Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 7^th, 1913

At the continuation of the argument on the subject of Judge Roan’s reserved decision, Solicitor Dorsey cited extracts from many legal volumes, many of which pertained to the untimeliness of objections in just such cases as the one which he argued.

“It makes no difference if the act in question was a separate or distinct crime,” he said, “just so it shows a course of conduct and has sufficient [1 word illegible] value to the case on trial. It is absolutely admissible.

“We contend that the defense has stopped at this late hour, after examining extensively, and [1 word illegible] along the point and have attempted to do something which is deplorably irrelevant. We object to the ruling out of this testimony because we propose to substantiate the truth of Conley’s statement by other witnesses, including C. B. Dalton, George Epps and others.

“We intend to introduce Epps to show that Mary Phagan, fifteen minutes before she went to her death, expressed fear of Leo Frank because he had been flirting with her and making continued advances.”

At this the solicitor cited the case of a trial in which the deceased, a woman, stated upon leaving home that there were two persons in a nearby alley and that she thought one was her husband, the other his sweetheart, and that she would go see. She went into the alley never to return alive. Her body was found there late.

“Law Plain,” Declares Hooper

Upon the conclusion of Solicitor Dorsey’s statement, Attorney Hooper had to say,

“The law of Georgia, I understand controls this court and not the supreme court of Minnesota or California, as my friends Rosser and Arnold have striven to show.

“There is no necessity for argument. The law stands plainly for itself. It says that objections shall not be ruled out unless the objection is made at the time the question is propounded.

“If this evidence was not admissible at the time it was offered by the state and cross-examined upon by the defense, why the only motion to which they would be entitled was to rule out their own cross-examination and nothing else.

“Your honor has admitted that this testimony was admissible by ruling against the state while the cross-examination was in progress. Before they have any right to ask that it be ruled out they must dissect the volumes of evidence they have also introduced which has a bearing on this place and point out exactly the evidence they want to extract.”

The attorney then proceeded to recite cases from various law authorities in the course of which he recited one of Judge Roan’s own decisions.

“Now,” he said, “is your honor going back on his own ruling? If the objection is to be made legally it should have been made the instant the question was asked. There is no impartial lawyer in town who will dispute that fact.”

Reuben Arnold arose to say:

“These authorities from which my friends are reading have no bearing on the case. The twenty eighth Georgia says that illegal testimony is always subject to withdrawal. If the evidence is illegal a move can always be made to withdraw it, whether it has been permitted as an experiment or otherwise. The time for withdrawal always exists.”

Roan Makes Decision.

In making his decision Judge Roan stated:

“I have serious doubts as to the admissibility of this testimony as an original proposition. As it has been cross-examined, you may expunge it from the records but you can’t disassociate the original from the cross-examination. I am going to allow it to remain in the record. It may be extracted from the record, but it is an impossibility to withdraw it from the jury’s minds.”

As the judge announced his decision there arose a spontaneous riot of applause from the audience. Court attaches, lawyers and judge looked up, astonished. Attorney Arnold said:

“I will ask for mistrial if such a demonstration as this again arises. Also I will ask that the court be cleared if it continues. Mistrials can easily be caused by just such actions.”

In continuation Judge Roan said:

“I am ruling just whatever I deem fit and proper whether it pleases or displeases. On the question of the Epps boy’s testimony, I rule that it is inadmissible.”

“I want your honor to rule positively now on this first question,” said Mr. Rosser.

“I am going to let it remain,” calmly declared the judge.

“In regard to Dalton,” spoke up Mr. Arnold, “we object to his testimony on anything relating to affairs and happenings previous to the day of the murder.”

“I will rule that Dalton’s testimony will be inadmissible in anything except in support of the negro Conley.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 7th 1913, “Judge’s Decision Admits Conley Testimony in Full,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 6^th, 1913

At the opening of the afternoon session, Attorney Reuben Arnold arose, asking that the jury be sent from the room. When the twelve men had passed into their ro[o]m, he made a motion asking the court to exclude from Conley’s statement that testimony pertaining to Conley having watched previously for Frank and to an unprintable scene the negro said he had witnessed between the superintendent and a young girl in Frank’s office.

The motion was made on grounds of irrelevancy.

“First,” said Mr. Arnold, “I desire to ask the court to rule out that testimony of Jim Conley’s which pertains to his having watched for the defendant on occasions before the date on which the girl was killed. The defense proposes to withdraw all cross-examination on this point.

Asks Testimony Ruled Out.

“We also desire to withdraw from the records that part of Conley’s statement in which he tells of Frank having told him at the head of the stairway on the second floor of the pencil factory that ‘he was not built like other men,’ the answer Conley made to Dorsey’s question: ‘What did he mean by that?’ and the scene which the witness related.

“It is here in the court. I don’t want to read it aloud before these ladies present, so I will show it to your honor. This, I want ruled out. This scene which the negro alleges he witnessed was brought into the case purely to prejudice the court against the defendant.”

In reply, Attorney Frank Hooper, for the prosecution, said,

“On the first motion to rule out evidence pertaining to other cases of Conley’s having watched for Frank, it comes too late, and to rule it out would give counsel opportunity to tamper with the courts. They have crossed the witness and brought out both direct and indirect testimony bearing on the particular phase. It’s now too late for their objection.

“I agree that it should have been ruled out, but should have been ruled out at the proper time. In the motion to rule out Conley’s statement of the scene he declared he witnessed, I think it is a good motion, but I doubt their rights to come in at this late hour and make an appeal to bar testimony which was permitted twenty-four hours ago.”

Dorsey Opposes Request.

“Solicitor Dorsey said:

“As an original proposition, this testimony is admissible. Is it just, as a matter of plain, common sense, to let these men give this negro a gruelling examination, and, after they have thrashed it out, to let them expunge his statement? Has it come to that?

“We expect to sustain Conley in all he has told. There is such a thing as fairness between the state and defense on the part of the court. Four able attorneys here have sat and let testimony enter the records without making protest, cross-examine him for two days, and twenty-four hours later, decide to complain.

“Our case, if this testimony is expunged, will have been done inestimable damage. There isn’t a lawyer or layman who cannot see that such able counsel should have made a timely plea, and not one so absurd as this. They have found, after two days of cross-examination, the terrific force of this evidence and they seek to strike the state a blow. It isn’t fair, and I appeal to your honor to protect the state.

Evidence Is Admissible.

“Aside from all that, this evidence is admissible. He has testified to Frank’s course of conduct. The defense has shown Conley is the youngest negro in point of service in the pencil factory and have brought out testimony from all sides having direct bearing on the evidence against which they protest.

“Your honor himself must recollect a recent case [several words cut off from newspaper scan] state to go back for a period of fifteen years to show a course of dealing characteristic of the defendant. This evidence of Conley’s illustrates a motive for Frank getting the child into his office and his conduct toward her when he got her there.”

The solicitor read numerous extracts from statutes.

“Anything,” he continued, “revealing […]

DEFENSE ASKS JUDGE TO STRIKE TESTIMONY

[…] practices or course of conduct is admissible. The value of this evidence certainly is apparent to your honor. This evidence in all manner will be amply corroborated. This evidence goes to show who killed little Mary Phagan.

Courts Slow to Progress.

“The courts are slow to progress, but this one law which admits all testimony relative to the defendant’s course of conduct has moved them up a pace. It’s the law, your honor, and it should be sustained.”

At the close of the solicitor’s speech, Attorney Arnold arose, saying,

“There is no use in getting wrought up over this matter. I could if I wanted to tear up a little turf myself. The person who is hurt is the defendant. He is done grievous injury by this vile evidence which has been admitted by one of the state’s attorneys to be irrelevant.

“In a criminal case you can never try a man for but one offense. That’s the good, old Anglo-Saxon law. I sympathize thoroughly with the mother of the murdered girl and I think it was one of the most diabolical crimes ever committed, but my friend Dorsey and the courts if they do not give this trial a fair deal will be just as red-handed as the man who slew little Mary Phagan.

“This miserable wretch Jim Conley gets on the stand and details another capital crime. I am sorry for any white man who believes him. Sodomy is a capital offense. That’s what he lays at Frank’s door. We are not called on to try this issue, thank the Lord.

State Aware of Fact.

“It is not plain that the murder was premeditated. The state is well aware of that fact. They could not pick out, however, a better set of circumstances than the negro’s previous watching which he alleges he did for Mr. Frank. (The attorney read a number of authorities pertaining to character of defendant in other actions irrelative to the crime for which he is being tried.)

“If we were to go into all this as the state strives we’d be here weeks subpoenaing witnesses who could recount the Thanksgiving day and the other days of which this negro speaks if the state can prove such incidents why we can rebut them. The testimony of this man Conley doesn’t mean much but it’s the suggestion that hurts.”

Judge Roan, in stating his attitude said,

“There is no doubt in my mind but that this evidence as an original proposition is inadmissible. I rule out all except the watching which the negro says he did on the day of the murder. I will reserve my decision, however, until I consider it thoroughly. Also, I will postpone any statement to that effect before the jury.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 6th 1913, “Defense Asks Judge Roan to Strike From Records Part of Conley Testimony,” Leo Frank case newspaper articles series (Original PDF)

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Journal
August 6^th, 1913

Solicitor Dorsey in Vigorous Speech Protests Against Striking Evidence, Declaring He Has Witnesses to Corroborate the Negro and That Striking of Testimony Will Prevent His Getting Their Statements Before the Jury

Sustaining a motion made by the defense in the trial of Leo M. Frank, Judge L. S. Roan Tuesday afternoon announced that he would rule out all of Conley’s testimony charging the accused superintendent with perversion, and the negro’s testimony that he acted as a “lookout” for Frank on days previous to the murder. The judge ruled that Conley’s testimony that he watched for the accused on the day of the tragedy would remain in evidence.

Attorney Arnold entered the court about two minutes late. Mr. Rosser had not arrived. Mr. Arnold asked that the jury be sent out and stated that he had several motions to make. The jury went out. The first, he said, was a motion to exclude certain testimony from the record on the ground that it was wholly irrelevant, incompetent and inadmissible. Mr. Arnold held a long typewritten document in his hands.

“We move, first,” he said, “to exclude from the record all the testimony of Conley relative to watching for the defendant, and we withdraw our cross-examination on that subject.”

Second, Mr. Arnold moved that a portion of the negro’s testimony attacking Frank’s character, which was brought out through questions propounded by the solicitor, be ruled out.

Mr. Arnold concluded the argument by saying, “Before anything else is done, we move to exclude this from the record.”

Judge Roan spoke up, “As I understand it, Mr. Arnold, what you want to withdraw is testimony about watching on other occasions.”

Before this question was answered, Attorney Arnold turned to Mr. Hooper and showed him that part of Conley’s evidence which the defense wished to exclude.

Attorney Hooper took the floor saying, “To allow this motion would be to trifle with the court. When they did not object at the time this evidence was introduced I believe they lost any ground that they had for an objection. If their objection had been entered at the time of the introduction of this testimony, I should say that the objection was well taken, but I do not think that they have a right after letting it all go into the records without protest, now to move for its total exclusion.”

Mr. Dorsey sent a deputy sheriff out for some law books.

FRANK BEGINS TO BREAK.

During the wait, Frank drooped his head, and his mother put his arm around his neck and patted him on the shoulder and whispered in his ear. He smiled faintly and looked around.

DORSEY PROTESTS.

Solicitor Dorsey addressed the court.

“I submit, your honor,” said he, “as an original proposition this evidence is admissible. They have waited too late to enter their objection.”

Mr. Rosser interrrupted.

“We move to rule it out because it is immaterial,” said he, addressing both the court and the solicitor.

“If you’ve got any authority to back up your objection,” retorted the solicitor, “trot it out.”

“I never trot out anything in court,” replied Mr. Rosser. “I’ve got too much respect for the court.”

“Well, gallop it out, lope it out,” said the solicitor. “It doesn’t make any difference, just so you produce it.”

“You wouldn’t understand it if we did,” snapped Mr. Rosser.

Solicitor Dorsey proceeded, ignoring the last remark.

WILL CORROBORATE CONLEY.

“Your honor, just as a matter of fairness, I submit that it is not right to let this gentleman give this witness a most severe gruelling for two days, go into his testimony by cross-examination, and then come along and ask that certain portions of it be ruled out. They would stop us now from bringing out witnesses to sustain Conley. We purpose to corroborate the testimony of this witness as to Frank’s conduct. To grant their motion would be to stop us from introducing our corroborative evidence.”

The solicitor announced that he has other witnesses waiting to corroborate Conley.

“IS IT FAIR?”

“Is it fair, your honor, after one, two, three, four, able counsel have sat here and let this evidence get into the record; after they have cross-examined the witness for two days and then wake up to the conclusion that it should be expunged from the record—is that a fair proposition?”

“The state’s case will have been done great damage,” continued the solicitor, “If now, after the defense has derived all the benefit it possibly can expect from cross-examination, these facts are cut out and we are not given an opportunity to put witnesses on the stand to show that this man Jim Conley has spoken the truth.

“Now the able counsel sees the terrific force of these transactions, and they would stop us from corroborating them.

“I appeal to you, in the name of fairness and justice, to let counsel now see that objections, if they are to be entertained, must be timely.

“Why, your honor, they have gone into even the workings of the National Pencil factory, and showed this man Conley’s relations with a half a dozen different men, and they have done so very properly, for it shows his connection with this defendant and is a part of the history of the crime.

WE HAVE CORROBORATION.

“I will tell your honor right now that we have witnesses to sustain this man.

“Any piece of evidence, any transaction, anything of his past conduct, to show his intent and purpose when he got this girl up there, is admissible. And it is largely by this that we are showing what this man did to poor little Mary Phagan. Anything to show his motive must be admissible. As to the distinct relevancy of this testimony, I cite as an instance the testimony of Dr. Hurt.

“This testimony which they would rule out goes right to the point and it will be corroborated. It goes largely to show who killed the girl.

“I beg of you to think twice before you rule out these powerful circumstances.”

Solicitor Dorsey challenged the defense to produce any decision written within the past five years contrary to this principle.

“The courts are slow,” said Mr. Dorsey. “Too slow to progress. But this one rule the courts have now taken up.

“The importance of this testimony will be more manifest before we get further in this case.”

MRS. FRANK WEEPS.

During Solicitor Dorsey’s arraignment of Frank, Mrs. Frank, wife of the accused, arose from her seat and left the room. She went into an anteroom and remained several minutes. When she returned to the court, there were fresh tears in her eyes. She resumed her seat at her husband’s side.

ARNOLD SPEAKS.

“There’s no use making stump speeches here,” said Mr. Arnold. “There’s no use waxing so eloquent. I could do it, I guess, but I don’t want to make my jury argument while it’s so hot unless I have to.”

Mr. Arnold termed the objectionable evidence, “miserable, rotten, stuff,” and went on to say that the defendant suffered outrageously by its admission into the records.

“The state admits that it is illegal evidence,” said he. “The only ground that they want it retained on is that we didn’t make timely objection. In a criminal case, you never can try a man for but one crime. That’s the old Anglo-Saxon way. In France, and in Italy and in Germany, when a prisoner comes into court, he comes prepared to answer for his whole life. But it’s not that way here. We only try a man for one crime. What is this proposition?

POINTS TO CONLEY.

“I sympathize with the little girl’s parents as much as anybody, but I say it is just as much murder to attempt to convict this defendant by the introduction of illegal and irrelevant evidence. This miserable wretch on the stand,” pointing to Conley, “has told a glib parrot-like tale. He was schooled in it for two months, and I feel sorry for anybody that will believe him. He has introduced another capital crime into this case—not that I believe a white man would believe a word he said, but his testimony has brought it in. A case of murder is a distinctly marked case, and as I understand it the state does not contend even that this is a premeditated case.

“The state has put this man on the stand, and they want to bolster up his outrageous tale with a lot of irrelevant matter.”

Attorney Arnold attacked the supreme court decision cited by Solicitor Dorsey, contending that the decision was written in a case involving illegal sale of cocaine, and not in a murder case. Murder, said he, is an entirely different matter, and is more serious than the selling of cocaine.

DANGEROUS TESTIMONY.

“If this evidence is admitted we would have to stop investigating the murder and take up the investigation of two other cases and the cases he mentioned are not parallel with this.

“With this evidence before the jury, there is a likelihood of that body convicting this defendant on general principles. I am coming under a general rule when I say this ought to be ruled out.”

“Your honor, how much confusion would be in the jury’s mind! How much the issue would be clouded!” continued Mr. Arnold. “How unfair to this defendant in a day or two without notice and require him to answer such charges as these. It would necessitate our going back over all of these days this villain has mentioned. We would have to call in every employe of the factory, and goodness knows how many other witnesses. If they can put such evidence as this in, we certainly can rebut it. This is illegal testimony, and they have done us an incalculable injury to let this suspicion get into the minds of the jury.”

Judge Roan interrupted Mr. Arnold.

ROAN’S RULING ON FIRST POINT.

“Everything relating to the watching on the particular day, April 26, is relevant.”

“Everything relating to that particular transaction is a part of this case,” said Mr. Arnold. “We are not even objecting to what this witness says happened at the factory or what was told him on the Friday before.”

JUDGE’S RULING.

Judge Roan announced his ruling as follows:

“There is no doubt in my mind that his evidence was inadmissible as an original proposition, and I will rule out all except as to the watching on that particular day.”

Attorney Hooper requested the judge to postpone his decision until Wednesday, in order to give the state time to look up and submit decisions bearing on the point in issue. The court refused to do this.

Judge Roan added, however, that he holds himself in readiness to reverse himself if he finds that he has ruled wrong.

“I have no pride about that matter,” said the judge. “I wouldn’t hesitate to reverse myself if I found I was wrong.”

The jury was then brought back into court, and Attorney Rosser resumed his cross-examination of Conley.

TRIAL IS RESUMED.

“You took that girl, rolled her on a sheet, wrapped her up and tied her like a bundle of clothes? asked Attorney Rosser.

“Yes, sir,” replied the negro.

“Was she covered up?”

“No, sir, the sheet didn’t go all over the body.”

“Well, what part of her body was covered up?”

The negro indicated on his own body that portion between the thighs and shoulders.

“Well, the head and feet were not covered up?”
“No, sir.”

“You left her feet hanging out?”

“Yes, sir.”

“How much?”
“I don’t know.”

“How much was her head hanging out?”
“I didn’t pay any attention.”

“After you tied that cloth around her, you pushed your arm through the knot and put her up on your shoulder?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Her head was leaning back?”

HEAD HANGING OUT.

Mr. Rosser illustrated this by leaning his own head over the back of the chair. He held up his arm, too.

“Yes, sir, but her arms wasn’t hanging back. They was tied up in there.”

“How much was her feet hanging out?”
“I don’t know, sir. I didn’t pay any attention to that.”

“She reached down just about to your knees, did she?”

Mr. Rosser illustrated, with the ends of the sack hanging over his shoulder, how the negro claimed to have carried the body.

“That’s the way it was,” said the negro. “And her head and her feet were out.”

“You say she was so heavy that you dropped her?”

“I told Mr. Frank I dropped her because she was so heavy.”

“Then she wasn’t too heavy?”
“I don’t know, sir. I told him she was too heavy because I wanted him to help me.”

“Then you were lying to him, were you?”

“I don’t know—I was so nervous and excited.”

“Wait, was she too heavy, or was she not too heavy?”

“Sorter both ways.”

NEGRO LAUGHS WITH COURT.

The negro laughed with the court.

“You are a sort of a two ways negro, anyhow, ain’t you, Jim?”

“I don’t know about that.”

“Well, at any rate you dropped her.”

“Well, I let her fall.”

“Well, she just fell from your knees down?”

“I don’t know about that.”

“She was hanging as far down as your knee, wasn’t she?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Hold your leg out here and let the jury see how far she fell.”

The negro extended one leg.

“When you called to Mr. Frank, how far away was he?”

“I don’t know. He was at the top of the steps, and I went to the doors.”

“Well, that’s just about as far as it is from the top of the steps to the street, isn’t it?”

“I don’t know, sir.”

“Well, outside of the story that you told for Mr. Dorsey, do you know any facts at all about this case?”

Solicitor Dorsey objected, and was sustained. Mr. Rosser amended it.

“Outside of the story you told here, yesterday, is there anything that you know about this case?”

The negro did not give a direct answer, but went on repeating the detail which he gave Monday, but was interrupted by Mr. Rosser.

“How close was you to Mr. Frank when you told him she was dead?”
“I don’t know how far it was. He was standing at the steps.”

“It was then he told you to get the cloth?”

“He first said ‘Sh!’ And then he told me to get the cloth. And I went up to him and told him I didn’t understand. And he told me again.”

“It was then that you looked at the clock, was it?”
“Yes.”

Mr. Rosser asked the color of the cloth that the negro got. Conley said he couldn’t tell what color. “Is it the color of that shirt you have on?” Mr. Rosser asked. “No, sir, not that color,” said the negro. “Where’d you get that shirt, anyhow, Jim?”
“My old lady gave it to me,” said the negro.

RECESS TAKEN.

A brief recess was taken.

When court resumed Attorney Rosser picked up the sack introduced in evidence Monday, and asked: “Was the sack that you had Mary Phagan’s body tied up in the same shape as this?”

“No, sir, it wasn’t tied together at the ends like that.”

“It wasn’t a sack, then?”

“Yes, sir, it had been once—a cotton sack.”

“Well, there wasn’t any cotton in it when you saw it, was there?”

“No, sir.”

“Well, you didn’t’ see any little pieces of cotton in it, did you?”

“I don’t remember any.”

“Was it this quality of goods?”
“I don’t know what you mean by that.”

“Well, finer, then.”

“No, sir, it was thinner than that.”

“Was it woven like this?”

The negro didn’t’ understand the question. “Woven,” repeated Mr. Rosser. “You know what woven means, don’t you, Jim?”
Conley hesitated. “I suppose you don’t know whether cloth is woven, or knit[t]ed or just grows,” said Mr. Rosser.

“I never heard of any growing,” said Conley.

“What did you do with the cloth when you got through with it down there in the basement, Jim?”

THREW CLOTH AWAY.

“I threw it on the trash pile at the end of the furnace,” said the negro.

“The same place you put the hat and shoe?”
“Yes, sir, right near them.”

“That cloth never came in contact with her head or feet, did it, Jim?”

“No, sir.”

“Now, Jim, as a matter of fact when you were carrying her, you didn’t lift the cloth onto your shoulder, did you?”

“Yes, sir, I did.”

“Didn’t you say yesterday that you couldn’t get it up there?”
“I said I tried and couldn’t the first time, but I said I carried it a little ways on my shoulder.”

“You’re sure you said that, are you?”
“Yes sir.”

Attorney Rosser turned to a transcript of Monday’s testimony and asked, “Now, Jim, isn’t this what you said yesterday?”

And he read the answer in the transcript. It differed inasmuch as Conley had not said then in that answer that he lifted the body to his shoulder.
Conley replied, “No, sir, I don’t remember saying that yesterday.”

“That girl weighed 110 pounds. Couldn’t you carry her without any trouble?”
“No, sir.”

“How much do you weigh?”
“About 150 pounds,” the negro replied.

“And you are twenty-seven years old. Do you mean to tell me you can’t carry 110 pounds?”

CAUSES LAUGHTER.

“Oh, I can carry it all right, but you asked me if I could carry it without any trouble.”

There was a ripple of mirth in court.

“Now don’t you constantly carry burdens that heavy around the factory?” demanded Mr. Rosser.

“No, sir,” the negro replied, “I’ve always told you I trucked them.”

“You said something about Frank backing up. What do you mean?”
“Mr. Frank had her by the feet and I had her by the head. I was walking backwards, and Mr. Frank was pushing too fast.”

“Both of you were excited?”

NERVOUS, NOT EXCITED.

“No, sir, I was nervous, but I wasn’t excited.”

“You never told Black and Scott about backing up when you were telling them the whole truth and nothing but the truth?”
“I told somebody. I guess it was them.”

“Did you tell Mr. Dorsey on one of his seven visits?”
“I don’t know, sir.”

“You say Frank pulled the elevator cord, and when it didn’t start, he said, ‘Wait and let me get the key?’”

“Yes, sir.”

“Well, did you tell Black and Scott that when you were telling them the whole truth?”
“Yes, sir, I told somebody.”

“Was this before or after you got out of jail?”
“I don’t know.”

“Did you tell Mr. Dorsey?”
“I don’t know.”

“When you got the elevator down you took the cloth off the body right there, did you?”
“No, sir.”

“Oh, I mean after you carried her back to that place?”
“After I took her to where she was laying, I took the cloth off.”

“How did you leave her back there?”

“I left her feet toward Hunter street, her head toward Alabama street and her face toward Forsyth street.”

“Didn’t you tell Black and Scott that you left her on her stomach, the left side of her face down and her head toward the elevator?”
“No, sir, I didn’t tell ‘em that. I took ‘em and showed ‘em.”

“If you did tell it, it was the truth wasn’t it?”
“I don’t remember telling ‘em that.”

“Frank didn’t go back where you left the little girl?”
“No, sir.”

“He stayed at the ladder?”
“Yes, sir.”

“And you called Mr. Frank back there and asked him what you must do with those things?”

“No, sir, it was just about the furnace when I called to Mr. Frank.”

“Mr. Frank was at the top of the ladder?”
“Yes, sir.”

“How far is the furnace from the top of the ladder?”
“I don’t know, sir.”

“About 150 feet away, isn’t it?”
“I don’t know sir.”

“You had to talk loud enough for him to hear you, didn’t you?”
“Yes, sir.”

“When you took her down on the elevator, the front door was [s]till unlocked?”
“I don’t know sir.”

“Well, didn’t you say you left it unlocked when you went upstairs?”
“Well, it was still unlocked then when you went down into the basement?”
“It was, unless Mr. Frank went back and locked it.”

“Did Mr. Frank have any chance to go back and lock it without you seeing him?”
“Yes, sir, when I went back to tie up the body, he was up at the front a good while by himself.”

“Did the little girl have any scratches her face?”

BRUISE ON FACE.

“She had a bruise on her face.”

“Was there any dirt on her face?”
“Yes, sir.”

“On both sides?”
“Yes sir.”

“What did the dirt look like?”
“Just like dirt.”

“Were there any other scratches, besides the bruise on her face?”
“No, sir.”

“What was it you called to Mr. Frank from the basement, when you were coming up toward the ladder?”
“I called to him and asked him what I must do with these things. And he told me just leave ‘em there.”

“Did Frank see you when you were calling to him?”
“I don’t know whether he was looking at me or not.”

“He’d gone up the ladder and was on the first floor, wasn’t he?”
“I reckon so.”

“When he was not in sight?”
“No, sir.”

“He wasn’t in the basement then?”
“No, sir.”

“What did you have in your hand when you called to him?”
“I had the cloth, the hat, the piece of ribbon and the shoes.”

“That piece of ribbon Mr. Dorsey showed you yesterday?”

“No, sir.”

“What kind of ribbon was it?”
“I don’t know, sir.”

“When you were talking to Black and Scott, telling them the whole truth, you didn’t say anything about the hat and the ribbon and the shoe, did you?”
“If I didn’t it was because they didn’t ask me.”

“You told them about the shoe and the hat, but not about the ribbon and the cloth?”
“I told them I pitched ‘em on the boiler in front of the trash pile.”

“Who ran the elevator up from the basement?”
“I did.”

“Then Frank got on at the first floor?”
“Yes, sir.”

“He was standing there in front of the elevator when you came up?”

FRANK FELL.

“Yes, sir, and he jumped on before the car stopped and fell against me.”

“Did you tell Black and Scott, when you were telling them the whole truth, about him falling against you?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Just as he got on the elevator he said, ‘Gee, that’s a hard job,’ did he?”
“Yes, sir, he said that when we was going up, between the first and the second floor.”

“The motor and the elevator and the saw were all running?”
“Not the saw.”

“The elevator has got machinery at the top of the building, hasn’t it?”
“Yes, sir.”

“There’s a big wheel up there, ain’t there?”
“Yes, sir.”

“When the elevator goes down to the bottom, it hits the bottom hard, doesn’t it?”
“No, sir, not hard.”

“That wheel up in the top of the building over the elevator doesn’t make much noise, does it?”
“No, sir, not much.”

“Something like the buzzing of a June bug, eh?”
“Yes, sir.”

“And the elevator hits the bottom lightly and doesn’t make any noise?”
“No, sir, it don’t make much noise.”

“That’s a silent elevator, isn’t it?”
“I don’t know what you mean by that.”

“It don’t make any noise.”

“No, sir, not much.”

“From the time you went up to get the cloth till you got [b]ack on the upper floor from the basement, how long was it?”

CONTRADICTS DETECTIVES.

“I don’t remember.”

“Didn’t you tell Mr. Scott it was 30 minutes?”
“No, sir, I didn’t, Mr. Scott asked me how long it was, and I told him I didn’t know, and he said ‘Was it 30 minutes?’ and I said I didn’t know, and he said ‘Well, I’ll put it that way.’”

The negro denied that he had given the officers any specific statement of the interval.

“How long do you now say it was?”
“About four or five minutes.”

“How long was it from the time you looked at the clock until you left the factory?”
“It might have been about 30 minutes.”

“You said yesterday, Jim, that you left about 1:30. Wouldn’t that make 34 minutes from the time you looked at the clock?”
“I said I wasn’t sure about the time yesterday. I only know that after I went to the beer saloon and ate some sandwiches and then counted the money in the cigarette box, and went back and got a beer and looked at the clock, I saw it was 20 minutes to 2.”

IN THE WARDROBE.

“You said that while you was in the office you heard someone coming, didn’t you?”
“No, sir, I said Mr. Frank said, ‘Here comes Emma Freeman and Corinthia Hall.”

“After you were put in the closet, you said you heard Miss Hall speak?”
“No, sir, I said I heard one lady speak.”

“You said you wrote three notes on white paper?”
“Yes, sir.”

“And one on green?”
“Yes, sir.”

“What was in those notes?”
“I don’t remember.”

“You say he didn’t like the first two notes you wrote?”
“Yes, sir, then I wrote a long one on the white paper and then the one on the green paper.”

“You couldn’t have written those four notes to save your life in five minutes, could you?”

“I don’t know about that?”
“Well, about how long did it take you?”
“About three and a half minutes.”

“Then you sat in the office and talked?”
“I was writing.”

“Didn’t you smoke, too?”
“Yes, sir, at the same time.”

“You were sitting there smoking and writing, and Frank was sitting with his head back, looking at the ceiling and saying ‘I have wealthy people in Brooklyn?’”

“He just said once,” said the negro. “’Why should I hang? I’ve got wealthy people in Brooklyn.’”

“Well, after you had been in the wardrobe, written the notes, and talked about an automobile for his wife, and money for your watch, how long do you suppose that took?”

“I don’t know.”

“Then Mr. Frank took a roll of greenbacks out of his pocket, did he?”

“Yes, sir.”

CORRECTS ROSSER.

“There was $300 in it, you say?”

“No, sir, I don’t say there was $300. I say Mr. Frank said there was $300 in it.”

“Oh! And then you gave it back to him?”
“No, sir, not right then. He asked me for it later.”

“Well—later.”

“Yes, sir.”
“Now in the first statement you never told about that, did you?”

“I don’t remember.”

“And in this first statement you didn’t tell them anything about burning the body, either, did you?”
“I think I did.”

“Did you tell them before you went to jail or after you came back?”
“Afterwards.”

“Well, who was the first man you told? Can you remember?”
“Well, the first ones I can remember were Mr. Starnes and Mr. Campbell.”

“Did you tell Mr. Dorsey?”
“Yes, sir, but I don’t remember wren [sic].”

“A[f]ter Mr. Frank took the money back, you promised him you would come back and burn the body, did you?”
“Yes, sir, I said I’d come back in 40 minutes.”

“And then you went home and went to sleep and forgot to come back, didn’t you?”
“I didn’t forget to come back. I just went to sleep.”

“Well, about these notes, now. Frank said he was going to send these notes to his mother and tell her he had a good negro, didn’t he?”
“No, sir, he didn’t say anything about sending them home to his mother.”

“Didn’t you tell the police that he did?”

“No, sir, I didn’t tell them that. I said he was going to write a letter home and tell her about me, but I didn’t say anything about putting the notes in it.”

“Jim, didn’t you tell the detectives that he did say that?”
“I don’t remember it if I did.”

“You said the other day that when you went up into the metal room, you saw the handle of this parasol. Why couldn’t you see the rest of it?”

“I didn’t say I couldn’t see all of it. I said I could tell it by the handle, though. I couldn’t tell it by the cloth.”

GREEN RIBBON.

“Now tell us something about that ribbon that you say you carried downstairs. How long was it?”

“I don’t know.”

“You don’t know how long it was?”
“I couldn’t tell. It was folded up.”

“How wide was it?”
“About as wide as your four fingers.”

“What color was it?”
“Something like green.”

“What time did you get home that evening?”
“About half past two.”

“You didn’t see Mr. Frank Monday morning, did you?”
“No, sir.”

“When did you get your hair cut last?”
“Last week.”

“Who cut it?’
“My lawyer and the police and the barber came down to my cell.”

“And they cut your hair?”
“Well, the police didn’t cut my hair. The barber did.”

“Who shaved you?”

“The barber shaved me.”

“Well, did they give you a bath, too?”
“Yes, sir.”

“They put some clean clothes on you, didn’t they?”
“They didn’t. I put ‘em on myself.”

“So the jury could see you like a dressed-up nigger?”
“I don’t know sir.”

“Who bought you that clean shirt?”
“Lorena bought me that.”

“Lorena’s not your wife, is she?”

“No, she ain’t my wife.”

“Who got you your coat?”
“Mr. Starnes went up to the pencil factory about three weeks ago and got it for me.”

“Who bought you those breeches?”
“Lorena brought ‘em to me.”

“They togged you all up. They put those things on you after this case started, didn’t they?”

“Yes, sir, I put ‘em on a few days ago.”

THE NEGRO’S BATH.

“How’d they bathe you—turn the hose on you?”

“No, sir, they brought me a tin tub.”
“How long were you in the station house before you went to jail?”
“I don’t know, sir.”

“They took you over to the jail and they left you there one day and brought you back to the station house, didn’t they?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Then they took you out of police station and turned you loose and rearrested you, didn’t they?”
“They turned me loose at the door, and I started up the sidewalk, but a man grabbed me in the waistband and started me back.”

“You and your lawyer were perfectly willing for you to stay in the station house?”
“Yes, sir, I had to stay somewhere.”

“You said one day you didn’t want no lawyer, and the very next day you had one, didn’t you?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Well, how’d you happen to get a lawyer?”
“One day at the jail Lorena brought one to me.”

“You said you didn’t want a lawyer—that the police and Mr. Dorsey would look after you, didn’t you?”
“No, sir, I never said that.”

“Lorena brought you a lawyer, and he’s been your lawyer ever since?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did your lawyer and Mr. Dorsey visit you together?”
“No, sir.”

“And you’ve been locked up ever since you’ve had a lawyer—that is, if you’ve got a lawyer?”
“Yes, sir, I’ve been locked up.”

“You said when you found out Frank wasn’t going to do anything for you, you decided to tell?”
“Yes, sir.”

“You knew Frank was in jail?”
“I heard he was.”

DIDN’T READ PAPERS.

“On Monday at the factory you read all the papers about the crime, didn’t you?”
“No, sir.”

“Not a single paper?”
“No, sir.”

“On Monday, didn’t you get a paper and didn’t you try to read about this crime?”
“No, sir.”

“Jim, do you know Miss Julia Foss?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Didn’t you go to her and ask her to let you have a paper?”
“No, sir.”

“Didn’t you say to her that Mr. Frank was as innocent as the angels in heaven?”

“Didn’t you say this to Miss Foss on Wednesday?”

“No, sir.”

“Didn’t you read the papers in front of Wade Campbell? Didn’t he see you read the papers?”
“No, sir.”

“Do you know Miss Georgia Denham?”
“I don’t think so.”

DENIES CHARGE.

“Didn’t she charge you with the killing, and didn’t you hang your head and say you didn’t know anything about it?”
“No, sir.”

“Who saw you washing the shirt that Thursday in the metal room?”
“Mr. Holloway and some of the ladies.”

Answering questions, the negro stated that he had gone down into the basement between 8 and 8:30 in the morning and remained a short time. He said that just before he went down into the basement, he was talking to a negro drayman around back. He started to give the negro drayman a drink, but didn’t do it because there wasn’t enough in the bottle. The attorney then questioned Conley about the purchase of the whisky, and Conley said that he bought it on Peters street and went back in the beer saloon with the man who sold it to him, and they both took a drink. He said that the whisky peddler drank so much that he had to knock the bottle from his mouth and he spilled some.

Attorney Rosser then took up the W. H. Mincey affidavit.

“Do you know where Carter and Electric streets are?”
“Yes, sir.”

“You know that house up on the bluff?”

QUESTIONS ABOUT MINCEY.

“What’s a bluff?” asked the negro.

The attorney explained, and the negro said there are two houses on the hill.

“Were you there about 2 o’clock on the afternoon of April 26?”
“No, sir.”

“Did you meet there a man who asked you about insurance?”
“No, sir.”

Solicitor Dorsey objected. The name of the man should be stated, said he.

“W. H. Mincey,” replied Mr. Rosser.

“Didn’t he say you had promised to take some insurance?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“No, sir.”

“Didn’t he ask you your name, and didn’t you say ‘Conley?’”

“Nobody asked me my name that day.”

“Didn’t you say I can’t talk to you today. I’m in trouble.”
“No, sir.”

“Didn’t he say, ‘What’s the matter? Have you been in jail?’ And didn’t you say, ‘No, but I’m expecting to go?’”

“No, sir.”

“And didn’t he say, ‘What for?’ And didn’t you say, ‘Murder?’”

“No, sir.”

DENIES KILLING GIRL.

“Didn’t you say, ‘I killed a girl today?’”

“No, sir.”

“Didn’t he say, ‘What did you kill her for,’ and didn’t you say, ‘That’s for you to find out?’”

“No, sir.”
“Didn’t you jump up and go around the house and say, ‘I’ve killed one today—?’”

The negro interrupted:

“No, sir, I never said that to nobody.”

“Well, didn’t Mincey say, ‘Well, that’s enough. That’s 365 a year?’”

Attorney Rosser questioned the negro next about a statement that he is supposed to have made to a Constitution reporter in the jail on May 21. Mr. Rosser read from a typewritten sheet. The purport of it was that Hugh Dorsey had told Conley to go ahead and talk all he wanted to now.

“No, sir, I didn’t say that. I didn’t know what Mr. Dorsey’s first name was.”

“Well, for your information, Jim, I’ll tell you his first name was Hugh.”

DEMANDS REPORTER’S NAME.

The solicitor objected, saying, “We’ve got a right to know what reporter this was. The rule is that when you are trying to impeach a witness, you’ve got to state the time, the person and the circumstance. If he asks this for the purpose of impeachment, I object to this going into the records.” The solicitor cited an authority to back him up. Mr. Rosser said he didn’t intend to put this in for impeachment, and that he didn’t know the name of the reporter.

Attorney Rosser then questioned him about statements which he is supposed to have made to Harllee Branch and H. W. Ross, Journal reporters, in the jail.

The attorneys pointed out the reporters in court.

“Did you tell them that in your opinion, Mary Phagan was murdered in a toilet room on the second floor and brought out into the metal room?”
“No, sir.”

DENIES STATEMENTS.

“Did you tell them that she had been dead about fifteen minutes?”
“No, sir, I don’t remember saying that.”

“Didn’t you tell them that a ribbon and a parasol and a piece of her skirt lay on the floor a few feet from her body?”
“No, sir.”

“Didn’t you tell them that it took at least thirty minutes to get the body downstairs?”
“No, sir.”

Attorney Rosser asked some other questions. As H. W. Ross was leaving the court, Conley pointed him out as a man who had showed a newspaper to him.

“Didn’t you walk away from them and wouldn’t talk to them?”
Conley said, “Yes, sir, a little.”

Attorney Rosser showed the negro a document. It was one of the several statements which Conley made to the police. “You signed this, didn’t you?”
“Yes, sir.”

“That’s your handwriting and your name is James Conley?”
“Yes, sir.”

Mr. Rosser handed the paper to Mr. Arnold and requested him to read it to the jury. Mr. Arnold began, “This statement made by James Conley to Detectives Black and Scott, police barracks, Sunday, May 18, 1913.”

Before Attorney Arnold could read further, Solicitor Dorsey interrupted and announced to the court that he objected to a change of counsel.

Mr. Rosser grabbed the paper from Mr. Arnold’s hands and said, “Oh, give it to me!” rather savagely. “Sit down, little Hugh!” Adjusting his glasses, he stated that he didn’t know whether he would be able to read the document or not, because it was written by the detectives.

The statement said that Conley was employed as an elevator boy and roustabout at the factory for the past two years.

“Jim, you don’t know what roustabout means, do you?” asked Mr. Rosser. The negro explained that it meant working about in different places.

Mr. Rosser read on till he came to the word “previous.”

“Jim, what does previous mean?”
The negro admitted that he did not know.

“The man who put that over was a little previous himself, wasn’t he, Jim?”
The negro grinned.

Further along in the document, Mr. Rosser came across the word, “previous,” several times, and emphasized it each time with some humorous remark about it.

“On Saturday, April 26, 1913, I arose”—“What does ‘arose’ mean, Jim?”
“I don’t know, sir.”

“No, Jim, you don’t know what arose means.”

Mr. Rosser continued reading the statement.

The statement continued that the negro arose between 9 and 9:30 a. m., and ate breakfast at 10:30 a. m.; left his house at 172 Rhodes street and went to Peters street, visiting a number of saloons between Fair and Haynes street on Peters street; bought half a pint of whisky from a negro and paid him 40 cents for it; visited the Butt-In saloon; at a pool table in the back, saw three negroes shooting dice.

CRAPS, NOT DICE.

“You’d say craps, if you had a fair showing, wouldn’t you, Jim?”
The witness admitted that he would.

The statement proceeded that Conley joined them.

“You was shooting craps, eh?”
The statement continued that Conley won 90 cents, and bought some beer, and walked up the street and visited Carly’s beer saloon.

“Jim, you don’t know what visited is or what it means, do you?”
The negro said he didn’t.

The statement proceeded that Conley purchased two beers and wine, paying 10 cents for it; that that was all he money Conley spent on Peters street; that he got back home at 3:30 p. m.

“Do you know what ‘p. m.’ means?”
“It means 3 o’clock.”

The statement proceeded that he found L. Jones there; she asked if he had any money; he said yes, and gave her $3.50, $1 in greenbacks and the rest in silver. The statement showed that on Saturday afternoon the negro sent out and got 15 cents worth of beer and later he sent his little girl out for something to eat, that he stayed at home Saturday night and up to noon Sunday; that he went on Nichols street Sunday and returned shortly and spent the evening with his mother, and reported for work on April 28, Monday.

SECOND AFFIDAVIT.

Mr. Rosser took up a second affidavit dated May 24. The substance of this affidavit was that on Friday before the holiday, about 4 o’clock in the afternoon, Frank met him on the fourth floor and told him to come tot his office, that Frank asked if he could write, and gave him a scratch pad on which he wrote “Dear Mother, a long tal black negro,” he wrote that several times; then he wrote something else; Mr. Frank took out a brown pad and wrote something himself; Mr. Frank asked him if he wanted to smoke and handed to him a box containing cigarettes that cost 15 cents.

That he saw some money in the box, two $1 bills and 50 cents in it, and called Mr. Frank’s attention to it when he handed it back; that Frank told him to keep it; that Frank asked about Gordon Bailey; then Frank asked about the nightwatchman, and asked him if he had ever seen the nightwatchman in the basement; that Frank laughed and jollied a little bit and said, “I have wealthy people in Brooklyn. Why should I hang? That Frank held up his head and looked out of the corner of his eye when he said this; that Conley told him not to take out any more money on the watch; that Frank said, “Why did you get a watch? That big, fat wife of mine wants an automobile, but I won’t buy it.”

THIRD AFFIDAVIT.

Mr. Rosser started to read another affidavit and quickly remarked, “This is a copy. I want the original.”

Solicitor started to look in his papers, and said, “I haven’t the original. That copy is the only one I’ve ever had, and I don’t know where the original is.”

Mr. Rosser started reading, but stopped and conferred with Mr. Arnold. Then he told the court that he didn’t want to read anything but the original. Chief Lanford, who is supposed to have the original, was not in court. Mr. Rosser told the court that he had nothing in mind to ask the witness except about the affidavits.

Judge Roan told the jury that it could go back to its room. The jury left.

WANTS TO VISIT CONLEY.

It was announced that Attorney William Smith, representing Conley, wanted to address the court. Attorney Smith declared that he would like to have the privilege of visiting Conley in his cell and attending to his physical needs if nothing more.

“I don’t know,” said he, “by what legal proceedings Conley was put in the Tower; but I’m not objecting to that. I do feel, though, that I ought to have a right as his counsel to see him and talk to him.
“I had considerable difficulty and unpleasantness in trying to get to him last night. I merely wanted him to have an opportunity to take a bath and to get some clean clothes to him. I had the clothes there, and it was only after much trouble that I finally even got the clothes to him.

“Furthermore, I think it is a reflection on counsel and upon Solicitor Dorsey, a man sworn to carry out the laws, to deny us admission to his cell. I don’t see under what law any man can be placed in solitary confinement and denied to his lawyer. I never heard of it being done before.”

Judge Roan replied that when he gave his orders Monday night he did so with consent of the state and the defense. Solicitor Dorsey arose, and said, “No, sir, I beg pardon of the court. I didn’t consent to it. I simply didn’t object to it. That was all. I wasn’t consulted in the matter.”

ARNOLD OBJECTS.

Attorney Arnold argued then. He said, “Well, this negro Conley says he doesn’t know how Mr. Smith thinks himself his lawyer. He says his wife brought Mr. Smith into his cell one day and that’s all he knows about it. I’d like to ask the sheriff about this unpleasantness.”

Attorney Smith spoke up and said that there was no unpleasantness except that he was blocked when the tried to send some clean clothes to the negro.

Judge Roan asked: “Well, is there any objection to letting him see his attorney in his cell, if he wants to.”

“Yes. I’ll take the responsibility of entering an objection,” said Mr. Arnold. “I object because it shows that the state and his witness are in too close accord.”

Solicitor Dorsey spoke again. “I am in charge of the state’s case. Of course your honor would not say that in that capacity I would not have the right to interview this or any other witness put up by the state whenever and wherever I choose. I haven’t found it necessary to talk with him yet. But in such event I would ask your honor, and your honor would grant me the permission. I do think, however, that his counsel should be allowed to talk with him.”

WHY HE WANTS TO SEE HIM.

“What do you want to talk to him about?” inquired Attorney Arnold, of Mr. Smith.

The latter, addressing his remarks to the court, said: “This witness is almost under as much as an attack as is this defendant. As his attorney, I should have the right to confer with him in order that I may protect his interests. I ought to know the names of persons who can be summoned to substantiate his statements. These I would furnish to the solicitor.”
Attorney Arnold declared that Attorney Smith practically admitted that he wanted to take part in the case. “If he’s waited for two months to get this information from this negro, he certainly can wait a day or two longer.”

Attorney Rosser spoke: “I don’t think any one should be allowed to interview or to re-drill him, be he a solicitor ten times over, be he a lawyer one thousand times over.”

“I understand they want to give him a bath,” said Mr. Arnold. “If Mr. Smith wants to give him a bath let him do it. Let him turn the hose on him if he wants to.”

CAN COUNSEL NEGRO.

Solicitor Dorsey: “I’m not asking permission to talk with this negro. If I do find it necessary to talk to him, I will ask your honor’s permission, and will expect you to grant it. It cannot be denied that I would have that right. I am not trying to do anything I ought not to do.”

“No,” sneered Mr. Rosser, “but I don’t think you would hesitate to do a lot of things.”

Judge Roan ruled that Attorney Smith could confer with his client to safeguard the negro’s interests.

Attorney Arnold took an exception to the ruling, and the exception was noted in the records.

Court then adjourned at 5:40, until 9 o’clock Wednesday morning.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 6th 1913, “Judge Roan Rules Out Most Damaging Testimony Given by Conley Against Leo Frank,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Journal
August 6^th, 1913

Conley’s Whole Testimony Will Be Allowed to Stay in Record of Frank Case

State Ready With Corroborating Witnesses, if Evidence Is Held to Be Admissible—Jim Conley Adds New and Sensational Feature to His Testimony, Declaring He Saw Frank Place Mary Phagan’s Pocketbook in the Factory Safe

SOLICITOR DORSEY APPLAUDED IN COURT WHEN SUSTAINED BY RECORDS AFTER DISPUTE WITH ROSSER

Those Responsible for Applause Were Immediately Ejected From the Court Room—Dr. H. F. Harris Expected to Resume Stand During Afternoon—State Will Furnish Presentation of Its Case by Thursday but Hardly Before

Judge L. S. Roan, presiding at the trial of Leo M. Frank, superintendent of the National Pencil factory, who is on trial charged with the murder of Mary Phagan, Wednesday afternoon reversed himself in his ruling made Tuesday striking out portions of Jim Conley’s testimony. The judge made his ruling Tuesday but withheld announcing it to the jury until Wednesday. His reversal means that Conley’s testimony that he acted in the capacity of a “lookout” for the accused superintendent on days prior to the day of the tragedy, and also his testimony accusing Frank of perversion remains in the testimony. It also means that Solicitor Dorsey will be allowed to present evidence corroborating the negro sweeper as to Frank’s attitude toward him and his conduct to the negro’s presence.

CONLEY ADDS NEW SENSATION.

Jim Conley, who left the witness stand at 11:10, after sixteen hours of direct and cross examination, added sensational feature to his testimony Wednesday by the declaration that he saw Frank take the mesh bag or pocket book carried by Mary Phagan from the desk in his office and placed it in the safe. So far as the public knows the mesh bag has never been found.

Over the protest of the attorneys for the defense, Solicitor Dorsey managed to get before the jury that Frank had refused to face his accuser, Jim Conley, when the detectives sought to arrange an interview at the tower.

For the first time since the trial has been in progress applause broke out in the court room when Solicitor Dorsey after a dispute with counsel for the defense over testimony given by Detective Scott, was sustained by the reading of the court stenographic notes. Dorsey had contended that Scott testified that Frank told him on April 28^th about Mrs. White’s having seen a negro near the foot of the stairs on the day of the tragedy. Although the defendant had given this information to the Pinkerton detectives on April 28 declared the solicitor, it was May 7 before the state’s detectives knew about it. When the stenographer’s report of Scott’s testimony was read, sustaining the solicitor, applause broke forth in several parts of the court room at once. Those responsible for it were immediately ejected by the deputie [sic].

Dr. H. F. Harris is expected to take the stand Wednesday afternoon and finish his testimony. He will probably be under cross-examination for an hour or more. The state expects to finish the presentation of its case Thursday.

LARGE CROWD PRESENT.

Hardly half of the crowd that was waiting in the long line when the court room doors were opened Wednesday morning, could gain admittance, the limited seating capacity being filled at once.

Leo M. Frank, the accused, breakfasted with his wife and mother in an anteroom of the court. It was stated that the defendant had slept well overnight.

All was ready for court to convene several minutes in advance of 9 o’clock, the scheduled hour.

Before the jury entered, Mr. Rosser told the court that both sides had come prepared to discuss the question of ruling out certain portions of Conley’s testimony. Judge Roan stated that he would hear that discussion at 2 o’clock. He did not care to hear it at the morning session.

“Your honor, we have some witnesses whom we want to put on the stand following Conley,” objected the solicitor.

Attorneys interpreted Judge Roan’s remarks on this to be that he would allow the corroborative testimony to proceed if it was at hand, and then would announce later his ruling on its admissibility after he had heard arguments at 2 o’clock.

CONLEY RESUMES STAND.

The jury was called in and the cross-examination of James Conley, the negro accuser of Frank, resumed with Mr. Rosser conducting it.

Attorney Rosser made a demand on Solicitor Dorsey for the original of Conley’s second affidavit. The solicitor was unable to furnish the original. Chief Lanford never had given it to him, he said, and he doubted the existence of a signed statement. Detective Starnes said he didn’t think Conley signed that affidavit, although it was taken in the negro’s words by a shorthand reporter.

Attorney Rosser read from an unsigned copy of the original statement, with the permission of the solicitor. Both sides finally agreeing that this copy should be taken as the original. This statement was made by Conley to the police on May 26.

In it Conley said he arose between 9 and 9:30 o’clock on the day of the murder. He remembered the time because after he got up he went outside to get some water and looked at the clock on the Atlanta university. The affidavit continued, “This is my second and last statement. In my first statement I said I wrote the notes on Friday so I wouldn’t be connected with the murder. I thought that if I said I went there Saturday they would accuse me of knowing about the murder.” The affidavit recited Conley’s alleged actions that day, which Conley since on the stand has admitted to be wrong recital.

The affidavit did not go into as much detail as Conley’s testimony contradicted it in a number of details. Conley himself admitting that he lied. In it he said he bought six beers at various saloons on Peters street on his way to the Capital City laundry; that on his way to the laundry he met Frank at the corner of Nelson and Forsyth streets, and Frank told him to wait until he went to Montag Brothers and then he would go to the factory with him.

Conley’s affidavit continued that he waited and then accompanied Frank to the factory. The statement continued to name the various people who entered and left the factory, telling virtually the same story as he does now on the witness stand. The statement told of writing the notes at Frank’s dictation, but said nothing about knowing of the actual murder or having helped to conceal the body.

ANOTHER AFFIDAVIT.

Mr. Rosser picked up another affidavit made the following day by Conley, and read that. This document represented the negro as adding to his previous story statements about assisting in the disposal of the body. The story was principally the same as told on the witness stand, but varied in a number of details.

For instance, he said that Frank told him he picked up a girl and let her fall, instead of that Frank told him he had struck a girl too hard, as the negro testified Monday. Another discrepancy was that the negro said he was carrying the girl on his shoulder instead of that she was hanging about his knee in the bagging and that he dropped her deliberately, in order to get Frank to help him.

He ended this affidavit by saying that he had thought Frank was going to get out and help him, but that he then believed Frank was not going to help him and that he had decided to tell the whole truth.

The negro said on the stand, Wednesday, after the statement had been read, that he remembered making it and that it was his statement; that he could not remember its date or its sequence.

“W[a]s this the last statement that they put in writing, Jim?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“I don’t know,” answered Conley. “I think they were all put in writing except some things that I told the detectives.”

Mr. Rosser resumed his cross-examining of the negro.

“On Thursday, May 1, while you were working by Miss Rebecca Carson, didn’t […]

SOLICITOR DORSEY IS APPLAUDED WHEN COURT SUSTAINS HIM

[…] she say, ‘they haven’t got you yet, Jim?’ and didn’t you say ‘No, I haven’t done anything?’ And didn’t she say, ‘No, neither has Mr. Frank?’ and didn’t you say, ‘No, I know Mr. Frank is jut as innocent as you are?’”

DENIES ADMISSIONS.

Conley said that he did not remember the conversation.

“And didn’t she say, ‘When they find the murderer, it will be that negro who was sitting by the elevator when Mrs. White went up?’ And then didn’t you duck your head and leave right quick?”

“No, sir,” said the negro.

“Jim, when you were working by Miss Mary, [large section of text illegible]

[…] evidence about this negro having been arrested at all at any time?”

Mr. Rosser remarked something sottovoce to the solicitor.

“I thought so,” said Mr. Dorsey, and proceeded.

“Well, Jim, when was the first time you were arrested?”
“When I was a small boy.”

“What for?”

FORMER ARRESTS.

“Throwing rocks.”

“What were you arrested for the next time?”
“Fighting with some colored boys.”

“The next time?”
“I was charged with drinking and disorderly conduct.”

“The next time?”

“Fighting with another colored fellow.”

“Did you ever fight with a white man, Jim?”
“No, sir.”

“Well, what was the cause for these other arrests?”
“Fighting and drinking and disorderly.”
“Were you ever in the county jail before this Frank affair came up?”

“No, sir.”

“When was it you were put in the county jail?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Was it before or after you went through the factory and showed how you carried the body?”
“I don’t remember that.”

“Well, while you were in jail, did you try to see Mr. Frank?”
Mr. Rosser objected. The question said he, was leading and immaterial. Judge Roan held that it was leading, but not immaterial. Mr. Dorsey changed its form.

The negro said that the detectives wanted him to see Frank, but couldn’t get him to him. The answer was ruled out.

“When was the last time you saw Frank?”

“That Thursday when he came over to the station house, going up in court.”

“Was that before or after you had talked?”
“Before.”

“What did he do?”

NEARLY FELL FROM STAND.

“As he passed by my cell, he just looked and bowed and smiled.”

The solicitor had the negro point out on the di[a]gram the washstand near the office. As the negro was moving his chair, he nearly fell off the witness stand. The solicitor had him point out also the desks in the office where he claims to have sat and where he says Frank sat when they wrote the notes.

The solicitor asked him to describe Frank’s manner while the notes were being written. He said Frank was “trembling and nervous, and rubbing his hands together.” The negro squirmed in his seat to illustrate how Frank was nervous. “What did Frank do about a pencil?” asked the solicitor.

“He took the pencil and showed me how to rub out a letter.”

“What letter on what word?”
“The ‘s’ on negroes.”

The negro declared that a person could sit at Frank’s desk and look at the stairway leading to the third floor.

The solicitor had him point out on the diagram the place where he claims Frank talked to him on the fourth floor Friday. The negro pointed on the diagram also to the spot where he claims Frank spoke to him Tuesday after the crime and told him to be a good boy.

“How far from the water cooler was it that you dropped the body?” asked the solicitor.

“I don’t know, sir, but it was between the dressing room and the water cooler.”

FRANK HAD POCKETBOOK?

“Did you ever see Mary Phagan’s pocketbook after you came from the basement?”

“Yes, sir, it was on Mr. Frank’s desk.”

“What became of it?”
“I saw Mr. Frank put it in his safe.”

“How long had you been in jail before you wrote for the detectives?”
“Ten or fifteen days.”

“After Frank called you and you went back toward the body, did he have time to go down and lock the inner doors before you spoke to him again?”
Answering a question, the negro showed on the diagram where he claims to have been standing when he looked at the clock and saw that the hour was 4 minutes to 1.

The solicitor asked him to describe the character of the screams he heard.

The question was ruled out by the court.

“Who has talked to you longer—Black, Scott, Campbell, myself, or Mr. Rosser here?”

The court held that he could not draw a comparison between conversations inside and outside the court room.

“What is the longest time that all of the detectives and the state’s lawyers have talked to you?”

The negro said that he didn’t remember, but that once Mr. Scott started talking to him at a quarter to 11 and was not through until dark.

HOW HE LEFT BODY.

“How many sacks were around there where you got that cloth that you wrapped the body up in, or like that gunny sack?” The solicitor pointed to a gunny sack near the witness stand.

“There was some there. I don’t know how many.”

“Now, Jim, was moving this body a hard job?”

“It was pretty hard for me.”

“Show on this diagram where Frank was when he held up his hands and said ‘sh-h-h!”

Conley pointed out to the head of the stairs on the second floor.

“Tell the jury in what position you left the body in the basement.”

Conley got down from the chair and lay on the floor in front of the jury. He lay on the left side, with his left arm extended under his body and his right arm almost parallel with his body. His head touched the floor. Conley then illustrated the direction of the head and feet. Illustrating his testimony of Monday on this point.

The solicitor picked up the photograph of the scene which he exhibited to the negro Monday without securing the negro’s identification of it.

“Do you recognize this now?”

“Yes, sir, that’s where we left the body.”

Attorney Rosser jumped to his feet. “So you know what it is now, do you?” he demanded. “How did you find out?”
“Well, I must have looked at it good. I see it now.”

“Now tell the jury in detail what you did after you looked at the clock at 4 minutes to 1,” directed the solicitor.

ROSSER OBJECTS TO DETAIL.

Attorney Rosser objected on the ground that the detail had been gone into fully. Solicitor Dorsey, addressing the court, contended that he should be allowed to ask the witness questions about this.

“Mr. Rosser,” said he, “has asked minutely about the actions of the witness after 4 minutes to 1. This was for the purpose of drawing certain inferences for the purpose of a final argument to the jury. I want the witness to tell this so the jury will understand the matter. Mr. Rosser has drawn his deductions, or has extracted statements from the witness according to his deductions. Now I do not believe it is any more than fair for us to question him along the line of our deductions.”

Attorney Rosser: “I want to know a single instance where we have laid any foundations for inference. There ought to be some decency about this rule.”

Judge Roan sustained Mr. Rosser.

“Where did Frank wash his hands?”

Conley pointed to the sink indicated on the diagram, behind the elevator on the second floor.

“When did he wash there?”
“I don’t know when, except that he washed there when he came back up from the basement.”

Solicitor Dorsey picked up the notes found beside the body of Mary Phagan and asked Conley, “Did you write on any other color of paper than this, when you wrote those notes that day?”
“No, sir, no other.” said the negro.

“Where do they use this kind of paper, Jim?”

PROMISED CONLEY A TRIP.

“I don’t know—I know he had some of it on his desk.”

“You said something about green paper, yesterday, didn’t you, Jim? Did you write on any green paper?”
“No, sir, the tablet was green.”

“What was said by Frank about you going to Brooklyn?”
“He didn’t say nothing about my going to Brooklyn. He said if I got caught he would get me out on bond and send me away from here.”

“Did you ever have any conversation with this W. H. Mincey?”
“Only one time at the station house, when Mr. Black and some other detective brought him down there.”

“Is that the only time you ever saw him?”
“The only time in my life.”

CONLEY RECOGNIZES REPORTERS.

“The night you were put in jail, what did you say to these newspaper men?”
Attorney Rosser objected to the question. The solicitor would have to point out the newspaper men, said he.

The solicitor pointed out Harlles Branch and H. W. Ross, Journal reporters, and asked, “What did you say to these two?”
There was objection. The enforcement of the rule was asked by the defense, and the two newspaper men were sent out of court for a moment.

“What did they offer you?” asked the solicitor. […]

LAWYERS CLASH IN BIG BATTLE OVER TESTIMONY OF JIM CONLEY

“Well, those two there didn’t offer me anything.”

“What did these two newspaper men talk to you about?”
“I disremember,” said the negro. “We stood at the door and talked.”

“Did they offer you anything?”

Mr. Rosser objected on the ground that the negro already had said he did not remember anything and that the question was leading. Judge Roan sustained Mr. Rosser.

“During Monday and Tuesday at the factory, were you nervous?”
“No, sir.”

“Why?”
Mr. Rosser objected, Judge Roan sustained him.

WHAT HE SAID TO SCHIFF.

“What did you say to Schiff the day the factory closed down?”
“Well,” said the negro, “somebody said something about the crowd out in front of the factory after the whistle had blow and I went and looked out of the window and came back into the shipping room and said, “There sure is a crowd.” And somebody said, “I wish I had brought my pistol.” And I lo[o]ked up and laughed and said, “I wish I was a white man. I’d go out.” Mr. Schiff says, “I don’t see why you want to be a white man. They’ve got Mr. Frank locked up.”

The negro explained that there were a number of people in the room and that he was not hiding.

“Who could have heard this?” asked Mr. Dorsey.

“Mr. Darley and Mr. Schiff and Mr. Wade Campbell and the negro that worked there.”

“Did Darley and Schiff know that you would write?”
The question was ruled out on objection by Mr. Rosser.

“Do you know how to write the word ‘luxury,’ the name of a brand of pencil?”
Mr. Rosser objected, but the question was allowed.

“Yes, sir.” He had to write on papers and bring them to Frank. He had to do a good deal of writing, and Mr. Frank furnished him with a pad, he said.

ROSSER AGAIN TAKES HIM.

Mr. Rosser cross-examined the negro again.

“Why didn’t you tell Black and Scott about the mesh bag?”

“I don’t think they asked me.”

“When did you first tell any detective about it?”
“I don’t remember.”

“Did you tell any detectives before you went to jail?”
The negro said he didn’t know.

“Why didn’t you tell Black and Scott that Frank said he would get you out on bond and get you away if you kept your mouth shut?”
“I did tell them,” said Conley. He couldn’t remember when.

“You didn’t see the handkerchief, did you?”
“I don’t think I did.”

“Didn’t you tell the detectives anything about it?”

“I don’t remember.”

FRANK PUT PURSE IN SAFE.

“Did you see Mr. Frank put the bag on the safe and lock the safe?”
“I didn’t see him turn the knob. He shut the door.”

“Did you ever tell Mr. Dorsey about this?”
“Yes, sir. I told him a long time ago, after I left the jail.”

“Mr. Dorsey went to see you seven times, four at the station house and three at his office. How long did he stay at any one time?”
The negro couldn’t remember, but said that some times at the office he had to wait a long time before Mr. Dorsey could talk to him.

“Did he write down what you were saying?”
The negro said he couldn’t remember distinctly, but once there was another man in the office writing. Mr. Dorsey wrote down things when he talked to him at the station house.

“Didn’t the detectives give you long sittings on the May 27, 28, 29 and 31? And didn’t Dorsey have you for more than four hours on the 31^st?”
“He had me until after dark. I don’t know how long it was.”

“And Dorsey had you again on June 5 and 6; Starnes on June 5 and 6; Starnes on June 15; Campbell on June 26; Dorsey, Campbell and Starnes on July 3; Dorsey and Hooper on July 12; Starnes and Campbell on July 16?”

Conley said he talked to these people at various times but could not recall the dates.

“How long did you look after the pencil boxes at the factory?”

“More than a year.”

“All those boxes had names on them, didn’t they, showing what kind of pencils were put up in them?”

“Yes, sir.”

WOULDN’T KNOW LUXURY.

“You had one box named ‘Luxury,’ didn’t you?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Would you know luxury if you saw it?”
“No, sir.”

“You’ve been writing this and furnishing the writing to Mr. Frank for a whole year, haven’t you? You said he knew you could write?”
“Yes, sir.”

Mr. Rosser had the negro recount the various brands on the boxes.

“Could you write plain, Jim?”
“I don’t know, sir.”

“Well, how did you write those lists?”
“I did my best.”

“You say one of the boxes was labeled ‘Uncle Remus?’”

“Yes, sir.”

SPELLING BEE.

“Spell ‘Uncle Remus.’”

“O-n-e r-i-m-e-s,” spelled the negro.

“Now spell luxury for the jury. Spell it like you wrote it on the lists.”

“L-u-s-t-r-i-s,” spelled the negro, verbally.

“You sent those lists to Frank that way?”
“Yes, sir.”

“How did he make out what you meant?”
“He had some trouble with the first ones, but he learned how I wrote the different names.”

“He called your attention to the way you misspel[l]ed ‘luxury,’ didn’t he?”
“Yes, sir.”

“You say you’ve got a box there named ‘Thomas Jefferson.’ Spell ‘Thomas Jefferson’ for the jury.”

“I always spelled it “T-o-m J-e-i-ff,’” said the negro.

“You’ve got another brand named ‘George Washington.’ Spell ‘George Washington’.

“J-o-e W-i-s-h-t-o-n,” spelled the negro, verbally.

“In addition to these lists, you have written orders for Mr. Frank to take money out of your wages when you borrowed it, haven’t you?”
“I wrote the notes to borrow the money. I didn’t say anything about taking it out of my wages.”

“You wrote these notes before April 26?”

“What would you say in some of these orders?”

“I’d write please let me have 50 cents or 75 cents—or whatever I wanted.”

WASN’T HIDING.

“And you wouldn’t say take it out of your wages?”
“No, sir.”

“Weren’t there some big boxes in the room where Schiff caught you hiding, the Monday after the murder?”
“I wasn’t hiding,” said the negro, “and there wasn’t any big boxes there.” The witness indicated some books in court as being about the size of the largest boxes in the room where he is supposed to have been hiding.

“You said that Darley and Campbell and the shipping clerk and a colored boy could have heard your talk with Schiff.”

“Yes, sir, I think they could.”

“When you went in the office, you say Mr. Frank asked you if you could write, and you said ‘I can write a little?’”

“Yes, sir, that’s what he said.”

“Well, if you had been writing for him a year, why did he have to ask you if you could write?”

“I don’t know, sir.”

“Mr. Hooper and Mr. Dorsey were with you in another place beside the station house and Mr. Dorsey’s office, weren’t they?”
“I don’t know, sir.”

“When was that?”
“I disremember.”

DESCRIBES POCKETBOOK.

Mr. Dorsey took up the witness again.

“Jim, describe that pocketbook,” said the solicitor.

“It was wire-ish looking pocketbook, like the ladies carry, light colored, and had little chains on it, for the ladies to hold to.”

“Jim, didn’t you have anything to copy the names of those boxes from?”
“No, sir.”

“Well, the boxers were there, with the names on them where you could see them.”

“Yes, sir.”

“Why did you do this writing?”
“For Mr. Frank, so as to tell him what boxes was needed, and how many.”
Mr. Rosser took him again.

“Didn’t Schiff have charge of the boxes?”
“Yes, sir.”

CONLEY EXCUSED.

“Tell me how large that pocketbook was.”

“I couldn’t tell—I saw it ther[e] on the table.”

Urged by Mr. Rosser, he indicated about five inches as the length of the pocketbook. He wouldn’t say how wide it was. He didn’t know.

Conley was excused from the stand at this juncture, at 11:10 o’clock.

As Conley passed the state’s table, Mr. Hooper gave him half of a plug of tobacco, which the negro received gratefully. As he left the court room, the negro told the deputy sheriff in charge of him that he was feeling all right. He asked for a cigarette, which one of the newspaper men gave to him. Then he sat in the press room for a few minutes with the deputy, and read the newspapers and smoked.

A short recess was taken by the court.

When court resumed, Solicitor Dorsey offered in evidence the flashlight photograph of the scene where Mary Phagan’s body was found.

A blank yellow order book containing leaves similar to one on which one of the notes was written, the scratchpad from which Conley says Frank tore the sheets that he wrote on; and the notes that Conley says he wrote, and which were found by the side of the body, were entered in evidence by the state without objection on the part of the defense. The two notes were read to the jury by Solicitor Dorsey.

DALTON CALLED.

C. B. Dalton was called to the witness stand. Attorney Rosser held a whispered consultation with the judge, and Solicitor Dorsey joined them, and it was decided not to hear Dalton’s testimony until after the judge had decided finally whether or not he would rule out the portions of Conley’s testimony which the defense seeks to strike from the records. It was understood that should the judge finally rule against the state, the solicitor would attempt anyway to get Dalton’s testimony before the jury, and Mr. Rosser is expected to object.

At the end of this conference, Dalton was excused from the stand and returned to the witness room on the floor above.

Mrs. Arthur White was called as the next witness.

James Conley was brought into the room once more, from the ante-room where he had been taken, and confronted Mrs. White.

“Mrs. White, look at this man,” said the solicitor. “Can you state who he is?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Did you ever see him before?”
“Yes, sir.”

“Where?”
“At police headquarters.”

MRS. WHITE NOT POSITIVE.

“Did you ever see him before that time, at police headquarters?”
“I won’t say positively.”

“How does he compare with the man you say you saw sitting on the box on the first floor?”
Attorney Rosser objected to the question as a leading. Judge Roan allowed it after its construction had been changed slightly by the solicitor.

Conley was told to put on his hat, and after he had done so Mrs. White replied that he looked more like the negro whom she saw beside the elevator in the factory, than anyone whom she had seen since.

“How long after April 26 was it when you saw this man at police headquarters?”

“It was about a month afterward, I guess.”

“Now, tell the jury what happened at the police station.”

ROSSER IS SUSTAINED.

Attorney Rosser objected on the ground that his client was not bound by anything that happened at the police station, inasmuch as he was not represented there. Solicitor Dorsey replied, “Well, Mr. Scott, the Pinkerton detective, was present as your representative.” Attorney Rosser exclaimed, “Mr. Scott does not represent this man,” pointing to Frank. Judge Roan sustained the objection of Mr. Rosser.

“Now, your honor, I want to show why Mrs. White says this man looks more like him than any other,” said the solicitor.

Attorney Rosser objected on the ground that the negro was not dressed in court as he was then. Judge Roan sustained Mr. Rosser.

“Describe to the jury now the man you saw was dressed,” said the solicitor.

“He was just about the size of this man, and he looked black to me. He was sitting in a dark place, but I think he had on dark clothes. I don’t know whether he was bareheaded or not.”

“Mrs. White, Wade Campbell is your brother, and Arthur White is your husband. They are both connected with the pencil factory. When did you first tell them about seeing this negro?”
Attorney Rosser objected, and Judge Roan asked the solicitor how he considered that material. The solicitor explained, “We want to show that she told this to her husband and her brother within two days and we want to show that the detectives at the police station didn’t get this information until later than that.”

REASON FOR QUESTION.

Mr. Rosser renewed his objection, and Solicitor Dorsey argued again. “It is already in evidence to show that Detective Scott was told about this by Frank two days after the body was found. Now I want to show that the city detectives did not know about it until the 7^th of May.”

Mr. Dorsey called for the record of Scott’s testimony. He knew he was right, said he.
“If you are, it’s the first time you’ve been right about anything,” said Mr. Rosser.

“Yes, and I want the record and I want to show that on Monday, April 28, Leo M. Frank knew that Mrs. White said there was a negro by the elevator, and that it took the detectives working for the state of Georgia until May 7 to find it out. By that I mean the detectives working for the state—not the detectives working for the National Pencil company.”

The lawyers wrangled for several moments. The court stenographer entered and handed a typewritten manuscript to Attorney Arnold.

DORSEY IS APPLAUDED.

“Here, I want it,” said Mr. Dorsey. “I’ll give it to you in a minute,” said Mr. Arnold. Attorney Rosser looked over the record, and finally he said, “Yes, you’re right about it. It’s in here.”

Applause broke out in three parts of the court room. The applauders were ejected quickly from the court.

Mr. Rosser arose to argue, then, that the matter was immaterial. It didn’t matter when the state learned ab[o]ut it, said he.

Solicitor Dorsey contended that he had a right to show that City Detective Rosser and the other detectives didn’t know about it until May 7.

Judge Roan ruled that he could ask the witness when she next told about seeing the negro.

Mrs. White said she was not positive, but thought she next told it on May 7.

Mr. Rosser cross-examined the witness.

“You never declined to tell anyone about this, did you?”
“No, sir.”

“Nobody ever asked you to keep it a secret, did they?”
“No, sir.”

MANGUM IS CALLED.

When you spoke to Wade Campbell, didn’t you tell him you saw the negro as you went up?”

“No, he is mistaken if he says that I did.”

“Did you say the first time that you heard voices on the steps?”
“I might have said that the first time I went into the factory I heard voices, but I didn’t see anyone.”

Sheriff C. W. Mangum was sworn as the next witness.

“Were you present at the jail when Conley went down there from the factory?”

“Yes, he was with another party.”

“You were present and overheard a conversation about having Conley confront Frank?”

DORSEY WINS POINT.

Attorney Rosser objected to this as irrelevant, and hearsay. In arguing it, Mr. Dorsey said: “Your honor, never in the history of the white race has a white man charged with so foul a crime by a negro refused to meet his accuser face to face. We want to show that this defendant refused to meet this ignorant negro who was making the charge against him.”

Mr. Rosser interrupted several times, Judge Roan conceding that Mr. Dorsey could argue the point. Judge Roan ruled in favor of the state, and the question was repeated.

The witness said he was present.

“Go ahead and tell about it.”

Sheriff Mangum said that Chief Beavers, Chief Lanford, Pinkerton Detectve Scott and Jim Conley, the negro, came to the jail together. There were two or three of Frank’s friends at the door on the landing just in front of the cell. The officers didn’t want to stop there because they did not care for these friends of the accused to see them. Chief Beavers asked the sheriff if they, the incoming party, could see Frank, stating that they wanted Conley to confront Frank and tell his story.

FRANK REFUSED AUDIENCE.

“I went to Mr. Frank and told him what Chief Beavers requested. I told him he could see them if he wanted to. He refused, saying that his attorney was not there and there was nobody to listen to what might be said.”

Mr. Rosser: “Frank evidently knew them?”
“Yes, sir,” replied the sheriff.

Solicitor Dorsey: “How do you know whether Frank knew them or not?”
“Well, I had seen in the papers where he had been over to police station and where he had talked with them.”

The solicitor moved to order testimony on that point out of the records, and the court ruled it out.

Sheriff Mangum was excused. The solicitor called for Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan. She did not answer, and the solicitor called for George Epps, the newsboy. He did not answer. The solicitor then made a statement to the court.

JURY SENT OUT.

“Your honor, we have two propositions which we wish to submit,” said the solicitor, “but in doing so we must put up Epps and Dalton. I know the defense will object to this testimony. It is connected with some that is already in the record and to which they have objected.

“I would like to suggest that inasmuch as this prospective testimony has a direct bearing on the subject matter at issue, you now decide as to the admissibility of that evidence.

“Your honor, the state has only one other witness besides these. He is Dr. H. F. Harris, and we cannot get him here before 2 p. m.”

Judge Roan ordered the jury out.

“I want you lawyers now to give me the law,” said Judge Roan to counsel. “Read the law to me without too much discussion.”

Solicitor Dorsey addressed the court.

“I have three propositions to argue. In the first place, we don’t want any evidence ruled out with relation to Frank’s previous customs or his connections with Conley.

“Second, we want to put up witnesses to corroborate Conley’s testimony.

FRANK PINCHED MARY?

“And third, we want to put up George Epps to testify that on the day Mary Phagan was murdered, as she was on the way to the pencil factory, she told Epps that Frank had pinched her and teased her and that she was afraid of him.”

Judge Roan said: “Now let me hear the law on this without too much argument.”

“I don’t suppose there is any authority needed,” said he, “in arguing the admissibility of George Epps’ testimony. I don’t suppose there is a court in the world that would want to hear any authority on that. It’s plain, hearsay evidence.” Mr. Arnold read an excerpt from some decision, however, tending to support his objection to the admissibility of that evidence.”

He argued the second proposition stated by Solicitor Dorsey.

“There is nothing relevant to this case in the negro watching for Frank on previous occasions. Your honor conrelated to the issue. Your honor concedes its inference.” Mr. Arnold cited a number of authorities to support his argument on this matter.

“I shouldn’t argue the original admissibility of this evidence, because Mr. Hooper agreed with me yesterday that it was illegal testimony.”

HOOPER INTERRUPTS.

Mr. Hooper interrupted. “The defense keeps insisting that I agreed yesterday that this shouldn’t have been entered. I want to make myself clear on the subject. I was misunderstood. I said that their objection to the admissibility of this evidence might have been well taken if it had been entered at the time that the testimony was admitted. But I did not commit myself at all.”

Attorney Arnold proceeded, characterizing the state’s position as a bold attempt to prove that the negro watched for Frank on other occasions. The failure to object at the time of the introduction did not mean that they could not later move to have it stricken from the record. He cited a number of decisions from courts in other states, sustaining judges who had stricken evidence after it was admitted and in some cases after the witnesses had been cross-questioned about it.

He said that the defense had been unable to find a case in Georgia where the testimony was stricken after a witness had been cross examined. He supposed this was the first case in the state where that point had arisen, said he.

ARNOLD ARGUES FROM CHAIR.

Attorney Arnold paused. “I’m so hot and faint I feel unable to go much longer.” He did not appear to be very faint. He sat down and asked for a glass of water. “Well, that’s all right,” said Judge Roan, “you can just remain in your seat and proceed.”

“That’s all right,” said Mr. Arnold, “If I am permitted to sit down, I can go on all right.”

Mr. Arnold continued his citation of authorities. He concluded with specific reading of a number of authorities which declared that it was always order for the judge, even on his own motion, to withdraw illegal and irrelevant testimony.

Solicitor Dorsey resumed. He stated that he wanted to speak about the failure of the defendant to ask that this evidence be stricken in time. “I could easily see,” said he, “that if Conley’s evidence goes without corroboration, it will be beneficial to the defendant. Now it is the law that you can put questions to tell of the witness’ relations with the accused, social or otherwise. And that is exactly what Conley did.

IMPORTANT POINT.

“The defendant on cross-examination, even went into Conley’s relations with others in the factory, and I didn’t object because they had that right. Now, I say that this is a material and a powerful fact illustrating the probability of Conley’s story. I saw, second, that they went into detail on it and drew it out, and now they haven’t the right to throw it overboard.”

Mr. Arnold interrupted to say that he had some other authorities which he had forgotten to read and which he should read before t[h]e solicitor finished. He then read excerpts from text books on criminal law.

Mr. Dorsey concluded his argument. The solicitor produced a number of decisions to support his contention. He contended that the evidence was admissible as an original proposition. Judge Roan interrupted him with a question indicating that he judge thought the question was one affecting the character of the defendant. The solicitor promptly declared that it was not, that it had a very important bearing on the bearing and conduct of the accused in relation with the witness, and was connected directly with the case.

Judge Roan interrupted again. “Mr. Dorsey, you understand this is a vital question in the case, concerning the proper administration of the law. I desire to do the right thing with fairness to all parties.”

DORSEY FEARS NONE.

“Your honor, if I convict this man I want to hold him,” said the solicitor. “I’m not afraid of the higher court reversing your honor on that proposition, if you are.” Judge Roan said that he was not thinking about that at all.

The solicitor contended that the defense had slept over its rights in letting the evidence, even if it was inadmissible, get into the records without objection; that they had cross-examined the witness on portions of it for hours.

“And, now, when they find something they don’t want, they are trying to get rid of it,” said he. “They had a right to, and did sift Conley to bring out the relationship existing between him and Frank. This evidence, your honor, established the fact that Frank had full confidence in Conley and was willing to trust him as a lookout for him on such occasions.”

Judge Roan announced an adjournment at this point until 2 o’clock.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, August 6th 1913, “Judge Roan Reverses Decision on Conley Testimony,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 3^rd, 1913

Inadvertent Action of Judge Roan Caused Quick Conference Between Attorneys for the Defense in Frank Case.

PRACTICALLY NOTHING NEW WAS INTRODUCED IN SATURDAY TESTIMONY

Dr. J. W. Hurt, County Physician, Takes Stand to Tell of Examination of the Dead Body of Girl—Testimony Conflicts With Harris’ at Times.

Practically nothing new was adduced from the testimony at Saturday’s session of the Leo M. Frank trial.

But by far the session—which lasted from 9 o’clock until 1 o’clock, adjournment being had until Monday—was fought with the keenest interest of any thus far held.

This was due to the fact that for a time it looked as if a mistrial might be called for by the attorneys for the defense, when inadvertently Judge Roan held up a copy of one of the afternoon newspapers containing a conspicuous headline in red ink in such a position that members of the jury could see it.

Rube Arnold was instantly on his feet and requested that the jury be sent out. This was done and the attorneys for the defense held a brief conference. When they returned Luther Rosser made a statement in which he said he would ask for no mistrial, but he hoped the judge would caution the jury not to be influenced by the sight of the paper—if they had really seen it—and to instruct them fully on this point.

This Judge Roan did and the trial proceeded.

During the time the matter was being discussed the court room was filled with repressed excitement. The strain on Mrs. Frank was particularly noticeable. She seemed to be laboring under the greatest excitement, and her breathing was deep and labored. Her head dropped to the table beside her and it looked as if she was on the verge of a collapse.

DR. HURT ON THE STAND

Dr. Hurt’s testimony added little to the case. He told of the examination he had made of the body immediately after death. He could not state positively whether the little girl had been violated, but said the indication pointed strongly to this being the case.

Mr. Arnold cross-examined him at some length in an effort to discredit the testimony of Dr. Roy Harris that Mary Phagan must have been killed half an hour after she had eaten her breakfast of cabbage and bread. Dr. Hurt thought that cabbage took several hours to digest.

Chief James L. Beavers testified that he was in the National Pencil factory when the blood stains were discovered.

Helen Ferguson the first witness on the stand Saturday, testified that she had called at the National Pencil factory Friday to get Mary Phagan’s pay; that Frank had told her Mary would call for it Saturday.

R. F. Lassiter, a policeman, testified to finding Mary Phagan’s parasol at the bottom of the elevator shaft Monday following the murder.

Court adjourned at 1 o’clock until Monday morning.

The crowd Saturday was the largest of any day of the trial. A special detail of police was necessary to keep them from blocking the entrance and crowding the doorway.

From present indications Jim Conley, the negro sweeper, whose statement that he helped Frank conceal the body in the basement is the strong card of the state, will not go on the stand Tuesday.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, May 24th 1913, “Mistrial Near When Jury Saw a Newspaper in Judge’s Hands,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Journal
August 2^nd, 1913

WHEN JUDGE ROAN UNWITTINGLY HELD RED HEADLINE IN FRONT OF JURY, DEFENSE MADE POINT

Jury Is Sent Out of Room While Attorneys for the Defense Tell the Court That the Jurymen Were Seen Reading Red Headline, “State Adds Links to Chain” — Judge Then Calls Jury Back and Cautions Them

FOLLOWING JUDGE’S SPEECH TO THE JURY, TESTIMONY IS RESUMED, NO FURTHER MOTION MADE BY DEFENSE

In His Address to the Jury, Judge Roan Declared That They Must Not Be Influenced by Anything They Had Read in the Newspaper, but Must Form Their Opinion Solely on the Evidence That Was Developed in Court

A red headline in a newspaper, held in the hands of the presiding judge, came near causing a mistrial Saturday about noon in the case against Leo M. Frank.

While the defense did not ask the court to declare a mistrial in the case, it seriously considered in a conference of attorneys, asking that the case be stopped, and while apparently satisfied with an admonition to the jury to disregard anything they might have seen in a paper, it is probable that the incident will be a part of the basis for an appeal, in event the verdict goes against the defense.

During the course of the discussion of the incident Solicitor Dorsey contended that the jurors had not seen the headline.

During the progress of the trial Judge L. S. Roan picked up an extra edition of an afternoon Atlanta newspaper bearing an eight column red headline touching on the case before the jury. The headline read:

“State Adding Links To Chain.”

Attorney Rosser for the defense noticed the line and also noticed that the members of the jury were craning their necks to read more of the matter on the front page. Immediately he and his associates went into conference and the jury was excused from the room.

After Mr. Arnold and Mr. Rosser returned to the court, following their conference, Mr. Arnold held a brief conversation with the judge. Mr. Rosser requested that the jury be sent out. That was done.

Addressing the court, Mr. Rosser said:

“May it please your honor, a few moments ago your honor thought [words illegible] was redaing [sic] a newspaper. One side of the newspaper was turned up and toward the jury. At the top of the page, in red box-car letters, was a headline which stated that the state is adding link upon link against this man. Every member of the jury read this headline. I [words illegible] leading forward, reading it. We don’t want to make a motion for a new trial, but we do want your honor to call the jury back and explain to it that it must not be influenced by anything it saw in this or any other newspaper. These red box car letters don’t always convey the real facts. These boys over at the press table do their best to get accurate facts. They write their articles and send them to their offices, and someone else writes the headlines.”

Attorney Arnold walked to Judge Roan’s stand and requested the judge to hand to him the newspaper lying on the desk in front of him. Taking the paper in his hand and unfolding it as he walked back to his table, Attorney Arnold said:

“Everybody knows and loves your honor, and everybody knows that you would not wittingly do anything to influence this case one way or another. But, your honor, in reading this paper, you held it up this way.”

Attorney Arnold opened the paper, holding the front page with the red headline toward the jury box.

“The members of the jury read it. This headline reads, ‘State Adds Links to Chain.’ We say these are very weasly links. Nevertheless, the jury read this red headline.”

Judge Roan interrupted to remark: “I don’t suppose that anyone would think that after a week’s hard work with this trial I would do anything to jeopardize it. I will ask this jury if they see anything to influence them.”

Attorney Rosser objected, saying: “We want your honor to put in writing an admonition to the jury that it is to disregard this headline and anything else that it may see in the newspapers.”

SAYS THEY DIDN’T SEE IT.

Solicitor Dorsey spoke.

“We insist, your honor, that the jury did not see this headline. There have been papers in the court room all the time. The defense at the opening of this trial brought in a great pile of the newspapers, which they lay before the jury. The boys on the street constantly are crying these papers, and jurors cannot help but hear them. I do hope that your honor first will inquire of this jury whether it saw anything in this or any other newspaper to influence it. The newspapers have had more damaging headlines than this. I submit that they have treated the state’s case with contempt. They should be put in contempt for the manner in which they have treated the state’s case.”

Judge Roan told Mr. Dorsey that he thought he know what to say, and called in the jury.

The jury was seated.

ROAN’S STATEMENT.

In his statement to the jury Judge Roan neither wholly acquiesced in the contention of the solicitor nor in that of the state.

“Gentlemen of the jury, as you know, this is an important case. We have to be extremely careful and cautious that nothing gets to the jury except the evidence introduced here. It has been said by some that since the trial of this case commenced you have been able to see some writings or headlines in the newspapers that might influence you.

“You, gentlemen of the jury, are trying this case, and by the evidence introduced here. I want to warn you again, and do warn you, that nothing you might see in a newspaper or that you might hear on the streets, or even in the court room, should have a particle of weight, except the evidence put before you legally. If you have seen anything in the newspapers, or heard anything, I beg of you now to free your mind of it, regardless of whether it be helpful to the state or to the defense.”

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Georgian
August 2^nd, 1913

By L. F. WOODRUFF.

Emotion’s entire gamut is daily run on the screen 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 probably be smiling in amused content as if her were witnessing the antics of his favorite comedian.

Looking to the left he may see fear as vividly depicted on a countenance as trapped felon has ever felt.

And another glance might show a spectator in studious contemplation as rapt as that of a philosopher endeavoring 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 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 swayed as the tide of battle turned first for one side and then the other, he would not be qualified for the eminent 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 the hearing has shown that the people chose wisely 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 reasoning.

It is 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 their mental attitude.

There are scores and hundreds right here who believe thoroughly and honestly 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 cases are firmly convinced of one fact in common, and that is that the case of Leo M. Frank is being fairly, honestly and effectively tried according to the law and evidence.

When he does this, he is removing a tremendous amount of the poison in the case. People are too prone to hint that a man’s money can assure 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 prejudice.

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 action 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 picture 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 hairless spot on his high forehead with a handkerchief.

Several times during each day during 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 burning issue that he must play so important a part in deciding.

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Journal
July 29^th, 1913

Indications Are That Trial Will Be Longest Over Which Judge Roan Has Presided, To Hold Two Sessions Daily

Attorneys both for the defense and for the prosecution of Leo M. Frank believe that his trial will last at least one week, perhaps, two weeks.

If the trial continues through more than one week it will be the longest over which Judge L. S. Roan has ever presided.

But, while he will expedite the trial as fast as possible, he intenrs [sic] to give attorneys all the time needed for the introduction of testimony and for argument.

He will hasten the proceedings chiefly by holding afternoon as well as morning sessions. The exact time at which the court will take recess for luncheon, and will adjourn in the afternoon as not been fixed. But the morning session will begin at 9 o’clock, and recess will be taken about 12:30. Court will reconvene again at 2 and will continue in session until about 5:30.

By this arrangement about seven hours a day will be spent in taking testimony, in argument or in other details of the trial.

In giving their opinion of the length of the trial, attorneys for the defense and for the prosecution said:

Solicitor General Hugh Dorsey—“One week, maybe two weeks.”

Attorney Reuben Arnold—“One week, at least.”

Attorney Luther Z. Rosser—“Certainly not less than one week.”

The longest trial in the experience of Judge L. S. Roan, the presiding judge, was the Mitchell case at Thomasville which continued one week. But at that hearing, one witness was kept on the stand during a day and a half.

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Georgian (Hearst’s Sunday American)
July 27^th, 1913

This newspaper article is a continuation from the first page of an Atlanta Georgian newspaper. The first page is missing from our archives. If any readers know where to obtain the first part of this article, we would appreciate any help! Thank you!

[…] Mary Phagan by strangulation. This was followed by the request of the defense that the State’s witnesses be called, sworn and put under the rule.

The prosecution opened by announcing its readiness to go on with the trial and called the list of witnesses. Bailiffs brought them down from the second floor. In regular order called, their names were: Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan; J. W. Coleman, the girl’s stepfather; George Epps, newsboy; L. S. Dobbs, policeman; W. W. Rogers, bailiff for constable; L. S. Starnes, detective and also prosecutor on the indictment; Pat Campbell, detective; Grace Hicks, girl who identified Mary Phagan’s body; J. M. Gantt, once held for inquiry, now supposed, to be a star witness for the prosecution; Harry Scott, the Pinkerton detective; R. P. Barrett, pencil factory employee; B. P. Haslett, policeman; M. [sic] V. Darley, factory employee; W. A. Gheesling, undertaker that cared for the girl’s body; Dr. Claude Smith, City Bacteriologist; Dr. H. F. Harris, member of the State Board of Health; Dr. J. W. Hurt, Coroner’s physician; E. L. Parry, court stenographer; E. S. Smith, Monteen Stover, girl employee at pencil factory; Minola McKnight, cook at Frank’s home; Albert McKnight, Minola’s husband (McKnight did not appear in court); Helen Ferguson, Mrs. Arthur White, wife of factory employee, and L. Stanford.

Agree on Conley Affidavits.

Attorney Reuben Arnold asked concerning the duces tecum that he had served on the State’s attorneys for the affidavits of Jim Conley and others. On the promise of Solicitor Dorsey that he would produce the affidavits whenever needed the duces tecum was waived.

Solicitor Dorsey said he did not concede the right of the defense to force a production of the affidavit. He, however, at the request of Mr. Arnold, dictated a statement giving the dates of each of the affidavits signed by Conley, saying they were all of the affidavits Conley had made and that he would produce them whenever necessary.

The Solicitor asked then that the defense’s witnesses be called and sworn. This was met by strenuous objection on the part of Attorneys Rosser and Arnold, who claimed their list was fragmentary.

Solicitor Dorsey protected vehemently, declaring that it would be extremely unfair to the State not to swear the defense’s witnesses at this time. Attorney Rosser said it would delay the trial to complete their list at this time.

Judge Roan ruled that he would give the defense time to get up the list. The defense capitulated and it took but five minutes for the list to be made up.

Witnesses for Defense.

Attorney Stiles Hopkins, at the table for the defense, called the names of the witnesses by whom they expect to clear Frank. They were Mary Burke, Dora Small, Ella Thomas, C. P. Gilbert, F. Payne, Eula Flowers, Josephine Stelker, Mattie Thompson, Mrs. L. J. Cohen, J. C. Lowe, M. H. Liebman, Miss Bessie White, Joe Williams, Fred Howell, Wade Campbell, J. A. Price, J. E. Lyon, Cora Lavender, M. O. Nix, J. C. Matthews, F. Jenkins, Mrs. Josephine Selig, E. Selig, J. H. Haas, W. H. Mincey, J. B. Spier, E. L. Skipper, E. L. Sentell, Mary Barrett, Rebecca Carson, C. H. Carson, Harry Denham, Corinthia Hall, Mattie Hall, J. L. Holloway, Mrs. George Jefferson, Jerome Michael, George W. Parrott, M. W. Morrow, Mrs. M. W. Morrow, Rabi David Marx, A. E. Mayo, Fred Weller, A. E. Marcus, Ed Montag, L. H. Haas, W. B. Owens, T. Y. Brent and Ossie Shields.

These were all of the witnesses whose names were called, but at least 100 more, who will be used mostly as character witnesses, were in the room passed the 60-year mark. Solicitor Dorsey put the questions, using the formal ones ask in murder trials.

Being conscientiously opposed to capital punishment or conviction by circumstantial evidence was held not to disqualify a juror by Judge Roan. This was in connection with O. T. Camp, the second talesman.

“I am conscientiously opposed to capital punishment on certain grounds,” said Camp.

“What are those grounds,” asked Solicitor Dorsey.

“Circumstantial evidence,” he replied.

Judge Sustains Defense.

“That disqualifies him then,” said Solicitor Dorsey.

Attorney Rosser objected, saying that such belief did not disqualify the juror. Judge Roan sustained the defense, but Solicitor Dorsey struck him.

A. W. Brewerton was disqualified because he was opposed to capital punishment.

W. H. Winn was struck, Solicitor Dorsey taking this action after looking over his record.

R. G. Elliot was struck by the defense.

L. A. Smith was struck for cause.

C. T. Hopkins, Jr., struck by State.

Not One Is Obtained.

W. E. Cates, disqualified because opposed to capital punishment.

T. G. Young, struck by defense.

D. D. Hewey, struck because he did not believe in capital punishment.

That ended the first panel of talesman and not a single juror was obtained. The State struck three and the defense two. Seven were disqualified for cause.

Four Juryman Obtained.

Four jurors were obtained from the second panel. They are:

A. H. Henslee, No. 74 Oak street, a salesman.

F. V. L. Smith, No. 481 Cherokee avenue, a manufacturers agent.

J. F. Higdon, 108 Ormewood avenue, a contractor.

F. E. Winburn, No. 21 Lucille avenue, a claim agent.

On the second panel the following men were struck:

Howard Oliver, by the defense.

H. E. Luckey, for cause.

O. L. Spurlin, No. 156 Lawton street, struck by defense.

H. A. Shide, for cause.

E. E. Hawkins, No. 369 Edgewood avenue, a negro, who was accepted by the prosecution, but struck by the defense.

L. F. Davis, for cause.

David Woodward, for cause.

M. J. Sewell, for cause.

Imposing Array of Counsel.

The buzz of conversation in the little courtroom instantly was hushed when Judge Roan appeared and Deputy Sheriff Plennie Miner called the court to order. The impanelling of jurors was begun at once.

Luther Z. Rosser, chief of counsel for Frank, pressed his way to the defense’s table just as Deputy Miner rapped for order. Solicitor Dorsey and his associates were at their table busily arranging papers and documents several minutes before the swearing of the veniremen began.

An imposing array of legal talent was presented when the case was called. Heading counsel for Frank were Rosser and Reuben R. Arnold, two of the foremost lawyers of the South. At their table were Herbert J. Haas, a civil attorney, who has been engaged in looking up character witnesses in behalf of Frank; Styles Hopkins of the Rosser & Brandon law firm; Oscar Simmons and Paul Goss, engaged especially to assist in picking the jury; George Cox, of Arnold & Arnold law firm, and Luther Z. Rosser, Jr.

Wife at Frank’s Side.

With Solicitor Dorsey were Frank A. Hooper, the brilliant attorney who made his reputation as a prosecutor in criminal cases. E. A. Stephens, Assistant Solicitor, and detectives who have been working on the case. Jim Conley’s attorney, W. M. Smith, also was in court.

A stir was created when Mrs. Frank, wife of the accused made her way into the courtroom and hurried past the rows of spectators into the anteroom where her husband was confined. She bore herself bravely and when she reached Frank, was seen to converse cheerfully with him.

The loyal woman, who insisted on being by the side of her husband until he was called into the courtroom with his attorneys, drew the attention away from the routine proceedings several minutes.

Judge Roan in Good Humor.

Judge Roan appeared in unusually radiant humor and enlivened the dull routine of the early proceedings with facetious remarks directed at the jurors who sought to evade duty on various pretexts.

To one who claimed deafness, Judge Roan said that he had heard his own name readily enough when it was called.

Another juror, Dr. E. L. Connally, well known capitalist, and gray haired veteran of the war, remarked, smiling rather slyly, that he thought he was over age.

Plea Wins Excuse.

“How do you know that?” inquired the judge.

“My mother says I am,” was Dr. Connally’s reply.

“Do you claim exemption on that account?” asked the court.

“I guess I do, judge,” admitted the capitalist.

“Well, then, I guess I will excuse you,” said the judge, amid a general laugh from the courtroom.

Dr. Connally left his place with a vigor that belled his years.

Old Dr. Stork was responsible for the excusing of several of the jurors. By the time the eighth panel of men had taken the oath three men had told of new arrivals at their homes and had been excused.

Defense Not to Ask Delay.

Luther Z. Rosser, of counsel for the defense, stated to a Georgian reporter as he left his office for the scene of the trial that [t]he defense would make no move for delay.

“We will not seek a change of venue or make any move of any kind to delay justice for our client,” he said. “We are entirely confident that justice and truth will prevail as it always must.”

Reuben R. Arnold, of the defense, made the same kind of a statement.

“We will announce ready as soon as the case is called,” he said.

One important witness for the defense was reported to be missing. He is a traveling salesman, and the defense was said to be confident of locating him.

Sentell in Navy Now.

Edgar L. Sentell, who testified that he saw Arthur Mullinax and Mary Phagan together at midnight of the day of the crime, has enlisted in the navy and will not be able to appear at the trial.

A great crowd gathered in front of the courthouse as the hour of the trial drew near, and when 9 o’clock arrived, Pryor street at Hunter was almost impassable. The corridors of the courthouse were a mass of humanity, through which a lane had to be cut by deputies to allow the passage of witnesses and lawyers and newspaper men.

The crowd was tense with curiosity, but to all appearances inclined to be orderly and apparently was moved only by the commonest of human motives—curiosity.

Frank Feeling Fine, He Says.

Frank was escorted from the Tower to the courthouse shortly after 6 o’clock in the morning, nearly three hours before the trial was scheduled to begin. This was done to avoid the curious crowd which it was expected would be about the courthouse and thronging the corridors at 9 o’clock.

Frank was up and dressed and freshly shaven when Deputy Sheriff Plennie Minor appeared before his cell at the early hour.

“How are you feeling this morning, Mr. Frank?” the deputy inquired.

“Tip top, only I’m mighty hungry,” replied Frank.

Exhibiting the same poised confidence that has characterized him through three months since he was locked in a cell in the county jail, the young factory superintendent chatted freely with Miner on the way to the courthouse.

Sure He Will Be Freed.

He was attired in a natty light gray mohair suit and wore a fancy gray tie. His face was fuller and he appeared slightly heavier than when he was arrested shortly after the murder of the Phagan girl. He seemed cheerful and in the best of health.

“I am very sure of acquittal,” he said, as he arrived at the courthouse. “I am glad that the trial is about to begin after the long wait. I have no fear of the outcome. I am not only innocent of the terrible crime, but I am innocent of any knowledge of it, save as the information has come tome since the officers came to my house that morning three months ago.”

At this moment E. C. Essenbach, a relative of Frank, appeared with a tempting breakfast which was spread in the prisoners’ room at the courthouse. Frank gave ocular proof that his appetite had not suffered from his long confinement as he proceeded to make way with the delicacies prepared for him.

Frank greeted his relative cheerfully and conversed with him for more than an hour. The topic seldom was on the crime or the trial which was about to begin. Long before the time set for the judge to take the bench other friends and relatives of the prisoner had appeared and some of them were permitted to talk to him.

Conley Ready For the Stand.

Jim Conley, Frank’s accuser, was made ready for the trial early in the morning, although it was not probable that he would be called during the day.

He was given a shave and a new suit of clothes, as he had worn for the last three months the same shabby garments that he had on at the time he was arrested while washing a shirt at the National Pencil Factory.

Conley said that he was ready to go on the witness stand at an instant’s notice. He declared that he would stick to the same story that he told in his last affidavit and which he has since repeated many times for the benefit of Solicitor Dorsey.

“If they had just let me face Mr. Frank, I could have made him tell the truth long before this,” he asserted.

Less than half a hundred persons were waiting about the courthouse at 8 o’clock, an hour before the time set for the beginning of the trial. It was thought that not a large crowd would be clamoring for admission to the courtroom as it had become quite generally known that the small room would accommodate hardly more than the witnesses and the veniremen and that it would be necessary to exclude practically all spectators.

Much Preparation Made.

For no trial in the history of Georgia have such elaborate arrangements been made for the comfort of the comparatively small number of spectators who will gain admission, the attorneys who will handle the case, the jury and the newspaper men. Deputy Sheriff Plennie Miner has received much praise for the splendid preparations made.

Electric fans have been installed at every window and on the railing separating the spectators’ seats from the bar, ozonators have been placed to keep the air purified. It probably will be the coolest and best ventilated place in Atlanta.

Not more than 250 spectators will be admitted. Approximately that number of chairs have been placed outside the inclosure. When they are filled the doors will be closed and no one else will be allowed in. No one will be permitted to occupy standing room.

The usual custom of permitting disinterested attorneys to occupy seats inside the bar will not be followed, and this particular part of the courtroom will be less crowded than during the average criminal trial.

How They Will Line Up.

Prosecuting Attorney Dorsey and at least five assistants will occupy a table directly in front of the bench and witness stand with the jury box close on the righthand side. Attorney Rosser with his assistants and the accused will be seated at a table to the left of the State’s and farther away from the jury. The table for newspaper men is back of the State’s table. The arrangements were agreed upon by the attorneys and the judge.

The table for the defense was selected by Attorney Rosser with a view to the number of persons who would wish to be near Frank during the trial. Seats have been arranged to the back of the table to accommodate at least 30 persons, friends and relatives of the accused, who have visited him constantly since he was confined at the Tower.

Deputy Sheriff Plennie Miner, who have charge of the crowd and keeping order in court, will also have charge of the prisoners. Long before any crowd congregated around the courthouse Frank and Lee were brought from the Tower and placed in the room reserved for them. When court opened Frank took his place at the table reserved for his attorneys.

No Room For Spectators Now.

For the first day of the trial, or until the jury is selected and the hearing actually under way, it is extremely doubtful if any spectator will gain admission to the court. Seating arrangements have only been provided for about 250. The venire of 144 men will have to occupy that number of the seats when court is opened. The witnesses for the two sides will occupy the remaining seats and standing room until they are disposed of in some way, which may not be until after the jury is drawn.

The court rule to segregate the witnesses will, of course, be enforced, have qualified as jurors, which will hardly be before the middle of the week.

When the witnesses are segregated they will be kept in the large courtroom on the floor above the trial room. A bailiff will be placed in the hall and one on the door of the witness chamber, and as the names are called they will be brought from the floor above to the court.

It is probable some rule will be made to keep the witnesses for the State and the defense separated, in which event the third floor of the building would have to be used.

Jury Room Carefully Selected.

But if any great difficulty is anticipated in drawing a jury, and the judge thinks it impossible to finish this task during any one day, he will probably excuse the witnesses until the next day, and continue to do so until the jury is impaneled.

The jury room was selected with a great deal of care. It is almost inaccessible from the outside and large and airy. Its windows are about twenty feet above an alleyway that runs on either side. Deputies will be kept in the alley to keep anyone from getting this close to the room.

As each juror qualifies he will be escorted to the room and kept there until the full panel is drawn. Recess will be taken at 1 o’clock in the afternoon and the jury will be taken to luncheon at a restaurant almost directly across the street from the court. At night it will be quartered at the Kimball House under a heavy guard of deputies.

From the time a juror is acceptable to both sides until the conclusion of the case he will not be allowed to go to his home or communicate with anyone except a fellow juror.

The least of the deputies’ troubles will not be in handling the crowd that will gain admission to the court, but in handling the crowd that will daily congregate on the outside and wait through the day for news of the proceedings in the trial. Ten deputies and as many members of the county police will be on duty on the streets around the building.

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Georgian (Hearst’s Sunday American)
July 27^th, 1913

Solves Discrepancies of Time

Mistaken Identity To Be Plea

Leo M. Frank Goes to Trial for the Slaying of Mary Phagan Monday, With Both Prosecution and the Defense Confident.

All Preparations Are Made for Big Crowds—Judge Roan to Be on Bench, Despite Recent Illness—Bitter Battle Expected.

Leo M. Frank will go on trial for his life to-morrow forenoon. With the beginning of the great legal battle, hardly more than 24 hours distant, it has been learned that the prosecution has overcome to its own satisfaction the greatest obstacle with which it has been confronted—the reconciling of the negro Conley with that contained in the statements of all the persons who visited the factory and were seen by Conley the day that Mary Phagan was murdered.

The most powerful argument against the truthfulness of the remarkable affidavit in which Conley told of helping Frank dispose of the body of the slain girl was contained in the fact that Conley’s original story in its designation of the time of various occurrences at the factory was in direct conflict with the statements of a number of the factory employees.

Miss Mattie Smith, one of the young women working for the National Pencil Company, told when she was first questioned of leaving the factory at about 9:30. Foreman M. B. Darley walked down the steps with her and said at the Coroner’s inquest that the hour was about 9:30.

At this stage of the investigation the time element in the forenoon had not assumed the vital importance which it now has, and Miss Smith and Darley, so far as is known, had no reason for misrepresenting the time that they departed from the building.

Difference in Time Baffling.

Yet when Conley came to make his affidavits he repeated the conversation of Darley and Miss Smith which he had overheard while hidden behind the boxes on the first floor, and described Miss Smith’s attire beyond mistake, although he stoutly maintained that he did not get to the factory until he arrived there with Frank at about 11 o’clock, when Frank returned from his visit to Montag Brothers’ plant at Nelson and Forsyth streets.

How could he have overheard a conversation that took place at 9:30 o’clock when he did not arrive at the factory until 11 o’clock was a mystery that baffled the detectives and the prosecution until Solicitor Dorsey had Miss Smith summoned to this office, and she told him that she had seen a negro, presumably Conley, in the factory at three minutes before 9 o’clock when she went there for her money Saturday morning.

From reliable sources the information comes that the negro, in one of the protected quizzings that was given him by the Solicitor, admitted that he was in the factory before the time he had named in his first stories, and that he listened to the Smith-Darley conversation at about 9:30, instead of an hour and a half later.

Discrepancy in Story.

Another discrepancy occurred in his story of the visit of Miss Corinthia Hall and Miss Emma Clark to Frank’s office. He declared that Frank said: “My God, here come Corinthia Hall and Emma Clark,” while Frank was preparing to dictate the notes about 1 o’clock. The two young women, however, entered the factory more than an hour before and left at about 11:45 to go on a nearby lunchroom.

It is understood that the prosecution will contend that Frank was mistaken in the identity of the two young women when he heard them approaching, and that as a matter of fact, two other women entered the office. It is said that Solicitor Dorsey has the names of the two who, he says, were in Frank’s office at about 1 o’clock, and that he will call them as witnesses.

How the most recent changes in the negro’s story will affect the credibility when he goes before a jury is problematical. The defense is certain to train its most destructive guns upon Conley’s veracity. The alterations, by which the State hopes to strengthen the case, may instead weaken it for the attack which will be made by the [several words illegible] […]

COURT IN READINESS FOR FRANK TRIAL OPENING

Factory Superintendent To Be Placed on Trial for Girl’s Slaying Monday Morning—Both Sides Confident of Winning a Victory.

[…] defending Frank. They already ridicule the idea of accepting an iota of Conley’s testimony, in view of the many changes he has made in it since he first talked to the detectives. They brand him as a perjurer and his statements rot.

State Ready for Fight.

Solicitor Dorsey and his associate in the prosecution, Frank A. Hooper, have been preparing themselves for the fight that may be precipitated at any moment after the opening of the trial over the subpenas duces tecum which have been issued by Luther Z. Rosser and Reuben R. Arnold, lawyers for Frank.

The subpenas, which were issued last month when it was thought that the trial might begin June 30, commanded Solicitor Dorsey, Chief Lanford, Chief Beavers, Harry Scott and other detectives who had worked on the Phagan mystery to bring to court with them the affidavits of Jim Conley, Newt Lee, Monteen Stover, W. M. Matthews and several other witnesses.

The attorneys for the prosecutor branded the subpenas as a trick to discredit the State’s witnesses if their testimony should vary in the slightest from that contained in the affidavits. They announced that they would fight the move before the bar of the court. If unsuccessful, it was regarded as not unlikely that they would retaliate with subpenas duces tecum of their own. It is possible that the skirmish over the subpenas may precede the drawing of the jury, which also will involve a large amount of legal jockeying.

P. H. Brewster, one of the oldest members of the Atlanta bar, and known for his wealth of legal information, has been called into assist the prosecution in preparing certain phases of its case.

Colonel Brewster to Figure.

Colonel Brewster has compiled briefs bearing on the admissibility of every particle of evidence which the prosecution has in its possession, and he is expected to be an interesting figure in the courtroom during the progress of the trial.

Attorneys for the defense announced yesterday that they knew of nothing that would influence them to ask for a continuance when the case is called to-morrow. Subpenas have been issued for about 150 witnesses by Frank’s lawyers. One of the subpenas was served upon Harry Scott, who conducted the investigation into the murder mystery for the Pinkerton Agency. Scott also is under summons by the prosecution.

Frank and his attorneys will go into the trial confident of an acquittal. Evidence has been in their possession for weeks which points suspicion directly at the negro Conley.

All of the veniremen, with the exception of two or three who could not be located yesterday, have been notified to appear. The courtroom has been prepared for the crowd that will pack it while the trial is in progress.

Judge Roan has said that he knows of no reason why there should be a further postponement.

Judge Roan to Preside.

The formal trial of Leo M. Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan will begin at 9 o’clock Monday morning, when Judge L. S. Roan calls the criminal division of the Superior Court to order in the courtroom on the first floor of the old City Hall, South Pryor and Hunter streets.

Under direction of Deputy Sheriff Plennie Minor, all preparations for receiving the vast crowds that are expected to be drawn by the celebrated case have been made. Benches, outside the space reserved for the attorneys and newspaper men, have been replaced with chairs there, and the seating capacity of the room has been raised to 250. No spectator will be admitted after the seats are filled.

Saturday morning electricians were installing half a dozen electric fans, which will help to make the room comfortable during the battle to come. There also have been installed half a dozen ozonators to help purify the air.

Judge Roan was in his chambers all of Saturday. He declared that despite his recent attack of indigestion he will be on the bench when the hour of the trial arrives.