0029 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [405 words]

Here is the extracted text from the image:

The court also considered the following affidavits as a
counter showing presented by the State, to-wit:

F. E. WINBURN, makes affidavit deposing and saying as follows:
That I was a juror on the Frank case; I did not know
personally either A. H. Henslee or M. Johenning, who were also jurors
trying this case, until after we were sworn in on said jury; I had
occasion to and do know the conduct of these two men on the jury;
at no time did either of them express themselves in a way to indi-
cate that they were in the least bit prejudiced or biased, against
the defendant, Leo M. Frank; that each of these men, as did each and
every other member of the jury, deport themselves as honest, up-
right, prudent, and impartial jurors; if either the said A. H. Henslee
or the said M. Johenning believed that Frank was guilty until after
the entire case had been heard and concluded and submitted to the
jury, they at least did not so express themselves, or give vent to
any other expressions within my hearing or knowledge, indicating
any bias or prejudice against the said Frank; I did not know how
A. H. Henslee stood on the issue until after the first ballot had been
taken; then said Henslee made a talk and stated that he had cast a
doubtful ballot; there was one ballot marked "doubtful"; he explained
to the jury why he cast this doubtful ballot, and submitted some sug-
gestions with reference to the evidence. Up to that time, so far as
I know, said Henslee had not intimated or expressed any opinion what-
soever with reference to any feature of the case. As to M. Johenning
during the entire twenty-nine days that we were together as jurors,
he did not, so far as I know, say or in any way intimate how he stood
on the issue; so far as I was able to judge from his conduct and de-
portment; said Johenning was an upright, honest, fair, prudent, im-
partial and conscientious juror, imbued with only one purpose, viz:
the ascertainment of the truth; what is said above as to the im-
partiality, fairness and conscientiousness of Johenning, is true of
Henslee and likewise of each and every man on the jury. I did not
at any time, while a juror, hear any applause except such as occurred
in open court, and which was heard by the judges, jury and attorneys
in the case; I did not know that there had been any cheering or any