The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson, S.C.) 1914-1917, 1914-11-24
SUPREME COURT DENIES AP-
PLICATION FOR WRIT OF
ERROR IN FRANK CASE
ATTORNEYS co
TO WASHINGTON
Announce Case Will Be Taken
Direct TO the United States
Supreme Court.
(By Axsociateti Prcss.)


ATLANTA Ga, Nov. 20.-The state
supreme court today refused to certi-
~ writ OF error to the United Stat
cs supreme court in the case of Leon
M. Frank, under sentence of death
here for the murder in April, 1913,
Of Many Phagan. Counsel for Frank.
when advised that their application
for the writ had been denied, an
| nOunced that the case would be taken
direct to the United States suprme
court. .+
nIater in the day two Of Franks at.
torneysi Henry Peoples and Harry AL
exander. left for Washington to pre-
sent their application for a writ or er.
ror to Justice Lamar. Should the JUS
tice grant the application, the appeal
would then be placed on the supreme
courts calendar, II is said. II the writ
Ia denied by Justice Lamar, Frank e
counsel may preesnt the application
to other Iilemebers Of the court in
dividually. according to the attorneys.
The application for the swrit of er-
ror . take the case to the highest
tribunal in the land, was based upon
the Georgia supreme courts refusal
In its decision last Saturday to set
aside the verdict on the ground that
Frank was absent from the court
| room when the verdict was announc-
ed.
The state supreme courts action to-
day, marks the seventh failure OF le-
gal efforts to obtain a re-trial for
Frank or a reversal Of the verdict
which was returned August Is, 1918.
Franks execution first was set. for
October 10. 1918, but this was stay
ed by appeals and motions for new
trial. In March Of this year he was
re-sentenced, the date being fixed FOR
April IL last. Proceedings before the
State supreme court; however acted
as stay OF execution Of the sentence.
with tho final removal OF the case
from the State courts It will be neces.
sary to re-sentenco the former fac
tory superintendent the third time and
again a.dntc for his ohanging.pf nc
SIne arguing the motion. before the
Stssc supreme court Tor tho sasfin:
aside OF the verdict, counsel Tor Frkf1h
declared that the '''air about the cotirt
room was .surcharged with mob vio1
lence," and 1t was brought out that
the trial Judge suggested that the de!
fendant be absent when the verdict
was rendered. Franks attorneys held
that counsel for the accused consent.
cd To their clients absence, but that
Frank himself5neyer gave his consent.
They alleged his constitutional. rights
has been this violated. It is upon this
ground that his present attorneys
hope to get the cnse before tho Unit
ed tSates supreme court.
Should this tribunal refuse TO hear
the appeal, or decide st against Frank.
MS only recourse to escape execution
II fs declared, would be through the
extension OF executive clemency by
the governor of Georgia.
1t was learned today that the pros-
ecutton plans to go before the super
for court next Wednesday to hnye
Frank rc-sentenced. :,
WASHINGTON. Nov. 90 IA re-.
view OF the Frank case by the Sub-
RENE court rests largely with Justice
Lamar. who is assigned to the circuit
IN which Georgia 'isj lhcated. Custom
or the Justices feHIi. Is that apuiica-
tions for "writs OF error" must be pre.
sentet firts 10 tho Justice assigned ia
the circuit In which the case orfein-
ates:' Should Justice Lamar grant the
Wllt the Dc6Se would 60 ON to the
eotrt's docket and would not be iearfi
FOL. about TWO years, unless advanced.
Should Justice Lamar decline 10 ia
sue the writ, he might consent to an
application being presented TO the
entire court, or the attorneys might
of'their own voliti6n make application
to the other Justices. ~ 3 !.
2 '7i's'h'ii' 5
Ey1ElE IT'D AAYchRHr