Title

Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to State's Motion to Exclude Specific Items of Physical Evidence

Authors

Terry H. Gilbert, Attorney for Sheppard Estate
George H. Carr, Attorney for Sheppard Estate

Document Type

Davis v. State of Ohio, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Case No. CV96-312322

Date

1999-12-21

Box Number

43A

Item Number

69

Keywords

plaintiff's filing, expert witness, wood chip, blood evidence, blood stain, motion in limine, opposition

Abstract

The Estate of Sam Sheppard responds to the State’s motion to exclude the bloodstained wood chips and bloodstain from Marilyn Sheppard’s wardrobe door. The Estate supports that the physical evidence can be authenticated in accordance with Ohio case law concerning evidence of this nature. It also argues that any chain of custody gap is due to the failure of the State, which cannot use its own failure to bar evidence from being used against it.

Comments

See Motion in Limine to Exclude Specific Items of Physical Evidence

See order denying this motion

Recommended Citation

Gilbert, Terry H. and Carr, George H., "Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to State's Motion to Exclude Specific Items of Physical Evidence" (1999). 1995-2002 Court Filings. 61.
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/sheppard_court_filings_2000/61