Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

O • ;an a;;d ni:\vs. DORSEY RIDDLES FRANK’S OWN- STATEMENT IN FINAL PLEA + • + + • + + • + *•+ +•+ +•+ +•* v • * V *I« • *1* * • v »!* •*s* •!*»*!* *!* *J«#*I* Crowds Outside and Inside of Court Vociferously Applaud the Solicitor CHARGING J Here is Judge Roan's complete charge to the jury verbatim: “Gentlemen of the Jury—This bill of indictment charges Leo M. Frank with the offense of murder. The charge is that Leo M. | Frank, in this county, on the 26th day of April of this year, with force and arms, did unlawfully and with malice aforethought kill and murder one Mery Phagan by then and there chokin'* her, the said Mary Pliagan, with a cord placed around her neck. “To this charge made by the bill of indictment found by the Grand Jury of this county re cently impaneled Leo M. Frank, the defendant, files a plea of not guilty. The charge as made by the bill of indictment on the on 1 hand and his plea of not guilty filed thereto form the issue, and you. gen tlemen of the Jury, have been selected, chosen and sworn to try the truth of this ! ssue "Leo M. Frank, the defendant, com mences the trial rtf this issue with th° presumption of innocence in his favor, and this presumption of inno cence remains with him. to shield him and protect him. until the State shall ovorcorm it and remove it by evidence off red to you. in your hearing and pr sence. sufficient in its strength and character to satisfy your mind* be yond a reasonable doubt of his guilt of each and every material allegation mad< by ihe bill of indictment. "I change you. gentlemen, that all of the allegations of this indictment are material, and It 1. neresaary for the Qf Importance every witness. It Is for you to take this testimony as you* have heard it. in connection with the defendant’s statement, and arrive at what you believe to be the truth, "Gentlemen, the object of all legal Investigation Is the discovery of truth. That is the reason of you being se lected, impanneled and sworn in this case—to discover what is the truth o r this Issue formed on this bill of In dictment. Is Leo M. Frank guilty? Are you satisfied of that beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence In this case? Or Is his plea or not guilty the truth? The rules of evi dence are framed with a view to this prominent end seeking always for pure sources and the highest evidence. "Direct evidence is that which im mediately points to the question at Issue. Indirect or circumstantial evi dence Is that which only tends to es tablish th** Issue hy proof of various facts sustaining, by their consistency, the hypothesis claimed. To warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence th* proven facts must not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, hut must exclude every other reasonable doubt hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused. Character Issue State to satisfy you of their truth hj evidence that convinces your minds beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt before you would be authorized toflni a verdict of guilty. Must Be More Than Beyond Mere Doubt. "You are not compelled to tin I, from the evidence, his guilt beyon 1 any doubt, hut beyond a reasonable doubt, such a doubt as grows out of the evidence in the case, or for the want of evidence, such a doubt as a reasonable and^ impartial man would entertain about matters of the high est importance to himself after FI reasonable efforts to ascertain th? truth This does not mean a fanciful doubt, one conjured up by the Jurv. but a reasonable doubt. "Gentlemen. this defendant is charged with murder. Murder is de fined to be the unlawful killing of a human being. In the peace of the State, by a person of sound memory and discretion, with malice afore thought. either express or implied. "Express malice is that deliberate Intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow-creature which Is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. "Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears, and where all of the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and ma lignant heart "There is no difference between ex press and implied malice except in the mode of arriving at the fact of it« existence. The legal sense of the term ‘malice’ is not confined to par ticular animosity to the deceased, hut extends to an evil design in general The popular idea of malice in its sense of revenge, hatred, ill will, has nothing to do with the subject It is an Intent to kill a human being in a case where the law would neither Justify nor in any degree excuse the intention if the killing should take pla'-e intended. It is a deliberate in»**nt unlawfully to take human life. \yheth** it springs from hatred, ill will or revenge, ambition, avarice or other like passion. A man may form le intent to kill, do the killing In stantly and regret the deed as soon as uom Malice must exist at the time of the killing. It need not have existed any length of time previously. Law Presumes Malice If Homicide si Proven. "When a homicide is proven, if if is proven to be the act of the de fendant, the law presumes malice, nd unless the evidence should relieve e slayer he. may be found guilty murder. The presumption of in- •»nce is removed by proof of the t r by the defendant. When the h\ is shown to be the act of the CO i nt. it is then on the defendant ify or mitigate the homicide oof to do that may come from ^side, either from the evidence £ by the State to make out its y«r from the evidence offered hy defendant or the defendant's ’ent. t’Hlemen of the jury-, you are jy law' the sole judges of the Diity of the wltnesaes and the jf the testimony of each and si "The defendant has Introduced tes timony as to his good character. On this subject I charge you that evi dence of good character when offered by th** defendant in a criminal case Is always relevant and material, and should be considered by the jury, along with all the other evidence in troduced, as one of the facts of the case. It should be* considered by the Jury, not merely where the balance of tlie testimony in the case makes it doubtful whether the defendant is guilty or not, but also where such evi dence of good character may of itself generate a doubt as to the defend ant’s guilt Good character is a sub stantial fact, like any other fact tend ing to establish the defendant's inno cence, and ought to be so regarded by j the Jury. "Like all other facts proved In the rase, it should be weighed and esti mated by the Jury, for it may render that doubtful which otherwise would he clear. However, If the guilt of the accused is plainly proved to t»hc sat isfaction of the Jury beyond a reason able doubt, notwithstanding the proof of good character. It is their duty to convict. But the Jury may consider the good character of the defendant, whether the rest of the testimony leaves the question of his guilt doubt ful or not, and If a consideration of the proof of his good character, con sidered along with the evidence, cre ates a reasonable doubt in the minds of the Jury as to the defendant's guilt, then it would be the duty of the Jury to give the defendant the benefit if the doubt thus raised by his good character, and to acquit him. "The word ‘character’ as used In this connection means that general reputation which he bore among the people who knew him prior to the time of the death of Mary Phagan. Therefore, when the witnesses by which a defendant seeks to prove his good character are put upon ' the stand, and testify that his character is good, the effect of tlu testimony is to say that the people who knew him spoke well of him, and that his general reputation was otherwise good. State Allowed to Attack Character. "When a defendant has put his character in Issue, the State is al lowed to attack it bv proving that his general reputation Is not good, or oy showing that the witnesses wno have stated that his character Is good have untruly reported it. Hence me so licitor General has been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses for the defense who were introduced to tes tify to his good character. In the cross-examination of these witnesses he was allowed to ask them if they had not heard of various acts of mis conduct on the defendant’s part. "The Solicitor General had the right to ask any questions along this line he pleased, in order thoroughly to sift the witnesses, and to see if any thing derogatory to the defendant's reputation could be proved bv them. "The court now wishes to say :o you that, although the Solicitor Gen eral was allowed to ask the defend ant’s character witnesses these ques tions as to their having heard »f va rious acts of alleged misconduct on the defendant’s part, the Jury is not to consider this as evidence that the de fendant has been guilty of ny such misconduct as may have been indi cated in )he questions of the Solicitor MRS. FRANK ARRIVING ATTHE COURTHOUSE The wife of the defendant in the Phagan case has not missed a session of the trial of her husband. General, or any of them, unless the alleged witnesses testify to it. "Furthermore, where a man’s char acter Is put In evident e, and 1n t he course of the investigation any sp< cifie act of misconduct is shown, th does not go before the jury for th* purpose of showing affirmatively that hts character Is bad or that he is guilty of the offense with which h< stands charged, but is to be consider ed by the Jury only In determining the credibility and the degree of in formation possessed by those wit nesses who have testified to his gooe character. “When the defendant has put his character in issue, the State is allow ed to bring witnesses to prove that his general character is bad, and thereby to disprove the testimony of those who have stated that it is good. The jury is allowed to take this tes timony. and have tin* right to con sider it along with all the other evi dence Introduced on the subject ol the general character of the defend ant, and U is for the jury finally to determine from all the evidence whether hfs character was good or bad. Good Character May Create Reasonable Doubt. "You will, therefore, observe that this Is the rule you will be guided by in determining the etYect to be given to the evidence on the subject of the defendant's character: If, after con sidering all the evidence pro and con. on the subject of the defendant’s character, you believe that prior to the time of Mary Phagans death h< bore a good reputation among those who knew him,.that his general char acter was good, you will consider tha. as one of th** facts in the case, and it may be sufficient to create a reason able doubt of the defendant’s guilt, if it so impress your minds and con sciences. after considering it along with all the other evidence in the case; and if it does, you should give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and acquit him. "However, though you should be lieve his general character was good, SENT TO GALLQll MARY PHIS SLA Refreshed by the week-end recess, Solicitor General Dorsey returned Monday to the State’s closing argument. By the force of logic and denunciation of his final words to the jury the Solicitor hopes to obtain a verdict of guilty against Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan. The day and a half intermis- son furnished a breathing spell for the State’s prosecutor. He came bac kto the battle with new spirit and with an absence of the fatigue that compelled him to stop his stirring argument Sat urday and ask Judge Roan for a recess. Solicitor Dorsey was vociferously cheered as he entered the courthouse by a crowd waiting for the trial to open, and in the courtroom there was applause he went- to the State’s table within the railing. Judge Roan entered the room as the applause died down while the deputies were rapping for order. He announced that if there was any sem blance of a repetition he would clear the courtroom. The judge declared that a similar occurrence might de stroy the work of four long weeks and warped the audience to keep strict order. Mr. Dorsey began his speech in a low, hoarse voice. "Your honor and gentlemen of the Jury," he said, "I regret the necessity for having to carry this case over into another week and through another Sunday. If a recess had been de clared Saturday, 1 might have been was discovered that Conley could write Frank had said nothing. It was only through the W’ork done by th? detectives and the fact tha + Conley knew they had learned he could write that the negro finally was made to submit specimens of his handwrit ing. "Why did Frank keep silent when he knew' those notes were the key which would unlock the mystery?” Dorsey turned to Fra.*k at this point and said: "You did know that he could writ* 1 . You knew' that if it was fopnd out that the whole mystery would jo solved. You had notes asking for loans. You had seen his writing by which he checked up th<» boxes of pencils. W.hy did - ou keen silent? "You saw him at the police station and even then never mentioned that he could write.” "Frank says that after this visit * f Conley’s to the jail, after Conley had gone to the factory and gone through his pantomime at the time almost ex actly to the minute that he said it took, that on this visit to the jail be said, ‘1 told them if they would get the permission of Rosser that I would face Conley.’ Now, gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Rosser was at Tallulah Falls that day. Therefor.*, there was no chance to get his permission that day. But Mr. Rosser was . t Tallulah Falls that day, and when he got ba-’k able to have finished my speech and his honor have delivered his charge i ^jd he allow Frank to face Conley 7 rer to you. The j No he did not and turned the case ove circumstances course wiser Begins to Riddle Frank’s Statement. made the present "Gentlemen, you know it is true I that never in the historv of the An glo-Saxon race and in the history of j the African race has an ignorant “When we Cosed proceedings Sat- ^‘criml wheTTh^whTte m^was™'.' still if. after giving due weight to it as one of the facts in the case, you be lieve from the evidence as a whole that be is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, vmi should be authorized to convict him. "If you believe beyond a reason- aide doubt from the evidence in this ease that this defendant is guilty of murder, then you would be authorized in that event to say We. the Jury, find the defendant guilty.’ "Should you g>» no further, gentle men, and, say nothing else in your verdict, the court would have to sen tence the defendant to the extreme penalty for murder, to wit: to be banged by the neek until he is dead. But should you see fit to do so. in the event you arrive at the conclusion and belief beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence that this defendant is guilty, then, gentlemen, you would be authorized in that event, if you saw fit to do so, to say: ‘We, the Jury, find the defendant guilty, and we recommend that he be imprisoned in the penitentiary for life.’ "In the eVcnt you should make such a verdict as that, then the Court, under the law. would have to sen tence the defendant to the peniten tiary for life. "You have heard the defendant make his statement. He had the right to make it under the law. It is not made under oath and he is not subject to examination or cross-ex amination. It is with you as to how much of it you will believe, or how little of it. You may go to the ex tent. if you see fit. of believing it in preference to the sworn testimony in the ea>c. "In the event, gentlemen, you have a reasonable doubt from the evidence, or the evidence and the statement together, or either, as to the de fendant's guilt as charged, then give the prisoner the benefit of that doubt and acquit him; and in the event you do acquit him the form of vour ver dict would be; ‘We. the Jury, find ♦ defendant not guilty.’ As honest rs do yoflr utmost to reach the tr. n from the evidence and state ment as you have heard it here, then let your verdict speak it.” urday, I was giving you a brief analy sis of the statement of the defendant, i am not going into an exhaustive study of that statement. It is un- necssary to further burden you with it. But there are certain language and statements w'hich merit some consideration. "The defendant stated, after his honor had excluded our evidence, an*i excluded It properly, that his wife visited him at the police station. H* 1 0 stated that she was there with his fvOSSer UujectS father-in-law and his two brothers- in-law. He said Rabbi David Marx was with him and that he consulted Dr. Marx on the advisability of hav ing her to come up to the top flooi and see him surrounded by policerqen, reporters and sflapshotters. He doesn't prove by a living soul that this statement is true. You mu3t rely on his own lips for its value,. "If they cou 1 ^ have proved it by Dr. Marx, why didn’t they do it? You tell me a loving wife lives who, con scious of a husband's innocence amid such circumstances, wouldn’t have braved policemen, snapshotters o have seen him? Arnold jumped up. 'I object,” he said, “to those out rageous references to his wife. I have sat here in silence during many of his unfair remarks, but to bring in the wife of this man who is on trial for his life is an outrage on law and decency and fairness." "Let mo see," said Judge Roan, "the evidence on which you are speaking, Mr. Dorsey.” Dorsey Fires Hot Retort at Arnold. nocent and the white n.un decline to face the negro. There never 'ived in Georgia a lawyer who possessed half the ability of Rosser who sincerely believed in the innocence of his cl - ent who would not have said to this negro, ‘Face my client.’ You may say here that you did not know what Con ley’s statement was going to be. but you could have found out. You could have known." ‘‘Let the galled jade wince,” said Dorsey, sarcastically. "He has no right to make any such statement," said Arnold. “It is whol ly uncalled for.” "I submit the remark,” retorted Dorsey, “of Mr. Rosser that this is an unfair speech (referring to an aside) is uncalled for. Frank said that his wife would not come to see him be cause she was afraid of the snap- shotters and the reporters and that she did not want to go through this line of newspaper men every time she came to see him. I tell you. gentle men, there never lived a true wife who would not have gone through a line of snapshotters and reporters in spite of the contrary advice of a rabbi or any one else.” “Let us see who first found out Conley could write. Frank said, ‘I was the ipan who made this discov ery. 1 was the means of getting this information to the police. I have re-, ceived too many notes asking for loans not to know that he can write. 1 know that if you will look In the safe you will find some receipts for watches signed by him. and that if you will go to the jeweler’s you prob ably will find other specimens of his handwriting.’ But Scott says that no such thing To Being Criticised. - Mr. Rosser was on his feet with an objection to commenting on counsel.' After a moment's wrangling, Mr. Dor sey insisting that he had a right tc comment on the action of the de fendant’s counsel charging the facts in the record justified him, Judga Roan sustained the objection. "But they see the force of it,” con tinued Dorsey. “Now, I don’t think that's fair, your honor,” said Rosser, Interrupting again. There was another minute * t wrangling, both Dorsey and Rosser speaking at the same time. Judge Roan again sustained 'Rosser. Dorsey turned to the jury, and slapping his hand viciously on ‘he railing, shouted: "If they don’t see the force of it you do.” Rosser objected again. "I insist, your honor that that \a entirely proper comment. 1 ask you, am I outside the record? I have i right to comment upon their conduct in declining to cross-examine wit nesses.’ “You may comment upon the a t of Frank,” interrupted Judge Roan, "in not facing Conley and upon his counsel not having given the permis sion, but it is not proper for you t<5 comment upon why counsel for the defense did not do certain things. Dorsey turned to the jury: "This man Frank, with Anglo- Saxon blood in his veins, a graduate of Cornell, a man of sense and intelli gence and spirit, refused to see Conley because his counsel was not in town. But when his counsel re turned and he still had .the oppor tunity he dared not let Conley meet him. It is not necessary to take up this discussion. Would the weakest of you when innocent and wrongfully accused by a man with a black skin on the charge of murder let Rosser or any lawyer in the world keep you from confronting him and nailing th - lie. No lawyer of any age or clime could prevent me from inerting a man. be he white or black, who had wrongfully accused me." “ Pointing his finger at Frank he con tinued: "You went in a room and inter viewed old Newt Lee down at the po lice station pt 12 o’clock at night. What did you do? Did you act like an innocent man who was trying to get at the truth? Oh, no! Instead of going after him and tr; the 13’Nai Brith—according to Lee, you hung your head and quizzed him not, but said: ’If you don’t tell more about this we’ll both go to hell.’ Then In your statement to the jury you tried to make it appear that your own detective, Scott, had concocted a scheme against you and lied about what happened. "The reason Frank didn’t put it up to Newt Lee was because he knew Newt Lee was innocent. He knew he was guilty and he was only adding to the dastardly crime of assault on the virtue of this little girl by trying to break the neck of this old negro to save his,own reputation and neck. "Listen to his statement. He is Smart. Listen how he qualifies and fixes so that when we come back with rebuttal the technical law will pro tect him. Old Newt Lee had been night watchman at that factory only a few weeks. There had been other night watchmen before, and the charges of going into the place for immoral purposes were during the time before Newt Lee came. Ho knew* the detectives had charged that peo ple had gone In there for immoral pur poses but in his statement on the stand he confined his denial to the time Newt Lee was there as nigh’ watchman. "No, during the time old Newt Lee was there thqge was but one person for whom your passion burned.” the Solicitor continued, turning to Frank, "little Mary Phagan. She never would go there with you. But if you were telling the truth, why didn't you make a bold and emphatic statement that none had ever been there. It was during the summer previous that Dalton and the others testified of the immorality there. There was the chance for impeachment of his state ment. and yet you tell me that that's a good, fair, frank statement. “Now, another thing, listen to this. I read from the defendant’s state ment, ‘Now, in reference to those spot* claimed to b e blood spots found by Barrett, I don't say they are not I blood. They are near the ladies’ dressing room, and we also have many accidents near there. Let me say in connection with those accfi- dents that not all accidents are re ported. Only those which incapaci tate an employee are reported. But 1 say it might have been blood. It also might have been aniline dye\or paint. I have seen girls drop bottles of this colored matter, but if it had been fresh blood or fresh paint the haskoline which was spread ov.er It would have become pink or red in stead of remaining white.’ “Why Didn’t They Bring in a Chemist?” "But I ask you if the haskoline would not have produced the identi cal result which the witnesses say was produced? Why didn’t yru bring before the jury a reputa' ’« chemist and a man who would haw sustained you in this contention. If you had time to bring in experts to attack the overwhelming evidence of Dr. Roy Harris, why, in the name of truth and justice, didn’t you bring in just one chemist to support your theory of the blood spots? "You know the reason. You know they were blood spots. You know' that you didn’t bring in a chemist be cause the result of spreading the has koline over blood would have been exactly the result that was produced in the dressing room on the second floor.” Dorsey turned toward the jury at this point and asked: "Are you going to take this man’s unsupported word w'hen his lawyers are unable to get any reputable chem ist to come in and stultify himself by declaring that those spots were not blood or that the result produced Was not that of spreading haskoline over fresh blood? "This defense can not—they haven’t got any defense. They circle and flut ter., but never light. They grab at varnish, rat blood and Duffy’s blood, but they never knuckle down to show that it was not blood. In view of the statement of Mell Stanford, who swept that floor and w'ho says it was not there Friday: In view of the statements of Christopher Columbus Barrett, who, despite what they say, continues to draw his livelihood from the coffers of the National Pencil Company; in view of the statements of a great many others who went there to see the blood spots, can we get but one solution of the matter? I say you can not. Contends Fallacy in Defense’s Theory. "Then they fly onto another sub ject? It is the way they claim Jim Conley took that body into the base ment. But, gentlemen of the Jury, you know', and they know', that th’a body wasn’t taken down that scuttle- hole. It did not show there where the dust was thick. And then did he shoot her down the chute of the (’lark Woodenware’s p>lace, w'here th** body would have been concealed bet ter and longer than where the bodv was found? Did this negho, who, they say, robbed this girl—even if he had taken time to w'rite the notes, even if he had hit her with a bludgeon —do you think, gentlemen of the jury, that he would have taken the time to tie a cord around her neck—a cord seldom found in the basement except when it was swept there with the . trash, hut the nroper place for which w r as in that metal room on the second floor, where little Mary Phagan met her death? If he had done all that— after he had sent her body down the chute—why w r ould he have gone down into the basement and have removed the body from its safest hiding place down there at the bottom of the chute, where the dust, trash and boxes would have kept it concealed for i weeks at least? Why would he have removed it out there near the boiler, where the firemen and everyone else would have been sure to find it? "I tell you, gentlemen of the jury, that body was never sent down that chute; that body was never sent down that scuttlehole. It was taken down into the basement just as Jim Con ley says It was. "They fiv off onto other things. Why, on May 1, when Holloway caught Jim Conley washing his shirt, he said, ‘This is my negro.’ Fifteen days later, when the second squad of Pinkertons came in, can you te’l me. will you £ell me. why, if he shoved her down that hole, that not until the 15th of May was this bloody bludgeon found, and more blood than this girl has ever been shown to have lost was there? "Another thine. Frank said in his statement that this man Quinn came to him and told him he would like tr- take him back to the metal room, where, the newspapers said, and where everybody else said, and knew that morning, that some blood and somJ hair had been found. Stresses Fact Frank Hadn’t Examined Spots. "Although he had seen this in tho papers, although he had heard from others in the factory that the spots and hair had been found, although he had been all around there, although the knowledge of the finding of these spots and hair had torn him to pieces, although he was so anxious to get detectives to work on the case that he had phoned Schiff three times, ye* ( Quinn had to come and ask him 'o come back there to see the spots "Tell me, was that the conduct of an innocent man anxious to help the police? But, strange to say, not even Lemmie Quinn comes to support you in this statement. No one ever saw Leo M. Frank go back there to exam- ine those spots. •*lf there was ever a spot on this earth that Farnk did not want to see it was the blood spot back there in the metal room, the spot whore this little girl met her death. If Frank went down there to the morgue and the sight of that little girl tore him to pieces as he tells you it did, let any honest man on this jury tell me why it was he wanted to look upon her dead body again. "Rogers says he didn’t look at it. Black says he didn’t see him look at it.” Attorneys Arnold and Rosser en tered strenuous objection. “Rogers did not say that Frank did Continued on Page 3, Column 1. SktWHmW M. RICH & BROS. CO. WMMMg _-W mi.. 1 Tuesday Only 1 ever happened. Why didn’t Fran*. j ing to get from him new light on this when those notes were found by the j case—this man at whom you had dead girl’s body—why didn’t he then j pointed an infamous suspicion to save and there say that that was Conley’s your own neck and to save your rep* i handwriting? Up to the tim that it I utation on Washington street anil in 1 3* zy 3m y 'Zf.n ' A ’ zsm \SM IS* S P R-I-N T-O-R-I-A-L-S 1 No. 227 Good Printing a Business Necessity! You can’t far in business without PRINTING. It is one of the very first essentials, in fact. Beginning with STATIONERY— the staple needs—including LETTER HEADS, BILL HEADS. STATEMENTS. CARDS. ENVELOPES and HIGH CLASS STA TIONERY. is the kind we advise, because it has an ADVERTIS ING VALUE. Phone for our Representative to call with samples of our handsomely . L 1 T H O G R APHED Printing Co. STATIONERY 46-48-50 W. Alabama, Phones M. 1560-2608-2614. Atlanta. 4J This is the “Dollar” shoe sale you’ve been waiting for, for by it all other “Dollar” shoe sales are judged. I > ptm ! » The size and width range is not complete, but every I ^5 early comer will find a size that pleases. 2- •C 2: 2- <3 1 g m_ I I I i No. C. 0. D.’s. No refunds. No exchanges after Tuesday. A M. Rich & Bros. Co. i mm "A Department of Famous Shoes."