The Oklahoma Bar Journal May 2023

assumed no violence accompanied the second or third confessions, “The whole confession technique used here constituted one single, continuing transaction.” 42 ‘A GOOD CRIMINAL CASE’ Despite the apparent injustice of Lyons’ conviction and fur ther injustice of his unsuccessful appeal before the Supreme Court, the case operated as a boon to the NAACP fundraising needs at a time when the organization was ramping up litigation across the country. Marshall wrote during the second day of litigation, “I think we should aim at $10,000,” and he had already himself raised $120 in the small Oklahoma town of Idabel and another $275 in Hugo when not attending to the trial. 43 He added, “We have been needing a good criminal case and we have it.” 44 Additionally, the attention the case received brought new clout to the fledgling civil rights organiza tion and new energy to civil rights litigators nationwide. Psychologically, Thurgood Marshall would write that the case gave him hope, despite the diffi culties. In regard to the strategy of instigative examination and cross-examination of authorities as a Black lawyer, he stated: “It worked perfect. They all became angry at the idea of a Negro pushing them into tight corners and making their lies so obvious. Boy, did I like that – and did the Negros in the court room like it. You can’t imagine what it means to these people down there who have been pushed around for years to know that there is an orga nization that will help them.” 45 Family members of the victims would later make it widely known that they felt W.D. Lyons was innocent, railroaded unfairly into

caused Marshall to later write, “Ninety percent of the white peo ple by this time were with Lyons.” 36 SUBSEQUENT PURPORTED CONFESSIONS Facts revealed at trial showed that after Lyons’ initial interro gation, he was transported the following day, likely without sleep, to the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester. He testified to fur ther beatings at the hand of Deputy Sheriff Van Raulston, as well as being placed in the room with the electric chair until he relented to state to a stenographer that he committed the crime. 37 Included in the stenography is a statement from Lyons that “no force” had been used upon him preceding his con fession. 38 Finally, the state argued that Lyons confessed a third time, orally, while speaking to a guard. 39 Judge Childers, who was uncon vinced that duress was proven in these confessions, permitted their admissibility at trial. The jury, in turn, returned a guilty verdict and sentenced Lyons to life in prison. Remarking on the sentence, Marshall stated later, “You know that life for such a crime as that ... shows clearly that they believed him innocent.” 40 In a terrible blow, the United States Supreme Court would end up affirming the determination of the trial court in Hugo, rejecting the idea of suppressing the subse quent confessions, despite all the evidence of prior duress and force in a 6-3 decision on June 5, 1944. Justice Frank Murphy, writing in dissent, fired off eloquently, “This flagrant abuse by a state of the rights on an American citizen accused of murder ought not to be approved.” 41 Justice Murphy went on to say that even if one

Lyons for seven hours from his head to his feet,” causing Marshall to later write about their testimony, “There are some good white peo ple in the world.” 29 Perhaps the most incredible moment of the trial was when the county prosecutor, Norman Horton, ended up conceding the use of violence against Lyons in dramatic fashion. While grilling Lyons on the stand, Horton asked about his claim that he had been beaten with the use of a blackjack, saying, “[U]pstanding members of the community, sworn officers all, have denied this.” 30 To which, Lyons replied, “Well, sir, you seen it, you was there.” 31 The transcript shows that Horton immediately, perhaps furiously, told the judge that this was a lie and then challenged Lyons to take back his statement. Lyons insisted, “Oh yes, you were there.” 32 Able to take no more of the inter action, Horton, to an astounded courtroom, then exclaimed at Lyons in admission, “Why, I stopped them from whipping you!” 33 The defense later called the former sheriff, Roy Harmon, to the stand as a witness. Harmon had consistently denied being present for any harm done to Lyons, but the defense produced a damning photograph, which had apparently been taken by a policeman during or after the beating of Lyons, showing Harmon, Cheatwood and a bloodied Lyons in the frame. 34 When he claimed he could not recognize himself in the enlarged photo, which was visible enough for the crowd in the courtroom to see themselves, the courtroom erupted in laughter and mockery at Harmon’s brazen denial. Judge Childers had to threaten to clear the courtroom to make the dis illusioned audience quiet. 35 This

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.

10 | MAY 2023

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL