Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1914-11-30
Attorney for Albanian Asks
Permission to Apply for
Writ of Error.
ALLEGES VIOLATIONS OF
14TH U. S. AMENDMENT
Chief Justice White Receives Papers.
Ruling Is Expected Next
Monday.

In the Supreme Court OF the lnlted
States today Henry A Alexander OF
counsel for Leo NJ. Frank made a motion
for leave TO file a petition for writ OF
error in the case of his client
The statement accompanying the petit
ton says that when the verdict convict
ing Frank of murder was received In
court both he and his counsel were alb
sent. Frank being in Jail.
Their absence" says the brief. was
due to a private statement made to
counsel by the presiding judge just
before beginning his charge and with
out the knowledge of petitioner. that
he and counsel would probaoIy be IN
danger of their lives should they re-
main in court and the verdict be for
acquittal.
The brief goes on to say. in part:
Thereafter he filed motion TO set
aside the verdict on the ground that
the same was null and void. for the
reason that his involuntary absence
at its reception deprived him of due
process of law as guaranteed by the
fourteenth amendment to the Consu-
tuition of the United States; that his
right to be present was not waivable
by himself or his counsel in any man
ner whatever. and that the alleged
waiver made by his counsel was OF no
effect because they had no authority to
make it, and because it was invol-
untary. having been extorted from
them by the extraordinary excitement
and terror surrounding the trial and
the statement of the Judge.
Other Grounds Alleged.
Another ground of the motion set
forth the details of the continued and
violent demonstrations of hostility
against the accused as showing de-
NAL of due process of law under the
fourteenth amendment; and still an
other set forth that the same judge, in
overruling a motion for a new trial.
had declared that he was not convinced
of the defendants guilt.
This motion was dismissed on de-
murrer and that Judgment affirmed by
the supreme court OF Georgia n lew
days later it refused to grant writ
of error to this court.
The present petition has been pre-
scented successfully to Mr.. Justice
Lamar and to Mr.. Justice Holmes. who
declined to grant the writ. Both gave
counsel written statements of their
reasons for SO declining and copies OF
these statements are presented here
with. These reasons were. in effect.
that no federal question was presented
and this court had no Jurisdiction be-
was simply an Interpretation of its
own local procedure. which was
matter over which 1t had exclusive
Jurisdiction and which was binding and
conclusive upon this court.
Reasons for Petition.
"consel filing this briaf believes that
a federal question is presented by this
record and that this court has juris-
diction for the following reasons:
Permit us at this point to indicate
respectfully exactly where the issue
lies between counsel and the views
of the justices who have declined the
Ptf hat hao h< Ann Inv cfa NO
first in what respects we agree with
their conclusions, thus narrowing the
field OF difference. First, then, we agree
that the decision of the supreme court
of Georgia was an adjudication OF a
point of state procedure. but secondly
we submit that the refusal to grant
the writ was erroneous because OF the
failure. as We contend, to give full eff
feet to this feature of the decision.
to wit. that it shows on its face that
the supreme court of Georgia felt that
1t could not, and shows that ii would
not. have come to the conclusion reach
ed, had il not first, as necessary
premise of such conclusion, overruled
and denied the petitioners claim OF
federal right
State Courts Position.
I'm other words. while the head and
front Of the state courts decision was
an adjudication of point of local law,
nevertheless that adjudication was
predicated upon its views of federal
law, and would never have been made
at all had it not entertained those
views regarding federal law. 1t was
only because the supreme court of
Georgia interpreted the petitioners
claim of federal right as il did that it
was able to come to the conclusion
that, under the local law, the petitioner
having acquiesced in the waiver made
by his counsel had surrendered his
rights and was too late. The interpre-
tation of federal law was the very
foundation on which il reared the SUI
perstructure of its Interpretation of the
procedure of the state
Papers Are Received.
Chief Justice White announced that the
court would take the papers," II is eA-