◆ SpookStack

+. errr. Sa fete WA ee ee “ , Leas en + PR eg yon SIMRO EE gos SV be G public boast that T and was pushed wit newspapers—but in particular by The Cleveland Press, Sheppard v. Maxwell No. 16077 A newspaper campaign for a solution to the crime began incessant vigor by Cleveland’s three ere was widespread publicity given to a police sugges. tion that defendant take a li t : refusal to do so. a le detector test and to his Although publicly there had been no apparent cloud on the domestic horizon of the § L murder, The Cle € Sheppard family prior to the romance which defendant had with a former laborat echnician at the hospital with which he was affiliated, aed veland Press disclosed an extramarital he Cleveland Press in front page headlines, editorial and cartoons berated official slowness, demanded an in- ater, a representative of The Cleveland Press made the Sheppard story produced the trial 1X weeks after the murder, on August 17, 1954, defend- ant was indicted for first degree murder by a Grand J after presentation of the results of the Cleveland Police omicide Unit's investigation, The trial began October 17, 1954, The Ohio Supreme Court described the Setting for the trial thus: ¢ 6“ . Murder and mystery, Society, sex and suspense were combined in this case in such a manner as to the preindictment investigation, the subsequent legal 1 and the nine-week trial, circulation- ~ Conscious editors catered to the insatiable interest of ~4_&~american public in the bizarre. Special seating facilities for reporters and columnists representing local papers and all major news services were installed in the courtroom. Special rooms in the Criminal] Courts Building were equipped for broadcasters and. telecasters. In this atmosphere of a ‘Roman Holiday’ - No. 16077 Sheppard v. Maxwell 53 for the news media, Sam Sheppard stood trial for his life.” State v. Sheppard, 165 Ohio St. 293, 294 (1956). The trial verdict came after nine weeks of trial and five full days of jury deliberation. The prosecution had asked for and insisted on a verdict of first degree murder. The defense had asked for and insisted upon a verdict of “not guilty.” The jury returned a verdict of second degree murder. THE TRIAL JUDGE AND THE PROSECUTOR “It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial and independent as the lot of human- ity will admit.” * The trial judge’s son was a detective who worked in the Homicide Unit of the Cleveland Police Department which secured defendant’s indictment by the Grand Jury.° As the trial opened on October 17, the trial judge was a candidate for re-election to the Common Pleas bench in . an election scheduled for November 2, 1954.° The assistant prosecuting attorney in charge of the state’s case in defendant’s trial was likewise a candidate for election to the Common Pleas Court of Ohio—Ohio’s highest trial court. The election occurred during the trial. Both the trial judge and the chief trial} prosecutor were elected. The trial judge and the trial prosecutor posed together for a newspaper picture congratulating each other on their mutual victories. The picture was printed in The Cleveland News on November 3, 1954. (See Appendix B). As the trial resumed, defendant was being prosecuted by an elected judge, equal in all respects to the trial judge, except in the taking of the oath. of office. During the course of this trial, the trial judge’s picture appeared in 46 issues of the Cleveland newspapers—in- cluding poses by him at the bench, reading a law book in chambers, in his shirt sleeves, pausing for a TV camera 5 Art. XXIX, Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (1780), 10 Anno. Laws of Massachusetts § 30, p. 32. * Neither of these facts are relied upon by petitioner as constitutional violations. They plainly were known to petitioner’s trial counsel. The first was discussed with the trial judge whose assurances of impartiality were accepted.