0094 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [349 words]

Here is the extracted text from the image:

(up to her waist) and Mr. Frank was down on his knees, and she
had her hands on Mr. Frank and I found them in that position."
Q. "When you came into the office before Thanksgiving day, now,
when the lady was sitting in the chair?"
A. Yes, sir; he saw me when he came out of the office, he saw me."
Q. What was said when they saw you?"
A. "When Mr. Frank came out of the office Mr. Frank was holler-
ing 'Yes, that is right, that is right' and he said, 'That is all
right, it will be easy to fix it that way.'"
Q. "Well, did you ever see him on any other occasion?"
A. "Yes, sir; I have seen him on other times there."
Q. "What other occasions?"
A. I have seen Mr. Frank in the packing room there one time with
a young lady lying on the table."
Q. How far was the woman on the table?"
A. "Well, she was on the edge of the table when I saw her."
The motion was made while the witness, Conley, was on the
stand, and before any cross examination had been had upon either
of the circumstances referred to in said questions and answers,
but after cross examination upon other subjects had progressed
a day and a half. The motion to rule out, withdraw and exclude
was made because, as stated to the Court when the motion was made,
said questions and answers were immaterial, irrelevant, illegal,
prejudicial, and dealing with other matters and things and
crimes irrelevant and disconnected with the issue in the case
then on trial.

Movant contends this evidence was highly prejudicial, and the
failure of the Court, upon proper motion, to rule it out was a
great injury to the defendant. And the failure of the Court to
rule out said prejudicial and irrelevant and immaterial evidence
is here assigned as error and a new trial should be granted.

cial and involved other transactions not legitimately under inves-
tigation, and the same amounted to accusing the defendant of
other and independent crimes.

11. Because the witness, Conley, at the instance of the solici-
tor, was permitted to testify that he had seen Frank in a pos-