The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1915-04-20
GOVERNORS PARDON
is NOW ONLY HOPE
OF LEO M. FRANK

tons were considered by those courts
successfully at times and place and un-
der circumstances wholly apart from the
legal atmosphere of the trial and free
from any suggestion of mob domination
OF the like, he said.
Few Irregularities
These facts were examined by the courts
of record on evidence submitted on both
sides and both courts found Franks al
legations to be groundess, except with
respect to a few matters of irreguarity
not harmful to the defendant.
This court" he said, holds that such
a determination of the facts cannot in
this collateral inquiry be treated as a
nullity, but must be taken as setting
forth the truth OF the matter until some
reasonable ground is shown for an in
ference that the supreme court of Geor-
gia either was wanting in jurisdiction
or committed error in the exercise of its
jurisdiction and the mere assertion by
the prisoner that the facts of the mat
ter are other than the state courts upon
full investigation determined them to
be treated as not raising an issue re-
specting the correctness of that deter
mination, especially not where the very
evidence upon which the determination
was reached. is withheld by him who
attacks the finding.
not present in the courtroom when the
verdict was rendered CHS presence hav-
ing been waived by his counsel, but
without his knowledge. or consenD the
Georgia court held that because Frank,
shortly after the verdict was made fully
aware of the facts, and he then made a
motion for a new trial upon over 100
grounds. not including this IS one. and
had that motion heard by both the
ri nd the a
could not after this motion had been
finally adiudicated against him, move to
set aside the verdict as a nullity be-
cause of his absence when the verdict
was rendered. This court holds that
there is nothing in the fourteenth
amendment to prevent state from
| adopting and enforcing so reasonable a
regulation of procedure.
1T is settled by repeated decisions of
this court that the due process of law
clause of the fourteenth amendment has
not the effect OF imposing upon the
states any particular form or mode of
procedure, long the essential
rights of notice and hearing, or OPP
portunity to be heard before com
| petent tribunal, are not interfered
| with Indictment by grand jury is not
essential to due process. Trial by jury
is not essential to it either in civil or
in criminal cases. This court in previous
decisions has sustained the right of a
state to permit one charged with a
capital offense to waive a trial by jury
and be tried by the court; and in an
other case has sanctioned a state law
permitting the defendant in a capital
case to be absent during a part of the
! trial.
May Waive Right
! This court holds that the practice es-
| Ia bished in the criminal courts of Geor-
! Sia that a defendant may waive his
| right to be present when the jury rem.
| ders its verdict, and that such waiver
may be given after as well before
| the trial and is to be inferred from this
making of a motion for new trial upor
other grounds when the facts respecting
the rendition of the verdict are within the