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

Statement of Edward T. Murray

This transcript of statements by Common Pleas Clerk of Court, Edward T. Murray describes a July 1954 casual conversation with the Honorable Judge Blythin while he was in Court Room 1 (not in-session) amidst a few other local attorneys. They talked about the Sheppard murder that had recently occurred, but more importantly when he (Judge Blythin) went to pick up his mail from his box -- which was the main reason he was in Court Room 1 -- he made the remark that Sam Sheppard was as guilty as he was innocent. According to Mr. Murray, he (Judge Blythin) said it in that Welsh brogue of his, and I have never forgotten that remark that he made. Along with this descriptive remark, the Prosecuting and Sheppard Counsel Attorneys present asked Mr. Murray a few detail questions about the date and who the other attorneys were in Court Room 1 when Judge Blythin made his remarks. Mr. Murray was confident about the summer month of July and he could only recall one attorney\u27s name, Mr. Emmett Mayer, Esq

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

Statement of Fred W. Garmone

This is a transcript of statements by Attorney, Fred W. Garmone (Counsel for Sam Sheppard) regarding a short in-chambers conference pre-trial with the Honorable Judge Blythin. Mr. Garmone stated to Judge Blythin, because of the fact that his son (Ed Blythin) at the time of trial was a member of the Homicide Unit, and was actively engaged in the investigation of this death of Marilyn Sheppard, that it was his feeling that he should withdraw or disqualify himself as the Judge to hear the case. Along with Mr. Garmone\u27s statement is a brief question/answer exchange between members of the Prosecution and the Sheppard Counsel present; conversation exchange inquires of pre-trial defense attorney dissension or discord and whether there was a formal affidavit of prejudice against Judge Blythin for his personal connection to the criminal investigation. These inquiries prompted negative responses from Mr. Garmone

Raman spectrum and lattice parameters of MgB2 as a function of pressure

We report Raman spectra and synchrotron x-ray diffraction measurements of lattice parameters of polycrystalline MgB2 under hydrostatic pressure conditions up to 15 GPa. An anomalously broadened Raman band at 620 cm-1 is observed that exhibits a large linear pressure shift of its frequency. The large mode damping and Gruneisen parameter indicate a highly anharmonic nature of the mode, broadly consistent with theoretical predictions for the E2g in-plane boron stretching mode. The results obtained may provide additional constraints on the electron-phonon coupling in the system.Comment: 3 pages, 3 figure