He sentenced Suits and Thompson to fifteen years each in state prison for the bank robbery, plus an additional fifteen each for robbing Constable Godwin of his car, gun, and watch. Both sentences were to be served concurrently. Two days later, the two were in federal court where US District Judge Barker added on another fifteen years to each of their sentences, to be served in tandem with their state sentence.
While in prison, Irvin Urton Suits divorced his first wife. Upon his release, he remarried two additional times. He passed away on July 10, 1998, at sixty-seven years of age.
Donald Jerome Thompson would see a more tragic end. He was training Dr. Paul D. Cope to fly the night of October 23, 1971, when Cope’s twin-engine Beechcraft Baron crashed while taking off from St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport at around 7:30 p.m. Thompson, his wife Barbara, Dr. Cope, and his son Charles, all lost their lives that evening.
PART 2 Entrepreneurs & Daring Minds
1938
Today, we take for granted the fact that women can wear slacks any day and everywhere. Helen Hulick was one of those women who fought for their right to do so.
On Wednesday, November 9, 1938, twenty-eight-year-old kindergarten teacher Helen Hulick was in Los Angeles Municipal Court testifying against two men accused of burglarizing her home. As she waited to be called, Judge Arthur S. Guerin summoned Detective Lieutenants William G. Baird and G. W. Sullivan to the bench and told them that Miss Hulick would need to change into clothing more appropriate for a courtroom.
The problem was that Hulick had chosen to wear blue flannel slacks that day. It wasn’t the blue color that the judge found offensive. It was the slacks themselves. She dared to wear, as the judge stated, “pants” in his courtroom.
A bail bondswoman generously offered to loan her a skirt, but Hulick refused. She stated, “Certainly not. I’m properly clothed. No judge can tell me to wear a skirt. I like slacks. They’re comfortable. It is my constitutional right to wear ’em.”
Judge Guerin was visibly annoyed by the young teacher’s indignant attitude. “I don’t set styles. But costumes acceptable at the beach are not acceptable in formal courtroom procedure. Slacks are not the proper attire in court. It’s tough sometimes to be a judge.”
It was not in their clients’ best interest to have an angry judge and an uncooperative witness, so the defense motioned to postpone the hearing. The judge agreed and rescheduled the hearing for November 14th. He stated, “When the young woman returns, then I’ll be prepared to test just how far I can go in maintaining the dignity in my courtroom.”
When Monday rolled around, Hulick again refused to obey and strolled into the courtroom donning a pair of orange-and-green slacks. She was accompanied by her attorney, William Katz, who lugged in four thick law books containing citations relevant to his client’s right to dress as she pleased.
November 14, 1938, image of Helen Hulick wearing slacks to court.
Judge Guerin was outraged. “The last time you were in this court dressed as you are now and reclining on your neck on the back of your chair, you drew more attention from spectators, prisoners, and court attaches than the legal business at hand. You were requested to return in garb acceptable to courtroom procedure.”
“Today you come back dressed in pants and openly defying the court and its duties to conduct judicial proceedings in an orderly manner. It’s time a decision was reached on this matter and on the power the court has to maintain what it considers orderly conduct.”
“The court hereby orders and directs you to return tomorrow in accepted dress. If you insist on wearing slacks again you will not be prevented from testifying because that would hinder the administration of justice. But be prepared to be punished according to the law for contempt of court.”
As Hulick exited the courtroom, she told the press, “Listen. I’ve worn slacks since I was fifteen. I don’t own a dress except a formal. If he wants me to appear in a formal gown that’s okay with me.” She added, “I’ll come back in slacks and if he puts me in jail I hope it will help to free women forever of anti-slackism.”
Fast forward twenty-four hours and Hulick was seated directly across from the two men who had robbed her. As she removed her brown-and-gray plaid coat, it was immediately clear that she had once again gone against the judge’s request. Underneath, she was wearing a pair of gray-green slacks with a red-and-white blouse.
As the saying goes, three strikes and you’re out. This was clearly not going to end well. One could hear a pin drop as those in the courtroom awaited Judge Guerin’s entrance. Surprisingly, he said nothing about Hulick’s appearance as she gave her testimony, which resulted in the two men being bound for trial.
And then the judge let loose on Helen Hulick. He was fully prepared, with seven typewritten pages outlining her offense against the court. The judge wrote that she had appeared in “a tight-fitting sweater and tight-fitting pants, commonly known as slacks,” and that the “effect of this on the orderly procedure of the court was not acceptable.” As to Hulick’s claim that she could dress as she pleased, he responded, “According to your argument, nudists might enter the court unclothed because they felt more comfortable that way.”
“It is the opinion of this court that by disobeying its orders regarding proper attire, your conduct has been contemptuous, tending to bring the court into disrepute.” He continued, “Your conduct, in the face of two warnings, has been flagrantly and openly contemptuous. Therefore it is the duty of this court to impose the maximum sentence under the law, which is five days in jail.”
Hulick was then taken to the county jail, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and forced to change into a blue denim dress. One hour later, she was released on a writ of habeas corpus. She wasted no time in climbing out of that dress and back into her slacks.
Next stop: the appellate court.
Two days later, on November 17, 1938, two judges listened intently to both sides as they attempted to settle once and for all this argument over women wearing slacks in the courtroom.
Attorney Katz argued at length that Hulick was well within her rights to wear slacks in a courtroom. It was not for the courts to decide which fashions were acceptable, nor should someone be imprisoned simply because a judge does not approve of their style.
The opposition argued that this was not a debate over whether one could wear slacks or not. The real issue was Hulick’s attitude. She repeatedly defied the judge’s orders and had a “leering and contemptuous expression on her face.”
A decision was handed down the next day. The court wrote, “While the court record indicates by way of recital that petitioner in a court room during proceedings indulged in a type of exhibitionism which may have tended to impede orderly procedure, and which she might have been required to discontinue on pain of disciplinary action, the commitment appears to be based solely on petitioner’s failure to obey the judge’s order to change her attire, which attire, so far as the record before us discloses, did not of itself interfere with orderly court procedure, but involved merely a question of taste, a matter not within the court’s control.”
Helen
