Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff\u27s Proposed Exhibits (#5, 7, 100)

The State of Ohio seeks to exclude from trial Plaintiff\u27s Exhibits 5, 7 and 100, which include documents relating to Richard Eberling and a police report concerning the discovery of a flashlight. The State argues that these exhibits are not relevant to the determination Sam Sheppard\u27s innocence and should therefore be excluded under Evidence Rule 402. The State also contends that there is no indication that the flashlight was in any way involved in the murder. See Memorandum Opinion - motion in limine denied

Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff\u27s Proposed Exhibits (#5, 7, 100)

The State of Ohio seeks to exclude from trial Plaintiff\u27s Exhibits 5, 7 and 100, which include documents relating to Richard Eberling and a police report concerning the discovery of a flashlight. The State argues that these exhibits are not relevant to the determination Sam Sheppard\u27s innocence and should therefore be excluded under Evidence Rule 402. The State also contends that there is no indication that the flashlight was in any way involved in the murder. See Memorandum Opinion - motion in limine denied

Defendant\u27s Motion to Admit Other Acts Evidence and Character Evidence Relative to Samuel H. Sheppard, Pursuant to EVID. R. 404

Motion filed by the State to request that Dr. Samuel Sheppard’s “other acts” be admitted into evidence pursuant to Ohio rules of evidence 404(B). The State contends that this other acts evidence, disallowed by the court’s evidentiary ruling on March 5, 2000, should be admitted as rebuttal testimony to the Sheppard Estate\u27s multiple witnesses who offered testimony stating that Dr. Sheppard was a “happily married, respectable, decent, family man.” The State also argued that evidence of extramarital affairs should be admitted to prove its theory that Marilyn Sheppard’s murder was a domestic homicide resulting from “years of betrayal, adultery, humiliation and neglect.” The State contends that the Ohio rule of evidence 404(B) permits “evidence of other wrongs and acts. . . to prove motive.

Defendant\u27s Motion in Limine re Inadmissible Hearsay and Regarding Certain Irrelevant Testimony

The State of Ohio moves to exclude evidence that it views as clearly irrelevant or inadmissible hearsay. In the first section, the State urges the court to exclude Sam Sheppard’s testimony about his family life subsequent to his imprisonment because the testimony is irrelevant. In the second section of the motion the State asks the court to exclude testimony of witnesses Pauline and Mary Eskins, Judith Zackowski, Dr. David Bing, Dr. Laber, Alan Gore, Cynthia Cooper, Carmen Marino and John Wilson. The third section argues that Sam’s “Mockery of Justice” book, the AMSEC Investigative report, certain broadcast and written presentations, and the wood chip exhibits should all be excluded in whole. In the final section, the state explains how the Cooper Affidavits and the Vern Lund Materials could result in inadmissible hearsay. See order ruling on this motion

State\u27s Motion to Exclude Rebuttal Testimony of Laber

The State contends that admitting Plaintiff’s expert testimony would violate of the rules of evidence and the court’s case management order, Local Rule 21.1. Terry Laber performed experiments with blood spatter and stains on a wrist watch and was to testify that the stains on Dr. Sheppard’s watch were not consistent with impact spatter. The State argued that this testimony would be a violation of 702(c) of the Rules of Evidence because it was going to be used to bolster the Plaintiff’s case in chief and was not rebuttal testimony. The State argued that it did not introduce any new evidence that would permit Laber’s testimony about the blood spatter on the watch. The State also argued that Laber’s testimony should not be considered as expert testimony because it was novel; had no controls; had no peer review, and had no documentation. The State’s second reason for excluding the testimony was that it violated Local Rule 21.1. The court’s case management order indicated that all supplemental reports were due by January 31, 2000, however Plaintiff’s expert witness report was dated February 14, 2000 and was served upon defendant on February 17. The state argues that Local Rule 21.1\u27s “all supplemental reports” includes expert reports used for rebuttal

Defendant\u27s Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony Regarding Other Murders or Deaths

The State of Ohio’s motion to exclude any reference or argument by counsel, any questioning by counsel, and testimony by any witness suggesting that Richard Eberling killed persons other than Marilyn Sheppard. The State argues that this evidence is the Estate\u27s attempt to divert attention from its proper focus--whether Sam Sheppard is innocent of the murder of Marilyn Sheppard--through the introduction of evidence regarding deaths occurring in completely dissimilar manners, with the conjecture that Richard Eberling is a serial killer

Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff\u27s Proposed Exhibits (#3, 4, 8...)

The State of Ohio seeks to exclude Plaintiff\u27s Exhibits 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 88, and 89. These exhibits include numerous documents relating to the deaths of George E. Eberling, Barbara Kinzel, Myrtle Fray, Sara Belle Farrow, and Ruth McNeil. The State argues that this evidence is not relevant and unfairly condemns Richard Eberling. It also argues that the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of... confusion of the issues, or of misleading the jury

Defendant\u27s Motion for Preliminary Instruction to the Jury

This document is the State of Ohio’s request to provide specific jury instructions before trial. The jury would hear these instructions at the beginning of the trial so that it may better understand the case. The intended instruction explains the procedural position of the case and reveals that the ultimate issue for the jury to decide is whether Sam Sheppard is innocent of the murder of Marilyn Sheppard

Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff\u27s Proposed Exhibits (#28, 29, 30...)

The State of Ohio seeks to exclude from trial Plaintiff\u27s Exhibits 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 39, which include items relating to Vern Lund. The State argues that these exhibits are not relevant to the determination of Sam Sheppard\u27s innocence and should therefore be excluded under Evidence Rule 402. See order ruling on this motio

Defendant\u27s Motion in Limine re Inadmissible Hearsay and Regarding Certain Irrelevant Testimony

The State of Ohio moves to exclude evidence that it views as clearly irrelevant or inadmissible hearsay. In the first section, the State urges the court to exclude Sam Sheppard’s testimony about his family life subsequent to his imprisonment because the testimony is irrelevant. In the second section of the motion the State asks the court to exclude testimony of witnesses Pauline and Mary Eskins, Judith Zackowski, Dr. David Bing, Dr. Laber, Alan Gore, Cynthia Cooper, Carmen Marino and John Wilson. The third section argues that Sam’s “Mockery of Justice” book, the AMSEC Investigative report, certain broadcast and written presentations, and the wood chip exhibits should all be excluded in whole. In the final section, the state explains how the Cooper Affidavits and the Vern Lund Materials could result in inadmissible hearsay. See order ruling on this motion