1412 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [416 words]

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

Duffy, you know that is not true, and you know that you were not
in front of the dressing room at all, and that there was no blood
that ran upon the floor, and that, as soon as you injured your
finger, you promptly went to the office of Mr. Frank and then to
the Atlanta Hospital, where Dr. F. W. Ballinger waited on you" Ir.
Dorsey then asked what it was he used to stop the blood, and
that he replied that he stopped it with a piece of waste; that
for some reason he both permitted Mr. Dorsey to ask and answer
his questions for him that he could see precisely how Mr. Dorsey
wanted him to testify, and he did testify as suggested by Mr.
Dorsey; that after mature deliberation and thought, it is plain
to him that he was made to express himself on the witness stand in
a manner that he would not have done, had he been permitted to
have gone on the witness stand and testified to the facts, as
he knew and remembered them; that he now says that when he was
injured, his hand did bleed and run upon the tin at the machine
he was working on, and did run upon the floor, that, during his
conversation with Mr. Dorsey, he, in his leading way, insisted
that the witness had gone to the office of Mr. Frank as soon
as he had injured his hand, and then went to the office of Dr.
Ballinger and had it dressed.

The witness now says that it is possible, and quite probable,
that blood dropped from his hand while passing in front of the
dressing room, and that is not willing to state that blood did
not drop from his hand in front of the dressing room.
Neither the defendant, nor his counsel had any information or
knowledge that the witness, Duffy, knew the facts as above out-
lined, or that he would testify to the same. On the contrary,
he had testified at the trial, as above first outlined in this
ground, and neither this defendant, nor his counsel, had any
knowledge that he would testify otherwise and further, as next
above outlined, until after the motion for new trial had been
overruled. Exhibits hereto attached are here made a part
of this motion in support of the above and next above ground.
18. Defendant further shows that he should be granted a new
trial because of the following fact, Mrs. W. Jaffe will testify
that she is personally acquainted with the defendant and has been
for several years; that on the day of the murder, April 26th, 1913