1964, Sheppard v. Maxwell, 231 F. Supp. 37 (S.D. Ohio 1964)
Files
Download Full Text
Document Type
Article
Box Number
.
Item Number
.
Keywords
habeas corpus, due process, Judge Carl A. Weinman, publicity, change of venue, motion for continuance, impartiality of judge, evidentiary rulings, jury phone calls during deliberations, evidence regarding lie detector test
Abstract
The court emphasized that Sheppard's guilt or innocence was not the issue before them. Instead, the court was to determine whether or Sheppard received a fair trial. It found found five separate violations of Sheppard's constitutional rights:
1. Failure to grant a change of venue or a continuance in view of the newspaper publicity before trial
2. Inability of maintaining impartial jurors because of the publicity during trial
3. Failure of the trial judge to disqualify himself although there was uncertainty as to his impartiality
4. Improper introduction of lie detector test testimony
5. Unauthorized communications to the jury during their deliberations
The court concluded that each of the aforementioned errors was, by itself, sufficient to determine Sheppard was not afforded a fair trial as required by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. When all the errors are accumulated, the Court concluded "the [1954] trial can only be viewed as a mockery of justice..."
The opinion, 231 F. Supp. 37, can be viewed here.
Recommended Citation
Weinman, Carl Andrew, "1964, Sheppard v. Maxwell, 231 F. Supp. 37 (S.D. Ohio 1964)" (1964). Articles cited in Sheppard v. Maxwell. 16.
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/sheppard_maxwell_articles/16
