0155 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [358 words]

Here is the extracted text from the image:

I think some ladies were working up on the
fourth floor. I don't know about the third time, and I don't
know whether anybody was working there Thanksgiving afternoon
or not, I didn't see Mr. Schiff at all that day. I will swear
he wasn't in Mr. Frank's office that day. I don't remember
whether any ladies worked there the other times I was watch-
ing, or not......I don't know whether I told them (detectives)
about watching for Frank at that time - I haven't got any
opinion about it, I haven't got any recollection. He told me
about stamping and whistling on Thanksgiving Day, but didn't
do it until I set them on the box.
Conley had testified both on direct and had been cross examined
for a day and a half on other subjects, as above set out, and
while on the stand and after testifying as above set out,
counsel for the defendant moved to rule out, exclude and
withdraw each and every part of the evidence given by the
witness as to all transactions had between Frank, and other
women at other times than on the day of the alleged murder,
upon the grounds, made at the time, that evidence of such
transactions was irrelevant, immaterial, illegal, prejudicial,
and dealt with other matters and things irrelevant to and
disconnected with the issues on trial, and the same amounted
to accusing the defendant of other and independent crimes.
The evidence next above set out was, and is, all the evidence
given by Conley dealing with Frank's transactions with women
at other times than on the day of the murder, and was the
evidence sought to be ruled out, excluded, and withdrawn from
the consideration of the jury.
The Court declined, upon the motion made and for the reasons
argued, to rule out, exclude and withdraw such evidence from
the jury, but left the jury free to consider the same.
The ruling of the Court was, and is, erroneous, for the
reasons alleged above, and the Court erred in not granting
the order asked, ruling out, excluding, and withdrawing such
evidence from the jury.
When the solicitor first sought from the witness Conley the
evidence here sought to be excluded, the defendant objected be-
cause the evidence sought to be brought in would be immaterial