Sheppard v. Maxwell

Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966), argued 28 Feb. 1966, decided 6 June 1966 by vote of 8 to 1; Clark for the Court, black in dissent. The threat of prejudicial publicity to a criminal defendant's constitutional rights is as old as the media itself. Traditionally, the Court had placed few constraints on the press in reporting on criminal trials. However, in the 1960s, during a decade of expanding constitutional rights for defendants in criminal actions, the courts reassessed this problem.

In Sheppard, the Court reversed the conviction of Dr. Sam Sheppard for the murder of his wife. His case attracted extensive media coverage; after his conviction he served several years in prison before seeking habeas corpus relief in the federal courts. The Supreme Court granted the writ and ordered Sheppard released. It held that Sheppard had been deprived of a fair trial because of the “Roman Holiday” atmosphere surrounding the trial and because the judge failed to minimize the prejudicial impact of massive publicity.

In reversing the conviction, the Court gave heightened consideration to Sixth Amendment interests. Noting that prejudicial news comment on pending trials had become prevalent, it warned trial judges that, when faced with a reasonable likelihood that publicity would prevent a fair trial, they should take certain narrowly tailored measures, such as juror sequestration, to diminish the likelihood of prejudice.

Sheppard may be the high‐water mark in the Supreme Court's protection of criminal defendants from the effects of prejudicial publicity on their trials. The Court has not overturned a single conviction based on such publicity since Sheppard. Rather, it has granted trial courts wide discretion and deference in fashioning remedies for the damaging effects of prejudicial publicity, including change of venue or venire, gag orders, and voir dire questioning of potential jurors. In Mu'Min v. Virginia (1991), for example, the Court held that the trial judge's refusal to ask further voir dire questions on the specific contents of news reports about the defendant, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, did not violate his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

See also Pretrial Publicity and the Gag Rule; Speech and the Press.

Patrick M. Garry

Patricia J. Falk