Sheppard v. Maxwell

231 F. Supp. 37, 94 Ohio Law. Abs. 481, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6594
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio
DecidedJuly 15, 1964
DocketCiv. 6640
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 231 F. Supp. 37 (Sheppard v. Maxwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 231 F. Supp. 37, 94 Ohio Law. Abs. 481, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6594 (S.D. Ohio 1964).

Opinion

WEINMAN, Chief Judge.

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:

“Petitioner, Samuel H. Sheppard, was in July, 1954, a resident of Bay Village, Ohio, a suburb on the west side of Cleveland. He was a doctor of osteopathic medicine, specializing in Surgery, and a member of the staff of the Bay View Hospital. He was thirty years of age and was married to Marilyn Reese Sheppard, also thirty. They had been married for nine years and had one son, aged seven. Petitioner and his family lived in a house on the shore of Lake Erie, which house was owned by Marilyn. Petitioner was associated in the practice of medicine with his father and two older brothers, all doctors. He was in comfortable financial circumstances.
“On the night of July 3,1954, petitioner and his wife entertained friends, Don and Nancy Ahearn, in their home. The Ahearns left at approximately 12:30 a. m., July 4, 1954; Marilyn saw them to the door, for petitioner was or appeared to be asleep on a couch in the living room. The evening had been a congenial one, and the Ahearns observed no indications of hostility between petitioner and his wife (who was pregnant) at any time during the evening. In fact, there were overt manifestations of affection between them.
“Shortly before 6:00 A.M. a telephone call was received from petitioner by J. Spencer Houk, mayor of Bay Village and a friend of petitioner. Houk lived two houses distant from the home of petitioner. Houk heard petitioner say:
‘My God, Spence, get over here quick, I think they have killed Marilyn.’
Houk dressed and with his wife, Esther, drove within a short time the few hundred feet to petitioner’s home. Upon arrival the Houks found petitioner on the first floor of the house. His face showed some injury, and he complained of pain in his neck. Esther Houk went up to the bedroom, at the suggestion of petitioner, to check on the condition of Marilyn Sheppard. She found Marilyn lying in a pool of blood on the bed. She was dead. The room was covered with splattered blood. It was determined that she had suffered some thirty-five blows about the head by some blunt instrument, causing death. There was some conflict as to how long she had been dead when discovered by the Houks.
“The story given by petitioner to police and at the trial, was substan *40 tially as follows: As he was sleeping on the couch, he was awakened by a noise coming from the second floor. He thought he heard his name called. He went up the stairs, which was dimly lit by a light in the hall. He recognized only a white ‘form’ standing next to the bed where his wife slept. He grappled with the form, and was struck on the back of the neck which rendered him unconscious. Before losing consciousness petitioner heard loud moans, as if from someone injured. When petitioner recovered consciousness, he examined his wife, found or thought that she was dead, determined that his son (in an adjacent room) had not been harmed, and then, hearing noise of some sort on the first floor, ran down. He saw a form running out the door of the house nearest to Lake Erie, and pursued it to the shore. There he struggled again, and again lost consciousness. When he came to, he went back to the house, re-examined his wife, and called Mayor Houk. Petitioner was unable to establish (1) the number of people in the bedroom at the time of the first encounter or the time of said encounter; (2) the duration of his unconsciousness on either occasion, or (3) the sex or identity of any of the single or several assailants he encountered. He stated that his perceptions had been vague because he was asleep at the outset of the chain of events, and unconscious twice as it progressed.
“In the course of interrogations by police and the County Coroner, petitioner was asked if he had had sexual relations with one Susan Hayes, an ex-employee of the hospital, in March, 1954, in Los Angeles. Petitioner denied this, but later admitted it when confronted with her statement of the affair. The state contended that Miss Hayes was the motive for a premeditated murder, but the jury returned a verdict of murder in the second degree.
“The murder of Marilyn Sheppard captivated the attention of news media in an unprecedented manner. Editorials on the first page of a leading Cleveland newspaper, and news media generally, set up a hue and cry for a solution to the crime. An inquest was demanded and held, and petitioner’s arrest was suggested most strongly by at least one leading newspaper. On July 30, 1954, petitioner was arrested; he was admitted to bail, and indicted a few days later, on August 17, 1954. He has been in custody ever since.
“The trial began on October 18, 1954, and on December 17 of the same year the cause was submitted to a jury in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. On December 21st the verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree was returned, and petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment in the state penitentiary at Columbus, Ohio, where he is now detained in the custody of respondent.
“The details of the trial, which fill over seven thousand pages in the bill of exceptions, are not recited here; it is the understanding of counsel for both sides that it was not the purpose of this history to describe the voluminous evidence.
“On January 3, 1955, the trial court overruled a motion for new trial which had been based on numerous assignments of error occurring during trial and deliberation •X* -X- *
“On May 9, 1955, the trial court denied a supplemental motion for new trial on ground of newly discovered evidence and based upon the affidavit of Paul Leland Eirk, a criminologist, who claimed to have demonstrated that blood tests made in the murder room proved the existence of blood which did not come from the defendant or the deceased. This evidence was not obtained until after the verdict had been returned.
*41 “On July 20, 1955, 1 the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County affirmed the conviction of petitioner; and on July 25, 1955 the same Court affirmed the denial of the second motion for new trial * *

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster
1998 Ohio 275 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1998)
People v. Hogan
647 P.2d 93 (California Supreme Court, 1982)
State v. Williams
285 N.W.2d 248 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1979)
United States v. DeBetham
348 F. Supp. 1377 (S.D. California, 1972)
Bean v. State
465 P.2d 133 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1970)
Walker v. People
458 P.2d 238 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1969)
Dailey v. Warden
239 A.2d 778 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1968)
Corbett v. Patterson
272 F. Supp. 602 (D. Colorado, 1967)
Sheppard v. Maxwell
384 U.S. 333 (Supreme Court, 1966)
Sheppard v. Maxwell
6 Ohio Misc. 231 (Sixth Circuit, 1966)
Pacheco v. State
414 P.2d 100 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1966)
Samuel H. Sheppard v. E. L. Maxwell, Warden
346 F.2d 707 (Sixth Circuit, 1965)
Williams v. State of South Carolina
237 F. Supp. 360 (E.D. South Carolina, 1965)
State v. Winsett
205 A.2d 510 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1964)
Moorer v. State of South Carolina
240 F. Supp. 529 (E.D. South Carolina, 1964)
State v. Van Duyne
204 A.2d 841 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
231 F. Supp. 37, 94 Ohio Law. Abs. 481, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheppard-v-maxwell-ohsd-1964.