Friday, 24th October 1913 Proof Of Charges Will Mean A New Trial, Says Court

Search for:

Reading Time: 6 minutes [1003 words]

Evidence Against

Jurors

Henslee and

Johenning the

Most Important To

Be

Introduced.

ATTITUDE OF

CROWDS

WILL BE

STRESSED

Verdict in Trial Was

Delayed

for Two Days on

Account

of Fear of Mob

Violence,

Roan Admits.

It developed Thursday during Frank hearing for a new trial

that the verdict in the original trial was delayed two days for fear

of mob violence to the accused man.

Also, that Judge Roan was prevailed upon by the editors of

the three Atlanta newspapers, militia, officials and the chief of

police to make this move of continuance. It was feared if the

verdict was submitted on the trial's final Saturday, during which

day the crowds were largest, that violence might result.

During the close of the trial, while Solicitor Dorsey was

ending his historical argument, Judge Roan ordered adjournment

at noon on Saturday, August 2. This was his action to prevent any

possible outbreak of the crowds. Had court not been adjourned at

that time, the solicitor's speech would have been finished before

nightfall and the verdict returned by earlier than 10 o'clock at

night.

Judge Roan certified to the conference he had held with

military officials and the chief of police.

In hearing section 115 of the new trial motion, the judge

gave a certificate of approval to the defense's argument upon the

temper of the crowds that attended the trial. He stated that, in his

opinion, the attitude of the majority of the crowds was hostile to

the defendant, and that it was evinced frequently both within and

without the courtroom.

This attitude of the crowds, it is apparent, will be one of the

strongest cards of Frank's counsel in seeking for a new trial. Not

less than fifteen or twenty grounds tendered at Thursday's

session pertained to demonstrations and public temper. Coupled

with these grounds and the evidence to be submitted against

Jurors Henslee and Johenning, the defense seems to have made

decided headway.

Charges Sufficient, If Proved.

Judge Roan, upon reviewing the grounds relating to Henslee

and Johenning's alleged prejudice, said:

If these facts can be proved, it would be hardly necessary

to continue with the hearing.

The volume of 115 grounds was finished at the close of

Thursday's session. Beginning at 9 o'clock this morning, a review

will be made of those which were passed up because of doubt,

following which will come the arguments, which are expected

about 10 o'clock this morning. Affidavits and other evidence will

also be considered today.

New Affidavits Presented.

The defense sprang a surprised Thursday when they

declared affidavits were in their hands contradicting Henslee's

story that he was not in Albany, Ga., at the time he is alleged to

have expressed bias. Colonel Rosser declared that he had

evidence of Henslee's signature upon the hotel register and of an

order which the accused juror took in Albany on the date in

question.

Upon the establishment of this, or jury prejudice, depends

the success or failure of the new trial motion.

Judge Roan, in telling of the delayed verdict for fear of an

outbreak, stated that he had prevailed upon

Continued on Page Seven.

PAGE 7, COLUMN 2

PROOF OF

CHARGES

WILL MEAN NEW

TRIAL

Continued From Page One.

By military officers and police officials to defer the end of the trial

until the following Monday. This was done when it looked as

though the verdict would be returned Saturday night.

This was done, said the judge, because the temper of the

crowd was obviously at high tension. I do not doubt that the

prisoner might have suffered violence if proper steps had not

been taken.

Letters From Editors.

Judge Roan was apprised of the defense's knowledge of a

personal communication which the court had received during the

trial from James R. Gray, of The Journal; Foster Coates, of The

Georgian, and Clark Howell, of The Constitution, suggesting that

the verdict be deferred until the following Monday.

The judge was asked to certify to this. He would not, on the

grounds that the communication was personal, but said that if the

editors gave permission he would make the desired certificate.

Neither would he certify to the section of the motion appealing for

new trial on the ground that the defense was not officially

represented when the verdict was returned.

This clause was the subject of a stubborn battle between the

defense and prosecution. Solicitor Dorsey maintained that Stiles

Hopkins, a member of the Rosser & Brandon law firm, was

present in the courtroom at the time the verdict was returned,

and received it legally.

To this Colonel Rosser replied that Hopkins was given no

instructions to represent the defendant, and that no one

connected with the defense was supposed to have been in the

courtroom at the time it was read. Hopkins was called to the

hearing to testify. He stated that he had received no instructions,

as stated by Mr. Rosser.

First Witnesses Heard.

The first witnesses were heard Thursday. Mr. Hopkins was

the first. Afterwards a newspaper reporter testified to the scenes

outside the courtroom on the day of the verdict, when the

solicitor was hoisted to the shoulders of a number of men in the

crowd. A number of witnesses, it is said, will be put up today.

An attack was made upon Judge Roan's charge to the jury in

ground 73 of the new trial motion. His failure to charge the jury to

put no credence in Conley's story because of admitted falsehoods

was another contention in a following section.

The ground relating to the alleged illegal charge reads as

follows:

The court erred in charging the jury as follows: Is Leo Frank

guilty? Are you satisfied with his guilt? Are you satisfied with his

statement? Are you satisfied with the evidence? Is his plea of not

guilty the truth?'

Object to Picket Letter.

A plea is also based upon the injection into the solicitor's

argument of a letter received from District Attorney C. M. Pickett,

of San Francisco, bearing on the Durant case in California. It is

alleged that the use of such material was illegal and prejudicial,

and that the court was in error in not excluding it. References by

Dorsey to Oscar Wilde, the Richeson and Beattle cases were also

objected to.

A vigorous protest was made to the solicitor's accusation

that the expert medical testimony introduced by the defense was

obtained by money and influence. In answer to this, Dorsey stated

that he never made such an allegation:

I only intimated it, he said.

PAGE 9, COLUMN 3

PROFESSIONAL

CARDS

P. H. Brewster, Albert Howell, Jr.

Hugh M. Dorsey, Arthur Heyman,

Dorsey, Brewster, Howell &

Herman,

Attorneys-at-Law.

Offices: 202, 204, 205, 206, 207,

208, 210

Kiser Building, Atlanta, Ga.

Long-Distance telephone 3022,

3024,

and 3025, Atlanta, Ga.