0202 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [333 words]

Here is the extracted text from the image:

" I know Miss Rebecca Carson, I have seen her go twice into the
private ladies dressing room with Leo M. Frank."

The Court permitted this testimony over the objection of the
defendant made as is aforesaid and in doing so committed error.

The Court stated that this evidence was admitted to dispute the
witness they had called.

It was wholly immaterial to the issues involved in this case
whether Frank did or did not go into a private dressing room
with Miss Carson. It did, however, prejudice the jury as indicat-
ing Frank's immorality with reference to women.

59. Because the Court erred in permitting the witness Vaggis
Griffin to testify over the objection of the defendant made
when the testimony was offered that the same was immaterial,
illegal, and incompetent, to testify substantially as follows:

" I have seen Miss Rebecca Carson go into the ladies dressing
room on the fourth floor with Leo M. Frank. Sometimes it was in
the evening and sometimes in the morning during working hours.
I saw them come in and saw them come out during working hours."

The Court permitted this testimony to go to the jury over
the objection of the defendant made as is aforesaid and in doing
so committed error. The Court stated that this evidence was
admitted to dispute the witnesses they had called.

It was wholly immaterial to the issues involved in this
case whether Frank did or did not go into a private dressing room
with Miss Carson. It did, however, prejudice the jury as indicat-
ing Frank's immorality with reference to women.

60. Because the Court refused to give the following pertinent
legal charge in the language requested:

"The jury are instructed that if under the evidence they
believe the theory that another person committed this crime
is just as reasonable and just as likely to have occurred as
the theory that this defendant committed the crime, that then
the evidence would not in a legal sense have excluded every
other reasonable hypothesis than that of the prisoner's guilt
and you should acquit him."

This request was submitted in writing and was handed to the
/19.