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

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [423 words]

Here is the translated text as follows:

JAMES THOMPSON CALLENDER

It is crucial to demonstrate that the decision is right; for if the defendant is found guilty when his witnesses are absent and counsel unprepared, the verdict will not satisfy the public mind of his guilt.

Jvupez Case

It is wholly improper to revisit the former motion. Gentlemen, you misapprehend the intention of the court in postponing the case until today—you ought to confine yourselves to the present motion. Two reasons are given for postponing the trial: first, that Mr. Giles is absent, and it is inferred that the court, by not ruling a trial before, admitted his evidence to be material. The court did not enter into the question of whether it is material or not. It appeared that he was within a short distance of this place, and the case was suspended until Monday so that Mr. Giles might be summoned before that day to attend.

On Monday, you requested a postponement of the trial for a few hours, and it was stated that perhaps he might arrive during the day. Instead of a few hours, you had the choice of continuing it until today. Mr. Giles has been summoned and does not attend. Regularly, you ought to take out an attachment against him for not attending after having been served with the subpoena and being apprised that his evidence was required by the traverser. There is no reason to believe he will be here during the term of the court; you do not expect him. If such excuses as these authorize a postponement of the trial, it must be evident that this case will never be tried.

It is not necessary to say whether Mr. Giles, if present, could be sworn or not, because the traverser is not entitled, on general principles, to a continuance. Another reason given is that, as the jury is to assess the fine, it is essential that the traverser should have the privilege of adducing testimony to mitigate it. This may be the practice in your own state courts. Your own court will be governed by your own laws, but it does not apply to the Federal courts. The jury is not to regulate the fine. It is a mistaken idea; they have nothing to do with it. But it is stated that the coun...

---

Note: The text seems to be an excerpt from a legal proceeding, and the name "Jvupez Case" might be a misreading of "Juarez Case" or another name, but without further context, it's difficult to correct it accurately.