Byrd1

Kim Byrd

ENG-101

3 March 2019

The Unfair Trial of Dr. Sam Sheppard

The case against Dr. Sam Sheppard commenced with the murder of his wife,

Marilyn, in the wee hours of Sunday morning, July 4th, 1954. The Sheppard’s, who lived

along the shores of Lake Erie, had spent the prior evening having dinner and drinks with

friends from the neighborhood. After sunset, both couples put their children to bed and

the adults settled in to watch a movie, Strange Holiday, on television. Marilyn sat on Sam’s

lap until he retired to a daybed in the living room and fell asleep. The night ended around

midnight and the events of the next several hours became the focus of a murder

investigation that spanned two trials and still remains controversial after 60 years later.

Sam told a convoluted story that police almost immediately dismissed as fabricated. They

speculate a robbery was staged to cover for the cold-blooded murder of his wife. In my

opinion, the issue of Sam’s actual guilt or innocence becomes a moot point, because the

insanity of the media circus that ensued ensuring Dr. Sam Sheppard would not receive a

fair trial.

“The Ohio Supreme Court described the Sam Sheppard case with this introduction:

Murder and mystery, society, sex and suspense were combined in this story so as to

captivate the public fancy to a degree unparalleled in recent annals. Throughout the pre-

indictment investigation, the legal skirmishes and the nine-week trial, circulation-

conscious editors catered to the insatiable interest of the American public in the bizarre.
 Byrd2

Special seating facilities for reporters and columnists representing local papers and all

major news services were installed in the courtroom. Special rooms in the criminal courts

building were equipped for broadcasters. In this atmosphere of a “Roman holiday” for the

news media, Sam Sheppard stood trial for his life.” (Altschuler) The fact that this trial

resulted in a landmark Supreme Court ruling regarding the need to balance the rights of

a free press and the rights of a defendant to have a fair trial, solidify my opinion that this

was a miscarriage of justice.

We must ask ourselves, Why? What were the factors that allowed this perfect

storm of misconduct, media frenzy, and public fascination to culminate in such a circus

sideshow, while a man fights for his life? I can attribute this to several key factors

pertaining to the situation. The voyeuristic nature of society as a whole is the driving force.

If not for a riveted audience, the media would have no cause to spin the story with

sensational headlines. The tabloids are notorious for this type of journalism, but we should

expect more from our mainstream media. Damon Runyon makes a great analogy

comparing murder trials to sporting events, “A big murder trial possesses some of the

elements of a sporting event”, (Yahalom) So, it stands to reason, there are murder trial

fans, just as there are football fans. Although this is 60 years later, the concept was the

same then as it is currently. Feed the Hype to sell more papers or earn more revenues.

The media frenzy was blatantly egregious in its decisions to show no restraint in

convicting Sheppard in the court of public opinion, before the trial even began. “As July

wore on and the investigation lagged, headlines became increasingly sensational, and

the newspapers frequently printed editorials on their front pages above the fold and even

as the lead story. Sometimes, the papers offered pictorial summaries of what was
 Byrd3

believed to have transpired during the time of the murder. For example, this cartoon, titled

―” The Sheppard Murder Clock”, appeared on the Press front-page on July 14, 1954:

First, the fact that Sam and Marilyn Sheppard could be labeled as “beautiful

people”, was one element that attributed to the public fascination surround every detail of

the case. The scandalous affairs of the handsome doctor and his beautiful wife added to
 Byrd4

the intrigue of the public as well. The violent manner in which Marilyn was murdered is

also pertinent. Though the media was relentless in its biased coverage, there were other

factors at play. Public officials were finding him guilty until he could be proven innocent.

The Coroner Sam Gerber publicly questioned Sheppard at the local gymnasium, about

the crime before he was even indicted, at the behest of The Cleveland Press. After the

public Inquisition, The Cleveland Press pressured the police to file charges with scathing

editorials that inflamed the public. The presiding judge, Edward Blythin, was outrageous

in his rulings and his behavior from the bench, which were a total mockery of the justice

system. He denied the defense request for a change of venue, despite the obvious pretrial

publicity that was hindering his chance of a fair trial by a jury of his peers with no

preconceived opinions of his guilt or innocence.

Over sixty later, this case still remains fascinating to the public. And to the entire

system, it is a case that puts a significant mark on the United States’ Supreme Court

decisions on the rights of having a fair trial and infringement from a third-party

(Altschuler et al., 84). This is only a sampling of the obstacles Sheppard’s defense team

faced and doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of the injustice inflicted on Dr. Sam

Sheppard, his deceased wife and his son. I can emphatically state this 1954 verdict was

NOT JUST.
 Byrd5

Work Cited

Altschuler, Glenn C., and Faust F. Rossi. Ten Great American Trials: Lessons in

Advocacy. American Bar Association, 2016. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1840411&site=eho

st-live&scope=site. Accessed 18 Feb. 2019.

Evans, Colin. “Samuel Sheppard Trials: 1954 and 1966.” Great American Trials, edited

by Edward W. Knappman, Visible Ink, 1994, pp. 247-50.

Johnson, Scott P. "Sam Sheppard Trials (1954 and 1966)." Trials of the Century: An

Encyclopedia of Popular Culture and the Law, vol. 2, ABC-CLIO, 2011, pp. 391-

394. Gale Virtual Reference Library,

http://link.galegroup.com.ezproxy.sccsc.edu/apps/doc/CX1767800148/GVRL?u=

spartechcl&sid=GVRL&xid=9a479e49. Accessed 18 Feb. 2019.

Linder, Douglas O. "The Leo Frank Trial." Famous Trials, University of Missouri-Kansas

City School of Law, 1995-2018, www.famous-trials.com/sam-sheppard.Accessed

18 Feb. 2019.

Yahalom, Tali. “PRESSING CHARGES: The Impact of the Sam Sheppard Trials on

Courtroom Coverage and Criminal Law.” Undergraduate Humanities Forum,

2008-09: Change, 2008-2009 Penn Humanities Forum on Change

Undergraduate Mellon Research Fellows. Apr. 2009, pp 10.

repository.upenn.edu/uhf_2009/15/. Accessed 3 March 2019