66/11/23 Letter from F. Lee Bailey to Chief Drenkhan

Bailey offers his theories on the murder of Marilyn Sheppard

66/11/23 Letter from F. Lee Bailey to Chief Drenkhan

Bailey offers his theories on the murder of Marilyn Sheppard

62/08/01 Letter from F. Lee Bailey to Russ Sherman

F. Lee Bailey asks Russ Sherman to be his co-counsel on the Sheppard case

Letter from F. Lee Bailey to BVPD Chief Drenkhan with a theory about the Houks

This document is a letter sent from F. Lee Bailey to BVPD Chief Drenkhan in 1966. Bailey shares with Chief Drenkhan all that I presently know about this matter. Bailey concludes that the Houks killed Marilyn through analyzing certain facts and circumstances of the case

Deposition of Dorothy Kilgallen Kollmar, New York Journal American Reporter

Deposition statement of New York Journal American Reporter Dorothy Kilgallen Kollmar. She answers Attorney F. Lee Bailey\u27s questions regarding conversations she had with trial Judge Blythin (in chambers) before the trial proceeded. Her statements indicate that Judge Blythin believed the case was open and shut and also his surprise of all the media attention the case brought. Kollmar commented that the case was a good media draw because of the classic mystery surrounding the murder

Pre-Trial Order No. 3

Twenty-two (22) stipulation of issues to be considered by the court in this case; each stipulation is agreed to by counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. Each of the stipulations (questions) presented frame the issue of a violated constitutional right of Sam Sheppard

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

The Writ of Certiorari included eleven questions presented for the Court: 1. Did the pre-trial publicity prejudice the community so that no fair or impartial jury could have been impaneled? 2. Did the trial judge fail to adequately protect the petit jury, once empaneled, from prejudicial extrinsic influences? 3. Did the trial judge fail to adequately interrogate the jurors when they had been exposed to prejudicial extrinsic matter through the news media during trial? 4. Did the trial judge fail to maintain constitutionally adequate decorum in the courtroom during trial? 5. Did the trial judge deny petitioner a public trial by assigning nearly all of the seats in the courtroom to newsmen? 6. Did the trial judge, in the special circumstances of this case, violate petitioner\u27s constitutional right to a fair and impartial judge by failing to recuse himself despite his firm belief, undisclosed to petitioner, that petitioner was guilty as hell and that the case against him was open and shut ? 7. Did the trial judge violate petitioner\u27s federal constitutional right against self-incrimination by receiving evidence that petitioner had refused to take a lie detector test and truth serum? 8. Did the action of the bailiffs who permitted jurors to telephone outsiders during the course of deliberations in violation of Ohio law violate petitioner\u27s federal constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial? 9. Did the court below deprive petitioner of proper review of other claimed federal constitutional violations? 10. Did the court below improperly foreclose without litigation the question of the sufficiency of the evidence? 11. Did the court below erroneously rule that no combination of individual errors, none of which rises to the stature of a federal constitutional violation, can in the aggregate show that the state court trial fell short of the requirements of due process of law