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

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [383 words]

Here is the translated text as follows:

404 X. AMERICAN STATE TRIALS.

The jury may consider the good character of the defendant, whether the rest of the testimony leaves the question of his guilt doubtful or not. If a consideration of the proof of his good character, considered along with the evidence, creates a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to the defendant's guilt, then it would be the duty of the jury to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt thus raised by his good character, and to acquit him.

The term "character" as used in this context, means the general reputation which he bore among the people who knew him prior to the time of the death of Mary Phagan. Therefore, when the witnesses by which a defendant seeks to prove his good character are put upon the stand and testify that his character is good, the effect of the testimony is to say that the people who knew him spoke well of him, and that his general reputation was otherwise good. When a defendant has put his character in issue, the state is allowed to attack it by proving that his general reputation is not good, or by showing that the witnesses who have stated that his character is good have untruly reported it.

Hence, the Solicitor General has been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses for the defense who were introduced to testify to his good character. In the cross-examination of these witnesses, he was allowed to ask them if they had not heard of various acts of misconduct on the defendant's part. The Solicitor General had the right to ask any question along this line he pleased, in order to thoroughly sift the witnesses and to see if anything derogatory to the defendant's reputation could be proved by them.

The Court now wishes to say to you that, although the Solicitor General was allowed to ask the defendant's character witnesses these questions as to their having heard of various acts of alleged misconduct on the defendant's part, the jury is not to consider this as evidence that the defendant has been guilty of any such misconduct as may have been indicated in the questions of the Solicitor General, or any of them, unless the alleged witnesses testify to it. Furthermore,

---