Title: Hickock & Smith v. Hand
Citation: 190 Kan. 224, 373 P.2d 206
Docket Number: 42,970
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: July 7, 1962

190 Kan. 224 (1962)
373 P.2d 206
RICHARD EUGENE HICKOCK and PERRY EDWARD SMITH, Petitioners,
v.
TRACY A. HAND, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary, Respondent.
No. 42,970

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 7, 1962.
Russell Shultz, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the briefs for the petitioners.
William M. Ferguson, Attorney General, and J. Richard Foth, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause and Charles Vance, Special Assistant Attorney General, was with them on the briefs for the respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
JACKSON, J.:
This is an original proceeding brought by the petitioners for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioners were each convicted of first degree murder on four counts in the district court of Finney county and the jury assessed the death penalty on each count. Just a year ago, petitioners' appeal from the above convictions came on for decision in this court. (State v. Hickock &amp; Smith, 188 Kan. 473, 363 P.2d 541.)
The court-appointed attorneys filed motions for rehearing as to the above decision, but immediately the court began to receive letters from the petitioners complaining about the court-appointed counsel. Soon the court was informed that counsel had been discharged.
In a short time petitioners were writing to various legal aid groups in Kansas seeking counsel. Letters reached the chairman of the legal aid committee of the Kansas Bar Association alleging grave injustices and need for counsel. The committee of the Wichita Bar Association also received letters and the two chairmen had some consultations. The Wichita committee suggested Russell Shultz, Esquire, of Wichita as a suitable person to investigate the situation. At this point, Mr. Shultz applied to this court for a delay in the disposal of the motion for a rehearing. The court, under *225 the circumstances, granted the delay with the request that Mr. Shultz file with the court a copy of his report to the Kansas Bar Committee.
The report was filed in the early fall, and seemed to have some basis for showing that petitioners Hickock and Smith had not received a fair trial. This showing disturbed this court and it was determined that we would appoint Mr. Shultz as attorney for petitioners to bring an original proceedings in habeas corpus.
It was necessary to bring the new proceeding in habeas corpus since it was thought there was a possibility of discovering matters outside of the record in the criminal proceeding.
The court was greatly pleased when the Honorable Walter G. Thiele, now on retirement after twenty-four years as an outstanding member of this court, consented to act as our commissioner in this matter and to take the evidence in this proceeding. It should be noted that Justice Thiele retired as Chief Justice being at that time the Justice with the longest period of continuous service on the court and therefore Chief Justice (State Constitution, Art. 3, sec. 2).
Justice Thiele was able to hold the required sessions in Finney county and at the penitentiary during the month of February of this year and the Commissioner's report is set out below. We have taken the opportunity of setting out certain authorities supporting the conclusions of law.
It will be noticed that Mr. Shultz has given of his time to represent the petitioners and argued this matter as shown above. Hence, we were surprised to receive a motion from petitioner Smith shortly before the hearing of this case in which Mr. Shultz was criticized. Petitioner Smith asked to be allowed to be represented by a certain inmate of the penitentiary instead of by Mr. Shultz. Only members of the bar are permitted to represent clients in this court. Therefore, the request was denied.
The Commissioner's report was as follows:
"REPORT OF COMMISSIONER
"FINDINGS OF FACT.
"I.
"II.
"III.
"IV.
*228 "V.
"VI.
"VII.
*229 "VIII.
"X.
"XI.
*230 "XII.
"XIII.
"XIV.
"XV.
"XVI.
"XVII.
"XVIII.
"XIX.
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
"I.
"II.
"III.
"IV.
"V.
"VI.
"Dated at Topeka, Kansas, March 20, 1962.
"AMENDED REPORT OF COMMISSIONER.
"AMENDMENT TO FINDING IV.
We may observe that in an original proceedings where a commissioner has been had to take testimony, the findings of the commissioner upon the testimony are advisory only and the ultimate weight of the evidence rests with the court. (State, ex rel., v. Buchanan, 142 Kan. 515, 51 P.2d 5; State, ex rel., v. Harvey, 148 Kan. 166, 80 P.2d 1095; State, ex rel., v. Schmitt, 174 Kan. 581, 585, 258 P.2d 228.)
*235 We have fully considered the whole record before the commissioner and it is our firm conviction that the commissioner's report gives an accurate summary of the testimony taken by him and that his conclusions of law based on the record are entirely correct.
Therefore, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of our commissioner are hereby approved, adopted and made a part of this opinion.
We cannot help but point out one matter in the argument of the petitioners which seems overstressed. The statement is made that all jurors who did not believe in capital punishment would be challenged and removed from the jury. Yet, counsel for petitioners may well have thought that even those who said they were not against capital punishment might well be influenced by the campaign of the churches in Finney county against the death penalty. Certainly, the attorneys cannot be said to be deceitful if they placed some hope in such a result.
The newspapers of Kansas did have considerable coverage of the crime and the trial. In the United Kingdom such coverage would, as we understand it, be subject to contempt proceedings, which, at the present time, our constitutional law forbids. As in any sensational case of this kind, the newspapers all over the state carried the stories and there would be question about jurors in any county in Kansas as feeling was not limited to Finney county. We do not think it was unreasonable for the court appointed counsel to believe that defendants could have a fair trial in Finney county  in fact, we believe they did have a fair trial.
To requote the commissioner: No ground has been established for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus on the part of either of the petitioners, and the writ prayed for should be and is denied. It is so ordered.