The Supreme Court: The Press v. the Accused

• Share

Did Cleveland newspapers so inflame Dr. Sam Sheppard's jurors that he was wrongly convicted of bludgeoning his wife to death? No one has ever proved that the press actually swayed the jurors who found the osteopath guilty in 1954 and sent him to prison for life. But last week, upholding Sheppard's bid for habeas corpus, the Supreme Court said that "inherently prejudicial publicity" was proof enough that he "did not receive a fair trial consistent with the due process clause of the 14th Amendment." In an 8-to-1 decision that forced Ohio to promptly retry or free Sheppard, the court wrote a key chapter in the growing conflict between the rights of the press and the rights of the accused in sensational U.S. trials.

Now 42 and remarried to a moneyed German divorcee, Sheppard has declared that he wants a retrial to establish his innocence. Although the state case against him may now largely rest on dead or forgetful witnesses, Sheppard got his wish last week from Cuyahoga County Prosecutor John T. Corrigan, who ordered a retrial because "society has been the victim of a heinous crime, and it demands redress."

Kisses & Votes. Speaking for the Supreme Court, Justice Tom Clark gave no opinion as to Sheppard's guilt or innocence. Clark focused entirely on the "editorial artillery" that began accusing police and "hired lawyers" of covering up the doctor's alleged guilt immediately after the 1954 crime. The salvos came from all three Cleveland papers —the Press, the Plain Dealer and the News (since bought by the Press). One front-page editorial in the Press actually urged that Sheppard "instantly" receive "the same third degree to which any person under similar circumstances is subjected."

As a direct result, said Clark, the coroner staged a three-day inquest in a school gymnasium where police searched Sheppard "in full view of several hundred spectators." His lawyer was forcibly ejected by the coroner, "who received cheers, hugs and kisses from ladies in the audience," then publicly questioned the uncounseled Sheppard for 5½ hours about his sex life in and out of marriage. Impatient that Sheppard was still not indicted, the Press blared: WHY ISN'T SAM SHEPPARD IN JAIL? QUIT STALLING, BRING HIM IN.

When police finally obliged, continued Clark, "the case came on for trial two weeks before the November election, at which time the chief prosecutor was a candidate for municipal judge and the presiding judge [the late Edward Blythin] was a candidate to succeed himself." Judge Blythin, who won in a landslide, was undisturbed when Cleveland papers published the addresses of all 75 veniremen, who were thus deluged with letters and phone calls. Eleven jurors had read about the case before being selected; seven continued to receive Cleveland papers. All twelve were pictured more than 40 times in those papers, which they were free to read throughout the nine-week trial because they were not sequestered until they retired to reach a verdict.