◆ SpookStack

iba bien seat : blood which did not come from No. 16077 Sheppard v. Maxwell “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 evi- ence, “On January 3, 1955, the trial court overruled a motion for new trial which had been based on numerous assign- ments of error occurring during trial and deliberation. . . . “On May 9, 1955, the trial court denied a supplemental motion for new trial on ground of newly discovere evidence and based upon the affidavit of Paul Leland Kirk, a crim- inologist, who claimed to have demonstrated that blood tests made in the murder room proved the existence of e defendant or the de- ceased. This evidence was not obtained until after the ver- dict had been returned. “On July 20, 1955,’ the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County a ed the conviction of petitioner; and on July 25, 1955 the same Court affirmed the denial of the second motion for new trial. . “On May 31, 1956, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the action of the Court of Appeals as to the case in chief, but did not discuss or pass upon the alleged newly dis- ~ eovered evidence. Two Judges dissented, expressing the view that Sheppard should be accorded a new trial.... “On November 14, 1956, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition for certiorari; application for rehearing was denied on December 19, 1956. ... “On September 5, 1960, Chief Justice Weygandt denied an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the Ohio Supreme Court; the petition therefor was dismissed on May 5, 1961. “On April 11th, 1968, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court, which is the action giving rise.to this order. “Petitioner; Samuel H. Sheppard, has at all times main- ‘tained that he was not guilty of the murder of his wife, and that he knew no more about said death than he told at the trial.” : 1“]¢ is a minor point, but the Court notes that several of the dates of a POSUHOP are incorrectly stated.” Cte et