Sheppard v. Maxwell, United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Civ. No. 6640
April 25, 1963
Sheppard v. Maxwell, S.D. Ohio, Civil Action No. 6640
Memorandum of Petitioner
The Sheppard case was a raging controversy since the day of the homicide some nine years prior. It continued to be "unsettled" in the public mind and desperately needed resolution. It was contended by Sheppard that the result was wrong, not only legally but factually: he did not receive a fair trial in the first instance, which alone was sufficient to warrant action by this court in his favor, and he was not the murderer that the judgment of conviction asserted him to be.
The petition in the instant case clearly set forth in its allegations of constitutional violations according to present authority. Denial of counsel (House v. Mayo, 324 U.S. 42) and prejudicial pretrial publicity, where changes of venue and continuances are denied (Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717), have been expressly so held. In House v . Mayo, the Court said (p. 44): "It is enough that petitioner had his own attorney and was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to consult with him."
Bailey, F. Lee; Martin, Alexander H.; and Sherman, Russell A., "Memorandum of Petitioner" (1963). 1962-1966 Federal Habeas Corpus. 12.