728 Sheet – American State Trials 1918 Volume X Leo Frank Document

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [352 words]

Here is the translated text as follows:

The voices of law and fact, as determined by the evidence, are paramount. Any juror who listens to any other voice dishonors their position, disgraces the state, and undermines the purpose of trial by jury.

The indictment charges Mrs. H. H. Hirsch and W. J. Cook with blackmail, specifically accusing Asa G. Candler, Sr., of adultery with Mrs. Hirsch with the intent to extort money. The second clause in the indictment accuses them of verbal blackmail, alleging that they threatened to accuse Asa G. Candler, Sr., of adultery with Mrs. Hirsch with the intent to extort money. The third count charges that on February 6, 1918, W. J. Cook and Mrs. H. H. Hirsch verbally accused and threatened to accuse Asa G. Candler, Sr., of attempting to commit adultery and of committing the actual crime with Mrs. H. H. Hirsch, threatening to expose that crime unless money was paid.

In essence, these charges amount to blackmail. There are two ways to commit the crime of blackmail: either by direct accusation or by threats to charge someone with a crime.

Mrs. Hirsch is on trial alone. She has entered a plea of not guilty, and the burden of proof of her guilt rests with the State, which must establish it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Firstly, the proof of conspiracy—an agreement to violate the law between two or more persons—devolves upon the State as the basis of their charge. Conspiracy is a subtle thing that cannot be seen as it exists in the mind and can only be determined by the conduct and declarations of the alleged conspirators.

If the jury believes such a conspiracy existed in this case and that this was part of the threat to expose, then everything done and said by one principal is chargeable to the other, and each is responsible for the other. If either one directly or indirectly threatens to accuse to get money, and if the jury believes a conspiracy originated by them existed, it is their duty to find Mrs. Hirsch guilty.

Mere suspicion is not sufficient for a verdict; there must be concrete evidence.

---