Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1915-04-19

int rest in Atlanta was given the case
because Of its having been brought
into a municipal political controversy.
which involved attacks on that city's
police and detective departments and
wrangIes among factions in the city
administration.
Soon after the trial ended the case
came in for agitation which spread
all over the country.
Mary Phagan was murdered April
&c, 1913, on a Southern holiday in
observance Ct Confederate Memorial
Day. Shortly after noon Of that day
she was seen to Anterthe pencil fac
tory in Atlanta, Wls*feO she had been
employed and whereN she went to OBJ
tain wages due her. Her body was
found next morning in the basement
Of the factory. with cord tied about
the neck.
Leo NJ. Frank, a young Jew. col
lege graduate and married, whose
hcme had been in Brooklyn, \. Y,
was superintendent Of the pencil fac:
tory. Three days after the murder,
Frank was arrested on suspicion. and
, on May s. Frank and a negro watch
man nj the factory, Newt Lee were
held by the coroner for the grand
jurys action. Lee subsequently was
released. Sixteen days later Jim
ConIey, q negro sweeper at the fac
tory. made confession to the police
i'm which he accused Frank of having
killed the Phagan girl and declared
he had helped to dispose OF the body.
conley, who was enc Of the chief wit.
nesses for the state at Franks trial,
was convicted as an accessory AFTER
the murder In February, 1914. and
sentenced TO one years fmprison'
ment. He began his term last July.
Frank was placed on trial In Supe-
rior Court, July 2S. 1913, Judge L. s.
Rcan presiding. Judge Roam died
March 20, 1915; in New York. A YER
dict of guilty was. returned August
%, Frank being sentenced to death.
In his statement to the jury at the
close OF his trial Frank said he had
seen Mary Phagan in his Office In the
factory a few minutes before the time
the state contended she was muir
tered; that he paid the girl her wages
and that she left his Office. The the
ory OF the defense has been that Con.
ley. who was about the building when
I the girl entered and who had been
drinking, attacked and killed the girl
after she left Franks Office.
In October. 1913, Franks attorneys
fled motion for a new trial, alleg.
ing 1903 errors IN admission Of testi.
mony and conduct Of the trial, and
also charging that demonstrations by
1.-THE crowd within and outside the
court room during the trial had inter,
fered With q fair verdict judge Bo-
an denied the motion and the Georgia
Supreme courts affirmed his action
February 10. i9i4 motion FOR re-
hearing OF the appeal was denied bY
the StsIte Supreme Court two weeks
later 81
An extraordinary poticn for "a new
trial and kniotion to set aside the
verdict swere filed simultaneously In
Superior court April t6 4 1874. Among
the grounds alleged in tie motion for
new trial was that Il newly discov-
cred evidence The motion TO set
aside the verdict was based on the
grouad that Frank cQnstitutional
rights had been violated BY the trial
court HIS attorneys alleged that
Frank had net been given affair trial
because OF the spirit of mob violence
that peryaded the cpurt ROOM and
also that his. constitutional rights
had ileen Violated because Frank and
his attorneys had been absent from
the court room, without Franks con,
sent, when the verdict was returned.
This absence, IL was claimed. was at
the request Of the presiding Judge
who was quoted as saying he feared
mob violence against Frank and his
lawyers II a verdict of acquittal were
returned.
The extraordinary motion for new
trial was denied by the superior
court May s, and the decision was
7 affirmed by the state supreme court
October IA. The superior court on
June 6, 1914, dismissed the motion to
set aside the verdict on constitutional
grounds, by sustaining the states de-
mnrrer TO the notion The supreme
court affirmed this action November
IA. 1914, and six days afterwards the
supreme court refused to certify a
writ OF errcrtto the United States SUI
preme Court.
To review that action. application
was made first to Justice Lamar, then
to Justice Holmes and finally to the
entire Supreme Court Of the United
States. for a. writ OF error. All held
that the decision Of the Georgia ST.
preme Court could not be reviewed
because its action was based on
grounds of procedure. namely. that
the plea for setting aside the verdict
should have been advanced at the
time the motions for new trial were
made 4 - -,
Application was made December ls
to Judge Newman of the Federal dis
trict court for Northern Georgia for
writ of habess corpus. alleging
Frank had been convicted without due
process CT Law; that the trial court
had lost jurisdictions over him during
the trial becsuse 1t was dominated
by mob hostile to the prisoner" and
that Frank had been absent from the