Kansas State Bar Association

The Kansas State Bar Association becomes a significant actor in the aftermath of the trial of Richard Eugene Hickock and Perry Smith when it responds to Hickock’s allegations of unfairness. Through its Legal Aid Committee, the association investigated whether the convictions had been reached through a trial that denied the defendants a proper defense, and its intervention led to habeas corpus proceedings in the Kansas Supreme Court.

Legal Aid Committee and Hickock’s Appeal

While imprisoned, Hickock continued sending letters protesting his conviction and seeking a new trial. He wrote to organizations including the Kansas State Bar Association, arguing that the trial had been unfair. His letter reached Everett Steerman, chairman of the association’s Legal Aid Committee, who was sufficiently concerned by its allegations to prompt further action.

Hickock’s claims described several possible defects. He argued that a hostile atmosphere in Garden City, Kansas, had prevented the selection of an impartial jury and that the court should have granted a change of venue. He also alleged that at least two prospective jurors had shown a presumption of guilt during questioning about capital punishment. Because the voir dire had not been recorded—Kansas law did not require a record without a specific demand—those claims could not be checked against a transcript. Hickock further pointed to jurors’ and Judge Tate’s acquaintanceship with Herbert William Clutter, and accused defense attorneys Arthur Fleming and Harrison Smith of inadequate representation and possible collusion with the prosecution. These were allegations made by Hickock, not findings established by the association.

Investigation and Habeas Corpus

Prompted by Steerman, the association took a step described as unprecedented in Kansas legal history: it appointed Russell Shultz, a young Wichita attorney, to investigate Hickock’s charges. The proposed course was conditional. If the evidence warranted it, Shultz was to challenge the convictions through habeas corpus proceedings in the Kansas Supreme Court, which had recently upheld the verdict.

The account characterizes Shultz’s investigation as one-sided and says it consisted of little more than interviews with Hickock and Smith. Afterward, Shultz publicly framed the issue as whether poor defendants, even when plainly guilty, were entitled to a complete defense. His argument distinguished the likely consequences of the men’s deaths from the institutional consequences of allowing due process to fail: in his view, Kansas could recover from the former, but not from the latter.

Petition and Further Hearing

Shultz filed a habeas corpus petition. The Kansas Supreme Court then commissioned Walter G. Thiele, one of its retired justices, to conduct a full-scale hearing. Nearly two years after the trial, the principal participants reconvened in a Garden City courtroom. Hickock and Smith were absent; Judge Tate and the two defense attorneys whose conduct Hickock had challenged were present instead.

The association’s intervention thus moved the dispute beyond Hickock’s letters and into a formal examination of the convictions. It did not itself establish that his accusations were true: the petition and hearing were mechanisms for considering whether the claims warranted legal relief. The episode gives the Kansas State Bar Association a role as an institutional responder to allegations of deficient representation and compromised trial fairness, while leaving the resolution of those allegations to the courts.