Saturday, 13th December 1913: Dorsey As Severe As Frank Defense, The Atlanta Constitution

Reading Time: 7 minutes [1116 words]

State's Brief Filed Friday, and Case Up for Argument Monday Before Supreme Court.

Severe as was the criticism of Judge L. S. Roan, made by the attorneys for Leo M. Frank in their brief filed with the clerk of the supreme court yesterday, it is met by criticism equally as sharp from Solicitor General Hugh Dorsey in his brief, which will be filed today.

Mr. Dorsey's brief is not printed and is not near so long as that filed by the defendant's attorneys, which covers 389 printed pages.

In speaking of Judge Roan's expression of opinion in the Frank case, which was incorporated in the bill of exceptions, Mr. Dorsey says:

"It is unusual, and, so far as we know, unprecedented for a court to incorporate a statement similar to this in a bill of exceptions."

"It is not the office or function of a bill of exceptions to carry the views of the judge as such, or his private views, nor it is a vehicle for carrying the mental processes by which the court below reached its conclusions.

We submit that it would be as dangerous a precedent to permit a judge to impeach the integrity of his official finding after the judgement is concluded as it would be to permit the juror, after having been discharged from the consideration of the case, to impeach his own verdict."

Does Not Attach Importance.

The solicitor does not attach the same importance to Judge Roan's statement of his doubt of Frank's guilt as the defendant's attorneys do.

Arguing on this point, he says:

"Judge Roan stated, according to the bill of exceptions, that he had thought more about this case than any other he had ever tried.

He was not thoroughly satisfied whether Frank was guilty or innocent.

This language clearly shows that he may have over-ruled the motion reluctantly, but, to use his own language, 'the jury was convinced.'

There was no room to doubt that, and he further says that he felt it his duty to order that the motion for a new trial be overruled and he did so."

Herbert Haas, of the counsel for the defense, filed with the clerk of the supreme court the defense's brief and argument Friday, together with Solicitor Dorsey's acknowledgement of service.

The printed brief of the evidence, agreed on by both sides, has also been filed with the court.

Much stress is laid by the attorneys for the defense on the claim that Frank was convicted by mob law, and that the jury was influenced by the intense feeling which, it is alleged, was displayed by the crowd in the court and also outside of the courtroom.

It is argued that the only fair course open to Judge Roan when the crowd cheered during the polling of the jury was to send the jury back to its room and to declare a mistrial.

"Better a Mob Trial."

"It is better," the defense held, "to have a man tried outright by a mob than to have him tried in court and to have the jury influenced and intimidated by the mob. If the mob is to try the prisoner, the court should wash its hands off the matter altogether."

"In this case, Judge Roan should have cleared the courtroom. He should have summoned sufficient force to have kept the crowds from collecting in the street. He should have punished to the extent of the law, by imprisonment, every person applauding and stamping his feet and crying out in the courtroom; and, finally, these measures failing, he should have granted a mistrial, and have held the trial at a time and place when it would be free from such unseemly influences."

Judge Roan is criticized for his alleged vacillating conduct, both during the process of the trial and on the hearing of the motion for a new trial.

It is declared that he only admonished the crowd in a mild way, when his attention was called to the demonstrations in the courtroom, and never once ordered the court to be cleared.

The story of Conley is dwelt upon in great detail in the brief of the defense, and is characterized as a "tissue of falsehoods" from beginning to end.

It is argued that Conley was a negro of notoriously bad character, and that he had every reason, from motives of self-defense, to fabricate.

Harris Severely Criticized.

It is asserted that the evidence conclusively shows that Conley, the drunken negro with no character to maintain, was guilty of murdering the child rather than Frank, a man of education and standing in the community, and with a reputation which was defended by scores of character witnesses.

Some of the expert medical testimony, particularly that of Dr. Roy Harris, secretary of the state board of health, is also subjected to severe criticism.

In backing up their judgement, the defendant's attorneys cite scores of cases, from Georgia and from other states, on the intimidation of the jury, and on the uncertainty of the judge as to the guilt of the prisoner, even though he denied him a new trial.

The case is set first on the criminal calendar of the court, and will be called up for argument Monday morning.

PAGE 12, COLUMN 3

SUPREME COURT OF GA.

Judgements Affirmed.

Nettles v. Charles P. Glover Realty company, from Fulton superior court Judge Pendleton.

James L. Key, for plaintiff in error.

Hines & Jordan, contra.

Martin v. Wail, from Fulton Judge Pendleton.

A. H. Davis, for plaintiff in error.

Rosser & Brandon, contra.

Charleston and Western Carolina Railway company v. Burckhalter, from Richmond Judge Hammond.

W. K. Miller, Boykin Wright, for plaintiff in error.

C. H. & R. S. Cohen, contra.

Mc Laughlin, alias Davis, v. State, from Laurens Judge Hawkins.

R. Earl Camp, for plaintiff in error.

T. S. Feider, attorney general,

E. L. Stephens, solicitor general, contra.

Williams v. Bridges, from Decatur Judge Frank Park.

W. I. Geer, for plaintiff in error.

A. H. Russell, W. O. Fleming, contra.

Judgements Reversed.

Turner et al. v. Tidwell, from Paulding, Judge Edwards.

A. L. Bartlett, A. J.

Camp, for plaintiffs in error.

J. S. James, contra.

Coogler v. Green, from Macon Judge Littlejohn.

J. J. Bull & Son, for plaintiff in error.

W. W. Dykes, R. L. Greer, contra.

Oliver v. Holt, from Johnson Judge Hawkins.

J. L. Kent, for plaintiff in error.

Evans & Evans, contra.

Settle v. Brewer, from Elbert Judge Meadow.

J. H. Skelton, C. P. Harris, for plaintiff in error.

George C. Grogan, contra.

Peugh v. Corley, from Pike Judge Daniel, E. C.

Armistead, for plaintiff in error.

J. F. Redding, contra.

Louisville and Nashville Railroad company v. Trout, from Gordon Judge Fite.

D. W. Blair, O. N. Starr, for plaintiff in error.

J. G. B. Erwin, Maddox, Mc Camy & Shumate, contra.

Dismissed.

Gordon et al., for use, etc., v. Central of Georgia Railway company, from Talbot Judge Gilbert. Perryman & Perryman, for plaintiffs in error.

Battle & Hollis, contra.