◆ SpookStack

50 Sheppard v. Maxwell No. 16077" 4) Absent these precautions he has increased responsi- - bilities in screening the jury from extra-judicial influences, See Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466 (1965). He has the duty to prohibit news media ‘contact with the jury. Mattox v. United States, supra. He has the power to exclude photographers from his courtroom. Canon 35, American Bar Association, CANONS oF JUDICIAL Eruics.* He has the power to warn the news media that if communications prejudicial to either side in the trial and not derived from in-court testimony are widely dissemi- nated, that this may cause a mistrial. See United States v. Accardo, 298 F.2d 138 (C.A. 7, 1962). 5) He has the duty to order the jury not to read or listen to any newspaper, radio or television material bearing on the trial. Coppedge v. United States, are F.2d 504 (C.A. D.C., 1959) ; Schoeneman vy. United States, 317 F.2d 173 (C.A. D.C., 1963) ; Carter v. United States, 252 F.2d 608 (C.A. D.C., 1958). _§) He has the duty if it is called to his attention that highly prejudicial material is widely disseminated in the Open community wherein a jury is living at home, to in- quire as to whether the jury has actually heard or read it; and if so, to determine whether prejudice resulted; and if so, to grant a new trial. Krogmann v. United States, 225 F.2d 220 (C.A. 6, 1955) ; Marson v. United States, 203 F.2d 904 (C.A. 6, 1953), _ 7) He has the duty to be particularly alert to guard the jury against any outside communication during its delib- erations or verdict, and if unauthorized communications are shown, prejudice is presumed, and absent effective re- buttal of such prejudice, he has the duty to grant a new trial. Mattox v. United States, supra; Little y. United 8 “35. Improper Publicizing of Court Proceedings.* “Proceedings in court should be conducted with fitting dignity and decorum. The taking of photographs in the court room, during sessions ef the court or recesses between Sessions, and the broadcasting or tele- wising of court Proceedings are calculated to detract from the essential dignity. of the Proceedings, distract the witness in giving his testimony, grade the court, and create misconceptions with respect thereto in the mind ofthe public and should not be permitted. “Provided: that this restriction shall not apply to the broadcasting or | the serious nature of naturalization.” amended September 15, 1952. No. 16077 Sheppard v. Maxwell \ 51 tes, 73 F.2d 861 (C.A. 10, 1984); Wheaton v. United State 133 F.2d 522 (C.A. 8, 1943). See also Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2945.33; State v. Adams, 141 Ohio St. 423 43). . mA this case it must be recorded that the trial judge made no effective use of any of these measures. BACKGROUND FACTS‘ What follows are the stark and undisputed facts shown by this total record—omitting for the moment the legal arguments pertaining to how and whether each possible issue has been properly raised, and omitting also the five trial events upon which I would affirm issuance of this writ. This was a capital case. . Defendant was charged with first degree murder for the illing of his wife. . . " Defendant and his wife were last seen in their home about midnight, July 3, 1954, after a normal social evening. Defendant first reported the murder at 6 a.m., July 4, ' 1954, asserting that he had been awakened by his wife’s screams and had fought with and been knocked out by “an intruder.” . “The wife had been brutally murdered by 35 blows with an unidentified weapon. oe. Defendant bore visible signs of physical injury and there was medical evidence as to injury to his neck and head. Defendant’s account of the events had a vagueness about important matters which he attributed to the injuries and from which the prosecution later inferred guilt. ; Defendant clearly had the opportunity to murder his wife on the night in question. No other suspect of ap- parent significance appeared in the case, But the normal evidence of murder—identification, con- fession, motive, and murder weapon—were completely lacking at the beginning of the investigation. . As a result of the paucity of obvious proofs, there was no immediate arrest. *This summary is drawn from a) the stipulated statement of facts presented tn the United States District Judge and printed herewith as Appendix A. b) The transcript of the original trial (12 - Volumes and 7,099 pages) which was stipulated as an exhibit before’ the District Judge. c) Five scrapbooks of newspaper clippings which were likewise stipulated to as an exhibit before the District Judge. cee Rm nee mR tn ny