Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-04-20
FRANK LOSES AGAIN
IN FIGHT FOR LIFE
United States Supreme Court Dis
misses Appeal From Federal
Court of Georgia.
ENJOYED ALL LEGAL RIGHTS
Only Escape From Death SEN
tence Now Is Through Ex-
ecutivc Clemency.

WASHINGTON, April lo-The Su-
prcmc Court to-day held that the State
OF Georgia had denied Leo NJ. Frank no
sentencing him 10 death for the murder
OF Mary Phagan. The court affirmed
the action of the Federal District
Court for Northern Georgia. refusing to
release Frank on a writ Of habeas cor
pus. Justice Pitney announcing tho
opinion.
Justice Holmes delivered a dissent
ing opinion in which Justice Hughes
concurred.
This decision. it is believed here. cx
hausts all means of hghting in the
courts to save Franks life. His at
torneys. however. Will have thirty, lays
in which TO file an application for 4
hearing. At the end of that tim. APP
paren;ly only the possibility Of eXecu-
tive cleinency will be between the
prisoner and death.
CLAIM "DUE PROCESS"
is DENIED PRISONER
The habeas corpus proceedings rest
ed on the claim that the trial court had
lost Jurisdiction over the pr!eOner by
reason of mob dom Ina tion" during the
trial. and By Franks involuntary alb
sence at the time the verdict was rem
dered. /; was claimed this denied him
due process" as guaranteed by the
Federal Constitution.
The majority of the court held that
the findings by the Supreme Court OF
Georgia that the alleged mob domi-
nance" amounted to nothing more than
Irregularities. not prejud!cial to Frank,
should not be disturbed upon the mere
assertions of the prisoner that the facts
were otherwise than found. This
was SO, the court held. especially as
the prisoner withheld from the court
afiidavits he had presented to the State
courts on the subject OF disorder dur
ing the trial.
JUSTICE PTTNEY'S OPINION
EXCEEDS 10000 WORDS
Justice Pitney's formal opinion OF
more than 10000 words, concluded with
the following summary:
His allegations OF hostile public SEN
'iment and disorder in and about tho
courtroom. improperly influencing the
trial court and the jury against him.
have been rejected because found un-
true in point of fact upon evidence pre-
sumably justifvinE that finding, and
which he has not produced in the pres
ent proceeding: his contention that his
lawful rights were infringed because
he was not permitted to be present
when the jury rendered It's verdict, has
been set aside because IL was waived
by his failure TO raise the objection IL
due season when fully cognizant of the
fact
I'm all of these proceedings the State,
through its courts. has retained juris-
diction over him. and accorded to him
the fullest right and opportunity TO be
heard according to the established
modes OF procedure, and now holds him
In custody 10 pay the penalty OF the
crime of which he has been adjudEed
guilty.
"In our opinion. he is not shown to
have been deprived OF any right guar
anteed to him by the fourteenth amend
mcnt or any other provision of the Con-
stitution or laws Of the United States:
on the contrary he has been convicted
and is now held In custody. under due
process OF law within the meaning OF
the Constitution
The Judgment OF the district court,
refusing the application for writ OF
habeas corpus. Is affirmed"
HOLMES AND HUGHES
IN DISSENTING OPINION
Justice Holmes delivered dissenting
opinion In which Justice Hughes con-
CURED.
The courts decision was based on an
appeal from the action OF the United
States District Court for Northern
Georgia in refusing to release Frank on
a writ OF habeas corpus.
His petition for habeas corpus rested
on allegations Of disorder during his
trial in Atlanta. amounting to mob
domination and his involuntary absence
when the verdict was returned.
Justice Pitncy. In his decision. held
that the obligation rested on the Su-
preme Court to look through the form
and into the very heart and substance
OF the matter" not only in the averment
in Franks petition, but in the trial pro-
ceedings in the State courts themselves
The petition contains n narrative OF
disorder hostile manifestations, and
uDroar." said Justice Pitney, (which If
IL stood alone and were to he taken as
true. may be conceded to have been in
consistent with fair trial and an i'm
partial verdict. But to consider this as
standing alone is to take n wholly su-
perficial view: for the narrative Is
coupled with other statements from
allegations OF disorder were submitted
first TO the trial court. and afterwards
to the Supreme Court OF Georgia, as n
ground for avoiding the consequences
of the trial and these allegations were
considered by those courts successfully
Mt times and places and under circum-
stances wholly apart from the atmos-
phere OF the trial, and free from any
suggestion OF mob domination or the
like: the facts were examined by these
courts upon evidence submitted on both
sides. and both courts found Franb's
allegations to be groundless. except
with respect to n few matters OF irregu-
larlty not harmful to the defendant.
ASSERTION ny PRISONER
DOES NOT RAISE ISSUE
This court holds that such de-
termination OF the facts cannot in this
collateral inquiry be treated as n
nullity. but must be taken as setting
forth the truth OF the matter until some