The Sheppard v. Maxwell, Warden case in 1965 revolved around the issue of whether or not Dr. Sam Sheppard received a fair trial for his wife's murder due to extensive media coverage that may have influenced public opinion and the jury's verdict. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sheppard, stating that he did not receive a fair trial because the judge failed to protect him from massive, pervasive, and prejudicial publicity that exceeded all reasonable limits during his prosecution. This ruling emphasized the importance of ensuring an impartial jury free from outside influences and set significant precedents regarding media influence on court proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Sheppard v. Maxwell, Justice Tom C. Clark argued that while there was extensive media coverage of Dr. Sam Sheppard's trial, it did not necessarily mean his constitutional rights were violated or he didn't receive a fair trial. He believed that the majority failed to provide clear standards on when pretrial publicity would necessitate a change in venue and felt this could lead to confusion in future cases involving high-profile crimes with significant media attention. Furthermore, he contended that jurors should be trusted to make impartial decisions despite any potential exposure to prejudicial information before the trial begins as they are instructed by judges about their duty and responsibility during trials.