Sheppard v. Maxwell Endy Dor Communications methodologies Apr 10, 2024 The Sheppard v. Maxwell court case is one of the most controversial and high-profile criminal trials in American history. In 1954 Dr. Samuel Sheppard was accused of brutally murdering his pregnant wife, Marilyn, in their home in Bay Village, Ohio. This paper argues that the court should have reached the verdict in [Sheppard v. Maxwell] due to the faulty trial, lacking prosecution evidence, physical tangible evidence, and reasonable doubt. It is concerning to see how the trial and the events leading up to it were handled in an unprofessional and disingenuous manner. It seemed that the press and local police had motives that severely affected the verdict …show more content…
Lee Bailey, who had taken over as Sam Sheppard's chief counsel after William Corrigan passed away during the trial. This writ of habeas corpus ordered the custodian of an individual in custody to produce Sam Sheppard before the court to make an inquiry concerning his detention, appear for prosecution, or testify. This event marked a crucial turning point in the case, as it allowed for further examination of the evidence and allegations of bias against the trial judge. The granting of the writ of habeas corpus was a significant step towards Sam Sheppard's eventual release from prison. Around late October, opening statements began. The two main points of the trial were the murder weapon used and the blood splatter evidence found at the crime scene. Wikipedia says this about Coroner Samuel Gerbers stance on the weapon used. "When Coroner Samuel Gerber testified about a murder weapon that he described as a "surgical weapon", Bailey led Gerber to admit that they never found a murder weapon and had nothing to tie Sheppard to the murder." As you can see this was a weak attempt to disprove Dr. Sheppards innocence. The blood splatter that was brought up during the case implies that the killer was left-handed and Dr. Sheppard was a righty. Also in 1997, Dr. Sheppard's body was exhumed for a DNA sample that acquitted him of murder. On November 16, after a long 12-hour deliberation, the jury finally reached a verdict of "not guilty" finally freeing Dr. Sheppard from this dark chapter in his
They found Casey Anthony, who was charged with first degree murder of her 3-year-old, not guilty. While she was not guilty of murder, she was convicted on counts four through seven for false information given to the police. The judge sentenced her to one year in county jail for each one of the four counts, but she was released 10 days after she received 1043 days credit. If I was part of the jury I would have said she was guilty of murdering her daughter. Even if she did not kill her, she is still part of the reason why she died. Casey neglected her child either way and did not report the crime to the police until someone else did. I am shocked that the visual evidence did not convince the jury that she was guilty. From the strand of hair in the trunk that matched the past child’s hair, to the extensive research on chloroform found on all web browsers, it was very evident that she did or was at least part of murdering her
The jury in trying to let the defendant go considered if there were any circumstances that would provide say as a self-defense claim to justify this horrific crime of murder of two people named Mr. Stephan Swan and Mr. Mathew Butler. Throughout the guilt/innocent phase, the jury believes not to have heard convincing evidence the victims were a threat to the defendant nor a sign the defendant was in fear for his life before he took the victims’ lives.
The Supreme Court used this evidence, and the fact that the pants and the blood had been transported to the crime lab in the same box, and that a vial and a quarter of autopsy blood were missing, to rule that, if known by the jury, could have created reasonable doubt (House V. Bell, 2006). This, along with the evidence, presented by House, that Mr. Muncey had a history of spousal abuse against Mrs. Muncey, and the fact that he had fabricated an alibi to cover his whereabouts for the time of the murder, could have created a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, had it been presented at trial (House v. Bell, 2006). It was with these facts in mind that the Supreme Court reached a final ruling in this case. The Court’s final ruling was that while House had not presented sufficient evidence to exonerate himself completely, he did present enough evidence to create the question of his actual guilt, and warranted a new trial (House v. Bell, 2006).
In 1954, Sam Sheppard was accused of allegedly killing his wife, Marilyn. During this time, the media went absolutely wild. The way they obtained their stories was completely unlike any way they had gone about getting stories before. They completely invaded Sheppard's privacy to obtain "good" stories for their papers and television newscasts. Also, more stories were written about the case than any other event that had been covered in the past. Even the way stories were written was different than the usual style of writing used for that time period. Ethics were completely disregarded during the case. Because of this, Sheppard was released from prison, with the reason that the media had influenced the case so that the jury found him guilty based on the news stories. This had never happened before. Due to the unethical practices displayed by the media, the field of journalism instituted practices, which limited the power of the press.
In November 2004, Scott Peterson was found guilty and charged with two counts of murder for the death of his 8-month pregnant wife Laci Peterson, and prenatal son Conner Peterson. It was not until one month later, the jury had recommended Scott Peterson be sentenced to death by lethal injection. Before his conviction, there was no substantial evidence submitted during the trial that linked Peterson directly to the death of his wife and their unborn child. In fact, the only physical evidence presented to the court was a single strand of Laci Peterson’s hair attached to a pair of Scott’s pliers. The evidence was deemed circumstantial on the basis that it did not deliberately constitute the murder weapon.
Nothing is clear cut whether it is a murder or a trial. There is emanating possibilities of who committed the crime, and what the reasoning was behind this horrific, world renowned murder. This life changing event occurred in the morning of July 4th 1954. The night before the murder nothing seemed out of place in the Sheppard family. Sam and Marilyn were cuddled up together, Marilyn sitting on Sam's lap my while having company over. The Sheppard family was very involved in their community and seemed to be the perfect family. After the company left Marilyn put her son to bed as she did every night, with the same rituals. That night Marilyn slept upstairs while Sam slept on the day bed downstairs. After everyone was asleep, that was the last of this perfect family. The murderer positioned Marilyn as if a position of sexual assault and after DNA testing it was confirmed. Marilyn Sheppard was raped and also bludgeoned to death. Two sets of semen were found inside this pregnant women. Her Skull was fractured, and suffered from several blows to the head. Looking at possible suspects, one individual sticks out from all the rest, Richard Eberling.
In July of 2008, one of the biggest crime cases devastated the United States nation-wide. The death of Caylee Anthony, a two year old baby, became the most popular topic in a brief amount of time. Caylee’s mother, Casey Anthony, became the main suspect after the child supposedly was kidnapped and went missing. To this day, the Casey Anthony case shocks me because justice, in my opinion, wasn’t served. I feel as if the criminal conviction system became somewhat corrupted in this case. The entire nation, including the court system, knew that Casey Anthony was behind this criminal act, but yet she escaped all charges. I chose this case not only because it’s debatable, but also to help state the obvious, this case was handled the wrong way. Clearly the legal system was biased, which worked in Casey Anthony’s favor, freeing a murderer.
Judges make rulings on what evidence may or may not be admitted over the course of a trial and technology impacts the way police collect and process evidence, this is true today as well as during the 1892 trial of Lizzie Borden. The rudimentary practice of evidence collection and processing by police was a critical factor in the acquittal of Lizzie Borden. Fingerprinting had not been introduced into the court system and the absence of an eyewitness left the prosecution with little to work with, this left the prosecution only circumstantial evidence but most if not all of it pointed at the defendant. The Borden home was absent of any signs of forced entry and the traditional signs of a struggle couldn’t be located during the police examination but several gruesome facts indicated Lizzie Borden may have been innocent. Medical evidence as to the method used in the killings pointed toward a “tall man” being the culprit, specifically the nineteen wounds inflicted on Abby Borden were said to have been from a dull edge of an axe.
Simpson murder trial, there are a couple of things that piqued my interests. One was the notorious car chase down the Los Angeles freeway in a white Ford Bronco driven by AL Cowlings with O.J. Simpson hiding in the back. Robert Shapiro was supposed to surrender his client to the Los Angeles Police Department, but instead it is my opinion that O. J. Simpson lawyers and friends came up with a plan to get publicity and supporters. The second was the most crucial point of the trial is when O.J. Simpson squeeze his hand into the leather glove that was linked to the killings. This led to the famous argument by Johnnie Cochran “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” As the years passed by many untold stories are revealed. A recent new documentary states that “Simpson had stop talking his arthritis medicine two weeks” in advance so his hands would be swollen to persuade the jury of his innocents.
RELATED MURDER TRIALS: Making A Murderer: The Case For And Against Steve Avery And Brendan Dassey
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
Through all the media coverage, Sam Reese Sheppard began to have nightmares that his dad was electrocuted, and that he should be to (Quade). He has guilt that made him have the decision to not have kids because it is hard for him to hold his own life together. There has been a huge change in opinion from people who assumed Dr. Sam Sheppard was guilty. Now people see that he was unfairly convicted. This led people to believe that the death penalty should not be used. Although the case will probably never be decided, with all the evidence that has been found, Dr. Sam Sheppard should be considered innocent.
Print. The. By using this book. In my research I was able to find out how everything was handled after the verdict, and in what ways the constitutional rights of the defendants were. violated.
Fairchild, H. & Cowan, G (1997). Journal of Social Issues. The O.J. Simpson Trial: Challenges to Science and Society.
This trial, without going into the particular details of it could be summarised as it follows: