◆ SpookStack

BAP re PTET TE gy Pe er H, 12 Sheppard v. Maxwell No. 16077 exercise of this claimed right with crusading zeal. That it can be wrong and that often it sacrifices good taste and fairness to circulation is rarely admitted by the fourth estate. Certainly the Cleveland Press’ discharge of its claimed duty in the Sheppard case could have been ade- fuately pursued with less .obtrusiveness. We need not here decide whether the Bay Village authorities, or the Cuyahoga County coroner or the Cleveland police did or did not need the urging provided by the Cleveland Press. It has not been asserted that the police authorities were without the faults charged to them, although it might fairly be inferred that the Press’ meddling probably im- peded more than it helped. __ It should be emphasized that nowhere in the news items is there any hint or suggestion that Dr. Sheppard con- fessed or admitted his guilt, or any claim that he had a criminal record or had been other than an exemplary citi- zen, or any clear assertion that the press or the police had any direct evidence of his guilt. Comments to the press by police officials, and even prosecutors, occasionally exceeded the bounds of propriety, but they too revealed no more than that some thought that Dr. Sheppard was guilty. In addition to the pretrial publicity set forth in the District Court opinion, the Cleveland papers also published items emphasizing Dr. Sheppard’s protestations of inno- cence.° 5 The dissent states that a Cleveland Press representative made a public boast that his paper’s handling of the Sheppard story produced the trial. Petitioner’s brief makes such assertion but does not provide a supporting appendix reference. ¢Samples of headlines in the Cleveland Press, the Cleveland News, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer are: “Exclusive! ‘I Loved My Wife—She Loved Me,’ Sheppard Tells News Reporter.” “Dr. Sam Writes His Own Story.” “I am Not Guilty of the Murder of My Wife, Marilyn. How could I, who have been trained to help people and devoted my life to sav- ing life, commit such a terrible and revolting crime?” “Sheppard~Lawyers Hit Stories on Murder.” “Dr. Sheppards Statement Issued to Answer Gossip.” “Bay Doctor Talks to Reporter.” “Husband Puts $10,000 up For Slayer.” “Text of Doctor’s Statement on his Offer of Reward.” “Doctor Will Help in Hunt for Death Weapon Today.” “Honored Athlete at Heights High.” “Dr. Sheppard Returns to Bay View Hospital to Treat his Patients.” “Drunk ‘Confesses’ but Story Fizzles.” “Dr. Sheppard Tells Press ‘Killer Will Be Caught.’ ” . pests - sot a No. 16077 Sheppard v. Maxwell . 13 We turn then to the two cases relied upon by the District Court in ruling that such pretrial publicity per se deprived petitioner of a fair trial, Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961), and Rideau v. Louisiana, 378 U.S. 723 (1963). In each case the United States Supreme Court set aside state court convictions which had been affirmed in the highest courts of those states against charges of prejudicial publicity. It held that the prejudice in each case was so great that traditional voir dire procedures and admoni- tions were unavailing to insure a fair trial. It is clear that the publicity involved in these cases was significantly different from the publicity surrounding Dr. Sheppard. In Irvin v. Dowd, the Indiana court had denied a second change of venue. The Supreme Court recited these facts: “Six murders were committed in the vicinity of Evansville, Indiana, two in December 1954, and four in March 1955. The crimes, extensively covered by news media in the locality, aroused great excitement and indignation throughout Vanderburgh County, where Evansville is located, and adjoining Gibson County, a rural county of approximately 30,000 in- habitants. The petitioner was arrested on April 8, ' 1955. Shortly thereafter, the Prosecutor of Vander- burgh County and Evansville police officials issued press releases, which were intensively publicized, stat- ing that the petitioner had confessed to the six mur- ders.’ “Text of Statement by Corrigan After Arrest of Client, Dr. Sam.” “Police Cordial, Polite as They Take Sheppard.” “Family Points to Bay Man as New Suspect as Hoverstén Talks.” “Dr. Sam is Anxious to Take Stand, His Brother Says.” . “Battles Prowler in Bay. Corrigan Links Boy’s Story With Sheppard Case.” “Dr. Steve Hits ‘Red Herring’ Accusation.” “Dr. Sam Just Like Brother, 2 Sisters-in-law Say at Trial.” “Dr. Sam Says: ‘I Wish There Was Something I Could Say—But There Isn’t.’” “Jail Mate Says Dr. Sam Talks of His Innocence.” “Brother Says Police Aimed to Play on Dr. Sam’s Concern.” “Brother Says Dr. Sam Anxious to Take the Witness Stand.” “Not Guilty, Sheppard Says; Asks No Bail.” “Can’t Get Fair Trial—Dr. Sam.” “Own Sleuth Put on Case by Corrigan.” “Dr. Steve Challenges Prosecutor’s Charge.” enppard Home Bloodstains Are Proven Animal’s.” [By defense tests. These headlines were followed by text supporting Dr. Sheppard’s claim of innocence. ‘ i ! ‘ { f