0090 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [412 words]

Here is the extracted text from the image:

(AMENDED MOTION.)

GEORGIA, FULTON COUNTY.

State of Georgia, No.
Vs. Fulton Superior Court.
Leo M. Frank. July Term, 1913.

And now comes the defendant in the above stated cause, Leo
M. Frank, and amends his motion for new trial heretofore filed in
this case, and says:

That the verdict in the above stated case should be set aside
and a new trial granted for the following reasons, to-wit:

1. Because the Court erred in permitting the solicitor to prove
by the Witness, Lee, that the detective Black talked to him, the
witness, longer and asked him more questions at the police station
than did Mr. Frank the day when he talked to the witness Lee at
twelve (12) o'clock at night on April 29th.

At the request of Black and Starnes, the detectives, Frank
was induced to have an interview with Lee, the witness, for the
purpose of eliciting information from him. The solicitor contended
that Frank made no effect to find out anything from Lee, and to
that end, sought to show and was permitted to prove by Lee that
Black talked longer to him than did Frank at the time stated.

The defendant, then and there at the trial, objected to such
evidence upon the ground that it was irrelevant, immaterial, and
was a mere conclusion of the witness. The Court admitted the
evidence, over such objections, and in doing so erred, because
said evidence was unwarranted, immaterial and a mere conclusion
of the witness and injurious to the defendant.

2. Because the Court erred in permitting, over objections the
witness Lee to testify that Frank, on April 29th, when alone with
him at the station house, talked to him a shorter time than did
Mr. Arnold, one of Frank's attorneys, when he interviewed the
witness just before the trial.

The detectives had induced Frank to talk to Lee alone on
April 29th at the station house for the purpose of inducing Lee to
talk. Mr. Arnold, in the presence of Lee's attorney, and the

Based on the extracted text, this document appears to be an amended motion for a new trial in a legal case. The motion is filed by Leo M. Frank, who is the defendant in the case. The document lists reasons why the verdict should be set aside and a new trial granted, focusing on errors made by the court in allowing certain testimony from a witness named Lee regarding interactions with detectives and the defendant. The case seems to involve significant legal proceedings, likely a criminal trial, given the context of the motion and the involvement of a solicitor and detectives.