Sheppard v. Maxwell
Decision Date | 15 July 1964 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 6640. |
Citation | 231 F. Supp. 37 |
Parties | Samuel H. SHEPPARD, Petitioner, v. E. L. MAXWELL, Warden, Ohio Penitentiary, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
F. Lee Bailey, Boston, Mass., Benjamin L. Clark, Columbus, Ohio, Russell A. Sherman, Elyria, Ohio, for petitioner.
William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen. of Ohio, Columbus, Ohio, David L. Kessler and John Cianflona, Asst. Attys. Gen., Columbus, Ohio, for respondent.
This matter is before the Court upon a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed against the Warden of The Ohio State Penitentiary in Columbus, Ohio, where petitioner is incarcerated pursuant to a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio upon a conviction of murder in the second degree.
When the Court took this matter under advisement, a pre-trial conference was held to discuss the procedures to be followed in presenting the issues in the case. The purpose of that conference, and similar ones which followed, was to expedite the case in its preparation and presentation for final determination. As a result of the first conference, it was agreed that all preliminary proceedings would be by pre-trial orders; those orders to be by agreement of counsel and/or by order of the Court.
One of the pre-trial orders agreed upon and filed by counsel for the parties sets forth the history of the case. That history, with the references to exhibits attached to the pre-trial order omitted, is as follows:
Subsequent to the filing of the above pre-trial order, counsel for the parties filed a pre-trial order which constituted a stipulation of the issues which were before the Court. Those agreed upon issues are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Corbett v. Patterson
...headquarters. See the various opinions on the Sheppard case in 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507 (1966); 346 F.2d 707 (6th Cir. 1965); 231 F.Supp. 37 (S.D.Ohio 1964); State v. Sheppard, 165 Ohio St. 293, 135 N.E. 2d 340 (1956); and 100 Ohio App. 345, 128 N.E.2d 471 The editorial campaign against ......
-
Bean v. State
...to inflame the community against the husband who was known but not yet even charged with the murder of his wife. (See Sheppard v. Maxwell, 231 F.Supp. 37 (S.D.ohio 1964); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 346 F.2d 707, Exhibits, pp. 758--767 (6th Cir. 1965).) Nothing like that took place here. In Sheppa......
-
Pacheco v. State
...the newspaper articles appeared factual and objective and not expressly intended to arouse community emotions. Cf. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 231 F.Supp. 37, 44--57 (D.C.Ohio 1964), rev'd., 346 F.2d 707 (6th Cir.1964), cert. granted, 382 U.S. 916, 86 S.Ct. 289, 15 L.Ed.2d 231 (1965). Our present ......
-
State v. Williams
...from newspapers which had covered the case from the time of the crime through the trial to the time of conviction. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 231 F.Supp. 37, 44, 72 (S.D.Ohio 1964), Rev'd, 346 F.2d 707 (6th Cir. 1965), Rev'd, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966), Noted in id. at 342......