Sheppard v. State of Ohio
| Decision Date | 13 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 352,352 |
| Citation | 1 L.Ed.2d 119,352 U.S. 910,77 S.Ct. 118 |
| Parties | Samuel H. SHEPPARD, Petitioner, v. The STATE OF OHIO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. William J. Corrigan and Paul M. Herbert, for petitioner.
Messrs. Frank T. Cullitan and Saul S. Danaceau, for respondent.
The truth that education demands reiteration bears on the understanding, and not only by the laity, of the meaning of the denial of a petition for certiorari. Despite the Court's frequent exposition, misconception recurrently manifests itself regarding the exercise of our discretion in not bringing a case here for review. Appropriate occasions may therefore be utilized to make explicit what ought to be assumed. This is one.
The divided Supreme Court of Ohio sustained the conviction in a capital case the trial of which was enveloped in circumstances thus summarized in the opinion of that court:
165 Ohio St. 293, 294, 135 N.E.2d 340, 342.
The defendant claimed that a proceeding so infused and enveloped by the 'atmosphere of a 'Roman holiday" precluded a fair trial and could not but deprive him of the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Ohio rejected this claim and the defendant then invoked the discretionary power of this Court to review the correctness of its decision. This Court in turn now refuses the defendant the opportunity to bring the case here for review.
Such denial of his petition in no wise implies that this Court approves the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio. It means and means only that for one reason or another this case did not commend itself to at least four members of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Michael v. Haley
... STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MICHAEL V. HALEY, Defendant-Appellant No. 96-CA-50 97-LW-1860 (2nd) Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, ... jury that could decide the case on the law and the facts in ... evidence. State v. Sheppard (1956), 165 Ohio St ... 293, 294, 59 O.O. 398, 135 N.E.2d 340, certiorari denied, 352 ... U.S. 910, 77 S.Ct. 118, 1 L.Ed.2d 119, ... ...
-
State v. Ravenell
...State v. Sheppard, 100 Ohio App. 345, 128 N.E.2d 471, 478 (1955), aff'd, 165 Ohio St. 293, 135 N.E.2d 340, cert. denied, 352 U.S. 910, 77 S.Ct. 118, 1 L.Ed.2d 119 (1956); Hewitt v. United States, 110 F.2d 1, 6 (8 Cir.), cert. denied, 310 U.S. 641, 60 S.Ct. 1089, 84 L.Ed. 1409 Under his thir......
-
United States v. Williams
... ... evidence was obtained by federal officers for use herein without a search-warrant from a state officer who had safekept it for use in a potential state-prosecution which has never come-about on ... * * *" In re Chilcote Co., D.C. Ohio (1949), 9 F.R.D. 571, 5732, affirmed sub nom. A.A. Chilcote v. United States, C.A. 6th (1949), ... ...
-
Martin v. Beto
...to exercise its discretion in reviewing a lower court\'s decision.\' Memorandum of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Sheppard v. State of Ohio, 352 U.S. 910, 911 77 S.Ct. 118, 1 L.Ed.2d 119; see also, Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U.S. 912, 70 S. Ct. 252, 94 L.Ed. Martin v. Texas, 1965......