Motion for Injunction and or Protective Order to Enjoin Exhumation of the Body of Marilyn Sheppard

The Estate of Sam Sheppard’s motion to prevent the previously ordered exhumation of Marilyn Sheppard’s body. Sam Sheppard’s Estate argued that: 1) this unilaterally ordered exhumation was an abuse of the civil discovery process, 2) allowing such a unilateral act created an unequal playing field and evidenced an attempt by the State to harness its prosecutorial powers simply to gain an unfair advantage in this civil law suit, and 3) the State of Ohio, like all other parties to a civil law suit, should be required to request an order from the Court allowing such exhumation only after it shows that there is an evidentiary need for such action and reveals any expected findings that may result therefrom. Plaintiff later withdrew this motion. See Court\u27s Order on 9/9/1999 on the docket

Petitioner\u27s Brief in Opposition to Motion to Strike, or, in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss

In response to the State of Ohio\u27s Motion to Strike / Motion to Dismiss, the Sheppard Estate argued that Ohio Revised Code did not require the initial proceeding in the Court of Common Pleas for a declaration of innocence to be a civil action (see ORC 2305.02). Only the second proceeding in the Court of Claims to obtain monetary damages from the State must be filed as a civil action (see ORC 2743.48). Note: ORC 2305.02 was later amended to specify that a civil action is required

Plaintiff\u27s Motion for Protective Order

The Estate of Sam Sheppard requests a protective order to prevent the State of Ohio from deposing any more of the Estate’s non-expert witnesses, arguing that there is only a short time before trial and the State has had plenty of time to conduct these depositions. Further, the Estate still needs to depose 20 of the State\u27s expert witnesses with only 40 days remaining until trial

Plaintiff\u27s Brief in Response to Defendant\u27s Motion to Dismiss

Accordingly, the various arguments advanced by the Defendant such as !aches, statute of limitations, abatement at death, and standing are completely inappropriate as this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such defenses. As stated above, the proceeding before this Court is not one for relief, but for a special and narrow determination based upon specifically designated factual, not procedural, findings pursuant to Ohio Revised Code §2743.48(A)(1) to (4). The action against the State specified in Ohio Revised Code §2973.48 does not accrue until the court of common pleas issues a determination that an individual has been wrongfully imprisoned. Then, according to section (H) the claimant shall commence a civil action no later than two years after the date of entry of the determination ... An action pursuant to ORC 2743.48 does not abate at death, but survives the death of the claimant. The motion to dismiss was denied on 01/13/97. See Court Docket

Petition for Declaration of Innocence as a Wrongfully Imprisoned Individual

The Estate of Samuel Sheppard’s request that Sam Sheppard be declared a wrongfully imprisoned individual. The document lays out the Plaintiff’s theory of the case and asserts that there is clear and convincing proof that Sam Sheppard was innocent. The request states that Richard Eberling was the actual murderer and lays out the evidence against him. Additionally, it claims there were many flaws in the original investigation

Plaintiff\u27s Motion to Strike or Alternatively to Deny Defendant\u27s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Now comes the Plaintiff, through counsel, and hereby moves this Court, pursuant to Rule 12(F) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, to strike Defendant\u27s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or in the alternative, to deny said Motion for the reason that the arguments contained in said Motion have been previously briefed and presented to this Court and rejected, are clearly redundant and have no merit. In the August, 1996 Motion to Dismiss (overruled on January 13, 1997), the State raised !aches, statute of limitations, standing, abatement, and only live individuals can sue. In the May, 1997, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the State raised laches, statute of limitations, standing, abatement, and only live individuals can sue. No new law, facts or grounds were stated, other than the concept of jurisdiction was thrown in. The State\u27s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was denied, the Sheppard Estate\u27s Motion to Strike was denied as moot. 6/3/1997. See docket

Petition for Declaration of Innocence as a Wrongfully Imprisoned Individual (with supporting materials)

Request to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to make the determination that Samuel Sheppard is a wrongfully incarcerated individual (petition made under the case number in the criminal division). The petition asserts that much new evidence was gathered and modern scientific techniques were applied to the evidence. The result of this investigation leads to the conclusion that Dr. Sheppard is innocent of the murder of his wife, Marilyn, and that an individual named Richard Eberling, currently incarcerated for the murder of another woman, is the likely murderer

Petitioner\u27s Brief in Opposition to Motion to Strike, or, in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss

In response to the State of Ohio\u27s Motion to Strike / Motion to Dismiss, the Sheppard Estate argued that Ohio Revised Code did not require the initial proceeding in the Court of Common Pleas for a declaration of innocence to be a civil action (see ORC 2305.02). Only the second proceeding in the Court of Claims to obtain monetary damages from the State must be filed as a civil action (see ORC 2743.48). Note: ORC 2305.02 was later amended to specify that a civil action is required

Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

The Estate of Sam Sheppard\u27s request to amend the original complaint

Plaintiff\u27s Brief in Response to Defendant\u27s Motion to Reassign to Docket of Judge Kathleen Sutula

The Estate of Sam Sheppard’s response to the State of Ohio’s motion to assign the docket to Judge Kathleen Sutula. The Plaintiff argues that since Judge Suster has presided over the case for over a year, the case should be assigned to him to ensure the proper administration of justice. The State\u27s motion was denied on 2/5/1997; see docke