Answers to First Request for Production of Documents

Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents with the State of Ohio\u27s answers included. Requests include the transcript of Dr. Sheppard’s 1954 trial, documents and communications relating to Robert Parks and his attempts to elicit information from Richard Eberling about crimes committed by Eberling, and all documents obtained from Richard Eberling

Defendant\u27s Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff\u27s Motion to Exclude Testimony of David Doughton

The State of Ohio responds to the Estate of Sam Sheppard’s motion to exclude the testimony of David Doughton, who was Richard Eberling’s defense attorney. The grounds for this motion are that Richard Eberling expressly waived attorney-client privilege. (David Doughton did not testify at trial

State\u27s Memorandum in Support of Limiting Testimony of Dr. Michael Sobel

This memorandum was submitted in support of the State’s motion to limit the testimony of Michael N. Sobel. The State expected Dr. Sobel to testify about the scar on Richard Eberling’s wrist. The State argued that Dr. Sobel, a forensic odontology expert, was not qualified to make conclusions about weapon/wounds after “exclud[ing] the existence of a bite mark” under Rule 702 of the Ohio Rules of Evidence. According to the State, an expert cannot be permitted to testify as an expert beyond his scope of expertise pursuant to Rule 104 of the Ohio Rules of Evidence. In his deposition, Dr. Sobel testified that a mark on Richard Eberling’s forearm was caused by Marilyn Sheppard’s fingernail. The State argued that this testimony is beyond the scope of his expertise because Dr. Sobel attended dental school, and is not qualified to give opinion testimony of skin marks and wounds

Defendant\u27s Notice to Plaintiff of Continuing Obligation to Supplement Discovery Responses

The State of Ohio gives the Estate of Sam Sheppard notice that it has a continuing obligation to provide supplemental answers, responses, and revisions to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production. The questions to which the State of Ohio wants answers are included, along with the Estate\u27s original answers. Attached is the plaintiff\u27s witness list

Defendant\u27s Motion to Exclude Portions of Testimony of Dr. Mohammed Tahir Pursuant to EVID. R. 901 (A) and 702

In this motion, the State sought to exclude the testimony of Dr. Mohammed Tahir. The State expected Dr. Tahir to provide expert testimony as to the DNA of the blood stain on the wardrobe door, the wood chip from the basement, and a blood stain on the porch. The State argued that Dr. Tahir could not authenticate the exhibit purported to be a wood chip from a basement riser, nor the exhibit claimed to be a stain from the wardrobe door as required by Rule 901 of the Ohio Rules of Evidence, and thus the exhibits should not be admitted into evidence. Rule 901 requires any evidence to be sufficiently identified, and a chain of custody established for it to be admitted. The State argued that the exhibits in question appeared first in the 1966 trial, but that neither the Estate, nor Dr. Tahir, can account for the exhibits whereabouts for the last 34 years. The State also argued that Dr. Tahir’s opinion testimony as to the trousers, door stain, wood chip, and porch stain fail to meet the reasonable scientific certainty required by Rule 702 of the Ohio Rules of Evidence. The State argues because Dr. Tahir did not say at deposition that the blood was Richard Eberling’s, and other test results were inconclusive, he “has no opinion to a reasonable scientific certainty, as to what donors . . . may be included or excluded.

State\u27s Motion to Compel Testimony of Cynthia Cooper

Memorandum in support describes how Cynthia Cooper was evasive to the State\u27s questions. See order denying this motio

Defendant\u27s Motion to Compel Discovery

The defendant\u27s motion asks the court to compel the plaintiff to produce documents pertaining to expert witnesses Dr. Mohammad Tahir and Bart Epstein. The court overruled this motion on 9/7/1999; see docke

Reply of the State of Ohio

The State of Ohio\u27s argument that the claim for wrongful imprisonment should not be attached to the original criminal docket. The State argues that wrongful imprisonment is a civil action subject to the Ohio Civil Rules

State\u27s Motion to Compel Testimony of Cynthia Cooper

Memorandum in support describes how Cynthia Cooper was evasive to the State\u27s questions. See order denying this motio