1561 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 4 minutes [582 words]

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

we did not know during the trial, nor until after the motion for the new trial had been overruled, that Mrs. Marie Edmunds (formerly Mamie Kitchens) would testify as she has testified in her affidavit here to the court shown, dated April 12, 1914. Mamie Kitchens was a witness for the State at the original trial and was cross-questioned at length by one of these defendants; we did not know, nor did we have any reason to suppose that the facts existed as set out in her affidavit to the court shown at the hearing.

(Exhibit A, attached to said affidavit is as follows)

"EXHIBIT A"

Ground 65. (a) On August 5, 1913, during the trial, the defendant's counsel moved to rule out the testimony of the trial, the Conley tending to show acts of perversion and acts of immorality on the part of the defendant, wholly disconnected with and disassociated from this crime. The Court declined to rule out said testimony and, immediately upon the statement of the Court that he would let such testimony remain in evidence before the jury, there was instant, pronounced and continuous applause throughout the court room where the trial was being had, by clapping of hands and by striking. While the jury was in the room, then in the same room where the trial was being had, about fifteen feet from where the Judge was sitting and about twenty feet from the jury box, the crowd applauded, and so close that the persons from portions of the crowd applauded, and so close that the persons from portions of the crowd applauded, and so close that the persons from portions of the jury could have heard the applause.

(b) And again, during the trial, Mr. Arnold, one of the counsel for the defendant, in the presence of the jury, objected to a question asked by the Solicitor, and the presiding colloquy took place:

Mr. Arnold: I object to that, your Honor, that is entering now at all book merely; that is not the question he is asking now.

The Court: What is the question he is asking now? (Referring to questions asked by Solicitor-General)

Mr. Arnold: He is asking how long it took to do all this work connected with it. (referring to work done by Jim that day of the murder)

The Court: Well, he knows what he is asking him. (Referring to the Solicitor-General)

Upon this suggestion of the Court that the Solicitor knew what he was asking, the spectators in the court room applauded by striking their hands together and by stamping their feet upon the floor, creating a demonstration. Defendant's counsel complained of the conduct of the spectators. Defendant's counsel complained no relief, except directing the Sheriff to find out who was making the noise.

(c) During the examination by Mr. Arnold, counsel for the defendant, of V.H. Kriegshaber, a witness for the defendant, there was laughter in the audience, sufficiently generally distributed throughout the audience, and loud enough to interfere with the examination. Mr. Arnold called the Court's attention to the interruption. The Court stated that he had some action from the court thereon. The Court stated that there was other disorder, no one would be permitted in the court room the following day, and requested the Sheriff to maintain order.

(d) That during the trial, on Friday, August 22, 1913, when the Court had adjourned for the day and the jury was about 300 feet away from the court house, proceeding north on Pryor Street