◆ SpookStack

Sheppard v. Maxwell each day and just before the jury enters. That has been our effort since the beginning of this trial. “Now, the Court wants to say a word. That he was told—he has not read anything about it at all—but he was informed that Dr. Steve Sheppard, who has been granted the privilege of remaining in the court room during the trial, has been trying the case in the newspapers and making rather uncomplimentary com- wrents about the testimony of the witnesses for the Y “Let it be now understood that if Dr. Steve Shep- pard wishes to use the newspapers to try his case while we are trying it here, he will be barred from remaining in the court room during the progress of the trial if he is to be a witness in the case. “The-Court appreciates he cannot deny Steve Shep- pard the right of free speech, but he can deny him the right of the privilege of being in the court room, if he wants to avail himself of that method during the progress of the trial. “MR. CORRIGAN: The statement of the Court about Steve Sheppard making uncomplimentary re- marks about the testimony of witnesses is paralleled by the tremendous amount of publicity that is put in the Cleveland newspapers, especially headlines, since the beginning of this case, which has misrepresented entirely the testimony.” These motions for change of venue, continuance, and mistrial were renewed repeatedly thereafter (including. the close of prosecution proofs and the close of defense: proofs) and were similarly denied. DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS “The theory of our system is that the conclusions to .. be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside “~Influence, whether of private talk or public print.” * Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. It is, of course, too late in legal history to doubt the power and the duty of a federal District Court to review ° Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907). No. 16077/. No. 16077 Sheppard v. Maxwell 65 on habeas corpus a state court conviction claimed to have been based upon violations of applicable federal constitu- tional commands. 28 U.S.C. § 2241; Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963); Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963) ; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 385 (1963). It is likewise beyond challenge that the “due process” requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment’ mandates state criminal court observance of minimum federal con- stitutional standards such as trial on a charge “fairly made and fairly tried in a public tribunal” before “an im- partial judge,” In re Oliver, 388 U.S. 257, 278 (1948) ; Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927) ; In re Murchison, 349 US. 183 (1955); an “impartial jury” (if, as all do, the . state elects a jury system), Irvin v. Dowd, supra at 721- 722; Rideau v. Louisiana, supra; and a “verdict... based upon the evidence developed at the trial,” Turner v. Louisiana, supra at 472. See also Thompson v. Louis- ville, 362 U.S. 199 (1960) ; Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157 (1961). . In January of 1965 the United States Supreme Court said: “The requirement that a jury’s verdict ‘must be based upon the evidence developed at the trial’ goes to the fundamental integrity of all that is embraced in the constitutional concept of trial by jury. [See foot- note.} “The jury is an essential instrumentality—an appendage—of the court, the body ordained to pass upon guilt or innocence. Exercise of calm and in- formed judgment by its members is essential to proper enforcement of law.’ Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 749, 765. Mr. Justice Holmes stated no more than a truism when he observed that ‘Any judge who has sat with juries knows that in spite of forms they are extremely likely to be impregnated by the environ- ing atmosphere.’ Frank v. Mangum, 287 U.S. 309, at 349 (dissenting opinion). “In the constitutional sense, trial by jury in a criminal case necessarily implies at the very least that the ‘evidence developed’ against a defendant shall come from the witness stand in a public court room where there is full judicial protection of the 10 The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution pro- vides in applicable part: “... nor shall.any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; .. .”