Atlanta Georgian., 1914-02-25
NJ: v TRIAL.
PLEA NEXT
move: ()F
DEF: .E::NSE

Leo NJ Frank Wednesday, was de-
MED rehearing before the Supreme
Court Of Georgia on his appeal from
the decision OF Judge l.. S. Roam, who
last October refused him new trial.
The vote Of the Supreme Court JUS
tices was Unanimous.
Franks attorneys. Luther z. Ros-
ser and Reuben r. Arnold. went into
immediate conference to determine
their next step, which is expected 10
be an extraordinar motion dled in the
court of Judge Ben HI asking for
new trial on the ground OF newly dis
covered evidence.
Mr. Rosser was not ready to say
Wednesday when this motion would
be submitted.
Basis for New Motion.
IT viii be based IN part on the sem
sational statement or Or N. +. Har-
rls. made six months after tue close
of Franks trial. that the hair found
on q lathe IN the second floor OF TIE
pencil factory was not Mary Phagan's
| hair, the reputation OF his testi
mouy by the negro Albert Mcknight.
and the charges OF Mrs Nina Form
by that her affidavit against Frank
was a frame up
! Ten days Is required for the de-
cison Of the Supreme Court. ren-
dered week oso Tuesday, to become
the opinion OF the lower court So.
licitor Dorsey plans to ask for the
resentencing Of Frank within a day
or two after the Temittur ls sent
| down by the Supreme court. lie viii
sue out a writ Of habeas corpus to
bring Frank before Judge Hin. and
then viii ask that the death penalty
be renewed
The immediate fling OF an extraur-
dinary motion for a new trial will
have the effect of delaying. at least
for the present this action on the
part Of the solicitor
Would Supersede Sentence.
II the attorneys wait untirafter the
resentencing OF Frank before hling
the extraordinary motion it will il
granted. have the effect Of suppressed
| Ing the sentence as was the case at
the time OF the mction for new trial
filed with Judge Roam after ne had
imposed the death sentence on the
! defendant
CHIEF Justice Fish and Justice
/ Beck, who dissented from the origi-
nal decision refusing Frank new
trial assented to the denial or a re-
hearing, because, as they said. all of
the grounds had been carefully gone
over in the first deliberation on the
! appeal, even though they were not
discussed in the opinion, and nothing
would be gained by going over them
again
Franks attorneys, IN making the
| motion for a rehearing, asserted that
a number OF their arguments hard
been overlooked or ignored by the
Supreme Court justices.
High Courts Ruling.
The Supreme Courts ruling reads
Frank versus State.
on motion for a rehearinE
Ihc motion for q new trial
contained l03 grounds. To have
discussed each of them separately
would have unduly prolonged an
opinion already NECESSARILY or
considerable length. So likewise
to deal with each OF the grounds
Of the. application for rehearing
in detail would serve no useful
purpose. Suffice IL to say that the
matter set out in the motion for a
rehearing was not overlooked in
making the decision, but was
carefully considered and passed
upon, though all Of them We're not
discussed AZ myth While the
difference OF opinion among the
members OF the court as to GER
tain questions which appears
from the opinion and the dissent
ing opinion, still exists, the court
IS unanimous in overruling the