Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1915-04-19
LEO FRANK MUST
DIEUNLESS HE'S
GIVEN APARDON
Continued from page one)

int, rest in Atlanta was given tn" case
bee lusp q its having been brought
into a municipal political controversy,
which involved attacks on that city s
police and detective departments and
wranglcs 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 vas murdered April
&c 1919. On a Southern holiday in
observance e Confederate Memorial
Day. Shortly after noon OF that day
she was seen TO enter the pencil fac
tory in Atlanta, where she had been
CniplOved and where she went to OBJ
tain wages due her. Her body was
found next morning in the basement
Of the factory. with a cord tied about
the neck.
Leo VI. FRANK. young Jew, a col
Iege graduate and married. whose
home had been in brooklyn. y. V.
was superintendent Of the pencil fac.
tory Three days after the murder.
Frank was arrested on suspicion and
On May &. Frank and negro watch
man at the factory. Newt Lee. we're
held by the coroner for the grand
iury's action. Lee subsequently was
released. Sixteen days later jim
ConIey, a negro sweeper at the fac
tory. made confession to the police
in which he accused Frank Of having
killed the Phagan girl. and declared
he had helped to dispose Of the BODY.
= ConIev. who was one 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 im3rison-
ment He began his term last July.
Frank was placed on trial in Supe-
b. rior Court, July %. 1913, Judge L. 5.
Rcan presiding. Judge Roam died
March %, 1915, in New York. 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 few minutes before the time
the state contended she was muir
dered; that he paid the girl her wages
and that she left his office. The the
DRY OF the defense has been that Con-
ley, 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 attorneys
filed molten for a new trial, alleg.
ing 1903 errors In admission OF testi.
mony and conduct of the trial, and
also charging that demonstrations by
sd xsstA1,gE, ond Nftcfdn tho
court room during the trial had inter.
fered with a fair verdict. Judge Ro-
an denied the motion and the Georgia
Supreme Court affirmed his action
February IL. 1914 A. motion for re-
hearing of, the appeal was denied by
the State Supreme Court two weeks
later <#
An extraordinary motion for new
trial and a motion TO set aside the
verdict were fled simultaneously in
superior court April is, 1914. Among
the grounds alleged in the motion for
q new trial was that Of newly discov-
cred evidence. The motion to set
aside the verdict was based on the
ground that Franks constitutional
rights had been violated by the trial
+ GA0lls Ills ohC6Vu
Frank had net been given fair trial
because of the spirit Of mob violence
that perVaded 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 con.
sent, when the verdict was returned.
This absence, II was claimed, was at
the request Of the presiding Judge
who was quoted as saying he feared
mob violence against Frank and his
lawyers IL a verdict Of acquittal 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 to
set aside the verdict on constitutional
groukds, by sustaining the states de-
murrer to the motion. The supreme
court affirmed this action November
"a, 1914, and six days afterwards the
supreme court refused to certify a
writ OF error to the United States Su-
preme Court.
To review that action, application
was made first TO Justice Lamar. then
to Justice Holmes AMI finally to the
entire Supreme Court of the United
States, for a writ of error. All held
that the decision Of the Georgia Su-
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.
Application was made December ~
TO Judge. Newman of the Federal dis
trict court for Northern Georgia for
a writ of habeas corpus, alleging
Frank had been convicted without due
process of Law: that the trial court
had lost jurisdiction over him during
the trial because II was dominated
by a mob hostile to the prisoner" and
that Frank had been absent from the