Answer and Return of Writ

Respondent says that the record in this case affirmatively shows that the petitioner (Sheppard) was awarded a full and fair hearing in the state courts, resulting in reliable findings of fact, and that the state courts applied correct constitutional standards in disposing of the various claims of the petitioner. Respondent denies that the trial court erred in refusing to grant petitioner (Sheppard) a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Respondent denies that any relevant material or substantial evidence was suppressed by the prosecution or that any unjust tactics were used by the prosecuting authorities in the trial of this case. Respondent denies that the petitioner (Sheppard) was prevented from having a fair and impartial trial by the action of the trial judge as a result of the actions of the bailiffs in permitting the jurors to make telephone calls. Respondent denies that the trial judge coerced the jury into reaching a verdict, and avers that the fact that the jury deliberated for a period of five days merely shows the carefulness and consideration that the jury gave the mass of testimony and over 200 exhibits in the case. Respondent denies each and every other allegation in the petition not herein admitted to be true. Affirmatively, respondent alleges that petitioner was convicted in a court that had jurisdiction of his person and of the crime involved, that petitioner was not deprived of any of his constitutional rights, and that the facts upon which petitioner (Sheppard) relies, even if true, constitute mere error in the trial court, which is not cognizable in an action of habeas corpus. For the foregoing reasons, respondent prays that the petition herein be dismissed