SHEPPARD v. STATE OF OHIO, 352 U.S. 910 (1956)
U.S. Supreme Court
SHEPPARD v. STATE OF OHIO , 352 U.S. 910 (1956)352 U.S. 910
Samuel H. SHEPPARD, Petitioner,
v.
The STATE OF OHIO.
No. 352.
Supreme Court of the United States
November 13, 1956
Rehearing Denied Dec. 17, 1956.
See 352 U.S. 955.
Messrs. William J. Corrigan and Paul M. Herbert, for petitioner.
Messrs. Frank T. Cullitan and Saul S. Danaceau, for respondent.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER.
The truth that education demands reiteration bears on the understanding, and not only by the laity, of the meaning of the denial of a petition for certiorari. Despite the Court's frequent exposition, misconception recurrently manifests itself regarding the exercise of our discretion in not bringing a case here for review. Appropriate occasions may therefore be utilized to make explicit what ought to be assumed. This is one.
The divided Supreme Court of Ohio sustained the conviction in a capital case the trial of which was enveloped in circumstances thus summarized in the opinion of that court:
The defendant claimed that a proceeding so infused and enveloped by the 'atmosphere of a 'Roman holiday" precluded a fair trial and could not but deprive him of the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Ohio rejected this claim and the defendant then invoked the discretionary power of this Court to review the correctness of its decision. This Court in turn now refuses the defendant the opportunity to bring the case here for review.
Such denial of his petition in no wise implies that this Court
approves the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio. It means and
means only that for one reason or another this case did not commend
itself to at least four members of the Court as falling within
those considerations which should lead this Court to exercise its
discretion in reviewing a lower court's decision. For reasons that
have often been explained the Court does not give the grounds for
denying the petitions for certiorari in the normally more than
1,000 cases each year in which petitions are denied. It has also
been explained why not even the positions of the various Justices
in such cases are matters of public record. The rare cases in which
an individual position is noted leave unillumined the functioning
of the certiorari system, and do not reveal the position of all the
members of the Court. See State of Maryland v. Baltimore Radio
Show, 338 U.S.
912.
U.S. Supreme Court
SHEPPARD v. STATE OF OHIO , 352 U.S. 910 (1956) 352 U.S. 910 Samuel H. SHEPPARD, Petitioner,v.
The STATE OF OHIO.
No. 352. Supreme Court of the United States November 13, 1956 Rehearing Denied Dec. 17, 1956. See 352 U.S. 955. Messrs. William J. Corrigan and Paul M. Herbert, for petitioner. Messrs. Frank T. Cullitan and Saul S. Danaceau, for respondent. Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER. The truth that education demands reiteration bears on the understanding, and not only by the laity, of the meaning of the denial of a petition for certiorari. Despite the Court's frequent exposition, misconception recurrently manifests itself regarding the exercise of our discretion in not bringing a case here for review. Appropriate occasions may therefore be utilized to make explicit what ought to be assumed. This is one. The divided Supreme Court of Ohio sustained the conviction in a capital case the trial of which was enveloped in circumstances thus summarized in the opinion of that court:
