Newspaper Page Text
3
l
THE ATLANTA GEORGIAN AND NEWS.
To the casual spectator who feels no personal interest in the outcome of the
Prank trial, the one great feature of the courtroom is the cross-examining of the
State’s witnesses by Luther Z. Rosser. Rosser roars. Rosser whispers, Rosser
threatens, Rosser pleads, Rosser insinuates, Rosser cajoles, Rosser jests.
At the left is shown Rosser holding his arms out as though to receive and
clasp to his breast the answer about to come to a difficult question he has put.
At the right is Rosser grinning sarcastically. A witness for the State has
just said that his memory was as fresh after two years as two days.
Rosser
gently
starting
battery
of questions.
m ■
mmM.
LUTHER ROSSER EXEMPLIFYING THE GENTLE ART OF CROSS-EXAMINING
I *- "\>
'AaV-a
V;*: *
I CHANCE 10 KILL El
By JAMES B. KEVIN.
Th* testimony of Dr. Roy Harris,
rhairmaxj of the State Board of
:Hea h. and one of the moat learned
and .t'oroved physicians in Georgia,
wfis dramatic, both in its substance
and in the manner of its delivery
Friday.
It was not calculated to help Leo
Frank—and it did not.
The exhibition of a portion of the
:ontent.e of the dead girl’s stomach,
for the purpose of approximating the
time of her death, held breathless
the packed courthouse—and the faint
ing of the physician during the
progress of his testimony gave a final
touch of melodrama to the trial that
thrilled the audience as nothing else
has thus far.
Dr. Harris impressed me. too, ap
believing in Frank's guilt—I do not
know' that he does believe that way,
it merely happens that he seemed so
to impress me.
And if he impressed that Jury as
he impressed mp, then the things he
testified may, if the remainder of the
case against Frank holds together,
prove eventually to be the defend
ant's undoing.
Shows He Had Chance.
To be sure, the State has not yet
fixed the crime definitely on Frank—
but it HAS definitely shown, unless
its witnesses be impeached, which is
highly unlikely, that Leo Frank
MIGHT have murdered Mary Phagan
and that he DID have the opportunity
to accomplish it.
Having showm that the OPPOR
TUNITY was there, and that the
murder likely was consummated dur
ing the time limits of that oppor
tunity, the remaining elements of the
case need but to be knitted properly
together to make dark indeed the out
look for Frank.
Frank himself, Monteen Stover,
Mrs. White and Dr. Harris—they to
gether form a chain thus far ap
parently strong and dangerous!
That, from the standpoint of the
defense, however, is the worst view
to take of it.
I- must be remembered that the
defense as yet has introduced no
witnesses. Such advantage as it so
far has gained—and it has won many
points—it has gained by wringing
from the State’s own witnesses mat
ters of fact favorable to Frank.
When the defense comes to tell its
R tory it may be confidently antici
pated that additional weak points in
the State’s case may be discovered.
I’he only question is. will they be
found SUFFICIENTLY weak to
caus#» the entire chain to f ill apart?
Defense Seeks Weakest Link.
A chain is, of course, only as strong
as its weakest link. Will the defense
be able to locate the State’s weak* -’t
link? And having located it, will it.
can it be strained to the point of
giving way?
That is the perplexing and grim
Puzzle that Ro^er and Arnold are
contemplating from one standpoint
and to-day Dorsey and Hooper from
the other.
The black, forbidding shadow of
the negro, Ji m Conley, has fallen
heavily ftthw'tt 1 *! courtroom in the
old City Hall, where Frank is bat
tling for his liberty, his good name
and the restoration of his status " as
an upright and honorable man amon&
his fellows.
The State is paving the way to the
climax of its case—it is leading up,
and with considerable skill and
adroitness, to the test of its biggest
asset or its most tremendous liability,
as the case may be—Jim Conley,
confessed accessory after the fact of
Mary Phagan’s murder and by many
suspected of being the principal to
the murder.
Somehow it seemed to me that
Luther Rosser grew T more and more
cautious in his cross-examining Fri
day and Saturday, and certainly Reu
ben Arnold appeared to weigh well
his words and carefully propound his
questions.
Dorsey Has Temper in Leash.
Dorsey, too, has his tempre much
more thoroughly in hand—and Hoop
er?
Hooper is the same as ever—smil
ing. calm, deliberate, rarely speaking
at all, save to whisper directing words
into his associate's ear now and then.
When Jim Conley is on the stand,
Leo Frank will be face to face with
the crisis in his trial—either Conley
will leave the stand Frank's final de
liverance and refuge, or his eternal
damnation on earth!
For this is a battle in truth to the
very death—a battle in which quar
ter is being neither given nor asked!
It nfeans hope, and love, and life,
and liberty to Frank, or it means !
I looked long and earnestly Into
the faces of those twelve ’’good men
and true.” the "gentlemen of the
jury” on Friday afternoon.
To me, the Frank jury appears to
be much above the average.
A composite picture of it would
indicate, I suspect, intelligence, level
headedness, business knowledge and
poise.
If it is the sort of jury I think it is,
it is just the sort of jury that should
try a case of such unusual quality
as the one it now has in hand.
I am assuming that a vast majority
of Georgians are hoping sincerely to
see the truth of this famous case es
tablished—that It is largely an ab
stract proposition to the average man.
The point, however, is not so much
what any one of us thinks—the point
is what does that JURY think?
The impressions that evidence pro
duce are varied and sometimes
marked. One never can exactly and
precisely say which way it will cut.
And right here my mind goes hack
involuntarily to Dr. Roy Harris, and
his Remarkable testimony.
Undoubtedly the defense will have
to put on its thinking cap, straight
and firmly set, if it hopes not only to
upset that testimony and discredit it
as particularly and relatively in point,
but to remove the profound impres
sion it may have made upon the jury.
It is, after all. largely upon mental
impression—perhaps more often than
no t—that jury verdicts are predicted
The psychological receptiveness of the
jury frequently controls the finding,
I doubt not.
Ux. Harris’ testimony has
FRANK JUROR'S LIFE ONE
Rosser
thundering,
his
face
clouded by
anger.
0. B. KEELER.
weighed heavily against Frank in th»
mind 6f the jury, the defense will And
it extremely difficult to remove that
weight.
The Solicitor General may have
been far more astute and incisive,
too, than some have thought, when,
time and again, he claimed to have
been entrapped by his own witnesses
—that they were not now swearing
the same things that ’a few weeks
ago they swore readily enough.
Effect May Be Decisive.
If the Solicitor has managed to gel
ft into the minds of that jury that
Frank needs protection against actu
ally damaging circumstances, that
witnesses deliberately have been
drilled to protect him against sinister
things, that witnesses have been tam
pered with in his behalf—all of which
things may be inferential^ set up,
without many genuine reasons there
for being given—then a psychological
effect will have been achieved that
may prove dangerous in the extreme
to the defendant.
Now, I do not mean to say the State
HAS succeeded In doing that, and I
hardly see wherein those Impressions
would he warranted altogether In the
minds of the jurymen, still Dorsey
and Hooper are driving at SOME
THING—and it may be they are driv
ing at that exact psychological ef
fect!
And you never can tell.
The way of a serpent upon a rock,
of an eagle in the air, and of a man
with a maid—these things have been
said to be the strangest of all things
But the fourth strangest thing, and
there may be so many as four super
latively strange things, is the way of
a jury with a defendant at bar!
Therefore, if Hooper and Dorsey
have been seeking, through the clever
manipulation of their own witnesses
and through the still cleverer direct
ing of the cross-examination Into de
sired channels, and If they have suc
ceeded, which no man possibly may
know now, the art employed has been
consummately far-reaching and keen.
It will brace up the amazing story
of Conley wonderfully and make his
tale the easier for the jury to accept
a<( true, and it will in inverse ratio
discount the defendant s statement,
moreover, if the jury can be brought
to that psychological status suggest
ed in this article, if it be the true pur
pose of the State to bring it there.
Situation Rests on “Its.”
There are a good many "ifs” in this
idea, to be sure—but all psychological
situations are bullded largely upon
“ifs.”
That the State is undertaking to
establish a psycnologica! effect in a*
least one other direction, too, is evi
dent in the way it insists, over and
over, that Frank was "nervous" or
"extremely nervous" Just after the
crime was committed—-the idea being
that if he was agitated it likely was
because of his guilty conscience.
The State has combated this won
derfully well, in so far as the sub
stance of its denials are concerned—
and yet into this idea obtrudes the
thought that maybe here, again, the
State has been cleverer than the de
fense has imagined, by forcing the
State rather to overdo its hand in
that direction!
Now, these suggestions may be more
or less elusive and hard to get hold
of, hut they are in no way impossi
ble. Indeed, when It is remembered
that the State a!! along has been de
veloping a rather weak circumstantial
case against Frank always up to Its
star witness, Conley—at once both its
hope and its despair—and that the
story of that witness is gnmiy gro-
tisque, in parts strcnimm-ly nm.iim
on the imagination, based, as it is In
portions, upon admitted lies and mis
representations, the great help and
assistance to toe State of a mentally
receptive jury may be, and doubtless
will he. appreciated immediately uy
the reader.
In any and every aspect of the
case it is but the simple -.ruth to say
that both the State and the defense
have been forced to the skating on
dangerously thin ice more than once
so far.
Wilson Takes a Day
Off; Golfs a Little
WASHINGTON, Aug. 2.—President
Wilson to-day dropped all official
business. H** golfed in the morning
with Dr. C G. Grayson, his physi
cian. and planned to go to the ball
game in the afternoon.
Roan Holding Scales of
Justice With Steady Hand
By L. F, WOODRUFF.
Emotion's entire gamut is dally run
on the Bcreen of faces watching the
Frank trial.
A student of facial expression can
find anything he seeks by watching
the throng of spectators a half hour.
A glance at one man may show a
sneer of hate as bitter as gall. His
neighbor in the next seat will prob
ably be smiling In amused content
as if he were witnessing the antics
of his favorite comedian.
Looking to the left he may see
fear as vividly depicted on a counte
nance as trapped felon has ever felt.
And another glance might show a
spectator jn studious contemplation
as rapt as that of a philosopher en
deavoring to fathom a new frailty in
human character.
Men have been mad, and shown it,
during the progress of Atlanta’s most
famous criminal case. And men have
shown that they were glad to the
point of jubilation at the very same
instant.
Roan Utterly Impassive.
But throughout the tedious hours
and hours of the hearing, one man
sits, listening to every word. And
he has yet to display the fact that
his emotions are any more affected
by the dramatic trial in which he is a
commanding figure than those of a
business man going through the daily
routine of his prosaic grind.
That quality shows why the man
is sitting there. If he were a man
to show that his feelings were sway
ed as the tide of battle turned first
for one side and then the other, he
would not be qualified for the emi
nent position he holds.
Judge L. S Roan is performing the
arduous duties of presiding justice in
the Frank case, because the people of
Fulton County recognized that he is
the man of the county’s 250,000 best
endowed by nature to perform this
task.
His attitude throughout jthe hearing
has show n that the people chose wise
ly and well.
Think of his position. It is one
of supreme Importance just at this
time, when passion and prejudice are
more likely to rule than cool reason-
ing.
It la his work to uphold the theory
that Justice is blind, and that the
courts of the land are the blindfold
that darkens the vision of the
goddess. He must see that the scales
are evenly balanced. He must be
sure that the sword is sharp.
There are scores, yes hundreds, of
people in Atlanta to-day convinced
absolutely of Frank’s # guilt in the
Phagan mystery, and ’it would take
a power of inconceivable magnitude
to change theif mental attitude.
There are scores and hundreds right
here who believe thoroughly and hon
estly that Frank is Innocent of any
crime, and is as cruelly a persecuted
person as the earth has known since
the days of the martyrs. And so firm
is this belief that it could not be
shaken by dynamite or earthquake.
No Doubt as to Fairness.
Judge Roan’s position and his oath
of office call on him to see that both
of these classes are firmly convinced
of one fact in common, and that is
that the case of Leo M. Frank is be
ing fairly, honestly and effectively
tried according to the law and evi
dence.
When he does this, he is removing
a tremendous amount of the poison
in tiie case People are too prone
to hint that a man's money can as
sure him of safety In any act he
may commit. People are too likely to
say that law and order becomes as
nothing beneath a weight of pre
judice.
Every word that Judge Roan
speaks is as eagerly listened to as
the voice of a diva. His every action
is watched as closely as those of the
President of the United States are
by his secret service protectors.
Therefore, in aetion as well as in
word, the judge must be impartial.
Therefore, he can not smile as one
side or the other scores a point. He
can not evince extraordinary interest
if it is apparent that the lawyers are
about to tear to shreds the story of a
witness. He must make a mental pic
ture of everything in the long-
drawn-out battle in order to give his
final instructions to the jury, but he
must not permit this picture to be
reflected on his face.
And he has not.
His rulings have been quick. They
are spoken in a low voice, just loud
enough for counsel and witness to
hear. In rendering a decision, he
rarely straightens himself from the
reclining attitude he assumes in the
office chair.
Heat Hard on Judge.
He sits through the long hours, his
right hand waving a huge palm leaf
fan. though two electric fans are
turned on the bench. He needs all
three, for the courtroom is stifling
hot, and Judge Roan Is no longer
young. Occasionally he mops a hair
less spot on his high forehead with
a handkerchief
Several times during each day dur
ing the duller moments of the trial,
he speaks a smiling word to some
member of the bar, not connected
with the case, who passes the bench
or exchanges pleasantries with a
court attache.
But his mind is never off the burn
ing issue that he must play so im
portant a part in deciding.
The juror’s life is not.uiimlxed witn
care.
Look him over next time you attend
the Frank trial. Size up his little job.
Weigh his responsibility. Consider nis
problems.
And then, if seeking employment,
go out and sign a contract to make
little one® out of big ones.
It’s a more satisfactory way of
earning $2 a day.
The juror's business is to collect
evidence by the earful, sift the same,
separate the true from the false, and
make it into a verdict as between the
Slat of Georgia and Leo FYank.
On 4he face of it, th% plan is beau
tifully simple.
But the beauty Is only skin deep.
You are recokning without the law
yer*.
Here Entereth the Lawyer.
The simple-minded layman—and
that rating includes the juror—starts
out with the idea that the business
of a lawyer is to extract evidence
from the witness in available form
for proper consideration by the juror.
It speedily develops that the full
intent of counsel is to prevent the
witness from unburdening himself in
any way whatsoever. The more ex
pensive the counsel, the less infor
mation the opposition will be able to
wheedle out of its star performers.
The method of blocking is objective
—that is. it is by means of objections.
It appears that our system of juris
prudence takes cognizance of the
Juror as a mere babe in arms, not fit
to assimilate the strong meat of evi
dence straight.
How the Juror Is Spared.
So he is sedulously raised on the
bottle.
Mr. Dorsey (for example) has a
witness by whom he Is aching to show
that Leo Frank was nervous the
morning he was apprised of the trag
edy. Mr. Rosser and Mr. Arnold are
equally positive that the witness is
not competent to judge if Mr. Prank
was nervous. Also they are quite
sure that the bottle-fed juror is ut
terly Incapable of deciding if the wit
ness is competent to decide if Mr.
Frank was nervous.
They do not intend that tne Juror
shall endanger his delicate thinking
apparatus by grappling with any such
abstruse problem.
So they fix it up this way.
Witness: "He insited on having
some coffee.”
Mr. Rosser: "I object to the use
of the word •insisted.’ It manifestly
is a conclusion of the witness, and
as such has no place in the evi
dence. 1 ask that the word be ruled
out” .
Objections Fix the Fact.
And the court orders it ruled out.
thereby fixing the circumstance firm
ly in the mind of the juror. And then
Mr. Dorsey twists the query around
and gets the witness to state that
Frank asked for coffee twice at his
house and once at the factory.
Just why that arangement suits the
defense beter than the simple propo-
| sition that Frank insisted on the
coffee is not entirely plain—to the
layman.
But it seems that the juror is to
be shielded from any breath of any
thing not bearing strictly on tha
guilt or innonce of the accused.
Specific and accurate information
being thus at a premium, the Juror
probably* Is hmazed when Mr. Rosser,
vibrating with grief and indignation,
protests against Detective Scott read
ing from some notes he made while
working directly on the case.
The court also is shocked, but per
mits Mr. Scott to "refresh his memo-
rl” by means of the notes and then
retail the product of such refresh
ment by word of mouth.
This is agreeable to Mr. Rosser and
the court, but when Mr. Dorsey of
fers further to refresh Mr. Scott’s
somewhat wilted recollection, Mr.
Rosser intimates at the top* of a ro
bust voice that such a thing shall be
accomplished only over his (Mr.
Rosser's) inanimate form.
And that promptly affords the bot
tle-fed juror some more evidence to
ponder.
Mr. Dorsey insists it is his right to
"lead” the witness.
The witness demands to know - if
he is suspected of holding back.
Mr. Dorsey declares he has been
trapped by the witness, and Mr.
Rosser appends the somewhat doubt
ful comment that Frank Hooper is
a wise man.
Here Are More Problems.
Now r , add this to the problems of
the troubled juror:
Is Mr. Scott balking?
If so, has Mr. Dorsey the right to
hold an ear of corn in front of him?
Has Mr. Dorsey been trapped?
And, in view r of the foregoing, is
or it not Mr. Hooper a w'ise man?
Other problems for the exercise of
the Frank juror on the side, as it
were, would include th e following:
Should Mr. Dorsey be permitted to
examine a witne.s without interrup
tion by Mr. Rosser?
Should Mr. Rosser be permitted to
object?
If ho, should Mr. Dorsey scowl while
Mr. Rosser Is objecting?
Does Mr. Rosser consider whisky a
good remedy for indigestion? 4 A
Would He Hide Evidence?
Woud anybody think that Mr, Ros
ser would have anything to do with
suppressing evidence, except in the
regular and approved objective
method prescribed by law?
Is Mr. Scott a trained sleuth?
And one more thing that tends to
lend an acrobatic cast to the mental
processes of the Frank Juror.
Once in a while—not very often, it’s
true—but once in a while something
gets by Mr. Rosser and Mr. Arnold.
The witness may be quick on the
trigger. Or Mr. Dorsey may manage
to frog tip a subtle query with a
Joker in it.
And after the storm of objection
has thundered Itself out and Mr. Ros
ser Is mopping the signs of honest
toil from his brow, and Mr. Dorsey
Is wearing an expression similar to
that of a cat that knows ail about
what happened to the canary—why,
then the court orders the stenogra
pher to strike out the answer.
And the obliging Juror is instructed
to forget it.
Yes?
Would You Forget it, Too?
Just suppose that you, being 1 an
honest and hard-working Juror, try
ing In an honest and hard-working
way to extract a morsel of real, In
formation from a jungle of cross-
questions and crabbed answers arid
objections and oratory and recrimi
nation—suppose that the honest and
hard-w orking witness should beat ’em
to it for once, and disgorge something
really Interesting.
And then suppose the judge should
tell you to wipe it right off your
mental slate, and not remember It, or
consider it, or think about it any more
forever.
You would do it would you not?
Neither would we.
The juror’s life is not unmL.sd with
I care. 7
1