William Avery

William Avery appears in the closing account of the appeals and executions as the newly elected governor of Kansas whose refusal to intervene left the scheduled death sentences in place. The narrative identifies him as a wealthy farmer and connects his judgment to sensitivity to public opinion, while recording his stated belief that denying clemency served the people of Kansas.

Office and Context

By March 1965, Perry Smith and Richard Eugene Hickock had spent almost two thousand days on Death Row. Their attorneys, Joseph P. Jenkins and Robert Bingham, had carried their appeals to the United States Supreme Court three times, but the Court denied review each time. The Kansas Supreme Court then set an execution window between midnight and 2:00 a.m. on April 14, 1965, leaving a clemency appeal to Avery as a final possible intervention.

The appeal asked the newly elected governor to act after the courts had declined to reopen the case. The account characterizes Avery as a rich farmer who was sensitive to public opinion; it does not describe any personal meeting with the condemned men or provide further detail about his deliberations.

Clemency Decisions

Avery refused to intervene in the cases of Smith and Hickock, a decision he regarded as being in the best interest of the people of Kansas. The refusal left the sentence and execution schedule intact: Richard Eugene Hickock died first, at 12:41 a.m., followed by Perry Smith at 1:19 a.m. on April 14, 1965.

Two months later, Avery also denied clemency appeals for George Ronald York and James Douglas Latham, who were hanged on June 22, 1965. The account thus records his refusal in two separate cases involving condemned prisoners, while giving his stated public-interest rationale specifically in the Smith and Hickock matter.

Role in the Closing Narrative

Avery is not developed through a personal history or an extended account of his political career. His significance here is institutional and consequential: after judicial appeals failed, the governor had an opportunity to intervene, and his refusal did not alter the executions. The subsequent mention of his decision in the York and Latham case extends this role beyond the central case, situating his clemency judgments within the book’s final account of executions in Kansas.