0200 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [347 words]

Here is the extracted text from the image:

three weeks and the fact that the clocks were not keeping accurate
time three weeks before the trial was immaterial, and the evidence
thereon tended to mislead and confuse the jury. Gantt did not
work at the factory during the three weeks just prior to the
crime, and his testimony as to the clocks related to the time he
did work at the factory.

54. Because the Court permitted the witness Scott to testify
in behalf of his Agency, over the objection of the defendant,
that the same was irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent, sub-
stantially as follows:

"I got hold of the information about Conley knowing how to
write through my operatives that I had investigating while
I was out of town. NoWorth told me in person when I returned."

The Court permitted this testimony over the defendant's
objections as above stated, and in doing so committed error. This
was prejudicial to the defendant, because the solicitor contended
that the failure of Frank to report the fact that Conley could
write, was a circumstance against Frank's innocence, and he sought
to show by the above testimony that the detectives were forced
to get that information from someone other than Frank.

55. Because the Court permitted the witness L. A. Hendrick
over the objection of the defendant, made at the time the evi-
dence was offered that the same was irrelevant, immaterial
and incompetent, to testify substantially as follows:

"The clock at the pencil factory, when I worked there, needed
setting about every 24 hours. You would have to change it from
about three to five minutes, I reckon."

The Court permitted this testimony to be heard over the above
stated objections of the defendant, and in doing so committed error.
Hendrick had not worked at the factory for months and whether
or not the clock was correct at that time was immaterial and
tended to confuse the jury in their effort to determine whether
or not the clock was accurate upon the date of the tragedy.

56. Because the Court over the objection of the defendant
made at the time the evidence was offered that the same was irre-
levant, immaterial, incompetent, illegal and prejudicial to the
defendant, permitted the witnesses, Miss Maggie Griffin, Miss