Atlanta Georgian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1912-1939, 1914-02-17
FRANKS PROSECUTION
FOR PHACAN TRAGEDY
AN EVENTFUL SERIES

] April (S-EGO FRANK arrested.
July 21.-Frank put on trial.
August 25-Frank found guilty.
| August 26-Frank sentenced to
die.
| October 22-Argument for now
trial.
b October 31-Roan refuses now
trial.
December 15-Hearing before
Supreme Court.
February 17-Supreme Court de- ;
cision.
J--~~--~~-~~--~-~---~~~~
the offense for which the defendant
was being tried; or where the testi-
mony in reference to such prior con-
duct OF the declarant did not come
within any of the exceptions to. the
general rule which we have stated?
AS Applied to conIey.
To us ii clearly appears that such
evidence would be incompetent on the
grounds OF irrelevancy. Yet 1t is
urged that the testimony of the wit
ness Conley as to lasciyious conduct
Of the defendant with other women
prior to the homicide of Mary Pha-
gan was admissible to explain what
the witness understood to be the
meaning Of the alleged declaration to
him by the defendant that You know
/ amt built like other men," even
though 1t does not appear that the
defendant ever knew that Conley had
any knowledge OF the defendant
conduct with the woman on the table.
In holding that the facts of the
witness Conley having testified that
the accused said to him, You know l
amt built like other men," would not
render admissible the evidence which
he was permitted, over objection, to
give of other and different acts. we
have adduced reasons, which seem to
us sound, which strengthen us in that
conviction.
For substantially the same reasons
and in the light of the evidence of diff
ferent authorities, we are of the
opinion that such evidence of differ
ent acts and offenses committed
against or with other parties than the
deceased was not admissible for the
! purpose OF allowing the witness to
explain TO the jury what the accused
meant in saying, 81 want you to
watch for me like you have been
doing the rest of the Saturdays"
Molineux Case Cited.
Before noting and discussing the
exceptions to the general rule above
referred to, we will quote some per-
tinent remarks In reference to the
rule made by Judge O'Brien in the
case of the People VS., MonineuX, 16S
n. Y, 264; So l.. Il. A., 1913; 81 N. f..
He said: an any inquiry concern
ing the identity of the author of a
great crime, where the evidence is
purely eircumstantial. the human
mind instinctively adopts processes in
arriving at results that are not sane
toned by the rules of evidence. The
hardened and habitual criminal is
more likely to be suspected than one
who had never committed n crime
before. If the party suspected COM
mitted a similar crime before by the
same or similar means or a series of
such crimes, proof OF these facts goes
far to establish his guilt in the pop
ular mind of the offene charged and
for which he is on trial; and yet
nothing IS better established than the
rule that the vicious character of a
can not be shown unless he himself
makes his character or the events of
his life a subject of inquiry by be-
coming a witness in the case
mo matter how notorious a Grim
inal the party on trial may be, neither
his general reputation or other spe-
cific offenses can legally be proved
against him as evidence of his guilt
of the offense.
Law Does Not Permit Such Proof.
THAT such proof is persuasive and
has great influence when introduced
upon courts and juries can not be
doubted; but the law does not permit
il to be given upon the trial OF an is
sue concerning the guilt or innocence
OF the party on trial for specific Of
Tense.
THE reason is that such proof does
not bear upon the issue in the case,
and hence 1t is misleading since 1t
does not follow that a party who has
committed one crime or many, is
guilty of some other crime for which
he is on trial. 1t is said that the evil
dence eliminating in Barnett's death
tends TO identify the defendant as the
author of the death of Mrs. Adams
but that is only another way of as
sorting the general proposition that
! the commission by the defendant of
one crime tends TO prove that he
| committed another crime, and. no
| matter in what form nor how often
| that proposition Is asserted or how
persuasive or plausible II may appear,
| II is erroneous and misleading since
| IL violates salutary principle of the
| la wof evidence which should be APP
| piled in all cases without regard TO
/ the question of actual guilt or inno-
| cence.
II the guilty can not be convicted
! without breaking down the barriers
| which the law has erected for the
| protection of every person accused of
/ crime, II is better that they should
| escape rather than that the life or
! liberty of an innocent person should
| be imperilled
1t is so difficult for the human mind
/ 10 descry false theories that assume
| the disguise Of truth and so easv 10
! substitute suspicious and speculations
| for evidence of facts that proof q
the general bed character OF the ac-
1 I - ~,