0214 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [358 words]

Here is the extracted text from the image:

I don't remember how much she paid me, and the next week they
paid me $3.50 and the next week they paid me $6.50, and the
next week they paid me $4. and the next week they paid me $4.
One week, I don't remember which one, Mrs. Selig gave me $5, but
it wasn't for my work, and they didn't tell me what it was for,
she just said "Here is $5, Minola."

The Court permitted this part of the affidavit to be read to
the jury over the objections above stated, and in doing so erred
for the reasons stated.

This was prejudicial to the defendant, inasmuch as it permitted
an affidavit of the witness Minola McKnight to be read to the
jury to transactions between herself and the Seligs, with
which Frank had no connection, but which the Solicitor General in-
sisted showed that Frank's relatives were seeking to influence
this darkey by paying her money in addition to that which she
earned. The Seligs and Minola McKnight had been asked on cross
examination if these statements in this affidavit were true,
and had denied that these statements were true.

69. (PPP) Because the Court erred in permitting Mr. Hooper,
for the State, to argue to the jury that the failure of the
defense to cross examine the female witnesses who, in behalf of
the State, had testified to the bad character of Frank for
lasciviousness, was strong evidence of the fact that, if the
defendant had cross examined them, they would have testified to
individual incidents of immorality on the part of Frank, that
the defendants knowledge that they would bring out such inci-
dents was the reason for not cross examining the witnesses; and
that the jury could, therefore, reasonably know that Frank had
been guilty of specific incidents of immorality other than those
brought out in the record.

The defendant strenuously objected to this line of argument
on the part of Mr. Hooper and urged the Court to state to the
jury that the failure to cross examine any of said witnesses
justified no inference on the part of the jury that the cross
examination, if had, would have brought out anything hurtful to
the general character of Frank.

This the Court declined to do and permitted the argument; and,
/31/