0208 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [355 words]

Here is the extracted text from the image:

love for my friend to meet all the approbation that he may get
from the public, I did think that it was an outrage, the crying
and shouting; that is what I thought. If the juror were where
Mr. Deavours said they were, they could hear no trouble about
hearing it, if they had good ordinary hearing. On Friday I
was in the court room when I heard most of the crying, I do not
know where the jury was then.

Charles F. Huber, testified. I was in charge of the jury when
they left the court room Friday afternoon. I do not know how far
the jury had gotten before the crowd begun cheering in front of
the court house. I didn't know myself that they had cheered, until
the next morning. They didn't know it at all. I had charge of
the rear end of the jury. I have good hearing and I heard no cheer-
ing.

After the introduction of this testimony, Mr. Arnold for
the defense stated that he desired time to examine Mr. Pennington
and Mr. Liddell, the other two bailiffs in charge of the jury,
who were then absent and asked the court to give him time to make
the proof.

After the hearing of this request and the above evidence, the
Court ruled: "Well, I am going to charge the jury on this case,
and I will give you an opportunity, don't you understand, after
wards, to complete your showing about that, but I will overrule
the motion."

During the hearing of the motion for a mistrial and when
the witness Charles F. Huber was on the stand and swore that he
heard no cheering on the Friday afternoon referred to, and that
the jury did not hear it, there was applause among the spectators,
on account of the statement that the jury did not hear the cheer-
ing. Mr. Arnold called attention to the applause, stating to the
court that the crowd could not be held in even while they were
making this investigation.

The Court paid no further attention to this applause than to
ask what is the matter with you over there?

In failing to grant the mistrial requested, the Court erred.
The motion, taken in connection with, the admitted and proven
125.