by David Wilson
They then kidnapped Bobby Franks and demanded a ransom from his wealthy family. Workmen discovered the body before a ransom was paid, and Leopold was identified as a suspect when a pair of his glasses was found at the victim’s shallow grave.
Darrow used four psychiatrists as expert witnesses to address the issue of maladjustment. The persecution objected to the testimony, because the plea was diminished capacity and not insanity. Darrow effectively argued that his clients were mentally ill but not insane. The public, the media, and the prosecution all reacted negatively to the distinction made by the famed lawyer. The judge ruled in favor of the medical evidence and sentenced the defendants to life in prison. Darrow claimed victory in the case because he had protected his clients from the death penalty.
California passed laws related to the insanity plea in reaction to the negative public reaction to the Leopold and Loeb trail. The case was still fresh in the public’s memory at the time of the Hickman trial. It also presented a dilemma for the judge. California wanted to avoid the possibility of an accused murderer avoiding a jury trial. Unlike the Leopold and Loeb case, Hickman could not plead guilty to the crime and then introduce insanity as a mitigating factor during sentencing. In California the insanity plea could only be used in the context of a not guilty plea in the criminal phase of the trial. The intention of the legislature was to avoid the possibility of murder cases being resolved by a judge without the input of a jury. The California legislation was clear: the facts related to insanity needed to be presented to a jury. The legislature was also an attempt to eliminate Darrow’s distinction between maladjustment and mental illness.
The problem for Judge Trabucco was that the California legislation was written in vague language requiring clarification from the bench. By pleading not guilty in the criminal charges, there was the necessity for a trial on the question of whether or not Hickman had actually committed the crime. Because it was impossible in California to plead guilty by reason of insanity, the procedural question was this: Could Hickman’s lawyers present evidence of insanity during the criminal phase of the trial? The judge had indicated that the insanity issue could be part of the defense during the factual stage of the trial. He had also ruled the burden of proof for insanity was on the defense, and for that reason the defense would present their evidence first. This was a radical shift from courtroom procedure, which typically places the burden of proof on the district attorney. In most criminal cases, the district attorney presents evidence to support the charges. At the end of this presentation the defense has an opportunity to argue that the burden of proof was not met, and the judge is required to make a decision about whether or not there is sufficient cause to continue with the trial. If the trial continues, the defense presents rebuttal evidence. By allowing the defense to present their case first, Judge Trabucco was entering uncharted legal territory.
The judge went on to explain that California law allowed the defendant to plead insanity if he met the following criteria:
The defendant has a partly sufficient mental capacity to appreciate the character and quality of the act. Did he or she know and understand that it was a violation of the rights of another, and in itself wrong? If he or she had the capacity thus to appreciate the character and comprehend the possible or probable consequences of his or her act, and knew that if it was wrong, he or she is responsible to the law for the acts thus committed. And if not the burden of proof is on the accused; it is incumbent upon he or she to establish by a preponderance of evidence that he or she was insane at the time of committing the act charged.
The defense team took full advantage of the change in procedure. They knew the district attorney would present the hard physical evidence of the crime, and that would easily prejudice the jury against an insanity plea if they felt the plea was a tactic to avoid taking responsibility for the crime. The strategy for the defense team was to manipulate the proceedings in their favor by introducing the most damning evidence before the prosecution had the chance.
The jury was brought back into the courtroom. Mr. Walsh wasted no time introducing a series of photographs taken by the police photographers of Marion Parker’s disemboweled body. The audience and the jury reacted emotionally from the moment the first picture was introduced as evidence. Halfway into the collection of pictures one female member of the jury fainted, and Judge Trabucco brought the first day of the trial to an early end.
The next day, Mr. Walsh did the unpredictable once again by introducing Mr. Hickman’s first confession given to Detectives Lucas and Raymond. He hoped to nullify the importance of the confession by entering it into the record as a defense exhibit. He was not overlooking the obvious; he knew that every word confirmed Hickman’s role in Marion Parker’s death, but he saw the legal maneuver as part of his overall effort to make the jury believe Hickman’s behavior before and after the murder was so odd it fit the legal definition of insanity. He was effectively introducing all the potential prosecution issues into his defense of the crime itself. As Walsh introduced the evidence of his client’s involvement in the crime he did so in way that focused on the apparent instability of Hickman’s actions.
Walsh followed the introduction of the first confession by entering into evidence the second confession, the one Hickman had written by hand addressing his motives. It was not until the third day of the trial, after presenting several legal motions, that Mr. Walsh introduced the first witness for the defense. Mr. Hickman’s father was called to address the issues of his family’s poverty, the divorce of Hickman’s parents at an early age, and the harsh religious practices of the family during Hickman’s youth. Mr. Walsh was trying to generate sympathy for his client. It was a risky strategy, because he was essentially arguing that his client was driven insane by a strict implementation of Christian values. It was not an argument that would sit well with conservative jurors.
In addition to the testimony given by Mr. Hickman’s father, the defense team added eleven depositions by individuals who had known Hickman in Kansas. All the statements were read into the record by the trial clerk in the hope the jury would see that Mr. Hickman was hopelessly insane. In the days that followed, Walsh offered several additional depositions to support the theory that Hickman suffered from abnormal behavior in the later part of his senior year of high school. The point of all of these documents was that William Edward Hickman seemed to have an abnormal aversion to women. He was described as having avoided contact and conversation with his female classmates. By all accounts, Hickman had made little effort to hide his feelings about women.
Cantillon watched the jury as the depositions were read into the record. He came to the conclusion the jury was not paying attention. It was a bad sign. After starting off with a strong legal strategy, the defense was in trouble. Walsh spent the next several evenings making sure he was prepared to effectively present the evidence of the medical experts.
District Attorney Keyes made very few objections to the depositions. His own experience had taught him juries were seldom impressed by sworn depositions. Mr. Keyes knew the real legal battle, the jostling for courtroom supremacy, would start when each side started questioning and cross-examining the opposing teams of doctors. The district attorney was initially surprised by the willingness of the defense team to introduce what would normally be considered evidence for the prosecution. It was a bold move by a competent attorney and, based on comments from the media, Keyes seemed to thrive on the challenge. The district attorney came to the conclusion that the defense’s tactic was ineffective and he let them progress at their own pace.
Mr. Walsh started his questioning of expert witnesses with Dr. Fettes, who spoke for the defense about the defendant’s general physical status.
Q. I assume you reached a conclusion after your physical examination of this boy. Would you kindly relate them, Doctor?
A. I concluded that the patient, Hickman, had suffered a disorder of his natural growth. His circulatory system is inadequate. His metabolism was low;
blood pressure was low; specific gravity of urine low. He has dysfunction of his vasomotor system. He suffers from general glandular disturbance. He is afflicted with arthritis. He is absorbing considerable fecal infection. He has an inflammation of the brain covering known as serous meningitis.
Q. Doctor, is Hickman’s physical condition characteristic of dementia praecox patients?
A. Yes, in such patients a doctor usually finds, as here, a wide range of bodily disorders. This boy’s physical condition is very characteristic of that mental disease.
In the early days of psychiatry, dementia praecox was the clinical term used to describe patients who believed they were the victims of demonic possession. Carl Jung published the first detailed study of this condition, stating the delusion was associated with physical symptoms that reinforced the patient’s belief their body was being manipulated by outside forces. Walsh was trying to argue that his client’s Christian values had created the illusion that his criminal behavior was influenced by the devil. From the point of view of the defense, this illusion was self-evident proof of insanity.
The next expert witness for the defense was Dr. R. O. Shelton, a well-known psychologist. He was there to present his opinion that the accused kidnapper and murderer had been insane during the crime and every day since. His key testimony came when he was asked by the defense about the source of Hickman’s hallucinations.
Q. Doctor, could you determine the inception and nature of the defendant’s hallucinations?
A. In this particular case, this boy’s feelings towards religion characterized the nature of his hallucinations. As to just when he crossed the line into actual psychosis is difficult to say.
Q. What was that?
A. It was religion. When this boy was very young he lived in Arkansas, in a rural community, where they had religious revival meetings. At these revival meetings they would shout, get up and tell spiritual experiences, and become ecstatic. The boy described them to me. This boy was not able to stand the resultant emotional strain because of his inherited instability. He was terrified by the thought of hell. Religion is succor to the soul, but to the little boy it became a fearsome thing. It aggravated the terror instilled by the mother’s maniacal night maneuvers with hatchet and butcher knife. He went home and prayed for hours, pleading with God for mercy. With the advent of puberty and its accompanying pathological and psychological changes, it was no longer possible for this boy, with his inherited weakness, to withstand this great emotional strain. He created a fantastic world ruled by a God of his own imagination. This God took on the face and figure of a revivalist. He falsely believed that this God talked to him.
It was Walsh’s intention to prove Hickman had fought his natural tendency to suffer from the symptoms of dementia praecox by harboring illusions he was chosen by God to become a minister. That he had the idea that God spoke directly to him in response to feelings he believed were influenced by the devil was, according to the defense, the internal conflict that led to Hickman’s insanity.
At this point Keyes started to object to the expert witness. It seemed to the district attorney that Walsh was using a “the devil made me do it” defense that could only be described as laughable. The judge disagreed. Walsh was allowed to continue with the presentation of his evidence.
• • •
Louis B. Mayer was disturbed by the impact the Hickman trial was having on the filmmaking business. Theater owners were refusing to show newsreels on the case and religious groups were organizing boycotts; the fire in Canada made parents fear for the safety of their children when they went to the movies without adult supervision.
On the advice of his public relations staff, Mayer made the decision not to discuss the Hickman case in public. Despite numerous questions from the media about the trial and the impact of Hickman’s obsession with the movies there is no recorded statement from Louis B. Mayer other than him repeating the words “no comment.”
His strategy for dealing with the negative publicity was to promote the newly created Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences. At the time of the trial the academy was making plans for its second annual awards event.
When the academy was first created it was considered a trade association for actors, writers, and directors. Mayer’s original push for the creation of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences was an attempt to try and convince its founding members to mold the organization into a body, which would arbitrate contract disputes between the studios and the main creative branches of film production. The idea was to create an organization for collective bargaining on behalf of the people who made the film industry possible. It was, in effect, a union set up and run by the management.
Every attempt by academy members to break free of Mr. Mayer’s influence was met with unmitigated failure. On every committee and in every meeting held to discuss issues of importance, Mr. Mayer had his spies and his supporters ready to inform him about the proceedings, and identify those who were not voting in the best interest of MGM. To that end he controlled not only the selection of the original thirty-six founding members, but also chose who would represent the different divisions of the organization at the subcommittee level, because he knew most of the hard work would be done by the smaller groups.
There were only six actors chosen to be on the original board: Douglas Fairbanks Sr., the husband of Mary Pickford; Harold Lloyd, the famous comedian; Richard Barthelmess, an actor who, for whatever reason, failed to make the transition from silent films; Jack Holt, the character actor; Milton Sills, a bit part actor; and Mr. Mayer’s close friend Conrad Nagel. The six directors chosen for membership had all done business with Mr. Mayer: Cecil B. de Mille, a close personal friend; John Stahl, who gained fame for making a series of melodramas; Raoul Walsh, who was a successful director; Frank Lloyd, a small time director who worked independently of any studio; and of course Fred Niblo, one of the founders of the academy and an employee of MGM. The six writers chosen to join the Academy were Joseph Farnham, Jeanie MacPherson, Bess Meredyth, Benjamin F. Glazer, Carey Wilson, and Frank Woods. In the area of movie technicians there were only three: Roy J. Pomeroy, J. Arthur Ball, and the art director for MGM, Cedric Gibbons.
The remaining fourteen members of the academy were all producers who got along with Mr. Mayer even though many worked at different studios: Harry and Jack Warner, the brothers who ran Warner Brother’s studio; Joseph M. Schenck, the original partner and friend of Marcus Loew; Fred Beetson, Mr. Mayer’s close associate and friend; Charles H. Christie, who was famous for developing comedies; Sid Grauman, the owner of a large theater chain; Jesse L. Lasky, one of the founders of Paramount and one time partner of Mr. Mayer; Milton E. Hoffman, also one of the founders of Paramount; and perhaps the least successful producer, M. C. Lee. The remaining three were Louis B. Mayer and his second-in-command at MGM, Irving Thalberg, and the only female member of the board, Mary Pickford, who asked to join not as an actress but as a producer. The petite, blond actress known as “America’s Sweetheart” was both smart and independent. She used these attributes along with her star status to thrive in a business full of men.
The thirty-six members chosen to be on the board were not as surprising as those who were left off—men and women like Samuel Goldwyn, Adolph Zukor, D. W. Griffith, W. W. Hodkinson, Gary Cooper, Gloria Swanson, Charlie Chaplin, and Buster Keaton. Al Jolson and Eddie Cantor were not even asked. It did not go unnoticed that those who were left off the list had at one time or another had substantial differences with the great and powerful Louis B. Mayer.
Initially, Mr. Mayer was not even concerned about all the gossip that circulated around town regarding his control over the academy. To him it was inconsequential; what he knew from his experience in Hollywood was that, to get any idea off the ground, you needed a strong leader who moved forward regardless of how others saw them.
To help get the new trade organization going, he turned many of the details over to two well-established lawyers in the film indus
try, Edwin Loeb and George W. Cohen. These same lawyers were responsible for the public image of the film industry whenever a public figure got into trouble with the law. In this capacity, both attorneys had a close relationship with Asa Keyes. The support of the film industry was at the heart of his plans for financial and political support during the next election.
While the trial of William Edward Hickman droned on, Mr. Mayer took a significant step toward achieving his main public relations objective. He hired George Stanley to cast a 24 karat gold–plated statue that would represent the “Award of Merit.” It was decided the statues would be given once a year to one individual in each category of the filmmaking process. The statues would be given out during an awards ceremony hosted by the academy. The statue was of a knight standing with his sword point directed toward the base of a reel of film. The reel was evenly divided into five areas, one for each of the five branches of the academy: actors, directors, writers, producers, and technicians. The statue was the symbolic representation of Louis B. Mayer’s intention to defend the reputation of the film industry against all efforts to denigrate it.
• • •
As Mr. Walsh continued his argument that Mr. Hickman had been insane even before the kidnapping of Marion, he introduced a statement made by his client inside the Los Angeles city jail. It read:
Is the abolition of crime worthy of deep consideration? Is it worth more than one life? Is it of such a widespread or inconsiderable nature that to check its progress is believed impossible or undesirable by the American people? Do the American people really understand crime? Can a criminal help himself? Do prisons help sufficiently to cure criminals? Do modern criminal prevention methods avail the people of the U.S. of sufficient protection or reasonable security? Has crime diminished or is it increasing? Are murders and atrocities becoming more ordinary and less repulsive to the American people or is crime blotting out itself or is it not? Do the American people think they have satisfactory protection and control of their properties and lives? Are these questions of vital importance to every American citizen? Do their answers determine the welfare of American society? Will the American people listen to me? Will you members of the jury and court reason with me?