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

Reading Time: 3 minutes [378 words]


Here is the translated text as follows:

The counsel are unprepared to defend the traverser. You show yourselves to be men of ability, and there is no difficulty in the cause; but you say that you are not ready to discuss the difference between fact and opinion. You argue that the charges in the indictment are merely opinions and not facts falsely asserted. Must there be a departure from common sense to find a construction favorable to the traverser? This construction admits the publication but denies its criminality.

If the traverser certainly published that defamatory paper, read it and consider it. Can any man among you say that the President is a detestable and criminal man? The traverser charges him with being a murderer and a thief, a despot and a tyrant! Will you call a man a murderer and a thief and excuse yourself by saying it is merely an opinion—or that you heard so? Any falsehood, however palpable and wicked, may be justified by this species of argument.

The question here is, with what intent did the traverser publish these charges? Are they false, scandalous, and malicious, and published with intent to defame? It is for the jury to determine the intent of such imputations, and this is sufficiently obvious. The cause must be tried. I am sworn to do justice between the United States and the prisoner at the bar. I do not dictate to you how you are to defend him, but you must defend every man according to the law; and without intending any disrespect to either of you, I must confine you to what I think the law is.

The Marshal was ordered to call the jury, which was done.

Mr. Nicholas: We mean to challenge the array and take every advantage which the laws of the country give us. In support of this doctrine, I will read a passage from "Trials per Pais." (Here he read the passage.) I believe there is testimony in court to prove that one of the jurors returned by the marshal has expressed sentiments hostile to the traverser. It is like a case stated in the books, where a verdict was set aside because a juryman had previously said that the man accused ought to be hanged, and in that case...

Related Posts
Top