The Case of the Hernandez Brothers

Casa Grande Valley Historical SocietyMonograph No.,

THE CASE OF THEHERNANDEZ BROTHERS

By Pat Faux

Casa Grande Valley Historical Society

Steve Cooper, PresidentPatty Norris, SecretaryDeeRinda HeinleLissa KatischBarbara LittleSteve MillerJohnnie Truman

Vernon Hancock, Vice-PresidentRosemary BarnesBruce HooperGene LehmanJim MarshThom PoorBillie Wilson

Museum Staff

Merrilyn RidgewayJo Macek

Jo Macek, Museum Director

Barbara Schoen, AssistantKay Benedict, Archivist

Dawn Snell, Collections ManagerMerrilyn Ridgeway, Education

Editorial Staff

Dawn SnellKay Benedict

Mary Jane Adelmeyer

Casa Grande Valley Histories is a periodic journal published by the Casa Grande Valley HistoricalSociety, 110 W. Florence Blvd, Casa Grande, AZ 85222. Correspondence regarding this journal

should be addressed to the Casa Grande Valley Historical Society.

Copyright 2006, Casa Grande Valley Historical Society

Reproduction in whole or part without permission is prohibited.

Hernandez Brothers — page 2

INTRODUCTION

The case of the Hernandez brothers has a storyline all too familiarto us today. A brutal, senseless murder occurs. Two youths are arrestedfor the crime. The media seizes on the story. A high profile trialproceeds. The public watches in fascination.

We would not be surprised to hear about a story like this in ournews media today. This case, however, occurred over 70 years ago. Thatfact reminds us that the violent crime we hear so much about in thenews today is not a new human phenomena. To the contrary, it is a veryold story, and the Hernandez case is just another chapter in that age old,recurring tale of man's inhumanity to man. It began before history wasrecorded. It is told in the story of Cain and Able, and it has been retoldcountless times since. Although our species' capacity for committinghorrible acts of violence has not changed since the time of theHernandez case, the process by which we, as a society, address thatviolence has. The story of the Hernandez brothers causes us to reflecton those changes and what they say about us and our criminal justicesystem. That is the aspect of this story that I find most interesting.

The process we employ today to find justice in a capital case is fardifferent than it was at the time the Manuel and Fred Hernandez wereheld to answer for their crime. If the Hernandez case was heard todayunder the present law, the process and the result would be verydifferent. The Hernandez brothers were tried, convicted, sentenced andexecuted within 18 months of their first appearance in court. Today, thatwould be unheard of. A capital murder case now may take up to twoyears or even longer to go to trial. The sentencing phase can takesweeks to conclude, and the appeals process often lasts more than adecade. Their attorney's statement that there was "neither money norreason" to appeal their case to the United States Supreme Court wouldnot be heard today. The brothers would now have the right to havecounsel appointed free of cost if they could not afford to hire one ontheir own. Their appointed counsel would represent them through theentire appeals process all the way to the Supreme Court at governmentexpense. Furthermore, their attorney's suggestion that there was noreason to appeal the matter further would probably be viewed as a

Hernandez Brothers page 3

capitulation amounting to malpractice by the present criminal defensebar.

Perhaps the most significant change in the law is that ManuelHernandez would not even be eligible for the death penalty today. Hewas 17 years old when he committed his crime. This year, the UnitedStates Supreme Court ruled that it is cruel and unusual punishment toexecute a person for a crime they committed before the age of 18. Thus,it would be unconstitutional to execute him today.

The method of imposing death would also be very different now.Both brothers were executed simultaneously in the same gas chamber.That would simply never happen today. Furthermore, the federalgovernment and all states that currently have the death penalty, exceptNebraska, now provide for death by lethal injection as a more humanemethod of execution. Use of the gas chamber is virtually extinct today.

Finally, the responsibility for deciding whether a death sentencedshould be imposed has shifted. The judge made the decision to sentencethe Hernandez brothers to death. Based on the United States SupremeCourt's recent ruling in Ring v. Arizona, our state has now made the juryresponsible for determining whether a defendant should receive a deathsentence. The examples noted above are a few of the more significantchanges in our criminal justice system since the Hernandez brotherswere executed in 1934. There have been many others as well.

What do all of these changes mean? That is a question which is farbeyond the scope of this introduction and probably well beyond myability to decipher. Nonetheless, I offer a few thoughts for you to ponderas you read this account of the Hernandez brothers. First, justice, atleast when administered by humans, is not static; it is fluid, and it ebbsand flows with the times and the prevailing social attitudes of the day.

Second, because it is fluid, we can fairly infer that our presentconcept of justice will inevitably change just as it has since the time ofthe Hernandez brothers' case. Many, if not most, in the legal communitytoday would argue that the process employed in those proceedings wasdeficient and seriously flawed. I suspect another 70 years will rendersuch criticism ironic and perhaps a bit arrogant. Future generations will,no doubt, look back on what we called justice and offer their own harshcritique of our present process. That thought should humble us, and alittle humility can serve us well if it causes us to more thoroughlyscrutinize the existing process to identify its flaws and make changesfor the better. Fallible creatures like us may never be able to findabsolute perfect justice, but it is always our moral obligation to


fervently seek it.Third, and perhaps most important, if our notions of justice will

inevitably change, what or who will be the change agent? I would arguethat an important part of the answer to that question is you. It is not justjudges, lawyers and legislators that will determine how our criminal• •justice system evolves. The collective conscience of the people greatlyinfluences the law and its interpretation. In a democracy, that socialconscience exerts its influence through the right to vote and the right tospeak out on what you believe. Thus, your vote and your voiceempowers you to act as an agent for change in how we administerjustice. That is a heavy responsibility. This account of the Hernandezbrothers' case prompts us to pause and reflect on that obligation.Through that reflection, we can help better prepare ourselves forcarrying out this essential duty of our citizenship. For that reason, thisstory deserves our time and attention.

:UR

Photo from PCHS CollectionArizona State Prison, Administration Building, Florence, Arizona.

Photo from PCHS CollectionPedro Guererro and Dixie Legler — photographers

Double-seated gas chamber chair as displayed in the Pinal CountyHistorical Society Museum.


January 1933

THE HERNANDEZ CASE

There it sits. Visitors to the museum at the end of Main Street inFlorence, Arizona, can't help but take note of it. The sparse double-seated arm chair rests beneath framed rows of photographs of executedfelons along with the nooses that hanged them.

The chair, no doubt made by prison labor, is painted light cream.Its simplicity though belies its grim story. This chair was used for thefirst execution by lethal gas in the state of Arizona. It was the firstdouble execution by lethal gas in the history of the United States.

The story behind the chair was important in 1934 when it was usedfor the first of its only two times. The condemned killers were accusedof a terrible crime, but they were very young and of a minority group.Today, questions that were voiced then have only this year, 2005, beensomewhat responded to in a recent Supreme Court decision.

Casa Grande, Arizona, in 1933, was a small agricultural town ofabout 1000 people. Townspeople felt they were fortunate because therailroad was there. Before the cottonpicking machine, cotton farmingmeant the use of migrant labor. Casa Grande, in the depths of the GreatDepression, was hanging on just like so many small communities at thetime.

During the night of January 20, 1933, it snowed. Snow in southernArizona is rare; it hadn't snowed in Casa Grande for ten years. Itsnowed on the camp of an old prospector, Charles P. Washburn. Thecamp was about 3-1/2 miles southwest of the town where the prospectorlived in a secluded thicket of mesquite. The Tucson to Phoenixhighway, a major artery of the state was about 1000 feet from whereWashburn's old Model T Ford pickup was parked. He used the truckfor prospecting trips as well as a cupboard and a storeroom with acanvas across the top for shelter. It was said that passing strangers werealways welcome at the fire over which he cooked his meals. As acompanion he had a black and tan shepherd dog.

On Saturday morning, January 21, 1933, Billy Meyers, a Casa


Grande High School student, passed by Washburn's camp on horsebackabout 11 a.m. He stopped and chatted a few minutes. According to thetownspeople of Casa Grande, Washburn had no enemies, but also noclose friends.

Sometime between 11 a.m., when Billy Meyers talked to him, and 3p.m. on that day, Washburn disappeared. In the early afternoon twoboys had ridden by and noticed that no one was in the camp. The truckwas there, about two hundred to three hundred yards below camp.When the boys investigated, they found that the truck had been mired inmud. Someone had tried to extricate it by putting boards and brushunder the wheels.

Nothing more happened at the site until the next afternoon whenthree boys from neighboring farms rode by at about 1 p.m. They toosaw the mired truck, but also saw the old man's dog on the man's cot.

Later that Sunday afternoon around 3 p.m., Carl Wise, a farmer who.lived nearby, came down into the mesquite flat near the camp to get apart for an old car from a rubbish dump that was about 350 feetsoutheast of the camp. Near the dump he "found a drag where someonehad dragged something, and two tracks on each side of the drag." Ifthere hadn't been a recent snow, Wise might not have noticed the tracksand the "drag."

Wise followed the trail to the nearly dry soil and found a pool ofblood and something that he supposed to be brains that had waddingfrom a shotgun shell. The trail turned south for about 500 feet; there, atthe rim of an old well was more blood and two empty 12-gauge Petersshotgun shells.

There were dog tracks on both sides of the drag trail and around thewell's rim. Following the trail back, Wise found the dead campfire, awooden box and some scattered dishes. Found some six to eight feetfrom the fire were the old man's pipe and cap that was pressed into thedirt and had blood on it. Found too were a front car wheel spindle onone end of which was blood and a bunch of gray hair.

Realizing a crime had been committed, Wise crossed the highwayand called a neighbor, a Mr. Tackitt. As they were looking around,another neighbor drove by. Hailing him, they asked him to call thesheriff. Former Arizona Ranger, and at the time the Deputy Sheriff ofCasa Grande, and an Officer Webb came at once. After searching thescene and coming upon the well, Webb was let down into it. Afterscraping away some dirt, Webb uncovered the body of Washburn.

There was next to nothing left of the head. The shoulders wereHernandez Brothers — page 8

badly bruised, probably because of the body having been dragged. Theclothing was in disarray. The outer shirt was rolled up around the neck,but the undershirt was worn through. One fingernail was shot off theleft hand, and another finger had about one-fourth of the nail torn off.

Pinal County Sheriff Laveen and Deputy Sheriff Chester McGee,Chief Crime Deputy, were called. Continuing to search the scene of thecrime the officers found a 12-gauge 1897 model Winchester pumpshotgun with a smooth bore. The old and worn weapon had manydistinguishing marks that officers thought would help in its owner'sidentification. Officer Miles placed the gun in a showcase in CasaGrande where passersby could easily see it.

An inquest into the death of Charles P. Washburn was held.Testimony at the inquest said, "The body had been struck in the back ofthe head, the skull was broken through the size of the spindle, perhapsthe size of one-fourth inch. He had been shot in the right corner of theleft eye blowing the whole top of the head off."

Officers worked many hours to solve the murder that had shockedthe community by its utter brutality. They discovered that aroundChristmas, Washburn had cashed a money order for $50. The moneyorder was traced to Major Louis H. Green of Berkeley, California.They learned that Major Green and Washburn had been lifelong friends.Green, a man of means, had been grubstaking Washburn on hisprospecting trips. The grief-stricken Major urged officers to spare noexpense in finding the murderer or murderers.

No other evidence was found until January 28th. Someone saw thegun in the window and identified it as "Old Man Potts' gun." Potts,who was a well-known and one-armed tenant farmer, was soon found.He identified the shotgun, saying it belonged to the Lininger placewhere he had lived with the Alejandra Hernandez-Lopez family somemonths before. The Lininger place was just two miles north of theWashburn camp. Juan Lopez was the stepfather of two teenagers,Manuel and Fred Hernandez.

The next step for officers was to pick up the two youths. Manuel,17, was arrested in Chandler a short time later. According to mostaccounts Fred, 19, was picked up at his home in Casa Grande.

In a short time the boys were charged with the crime of murderingWashburn. The prosecutors were quite sure they had a case of first-


degree murder. The brothers were granted separate trials. FredHernandez's case was called first.

Prosecutors were the well-known County Attorney, William C.Truman and his Deputy Attorney, Charles H. Reed. Truman wasCounty Attorney from 1929 to 1937. His later career included theArizona State Senate and Superior Court Judge.

The trials were to be held in Pinal County's Victorian-stylecourthouse in Florence. Commonly known as the "second courthouse,"its cupola sports a clock that shows the same time day in and day out.When the courthouse was built in 1891, money ran short and a workingclock could not be afforded.

Judge E. L. Green appointed H. G. Richardson as the brothers'counsel. Green had served as Superior Court Judge since 1924.Richardson had just finished working with a team of attorneys on thesanity hearing for the infamous "trunk murderess" Winnie Ruth Juddunder Chief Defense Counsel 0. V. Wilson. The sanity hearing hadbegun April 14, 1933 and ended April 24, 1933. Only two weeks lateron May 6, 1933, Fred Hernandez's trial began. Manuel Hernandez'strial was to follow shortly after the completion of his brother's trial.

Fred's trial progressed slowly according to news reports. Today,with Court TV commenting every step of the way, trials seeminterminable, usually longer than the two weeks this trial took. Onejuror was ill one day, and on another day the state's attorney and thedefense counsel argued while the jury was absent from the courtroom,on the qualifications of an "alleged confession" Pinal County officershad obtained. Fred Hernandez's confession was finally ruledadmissible. It played a major role in the state's case.

The jury deliberated from the end of the trial proceedings on May15th and arrived at a verdict at midnight that night. However, since thetwelve jurors, all men, as was the custom at the time, were sequesteredfor the night, they did not return the verdict until 9:30 a.m. the nextmorning. On May 16th a Pinal County Superior Court jury convictedFred Hernandez of first-degree murder and recommended the gallows.

Immediately the young man's attorney moved for a new trial.When the sentence was imposed, the motion for a new trial would beargued. According to the Arizona Republic reporter, "Hernandezreceived the verdict calmly."

The next day, Manuel Hernandez's trial began. On May 22, 1933,at 8 p.m. that night, Manuel Hernandez was convicted of murder in thefirst degree and the death penalty was recommended by the twelve men


June 1934

on the jury. This was in the same court that convicted his brother lessthan six days earlier. Manuel Hernandez is believed to be the firstjuvenile in Arizona upon whom a death verdict had been pronounced.

Judge Green pronounced sentence on the two brothers on May 31,1933. Both were sentenced to be hanged by the neck until dead for thekilling of Charles P. Washburn on January 21st of that same year.

H. G. Richardson, the brothers' attorney, countered the verdicts withmotions for new trials. In seeking new trials the attorney charged thatthe court had not sufficiently instructed the jury regarding mitigatingand extenuating circumstances; that the boys were intoxicated at thetime of the crime and that they were both young. Another point inAttorney Richardson's case for a new trial was that a witness had giveninflammatory evidence against the defendants. Richardson stated that"an appeal will be taken if the motions are refused."

Pinal County Deputy Attorney Charles Reed opposed the defensemotions for new trials. The judge denied the motions for new trials andset the date for the brother's execution by the gallows at the statepenitentiary in Florence, Arizona, for early in the morning of August 11,1933.

Later, Arizona changed by constitutional amendment its method ofexecuting criminals from gallows to lethal gas chamber. One of the lastexecutions by hanging, that of Eva Dugan, prompted this change inexecution methods when Dugan's head was torn from her body duringthe hanging.

Early in 1934, Assistant Attorney General John F. Connor asked theState Supreme Court to decide between the old and new ways ofexecution for the Hernandez brothers. Connor gave his response, "Thepunishment was the same – death at the hands of the law." Connorstated that death in the gas chamber would be more humane than byhanging. The Supreme Court ordered the Hernandez boys to die by thegas chamber and set July 6th as their execution day.

While the brothers' defense attorney was preparing an appeal to theBoard of Pardons and Paroles in the state, the Mexican Consul in,Phoenix, Arizona and an organization called the Alianza Hispano-Americana, a fraternal benefit association with a membership of 12,000,became interested in the Hernandez case.

In mid-June Arizona State Prison Warden A. G. Walker received aHernandez Brothers — page 11

letter of inquiry from the Consul of Mexico, the Honorable E. E. Cota.The Consul's office wanted information as to the crime committed bytwo brothers by the name of Hernandez, ages 17 and 19. The letter waswrong in stating that the crime was committed during April of 1934,however, the Consul wanted pertinent information concerning the case.The warden's secretary responded by stating, "He could not give theinformation requested because the Pinal County Attorney had not yetfiled a Statement of Facts in the case." The response was dated June17, 1934.

The Alianza Hispano-Americana organization selected JesusFranco, general organizer and Mrs. Josefina de Franco to carry theorganization's request for a commutation to the Pardon's Board. Thepetition was prepared by Greg Garcia, Phoenix attorney, and supremecounselor of the organization.

In late June, the pleadings were taken under advisement by theBoard of Pardons and Paroles made up of Rev. Walter Hoffman, formerprison chaplain and new member of the board, "Arthur T. LaPrade,Attorney General," and H. E. Hendrix, Superintendent of PublicInstruction. The board met in a prison room not too far from the newgas chamber.

The hearing occupied several hours and included very emotionalappeals from the brothers' aged mother, with daughter Doloresinterpreting, who asked the Board's mercy. The girl began weeping andabandoned her attempt to interpret for her youngest brother.

With Rev. Walter Hoffman as chairman asking most of thequestions, and H. C. Cordova of Alianza Hispano-Americana nowinterpreting, Fred and Manuel Hernandez were led again through thestory of their crime.

The boys told how they drank two pints of whiskey while rabbithunting and decided it would be a good idea to hold up Washburn,engage him in conversation, strike him over the head and rob him.While dragging his body to a well, they discovered he was still aliveand shot him with a double-barreled shotgun.

C. H. Cordova, state president of Alianza Hispano-Americana,headed the large delegation of leaders of Latin-America clubsthroughout the state and added his appeal to that of the attorney. Hestated, "The Latin-American people do not wish to obstruct justice."He listed "intoxication, lack of education of the boys, and theenvironment in which they lived as mitigating circumstances for whichthe death penalty does seem to be too extreme."


Relatives and friends pleaded, along with Fred and ManuelHernandez, 19 and 18 years old respectively, that they "were too youngto die." Each brother asked for forgiveness. Manuel, with Cordovainterpreting said, "I ask your forgiveness. We were not in our rightsenses when we did it." Fred, with his sister Dolores attempting tointerpret, said that he was sorry for what he did. Like Manuel, he saidthey "had not been in our senses " He too asked for mercy and "ourlives."

Attorney Richardson accepted the fact that there was "neithermoney nor reason" to go before the United States Supreme Court so theBoard of Pardons and Paroles was the "court of last resort." Hedeclared the boys had been made to confess through fear and threatsand charged they were not permitted to have an attorney when firstquestioned. Neither occurrence was rare in the criminal justice systemof the 1930's.

The Board met at 9 a.m. the next day at the Capitol in Phoenix tomake its decision. The Board of Pardons and Paroles refused tocommute the death penalties. The Board said:

"They (Fred and Manuel Hernandez) were arrested separately,one at Chandler and one at Casa Grande. Immediately upontheir arrest, the boys were interrogated by more than tenpeople as to whether they were drunk or had anything to drinkat the time of the commission of the offense. The boys hadseparate trials and no less than 24 passed the identical factsand the alleged excuse of drunkenness. The 24 trial jurors ofPinal County found no credence in the offered excuse ofdrunkenness, no new additional defense or excuse ,has beenpresented to the Board that would in any way or mannerinduce reasonable men to interfere with the verdict orjudgment in either case.

In view of the gravity of the type of offense and penalty to beinflicted, the Board has been much concerned with theapplication of the Hernandez brothers, and after due thoughtfulconsideration of same concludes that the murder of Charles P.Washburn was preconceived, planned and executed. No legalor moral defense was offered at the trial nor presented to theBoard."

After refusal from the Board of Pardons and Paroles, AlejandraHernandez-Lopez, mother of fourteen children, traveled to the Capitolin Phoenix from her home in Casa Grande, along with six of herchildren to make a desperate appeal to Governor B. B. Moeur.

"Tell them to put their faith in their God," Governor Moeur told themother. "I am as powerless as you are to save them. There is not anavenue for which they can escape with their lives."

According to a law passed some years previously, the governorcould not commute sentences, pardon, or parole convicts unless arecommendation came from the Board of Pardons and Paroles. Thislaw prevented the governor from taking any action in the case of theHernandez brothers. The governor did suggest that the family make anappeal to the President of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

A sad family, led by Mrs. Alejandra Hernandez-Lopez, walkedacross the Capitol grounds toward the old automobile which hadbrought them from Florence.

That same day, various state officials received formal invitations tothe execution from Warden A. G. Walker, superintendent of the prison.The invitations were the first to be sent out for a lethal gas execution.The invitation read:

"The State of Arizona requests your presence at the executionof Fred and Manuel Hernandez by administration of lethal gasas approved by Section 22, Article 22, Constitution of Arizona,within the walls of the Arizona State Prison at Florence at thehour of 5 o'clock A.M. Friday, July 6, 1934."

Florence Attorney H. G. Richardson, still working on the Hernandezcase, tried the one last thing suggested by the governor. At the requestof Mrs. Hernandez-Lopez and her daughter Dolores, he sent a telegramof mercy to President Roosevelt. Commutation of the sentence was therequest. The telegram read in part:

"Our two sons and brothers Manuel and Fred Hernandez, ages18 and 19 years old, are to be executed by lethal gas on July6th. The Arizona Pardon Board has rejected commutation andour governor is powerless to act otherwise. Governor B. B.Moeur suggested we appeal to you direct for you to giveclemency in a final effort to save their lives. We implore youin the name of mercy and justice to commute the sentences


from execution to life imprisonment on account of the youth ofthese boys."

Meanwhile the brothers sat in their cells at Arizona State. Prison. H.G. Richardson, their attorney, brought a phonograph to cheer their lastfew days of life. It was placed just outside the bars. He instructed theguards to play it when the boys wished. The boys told Richardson toremove the phonograph and the phonograph records he had broughtthem because "they could not bear to listen to the music."

July 1934

After a series of efforts to obtain clemency that became quitefrenzied as the day of their execution approached, Manuel Hernandez,the younger of the boys, made another confession. This is printedbelow using Hernandez's choice of words. Some punctuation has beenchanged for readability. The confession is dated July 5, 1934.

Confession of Manuel Hernandez

"We want to make a confession of what has happened to us. Youknow that with my brother Fred he has nothing to do with it. With me,it has everything.

H. G. Richardson: What do you mean by that, Manuel?A. I was the one that committed the crime that happened.H. G. Richardson: Did Fred have anything to do with it?A. I am going to say since we left the house. When Fred and I leftthe house, I didn't have no intentions whatsoever. I told Fred thatwe should go after the bunch of liquor that we had there. We tookthe liquor and we drank it partly, then we walked along slowly fromthere. As we were walking along, we are drinking a little by littleof the other bottle. Some sort of crazy emotion got into my headand I had the intention of committing murder, of having done that.

After the time of the crime, I looked toward where Fred had gone.I thought to join him. Then I told Fred that I killed an old man.Fred asked me, 'Why?' I answered to him, 'I don't know what Iwas doing.'

Then we returned to where the camp is. Then I told Fred to takeHernandez Brothers — page 15

hold of one hand (of Washburn) and I took hold of the other and weput him in a hole that was there. Then I told Fred to help me. Ididn't know what I was doing. Then Fred, seeing me with shotgunin my hands, he knows I have a very high temper. I laid theshotgun on one side and Fred took the shotgun and took theremaining shells out because I told him I wanted to shoot myself.Fred was taking the shells out of the shotgun and one of the shellsexploded or fired. Then I buried the dead man that I put in therocks and bushes and I told Fred to let us go home. Fred went alittle bit towards the canal. I said I saw Fred go away. I returned tothe camp telling Fred that I was going to take the car.

And Fred tells me not to. Then I took the shotgun in my hands. Itook the shotgun and told Fred to stop, but he didn't, he went on. Ireturned to the car and saw Fred and to get in. I speeded the car. Idon't know what happened. I think I was drunk. The car slippedinto a mud hole. Then I told Fred to get out and let us push the carso that we could get out of the mud, but did not get it out. Weremained there just a little while.

Then I told Fred, 'Let us go home.' I told Fred to throw the shotgunaway. Fred told me to do with the shotgun whatever I pleased.Then I told Fred that I was going to take my shoes off because therewas a lot of water. I told Fred to take his shoes off so that we couldsee if we could run. We found out that we couldn't run, so we werewalking slowly. As we went along I had the shotgun in my handand when we git (sic) to a certain distance I throwed (sic) it in thebushes. I had a pair of socks in my hand that I had worn in myshoes. I threw those away, too.

Then we went there and when we were going as far as two milesand Fred didn't know anything about the money. I took the moneyout and asked Fred if he wanted any money. Fred told me he didn'tand he asked me where I got it. I had to tell Fred that I had taken itout of the old man's shirt pocket. Then I gave it to Fred and I don'tremember whether it was $10 or more. Then we went home. Ididn't arrive at the house. Fred was the one that went to the house.Then the boys, my brothers, they had their car and it didn't want torun, the car of my brothers, not the old man. Then I told mybrothers what was the matter. Then they answered me that they


didn't know what was the trouble. I told my brothers to let us pushthe car. We pushed it, and as the transmission got locked, the carcouldn't run as usual.

We went to town. Then I told my brother to take me to Chandler.They asked me what I was going to do in Chandler. I told them Iwas going to look for work in Chandler. Then, before that, I toldFred that if he wished to go to Chandler and Fred answered yes.Then, when we went to Chandler, I told Fred to return to the houseand help Juan to work, my stepfather. Then I told Fred that in casethat I got caught, to tell the truth of what I did. Then when theyarrest Fred, I had told Fred to tell them where I was.

And Fred told them where I was. They went there and they got me.I was asleep when they arrived, knocked on the door and I arose.They asked me who was Manuel? As I got out of bed I told them itwas I. Then they asked me agin (sic) if I was Manuel and I toldthem yes. Then they told me 'Put on your clothes.' As I put on myclothes and put on my hat they put on a pair of handcuffs. Theytold us to get in the car. They brought me to Casa Grande.

When they brought me to Casa Grande, they told me what I haddone. I told them that I didn't know what I had done. They told methat Fred was in Florence already. When I told them to bring me toFlorence they asked me over there certain questions. Then I toldthem that Fred and I had committed the crime because I thoughtthat we both were going to be saved. But no, we don't know yet.When they brought me to Florence they asked me questions and Itold them that Fred and I had done that. When I had told them that,they brought out Fred and told me that they asked Fred why he hadsaid I had done it. Then Fred wanted to help me because he wassitting in front of me. Then I told him to say that we both hadmurdered this man. But Fred, at first, had said that the truth incertain things and certain things he did not. Then this is how ithappened. I think that is all. That is why I made my confession,because Fred has had nothing to do with it in certain things.

H. G. Richardson: Then Fred didn't strike him behind the headwith a Ford spindle?A. Fred was not there.


H. G. Richardson: Why didn't you tell the officer when you werearrested and when you made your first confession that you werecrazy drunk when you killed the old man?A. Because I thought that was going to be a harder charge for us.H. G. Richardson: That is why you didn't tell them that you weredrunk?A. To one man in Casa Grande, he was the one I told we weredrunk.H. G. Richardson: Who was that man?A. I don't know who it was, I don't know his name.H. G. Richardson: Anything further? Anything else you want tosay?A. That is all. I just wanted to say I didn't feel good. I justwanted to say what I had to say."

Rev. Walter Hoffmann, Chairman of the State Board of Pardons andParoles, was read the text of Manuel's statement on the telephone. Heremained as firm as he and his fellow board members had been ten daysearlier when the Board had refused clemency to both young men.

On the day before their scheduled executions, the boys did notknow yet that all attempts to save them had failed and they still hopedfor a commutation. Their last request was that they be permitted to eattheir last meal with their mother, stepfather, brothers and sisters.

In his 1978 two-part retelling of the Hernandez brothers' case in theArizona. Republic, Lowell Parker quotes Reporter William Turnbow,who spent the last hours with the "doomed youngsters" and theirrelatives at the prison: "The last 12 hours on this earth of the teenagebrothers turned into a macabre drama beyond any playwright'simagination."

Again quoting Parker, "what the newspapers of the day irreverentlytermed 'The Last Supper' was served at dusk on Thursday, July 5,1934."

Seventeen persons, including the youths' mother and tiny childrensat down at a long table set up in the death cell. Guards tried to stay inthe background. All the participants dined on steak, potatoes, salad andthe watermelons that Warden A. G. Walker had sent in twowheelbarrows. The family had also brought some fruit.

Photographs were taken of the youths posed together and ingroups with various members of the family. At the request of theboys, the photographer made one picture of the condemned brothers


and their stepfather.After dinner, the family left the death house and waited patiently on

the lawn in front of the prison administration building. Children wentto sleep with the "innocence of their young years." The friends andrelatives either sat on the lawn or paced nervously about the grounds. Itwas a moonless night with stars shining brightly above in the desert sky.

At 10 p.m. Warden Walker beckoned relatives on the lawn to theprison gate. Again they filed inside to the visitors space between theinner and outer gates. They had returned to spend two hours with thecondemned. The gate was closed. The inner gate opened. Thebrothers walked through the gate to mingle for the last time withmembers of their family.

In the July 6, 1934 issue of the Arizona Republic, a reporter set thetone of the scene. "At first it was tears, especially for Manuel, theyounger. Then taking courage from Fred who was to be the leader insaying as he was the leader in incurring the debt, Manuel smiled andjoked with his elders in swift sibilant Spanish." The same newspaperstated, "It was almost a joyous party by the time it drew to a close."

Shortly before midnight, Manuel became quiet. He handed out ascrawled message written for him by his fellow death row inmateGeorge Shaugnessy, 19 years old, and scheduled to die the next week inthe gas chamber. He had "taken up religion." Dolores Hernandeztranslated the message into Spanish for the youths' mother. It read:

"I am giving this warning to the outside world as I set (sic) inmy cell awaiting my turn to come and hoping that Jesus ChristOur Savior will spare me from death. Please heed this warningand you will never be sorry. If you do not, you will suffer.

I, Manuel Hernandez, am guilty of the crime, but my brotherFred is not, but still the people of Arizona say we have to paywith our lives. Anybody who reads this warning, please do notdrink or steal or do anything bad. Do God's work instead ofSatan's work. I am about to meet God at 5 o'clock thismorning with His word on my lips.

May the Son of God guide you and keep you from sin, so youwill not have to suffer like my brother Fred Hernandez. Begood to your mother, sisters and brothers, but take and make theSon of God your Savior (Jesus Christ). Love Him more than


I am only 18 years old and my brother Fred is 19, just boys whogot drunk. Stay away from liquor and other evil things and youwill be glorified in the eyes of God. Do Satan's work and youare condemned to eternal flames. Please heed this warning andyou will never be sorry. If you do not, you will suffer.

My parents suffer more than you ever will. Your mother isyour best friend on earth. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, isalways your friend. Take him as your Savior. Cry out to himand confess your sin and he will forgive you."

To the crude document, much of which was misspelled, both boyssigned their names. Their attorney, who gave permission for the paperto go to the newspapermen, had nothing to say.

The deadline for this last visit was midnight. The parting was closeto that time. As they said goodbye to their large family Manuel andFred did not know for certain that their last and desperate appeal hadbeen denied. H. G. Richardson, their attorney, would go to their cellabout 1 a.m. to tell them nothing further could be done to save theirlives.

The youths remained in their cells alone until 4 a.m. Preceding theexecution the relatives and friends of the condemned boys sat on thelawn in front of the administration building or paced about the grounds.As the time of the execution approached, women were crying and thewails of the young children could be heard inside the gray walls of the

Except for their guards, the brothers were alone in their cells until4 a.m. At that time Rev. J. Patrick Murphy of Casa Grande joined themto accompany them on the so-called "last mile." At 4:55 a.m. thebrothers walked to the death chamber. George Shaugnessy a 19 year oldAlbany, New York murderer, "the companion who consoled them," badethem farewell as guards marched them past his cell in the death houseand up the iron steps into the stuffy execution chamber. The Hernandezbrothers had been in prison one year.

For the first execution by lethal gas in Arizona, prison officials hadprison laborers fashion an amateurish gas chamber at the cost of $300.No doubt that also included the double-seated chair.

Forty persons, including officials, physicians, and newspapermenHernandez Brothers — page 20

crowded into the death house and peered through the glass windows towatch the double execution, the first in Arizona by lethal gas, and thefirst in the nation in which two were executed simultaneously by thismethod.

Prison authorities were concerned that to execute one brother,remove his body and then execute the other might subject the attendingguards to danger from the gas. It was thought that by using the double-seated chair and executing the brothers at the same time that danger tothe guards could be alleviated.

The prison officials recognized that, at this first lethal gasexecution, the witnesses were physically uncomfortable as well asfeeling the natural discomfort attendant on them. After the execution ofthe Hernandez brothers, prison carpenters began cutting a new entranceto the death cell in which witnesses stand to look through windows intothe execution chamber. Warden Walker told reporters the change wasbeing made to relieve congestion and provide freer circulation of air inthe witness room. The next execution, which was to occur within aweek, was that of the Hernandez brothers' death row friend GeorgeShaugnessy.

The boys made not a whimper as they were strapped in the straightbacked two-seated chair and their eyes covered with gauze. Fred, theelder, protested his innocence to the last. The Arizona Republicreported "I am innocent," Fred said as he was being strapped to thechair. "You are killing an innocent man."

According to the Arizona Republic of July 6, 1934, "At 5:09 A.M.,a mesh bag containing 15 cyanide pellets dropped into a bucket ofchemical solution inside the gas chamber as a cord concealed behind acurtain on the outside was severed. A gray deadly mist rolled upwardand soon enveloped the boys, slightly fogging the windows throughwhich the witnesses peered."

Manuel, 18, was pronounced dead at 5:11 a.m., Fred, the elderbrother, one minute later. According to physicians in attendance, "allmuscular reaction ceased seven minutes after the generation of gasbegan."

The family was still present when the hearse carrying the two bare,pine coffins passed through the main prison gate and drove into thebright sunlight of a new day, toward the little church and burial groundin Casa Grande.

Rev. Murphy conducted funeral services in St. Anthony's CatholicChurch, Casa Grande, at 9 A.M. on July 6th. Interment was at 5 p.m.


As happens today when citizens from another, nation are executed inthe United States, there is a reaction in the press from that person'scountry. An Associated Press dispatch of July 7, 1934, had the headline"Mexico Scores Gas Executions." Articles and editorials in twoMexican newspapers "expressed indignation" over the gas executions oftwo youths in Florence, Arizona.

Two editorials in an unnamed newspaper "voiced a suspicion thatthe Mexicans had been chosen deliberately to test the new form ofexecution in Arizona as there were others that were awaiting the deathpenalty."

The Spanish-language Exclsior stated that the youths "had beenexecuted for a crime they did not commit and described the lethaldeaths of the 18 and 19 year old youths as frightful and pitiful."

El Universal Grafico said the execution of the brothers, "minorswho committed a crime while drunk," proves a need for more Mexicanconsulates in the western part of the United States "to defend theinterest of Mexicans."

Lowell Parker, in his previously quoted columns about theHernandez case in 1978, ends with these comments: "So it was that theHernandez brothers became the first to meet their end by officiallyadministered gas in Arizona, the second state in the union to adopt thatdeadly medium."

Parker did not deny that the brothers murdered and robbed 65 yearold Charles P. Washburn. However, he writes, "Theirs really was apitiful case, and their end probably the most soul stirring episode inArizona criminal history. They were nice appearing, normally friendlyboys with smiling eyes and infectious laughter. They were terribly poorand had only six months of schooling."

The Hernandez brother's case has relevance to this day.

October 2004 and March 2005

On October 13, 2004, the Supreme Court, according to a BaltimoreSun article by Gail Gibson, heard arguments as to whether "to ban thedeath penalty for juveniles who kill."

In 2002, the Court had abolished the death penalty for the mentallyretarded by a 6-3 vote and four of the nine justices went on record assaying the court also should end the execution of offenders under age18. The United States is one of the few countries that allow juvenileexecutions.


The new case, Roper v. Simmons, involved a Missouri man whorobbed and killed a woman when 17. According to the record, heassured his teenaged partners in the crime (which included pushing theirvictim off a railroad bridge) that their "status as juveniles would allowthem to get away with it."

At the time the case was heard Justice Anthony M. Kennedy putforth the possibility of "violent gangs recruiting 15 and 17 year olds ashit men if teenagers are shielded from the death penalty."

A March 2, 2005, article by Charles Lane, Washington Post staffwriter began "The Supreme Court abolished capital punishment forjuvenile offenders yesterday, ruling 5-4 that it is unconstitutional tosentence anyone to death for a crime he or she committed whileyounger than 18."

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.According to the Washington Post article, there was a brief writing fromJustice Stevens, and co-signed by Justice Ginsberg that "patted Kennedyon the back for coming around to their point of view." The reasoningwas the following:

• the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of amaturing society to determine which punishments are cruel andunusual;

• the rejection of the death penalty for juveniles in the majority ofstates (20 states still had the death penalty for juveniles in 2005);

• the infrequent use of the punishment even where it is on thebooks; and

• the consistent trend toward abolition of the juvenile deathpenalty.

In her dissenting opinion Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued thatthe difference in maturity between adults and juveniles was neitheruniversal nor significant enough to justify a rule excluding juvenilesfrom the death penalty.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who was joined by Justice Clarence Thomasand Chief Justice William Rehnquist, argued that the Court improperlysubstituted its own judgment for that of the people in outlawing juvenileexecutions. Justice Scalia rejected the use by the majority for countingnon-death penalty states toward a national consensus. He also rejectedthe Court's use of international law to confirm its finding of a nationalconsensus stating that "Acknowledgment of foreign approval has no


place in the legal opinion of this Court . .However, many other changes have been wrought in the criminal

justice system since 1933 and 1934. In the 1930's there were noMiranda warnings, no immediate access to a lawyer, and Manuel, 17 atthe time, was not allowed to have a parent present when beinginterrogated. The situation at the time made it much easier for theofficers of the law to get a confession from the brothers.

In regard to the trials themselves, they might have been delayed sothat Attorney Richardson might prepare more thoroughly. He had justfinished working on the high profile Winnie Ruth Judd sanity hearingand within two weeks Fred Hernandez's trial began, followed closely byManuel Hernandez.

The youth of the brothers, especially Manuel who was a juvenile atthe time of the crime obviously was a concern. It is interesting to notethat many of the news accounts from the trial and execution called thebrothers "boys" or "youths" even though they were in their late teens.It is even more troubling to many today, hence the decision in the Roperv. Simmons case. Also poverty, lack of education, and the availability ofalcohol to many minds all contributed to the brutal acts committed byManuel and Fred Hernandez on that winter day in 1933.

It is clear from reports of this case that the community was horrifiedat the killing of prospector Charles P. Washburn for his $35. Crimes ofthat nature were not daily fare in the newspapers at that time and therewas no television and endless news reports and crime shows. Naturally,this was an event that shocked the whole town.

Today we still wrestle with issues of crime and punishment. Thedouble-seated gas chamber chair is a stark reminder of that. Membersof the Hernandez family have visited the Pinal County HistoricalSociety Museum. Society members Martin Hall and Brian Sandwichinterviewed Steve Garcia, who was the Hernandez brothers' nephew.According to Garcia, "the family never talked much about the situation.The youngsters in the family grew up knowing not to ask too manyquestions." Some reference was made regarding "equality or inequalityof justice." Garcia said that the family originally came from Bisbee andsince then has always been "around Casa Grande." Garcia alluded to"true murderer of Washburn."

Still, the double-seated gas chamber chair dominates (with thenooses) the northwest corner of the North Gallery of the Pinal CountyHistorical Museum. There are always many questions about it fromvisitors from all over the world. It is right that the story of the


Hernandez brothers and the chair be told. It is a reminder that humanbeings are flawed and that our justice system is still a work in progress.

SOURCES

Nearly all of the information used for this article was found in theDella Meadows Archives at the Pinal County Historical SocietyMuseum in Florence, Arizona. Meadows, a former secretary to thewarden of the Arizona State Prison, for thirty-five years collected asmany documents, news clippings, and other papers about and from theprison as she could. The prison gave her permission to do so and forthe Historical Society to use the information as it wished. Theinformation about the Hernandez brothers is collected in Box A-5 of thearchives.

The Hernandez brothers, Manuel and Fred were the first to beexecuted in the double-seated chair. On August 13, 1937 the double-seated chair was used for the execution of Burt Anderson and ErnestPatten. It is believed those were the only times the chair was used inthe gas chamber.

All of the information up until the trial itself was contained in atypescript narrative of the discovery of the crime and the eventsimmediately following. It is not known who typed the narrative, but itis old and contains information mostly corroborated by details in othersources.

Handwritten notes on decaying paper related that Fred Hernandezwas called to trial May 8, 1933 and Manuel Hernandez was called totrial May 17, 1933.

In the Meadows Archive is a yellowed typed copy of the confessionof Manuel Hernandez. This is kept in a special document box forprotection. Whether all the materials pertinent to the Hernandez casewere in a file at the prison cannot be ascertained. Again, the facts givenin the confession can be corroborated in most cases by other sources.

The Florence and Pinal County boxes in the Meadows Archive werethe sources for information about William C. Truman and the "SecondCourthouse." The story of the clock, or lack thereof, is that the county


had money enough for either a working clock or a jail. County officialsdecided on the jail.

The Meadows Archive contains many newspaper articles from theperiod of the trials, the appeals, the executions and the latter'saftermath. The articles were published in the Arizona Republic in May1933 and June and July of 1934. They were very helpful inreconstructing what happened. Two columns by Lowell Parker,published in March of 1978 also in the Arizona Republic, retold thestory of the Hernandez brothers. The columns became a helpfulreference for this writer to use while filling in details from thecontemporary news articles. Being a columnist, not a news reporter,Parker injected his writing with his conclusions about the crime and thejustice meted out to the accused.

The fact that the Hernandez brothers were the first to be executed aspart of a double execution by lethal gas, being the first in the UnitedStates, is found in the caption of a photo in the Arizona Republic in July1934.

The source for the dates of the Winnie Ruth Judd sanity hearing andthe attorneys (including H. G. Richardson, counsel for the Hernandezbrothers), who defended her, was Tom Fulbright's book, Cow-CountryCounselor, Exposition Press, 1968, New York, pages 187-188.

To show the relevance of the youth of the Hernandez brothers totoday I used a column written for the Baltimore Sun and published inthe October 13, 2004 issue of the Arizona Republic. The articlediscusses the case before the U. S. Supreme Court that must decidewhether juveniles, or those who were juveniles at the time of theircrimes, should be executed.

Copies of articles about the Supreme Court's decision in theOctober 2005 case (Roper v. Simmons) which were used in the paper aswas an article by Charles Lane, Washington Post on Wednesday, March2, 2005, Page A01 and the DPIC Summary for the case No. 03-633argued October 13, 2004.

The headline "Mexico Scores Executions" is accurate. TheMerriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, c. 1949 has as definitions for


"score": "berate, or scold". H. L. Mencken in his series of books on theAmerican language, gives the synonym "castigate."

AUTHOR

Pat Faux was a teacher of language arts, social studies andhumanities in the Tempe, Arizona, school system for thirty-nine years.Since retirement, Pat has been volunteering her time to the Pinal CountyHistorical Society Museum.

When the Della Meadows Archives were donated to the Museum,Pat and the other volunteers spent many hours filing documents andnews clippings as well as creating a database for easy access to theArchives. Without the archives, this article would probably not havebeen written by this writer.

A thank you goes to Chris Reid and Lynn Smith, as well as theother volunteers at the Museum for the help they volunteered on thisproject.

AFTER WORD

The case of the Hernandez brothers has a storyline all too familiarto us today. A brutal, senseless murder occurs. Two youths are arrestedfor the crime. The media seizes on the story. A high profile trialproceeds. The public watches in fascination.

We would not be surprised to hear about a story like this in ournews media today. This case, however, occurred over 70 years ago. Thefact reminds us that the violent crime we hear so much about in thenews today is not a new human phenomenon. To the contrary, it is avery old story and the Hernandez case is just another chapter in that ageold recurring tale of man's inhumanity to man. It began before historywas recorded. It is told in the story of Cain and Able and it has beenretold countless times since. Although our species capacity forcommitting horrible acts of violence has not changed since the time ofthe Hernandez case, the process by which we as a society address that


violence has. The story of the Hernandez brothers causes us to reflecton those changes and what they say about us and our criminal justicesystem. That is the aspect of this story that I find most interesting.

The process we employ today to find justice in a capital case is fardifferent than it was at the time Manuel and Fred Hernandez were heldto answer for their crime. If the Hernandez case was heard today underthe present law the process and result would be very different. TheHernandez brothers were tried, convicted, sentenced and executedwithin 18 months of their first appearance in court. Today that wouldbe unheard of. A capital murder case now may take up to two years ofeven longer to go to trial. The sentencing phase can take weeks toconclude and the appeals process often lasts more than a decade. Theirattorney's statement that there was "neither money nor reason" toappeal their case to the United States Supreme Court would not beheard today. The brothers would now have the right to have counselappointed free of cost if they could not afford to hire one on their own.Their appointed counsel would represent them through the entireappeals process all the way to the Supreme Court at governmentexpense. Furthermore, their attorney's suggestion that there was noreason to appeal the matter further would probably be viewed as acapitulation amounting to malpractice by the present criminal defensebar.

Perhaps the most significant change in the law is that ManuelHernandez would not even be eligible for the death penalty today. Hewas 17 years old when he committed his crime. This year the UnitedStates Supreme Court ruled that it is cruel and unusual punishment toexecute a person for a crime they committed before the age of 18.Thus, it would be unconstitutional to execute him today.

The method of imposing death would also be very different now.Both brothers were executed simultaneously in the same gas chamber.That would simply never happen today. Furthermore the federalgovernment and all states that currently have the death penalty, exceptNebraska, now provide for death by lethal injection as a more humanemethod of execution. Use of the gas chamber is virtually non-existenttoday.

Finally, the responsibility for deciding whether a death sentenceHernandez Brothers — page 28

should be imposed has shifted. The judge made the decision tosentence the Hernandez brothers to death. Based on the United StatesSupreme Court's recent ruling in Ring v. Arizona, our state has nowmade the jury responsible for determining whether a defendant shouldreceive a death sentence. The examples noted above are a few of themore significant changes in our criminal justice system since theHernandez brothers were executed in 1934. There have been manyothers as well.

What do all of these changes mean? That is a question which is farbeyond the scope of this introduction and probably well beyond myability to decipher. Nevertheless I offer a few thoughts for you toponder as you read this account of the Hernandez brothers.

First, justice at least when administered by humans, is not static. Itis fluid and it ebbs and flows with the times and the prevailing socialattitudes of the day.

Second, because it is fluid, we can fairly infer that our presentconcept of injustice will inevitably change just as it has since the timeof the Hernandez brothers' case. Many, if not most, in the legalcommunity today would argue that the process employed in thoseproceedings was deficient and seriously flawed. I suspect another 70years will render such criticism ironic and perhaps a bit arrogant.Future generations will, no doubt, look back on what we called justiceand offer their own harsh critique of our present process. That thoughtshould humble us and a little humility can serve us well if it causes usto more thoroughly scrutinize the existing process to identify its flawsand make changes for the better. Fallible creatures like us may never beable to find absolute perfect justice, but it is always our moralobligation to fervently seek it.

Third, and perhaps most important, if our notions of justice willinevitably change, what or who will be the change agent? I wouldargue that an important part of the answer to that question is you. It isnot just judges, lawyers and legislators who determine how our criminaljustice system evolves. The collective conscience of the people greatlyinfluences the law and its interpretation in a democracy that socialconscience exerts its influence through the right to vote and the right tospeak out on what you believe. Thus, your vote and your voice


Photo from PCHS CollectionWarden A. G. Walker, superin-

tendent of the Arizona StatePrison during the time that the

Hernandez brothers were there.

Photo from PCHS CollectionGas Chamber

empower you to act as an agent for change in how we administerjustice. That is a heavy responsibility. This account of the Hernandezbrothers' case prompts us to pause and reflect on that obligation.Through that reflection we can help better prepare ourselves forcarrying out this essential duty of our citizenship. For that reason thisstory deserves our time and attention.


Photo fromArizona Republic

July 6, 1934Supt. A. G. Walker

and new gas chamber.

.oftsotnemmttategatwwew4AierNWWW3oe..:

Photo from PCHS CollectionMislabeled Fred Hernandez and Manuel Hernandez prison photos.

Actually on left is photo of Manuel #9299 age 17.On right is Fred #9300 age 18.


111,111.0" SOMOVIP'

.ALIFIV011":".-

Photo from Arizona RepublicJuly 6, 1934

Last night, Fred and Manuel Hernandez with sister on the left andmother on the right.

milipenom

Photo from PCHS CollectionHernandez brothers' graves in Casa Grande, Arizona.

100 SOUTHWEST 6115. WARMING HEARTS &HOMES. FOR

FUNDING FOR THIS PUBLICATIONWAS PROVIDED IN PART BY:

Members of the Casa Grande Valley Historical Society110 W. Florence. BlvdCasa Grande, AZ 85222

Pinal County Historical Society715 S. Main St.Florence, AZ 85232

Printing was provided byCasa Grande Valley Newspapers Inc.

The Case of the Hernandez Brothers

Documents

prevailing

committing

social conscience

senseless

people greatly

criminal justice

counsel appointed

superior court