0203 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [333 words]

Here is the extracted text from the image:

Court before the jury had retired to consider of their verdict and
before the Court began his charge to the jury.

This request was a legal and pertinent one, particularly
adjusted to the facts of the case and should have been given, and
the Court in declining to give it committed error, although the
general principle involved might have been given in the original
charge.

51. Because the Court refused to give the following pertinent
legal charge in the language requested:

"If the jury believe from the evidence that the theory or
hypothesis that James Conley may have committed this crime
is just as reasonable as the theory that the defendant may have
committed this crime, then, under the law, it would be your duty
to acquit the defendant."

This request was submitted in writing and was handed to the
Court before the jury had retired to consider of their verdict
and before the Court began his charge to the jury.

This request was a legal and pertinent one, particularly
adjusted to the facts of the case and should have been given, and
the Court in declining to give it committed error, although the
general principle involved might have been given in the original
charge.

52. Because the Court refused to give the following pertinent
legal charge in the language requested:

"The jury are instructed that in all cases the burden
of proof is upon the State. The State only half carries that
burden when it establishes a hypothesis of guilt, but also
leaves a hypothesis of innocence. If both theories are consistent
with the proved facts, the very uncertainty as to which is
correct requires that the jury shall give the benefit of the
doubt to the defendant. But when the defendant relies upon
circumstantial evidence, he is not obliged to remove the doubt.
It is sufficient if he create a reasonable doubt. He is not
obliged to prove his innocence. He may rely upon the failure
of the State to establish his guilt. If the proved facts in the
case establish a hypothesis consistent with the defendant's inno-
cence and sufficient to create a reasonable doubt of his guilt,