Claiming
the Anthony Sowell case brought out a “frenzied, unabated, heated, and an
unmitigated media circus,” appellate lawyers for convicted serial killer
Anthony Sowell cite 300+ newspaper articles and three books, including my own Nobody’s
Women: The Crimes and Victims of Anthony Sowell, the Cleveland Serial Killer, as negative media coverage that
should convince the court to convert Sowell’s death sentence to life in prison.
The
appeal before the Ohio Supreme Court uses the newspaper articles to support
its claim that Sowell could not have received a fair trial, given the coverage.
From
the appeal: Not surprisingly, not one of
the stories listed above could be characterized as favorable, sympathetic or
even neutral toward Sowell. Going into his trial, however, prospective jurors
were awash in this information.
The
unfair trial due to juror bias is a standard appeal, and in cases like that of
Sowell’s, unlikely to get Sowell off of Death Row in Chillicothe, Ohio, where
he is one of 141 inmates awaiting death.
Attorney’s
for Stephen Grant, the subject of my first true crime book, A
Slaying in the Suburbs: The Tara Grant Murder, filed a similar
appeal, although added a number of other factors, including alleging Grant
was interviewed in violation of his Miranda rights. The
appellate court ruled against Grant:
There was no impediment to
discovery of actual or potential biases, and the voir dire was sufficiently
probing to uncover any biases. While essentially all of the jurors indicated
being aware of the case, the vast majority of those impaneled had only a
passing knowledge of the case and had little exposure to the details. In
addition, all those impaneled swore, under oath, that
they could be impartial,
notwithstanding any exposure to media reports about the case.
The
decision that was upheld by the state’s supreme court.