0156 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [348 words]

Here is the extracted text from the image:

The Court ruled that such evidence would be immaterial, but
after this ruling the solicitor brought out the direct testi-
mony and excluded. After the direct testimony supra had been brought out
and excluded. After the direct testimony supra had been brought out
the cross testimony supra, here sought to be withdrawn was also
brought out in an effort to modify or explain the direct
evidence. Under the circumstances the Court ought to have
granted the motion to exclude and withdraw all such evidence
and for failing to do so committed error.

Movant assigns as error the action of the Court in allowing
this evidence to go before the jury because the same was illegal
irrelevant, immaterial and hurtful to the defendant.

15. Because the Court permitted over the objection of defen-
dant's counsel made when the evidence was offered, that such
evidence was irrelevant and immaterial, the witness Conley to
swear that the police officers took him down to the jail,
and to the door where Frank was, but that he never saw Frank
at jail and had no conversation with him there.

The Court erred in permitting the introduction of this
evidence, for the reasons above stated. It was hurtful for the
reason that the solicitor contended, in his address to the
jury, that Frank declined to see Conley, and that such de-
clination was evidence of his guilt.

16. Because the Court, over objection of the defendant, made
at the time the evidence was offered, that the same was irrele-
vant, immaterial, and not binding on Frank, permitted the
witness, Mrs. White, to testify that Arthur White, her hus-
band, and Campbell are both connected with the Penal Company,
and that she never reported seeing a negro on April 26th,
1913, which she testified she did see, in the pencil factory
to the City detectives until May the 7th, 1913.

For the reasons above stated, the Court erred in not exclud-
ing evidence, and for the reason that the solicitor, in his
address to the jury, contended that the fact that there was a
negro (which he contended was Conley) in the factory the morn-
ing of April 26th was concealed from the authorities, and that
such concealment was evidence of Frank's guilt.

73.