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

Brief for Petitioner

Brief outlining the support and circumstances of why Sam Sheppard was not allowed a fair trial for the murder of his wife, Marylin. Includes a clear Statement of the Case, Statement of Facts, Statement of Questions Involved, Legal History of the Case, and the seven legal arguments presented by Sheppard\u27s Counsel. Presented Arguments: 1. Arraignment without counsel 2. Denial of a peremptory challenge 3. Illicit communications to the jurors 4. Seizure of petitioner\u27s house and new evidence 5. Lie-Detector evidence 6. Illegally constituted Ohio Supreme Court 7. Inadequate review by Ohio Supreme Cour

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

Brief for Petitioner

Brief outlining the support and circumstances of why Sam Sheppard was not allowed a fair trial for the murder of his wife, Marylin. Includes a clear Statement of the Case, Statement of Facts, Statement of Questions Involved, Legal History of the Case, and the seven legal arguments presented by Sheppard\u27s Counsel. Presented Arguments: 1. Arraignment without counsel 2. Denial of a peremptory challenge 3. Illicit communications to the jurors 4. Seizure of petitioner\u27s house and new evidence 5. Lie-Detector evidence 6. Illegally constituted Ohio Supreme Court 7. Inadequate review by Ohio Supreme Cour

Affidavit of Poverty and Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis in Habeas Corpus Proceedings

While incarcerated in the Ohio State Penitentiary serving a sentence of life imprisonment, Sam Sheppard submitted this affidavit and motion claiming his liberty was restrained in violation of the United States Constitution. Sheppard, insolvent, made this affidavit for the purpose of availing himself of the rights and privileges afforded indigents under Title 28 U.S. C., § 1915

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

Sheppard exhausted his available state remedies as required by Title 28, USC, Section 2254. On May 31, 1956, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed his conviction, 165 0.S. 293; a petition for rehearing was denied on July 5, 1956. The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari, 352 U.S. 910; a petition for rehearing was denied, 352 U.S. 955 . A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Ohio, 170 0.S. 551 (1958). Sheppard asserted there were no further avenues of revue open to him in the courts of Ohio, and any proceeding therein would be unavailing, for the Ohio courts generally are so biased and prejudiced against him that he will be denied relief in any event. The petition states that Ohio violated Sheppard\u27s federal constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial, and more specifically his federal constitutional right to counsel. Sheppard\u27s repeated motions for change of venue to a district or locale not saturated by the massive prejudicial and inflammatory publicity stimulated were likewise denied. Claims of the petition focused on the personal influences of the local court judge, reelection publicity, and the local media\u27s inflammatory published opinions amongst numerous incidents of abuse of power by government officials. As a result of the facts and circumstances set forth, petitioner was denied a fair and impartial trial, and was further denied the equal protection of the laws of the state of Ohio; petitioner\u27s trial was not a trial at all, but a sham proceeding conducted and controlled by persons of official responsibility whose primary purpose was to satisfy the populace which had been convinced by irresponsible news media that petitioner was guilty despite the marked lack of evidence tending to prove such guilt; petitioner was subjected to trial by newspaper, and was subjected specifically to the perverted power of the Cleveland Press, which sought to and did cause petitioner to be convicted in violation of his constitutional rights

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

Sheppard exhausted his available state remedies as required by Title 28, USC, Section 2254. On May 31, 1956, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed his conviction, 165 0.S. 293; a petition for rehearing was denied on July 5, 1956. The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari, 352 U.S. 910; a petition for rehearing was denied, 352 U.S. 955 . A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Ohio, 170 0.S. 551 (1958). Sheppard asserted there were no further avenues of revue open to him in the courts of Ohio, and any proceeding therein would be unavailing, for the Ohio courts generally are so biased and prejudiced against him that he will be denied relief in any event. The petition states that Ohio violated Sheppard\u27s federal constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial, and more specifically his federal constitutional right to counsel. Sheppard\u27s repeated motions for change of venue to a district or locale not saturated by the massive prejudicial and inflammatory publicity stimulated were likewise denied. Claims of the petition focused on the personal influences of the local court judge, reelection publicity, and the local media\u27s inflammatory published opinions amongst numerous incidents of abuse of power by government officials. As a result of the facts and circumstances set forth, petitioner was denied a fair and impartial trial, and was further denied the equal protection of the laws of the state of Ohio; petitioner\u27s trial was not a trial at all, but a sham proceeding conducted and controlled by persons of official responsibility whose primary purpose was to satisfy the populace which had been convinced by irresponsible news media that petitioner was guilty despite the marked lack of evidence tending to prove such guilt; petitioner was subjected to trial by newspaper, and was subjected specifically to the perverted power of the Cleveland Press, which sought to and did cause petitioner to be convicted in violation of his constitutional rights

Annular pancreas: endoscopic and pancreatographic findings from a tertiary referral ERCP center

Background and Aims Annular pancreas is a congenital anomaly whereby pancreatic tissue encircles the duodenum. Current knowledge of endoscopic findings of annular pancreas is limited to small case series. The aim of this study was to describe the endoscopic and pancreatographic findings of patients with annular pancreas at a large tertiary care ERCP center. Methods This is a retrospective observational study. Our Institutional Review Board–approved, prospectively collected ERCP database was queried for cases of annular pancreas. The electronic medical records were searched for patient and procedure-related data. Results From January 1, 1994, to December 31, 2016, 46 patients with annular pancreas underwent ERCP at our institution. Index ERCP was technically successful in 42 patients (91.3%), and technical success was achieved in all 46 patients (100%) after 2 attempts, when required. A duodenal narrowing or ring was found in most patients (n = 39, 84.8%), yet only 2 (4.3%) had retained gastric contents. Pancreas divisum was found in 21 patients (45.7%), 18 of which were complete divisum. Pancreatobiliary neoplasia was the indication for ERCP in 7 patients (15.2%). Pancreatographic findings consistent with chronic pancreatitis were noted in 15 patients (32.6%) at the index ERCP. Conclusion This is the largest series describing the endoscopic and pancreatographic findings of patients with annular pancreas. We found that 45.7% of patients had concurrent pancreas divisum. Endoscopic therapy was successful in most patients at our institution after 1 ERCP, and in all patients after a second ERCP. Nearly one-third of patients had findings consistent with chronic pancreatitis at the time of index ERCP. It is unclear whether this may be a feature of the natural history of annular pancreas

Grief and Avoidant Death Attitudes Combine to Predict the Fading Affect Bias

The fading affect bias (FAB) occurs when unpleasant affect fades faster than pleasant affect. To detect mechanisms that influence the FAB in the context of death, we measured neuroticism, depression, anxiety, negative religious coping, death attitudes, and complicated grief as potential predictors of FAB for unpleasant/death and pleasant events at 2 points in time. The FAB was robust across older and newer events, which supported the mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Unexpectedly, complicated grief positively predicted FAB, and death avoidant attitudes moderated this relation, such that the Initial Event Affect by Grief interaction was only significant at the highest 3 quintiles of death avoidant attitudes. These results were likely due to moderate grief ratings, which were, along with avoidant death attitudes, related to healthy outcomes in past research. These results implicate complicated grief and death avoidant attitudes as resiliency mechanisms that are mobilized during bereavement to minimize its unpleasant effects