384 U.S. 333 (1966)
Marilyn Sheppard, petitioner’s pregnant wife, was bludgeoned to death in the upstairs bedroom of their lakeshore home in Bay Village, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland, on July 4, 1954.1 Sheppard pieced together for several local officials the story that he had entertained neighborhood friends the previous evening, dozed off on the couch, heard his wife cry out, struggled with a form next to her bed, was struck and rendered unconscious, pursued a form to the lake shore, and lost consciousness again before calling Mayor Houk.2
From the outset officials focused suspicion on Sheppard, with Coroner Gerber telling his men that it was evident the doctor did this and interrogating Sheppard under sedation.3 Newspapers stressed Sheppard’s lack of cooperation with the police, his refusal to take a lie detector test, and his extramarital love affair with Susan Hayes, while an inquest was held on July 22 in a school gymnasium that was broadcast with live microphones and attended by a swarm of reporters and photographers.4
Sheppard was arrested at his father’s home on July 30, 1954, and arraigned amid hundreds of people, newscasters, photographers and reporters, with indictment following on August 17.5 The publicity grew in intensity, with five volumes of clippings from the three Cleveland newspapers covering the period from the murder until Sheppard’s conviction in December 1954.6
The trial began on October 18, 1954, in a courtroom measuring 26 by 48 feet where a long temporary table inside the bar was assigned to approximately 20 representatives of newspapers and wire services, with additional seats for television, radio, and out-of-town reporters.7 Photographers and television personnel operated in the corridors and outside the courthouse, taking pictures of the jury and participants, while the jurors were exposed to news media coverage throughout the nine-week trial.8
Sheppard was convicted of second-degree murder. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County and the Ohio Supreme Court, with certiorari denied in 1956.9 The United States District Court granted the writ of habeas corpus in 1964 subject to retrial, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1965.10
Whether Sheppard was deprived of a fair trial in his state conviction for the second-degree murder of his wife, because of the trial judge’s failure to protect Sheppard sufficiently from the massive, pervasive, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution?11
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.12 This requires that the verdict be based solely on evidence presented in open court and not on outside influences such as prejudicial publicity.13 The trial judge bears the responsibility to take appropriate measures to insulate the proceedings from such influences when there is a reasonable likelihood that publicity will prevent a fair trial.14
Yes. Application of the due process principle to the circumstances of this prosecution reveals that the trial judge failed to fulfill his duty to protect the defendant from inherently prejudicial influences.15 The arrangements permitting extensive media access inside the bar and the lack of sequestration allowed outside information to reach the jury, creating a probability of unfairness that due process forbids.16 The judge's limited admonitions proved inadequate to counter the saturation coverage that included inadmissible matters, thereby undermining the requirement that the verdict rest only on courtroom evidence.17
Sheppard was deprived of a fair trial consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment due to the trial judge's failure to adequately protect against the prejudicial publicity.18
Related opinions on this issue
Mr. Justice Black dissents.19