Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1915-04-19
The Supreme Court. Justices
Holmes and Hughes Dis
senting, Rejects Appeal.
HOLDS HE ENJOYED ALL
LEGAL RIGHTS IN GEORGIA
Counsel Will Petition State Prison
Commission for Communication OF
Death Sentence.

lanta factory girl. lost another step III
his fight for life in the supreme Court
Of the Tnited states today.
| In a decision, to which Justices
Holmes and Hughes dissented. the
| court dismissed Frank appeal from
the federal court of Georgia which re-
/; fused TO release him on a writ Of
| habeas corpus.
! Frank contended that alleged mob
| violence" at his trial and the fat that
| he absent from the courtroom
when the jury returned its verdict had
| removed him from the jurisdiction of
| the courts of Georgia.
| The majority opinion of the Supreme
! Court touay rejected all those conten
| tions and declared Frank had enjoyed
(; all his legal rights the Georgia
| courts.
| Will Seek Communication.
| An Atlanta, Ga. news dispatch says:
Leo NJ. Frank $ attorneys when in
formed Of the decision today OF the
United States Supreme Court. said that
| they believed that every means in
| Franks behalf befor. the courts now
| had peen exhausted. They added that
| they now probably would prepare a
petition for presentation before the
f; Georgia prison commission, asking Ior
! +
Majority Opinion of Court.
| Justice Pitney, in the majority de-
cision stated that the obligation rested
upon the Supreme Court to look
| through the form and into the very
heart and substance of the matter. not
only of the averment in Franks petit
ton. but in the trial proceedings in
The state courts themselves
The petition contains narrative OF
disorder. hostile manifestations, and
| uproar.' said the justice. which if it
stood alone and were to be taken as
inconsistent with d fair trial and an
impartial verdict. But to consider
| this as standing alone, is to take a
| wholly superficial view; for the mar
rative is coupled with other state
| ments from which it clearly appears
| that the same allegations of order
were submitted to the trial court
and afterward to the supreme court
of Georgia. as a ground for avoiding
| the consequences of the trial and these
allegations were considered by those
courts successively at times and places
and under circumstances wholly apart
free from any suggestion of mob domi
nation.
Holds Allegations Groundless.
The facts were examined by these
courts upon evidence submitted on
both sides, and both courts found
Franks allegations to be groundless,
except with respect to a few matters
of irregularity not harmful to the de-
fendant
This court holds that such de-
termination of the facts cannot, in this
collateral inquiry, be treated as null
llty, 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
Georgia either was wanting in Juris-
diction or committed error in the cxer-
else of it's Jurisdictions; and the mere
assertion by the prisoner that the
facts of the matter are other than the
state courts, upon full investigation
determined them to be will not be
treated as raising an issue respecting
the correctness OF that determination:
especially not where the very evidence
upon which the determination was
| rested is withheld by him who attacks
the finding.
Franks Right Not Curtailed.
Respecting the fact that Frank was
! not present in the courtroom when the
| verdict was rendered ths prcsenc.
| having been waived by his counsel, but
without his knowledge Or consentJ. m.
Georgia court held that because Frank,
| shortly after the verdict, was made
| fully aware Of the facts, and nc then
mace a motion for Il new trial tIpo,
| over 100 grounds, not including this AZ
one. and had that motion heard by both
Inc trial court and the Supreme Court
| he could not, after this motion had been
| fnaiiy adJudlcated against him, move
| TO set aside the verdict as a null1ty he
| cause OF his absence when the verdict
Was rendered.
This court holds that there is moth
| ing iii the fourteenth amendment to
prevent Il state from adopting and en-
forcing SO reasonable IL regulation uf
procedure.
Upholds Courts Practice.
This court holds that the practice
established in the criminal courts ,f
Georgia that defendant may v,iy,
his right to be present when the iury
! renders Its verdict, and that such wajv
| " may be given after as well as before
the trial, and is to be inferred from
the making of "A motion for new trial
upon other grounds when the facts
respecting the rendition of the verdict
are within the prisoners KNOWLEDGE is
| a regulation OF criminal procedure that
! II is within the authority of the state
| to adopt.
| since tne slat' may, without in
| ing the fourteenth amendment abolish
| trial by jury, II may limit the effect IN
be given TO an error respecting ono of
! tho such incidents of the trial Tho
| presence Of the prisoner at The rendi
| tion of the verdict is not so essenti,1
| a part of the hearing that A rule of
! pra ctice permitting the accused ia
| waive it, and holding him bound nv
the waiver, amounts to a deprivation Of
| due process Of law"
Justice Holmes opinio6.
Justice Holmes based his dissent largely
| on the ground that the finding of the state
supreme court on the existence Of ,nob
violence at a trial is not binding or the
/ United States Supreme Court. as WAS held
by the majority. He said he saw no
! reason for adopting u sterner rn,c in
criminal appeals than in civil appeaIs and
held where questions of law and fact ware
| interminglcd in civil cases, as here tho
United States Supreme Court NAV review
state courts finding of fact.
The single question in our mind
| continued Justice Holmes, "is whether
! petition alleging that the trial 1ook
| place in the midst of mob saysxely
| and manifestly intent on a single re-
4Csntinued on second PaXs1