Outcome of the Trial

 

 


The Sheppard Trial made it all the way to the Supreme Court


When the Sheppard case finally did make it to the U.S. Supreme Court it was over turned by a vote of 8 to 1, saying that the trial itself did in fact violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Tom Clark delivered the opinion of the court and in the opinion he said that "The massive, pervasive and prejudicial publicity attending petitioner's prosecution prevented him from receiving a fair trial consistent with the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment."(Crime Library, 10) Clark then went on to say that "Despite his awareness of the excessive pretrial publicity, the trial judge failed to take effective measures against the massive publicity which continued throughout the trial or to take adequate steps to control the conduct of the trial."(Crime Library, 10) The Supreme Court also said that it was a mistake by the judge to not move the trial to someplace less permeated with members of the press and a great deal of media attention. Another mistake that was made during the trial was the ability of outside influences to reach the jury.

The court said that the names of the jurors should not have been given to newspapers because that allowed jurors to receive letters and phone calls from outside sources, which could influence the jurors decision. The court also stated that when the jurors left the courtroom they ran through a gauntlet of media members and photographers and were subjected to what they had to say. Furthermore, the Supreme Court chastised Judge Blythin because although he didn't let witnesses into the courtroom, the transcripts of the witnesses were allowed to be printed verbatim in the newspaper. This meant that any future witness could read the testimony of a previous witness just by looking in the newspaper. In delivering this ruling, the Supreme Court also brought up the Estes v. Texas case because just like in the Estes case, the court felt that the "presence of the press at a judicial proceeding must be limited when it is apparent that the accused might otherwise be prejudiced or disadvantaged."(ACLPP, 189) The ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Sheppard case did not determine the guilt or innocence of Dr. Sam Sheppard, but it did in fact help to establish new guidelines and a new basis for the medias association with the trial and whether or not certain media tactics violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

When the dust settled around the Supreme Court decision involving Sam Sheppard's right to a fair trial, the Supreme Court had taken a small step in changing the medias impact on a trial as well as setting up certain guidelines so that the defendant can receive a fair trial. One of the major changes to come out of the Sheppard case was a new guideline issued by the American Bar Association to judges and lawyers on how to safeguard the rights of criminal suspects while upholding the rights of the news media. A few of the new guidelines that are common to us today are changing the venue of the trial, postponing the trial until the media uproar subsides, voir dire of potential jurors so that potential jurors can be questioned by opposing attorneys to see if they have any prejudices they might bring into the case, and sequestration of the jury during the trial so that the jury is


Dr. Sheppard and his lawyers patiently await for a second trial
not subject to the mass media surrounding the trial. These new guidelines come into play in most high profile cases that we have today because these cases receive vast amounts of media attention, which means that these procedures must take place in order to allow the defendant to have a fair trial. The O.J. Simpson trial is one case that comes to mind when thinking about these new guidelines because there was so much media attention surrounding O.J. at his time of trial that all of the above mentioned guidelines had to be used in order to keep the press separated from the trial and allow O.J. to have a fair trial under the due process clause. The American Bar Associations new guidelines were a way of safeguarding a suspects right to a fair trial and these guidelines were directly influenced by the biases and media influence that were so prevalent in the Sam Sheppard trial.

When Sam Sheppard went to trial a second time in 1966 he was found not guilty after only twelve hours of jury deliberation. Sheppard spent the rest of his life trying to prove his innocence to the world but it was not his guilt or innocence that has left a lasting impression on us today. The fact that Sam Sheppard's case was media frenzy and a trial filled with flaws in the jury selection process, tainted by the medias opinion, and handled poorly by the judge during trial is

Justice Tom Clark read the decision
what makes this case so important to us. High profile court cases are very common to us today and thanks to the Sheppard case we now have certain standards that we can look to in order to make sure that there is a separation of a free trial and free press so that the suspect in question can have a fair trial under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

HOME