Category: LEO FRANK TRIAL

  Take a journey through time with the American Mercury, and experience the trial of Leo Frank (pictured, in courtroom sketch) for the murder of Mary Phagan just as it happened as revealed in contemporary accounts. The Mercury will be covering this historic trial in capsule form from now until August 26, the 100th anniversary of the rendering of the verdict. by Bradford L. Huie THE JEWISH ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE (ADL) — in great contrast to the American Mercury and other independent media — has given hardly any publicity to the 100th anniversary of the murder of Mary Phagan and the

Today, on the 100th anniversary of Leo Frank taking the stand in his own defense, we present a digest of opinion and contemporary sources on his statement. AT THE CLIMAX of the Leo Frank trial, an admission was made by the defendant that amounted to a confession during trial. How many times in the annals of US legal history has this happened? Something very unusual happened during the month-long People v. Leo M. Frank murder trial, held within Georgia's Fulton County Superior Courthouse in the Summer of 1913. I'm going to show you evidence that Mr. Leo Max Frank inadvertently

The American Mercury continues its centenary coverage of the trial of Leo Frank for the slaying of Mary Phagan with the closing arguments presented by the prosecution and defense. by Bradford L. Huie IT'S A LONG READ — but an essential one for everyone who wants to consider himself well-informed on the Leo Frank case: the closing arguments from indefatigable Fulton County Prosecutor Hugh Dorsey and his assistant Frank Hooper, and from Leo Frank's brilliantly skilled defense attorneys Reuben Arnold and Luther Rosser. Here we present their final arguments in full — practically the length of a sizable novel —

by Bradford L. Huie THE AMERICAN MERCURY now presents the final closing arguments by Solicitor Hugh Dorsey (pictured) in the trial of Leo Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan — a powerful summary of the case and a persuasive argument that played a large part in the decision of the jury to find Frank guilty of the crime. It is also riveting reading for modern readers, who have been told — quite falsely — that the case against Frank was a weak one, and told, equally falsely, that "anti-Semitism" was a major motive for the arrest, trial, and conviction

  THIS WEEK we present our final installment of our audio books on the subject of the 1913 trial of Leo M. Frank for the strangling and sex murder of his 13-year-old sweatshop employee, Mary Phagan. Today we hear the words of Judge Leonard Strickland Roan (pictured) in his charge to the jury, exactly as they were uttered more than a century ago. A few hours later, the jury returned its verdict of guilty. The Leo Frank case was one of the major factors that led to the founding of the prominent Jewish pressure group, the ADL. This new audio

by Penelope Lee THIS WEEK, as we are preparing the (very long) audio book version of the Leo Frank defense team and prosecution team closing arguments, the American Mercury is proud to present the new audio book version — never before available in its entirety — of our editor Bradford L. Huie's 100 Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty, read by Miss Vanessa Neubauer. As you listen, you can follow along with the text of the original piece.   **** 100 Reasons Leo Frank Is Guilty Proving That Anti-Semitism Had Nothing to Do With His Conviction and Proving That His Defenders Have Used Frauds

by Valdis Bell TODAY MARKS THE 100th anniversary of the largest and most-well funded hate and defamation group in the history of mankind: the Anti-Defamation League, or "ADL." The organization was originally called the "Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith" after its parent group, the Jewish fraternal order B'nai B'rith (meaning "Sons of the Covenant," or, literally, "Sons of the Cut" — referring to circumcision). (ILLUSTRATION: Abraham Foxman, director of the ADL) The ADL was founded in the immediate aftermath of the conviction of Atlanta B'nai B'rith President Leo Frank for the strangulation and sex murder of a 13-year-old factory girl,

Mr. Arnold: Gentlemen of the Jury: We are all to be congratulated that this case is drawing to a close. We have all suffered here from trying a long and complicated case at the heated term of the year. It has been a case that has taken so much effort and so much concentration and so much time, and the quarters here are so poor, that it has been particularly hard on you members of the jury who are practically in custody while the case is going on. I know it's hard on a jury, to be kept confined this

Mr. Frank Arthur Hooper: Gentlemen of the Jury, the object of this trial, as well as all other trials, is the ascertainment of truth and the attainment of justice. In the beginning, I want to have it understood that we are not seeking a verdict of guilty against the defendant unless he is guilty. The burden of guilt is upon our shoulders- we confront the undertaking-of putting it upon his. We recognize that it must be done beyond a reasonable doubt, and that it must be done purely by the evidence which we have produced before you. We have cheerfully

Mr. Rosser: Gentlemen of the jury. All things come to an end. With the end of this case has almost come the end of the speakers, and but for the masterly effort of my brother, Arnold, I almost wish it had ended with no speaking. My condition is such that I can say but little ; my voice is husky and my throat almost gone. But for my interest in this case and my profound conviction of the innocence of this man, I would not undertake to speak at all. I want to repeat what my friend, Arnold, said so

BY ATTORNEYS L.Z. ROSSER, R.R. ARNOLD, AND H.J. HAAS AT THE PLANT OF THE NATIONAL PENCIL COMPANY, BEGINNING 2:00 P.M., JUNE 30TH, 1913. EXAMINATION OF W.R. FULLERTON. Questions by L.Z. Rosser Esq:- Q. Mr. Fullerton, you were employed as book-keeper on Friday before the murder on Saturday? A. Yes sir. Q. Were you here that day? A. I didn't go to work here Saturday morning. Q. Did you come up to the office here? A. On Friday I did, yes sir. Q. What time did you come here? A. 11:00 o'clock. Q. Who employed you? A. Mr. Frank. Q. In