Reader Ad Slot
Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Dr Samuel Sheppard — Part 2
Page 30
30 / 30
4
~.. “are going to
aie Wea Phas ‘ MN
yee 7a 4
Sheppard v. Maxwell
the rail—there was posted on them a sign designating
to whom they belonged, and that the signs designated
these various radio stations and these various news-
papers that I have mentioned, and that was done in
advance of the trial. Is that correct?
“THE COURT: Yes, that’s correct, The Court will,
state now for the record, also, that these arrangements
that counsel has now referred to have all been had
after a great deal of consideration, applications for
space, but finally with the approval of the Court.
There is no question about that at all. The arrange-
ments as to the table for members of the local press
in Particular, and the national news services, were
made sometime in the middle—perhaps Wednesday of
last week, as counsel has indicated.
“Also, the next row, for the simple reason that those
were set aside for local parties and the national news
services, the second row in particular for the radio
station representatives, and they selected the actual
spaces within the—I mean the actual space for each
individual within the total space, and they placed their
tags on them so that each person will know where he
sits,
“The others back of that were designated by the
Court in the order of applications received for them.
“The back seat was kept for the members of the
Sheppard family and the members of the late Mrs,
Sheppard’s family, and any other members of the
public who will be admitted.
“The Court did that for the simple reason that the
space is so very limited in the courtroom, and there ~
is a request for space for far more people than can be «
accommodated at all.
“The Court will not during the progress of this
~._ trial permit any standees in the courtroom, and we
conduct this trial with that kind of
“decorum which befits a trial of any criminal case.
“As to the public address system within the court-
room, that was installed at the request of the Court
because it is difficult to hear, particularly witnesses,
in the back of the courtroom, and it is very difficult
at times for the jurors to hear Witnesses. We are in
No. 16077 No. 16077
Sheppard v. Maxwell 59
tion where there is industry, light industry, it
a aan good deal of traffic, truck and other, and
it is a place very difficult in which to hear at times.
“Let it be noted that this loud speaker—that these
loud speakers are for the sole accommodation of the
jurors, the members of the press and public in the rear
of the courtroom, and especially for counsel at the
trial table.
“There is no communication from inside the court-
room to any outside source, and all of these arrange-
ments have been approved by the Court.
“Does that cover the-——
“MR. CORRIGAN: Yes. If the Court please, I
now move that the table be taken from inside the bar
and removed from this courtroom; that the signs that
have been placed on the three rows of. spectators
benches be removed, and, as I understand, your Honor
has issued cards, admission by cards.
“THE COURT: That’s right.
“MR. CORRIGAN: And that the Court rescind the
order whereby the only admission to this courtroom is
by card issued by him. I so move.
“THE COURT: Overruled.
“MR. CORRIGAN: Exception.
“THE COURT: Now may we have the first juror?”
In addition to denying these motions the trial judge also
denied a motion for continuance and took under advisement
the motion for change of venue until an attempt to impanel
j been made. ;
° On Octabes 25 the trial judge denied defendant’s motion
for change of venue, holding that the jury impaneled
demonstrated that a fair trial could be had in Cleveland.
On that same date the trial judge sent the jurors who
had been chosen to try this case home overnight—as he did
for the subsequent weeks of this nine-week trial. _ (Tt
should be pointed out that no motion to sequester the jury
made. ;
On October 28, after impaneling twelve jurors, the trial
judge finally denied the motion for change of venue.
On October 28 also, the trial judge gave the jury the
basic “admonition” which he employed in this trial:
eT
foe ee et re ine TE oe
›
Community corrections
No user corrections yet.
Comments
No comments on this document yet.
Bottom Reader Ad Slot
Bottom Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Continue Exploring
Agency Collection
Explore This Archive Cluster
Broad Topic Hub
Topic Hub
Related subtopics
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic