1804 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [396 words]

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

had thought about this case more than any other he had ever
tried; that he was not certain of the defendant's guilt; that
with all the thought he had put on this case, he was not thorough-
ly convinced that Frank was guilty or innocent, but that he did
not have to be convinced; that the jury was convinced; that there
was no room to doubt that; that he felt it to be his duty to order
that the motion for a new trial be overruled. This defendant says
that under the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, no State could deprive this
defendant of his life or liberty without due process of law, nor
deny him the equal protection of the laws, and that he has not
been afforded due process of law, and that he has been denied the
equal protection of the laws, in that the said Judge, in so
aforesaid denying to him a new trial in said cause, did not, as
shown by his said statement, give to this defendant the judicial
determination of said motion to which defendant was entitled by
law; that said Judge, being constituted by law as one of the
triors did not afford to this defendant the protection which the
law guarantees, the law being that defendant is entitled to the
benefit of every reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence
being in defendant's favor, and the trial Judge, though entertain-
ing the doubt which he felt as to this defendant's guilt, and never-
theless denying to him a new trial, by said motion denied to this
defendant the fair and lawful trial he is entitled to, and there-
by this defendant has been denied the due process of law.

7.

Because that fair and impartial trial was not accorded defen-
dant which is guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the
United States, as contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to said
Constitution, to-wit: "nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws." In support of this ground movant alleges that
the court room wherein this trial was had had a number of windows
on the Pryor Street side looking out on a public street of
Atlanta, and furnishing easy access to any noises that might
occur upon the streets; that there is an open alley way running
from Pryor Street on the side of the court house; and there