner v. Malq, 449 U'S'

at 550; Douglas v. tlai'nrright , 714 F'2d 1532' 1544-45

( rtn cir. 1 981).

Theruleobtalnsvhetherthefactualfindingsare
reccrded in a tri'al court order cr in a state appellate

opini.on. Sunner v. l'Iata, 449 U'S' 545-56'

Sere,thedistrietecurtplainlyandsinplyfailed
to conply wj,th the nandate cf Sunner' f'or aught that

appears in the ecurt's opini'cn, the state appellate

cpinicndcesnctexist.lvlcrecver'ncnenticnwhatscel,er

is nade cf $2254(d)' see Sunne:L, 449 u's' 547-43

(,,Indeed, tne ccurt did not even refer in its opinion tc

52251(d).") lire ccurt was quite unequivceal abcut the

necessity of explicating the particular justifieation

f rcc S 2254(d ) with regar'i to tne f aets i'n o-uesticn '

20



lurner, 41? U.S. at 551-52'

!ne jaiiltre Ic ecnpi-v with the p:"inciple ru]e cf

Suroner nas ccnpcunded by the (apparant ) ana)'ysis adcpted

bytnedistrietccl.lrtinwei.ghi'ngccnflietingtesbimcny
andfcrninginferencesfrcnthebasicfaets.Thesetblec
ru}eisthattirehabeasecurtmustviewal}theev:.dence
intheli.ghtmostfavcrabletctheproseeution.Jackson
v.Vj.rginia,44lU.S.atr19iDrncanv'stynchconbe'7O4

1th Ci.r. 198r)- Ti:e ccurt did not do

It did the cpposite'
F.2d 121r, 1215 (t

that in this case.

II.
}IEETHERIHETRIAIcoURT'SEXPIANATI0N
or riiuil srnts sIATUTES DURTNG Its
ORAL CiAROT WITHOI]T OBJECTiON FROM

OTPUTOI,TT OPERATED TO DEPRIVE TEE

ICCUSPO OF NOTICE OF lEE CEARGES

AGAINSI EER.

The distriet court alsc ruled that Sczenan's

ecnvict:.on was Ccnstituti'onalIy defeetive because the

stace tria] judge instrueted the iury cn several statutes

nct ecntained in the ind j'ctnent ' (n ' 1'75-185)

Appellants ncte ini'tially tnat there was nc

cbjectj.cn tc the ecurt's oral charge' (f ' 208)

that an objection is necessary tc preserve any

the orai charge is settred in this state' }lI:'

v. State , 423 F.2d 121 (lta'Crin'App ' 1982) '

mh a r:: ''l o
- rl I

error in
Brazzell

lcr this reascn, ve argue tnat the ecurt shouLd' have

21



leniei peti,ticne:^'s assertec relj.ef cn authority of

Wainwrient v. sykes , 411 '.I.S. 72 (t9ir)' Cf ccurse' ih's

ccntent:cn was nad'e in the district court wi thcut avail.

Judge Hcbbs ccnsj.dered the Lnstruct:cn on statutes nct

containec in the indictment tc anount tc a ecnstrueti've

anendnent tc the charging i.nstrunent, allcving the iury

to conviet the defendant for an unindieted cri'oe' see,

plunkett v. Estell-e , 7Og F.2d 1OO4 (:trr cir . 1 984 ) .

specifieally the trj.al judge read and/or expiai'ned

five separate statutes during the eharge tc the jury:

1 . Pirst the court read the text of $ll-25-l ' the

statute underlying the j.ndj.etnent. The only elaboration

wasanexplanationoftheterns''illega}''and
"f raudulent. ,, (T. 201-02 )

2.Nextea[te$1?-10-,(erronecuslydenoninated

$ll-21-1 ay the ccurt), a fairly innocuous section

explainingtheeligibi'1i'tyand.prceeduresforvcting

"absentee." (T. 2O2)

1. Agai.n the ccurt nisspcke, this time in

describing $rz-ro-s (tut cailing it $tz-t0-7); thar laT

sinp).y Preseribes ihe forn cf the absentee baLlct and

ereates the necessity of an aceo,panylng affidavit' (t'

202-0r)

4. The ccurt then expiained the real $tz-to-7,

entitled''Icrtrofaffidar'j.t-Genera},SP€cia}cr
22



nrin-eipa)- el'ecticns.'' As implieC by the title' the

sba[ule mereiy seis cut the text of the vcter's

affidavi r. (r. 2O1-O4)

5, I.ina}}y, the trial judge instructed cn $1,-5-15

cf the ccde. that seot j.on condenns false slreari'ng rritn

regard*tcanynattersoffactrequiredorauthorLzedtc
be made under the eieetion laws .'' and states that

one whc 8o fcrsvears shaIl be guilty of perjury' (T'

204)

Inexaniningtheinstructions,therevj'el{eroughttc
eonsider the entire charge. cupp v. Naughten, 414 U'S'

1 41 , 38 L. Ed .2d ,68, 94 S. Ct . 395 (t975) ; ryl' I'ranb v '

Jernisan, SS' l'2d 1tr2 (tttrr cir' 1982); (n' 180)' In

thj.s ease, the habeas court opined that "[t]ire trial

ccurt defined illegal by instructing tne iury cn four

statutesnoteontainedintheindj'etment.''Theonly
warrant for that conelusion is the faet that the

explanationsofthevariousccdesectj.onsfcilcvedthe
ccurt,s def initicn of "illegaI" and "fraUdUlent' "

Appeilants ecntenC tnat a ncre reascnable view cf the

charge i.s that tire court was atternpting tc assi'st the

jury j.n understanding what was generally coreplicated'

oecasicnally i.neomprehensible, testi'ncny abcut

applications, baIlcts, affidavits' etc' ihrough it a]1'

thedefensenadenSattempttcobjectncrtcassistwiti:
23



reques reC instruc t j.cns cf i. ts cldn. (1. 2)Z) Instead ,

cefendants sai quietly until they. reachei che feieraL

nabeas f crun straight frcm 'lne direct rev:,ew rcute '

There h,as nc collaterai reviev of the issue in the state

ecurts. (r. 175)

The real basi.s cf the di.strict eourt's decision on

this issue is nct as simple as it would appear at first

b1ush. The ecurt conti.nued: nBut tne indictnents, by

charging petitioners with i11egal vcti'ng, created

substantj.al pctential for abuse, pctential whieh was

realj,zed by the Jury instructions. A ballct eculd have

innunerable defeets causing it to be iIlega}'

Petiti.oners vere enti.tled to know exaetly what defeets

the ballots allegedly eontained so that they could

prepare thej,r defenses.n (R. 182) Appellants cannot argue

wlth that statenent as far as it gces, but assert that

the proper reroedy is an attack on the :.ndictment. They

t;ied that alsc, but the distriet eourt denied relief

upcn that grcund, holding that the indicisent

suf f j.ci.ently nctlf j.ed the def endant of t:e charge' (n '

1E4) To sc certify the indietnent as suffj.cieni only tc

hcid tirat i.t is devalued belcw the Ccnstltuti'cnal level

by an uncbjectected tc iury charge is like gcing arcund

3ne' S tnunab to 8e t to one ,S elbcw. Appeilants

respectfully submit that the ccurt's ex;ianatcry
14



instructions aid not

the indictment.

sc severelY ccrruPt the neaning of

co}{cI,usIoN

Uith reepects tc the sufficiency of the cvtdence

issue, the cese ehould be reoanilcil tc the dlstrict eourt

for reconelderatlon in rlght of @' fhe

tlistriet court ghould be lnstructcd tc deny the

petitioner,ssrr,unaryJudgnentuotlononthelgeuecfthe
ccurtre JurY charge.

7/L4

R APPETLAnIS

:n

25



CERTIFICATE OF SEPVIET'

I hcreby certlfY that I have thls ildawcr
Septeuber, 1984, served e ecPy of the foregcing on the

attcrneye fcr the Petitioner by plaeing Eane in the

unibed statee uail,, Postage prepaitl ancl edaressed a8

follcus:
Yanzette Penn Durant
AttoracY at Irar
659 f,artha Street
t{ontgcnerY, AL 16104

Irani 0trinler
Attoraey et Ilav
99 Eudson Street
1 6 Floor
lter York, IW 1001,

ADDRESS OF COUNSEI:

P.0. Box 442
AlleeviIIe, AL 55442
(zos) ,7r-5551

APPEI.,I,ANTS

25