0201 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [353 words]

Here is the extracted text from the image:

Myrtle Cato, Mrs. C. D. Donegan, Mrs. H. R. Johnson, Miss Marie
Karet, Miss Nellie Pettie, Miss Mary Davis, Mrs. Mary E.
Place, Miss Carrie Smith and Miss Estelle Winkle to testify
that they were acquainted with the general character of Leo
M. Frank prior to April 26, 1913, with reference to lasciviousness
and his relations to women and girls and that it was bad.

The Court admitted this evidence over the objections above
stated, and in doing so erred for the reason herein stated.

In determining general character in cases of murder, lascivious-
ness or misconduct with women is not one of the traits of
character involved. The traits of character involved are
peaceableness, gentleness, kindness, and it is utterly immaterial
to prove bad character for lasciviousness in a murder trial.

To permit this evidence was highly prejudicial to the de-
fendant. It attacked his moral character while such attack would
not tend to convict him of murder nor show him a person of
such character as would likely commit murder, its introduction pre-
judiced the jury against him.

57. Because the Court permitted the witness Miss Dewey Howell,
over the objection of the defendant that the same was irrelevant,
immaterial, incompetent, illegal and dealt with separate and
distinct matters and issues from this case, to testify:

"I am now staying in the Station House. Before I came to
Atlanta to testify I was in Cincinnati, Ohio, in the home of the
Good Shepard. I worked at the Pencil Company during February and
March, 1913. I quit there in March. I worked on the fourth
floor and worked in the metal room, too. I have seen Mr. Frank
hold his hand on Mary's shoulder. He would stand pretty close to
Mary when he would talk to her, he would lean over in her face."

The Court permitted this testimony over the objection of the
defendant, made as is above stated, and in doing so committed error
This was prejudicial to the defendant, because it was introduced
to show an effort to be criminally intimate with Mary and
inflamed and misled the jury.

58. Because the Court permitted the witness, Miss Cato,
over the objection of the defendant that the same was incompetent
illegal and immaterial, to testify substantially as follows;