Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1914-12-20
FRANK CONTINUES
HIS FIGHT FOR LIFE
Federal Court Judge Newman
Refuses Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus.
APPEAL TAKEN BY LAWYERS
Decision on Motion for Refer
ence to U. S. Supreme Court
to Be Given on Monday.


NJ. Frank. condemned to be hanged on
January % next for the murder
here In April, 1918. OF Mary Phagan,
WAS refused writ of habeas corpus
by Federal Judge w. r. Newman here
o-day. motion was Immediately
made by Franks attorneys. requesting
an appeal from to-day's decision TO the
United States Supreme Court. and
Judge Newman announced he would
day. 'O ~ ''''
There was some confusion with re-
gard to the appeal. and IL was at first
announced that Judge Newman had
granted IT. The Judge stated tonight.
however. that he announced at the close
OF the hearing that he was "!nclincd 10
grant the appeal" Subsequently. it
was stated. the Federal law enacted In
1908. requiring Federal Judge in
granting an appeal In habeas corpus
proceedings to Issue certificate stat
Ing his opinion that there was proba
BILE cause for an appeal. was brought
to the courts attention in chambers.
and he Informed the attorneys that
he would hold his decision on the mat
ter in allegiance until Monday.
The writ was sought the ground
/ that Franks constitutional rights were
violated In that he was ''involuntarily
! absent from the courtroom when the
verdict was announced. Attorneys
Henry c. Peoples and Harry a. AleXan-
der, on Franks behalf. argued that the
Georgia State courts lost Jurisdiction
OF the case when he was denied the
right to face the jury At the culmina
;ion Of his trial. They declared that
Frank is being deprived of his liberty
under conviction and judgment which
they contcndcd were rendered void by
reason OF the trial courts action. They
argued that the question was not one
Involving the State courts procedure,
but one for the Jurisdiction OF III" Fed
aral courts.
GROUNDS UPON WHICH
WRIT IS SOUGHT
Argument on n petition for a writ OF
hRbeas corpus for the release of Frank
Was begun in the United States Dis |
trict Court here to-day before Judge
W. T. Newman. The grounds upon
which the writ was sought included al
legations that Frank was convicted and
sentenced without due process OF law.
in that he was involuntarily absent
from the courtroom when tn. verdict
was returned.
The further allegation made
that the prisoner was denied fair
and impartial trial that the trial was
dominated by mob hostile to Frank. (
which unduly Influenced and intirni- |
dated the Jury by demonstration
Within and without the courtroom"
it was also alleged that the State !
courts. by reason of Franks absence I
when the verdict was returned. lost !
Jurisdiction over his case prior to the !
rendition OF verdict and the passing |!
OF sentence.
Attorneys Henry G. Peoples and |
Harry Alexander argued the motion in
behalf OK Frank.
Warren a. Gricc. Attorney General |
OF Georgia. and SolicltorGeneral Hugh !
NJ Dorsey, who conducted the prosecu-
tion OF Frank. were in court prepared |
to cOnt9St the
MT. Peoples, In his argument de- |
clared various State Supreme Courts /
and the United States Supreme Court !
had held that the right of defendant /
charged with felony to be present !
at every stage of his trial could not |
be waived BY the prisoner or his coun-
sell
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
OF FRANK is VIOLATED |
This constitutional right of Frank !
was violated MIR. Peoples asserted |
because, at the instance OF the State !
through the trial Judge, Frank was |
prevented from being present when the |
verdict was read, owing to the courts |
fear OF violence to the defendant and |
his counsel" The lawyer said the |
habeas corpus proceeding was the last |
resort In the courts to save the life Of |
prisoner who had exhausted every |
other remedy to have the question Of |
his constitutional rights reviewed.
Attorney Alexander argued that the |
decision Of the state Supreme Court ,
which held Frank could not set out the |
constitutional question in motion to |
annul the verdict, because It was not |
made in his original motion for n new |
trial. did not bar the Federal courts |
from considering that constitutional |
question
Mr.. Alexander argued that the |
Georgia courts decision did not prevent |
the Federal courts Jurisdiction in a |
habeas corpus proceeding OF q question |
of denial OF a defendants right to due |
process of law In his trial and con-
viction.
THE State courts lost Jurisdiction |
over Franks case when the trial court |
denied him the right to be present In |
the courtroom when the verdict was |
rendered" declared Mr. Alexander |
therefore. are nullity, and we claim |
that Frank is being deprived of his |
liberty without due process of law;
that he Is being held on n void judg-
ment. and that tho Federal court has !
Jurisdiction in n habeas corpus pro-
ceeding, to consider whether or not |
Frank should be released from Gus |
tody."
The attorney asserted the question |
was not one Of State court procedure.
Numerous decisions were cited in sup
port OF his contention. The constitu-
tional question. he declared never has |
been adjudicated
CERTIFICATE Required