Sheppard vs. Maxwell 1966

1. Megan Carr Sheppard vs. Maxwell 1966

2. Historical Content With the 6th amendment clearly stating that everyone who is tried has to right to enjoy a fair an speedy trial by an impartial jury. Along with the 1st amendment insures that Congress shall not make any law constricting the freedom of speech. But is it possible to guarantee a fair trial "by an impartial jury of the State and the district" wherein a crime was alleged to have been committed? Could a fair and impartial jury be found in a community exposed to saturation coverage of a crime by the news media? What authority did the courts have to safeguard the 6th Amendment, or limit the 1st Amendment? In Sheppard v. Maxwell, the Warren Court was asked to judge these uniquely modern questions of jurisprudence.

3. Circumstances of the Case With the murder of Marilyn Sheppard on July 4, 1954, shook up the small town of Bay Village, Ohio. Officials accused Dr. Samuel Sheppard, her husband, and questioned him about the murder in a local high school gymnasium in the presence of 700 people. His attorney was ejected from the hearing by the coroner for overwhelming protesting at the proceedings. The county charged his with murder and was charged on July 30th. Soon after the case became a media frenzy. Reports continued to sit in on the case and filed false accusations in stories. The judge urged everyone to ignore any other than the courts testimony. Twice Sheppard's attorney motioned for a change of location, and twice they were denied.

4. Constitutional Issues There was an issue with the 6th Amendment right for an accused person to have a fair and speedy trial. Along with the 1st Amendment right guarantee of the freedom of the press to inform the public about the court proceedings.

5. Arguments For Sheppard It was said the “carnival atmosphere” made it impossible to bring justice. His lawyer also said the judge was in error it deny a change of location. The press had decided independently that Sheppard was guilty, and had published numerous prejudicial stories about the case, which the jury was free to read and could not possibly have ignored. Communication between the judges and their families should have also been forbidden. And with the media blitz it made it hard for Sheppard to receive a fair trial.

6. Arguments Against Sheppard The great majority of the potential jurors swore under oath that they had not been prejudiced by what they had seen or read. Moreover, because the case was almost as well known across the State of Ohio as it was in the city of Cleveland, there was no place within the State to move the trial that would be any more reasonable than Cleveland. It had been a fair trial, the jury was as fair as any Sheppard could get in Ohio, and the conviction had been arrived at by proper procedures.

7. Decision The court overturned Sheppard's decision in an 8-1 vote. The fact is, the Court declared, "that bedlam reigned in the courthouse during the trial, and newsmen took over practically the entire courtroom hounding most of the participants…especially Sheppard." Concluding that the massive pretrial publicity had prejudiced the chances of the accused for a fair trial before an impartial jury, the court ordered that Sheppard have another trial.

8. My Opinion Personally I think that the media should not be allowed to butt in on a court hearing, and also the hearing should have been held in a court not a high school gym. This would have made any thing impossible to charge Sheppard with.