Brownsville herald. [volume] (Brownsville, Tex.) 1910-current, 1915-04-19
SUPREME COURT DECIDES
AGAINST LEO M. FRANK
Continued from page ~

killed the Phagan Girl. and declared h. had
helped di>po~c ~ the body. Conley. who
! wa one VI the chief witncsSc, Tor the
state At Frank trial, wa- convicted n, an
accessory after the murder IN February.
1914, and sentenced "a one years impris-
onment. llc began Iii term lat July.
Frank wa~ placed on trial IN superior
court. july -. 1913. Judge l.. :. Roam pre-
siding. Judge Roam died March %. 1918.
IN New York. a verdict of guilty was re-
turned August -. Frank being sentenced
10 death. In hi statement 20 the Jury III
the close uf hi trial Frank said he had
seen Mary Phagan in hi office in the fac
tory. a few minutes before the time the
state commended she was murdered: that
hc paid the girl her wages and that ~hc
lrli hl~ office. The theory of the defense
has been that Conley. who va, about the
building when the girl entered. and who
had been drinking. attacked and killed the
girl after >he lett Frank, office.
Ia October. 1913. Frank, attorneys filed
a motion for a new trial. alleging 1903 err
rur~ IN admission Of testimony aud the
conduct Of the trial. and also charging that
outside the court room during the trial had
lntcriercd with 4 tar verdict. Judge Roam
denied the motion and the Georgia supreme
court affirmed hi action February IL.
1914. \ motion for rehcarIng III the ap-
peal wa, denied ~ the state supreme court
two week. later.
An extraordinary motion for n u"W trial
and u motion to ct aside the verdict were
filed simultaneously IN the superior court
April l6. 1914. Among the ground, a.
legged IN The motion for Il new trial wa~ that
al newly discovered evidence. The motion
q" -rt aside the verdict was based ON the
ground that Franks constitutional rights
had been violated by the trial court. Ili-
attorneys alleged that Frank had not been
given 4 fair trial because of the spirit
If mob violence that pcrvadcd the court
room and also that hi constitutional
hi attorneys had been absent from the
court room. without Frank consent. when
the verdict wa~ returned. The absence. Il
Wa claimed. wa> "a the request If the pre-
siding Judge who was quoted a. saving hc
feared mob violence against Frank and hi
lawyer, ii 4 verdict of acquittal were ~
turned.
The extraordinary motion for a new
trial wa denied ~ the superior court MAY
", and the decision WA affirmed ~ the
state supreme court October ~. The "a
prri"r court on june q. 1914. Dismissed
hhr motion Ia ~ct aside the verdict on con
'~tItutional grounds. by SUSTAINING. the
states demurrer t. the action. The "a
prcme court affirmed this action November
IL. 1914. and six days aitcrward the "a
prcme court refused To- certify y writ 81
error 10 the United States supreme court.
To review that action. application wa,
made first To- Justice Lamar. then To- Jus
tice Holmes and finally To- the entire su-
prene court Of the United Siate~. for n
writ Of error. All held that the decision
Of the Georgia supreme court could not be-
reviewed because it, action was based on
grounds If procedure. namely. that the
plea of setting aside the verdict should
have been advanced at the time the mo-
tion> for new trial were made.
Application was made December 10 Ia
Judge Newman 1T the federal district court
of Northern Georgia. for Il writ 1T habeas
corpus. alleging Frank had been convicted
without due process 81 LAW that the trial
court la. lost jurisdiction over him dur