042 Sheet – American State Trials 1918 Volume X Leo Frank Document

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [438 words]

Here is the translated text as follows:

10 X, AMERICAN STATE TRIALS.

It is unnecessary to mention that each party is trying to convict the other. It would make no difference. Both are equally guilty. However, I know from depositions on file in this case that the main effort in the defense of this man will be to show that he is not responsible for his conduct due to insanity. After the evidence is presented to you, it will be a hopeless task to argue that the defendant did not commit the act charged against him. No human eloquence would suffice to cast doubt on that point; but the effort will be to show that, although he did the act, he is not responsible because of insanity. Therefore, I call your attention to this plea at this time and lay down certain legal principles regarding it. I bring it to your attention now because I want you to view all the circumstances of this case as they are detailed before you, and from them, judge whether the man was insane at the time of the commission of the act. For on this, the question will turn: "Was he insane at the time of the act done?" It is not material how eccentric or even insane he may have been at a previous time, if he was of sound mind at the time of the act done.

I wish you, in judging this matter, to use your own common sense and knowledge of the human mind. After all the learning that may be displayed, the determination of the matter must rest on your common sense and judgment. The question is about the human mind, and every man having a mind is capable of forming some judgment on the subject. It is not sufficient that a man may have had eccentric ancestors or relations, or even crazy ones, or that he may himself have been eccentric and erratic. These things are admissible in evidence only as they bear upon the question of what was the condition of his mind at the time of an act done. You may call an eccentric man crazy, but he is not. The depositions which the defendant will produce in this case do not prove that he was ever crazy. A drunken man may be said to be crazy, yet when was drunkenness ever held to be an excuse for crime? Men sometimes make themselves voluntary demons. Is this insanity? Is this an excuse for crime? A most convenient cloak for crime this would be for any man to make himself a voluntary demon for that purpose! Merely...

---