0217 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [372 words]

Here is the extracted text from the image:

in arguing the relative value of the expert testimony delivered b
the physicians called for the State and defense, to intimate
that the defense, in calling its physicians had been influenced
by the the fact that certain physicians called were the family
physicians of some of the jurors. In discussing it, the solici-
tor said: "It would not surprise me if these able, astute
gentlemen, vigilant as they have shown themselves to be, did
not go out and get some doctors who have been the family phy-
sicians, who are well known to some of the members of this
jury, for the effect it might have upon you; and I am going to
show that there must have been something besides the training
of these men, and I am going to contrast them with our doctors. I
can't see any other reason in God's world for getting out and
getting these practitioners, who have never had any special tra-
ining on stomach analysis, and who have not had any training on
the analysis of tissues--like a pathologist has had, except
upon that theory."

Objection was made to this argument of the Solicitor, at the
time it was being made, upon the ground that there was no
evidence to support such argument; that it was illegal,
prejudicial, and highly improper.

73. Because the Juror A. H. Henslee was not a fair and
impartial juror, but was prejudiced against the defendant when
he was selected as a juror, had previously thereto formed and
expressed a decided opinion as to the guilt of the defendant and,
when selected as a juror, was biased against the prisoner in
favor of the State. Affidavits are hereto attached and marked
Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, I, BB, JJ, DD, EE and J, K, L, M,
NN, which are hereby made a part of this motion for new trial.
Affidavits sustaining the character of the witnesses against
said Henslee are hereto attached, marked Exhibits FF, GG, HH and II

The conduct of this juror, as shown by the affidavits and
other evidence, the condition, conduct, and state of mind of
this juror is conclusive that the defendant did not have a fair
and impartial jury trial, as provided by the laws and the
constitution of this State, and a new trial should be granted.
Upon failure to do so, the Court will commit error.

/ 34 /