305 - SHEPPARD v. MAXWELL, 384 U.S. 333 (1966) Facts:...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
SHEPPARD v. MAXWELL, 384 U.S. 333 (1966) Facts: Samuel Sheppard was convicted in state court for the second degree murder of his wife. During the questioning of the Cleveland Police Sheppard insisted that his lawyer be present. The coroner then wrote a subpoena and gave it to him. Sheppard then agrees to submit to questioning without a lawyer present. During Sheppard’s pre-trail there was massive publicity, and the judge did not take effective measures in containing the order of the court. The petitioner filed habeas corpus stating that because of the distraction, courts disorder, and media he did not receive a fair trial. Issue: Should the plaintiff’s conviction be reversed based on the massive publicity and disruption of the media? Ruling: Yes. The plaintiff’s right of due process was not protected because of the fact that there was massive media and publicity resulting in the disruption of the case. Decision/Rational:
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 01/03/2011 for the course LTSD 305 taught by Professor Davidlmiller during the Fall '10 term at American Public University.

Page1 / 2

305 - SHEPPARD v. MAXWELL, 384 U.S. 333 (1966) Facts:...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online