Interview: Ron Yengich A widely recognized Salt Lake City criminal defense attorney, Ron Yengich also is an adjunct instructor at the University of Utah where he teaches an honors course on the case of Joe Hill as a study of justice. Continued from previous page... Q: Hill represents himself at the preliminary hearing and basically says I'll present my case when it goes to trial. There's no surprise at the preliminary, but when he shows up for trial, he's got two attorneys in tow. Scott and McDougal. Where do they come from? A: Well they probably came out of the legal community as novice lawyers who saw a case that had received a great deal of publicity and offered their services to Hill so that they could hopefully win a case and make their name in the legal community. It didn't turn out that way for them, but that's likely what happened. And Hill accepted their representation. The thing about him not representing himself at the preliminary or the thing about him representing himself at the preliminary hearing is interesting because if the wound was what convicted Hill in a sense, it was the lack of experienced legal help at the preliminary hearing that really was the major problem because at the preliminary hearing from what we know from reading the accounts in the newspaper, there were real problems with identifying Hill as the second man in the store. There were discrepancies in the identification and that's why a preliminary hearing is so important with a skilled advocate because I think with a skilled advocate those could have been pointed out. And that really kind of set in stone the problem that he had. Q: From what I've read of Scott and McDougal statements, I have sense that the defense attorneys seem to believe that this case is winnable. A: Oh yeah. I mean, send me back in time. I want to try the Joe Hill case. Which isn't to say that I would win it. But is that a case that any good defense attorney would like to sink their teeth in? There's no question about it. The intriguing thing about Scott and McDougal is after Joe Hill is convicted and even after he is executed, we really don't hear much more from them. Joe Hill said he had a defense and he would put it on at the trial and Scott and McDougal alluded to that fact during the course of the trial, but we don't have them ever telling us what the real defense was, where Joe Hill was that night, because that's what he had to explain as a practical matter. Scott and McDougal to the day they die, at least as far as I know, never told anybody what that was. I find that interesting because it kind of supports those people who believe Joe Hill was culpable for this murder, in a sense. Because that silence speaks very loudly. To me at least. Q: How difficult was it to practice law in the state of Utah in the early nineteen hundreds? A: Well not really that hard, I mean it had not changed in a long time, give you an example. Orien Clemens, Samuel Clemens brother, when he went to Nevada to be the secretary to the Secretary of State. He got tired of that job and basically hung his shingle out and became Lawyer Clemens. It wasn't that much different at the turn of the century here in Utah and other places. You weren't required to go to law school. Generally, there was some idea that you read law with another lawyer, which is basically that you worked in another, in a lawyer's office, and then that lawyer would kind of certify that you knew what you were doing and then you would apply to the highest court in the state and you would become a lawyer, you hung out your shingle. The lawyers moved from state to state without having to take a bar exam. They didn't have to graduate from an accredited law school or any law school whatsoever. So guys like Scott and McDougal could become lawyers without any real genuine legal training. And you made your reputation at that point on the basis of your ability to get those type of cases, or to become known in a particular community. Q: Let's a talk about another attorney. Ernest O. Leatherwood, the prosecuting attorney. He doesn't have a certain eye witness. He doesn't have a smoking gun in his possession. What type of strategy does Leatherwood employ as he pursues this notion of convicting Hill? A: Well, he relies on circumstantial evidence which is as good as direct evidence, in fairness to Leatherwood. Prosecutors use it all the time. The, it is acceptable in legal practice to do so. Remember in any murder case, such as this one, there are seldom genuine eye witnesses although we have one in this case, Merlin Morrison. But a he's a young man and his credibility is somewhat questionable. Simply because of the trauma of the event. So Leatherwood relies on the fact that a there is circumstantial evidence beginning with the wound and running to the lifestyle of Joe Hill. And he relies on that. He relies on it during the course of the trial and he relies on what at least I believe to be in hindsight, to be questionable eye witness identification from other individuals, Mrs. Hansen, Mrs. Seeley, who supposedly see Hill at the scene of the Morrison store. The intriguing thing about it is virtually all of that testimony that comes in improves over time. From the preliminary hearing where the eye witness identification is marginal at best and in some cases non- existent to positive identification by a number of these people during the course of the trial. Q: One of the stunning moments that takes place in the Hill trial is when Hill, obviously frustrated with the way his attorney's are performing in court, turns right around to the judge, Judge Ritchie and says - "I got three prosecutors here and I aim to get rid of two of them right now." And he tries to fire Scott and McDougal. Is that significant? A: Oh, yeah. It's when in doubt blame your lawyer. It's nice to know that that has existed in trials from the beginning, but it's interesting because he does this in front of the jury. And the judge, Judge Ritchie basically lets most of it go on in front of the jury. And the credibility of Hill at that time had to reach an all time low with these twelve good men in true. And also he tells the judge in the presence of the jury that he can get along with Leatherwood and Leatherwood is an honorable man. So he vouches for Leatherwood's credibility in front of the jury. Which is intriguing when you think about it. This is the man that is trying to put Joe Hill to death and yet Hill stands up and says, I can get along with this guy, he's an honest man or he's an honorable man. And we can go forward with that. I think it hurt Hill a lot. I think Ritchie made a major mistake by letting it go on in front of the jury. Q: Another thing Ritchie allows to go on, in fact insists goes on is that Scott and McDougal not exit the case. Ron Yengich: Yeah, ultimately, they do and a it's an intriguing thing from a legal standpoint because many years later, this very issue will be raised in the United States Supreme Court in a famous case Foretta v. California, as to how a judge should deal with issues where an individual does want to represent himself, what he should or she should do in asking questions of the individual as to whether or not they can defend themselves and whether or not they should have standby counsel which is what Scott and McDougal become for a short period of time with Hill so it almost anticipates that. A, and he does have them stand by and I think that is a wise decision on his part. Q: Is there concern about a conviction being thrown out on appeal? A: Yeah. Any judge is concerned that they're going to be over-turned. And Ritchie helps Leatherwood during the case. He doesn't give the defense a whole lot of help. He keeps out evidence that probably is relevant that the defense attempts to offer, and he instructs the jury during the course of the trial on a theory of circumstantial evidence which is questionable. He also seems to allow Leatherwood to argue that Hill's silence in the face of his wound is evidence of his guilt. And the failure to testify which is clearly inappropriate. And the Utah Supreme Court affirms him on that. And so Ritchie doesn't give the defense a whole lot of help during the course of the trial. And in my judgment. does kind of side with the prosecution. Not unusual at that time. Cynics would say not unusual today either. Q: What type of defense does the Hill team offer? A: They put on evidence that a Morrison did have problems with other people, that there were other suspects, they put on a evidence that the manner in which the bullet went into Hill's body, and through his coat was not consistent with what had been described by Merlin Morrison in the store. They discussed the issues as did the prosecution as to certain blood trails that are found in or about the area of the Morrison store. Whether they're consistent with Hill. They talk about the distance Hill would have to go when he goes to Dr. McHugh's house, and whether or not a person could do that, go that distance with the wound that he had. They do, they try to do quite a number of things. Again, they're restricted in some of them by Ritchie, but the one thing that they don't do, and in my judgment., as a defense lawyer is they never make an effort to explain how he is shot. The question becomes then, is that their decision or is that the decision of Joe Hill. Does Joe Hill limit them in doing that? Obviously, a jury in a capital murder trial wants to hear from the defendant. Again, that's my experience. If, they want to hear an explanation as to where you were if you're o-- if you're defense is that wasn't me that they say was at that place, they want to hear where you were. That is never put on in front of the jury. And in my judgment., a jury sitting here with that wound and the other circumstantial evidence, and the outburst of Hill in the court room, Leatherwood's forensic skills. He was a capable lawyer, he became a United States congressman. He was a capable lawyer. The assistance such as it was from Ritchie and the instructions and so on and so forth, without that explanation, it would have taken a great deal of courage by these twelve jurors to acquit him. Particularly given the fact that this was a case that had received a great deal of publicity. And so there is the question, who made that decision. It's, there's an interesting point, and part of that point that hasn't been made a lot is that during the course of the trial, when it looked like they were losing, obviously Hill felt he was losing, he fired his lawyers. Virginia Snow Stephen had contacted O.N. Hilton, a rather famous lawyer referred to as Judge Hilton, and asked him to come aboard. He and Snow Stephen contacted a good local lawyer by the name of Soren X. Christensen. He was a lawyer of some a standing in the bar, to kind of oversee the trial as it went on and report back to Hilton. I have a question whether or not the belief was at that time that there was sufficient error in the record that they didn't put on their entire defense believing wrongfully as it turned out, that if he was convicted would be overturned by the Utah Supreme Court. So there's a lot going on behind the scenes that we will never really know but there is circumstantial evidence that there were other people involved giving advice to Hill at the time he was dealing with Scott and McDougal. Q: You've mentioned the twelve members of the jury. What's the standard they must employ to establish guilt. What must the prosecution establish? A: Well they have to prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt." And, remember, Hill was presumed innocent. The intriguing thing in this case is there's no doubt that John Morrison and Arling Morrison were killed, a I mean there was a homicide. There is a question whether or not it was a homicide, a robbery homicide, a felony murder, a capital murder in that sense. And remember, Hill was only tried for one of those two murders. He was not tried for both of them at that time. The theory was robbery. The robbers when they go in one of them says, "We've got you now!" And begins to fire a gun, if we are to believe young Merlin Morrison. My judgment. in a life of defending crimes is that is not the type of statement that is made in a robbery. So, they had to find that it was committed in the course of a robbery, felony, murder and that there was a homicide. One of those two is pretty easy, the deaths of these two men. The real issue becomes: was the gunman Joe Hill? Is the eyewitness identification correct? And again there was lots of evidence put on by both sides, to identify him or to say it was somebody else or to say that there were other people that were potential perpetrators. But the one person who never speaks is the main actor in the play. Hamlet never talks. And that kind of takes the wind away from the defense, and allows this idea of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to be more readily accepted by the jurors. Comment on the jury. The mythology about Joe Hill is that as a the song goes, "the copper bosses killed you Joe, they shot you Joe, said I..." But there's an idea that it was the copper bosses and the Mormons who killed Joe Hill. But intriguingly in this case, six of the twelve jurors were non- Mormon, the judge was not Mormon, and the prosecutor wasn't Mormon. I find that interesting in retrospect because when I grew up with the myth of Joe Hill. My understanding was that this was in fact a conspiracy between the forces of the Mormon church and the forces of capitalism. And it turns out at least most of the players in this drama, including the three members of the Supreme Court are all at least non-Mormon. And so we've got to think about that as we reflect upon that type of mythology. Q: It seems to me there are a couple of forms of conspiracies that can exist. One is where they sit around the table a room.. . actually plot, and the other type of conspiracy is based on an understanding of what the community standard is, and that this one is so obvious we need not consult, we need not conspire, because we all know the threat that might exist. A: I doubt very much that anybody sat around a table and said, "Let's kill the Wobbly." Of course Hill we find really may well have determined that he wanted to be a martyr at some point too. Which is an interesting side light. But I doubt that it happened that there was an overt conspiracy. But certainly if Leatherwood had a desire to go on politically, he would have to do things that were acceptable to the power in the community, certainly because there were elections for Supreme Court judges at that time, you were elected, people could run against you. At one point there is a sense of what the community wants, and what the desire is to the community, and in that sense, although not a conspiracy, there certainly is pressure on everybody involved in this case. Hill was an outsider. There have been attempts to revise that and say well there was no pressure and there was no feeling that this guy was a Wobbly and had nothing to do with it, it was a straight murder case, that is all ideas that have come after the fact. But there is an interesting irony to the Joe Hill case. In the Supreme Court reporters, it is State v. Hillstrom. Two years before this time there was another case, State vs. Hill. Where a man was charged under very similar circumstances and convicted of a bar room killing in Midvale, Utah. Where there were similar eye witness identifications, that were somewhat questionable. And there were other factors which lead one to believe that Hill was involved in this killing. For example, he fled and changed his name. The Supreme Court, the same judges that affirmed Joe Hill's conviction reversed the Hill conviction and said that there was not sufficient evidence to convict. It's an interesting dichotomy because there was no pressure in the Hill case, the first case, but there was a great deal of pressure in the Hillstrom case. So to follow up on what you said, explicit conspiracy, no. Tacit pressure, yes, no question about it. Q: After his conviction Hill meets with Orrin Hilton, his appellate attorney, and afterwards, Hilton is quoted by one local reporter: "That Hill is a strange one. It's almost as if he needs to be a symbol for a cause." And here we have really the first statement that Hill may be considering himself something other than just another inmate. A: No question. Remember when he is first arrested. Because he is known as a troubadour, the Wobblies' troubadour, one of a couple at that time, but a famous one. The local here in Salt Lake City, when he is arrested, goes to him and says, we'll help you out. And he says, and this is prior to the preliminary hearing, he says, I don't want your help, I don't want you involved. I don't want to bring the union into this basically. After the preliminary hearing, and there is a great deal of publicity by that time about him being involved with the Wobblies, he has a change of heart. He does receive a lot of sympathy. He has people that otherwise would unlikely have ever dealt with him, Virginia Snow Stephen being an example. Later on Elizabeth Gurley Flynn. And other people such as that showing interest in him. He does seem to change. And there comes a time where in my opinion, Hill decides that he will be the martyr for the labor movement. That is brought home most interestingly to me when the Utah State Board of Pardons, which is basically the governor, the attorney general and the three members of the Supreme Court at that time, make him an offer and say "Look, we will pardon you, if you will just tell us where you were that night, and indeed you don't have to tell us on the record, all you've got to do is tell the sheriff if he verifies it, you have our word we will not say where you were and will let you go." And Hill says no. In my mind at that point, assuming his innocence, as I do, he clearly has decided "I'm gonna be a martyr. I am going to be the symbol for the oppression that I believe exists in this country." And I think that is verified by many of the letters that he wrote to people. Many of the statements that he made to people during the course of his incarceration. Because he had an option and I am unaware of any other convicted murderer or really convicted felon in the history of the state of Utah having, which is to say the board of pardons has said, all you've got to do is allow us to verify your alibi and we'll cut you loose. That's interesting. But I think that at that point he had decided that he was better employed as a martyr to the union. Q: Hill becomes a symbol seemingly for all sides in this issue. He certainly is a symbol for the Wobblies who rallied public support. Even those labor or political people that he's derided at times, including Samuel Gompers, Eugene V. Debbs and the Socialist Party. He becomes a symbol for people like William Spry who said this man is symbolic of the evil that can be infested into our community. It seems Joe Hill becomes a symbol for everyone. A: Oh yeah, he is a symbol for the forces of good and the forces of evil, wherever you stand on those sides. To the Wobblies he is a symbol for the forces of good. He is simply a troubadour who was wrongfully charged and convicted, proving once again that this system, this capitalistic system which controls everything including the judiciary, doesn't work and is willing to allow innocent men of common background to go to their death, to the forces of in the state of Utah, the manufacturer, the every day common person who has a job, really, in many instances the farmer, the person in Utah who forms the power structure. He is evidence of this idea of these foreigners coming here and agitating the problems that we have and over stating what the problems are, and actually causing more problems. He becomes evil in that sense. And then ultimately, he becomes almost a Christ figure for the labor movement. It's not uncommon to see Joe Hill, statements that he made on signs during the course of laborer agitation or labor strikes even today. And he has become that martyr. Joan Baez singing "I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night" at Woodstock, is not an anachronism. Because his words and the idea of this man being sacrificed to the system exists consistently up to this day. Q: Let's talk about the musical work of Joe Hill. What was the value, what was the import if you will of Hill's songs. A: Well, the import of Hill's songs in the labor movement in general was great. As he said, and remember a lot of these people couldn't read either. If you're on a picket line or you're fightin' the bosses, it's a heck of a lot easier to learn a song than it is to read a pamphlet and understand what they're talking about. Hill of course didn't write much music, most everything he did was a parody, of popular songs at that time. But he put words to common songs and they were sung, and when he talks about Mr. Block, the Block-headed boss or, he talks about Casey Jones the union scab. Or he talks about there is power in a union. These people who are really quite often dispossessed of any power. These people understand that. They hear the songs, they learn the words, and it does bring them together in a common cause. And again, not just at that time, but many of these songs have been used throughout the labor movement and there is a a power in the sense that you see people standing up on a picket line singing these songs and it genuinely does bring them together, and it brings that emotion together about what they're really fighting. They're fighting for themselves. They're fighting for their family. And more importantly, they're not alone any more, they have people that believe the same thing. It was a powerful idea. It wasn't unique, it had been done before. But Hill had a talent to do those parodies and do them well so that they could be understood by people who may be illiterate in the English language, and who may have not taken the time to sit down and read a pamphlet because remember, their lives were not easy. Some of these people worked twelve and fourteen hours a day, for little wages. And they did not live in decent situations. Q: Joe Hill has been dead for eighty years. Much time has passed. Are all the issues of Hill's day a part of our past? A: No. In fact I think they are in America's future. Whether or not Joe Hill was guilty, which we will never know. . . We got a verdict, and he was executed. One of the most important things about the Hill case is whether or not we allowed him a fair trial. Whether or not the procedures that were employed during the course of that trial were such that we could protect an innocent man from not only being convicted, but executed. That will always be an important focus and for that reason, the case itself should not ever be disregarded. We should continue to teach that case and attempt to understand it, and be worried that we would fall back into that trap in my judgment. The other reason is, that a we are turning into a new century, and it's going to be in my judgment., a century of labor conflict. If we have a world economy, it may be argued by some that we seek what the old I.W.W. desired, one big union. If international corporations can pick up and move their sites of manufacturing simply because one nation has a more humane treatment for its workers and better labor laws, maybe we need one big union to deal with those issues. If we have across the border people being treated the same way that the miners and the railroad workers were treated in the 1910s and 1920s in this country, maybe this issue and this case, which discussed those issues is important to be considered again and again. And I believe that is why it will be considered. Whether Joe Hill was guilty or innocent, he has become a mythological symbol of what happens when there is too much power in the people that control the money in a country. Whether that's true or not really isn't important. That's the mythology that surrounds this case. And that's really why the case of Joe Hill will never die. Because it is a basic conflict in many ways between the haves and the have nots. And that's why the Hill case will never die. That's why the songs that he parodied, that's why the songs about him will continue to live in my judgment.                       About the Program || Joe Hill Home || PBS Home