As if the Schmid case wasn't talked about enough already, in April 1966, there was buzz that F. Lee Bailey would join in Schmid's defense.
Speculation went back and forth as to whether Bailey would become involved in the case. He denied it himself, but that was to change later on.
Meanwhile, Schmid was granted a stay of execution pending the outcome of his appeal. His trial for the murder of Alleen Rowe was rescheduled for Oct. 4, 1966. In December if was moved to April 3, 1967, and then moved again to May 9, 1967.
Schmid made a plea of indigency and his attorney, William Tinney asked that the state supply a transcript of his trial for free. Such a document would usually cost about $1,000.
On June 10, 1966, the Star reported that Diane Lynn Schmid, Charles Schmid Jr.'s wife had sued for divorce from Schmid and wanted her maiden name restored.
On July 16, 1966, it was reported in the Star that Schmid had retained F. Lee Bailey to assist Tinney in appealing his death sentence. Bailey had been successful in his appeal of the conviction of Dr. Sam Sheppard. The previous April, Bailey had been quoted as saying, "If the Sheppard decision comes down right you can forget about the Schmid conviction."
Schmid's parents had paid Tinney for Schmid's earlier trial and would pay Bailey out of the "Charles Schmid Jr. Defense Fund." A fund raiser would be held to help raise money for Schmid's defense.
Strict rules were set for conduct in Schmid's trial for the murder of Alleen Rowe. From the Arizona Daily Star, April 21, 1967:
Rigid Rules Set For Schmid Trial
Judge Restricts Press Conduct
By VINCE DAVIS
The most rigid restrictions ever imposed in Pima county have been order by Superior Court Judge Richard N. Roylston for the second murder trial of Charles H. Schmid Jr.
Schmid is slated to go to trial May 9 for the slaying of pretty teenager Alleen Rowe. He is already under two death sentences for the murders of Wendy and Gretchen Fritz.
Judge Roylston's order regulating trial-time conduct apparently stems from a United States Supreme Court decision which reversed the conviction of Dr. Samuel H. Sheppard, convicted in Ohio for murdering his wife.
The high tribunal held that press, radio and television coverage made a circus of the trial and thus prevented a fair trial.
Irinically, the lawyer who represented Sheppard at his second trial, at which Sheppard was found innocent, will be Schmid's attorney at his second trial. The attorney is F. Lee Bailey of Boston, who will team up with William Tinney of Tucson.
Essentially, the judge's order would mean that the only information released to the public would be that from open court proceedings. No one attached to the case in any way was allowed to talk about it outside the courtroom.
The jury selection for the second trial took seven days. Once again, the jurors were told to be prepared to be locked up for the duration of the trial, which was expected to take eight to 10 days.
On May 21, 1967, the Star reported that Schmid was changing his plea and he pleaded guilty to second degree murder in Rowe's death. From the Star article:
"I knew he would be found guilty before we started the trial," (Defense Attorney F. Lee) Bailey said. "I wanted Schmid to see something of the evidence against him, and this morning he accepted the idea that he should plead to the lesser count."
At a press conference following the discharge of the jury, Bailey said that he had learned Schmid was really guilty "some time ago." He said County Attorney William J. Schafer III was "wise" in agreeing to the lesser charge, and that Schmid was "wise" in making it.
"He's sick," was the comment about Schmid.
Even later, the defense attorney told an interviewer that Schmid says he thinks Mary French, now serving a five-year prison term for being an accessory, misled officers who searched for the body, which has never been recovered. Schmid said he knows where it is.
In June, Schmid asked for a new trial in the death of Alleen Rowe in "a handwritten, 38-page document filled with bitter attacks on his attorneys, the press and friends who he said turned against him." Schmid said his attorneys coerced him into pleading guilty.
His attorneys may not have felt any better about Schmid, because the next day they asked permission to withdraw as Schmid's counsel. Their withdrawal was permitted.
Next: Schmid cooperates in search for body.
