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

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [367 words]

Here is the translated text as follows:

Then Chase grew angry and, as he would have said, took the lawyers in hand. When Mr. Hay argued that Giles' evidence would help determine whether Callender's pamphlet consisted of libelous statements or merely questions of opinion—matters that the jury would need to consider when assessing the fine—Chase thundered, "That is a wild notion; it is not the law," and ordered the jury to be empaneled and the trial to proceed.

Mr. Nicholas challenged the entire panel of jurors, but he was flouted and routed with a finality that not only overruled his objections but also cast serious aspersions on his legal attainments. Mr. Hay then proposed to examine the jurors individually regarding any prejudices they might hold against the accused. Chase responded that no questions could be asked of the jurors unless they were first reduced to writing and submitted for the court's approval. When the attorneys finally submitted written questions for the jurors, their interrogatories were declared improper and rejected forthwith.

According to the court, it did not matter if a talesman had read and formed an unfavorable opinion of "The Prospect Before Us"; he was still eligible for the jury provided he had not formed an opinion concerning the charge on which the prisoner was indicted. Since none of the candidates had read the indictment, they were all qualified to serve on the case. The Virginian lawyers now abandoned all hope of securing an impartial jury. When one of the talesmen, named Basset, volunteered the information that he had read Callender's tract and had formed a positive opinion that it fell under the Sedition Law, they failed to record any objection to his retention.

The authorship was easily established by the testimony of the printers who had put the manuscript into type and the booksellers who had sold it as a pamphlet. When Mr. Hay protested that those men could not be compelled to answer the questions put to them, as they were accomplices equally guilty under the law and privileged from testifying against themselves, the court not only overruled his objection but also continued with the proceedings.

---

This version clarifies the narrative and corrects any errors present in the original text.