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

Search for:

Reading Time: 2 minutes [294 words]

Here is the translated text as follows:

The Court had declared the evidence of Mr. Giles to be material, not only in express terms but also by a partial postponement, implying that the trial should not proceed until his personal attendance could be secured.

Mr. Hay then requested the Court's attention to additional reasons that convinced him the motion should be granted. The laws and customs of the State of Virginia supported the motion. In this state, when an indictment for misdemeanor is found, the party is not immediately arrested and brought into court; instead, a summons is issued, returnable to the succeeding court. During this interval, the party has time to gather and prepare materials for their defense.

Mr. Hay noted that he had long ago resolved to represent the first person indicted in this state for a libel under the sedition law. He made this decision after careful deliberation and a calm, thorough investigation of the subject with gentlemen who held differing political views but were highly talented. He concluded that the second section of the sedition law was unconstitutional. However, he never anticipated that the trial would occur immediately after the prosecution began. Consequently, while he was prepared to discuss the "rights of the jury to decide the law of the case" and the constitutionality of the law, he was not ready to present and comment on the evidence the defendant relied upon. This had already been communicated to the court.

Moreover, Mr. Hay admitted that he was not well-versed in the doctrine of libels. Fortunately, no cases in this state had previously required legal professionals to focus on this subject. Given the short time since the defendant's arrest, he had not had the opportunity to thoroughly examine a point he believed deserved careful consideration.

---