Atlanta Georgian., 1914-02-25
TRIAL
PLEA NEXT
MOVE: OF
DEFENSE:

Leo NJ Frank Wednesday was de-
MED rehearing before the Supreme
Court of Georgia on his appeal from
the decision of Judge L. $. Roan, who
last October refused him new trial.
The vote of the Supreme Court JUS
tices was unanimous.
Franks attorneys. Luther u. Ros-
ser and Reuben II. Arnold. went into
Immediate conference to determine
their next step which is expected to
be an extraordiDar motion filed in the
court Of Judge Ben Hi; asking for a.
new trial on tho ground OF newly dis
covered evidence.
Mr. Rosser was not ready to say
Wednesday when this motion would
be submitted.
Basis for New Motion.
II will be based in part on the SEN
sational statement OF DIR. IL. r. Har-
ris made six months after the close
OF Franks trial. that the hair found
on n lathe on the second floor of the
pencil factory was not Mary Phagans
hair; the reputation of his testi-
mony 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-
cislon of the Supreme Court, rem
dered a week ago Tuesday. to become
the opinion OF the lower court So-m
licitor Dorsey plans to ask for the
resentencing OF Frank within a day
or two after the remittitur is sent
down by the Supreme Court. He will
sue out a writ OF habeas corpus to
bring Frank before Judge Hill. and
then will ask that the death penalty
be renewed
The Immediate filing OF an extraor-
dinary motion for a new trial will
have the effect of delaying. at least
for tho present, this action on the
part OF the Solicitor.
Would Supersede Sentence.
IF the attorneys wait until after the
resentencing OF Frank before filing
the extraordinary motion, it will, if
granted, have the effect OF suppressed
ing the sentence as was the case at
the time OF the motion for new trial
filed with Judge Roam after he had
imposed the death sentence on the
defendant.
Chief Justice Fish and Justice
| Beck, who dissented from the origl-
| nal decision refusing Frank a new
| trial assented to the denial of 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 we're not
discussed In the opinion, and nothing
would be gained by going over them
again.
Franks attorneys. in making the
motion for rehearing. asserted that
a number Of their arguments had
been overlooked or ignored by the
Supreme Court Justices.
High Courts Ruling.
The Supreme Courts ruling readk
Frank versus State.
On motion for a rehesring.
The motion for a new trial
contained 1903 grounds. To have
discussed each of them separately
WOulu nave unuuly prolonged an
opinion already necessarily OF
considerable length. So likewise
TO deal with each of the grounds
OF the application for a rehearinE
in detail would serve no useful
purpose. Suffice 1t 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 were noe
discussed at length. 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