by David Wilson
Remember, now, he has been in the Pendleton jail up there for several days; he had been several days on the road up there; he was fleeing from the law; he was fleeing from the consequences of his act. Do you think that he realized and appreciated the nature and quality of that act that he committed? Do you think that he realized that the act, which he committed, was wrong? And, after all is said and done, ladies and gentlemen, when you get into the jury room, remember this, that whether you believe him to be a little off, or whether you think he is perfectly sane, as I think he is and was, that the test, under the law of the State of California and the law will be given to you by the judge, and I am going to cite it. In general the test is: Has he sufficient mental caliber, has he sufficient mental capacity to realize and appreciate the nature and character of the act he has committed? Yes he has.
All right then, has he sufficient mental capacity to know that that act was wrong and against the laws of the land? Why, it seems to me I am wasting my time, wasting my efforts here, when the thing is so clear and plain. Do you think that he would have run away under the circumstances that he did? Do you think that he would have assumed the name Peck the way he did when he got up to Pendleton, Oregon? Do you think that he would have stated that somebody else committed the crime? Do you think he would have tried to escape, if he had not realized the nature and character of the act that he had committed and if he had not known that it was wrong?
Why, when a lawyer, or a doctor, or any other man gets up before a jury and in the face of the testimony in this case as to the actions of this man, now, remember, ladies and gentlemen, the best way for you to find out and determine for yourselves whether or not a man, at a certain time was sane or insane, is by what he does and what he says. That is the only way these doctors can find it out. That is the way they do. They look at him; size up what he says and what he does. I want to tell you when eight of Los Angeles’s best will give a man the examination these gentlemen they gave this man, and get up before a jury and, under their oath, testify that they can’t find a single thing in the man indicating that he is insane, it means something to me, and when I find a man who has been doing the things that this defendant has been doing, who has been acting as he has been acting, and when he commits the greatest and most atrocious crime of all acted as he acted without displaying one single thing that tended to show or does show that his mind was other than a sound, reasoning mind, I want to tell you that I feel that I am wasting your time and the Court’s time in any further discussion in trying to convince you that I am right, whether I am wasting time or not, I am going until twelve o’clock.
Let’s see, this man with the great delusion, with the one delusion that he is guided by a supreme providence and that alone? Yes. When he wants to give his motives… he was not asked to do it, but he stated to the officers that he wanted to do it, it was going to be shown to the judge. When he is given that opportunity he sits down to write it out in his own word, in his own way and takes his own time. He said it, motives. After giving his name, and so forth, which you can read here if you want to, he says the first motive that comes into his mind, which, to my way of thinking, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason why he killed that girl, first, fear of detection by police. He did it in the belief that by killing and dissecting the body, he would be able to avoid suspicion and arrest. That is why he killed her. You know this man had been getting in his travels, in the commission of these various crimes that he committed; he had been getting some money. He killed this man Thoms out here in the drug store in December of 1926, do you remember, that is the testimony.
The very next month he goes to work down here at the First National Bank. He may have decided that after he killed that man it was a pretty serious thing, that he and Welby had better go straight. He may have decided that; I don’t know, although I think he is a monster without a soul, without conscience, without a heart, but he may have decided to try to go straight, so they decided to go down to the First National Bank, where Mr. P. M. Parker was working, and they got a job as pages, both of them. They did that within less than two weeks after killing Mr. Thoms in the holdup. He did not go straight, however, for very long. Came a time he needed a motorcycle, or wanted a motorcycle, so he took to forging checks to buy the motorcycle and was discovered in his forgeries, brought up before the bar of justice and made no claim there, ladies and gentlemen, that a divine providence had guided him or told him to commit these forgeries, but he pleaded guilty and was placed on probation, taken back to Kansas City by his mother where he immediately commenced to engage in a life of crime; stayed there until November of 1927 when he came out here.
Now, listen, he was not getting enough money in his robberies, he was not doing well enough, so he concocted the scheme of kidnapping some young girl and holding her for ransom. Well, that is not the first time that that has been done. That crime has been committed since long before I can remember anything. My reading tells me that it is being committed every month in the United States today; someone is kidnapping, someone is kidnapping somebody. It is being committed down in Mexico, where they are kidnapping American citizens and holding them for ransom. That is the same thing this boy did. He says he wanted $1500 to go to college. I don’t know, and I don’t care whether he wanted to go to college with this money or not. He wanted the $1500, so he kidnapped Marion Parker.
Now, while he had her in his possession, while he had her under his control up here, he wrote several notes to the father. Great stress was laid by counsel the other day in examining Doctor Orbison about the character of the writing of these letters that he wrote at that time. Well, as a matter of fact, he did not write at all; he printed. He printed. Why? To disguise his handwriting so that his identity could be kept in the dark and his crimes could be hidden. Do you believe, ladies and gentlemen, that he was guided by divine providence at the time he penned these notes, these so-called “death notes” to the father of this girl, when he printed them instead of writing them?
Don’t you believe, ladies and gentlemen, that if the contention of the defense were true and that this defendant were really actuated by and guided by, and controlled by, this thing which he has denominated providence, that he would have written those letters in his own handwriting and there would have been no attempt at concealment? Ah! The defense doctors, Doctor Skoog, I think it was, when asked if he thought this flight of the defendant, the printing of these letters and the other acts that the evidence shows that he did in trying to make his escape and getting away from the law, if those acts were comparable with the idea that this man was guided by this providence, he said yes. Well, Doctor Skoog, you remember, is the gentleman who was asked on the stand that if he had asked the defendant what the moon was made of, and if the defendant had said it was made of cheese, that he would have believed that was evidence of insanity.
So he got this young girl up in his room there, as the evidence shows and as he tells you ladies and gentlemen. Then he killed her because he was afraid that the officers of the law were on his tail, and he was afraid of detection. Now, that is exactly why he killed her, because he was afraid of detection. Why, you say, and the ordinary layman down the street say, I don’t see how a man could commit a crime of that kind and be in his right mind. No, lots of people say that, you know they don’t see how he could commit a crime of that kind and still be in his right mind. Well, these people have not had pictured to them, ladies and gentlemen, they are not apprised of, by word of mouth, the picture that you have had painted to you of the character of this defendant. He is a criminal; he is a bad man, he is a man without a soul, without a conscience, without a heart, and when Doctor Orbison or Doctor Williams, I have forgotten which, was asked the question as to whether or not he considered this defendant the ordinary American boy, his answer was no, thank God I do not. He is not the ordinary American boy, and I am telling you ladies and gentlemen, he is not the ordinary American boy, but he is a type of an American criminal which we have in this country, and which, wi
th the aid of your verdict, the state of California will purge from her borders.
Now, when he was holding this girl, this man who does not believe in God, who believes that he is above the savior of mankind, according to his own story to Doctor Skoog this boy penned a note to the poor, suffering father and family of this little girl. In that note he told Mr. Parker that if he wanted aid to ask God, not man. Why did he do that, ladies and gentlemen? Why did he do that? He did that to instill in the father, in that father and that mother and that family the most awful terror and dread: If you want aid, ask God, not man. After he is caught, after his trail is ended, when he stands before the bar of justice, he tells you that he is asking aid from the divine providence, which he says guides him and controls him. Why, ladies and gentlemen, he wants to bewilder you, he wants to fool you, he wants to make you think that he was not responsible for the acts which he committed. Of course he does. He has not fooled me and I trust he has not fooled any of you.
I am going to leave this case with you, ladies and gentlemen, in a very few moments. This defendant has stated, in his contemplated speech which he prepared in the county jail to be given before the jury that he wants to be an example for American youth, but the whole trend of his thought in that speech which he had written out, and which he gave to Doctor Orbison, was that he wanted to escape the gallows. The best way for this young man to afford an adequate example to the American youth of today is to do with him ladies and gentlemen just what the law says should be done, unless there be some extenuating circumstances in the commission of his crime. The best example he can show to the people of the United States is that California, the far western state of this great United States, say to people who commit crimes of this kind that you cannot come within my borders if you have sense enough and mind enough to read and realize the nature and character of your act and to distinguish between right and wrong, and commit a crime such as this and be dealt with other than in the most severe and extreme manner.
Fully aware that the outcome of the case would have a significant impact on his chances of reelection, the district attorney repeated the facts of the case, moving his arms and filling the room with his voice. When the recapitulation was finished he paused and lowered his head.
Positioning himself directly in front of the jury he said:
I am going to submit this matter to you at this time with the hope, that it does not go out across the wire to the Atlantic Seaboard, across there to Europe, the other way to Asia and to the countries of the world that Los Angeles County, and the State of California, are not able to adequately cope with the criminals, because criminal this man is and not insane.
From the reaction of the jury there was little doubt in Asa Keyes’s mind they would agree with his view of the necessary verdict. The media was enamored by his effort and praised his skills in print. Louis P. Mayer read the accounts of the summation and was hopeful the issue of William Edward Hickman and the refusal of theaters to show newsreels of the trial was behind him.
Chapter 9
“You can’t handle the truth!”
Jack Nicholson—A Few Good Men (1991)
With all the testimony given, all the forensic evidence addressed, and the summations completed, attention turned to Judge Trabucco, who was ready to deliver his instructions to the jury. Both the defense and the prosecution submitted to the bench the underlying legal issues they thought were critical to their side of the case. Judge Trabucco took their input into consideration and made his comments on each point in this historic case. He spoke for almost half an hour to the jury regarding the legal implications of the new California insanity legislation. As far as the question of Hickman’s culpability, he told the jury what they had heard many times from both the defense and prosecution: The sole issue they must reach agreement upon was whether or not Mr. Hickman was sane or insane at the time he committed the kidnap and murder of Marion Parker.
His instruction was precise and to the point.
It is not every kind of degree of insanity which renders a person incapable of committing crime. Before you can find that the defendant was insane at the time charged in the indictment as of the dates of said offenses, you must find not only that he at those times suffered from insanity, but that the insanity was of that kind and degree which constitutes a defense to a criminal charge and which is more fully explained in the following instructions.
All persons are presumed to be sane. If they are not, then they are in a diseased and deranged condition of the mental faculties as to render the person incapable of knowing the nature and quality of the act or of distinguishing between right and wrong in relation to the act with which he is charged.
You are to determine what the condition of the defendant’s mind was at the precise time of the commission of the act charged in the indictment.
Then the judge addressed a subject the lawyers knew was going to make or break their case. The issue of whose expert witnesses were the most believable. He instructed the jury by saying:
The jury is the sole and exclusive judge of the effect and value of evidence addressed to them and of the credibility of the witnesses who have testified in the case. The term witness includes every person whose testimony under oath has been received as evidence, whether by examination here in court or through deposition. The testimony of all witnesses is to be weighed by the same standard.
The character of the witnesses, as shown by the evidence, should be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining their credibility, that is, whether or not they have spoken the truth. The jury may scrutinize the manner of witnesses while on the stand, and may consider their relation to the case, if any, and also their degree of intelligence. A witness is presumed to speak the truth. This is a rebuttable presumption, and it may be repelled by the manner in which he testified; his interest in the case, if any, or his bias or prejudice, if any, for or against one or any of the parties; by the character of his testimony, or by evidence affecting his character for truth, honesty, or integrity, or by contradictory evidence. A witness may be impeached also by evidence that at other times he has made statements inconsistent with his present testimony as to any matter material to the cause on trial; and a witness may be impeached also by proof that he has been convicted of a felony.
A witness willfully false in one material part of his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others. The jury may reflect the whole of the testimony of a witness who has willfully sworn falsely as to a material point. If you are convinced that a witness has stated what was untrue as to a material point, not as a result of mistake or inadvertence, but willfully and with design to deceive then you may treat all of his or her testimony with distrust and suspicion, and reject all unless you shall be convinced that he or she has in other particulars sworn to the truth.
As the judge finished addressing the jury, a reporter wrote: “You could see every member of the jury became acutely aware that their time to pass judgment on Hickman’s guilt or innocence was at hand.” As if on cue, the news that the jury was beginning their deliberations went out to millions of interested Americans by way of radio. Despite the fact that District Attorney Keyes had performed like a superstar in his summation to the jury, the unpredictability of twelve citizens reaching a unanimous verdict brought many to fear the unthinkable. What if, after weeks of testimony from almost one hundred witnesses, after concrete crime scene evidence and numerous confessions, the jury found Hickman innocent based on his claim of insanity? The public did not have to wait long to have their concerns laid to rest. Forty-five minutes after leaving the courtroom the jury foreman reported back to the judge they reached a verdict.
Judge Trabucco ordered a dozen deputy sheriffs to be present in the courtroom for the reading of the verdict. Once they were in place he entered through the back hallway and took his seat behind the bench. He warned the audience he would not accept any show of emotion before or after the verdict was read. Anyone violating his order would be arrested on the spot. Whe
n there was complete silence in the courtroom he addressed the foreman.
“Has the jury arrived at a verdict?” the judge asked.
The foreman stood in response to the question. “We have, your Honor.”
“Will you kindly hand the verdict to the bailiff? Mr. Bailiff, please pass the verdict to the bench. The defendant will stand as the clerk reads the verdict.”
“In the Superior Court of the state of California in and for the county of Los Angeles, people of the state of California, plaintiff, versus William Edward Hickman, defendant, case number 325-43. We, the jury in the above, entitled action find the defendant herein sane at the time of the commission of the offense of murder charged in the indictment. Signed, James A. Ruggles, Foreman.”
The clerk asked the jury, “is this your verdict, so say you one, so say you all? Please speak up audibly.”
“It is,” came the response from all the jury members. There was a hush inside the courtroom until a spectator got up, walked into the crowded hallway, and shouted, “They got the son of a bitch!”
Two weeks later Asa Keyes questioned Dr. A. F. Wagner and Chief of Detectives Herman Cline prior to the judge’s sentencing. No new evidence was presented to the court during the penalty phase of the trail, just a restating of issues relating to Marion’s mutilation and Hickman’s behavior.
The judge listened intently then went directly into the reading of his verdict: “The court now determines and finds that the degree of crime in count two of the indictment is murder of the first degree without extenuating or mitigating circumstances. William Edward Hickman, stand up.”
The attorneys rose from their chairs, appearing somber. The defendant stood, looking almost as if he were amused by the proceedings.