0088 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [381 words]

Here is the extracted text from the image:

(MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.)

State of Georgia,
Vs.
Leo M. Frank.

(1). Conviction of Murder.
(1). In Fulton Superior Court.
(1). Motion For New Trial.

And now comes the defendant in the above stated case and moves the court for a new trial upon the grounds following, to-wit:

1. The verdict is contrary to the evidence.
2. The verdict is contrary to the law.
3. The verdict is against the weight of the evidence.
4. The court, over the objection of the defendant, heard evidence of other transactions and tending to establish other crimes and offenses, wholly separate and distinct from the charge in the Bill of Indictment, to the injury and prejudice of the defendant.

Wherefore, for these and other good grounds to be urged upon the hearing, the defendant, Leo M. Frank, moves that said verdict be set aside and a new trial granted.

Reuben R. Arnold,
L. Z. Rosser,
Herbert J. Haas,
Attys. for Leo M. Frank, Movant.

Read and considered. Let the foregoing motion for new trial be filed and let a copy thereof be served upon the Solicitor General.

It is ordered that the State show cause before me on the 4th day of October 1913, at my Chambers Throop Building Atlanta, Ga. why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial granted. In the meantime, and until after motion may be heard, it is ordered that the movant have the right to prepare and have approved and filed a proper brief of the evidence in said case; and that should said motion be postponed, that such right to prepare and have approved and filed such brief of the evidence shall exist and remain in the movant until such time as the motion may be finally heard.

This document appears to be a legal motion for a new trial in the case of Leo M. Frank, who was convicted of murder in the Fulton Superior Court of Georgia. The motion lists several grounds for requesting a new trial, including that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and law, against the weight of the evidence, and that the court improperly allowed evidence of other unrelated crimes. The document is signed by the attorneys for Leo M. Frank and includes an order from the court to consider the motion and prepare for further proceedings.