◆ SpookStack

‘ les : Sheppard v. Maxwell ; No. 16077 neither has counsel pointed to any insufficiency or impro- priety in it. We indeed find no justification bor present counsel’s assertion that the City of Cleveland had been turned into a “jungle of wolves.” * Our own review of the" - voir dire transcript makes it clear that the extensive ques- . tioning of each juror by the court and counsel, and the admonitions given them, forcefully impressed on their con- sciences their solemn responsibility and their duty to con- sider nothing but what properly came before them in the courtroom. Since it is obvious that this examination of the jurors affords no support for petitioner’s position, the only part of the publicity question that remains in the case, as it has been submitted to us, is whether there exists some basis for disregarding the jurors’ unanimous sworn state- ments of impartiality. We are offered nothing to support a finding of mass perjury—or unwitting incompetence of the jurors to obey their oaths—beyond the nature of the publicity itself. The District’ Court ruled, however, that This Court... has no compunction in finding that the publicity was so prejudicial to petitioner that the assur- ances of the jurors must be disregarded... .” 231 F. Supp. 59. (Emphasis supplied.) Summarizing this conclusion in different words, the opinion further states that “the prejudicial effect of the newspaper publicity was so mani- fest that no jury could have been Seated at that particular time in Cleveland which would have been fair and impartial regardless of their assurances or the admonitions and in- structions of the trial judge.” 231 F. Supp. 60. To evaluate this finding we must turn to a brief summary of the pre- trial publicity involved. We need not choose between one m», gentle characterization of some of this publicity by the Ohio Attorney General as “nothing more than inane and innocuous reporting” and present counsel’s borrowed con- demnation of the Sheppard trial as “‘a God-damned shame.’” The District J udge’s opinion details what we 4 ‘The trial judge’s awareness of the importance of the voir dire is portrayed by the followin; dmonition, give: i - nate jurors, wil Baan given to some prospective alter to the particular case, and who can honestly close out the r the world for the moment and bring a curtain down on all informe - tion he may have about the matter from other sources, and be guided entirely by the evidence and the instructions of the Court: as to the law applicable to the particular case.” * No. 16077 Sheppard v. Maxwell 11 assume he considered the worst of it. From his recital and our own review, we attempt a general summary of its character. It began with the report of the murder of Mrs. Sheppard. The brutality of the murder and Dr. Sheppard's version of its bizarre circumstances combined to make it front page, headline news. This was as inevitable as the immediate speculation by officials and the public as to who had done it. Early news stories contained accounts of police efforts to question Dr. Sheppard and noted the fact that from the day of the murder he generally acted, and talked to police, only with the advice and direction of two lawyers, Arthur Petersilge and William Corrigan, the latter a leader of the criminal bar of Cleveland. Through- out were many human interest stories laudatory of Dr. Sheppard’s career. His own, his brother’s and his attor- neys’ extensive exculpatory statements were also given front page prominence. Soon, however, and with increasing impatience, there began to appear news items evidencing the press’ belief that Dr. Sheppard was being unduly shel- tered. The Cleveland Press in particular became violently critical of what its editor considered a failure of police authorities to press investigation of the crime. It urged quick apprehension and “grilling” of the deceased’s hus- band, who was at least once characterized as the “chief suspect.” Dr. Sheppard’s refusal to take a lie detector test was headlined, but attention was also given to his explana- tion that he felt. that such testing could be misleading because of his emotional condition and his doubt of the reliability of such tests. It was intimated that Bay Village authorities, friendly to Dr. Sheppard, were joining his attorneys in surrounding him with undeserved protection. Certainly little sophistication was required for a reader to become aware that the Cleveland Press entertained strong suspicion that Dr. Sheppard had killed his wife, although at times the Press suggested that Sheppard should clear suspicion from himself by submitting to adequate question- ing. All of this was indeed stated in more violent and colorful language than we employ in attempting to sum- marize it. Accompanying the accounts of the progress of the investigation were reports of Dr. Sheppard’s steadfast denial of guilt and presumably accurate accounts of his own early, self-exculpatory narration of the events of the murder night. The press has always claimed the right to prod public officials, obedient to what it considers its high duty to protect the public weal; it frequently presses the