◆ SpookStack

ss haat a | i} Sheppard v. Maxwell No. 16077 his position as to betray its responsibilities, no matter what he thinks would most please the electorate" Addi- tionally, it is not inappropriate to note that much of the publicity complained of, and the actual taking of testimony at Dr. Sheppard’s trial, occurred after the election had been held. For like reasons, we must reject Dr. Sheppard’s repetition in this Court of his broadside charge “that the elective judges of Ohio were so biased and prejudiced against him that he could not expect fair adjudication of his case in state courts. . . .” 3) Lie detector evidence. Bay Village Mayor Houk, witness for the state, but- tressed his veracity, over defense objection, by disclosing that he had submitted to a lie detector test. He was not allowed ‘to give the. results of the test, This was found not to have been reversible error by the Ohio appellate courts. State v. Sheppard, supra, 100 Ohio App. 345, 388, aff'd, State v. Sheppard, 165 Ohio St. 293, We are satis- fied that no due process question is presented by this subject. Details of the Houk testimony are set forth in the District Court opinion wherein the District Judge indicates that, standing alone, the Houk affair might not be of constitutional stature. In the pretrial press accounts, reference was frequently made to Dr. Sheppard’s refusal to take a lie detector test. These same accounts also reported that he initially ex- __'' The dissenting opinion refers to what is termed a “TV camera interview” of Judge Blythin with a former Scotland Yard officer and a “television program conducted on the steps of the courthouse, where . . , the trial judge had appeared.” “The court, on one morning, walked toward the courthouse steps, as usual, an there saw Robert Fabian (a retired Superintendent of Scot- Jand Yard “with a very small contraption in his hand. Mr. Fabian said, ‘Good morhi »- Judge Blythin, nice morning.’ The court said ‘Good morning, Mr. Fabian.’ These are the very words, as near as the court can remember them, that passed. There was no conversation of any kind about the case on trial or any other subject.” The dissent also refers to a news photograph which is characterized as showing Judge Blythin “holding a press conference” during the jury’s deliberations. However, this event is identified by the Cleveland Plain Dealer as follows: “Cornered by reporters, Common Pleas J udge Edward Blythin announced he was going to let the Sheppard murder jury con- tinue to deliberate despite the record-breaking period it had been out.” We are unable to convict Judge Blythin of witting or unwitting mis- conduct from these events, pee OS a ee eee No. 16077 Sheppard v. Maxwell 35 i illi i test arose i that his unwillingness to submit to the ’ Penis then overwrought emotional state. 76. Jater as: i i tinued refusa e : and was temily Upon trial, two police wofficers gave evidence is refusal to take the test. No objection ostomy of the first officer, and the lie detector ques, tion was discussed thoroughly on direct, Cr ection h and recross examinations. Nor was there an yee fficer first referred to Dr. Sheppard’s refus tne Sp to such testing. The context of the first objection made—and the charge of constitutional error by the, tria judge—is found in the following continuation ) e second officer’s account of Dr. Sheppard’s voluntary com- munications to the police, which were made in the presence of his counsel. We have partially reduced this excerpt to narrative form. that tour was completed . . . we had some con- Vereation with Dr. Sam and Mr. Petersilge and Mw: Corrigan. ... I asked him if he could come into the office and make a statement in writing telling us e facts about the night of July 3rd. And it was agreed that I was to be called on the telephone nine oc! 0c Saturday morning, July 10th. Mr. Corrigan said fe would call me about 9 a.m.... At about 8:20 er 25 A.M., July 10th Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Dr. amue Sheppard and Mr. Petersilge came into our office. : e said he was prepared to make a statement. it en after being interviewed for an hour and a ha : e was taken into our office on the fourth floor w ere he made a statement, which was typed. That state. ment has been offered into the evidence. State’s Exhi it No. 48 is the statement that the defendant made a our office on the 10th. After the defendant made ul his statement in writing, the next time that I saw im was on July 12th. I saw him at his home, and spo ce with him. Mr. Corrigan, Mr. Petersilge [Sheppard’s counsel] his brother, Dr. Richard and Dr. Stephen were present. I again asked him if he had thought over the suggestion that I made that he try to elim- inate himself as a suspect. He stated that he wanted to help us in every way possible to serve this crime— solve this crime. I asked him “Why don’t you meet me some morning at some designated place at a desig- nated time unbeknownst to anyone but yourself and i i