This is the State of Ohio’s request that the court exclude exhibits and testimony that relates to the prior acquittal or conviction of Sam Sheppard. The state theorizes that references to this testimony denigrate the nature of the trial because the jury should give the evidence a fresh look and make its own independent examination.
See order ruling on this motion

Cassidy, Marilyn B.

Mason, William D.

English

EngagedScholarship @ Cleveland State University

Cleveland State University
EngagedScholarship@CSU
1995-2002 Court Filings 2000 Trial
1-31-2000
State's Motion to Exclude by Counsel, to
Testimony Including Plaintiff 's Exhibits 212-221
Relating to Prior Acquittal or Conviction of Samuel
H. Sheppard in Criminal Proceedings, and
Proceedings and Ruling in Habeas Corpus
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
Marilyn B. Cassidy
Cuyahoga County Assistant Prosecutor
How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know!
Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/
sheppard_court_filings_2000
This Davis v. State of Ohio, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Case No. CV96-312322 is brought to you for free and open access by the 2000 Trial at
EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1995-2002 Court Filings by an authorized administrator of
EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact library.es@csuohio.edu.
Recommended Citation
Mason, William D. and Cassidy, Marilyn B., "State's Motion to Exclude by Counsel, to Testimony Including Plaintiff 's Exhibits
212-221 Relating to Prior Acquittal or Conviction of Samuel H. Sheppard in Criminal Proceedings, and Proceedings and Ruling in
Habeas Corpus" (2000). 1995-2002 Court Filings. 100.
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/sheppard_court_filings_2000/100
-IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO 
ALAN DA VIS, Special Administrator 
of the Estate of Samuel H. Sheppard, 
Plaintiff, 
V. 
STATE OF OHIO, 
Defendant. 
CASE NO. 312322 
JUDGE SUSTER 
STATE'S MOTION TO 
EXCLUDE REFERENCE BY 
COUNSEL. TO TESTIMONY 
INCLUDING PLAINTIFF'S 
EXHIBITS 212-221 RELATING TO 
PRIOR ACQUITTAL OR 
CONVICTION OF SAMUEL H. 
SHEPPARD IN CRIMINAL 
PROCEEDINGS. AND PROCEEDINGS 
AND RULING IN HABEAS CORPUS. 
Defendant, State of Ohio, by and through counsel, William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County 
Prosecutor, and Assistant Prosecutor, Marilyn B. Cassidy, moves this Honorable Court for an order 
excluding any references by counsel, testimony, and exhibits (and especifically Plaintiff's Exhibits 
212-221) which relate to the acquittal or conviction of Samuel Sheppard in prior criminal 
proceedings. In addition, defendant seeks to exclude reference by counsel, testimony and exhibits 
to the proceedings and rulings resulting from the proceedings in habeas cmpus. The grounds for this 
motion are that a trial de novo constitutes an independent judicial examination of evidence. Such 
- references and testimony denigrate the nature of a trial de novo and must not be permitted, all as is 
set forth in the memorandum attached hereto and expressly incorporated herein by reference. 
Respectfully submitted, 
WILLIAM D. MASON, PROSECUTING 
ATTORNEY, CUYAHOGA COUNTY 
ASSIDY ~O 14647) 
Assistant Prosecuting Atto ney 
The Justice Center, Courts Tower 
1200 Ontario Street 
Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
(216) 443-7785 
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 
2 
-MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 
INTRODUCTION 
Ohio law provides that an action seeking a declaration of wrongful imprisonment is a de novo 
proceeding. A de novo review contemplates an independent examination of issues. Accordingly, 
references by counsel, testimony, or exhibits, related to prior rulings in the underlying criminal 
proceedings, as well as the proceeding in habeas c01p11s are improper and should be excluded. 
LAW AND ARGUMENT 
PROCEEDINGS UNDER R.C.2743.48 REQUIRE A HEARING DE NOVO 
WHICH IS AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION OF EVIDENCE. 
REFERENCES TO PRIOR COURT DECISIONS ARE IMPROPER. 
"Where a person claiming compensation for wrongful imprisonment ... has obtained a 
judgment of acquittal, that judgment is not to be given preclusive effect" in a wrongful imprisonment 
action. Walden v. State ( 1989), 47 Ohio St. 3d 47, syllablus, paragraph 2. In a petition pursuant to 
RC 2743 .48 (A), a claimant must affirmatively prove his innocence by a preponderance of the 
evidence , at a de novo hearing. Chandler v. State, (Cuy. App. 1994), Ohio App. 3d 142, citing 
Walden v. State (1989), 47 Ohio St. 3d 47, 49. 
The de nova trial afforded a worker's compensation claimant or employer who has been 
unsuccessful at the administrative level , is instructive to the instant case. In a trial de nova, reference 
to findings of another tribunal in another proceeding invades the right to a new and independent trial. 
In Jones v. Keller, ( 1996), Ohio App.2d 210, the trial court, in a worker's compensation case, 
revealed to the jury the prior determinations of the Administrator and the Board of Review. The 
3 
-Appeals court determined that the revelation constituted reversable error: 
"The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that the appeal of a claimant . 
. . contemplates a new trial in the Court of Common Pleas. State ex 
rel. Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Brown, 165 Ohio St. 512, 
138 N.E.2d 248. And, as a general rule, any reference at a new trial 
to the result of a former trial or hearing of the same cause is 
considered improper, [citation omitted]. 
The evil sought to be prevented by the application of this rule to civil 
actions generally is manifest, and there appears to be no valid reason 
to remove its application from Worker's Compensation cases. On the 
contrary, the issue in such cases should be resolved objectively upon 
the evidence presented in the trial court through the exercise of 
independent judgment and without the overhanging influence of any 
previous decision. The parties enter the trial court on equal footing 
and Section 4123 .25 of the Revised Code, does not contemplate that 
either party should be relegated to the laboriously fatiguing task of 
trying to overcome two adverse rulings upon the same claim. 
In our opinion, the pointed disclosure of the results of previous 
hearings [before the administrator and the Board of Review in the 
general charge of the trial court was unnecessary, unrelated to the 
ultimate issue in the case, and wholly repugnant to the concept of a 
trial de novo in the Court of Common Pleas." 
Id. at 212 (emphasis added). 
In the case at bar, the parties could argue ad nauseam as to Sheppard's prior conviction, 
acquittal, and the habeas proceedings. There are volumes of language to support any argument to 
be made by either party. Such argument, or presentation of evidence of that nature, countervails the 
importance of a trial de novo. This court, and this jury will make a new examination and a new 
determination of facts and evidence. 
The State of Ohio recognizes that it is naive to believe, in light of the significant level of 
publicity that has recently and historically attended this matter, that the persons who will serve as 
jurors in this case have not already received information about prior judicial proceedings. To that 
4 
--
end, the State proposes that the Court provide a preliminary instruction to the jury including a 
simple statement of the procedural history of the case and an explanation of wrongful imprisonment 
proceedings. The jury will hear about prior proceedings from the Court and from the court alone. 
Thereafter, no comment as to prior proceedings should be permitted. 
CONCLUSION 
A trial de nova is an independent examination and determination of facts and evidence. For 
that reason, introduction and reiteration to the jury of Sheppard's prior conviction, acquittal, and/or 
habeas proceedings and rulings, either by argument or in evidence, is improper and prejudicial to both 
parties. Accordingly, the State of Ohio respectfully requests that its motion to exclude reference by 
counsel to all prior proceedings or rulings be granted. 
Respectfully submitted, 
WILLIAM D. MASON, CUYAHOGA COUNTY 
PROSECUTOR 
MARILYNB. CASSIDY( 0647) 
A. STEVEN DEVER (0024982) 
Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys 
The Justice Center, Courts Tower 
1200 Ontario Street 
Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
(216) 443-7785 
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 
5 
-CERTIFICATE OF SER VICE 
A copy of the foregoing Motion to Exclude Reference by Counsel, Testimony, Including 
Plaintiff's Exhibits, Relating to Prior Acquittal or Conviction of Samuel H. Sheppard in Criminal 
Proceedings and Proceedings and Rulings in Habeas Corpus, was hand delivered this37s fday of 
January, 2000, upon Terry Gilbert and George Carr, 13 70 Ontario Street, Suite 1700, Cleveland, 
Ohio 44113. 
MUB~r&f (!,:~ 
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 
6 


State\u27s Motion to Exclude by Counsel, to Testimony Including Plaintiff\u27s Exhibits 212-221 Relating to Prior Acquittal or Conviction of Samuel H. Sheppard in Criminal Proceedings, and Proceedings and Ruling in Habeas Corpus

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&amp;context=sheppard_court_filings_2000

State\u27s Motion to Exclude by Counsel, to Testimony Including Plaintiff\u27s Exhibits 212-221 Relating to Prior Acquittal or Conviction of Samuel H. Sheppard in Criminal Proceedings, and Proceedings and Ruling in Habeas Corpus

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

EngagedScholarship @ Cleveland State University