The Tabor independent. [volume] (Tabor, S.D.) 1913-19??, 1915-04-22
Leo FRANK LOSES
BATTLE FOR LIFE
Supreme Court Decides Against
Convicted Man-His Only
Hope of Escaping Chair
Is State Pardon.

the opinion OF the court. ne concluded
by saying: ...
In all the proceedings in the courts
Of Georgia the fullest right and oppor-
unity to be heard. according to the es-
4 tablished modes of procedure have been
accorded to him.
I'm the opinion of this court" said
Justice Pitney. "he is not shown to
n have been deprived of n right guar
anteed to him by the 18th amend
. ment or any other provision Of the con.
. stitution or laws of the United Statesi
on the contrary, he has been convicted
. and Is now held In custody under due
\ process OF law, within the meaning OF
the constitution"
Only Hope Is Pardon.
1t is believed that only the state par
\ don officials OF Georgia can now save
/ Frank from the death penalty for his
conviction of the murder of Mary Pha'
gan, a factory girl.
Justice Holmes delivered a dissenting
opinion. in which Justice Hughes CON
Cured.
Leo M. Franks legal fight for life ha,
taken q place among the celebrated
murder cases of recent years. Sever
times since his conviction in August
1918, the lower and supreme courts Of
the state OF Georgia refused to grant
Frank a new trial, or to set aside the
verdict: three times the sentence OF
death was passed upon him and twici
appeals were made to the United
states supreme court, the first being
unsuccessful and the second resulting
in the decision today.
The murder of ~14-year-old Mary Pha
gan, a factory employe OF Atlanta, Ga
which at first appeared to be a crime
Of only local Importance, eventually de.
Veloped into a cas- of nationwide inter
est. This was due in large part to the
efforts OF Frank and his friends to OBJ
tain for him a new trial or annulment
Of the verdict. Added Interest in At
lanta was given the case because of iti
having been brought into a municipal
political controversy, which involved
attacks on that city's police n detect
I've departments and wrangles among
factions in the city administration.
After the trial ended, the case can't
in for agitation which spread all I'VE
the country.
Murdered on Holiday.
Mary Phagan was murdered Aprl
rs, 1913, on a Southern holiday in ob,
servance of Confederate memorial day
shortly after noon of that day she wal
seen to enter the pencil factory, in At.
lanta, where she had been employed and
where she went to obtain wages due
her. Her body was found e morn
ing In the basement of the factory, with
a card tied about the neck.
Leo M. Frank, a young Jew, a col
lege graduate and married, whose home
had been in Brooklyn, N. Y, vas sup.
erintendent of the pencil factory
Three days after the murder, Frank
was arrested on suspicion and on May
s, Frank n a negro Waterman at the
factory, Newt Lee, were held by the
coroner for the grand jury's action
Lee subsequently was released. Six.
teen days later Jim Ccrley, a Negro
sweeper at the factory, made a con
fession to the police in which he &C.
cused Frank Of having killed the Pha,
gan girl, and declared he had helped
dispose of the body. Conley, who was
one of the chief witnesses for the state
at Franks trial, vas convicted as ar
accessory after the murder in February
1914, and sentenced to one years i'm
prisonment. He began his term last
July.
Frank was placed on trial in superior
court, July %, 1913, Judge l.. s. Roar
presiding. Judge Roar died March %
1915. in New York. A verdict Of guilty
was returned August %, Frank being
sentenced to death. In his statement tG
the jury at the close Of his trial Frank
said he had seen Mary Phagan in hi.
office in the factory, a few minutes
OeIOTe TIE IlIIle TIE SLdle COIlNGIueu SIN
was murdered; that he paid the CIR
her wages and that she left his office
The theory of the defense has beer
that Conley, who was about the build.
ing when the girl entered. and who hac
been Drinking, attacked and killed the
girl after she left Franks office.
In October, 1913, Franks attorneys
filed a motion for q new trial, alleging
1853 errors in admission of testimony
and conduct of the trial, and also
charging hat demonstrations by the
crowd within and outside the court room
during the trial had interfered with a
fair verdict. Judge Roam denied the
motion and the Georgia supreme court
affirmed his action February II. 1914.
A motion for rehearing of the appeal
was denied by the state supreme court
two weeks later.
Claimed "Mob Spirit"
An extraordinary motion for a new trial
and a motion to set aside the verdict were
filed simultaneously in superior court
April. I6, 1914. Among the grounds alleged
In the motion for a new trial was that of
newly discovered evidence. The motion to
set aside the verdict was based on the
ground that Franks constitutional rights
had been violated by the trial court. His
attorneys alleged that Frank had not been
given a fair trial because of the spirit Of
mob violence tnat pefNaueO the court
ROOM and also that his constitutional
rights had been violated because. Frank
and his attorneys had been absent from
the court room, without Franks consent,
when the verdict was returned. This abb
sence. IL was claimed, was at the request
of the presiding judge who was quoted as
saving he feared mob violence against
Frank and his lawyers If a verdict of ac-
quittal were returned.
The extraordinary motion for a new trial
was denied by the superior court May 6,
and the decision was affirmed by the state
supreme court October IA. The superior
court on June 6, 1914, dismissed the motion
70 set aside the verdict on constitutional
grounds, by sustaining the states demuT-
5rer TO the motion. The supreme court af-
irmed this action November II, 1914, and
six days afterward the supreme court re-
fused to certify a writ of error to the
United States supreme court.
TO review that action. application was
made first 70 Justice Lamar, then TO JUS
tice Holmes. and finally to the entire SUI
preme court of the United States. for a
writ of error. All held that the decision
Of the Georgia supreme court could not be
reviewed because it's action was based on
grounds of procedure, namely, that the
plea for setting aside the verdict should
have been advanced at the time the mo-
lions for new trial were made.