The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson, S.C.) 1914-1917, 1915-01-01
LEO M. FRANK is GIVEN
CHANCE FOR FREEDOM
Justice Lamar Of the Supreme Bench Grants APP
peal in the Case of Leo NJ. Frank, Charged
With tine Murder of Mary Phagan the Four
teen Year Old Factory Girl in April of 1913.
For Which He Is Under Sentence of Death
Technicalities May Mean Ultimate Freedom of
The Condemned Man.

lalied because, though federal ques-
tion was raised In the record, the de-
cision OF the supreme court of Geor-
gia was based on matter of State
practice.
"1ie therefore filed this petition for
q writ OF habeas corpus in which he
claims that the right to be present
at the rendition ef the verdict was
1urisdictional und that on habeas cor
pus he Is entitled to a hearing on the
question as to whether he had waived
or could waive his constitutional right
TO be present when the verdict Of gull
ty was returned into court.
"Tho district Judge heard no evil
denCe as to the truth of the aliega-
tions, but refused the writ on the
ground that the facts therein stated
did not entitle Frank to the benfit of
that remedy. He declined to give the
certificate Of probable cause and this
application for that certificate and fC1.
allowance Of an appeal was then made
to me as the Justice assigned to the
fifth district.
constitutional Right Involved.
Under the act OF 1906 the applica-
tion FOR the certificate is not to be de-
termined by an views which may be
held as to he effect of the final judg-
ment of the State supremg court re-
fusing new trial, but by considering
whether the nature of the constitu-
tional right asserted and the absence
of any decision expressly foreclosipg
the right to an appeal, leaves the mat
ter so far unsettled as to constitute
probable cause justifying the allaw-
ance of the appeal.
ihe supreme court OF the United
States has never determined whether.
on trial for murder in State court.
the due process clause of the federal
constitution guarantees the defend
ant right to be present when the
verdict Is rendered.
Neither has It decided the effect of
final Judgment refusing new trial
in a case where the defendant did
not make the fact of his absence
when the verdict was returned a
ground of the motion, nor claim that
the rendition of the verdict is his abb
sence was the denial of n right guar
anteed by the federal constitution.
Nor has 1t passed upon the effect
OF us own refusal to grant q writ or
error In case where an alleged iuris-
dictional question was presented in a
motion filed at O time not authorized
ny the practice OF the State where the
trial took place. Such ques/ons are
all involved in the present case and.
since they have never been settled by
any authoritative ruling by the full
court, 1t canot be said that there IA
snch want Of probable cause &c tc var
rant the refusal of an appeal. That
being true. the act of Congress re-
quires that the certificate should be
given and the appeal allowed
|
j ?
ATLANTA. Co.. Dec. 2s.-sol,citor-
General Dorsey. who conducted the
prosecution of Leo M. Frank when in
formed that Justice Lamar had grant
ed Franks appeal on the habeas cor
pus proceeding. stated that the State
would expedite the case as much as
possible. He said he hoped to have the
case heard in the United States su-
preme court within 60 days, or secne:
II 1t could be arranged.
Its q long lanc that has NO turn
Ing" said Frank in his cell.