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

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

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

Evaporation of ices near massive stars: models based on laboratory TPD data

Hot cores and their precursors contain an integrated record of the physics of the collapse process in the chemistry of the ices deposited during that collapse. In this paper, we present results from a new model of the chemistry near high mass stars in which the desorption of each species in the ice mixture is described as indicated by new experimental results obtained under conditions similar to those hot cores. Our models show that provided there is a monotonic increase in the temperature of the gas and dust surrounding the protostar, the changes in the chemical evolution of each species due to differential desorption are important. The species H$_2$S, SO, SO$_2$, OCS, H$_2$CS, CS, NS, CH$_3$OH, HCOOCH$_3$, CH$_2$CO, C$_2$H$_5$OH show a strong time dependence that may be a useful signature of time evolution in the warm-up phase as the star moves on to the Main Sequence. This preliminary study demonstrates the consequences of incorporating reliable TPD data into chemical models.Comment: 5 pages, accepted by MNRA

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

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

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)

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)

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 Expert Testimony Pertaining to the Value of DNA Evidence

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 Expert Testimony Pertaining to Trial Publicity

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