Tuesday, 28th October 1913 Hooper And Dorsey Ridicule Argument Of Reuben Arnold

Search for:

Reading Time: 11 minutes [1905 words]

Attorney for Defense

Wanted

Remarks Taken

Down in

Shorthand to Show

Chil-

Dren, Says Frank

Hooper.

NEW TRIAL FOR

FRANK

SLAP IN FACE

OF JURY

Solicitor General Says

Grant-

ing Ruling Asked by

De-

fense Would Shatter

Laws

of the State.

Telling Judge Roan at the Frank hearing yesterday afternoon

that if a new trial was granted the convicted man, the presiding

justice would establish a precedent that would shake the laws of

the state and eventually shutter the jury system of Georgia,

Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey began his argument at 3 o'clock.

Talk about trembling for fear of the law, he said, talk

about farces"why, if you establish the kind of precedent which

the defense ask you to establish, then it will be high time to

tremble. It would shake the laws of our land, and shatter justice to

remnants.

Are you going to tear down this verdict which you, yourself,

approved when you sentenced this man to death, saying: I

believe you have received a fair and just trial"so far as I have

seek and known, you have?' You can not afford to do it. It would

be a slap in the face of justice and the jury system of our state.

Resume Hearing Today.

The solicitor had not progressed very far in his address,

when the hearing was adjourned at 4:45 o'clock until 9 o'clock

this morning, when it will be resumed in the state library at the

capitol. Mr. Dorsey was preceded by Frank A. Hooper, associate

counsel for the prosecution, who assisted the solicitor in the Frank

trial.

Mr. Hooper's speech was short but terse. He rebuked

Attorney Arnold for the length of his address, and declared that

he had not adhered to facts and principles in the case as he

should have been required to do. Mr. Arnold was no tin the room

at the time, having left immediately his speech as finished.

Mr. Arnold cited but little law in his speech, said Solicitor

Dorsey as he opened his argument. He devoted almost his entire

time to facts. I am, indeed, disappointed. I do not know whether

or not Mr. Rosser will dwell upon the law, as he should, or whether

he will speak of fact. Either that, or rehash his case. It's pretty

hard to say, to tell the truth.

I'm not going to discuss facts, except in reply to Mr.

Arnold's discussions. I'm going to take up only two or three

propositions which I consider all your honor can pass upon. They

are bias, demonstrations of the crowd, and the law referring to

the alleged mistakes in your charge to the jury. Those and

Conley's evidence.

Affidavit Uncorroborated.

First, let us pay attention to these Henslee affidavits"the

ones attacking the only juror who considered Frank's guilt the

least bit doubtful. They are very indefinite. They have no

corroboration, no substantiation. Does your honor intend to tear

down this verdict which he himself has approved, because of the

weak, pitiable attacks that two or three men"two of whom have

been impeached"have made upon this juror?

Not a word of blemish has been cast upon the eleven other

men who reached the same verdict with Henslee. They could not

be attacked. The slightest attack would have been unwarranted,

would have been evidence itself of a frame-up.

It is entirely up to your honor whether or not he is going to

take the word of such a man as this C. W. Stough, who is

impeached beyond questions, against such a type of man as

Henslee, a man sustained by a community, eleven stable jurors

and the jury commission of Georgia.

This is a desperate situation, your honor. The jury system is

in peril. The dignity, the efficiency of the court and the law are at

stake. Is it possible that some irresponsible fellows"designing

and unscrupulous"can, in

Continued on Page Nine.

PAGE 9, COLUMN 3

HOOPER AND

DORSEY

RIDICULE

ARUGMENT

Continued From Page One.

their obscure and plotting way, come in and tear down what had

been legally and fairly built up by our jury system?

Praise for Jurors.

Now, let me say a thing or two about these jurors whom

Arnold and Rosser to not hesitate to attack. They might not be as

well known and as brilliant as the brainy Rosser and Arnold, but

they are each and everyone of the type which makes society and

justice.

They are representatives of the respectability that makes

the model community. I tell you, it is rare that the court of today

managers to obtain a jury anywhere near so ideal and worth as

the men who decided upon the guilt of Leo M. Frank.

It is ridiculous and farcical the way the mighty Rosser and

Arnold shift their fury from one head to another. First, it was the

detective department and the solicitor general who were to

blame. Now it is the judge and the jury. Lord only knows who will

be the unfortunate victim of their next blaze of denunciation.

Here the solicitor's argument was discontinued until this

morning.

Words of Attorney Hooper created a ripple of laughter in the

room when he undertook to explain the length and brilliance of

the speech of MR. Arnold, which Hooper followed. He said:

Ridicules Arnold.

My good friend Arnold has just finished two days of a

second jury argument. He had it taken down by a stenographer.

For only one reason that I could see"posterity. Evidently he

desires that the future young Arnolds can see what Papa Arnold

did and said in these brilliant days of his career.

We are in a peculiar position. If we happen to argue our

case mildly, the defense will accuse us of not having our heart in

it. If we go at it enthusiastically we will be charged with the fire

and heat of prejudice. We are between the devil and deep blue

sea, undecided which way to jump"which punishment to take.

After carefully studying over the 115 grounds, however,

there are only two which I would feel prompted to dwell upon.

When the evidence in the original trial is so strong as to convince

twelve good men and true of guilt, I do not feel that it behooves

me"nor any other"to burden the court with a mass of argument.

Depend upon me not to do so.

These two points, to which I have referred, are jury

prejudice and the demonstrations of the crowd, upon which Mr.

Arnold has laid such eloquent and vitriolic stress. First should

come the attack upon Juror Henslee. Probably he is assailed worst

by one. Mr. Sam Farcus, of Albany. Now, Farcus is a man of

Frank's race and religion.

Is This Consistent?

The defense has an affidavit from Farcus with an order to

Henslee for eight buggies, which would represent a good-sized

sum of money as well as a valuable business transaction. Farcus

says he heard Henslee say he was on the jury and would do all

he could to hang the damned Jew.' OR words that effect. Now,

consider that for a moment.

Do you really think that if Farcus heard Henslee, the man

from whom he bought the eight buggies, say that he would like to

thank Frank"or even a damned Jew"he would have made the

order. NO, sirree! I should say not. Mr. Henslee would not have

sold eight buggies to Mr. Farcus. Mr. Farcus would have bought

them from some drummer who either was not so loquacious or

had more pleasing view of Frank case.

However, such statements as are accredited to Henslee,

according to law, do not disqualify a juror. That is sent down by

our most eminent authorities.

Now, another thing. At the time these men swear that

Henslee made the statement that he was on the jury and would

do all within his power to thank Frank, he was not on any such

thing, because the jury had not been drawn. That's a fact. It

seems that the defense has unfortunately overlooked it,

however.

No Evidence of Bias.

For twenty-nine days not one of the eleven other jurors who

slept and ate with Henslee noticed one evidence or prejudice or

the rank bias with which he has been accused. The presumption,

on the other hand, is always in favor of the juror. However, it is

said that the law doesn't permit us to presume.

The supreme court says so, and, in such cases, invariably

refers the matter back to the trial judge who must decide.

The other question on which I am going to dwell, is that

applause and demonstrations of the crowds at the trial. So far as

law is concerned, as I understand, applause does not affect a trial

unless at the exact moment of a verdict's rendition. And the, it is

not illegal unless condemned officially by the presiding judge.

Otherwise, we never would finish trying cases. Why, such a

law as the one Messrs. Arnold and Rosser are talking of, would

always give a man a chance for either a mistrial or a new trial.

Friends of the defendant could design and scheme a means of

creating a demonstration in or outside of a courtroom and

invariably accomplish their purpose.

Suppose, for an instant, that there was such a rule granting

a new or mistrial on the grounds of applause that reached the

ears of the jury. Couldn't a man with as many friends as Frank

always frame up some kind of an outbreak that would gain the

desired end? Yes! Certainly. You know it; I know it. We all know it.

Trouble is some folks won't admit it.

Would be Unconstitutional.

Such a rule that can never be laid down. It would be

unconstitutional in the first place. In the second, it would strip the

trial judge of all opportunity of individual discretion.

In behalf of the twelve earnest, sober, and upright men who

decided the fate of Frank, and who maintained the dignity of our

law and courts, I deny Mr. Arnold's statement that they sat in the

box like a herd of scared rabbits. They were not dogs in leash"

there was no fear in their hearts; no blood on their conscience.

They were free, liberal Americans, administering justice as

they saw fit and as they were required by the laws of our nation.

That and nothing more. I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

The law is supposed to be the consummation of highest

common sense. It takes but a little common sense to show that

the jury of the Frank trial was not intimidated in the least during

the progress of the case, nor at any other time. Before the verdict

is changed, some unquestionable fact must be produced to the

contrary.

With these words, Mr. Hooper's speech was concluded.

Attorney Arnold's argument was concluded at 3 o'clock in

the afternoon. He said:

Your honor, Mr. Rosser and I feel sincerely that Frank is

innocent. We feel that he has suffered more persecution than any

one person in the history of civilization.

Trial Was Terrible.

His trial was dreadful; it was horrible. If your honor denies

this motion, the case is entirely at close. If your honor grants it, it

will be the only fair and just act that can be done.

In the name of God, the name of law and peace and justice,

a new trial should be granted. I have no doubt that it will.

During the morning, much of Arnold's address was devoted

to a blistering attack upon the solicitor general. Dorsey was

accused even of coercing the jury by fear of mob violence.

Conley's story was also arraigned. Closing at 3 o'clock, his

argument occupied fully two days.

The solicitor is expected to use all of today in his speech. He

will be followed by Attorney Rosser, who will make the closing

argument.

PAGE 7, COLUMN 5

JUDGE HILL

INSTRUCTS

THE SHERIFF TO

DRAW

JURY FOR NEXT

WEEK

Judge Ben Hill, who takes his seat in the superior court of

Fulton county on next Monday, instructed Sheriff Mangum

yesterday to draw a jury for that date.

Judge Hill will take up the criminal docket, now carrying

some 126 jail cases. It is the intention of Judge Hill to clear the jail

as soon as possible and to this end he will hold court sessions

twice a day until the county institution is in a reasonably clear

condition.

During the past two months the criminal docket has been

piling up, due to the long Frank trial and the following work of the

solicitor general, and it is believed that at least two weeks will be

consumed before Judge Hill can make much headway into the

piled-up work.