LESSON : STATE OF OHIO V. SAMUEL SHEPPARD (1966)

In formulating their opinions, jurors are required to consider only the evidence presented in the courtroom. However, the jurors in the Sheppard case were not sequestered during the 6-week trial. Day after day, they were exposed to extensive news coverage and
editorial commentary of a prejudicial nature when they left the courtroom. In addition, the courthouse itself was a media circus.

On that basis, defense attorney, F. Lee Bailey filed suit in federal court, claiming Dr. Sam Sheppard was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial. District Court Judge Carl 'Weinman agreed, calling the Sheppard trial a "mockery of justice" and, on July 16, 1964, he ordered Sheppard released from prison. Although his ruling was reversed by a federal appeals court a year later, Sheppard was allowed to remain free, pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In June, 1966, the Supreme Court upheld Weinman's decision, stating: "The massive, pervasive and prejudicial publicity attending petitioner's prosecution prevented him from receiving a fair trial, consistent with the due process clause of the 14th Amendment."

The Supreme Court did not determine the guilt or innocence of Sam Sheppard bn the murder charge; the Court simply ruled that he was denied a "fair trial." So, within a few months of the Court's ruling, the State of Ohio retried Sheppard for the murder of hiS wife a second time.

Following new federal guidelines, the jury was sequestered in a hotel for the duration of the trial, their phone calls were 'monitored and their only news came from censored newspapers. Furthermore, no television cameras were allowed in the courtroom and seating for news reporters was restricted. The trial concluded in a matter of days with a unanimous verdict of "not guilty." Twelve years after his original conviction, Sam . Sheppard was a free man.

The Search Goes On

A "not guilty" verdict does not mean the defendant is innocent, it only means there is insufficient proof of guilt. innocence requires proof that the adcused did not commit the crime or proof that someone else did.

Dr. Sheppard died four years after his release from prison, penniless, and still professing his innocence. His son, Sam Reese Sheppard has since taken up the cause of clearing his father's name. Consequently, the search for evidence continues. If the younger Sheppard • can prove his father's innocence, he may be able to recover damages for false
imprisonment.

Sheppard and his attorneys point to DNA and other evidence to implicate Richard Eberling in the murder of Marilyn Sheppard. Eberling, a window-washer for the Sheppards, died in prison in 1998 serving time for another murder.

Aided by a Supreme Court ruling that now requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence, police records that were suppressed in the 1954 and 1966 trials have recently been made available to Sam R Sheppard.

Among the evidence collected by the police in 1954 was a plaster impression of a freshly made pry mark found on the basement door of the Sheppard house.

A copy of the detective's report describes evidence of a forced entry with a wedge-like tool. Given the fact that the prosecution case against Sam Sheppard was based, to a great extent, on the lack of evidence of forcible entry into the house, this disclosure is critical for a finding of innocence and a wrongful imprisonment lawsuit against the State of Ohio.

Also secured from the police was a wood chip from the Sheppards' stairway with blood on it. It was part of a trail of blood that was never tested. The trail led from the bedroom to the main floor and down the basement steps.

Prosecutors assumed it was Marilyn's blood that had dripped from the murder weapon. However, defense criminologist Dr. Paul Kirk, noted that Marilyn's two front teeth were missing and theorized that she had bitten the killer, who could have bled on the steps as he exited the building.

In 1997, DNA testing determined that the blood on the stairway was not Marilyn's. It was, however, consistent with Richard Eberling's DNA. Eberling was arrested by authorities in 1959 with Marilyn's ring in his possession. He told authorities he had dripped blood on the Sheppards' steps two days before the murder, when he was washing windows and cut himself.

However, a former employee of Eberling's, Vern Lund, has since testified that HE washed the Sheppards .windows on July 2, not Eberling. Another former employee, Ed Wilbert, disclosed th'e hostile feelings Eberling had for Marilyn because she had caught him stealing and threatened to spread the word.

Eberling's past history indicates stages of psychotic anger and a string of suspicious deaths, culminating with his arrest and conviction for the murder of an elderly woman in 1987. Among the stories revealed by his fellow inmates is Eberling's admission that he killed Marilyn Sheppard, wearing a wig so as not to be recognized in the vicinity, and when Dr. Sheppard came to her aid, he knocked him out twice.
With a wig, Eberling fits the description .of the "bushy-haired intruder" given to the police by Dr. Sheppard, including height and weight specifications.

State prosecutors argue that too many key witnesses have died and too much evidence has been lost to try the case again. They claim the DNA samples are unreliable, since the evidence tested was old and may have been contaminated.

Problems with the claim of custody may even make the DNA findings inadmissible in court, and the tests cannot be replicated due to the lack of evidence still available to analyze.

They also argue that time and money should not be spent proving the innocence of a deceased persons. Furthermore, they claim that litigating this case will open a floodgate of similar complaints, tying up the courts and costing taxpayers money.

Questions:

1. If you were a juror in the civil case for damages against the State of Ohio, which side of the case would you find most convincing?

2. If damages were awarded, what amount would be "fair" in a case such as this?

3. Should policy factors enter into jury deliberation?

4. Assume the role of a news editor. Write an editorial describing what happened in the Sheppard case and how it illustrates the way the American jury system works.