Motion of Defendant State of Ohio for Limiting Instruction

The State of Ohio moves for a limiting instruction on the admitted evidence that Richard Eberling had previously been convicted of murder pursuant rule 105 of the Ohio rules of evidence. The State of Ohio claims to have been prejudiced by the admittance of this evidence and moves for an instruction to the jury stating that the fact of Richard Eberling’s conviction for murder of another woman in no way acts as evidence that he killed Marilyn Sheppard. The suggested limiting instructions and copies of relevant case law are included

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 of Defendant State of Ohio for Limiting Instruction

The State of Ohio moves for a limiting instruction on the admitted evidence that Richard Eberling had previously been convicted of murder pursuant rule 105 of the Ohio rules of evidence. The State of Ohio claims to have been prejudiced by the admittance of this evidence and moves for an instruction to the jury stating that the fact of Richard Eberling’s conviction for murder of another woman in no way acts as evidence that he killed Marilyn Sheppard. The suggested limiting instructions and copies of relevant case law are included

Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Admissibility of Statements of Samuel H. and Memorandum Regarding Admissibility of Character Evidence of Samuel H. Sheppard

Motion filed by the State to supplement the earlier motion to admit the unsworn statements of Dr. Samuel Sheppard. In this motion, the State made the following arguments in support of admitting Dr. Sheppard’s statements: (1) the statements are not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but offered to prove that the statements were made and were inconsistent; (2) Dr. Sheppard’s innocence is less likely to be true by the very fact that his accounts altered over time. (3) Dr. Sheppard was made a hearsay declarant when other statements of his were admitted, thus opening his credibility for attack by the State, as would the credibility of any witness being cross examined pursuant to rule 806 of the Ohio rules of evidence; (4) the statements made by Sam H. Sheppard are “adoptive” party admissions, because of the implied belief in the truth of the statements made by the estate and representative of the Plaintiff, Sam R. Sheppard pursuant to rule 801(D)(2)(b). Finally, the State argued that the credibility of Sam H. Sheppard is now open for attack, as to the subject of him having a good marriage by Ohio case law and Rule 404(B)

Defendant State of Ohio\u27s Memorandum Regarding Voir Dire of Emanuel Tanay

The State of Ohio submits relevant law to be considered during the voir dire of a proposed expert’s testimony, by reminding the court that expert testimony cannot be based on hearsay nor violate the rule against propensity character evidence. The State of Ohio takes issue with the logic of Emanuel Tanay’s conclusion that Richard Eberling committed the murder and not Dr. Samuel Sheppard, which is based on the psychological makeup of each individual. Such evidence, it is argued, must not be admitted because it is based on hearsay from various books and it seeks to provide what is inadmissible character evidence

Memorandum Regarding Admissibility of Statements of Samuel H. Sheppard Memo Regarding Admissibility of Statements of Sam Sheppard

Motion filed by the State responded to the court’s request to advise it on the admissibility of out-of-court statements made by Dr. Samuel Sheppard to various other parties. The statements in question were made by Dr. Sheppard at the coroner’s inquest, statements made to police, various writings, and taped interviews explaining events before, during, and following the death of Marilyn Sheppard, because the statements were inconsistent. The State advises the court that it should not consider these statements hearsay, as the statements are not being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but the fact that the statements were made at all. The State contends that while the statements were made out of court, and might initially be barred as hearsay pursuant to Rule 802 of the Ohio Rules of Evidence, Rule 801(c) provides that “an out of court statement is not hearsay when it is not offered to prove the matter asserted.” Furthermore, the State argues that the statements are relevant because they are of consequence to the determination of the action, in compliance with Rule 401. The State argues that the statements prove themselves to be fabricated, because of their growing development with the facts as they were discovered by investigators

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

Defendant\u27s Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff\u27s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Items Destroyed or Lost by Defendant and Affidavit of Patricia A. Costello

Defendant asserted that plaintiff\u27s claim that the State lost or destroyed evidence from the 1954 and 1966 Sheppard trials was spurious. Many items were returned to the Sheppard family (see attached Affidavit of Patricia A. Costello). Plaintiff was to blame for any lost evidence because this action was filed decades after the 1966 trial. Additionally, none of the case law cited by plaintiff justifies plaintiff\u27s request that this trial be delayed in order to conduct evidentiary hearings and to then sanction the opponent of the party who was really responsible for the loss or destruction of evidence

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

Defendant\u27s Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff\u27s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Items Destroyed or Lost by Defendant and Affidavit of Patricia A. Costello

Defendant asserted that plaintiff\u27s claim that the State lost or destroyed evidence from the 1954 and 1966 Sheppard trials was spurious. Many items were returned to the Sheppard family (see attached Affidavit of Patricia A. Costello). Plaintiff was to blame for any lost evidence because this action was filed decades after the 1966 trial. Additionally, none of the case law cited by plaintiff justifies plaintiff\u27s request that this trial be delayed in order to conduct evidentiary hearings and to then sanction the opponent of the party who was really responsible for the loss or destruction of evidence