The evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1914-1922, 1915-04-19

released. sixteen days later Jim"
Cnnlov, q negro sweeper az the fac
tory, made a confession 10 the police
IN whlch he accused Frank OF having
killed the phaenn girl. and declared
he had helped dispose OF the body.
Conley, who waa ono OF the CHIEF
| witnesses for the state M Franks
| trial. was convicted az an accessory
after Tho murder in February, 1910
and sentenced 20 one years impris-
onmcnt. He began his term last
July.
Frank was placed on trial In "a
perior court July IS, 1918, Judge J..
\. Roam presiding. Judge Roam dleu
March 20, 1915, in New York. a
verdict of guilty was returned August
20. Frank being sentenced To death.
In his statement to the jury ut tho
Gloss " his trial Frank said h. had
seen Mary Phngnn In his office In the
factory. q few r1lnutcs before the
time the state commended she was
murdered; that he paid the girl her
wages and that she left his office.
The theory Of the defense has been
TINT IouiCy. who was about the
building when the girl entered, and
who had been drinking, attacked and
Killed the girl after she left Franks
office.
In October. 1913. Franks ~
neys flied "a motion for "a new trial.
alleging 1903 errors In admission ~
testimony and conduct Of the trial.
ana also charging that dcmonstrn-
lions by the crowd within aud outside
h courtroom during the trial had
lntcrfored with a fair verdict. Judge
Roam denied the motion and the
Georgia supreme court affirmed his
nctlon February ~. 1914. 4 motion
for %rchcaring ~ the appeal wis de-
MED the state supreme court two
! weeks later.
An extraordinary motion FOR a new
trial and n motion to set aside the
verdict woro filed simultaneously la
superior court April 10. 1914. Among
the grounds alleged In the motion FOR
"A new trial was that of newly dis
covered evidence. The motion TO set
aside the verdict was based on the
ground that Franks constitutional
rights a been violated by the trial
court. His attorneys alleged that
Frank had not been given "a fair trial
because Of tho spirit OF moi vio-
lcncc that pervnded the courtroom %
ana Also that his constitutional rights
had boon violated because Frank and
his attorneys had been abscn; from
/ the court room without Franks con-
sent when the verdict was returned
This absence. 10 WIS claimed. was At
the request ~ the presiding Judge,
who was quoted az saying he feared
mob violence against Frank and mis-
lawyers 70 a verdict Of acquittal were
returned.
The extraordinary motion for "a
new trial wis denied By the superior
court May G. and tho decision was
affirmed by the state supreme court
october ~. The superior our on
June G. 1914, dismissed the motion to
set aside the verdict on constitutions
nj grounds, by sustaining the states
demurrer Go the motion. The SUI
Ipremc court rfnrmcd this action Nu-
vcmbcr II. 1914 and six days after
ward the supreme court refused To-
certify a writ 81 error 90 the United
states supreme court.
To review that action, application
was mad first Co JuHticc amar, then
60 Justice Holmes and finally To the
entire suprcrm court OF the United
States. FOR q writ of error Al held
that the decision 90 the Georgia SUI
III NA'fHH 'A NNN NNNN wv
because ~ action was based on
grounds 81 procedure. namely. that
the plea FOR setting aside the verdict
should have been advanced az tn,
/ time the motions for new trial were
made.
Application was made December
10 Go Judge NtwWnn of The fedora
district court for northern G,orgil
FOR n writ Of huho1s corpus. aiicgiur
I. Frank had been convicted without
due process uf law that the tria'
court had lost Jurisdiction over him
, during tho trial because he was dom
mated hy @ mob hostile to the pris.
oncr.' and that FRANK had been abb
seut ttom the courtroom when m,
lNordict was returned Two e. ys later
Judge Newman refused the writ col
> hahous corpus, holding that to gram
10 10 would mean that o. federal cupri
should review the action of the state
courts In 70 manner not warranted los
Z the laws OF the country. and That
too, after the supreme court Of th'
, United states hud decided no fedora
- question remained Tor considerable
iu the case. JudEc Newman also re-.
fused tu issue a. certificate Of prob
r. able cHus,' for appeal to b su
prcmc court, but 30 was ISSUED bog
Justice lamar December IS und th'
! ease cumc 10 thu supreme court foI
!, review of Judge Nowman's action
: argument being made last February