0216 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [342 words]

Here is the extracted text from the image:

need not-in similar instances be repeated, but that the Court
would assume that similar objections had been made and overruled.

This argument of the Solicitor was not only illegal, but prej-
udicial to the defendant, in that he, in substance, urged upon
the jury that a cross examination of female witnesses for the
State, who testified to Frank's bad character for lasciviousness,
would, upon cross examination, have testified as to specific acts
of immorality against him.

71. (rr). Because the Court permitted the Solicitor, over the
objection of defendant's counsel, to argue before the jury
that the wife of the defendant did not speedily visit him when
he was first taken under arrest, and that her failure to do so
showed a consciousness on her part that he, her husband was not in-
nocent.

In addressing this question to the jury, the Solicitor said:
"Do you tell me that there lives a true wife, conscious of her
husband's innocence, that would not have gone through snap-shot-
ters, reporters, and every thing else to have seen him. Frank
said that his wife never went there, because she was afraid
that the snap-shotters would get her picture, because she
didn't want to go through the line of snap-shotters. I tell you,
Gentlemen of the jury, that there never lived a woman conscious
of the rectitude and innocence of her husband who would not have
gone through snap-shotters, reporters, and the advice of any
Rabbi under the sun- and you know it.

Defendant's counsel objected to this line of argument, when
the same was being made, upon the ground that the conduct of his
wife could in no sense be used as evidence of Frank's guilt,
and that the Solicitor had no right to argue as he did.

The Court declined to stop the argument, but permitted it to
continue. The Solicitor impassionately argued it to the jury-
that Mrs. Frank's conduct in not visiting her husband was
strong evidence of his guilt.

argument was highly prejudicial against defendant and the
court erred in permitting it to be made and in not reprimand-
ing the Solicitor General for the making of such an argument.

72. (ss). Because the Court permitted the Solicitor General,