0149 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [331 words]

Here is the extracted text from the image:

Q. didn't you say he always gave you that signal? A. No sir,
I didn't say he always gave me that signal.
Q. Gave it to you Thanksgiving? A. Yes sir.
Q. And repeated it to you that day again, the 26th? A. Yes sir.

The witness Conley was examined by the solicitor, who brought
out the direct questions and answers supra, and was then cross-
questioned by the defendant, when counsel brought out the
cross-questions-and-answers supra.

Thereafter, and while the witness Conley was still on the
stand, Defendant's counsel moved to rule out, exclude, and
withdraw from the jury each and all of the said questions and
answers, upon the grounds stated at the time said motion was made
that said questions and answers were irrelevant, immaterial,
prejudicial, and dealt with other matters and things irrelevant
and disconnected with the issues in the case.

The Court denied this motion in writing, making in so doing the
following order:

"When the witness Conley was still on the stand his testimony
not having been finished, the defendant, by his attorneys, moved
to rule out, withdraw and exclude from the jury each and all
the above questions and answers, because they are irrelevant,
immaterial, prejudicial, and deals with other matters and things
irrelevant and disconnected with the issues of this case. After
hearing argument of counsel, the Court overruled the motion to
rule out, withdraw or exclude said above stated question and
answers from the jury, but permitted the same to remain before
the jury.

In making said order and declining to rule out, exclude and
withdraw said questions, and each of them as well as all of the
answers and each of them, the Court erred, for the reason that
said questions and answers, each and all of them were irrelevant
immaterial, illegal, prejudicial, and dealt with other matters
and things wholly disconnected with the issues on trial, and
the same amounted to successive defendants of other and indepen-
dent crimes. Defendant contends that this ruling of the Court
was highly prejudicial to the defendant, tending to disgrace him
before the jury and expose him to a conviction, not because
66.