1383 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [385 words]

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

argument to the jury he alluded to it as a oiroumstanoe agains
Frank. The Solioitor General likewise alluded to the finding of
this hair in his brief before the Supreme Court of Georgia.

Defendant further shows that it was one of the strong conten-
tions of the state that Mary Phagan was inveigled by Frank
into the metal room on the second floor of the factory and he
had there murdered her. The negro Conley in his testimony stated
that he found Mary Phagan in the metal room, dead, and that
Frank engaged him to oonoesl her in the basement of the factory.
The witness Barrett testified that he found certain hair upon a
lathe in the metal room, which the state contended was the hair
of Mary Phagan. This newly discovered testimony of Alice Marjory
Mooord shows that the hair found by Barrett was not the hair of
Mary Phagan.

The defendant here and now offers to show and prove to the
Court all of the facts herein set forth, and swears to the exis
tence of these facts as the truth, and asks the court to invest-
igate them in this extraordinary motion.

The defendant further submits that the discover of the
foregoing facts is material and that it is such an extraordinary
state of facts as would probably produce a different result on
another trial, and that said facts were unknown to the defendant
and his counsel, and it was impossible to have ascertained them
by the exercise of proper diligence, and the same were not
brought to the attention of the defendant and his counsel until
after the motion for new trial had been passed on.

5. Defendant further shows that he should be granted a new
trial because of the newly discovered evidence of One Albert
McKnight, which has come to the knowledge of this defendant and
of his counsel since the original motion for new trial was
denied which is as follows: that Albert McKnight was a witness
for the State on the original trial of this case against the
defendant, and that the testimony given by him at said trial had
been prepared for him by one R. L. Craven, a white man employed
by Beok and Gregg Hardware Company, who were the employers of
said Albert McKnight; that the story prepared by said Craven and
testified to by said Albert McKnight is not true; that the said
story was prepared and written for said Albert McKnight by said