46 research outputs found

    Notice of Defendant\u27s Intention to Call Unavailable Witnesses through Use of Prior Recorded Testimony

    Get PDF
    The Defendant\u27s notice that it will use witness testimony from witnesses who are unavailable for trial, but have given prior recorded testimony. The list is particularly long in this case because many witnesses have passed away since the prior two trials

    State\u27s Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff\u27s Motion to Exclude Papers of Dr. Sheppard + State\u27s Exhibit C

    Get PDF
    Brief filed by the State seeking to have the court deny the Estate’s request to exclude Dr. Sheppard’s diary as evidence. The Estate requested that the diary be excluded as privileged and/or work product. The State argued that: there was no evidence Sheppard’s diary was created at the request of his attorney, the diary has been in the public realm for years, and F. Lee Bailey (Sheppard’s 1966 attorney) testified that he could recall no subject relative to the murder to which attorney-client privilege applied

    State\u27s Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff\u27s Motion to Exclude Papers of Dr. Sheppard + State\u27s Exhibit C

    Get PDF
    Brief filed by the State seeking to have the court deny the Estate’s request to exclude Dr. Sheppard’s diary as evidence. The Estate requested that the diary be excluded as privileged and/or work product. The State argued that: there was no evidence Sheppard’s diary was created at the request of his attorney, the diary has been in the public realm for years, and F. Lee Bailey (Sheppard’s 1966 attorney) testified that he could recall no subject relative to the murder to which attorney-client privilege applied

    Motion in Limine to Exclude Specific Items of Physical Evidence

    Get PDF
    The State of Ohio moves to exclude the bloodstained wood chip and the bloodstain on the murder room wardrobe door, arguing that these pieces of physical evidence cannot be authenticated and should not be admitted during trial. Specifically, it argues that Cynthia Cooper will not be appearing at trial, leaving the trier of fact deprived of information concerning her involvement in the uncovering of the evidence. See order denying this motio

    Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff\u27s Proposed Exhibits (#47, 48, 52, 97)

    Get PDF
    The State of Ohio seeks to exclude Plaintiff\u27s Exhibits 47,48, 52, and 97 from trial, which are letters written by Richard Eberling. The State argues that the letters are not properly authenticated under Ohio Evid.R. 901 and are inadmissible hearsay. See order ruling on this motio

    Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff\u27s Proposed Exhibits (#47, 48, 52, 97)

    Get PDF
    The State of Ohio seeks to exclude Plaintiff\u27s Exhibits 47,48, 52, and 97 from trial, which are letters written by Richard Eberling. The State argues that the letters are not properly authenticated under Ohio Evid.R. 901 and are inadmissible hearsay. See order ruling on this motio

    State\u27s Motion to Exclude Testimony of John Wilson

    Get PDF
    The State filed this motion to exclude the testimony of psychologist Dr. John Wilson as Plaintiff’s expert rebuttal witness because the State argues that Dr. Wilson’s testimony does not properly rebut evidence presented by the State. The State avers that “a rebuttal witness can only provide testimony in response to new matters introduced by a party opponent” and not to bolster a party’s case in chief. The State claims that Dr. Wilson’s testimony, at least in part, serves the aforementioned impermissible purpose e.g. bolstering the notion that Dr. Sheppard’s inability to recall events from the day his wife was murdered. In this motion the State asserts that Dr. Wilson’s testimony is based almost entirely on facts or data not perceived by him and not admitted in evidence, and would result in prejudice far outweighing any probative value, both of which are prohibited by rules of evidence 703, and 403 respectively. A psychological autopsy performed on Dr. Samuel Sheppard was one of eighteen sources of information of which Dr. Wilson based his testimony. Of the eighteen groups of information which Dr. Wilson relied upon in his testimony, the State asserts that thirteen of the groups of information were not admitted into evidence. Finally the State expressed heavy reservations that a psychological autopsy is relevant or reliable in proving the Dr. Sheppard had post-traumatic stress disorder

    Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony Pertaining to the Value of DNA Evidence

    Get PDF
    The State of Ohio’s motion to exclude the testimony of expert Neil Miller. As an expert witness, Miller’s testimony would pertain to the value of DNA evidence. Miller has written a report entitled Convicted By Juries, Exonerated By Science. The State of Ohio argues that Miller’s expertise is limited to rape cases therefore his testimony is not relevant to this homicide case. The State of Ohio also argues that the evidence Miller can provide cannot be either scientific or technical. In addition, the State argues that the rules of evidence require that that the testimony be excluded because there is no fact at issue in the case for which Miller’s testimony will prove insightful for the jury

    Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff\u27s Proposed Exhibits (#31, 32, 38...)

    Get PDF
    The State of Ohio seeks to exclude the Estate\u27s proposed exhibits 31, 32, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 77, 78, 79, 80, 91, 92, 93, 112, and 113. The State asserts that these exhibits are not admissible as hearsay under Ohio Evid. R. 802. See order ruling on this motio

    Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony Pertaining to Trial Publicity

    Get PDF
    The State of Ohio moves to exclude from trial the expert testimony of Keith Sander, which concerns the publicity surrounding the 1954 trial. Sanders is the compiler of a report entitled The Cleveland Press Coverage of the Sheppard Murder Case in Relation to Sensational News Treatment. The State argues that this report is neither scientific nor technical and that the evidence will not help the trier of fact determine any of the facts at issue
    corecore