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

Atlanta Constitution
August 15^th, 1913

At the opening of the morning session yesterday Solicitor Dorsey motioned for the court to exclude the wife and mother of Leo M. Frank, Mrs. Lucille Frank and Mrs. Rae Frank, on account of the sensational outburst of the mother Wednesday afternoon, when she denounced the solicitor for attacking the character of her son.

In reply to the solicitor’s move to have the mother and wife of the defendant excluded from the court room, Attorney Arnold made a strong speech in their behalf, saying:

“It is a new doctrine to me where a wife and mother of the defendant cannot sit in court with him in the hour of his trial. I promise there will be no more outbreaks in court. Mrs. Frank, his wife, has sat through the trial, quietly and orderly. My friend’s conduct, I would think (meaning Dorsey) was a little more culpable than that of the mother’s. A man, even though he represent the prosecution, is not entitled to just do anything he pleases. It appears to me as though he were injecting these vile, filthy questions and innuendoes, merely for the purpose of inflaming the jury.”

The solicitor said:

“The defense has put the defendant’s character into evidence. I did not ask a witness a single question which I cannot uphold by plenty of evidence and testimony, including the statements of worthy girls and women. I submit that it is in absolute good faith that I am asking these questions. It is a mistaken idea that I am overly zealous in this case. I am only doing my duty as prosecuting attorney. It is unfair to exclude all over women and then to admit the defendant’s wife and mother and when I am doing my duty, to have them rail out at me.”

Judge Roan ruled that the two women could remain in the court room, but stated that any more such outbreaks would mean their prompt exclusion.

Wanted Questions Ruled Out.

Following this argument, Attorney Rosser made a motion to rule out certain questions and answers which Dorsey had put on cross-examination to witnesses for the defense, which questions pertained to the unsavory reports over which there have been many legal battles during the trial. He was overruled.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 15th 1913, “Wife and Mother of Frank are Permitted to Remain in Court,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Georgian
August 4^th, 1913

Wife and Mother of the Accused Pencil Factory Superintendent Sit Calmly Through Trial.

By TARLETON COLLIER

Women are brought into a court room, as all the world knows, for one of two purposes. Their presence may have a moral effect in softening the heart of a juror, particularly if they be young, pretty or wistful of countenance. Or they may be there on the affectionate mission of cheering and encouraging a beloved defendant.

Two women sat with Leo Frank through all the hot, weary days of last week. Their object was the one or the other. Which?

A study of these women was the answer. Everybody studied them. Everybody knew that love and trust inspired them. Whether Frank be innocent or guilty, to his credit be it said that he is loved by the women closest to him.

His mother was one of the two, a woman on whose face was written plainly the story of a life in which there was much of grief, much of the tenderest joy, much of loving and being loved.

Tragedy in Mother’s Face.

Her eyes were sad. Her features never lost their tragic composure. But it was plain that smiles had come often to her in the course of her life. The face is common to mothers.

The other woman was his wife, a robust, wholesome young woman. Her face was the placid face of one whose life has been pleasant. No unhappy event had come to mar a single feature. None of the troubles that had been the mother’s had come to her until this calamity.

If the younger Mrs. Frank were not so plainly the sane, rational young woman that she is, you would say that she should be overcome by the circumstances of the accusation and trial of her husband. She impresses you as being very young, indeed. But she is too wholesome of mind and body. You see that, as you study her.

She is reserved, too, in a sort of proud way. It is not a natural pride, but a glory in her love for the man on whose chair her arm rests, day after day of the trial.

This proud reserve is the mother’s, too. These women do not laugh at the not infrequent ludicrous incidents that arise. They do not smile, except when the man at whose side they sit smiles into their eyes. Neither do they cry.

It is this reserve that supported them through the ordeal that came Friday and Saturday. Two physicians were on the stand, and the things they told was not fit for casual conversation. Other women left the room.

Womanly Reserve—and Ugly Words.

But the two had come to be with Leo Frank. Through all the ghastly, sordid revelations they sat, armed with this quality of womanly reserve. The face of the younger woman quivered at times, involuntarily. But for most of the time the two sat unmoved, as if unconscious that hundreds of curious masculine eyes were on them, after the usparing way of masculine eyes, to see how the ugly words affected them.

Through it all the women looked straight ahead, as if seeing nothing. The arm of Mrs. Frank, the wife, rested on the back of her husband’s chair, encircling his shoulders and lightly touching them. Now and then the hand pressed his arm as a particularly revolting bit was uttered.

It was a sublime courage and reserve.

You knew then that the presence of these two women in the court room was not for its effect on the jury, not for affectation, but for the encouragement of the man who is on trial for his life.

These are not women, is your conclusion, to sit in company with an accused man for policy’s sake.

You would find your conviction deepened could you see this mother and this wife with Frank in the anteroom of the court during recesses. They are not demonstrative during the trial. There is a smile now and then, for a bare second, and nothing more.

The Reserve Is Broken.

But when recess is taken, and the court room is cleared, and the prisoner and his wife and mother are together in the little room at the side, the reserve is breaks. The wife kisses her husband, freely, tenderly. Then the mother. After that they part, he goes to jail, and they await the call of court.

When the trial begins, they usually are in their chairs waiting for him. He enters with the deputy, to be greeted by a smile or merely a look from them. They are a reserved people, these Franks.

And it is all very plain why these women come to court, and sit by the side of the man who is on trial. Not for effect, surely.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, August 4th 1913, “Ordeal is Borne With Reserve by Franks,” 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
July 30^th, 1913

She Declares Her Confidence in Son’s Innocence Makes It Easy for Her

“My son never looked stronger than at this moment,” said Mrs. Ray Frank, of Brooklyn, Wednesday morning. “The trial isn’t telling upon him because he isn’t worrying. He is confident because of his innocence and because of his certainty of an acquittal.

“Neither his wife nor myself is anxious. Of course, we feel the heat and it is tiring to sit here in the court room throughout the day. But, like my son, we are not afraid. Why should we be? We know that he is innocent and we know that, because of this fact, he will be acquitted.

“I, his mother, know that he is free from all guilt of the charge upon which he is being tried, and that this trial can have only one result—his acquittal.

“If any of us was afraid—my son, his wife, or myself—if we were doubtful of what the evidence will prove, this would be a ter[r]ible ordeal for each of us. Think how I would feel! To sit, and know that all that was said and done either tended to save or doom my son. To know that his fate really hung in the balance. I don’t see how I could bear that.

“But I don’t believe there is any uncertainty. I am confident, and so is he and so is his wife—confident in the knowledge that he is innocent and that he will be able to prove his innocence.”

“What are you saying?” Frank asked, turning from his lawyers who were bundling up a number of legal papers at the end of Tuesday afternoon’s session of court.

His mother leaned over, whispered in his ear, and kissed him.

Throughout the trial Frank’s mother and his wife have sat, one on each side of him. His wife usually has her arm resting on the back of his chair, and occasionally leans over to speak to him.

“I have felt the heat,” she said Tuesday afternoon. “No. Of course I’m not doubtful. How could there be but one outcome of his trial? My husband is innocent. He will be acquitted.”

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

Atlanta Georgian
July 30^th, 1913

Defendant Perfect in Poise, His Wife Picture of Contemptuous Confidence.

By L. F. WOODRUFF.

Arm akimbo; glasses firmly set, changing position seldom, Leo M. Frank sits through his trial with his thoughts in Kamchatka, Terra del Fuego, or the Antipodes, so far as the spectators in the courtroom can judge.

He may realize that if the twelve men he faces decide that he is guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan, the decree of earthly court will be that his sole hope of the future will be an appeal to the Court on High. His mind may constantly carry the impression of the likelihood of the solemn reading of the death warrant, the awful march to the death chamber, the sight of the all terrifying gibbet, the dreadful ascension of its steel stairs, the few words of religious consolation—and then the drop.

Frank’s Face a Mask.

But if he does realize these things, his face is as completely masked against emotion as that of a skilled poker player.

To all appearances, he is the defendant in a civil suit on a contract of $100, and he has the money in his pocket to pay the judgment if the court should rule against him.

An outsider entering the courtroom, uninformed, would look in vain for the man whose chief interest is in the trial.

There is a world of earnestness written on the faces of the array of counsel. The jurors sit with fixed faces. Their nervous fanning tells their emotion. The court is all interest and the spectators lean forward, ears strained to catch every word, eyes keen to observe every move.

But Leo Frank sits there placid as a pool, calm as a champion about to go forth to assured victory. If anything, his appearance indicates that the trial is not a trial to him. It is simply a detail of a misfortune that is through circumstance.

Frank’s months in prison have not affected him physically. His eyes are extremely luminous. His olive skirt is exceedingly clear. He holds his spare frame erectly.

He speaks seldom. Occasionally he turns to pass a word with his wife. Every now and then he has a brief conference with his counsel. More often he gazes straight ahead—at nothing.

He sits next to the massive Luther Rosser. When Rosser is on his feet he is next to studious-appearing Reub[en] Arnold. When he speaks to them, his voice is impassionate and his sentences are carefully framed.

Frank’s Wife Confident.

Behind him is his wife. Mrs. Frank is a remarkably handsome woman. She shares the stoicism of her husband in the trial. Though she has not missed one minute of the hearing, she has never shown that she realizes that the outcome of the case may change her to a widow.

Twice after the court has taken recesees, and Frank has been turned over to his deputy sheriff guardian, she has embraced and kissed him.

But afterward she has walked from the courtroom, head thrown back, shoulders erect, apparently unconcerned. On the street she would be taken for a woman out for an afternoon of shopping rather than the woman who bears the name of the man charged with the blackest crime known to Atlanta criminology.

Then to the left of her sits the pathetic figure of the trial. To those who believe Frank guilty, his personality is not one to arouse pity. His self-assurance is too apparent. His wife hardly stirs sympathy. She, too, is apparently confident of victory.

But there’s the mother. Hour after hour she sits and listens to men trying to send her firstborn to the gallows. Hour after hour she is thrilled by the skillful struggle that his counsel makes to have the family name cleared of the stain brought by the charge that now rests against it.

Mrs. Frank is a motherly-looking woman. Her form is simple, and in her younger days was evidently a woman of striking appearance. She is typical of the mother of her race—the revered head of the Hebrew family.

In this trial, though her eyes are practically always fixed on her son. Their yearning light spreads through the big courtroom.

Their every flash rends the message that she wants him back on her breast a free man.

No single feature of the trial escapes her. When the prosecution scores, another line is added to the face that has been wrinkled by the three months of waiting and horror. When the defense seems to have an advantage, there is a joy expressed as great as the power of Niagara.

When the attorneys ask a question, her eyes are fixed on the questioner. When the witness answers her gaze is on him. When the court rules, every movement of his lips is marked by her.

But there is always an eye for her son. During the trial he wished a drink of water. The pitcher was on the desk of his counsel, far from his seat and near hers.

When he looked for it, she divined his wish. She was on her feet in a second. The glass was in her hand. The water was poured out. In her trembling grasp it was passed to him.

As he took it his stoicism broke. He smiled his acknowledgement of the little act of kindness, and there was a wealth of love in his smile, and she smiled back reassurance. Superlatives couldn’t tell the meaning of that smile.

* * *

Mary Phagan is dead. She died horribly, the victim of as cruel a beast as ever polluted the soil of the Southland.

But Mary Phagan is dead; she sleeps peacefully beneath a flowered sod.

The mother of Leo Frank is alive and be her son innocent or guilty, the mother is the pitiful figure in this black and baffling mystery.

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

Atlanta Constitution
July 29^th, 1913

Up to the hour of the trial, Mrs. Leo M. Frank, wife of the young man now on trial for his life, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan, had kept in the background of the case. Daily she visited her husband at the jail, and brought him delicacies. She came quietly, and when she departed she created no stir of excitement among the hangers-on around the jail. She was accorded the most chivalrous treatment, and her desire to avoid notoriety was respected. Only once did an expression from her appear in the public prints, and then only because she felt her husband had not been fairly dealt with, and her wifey feelings compelled her to express her opinion of certain phases of the case.

Object of Great Interest.

For this reason there was a great deal of curiosity as to whether she would be present at the trial, and when she did make her appearance she was the object of an interest second only to that felt in her husband, by whose side she sat during the entire day. This interest, however, was not obtrusive or offensive. It was at all times respectful—a very natural interest which could not be repressed.

Mrs. Frank is a pretty woman, and she was dressed becomingly. She wore a thin China silk shirtwaist, a black skirt and black hat, topped with tulle. When she entered the courtroom she wore a pair of white kid gloves, but as the trial progressed and the heat of the room became oppressive she removed them.

Composed During Trial.

Her demeanor was one of quiet composure, tinged at times with amusement as she overheard some bantering remark among the attorneys for her husband. If she was one whit nervous amid the crowd and the morbid scene which surrounded her, she did not display the fact. She was the type of the well-poised, capable, affectionate American wife swiftly adjusting herself to a novel and trying situation.

Scarcely had she taken her seat, and before she had accustomed herself to her surroundings, than her eyes sought those of Solicitor General Hugh Dorsey, the man upon whom devolves the unpleasant duty of prosecuting her husband. The look was one which measured the man from crown of head to soles of feet—a look which seemed to say:

Confident of Acquittal.

“You will try to convict my husband, but you will fail—you will fail because he is innocent of this crime. He is my husband, and I know him to be incapable of such a deed.”

Through the long hours of the morning her eyes constantly sought those of the solicitor, and her look was ever that of careful estimate. There was nothing bitter in the look, nothing vindictive—just the calm, level look of a woman seeking to fathom a man’s thoughts. At times there was the slightest trace of a tolerant smile. Tolerant expresses it.

It was a different sort of look she gave the candidates for jury duty. No keener mind was there in all the courtroom—no more capable judge of character, apparently.

During the afternoon session when the examination of witnesses was in progress, Mrs. Frank seemed to follow the thread of the several narratives with an interest more keen than that of her husband. She was quick to see a point. She seemed to sense the purport of a question before it was fully put.

From time to time she would turn to her husband and address some remark, smiling as she spoke.

When the day’s proceedings came to an end Mrs. Frank did not appear fatigued in the least. She was the same well-poised, capable young woman who some hours earlier had entered the courtroom to witness the trial of her husband.

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

Atlanta Journal
July 28^th, 1913

Accused Neither Care-Worn Nor Haggard—His Eyes Meet Those of Crowd Without Faltering

There was one question on the face of every member of the big crowd in and around the courthouse Monday morning. To those standing without in the street, to those crowding the corridors and hallways, to witnesses flowing through rooms on the second floor, to the packed courtroom, the query was, where is the prisoner.

The man to whom the trial meant more than it meant to any other human being, had been brought to the courthouse early in the morning.

He was in a bare walled little room a few feet from the doorway leading to the court. With him sat two deputy sheriffs, his father-in-law, Emile Selig, and a friend.

From time to time during the morning the curious slipped to the door and gazed in at the accused. They saw a little man whose dark eyes gazed at them unwinking through big glasses. He was pale, but neither care-worn nor haggard. He wore a light gray suit striped with darker gray, black shoes, and a black and white four-in-hand tie.

Hardly once during the morning did Frank sit down. He held in his hand a daily paper and strolled aimlessly around the room, flicking with it at the table and the chairs.

Shortly after 9 o’clock there was a stir in the court room. Guided by a deputy sheriff two women pushed past the staring jurymen and vanished in the direction of Frank’s room. They were Mrs. Frank and her mother, Mrs. Selig.

The wife of the accused man wore a black suit, a black hat, and a heavy veil. Mrs. Selig was dressed entirely in white, and carried a white parasol. She was not veiled.

The little man in the gray suit looked up eagerly as the two women entered the room. His lips were parted in a half-smile, his arms were raised toward the door.

The woman in black and the man in the gray suit were in each other’s arms. She spoke once as she kissed his wan cheeks and fondled the black hair, “My lad, my lad!”

Mrs. Selig kissed Frank on both cheeks, grasped him by the arms, and held him off to gaze in almost a proud manner at her son-in-law. Then Frank and the woman gathered in a little group near the big table. All were standing.

They spoke in whispers. Every now and then one of them would pat the other on the shoulder. Frank was smiling slightly and his wife seemed to be unable to keep her hands from touching him. She would straighten the black-and-white tie, stroke his coat collar, never taking her eyes from his face.

Mrs. Selig took a seat over near the wall and fixed her eyes on the couple standing near the table. She was smiling, too, a wistful almost pleading smile. At intervals she would get up and approach them. Once she took Frank by the chin and shook it gently as if to tell him that he could not lose. He laughed as she did it.

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

Atlanta Georgian
July 28^th, 1913

Wife Helps Prisoner Pick Men to Try Him

All in Readiness for Real Trial to Begin After Short Recess

Events on the opening day of the trial of Leo M. Frank, accused of the slaying of Mary Phagan in the National Pencil Factory, moved with such unexpected swiftness that it was apparent that the trial proper would be under way and the first witnesses called before the close of the first day’s session. The jury had been completed by the time recess was taken at 1:30.

After a few preliminary clashes between the opposing attorneys which presaged a bitter struggle when the fight for Frank’s life actually was begun, the court settled down to the selection of the jury. The whole morning session up to the recess was occupied with the examination of veniremen.

All the force of attorneys at the table for the defense watched with keen eyes every man examined and frequently referred to a voluminous r[e]cord containing the names of all the veniremen and detailed statements of their history and associations so far as these might have a bearing on their desirability as jurors to pass on Leo Frank’s guilt or innocence.

The keenest interest was manifested by those in the crowded little courtroom as the strategies of the brilliant lawyers were revealed during the examination.

State Had Veniremen’s Records.

The thoroughness with which the Solicitor and his assistants had canvassed the history of every venireman and had investigated whether or not he had ever expressed an opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused was demonstrated when W. W. Hemmett, a salesman for the Kingsbury Shoe Company, was being examined as to his qualifications.

“Have you ever said you thought Frank was guilty?” Mr. Dorsey inquired.

“No, I never have,” replied Hemmett.

Here the Solicitor referred to some notes at hand and proceeded to call to Hemmett’s recollection a certain talk he had with acquaintances at a certain time. Hemmett was forced to admit that he had talked of the case at that time, but declared that he had not expressed a definite opinion.

“I only said I would have to hear some evidence before I would believe Frank was guilty,” he told Judge Roan.

He was rejected for cause.

Defense Equally Alert.

The defense showed that it was exactly as vigilant when the next venireman was examined. As soon as A. L. Bellingrath, of No. 91 Milledge avenue, arose from his seat, Attorney Arnold was on his feet prepared to state the objection of the defense. He pointed out that Bellingrath was the brother of Henry Bellingrath who has been employed in the Solicitor’s office during the Phagan investigation and that he was reported to have expressed an opinion on the guilt of Frank.

A shrewd bit of strategy was used by Solicitor Dorsey and Attorney Hooper in accepting the two negroes whose names were among the veniremen.

By doing this they forced the defense to use up two of their twenty challenges if they did not desire to have negroes on the jury. With Jim Conley, a negro, likely to be indicted for the murder in the event that Frank is cleared, the defense had no intention of allowing them to pass on Frank’s guilt and promptly struck them. The two negroes were Earl Davis and E. E. Hawkins.

Defense Loses First Clash.

The attorneys for Leo M. Frank lost out in their first skirmish with the prosecution, being compelled to read […]

Frank Assists His Attorneys in Eliminating Veniremen

Wife Sits With Dagger-Like Gaze on the Prosecutor of Her Husband

Accused Close Watcher as the Men Who are to Decide Fate are Picked

[…] their list of witnesses against their wishes and their vigorous protests.

They evened up matters by obtaining from Solicitor Dorsey the concession of honoring the subpenas lecus tecum issued by the defense and demanding the production in court of all the affidavits of Jim Conley. After a short passage between Attorney Arnold for Frank and Solicitor Dorsey that the list must be read, the judge ruled, and the list was read by Attorney Stiles Hopkins.

The list included employees of the National Pencil Factory, where the murdered girl worked; members of Frank’s immediate family, and other relatives and associates of the accused man, members of the same fraternal orders, acquaintances who saw Frank on the day of the crime and classmates in college.

Jurymen Chosen.

The reading of the last names came as a complete surprise. It developed that the defense had scoured the country for persons who had known Frank when he was a student at Cornell. They were subpenaed to bring the character testimony in his behalf up to the time he began his business career.

The picking of the jury proved less difficult than anticipated, twelve men being obtained before 1:30.

List of Jurors.

Here are the jurors chosen:

A. H. Henslee, No. 74 Oak street, a traveling salesman for the Franklin Buggy Company; F. V. L. Smith, No. 481 Cherokee avenue, manufacturer’s agent, with offices in the Empire Building; J. F. Higdon, a contractor, No. 108 Ormewood avenue; F. E. Winburn, No. 213 Lucile avenue, claim agent Atlanta and West Point Railroad; A. L. Wisby, No. 31 Hood street, cashier of the Buckeye Oil Company; W. M. Jeffries, a real estate man, with offices at 313 Empire Building; Marcellus Johemming, No. 161 James street, a machine shop foreman, with offices at No. 281 Marietta street; M. L. Woodward, cashier King Hardware Comparny, No. 182 Park avenue; J. T. Orburn, an optician for Hawkes, was chosen from the fifth panel to be the ninth juror; D. Townsend, No. 84 Whitehall terrace, cashier Central Bank and Trust Corporation.

W. S. Medcalf, No. 136 Kirkwood avenue, circulation department of The Atlanta Journal.

C. J. Bosshardt, No. 216 Bryan street, pressman Foote & Davies.

Bosshardt, the twelfth juror chosen, was the last venireman in the last panel that had been called before the court at the opening of court in the morning. He was picked at exactly 1:25 o’clock and at 1:30 the recess was taken until 3 o’clock.

Attorney Rosser took very little part in the selection of the jury, except to interject a suggestion now and then. He evidently was reserving his strength for the real struggle to come.

Shortly before 2 o’clock Leo Frank was taken into a room adjoining the juryroom, where he was served with a special dinner provided for him by his relatives. Frank’s mother and wife were allowed to converse with him while he ate the dinner. He will remain in this room until the court reconvenes at 3 o’clock.

Wife and Mother With Frank.

Frank, accompanied by his wife and his mother, was brought into the courtroom at 10:30 o’clock. The striking of the jury was begun at once.

A half dozen of Frank’s friends interrupted the order of the court for several minutes by clustering about him and shaking hands with him.

If there was any fear in the heart of the young prisoner it did not show in his calm features. He seemed perfectly assured and self-possessed. He nodded pleasantly to the judge and greeted his friends with a smilee [sic].

After the stir had subsided, covering the entrance of Frank, his wife and mother, the trio took seats in a semi-circle just below the bench.

Frank and his mother took a good look at the jurors in the first panel that was brought in. The prisoner scrutinized each one closely as he was quizzed by the prosecutor to determine his qualifications.

Wife Fixes Gaze on Dorsey.

Mrs. Frank displayed no sign of emotion until she suddenly found that she was facing Solicitor Dorsey. Then anger appeared to blaze from her eyes and seeming scorn curled her lips. She seldom removed her gaze from the Solicitor’s face during the forenoon. If Dorsey was aware of the young woman’s scrutiny, he made no sign and proceeded with the case in rapid fashion.

Occasionally Mrs. Frank would turn to her husband and nod toward the Solicitor as though she was ridiculing the efforts to convict Frank. Mrs. Frank was attired in a becoming suit of black and wore a black hat trimmed with black chiffon; also a black veil was drawn up over her hat. A black and white ribbon led to her watch in the pocket of her white silk waist. Two brilliant diamonds shone on the engagement finger of her left hand.

Frank occupied a seat between his wife and mother. He conversed with them alternatively, at no time appearing nervous or the least apprehensive. His attitude was noticeably even more calm than at the time when he appeared before the Coroner’s jury.

Frank Aids Attorneys.

Frank spoke frequently to his attorneys, whom he was near, and made suggestions while the jurors were being qualified. When each new panel was brought in he looked intently into the face of each man; beginning at the upper row and shifting his gaze from man to man until he had scrutinized them all.

Not infrequently, when the Solicitor had closed his examination and had said, “Juror, look on prisoner; prisoner, look on juror,” Frank would turn to Attorney Arnold and an instant later the announcement would be made, “Storuck by the defense.” Frank evidently was playing a large part in the striking of jurors by the defense.

The dagger-like gaze of Mrs. Frank seldom was removed from the Solicitor’s face. Frequently she embraced all those at Dorsey’s table in her scornful glance.

Wife Caresses Prisoner.

Chief of Detectives Newport A. Lanford, whose department unearthed much of the evidence, happened to be sitting at her right. She turned to him while he was glancing over papers as if she were about to speak her mind to him, but thought better of it.

Once in a while she took her eyes from the Solicitor’s table to lay her hand affectionately upon her husband’s shoulder and draw him toward her to whisper in his ear. Once when she discovered the reporters eyeing her, she smiled mischievously and immediately whispered the information to Frank.

Frank’s mother sat quietly through the routine of examining the veniremen. She spoke to her son frequently, directing her glance at the prospective jurors as though commenting on their fitness.

State Names Its Witnesses.

At 9:58 o’clock, Solicitor Dorsey announced that he was ready to open the case of the State against Leo M. Frank, charged with having killed 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. V. Darley, factory employee; W. A. Gheesling, undertaker that cared for 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.

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 protested 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 Steiker, 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, May 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, I. 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 on the second floor waiting to be called.

First Talesman Too Old.

After the venire had been sifted and many excused, W. S. Copeland was the first talesman examined. He was excused when he said that he had 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 punishments 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. Elliott 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 talesmen and not a single juror was obtained. The State struck three and the defense two. Seven were disqualified for cause.

Four Jurymen 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 Lucile 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.
Third and Fourth Panels Go.

The following men were struck on the third panel: Charles Witherspoon, by defense; H. J. Kuglar, for cause; C. J. Hale, for cause; J. B. Hays, by defense; E. L. Winn, for cause; W. H. Abbott, for cause; K. P. Mayson, for cause; Boyd Perry, for cause.

The entire fourth panel was struck: Samuel Schoen, by the State; W. S. Singleton, by defense; Earle Davis, a negro, was accepted by the State, but struck by the defense; C. S. Cantrell, for cause; John W. Collier, for cause; W. W. Hammett, by the State; A. F. Bellingrath, by defense on ground that he was a brother to an employee of Solicitor Dorsey’s office and that he had expressed the opinion that Frank was guilty.

“I said it looked like he was guilty from what the newspapers said,” declared Mr. Bellingrath. Solicitor Dorsey urged that the talesman was not disqualified by this. However, Judge Roan disqualified him for cause.

“I think he should be set aside for his own sake,” ruled the judge.

1. Berger, for cause.

Two More Panels Struck.

The following men were struck from the fifth panel: W. C. Willis,, for cause; H. C. Hasty, prejudice; C. H. Cook, by defense; C. H. Candler, in answer to a question from Solicitor Dorsey if he was impartial, said “No;” George R. Low, by the State; S. E. Owens, for cause; J. C. Henderson, for cause; C. M. Brown, opposed to capital punishment; C. A. Vaughn, prejudice.

The following men, comprising the entire sixth panel, were struck; Ben F. Willis, by defense; C. M. Petton, prejudice; W. H. Hudson, not impartial; G. R. Milner, by defense; John Head, age; Robert Smidt, opposed to capital punishment; V. N. Carroll, not impartial; C. H. Allen, opposed to capital punishment; P. F. Barber, opposed to capital punishment; O. Wingate, for cause; T. E. Winsow, by State; A. W. Wofford, by defense.

Every man on the seventh panel was struck, including H. H. Kelly, prejudice; N. A. Long, biased; C. W. Gittens, by defense; H. D. Ferguson, opposed to capital punishment; W. L. Merk, by defense; F. E. Walker, prejudice; P. B. Sale, prejudice; W. S. Gaston, biased; C. L. Asbury, biased; J. W. Chatham, prejudice; C. W. Seagroves, prejudice; Carl Weinmeister, opposed to capital punishment.

The last panel, from which the last juror was secured, was Panel No. 9. The following men were struck: S. L. Miller, by defense; H. L. Solomonson, biased; L. O. Hendon, by defense; H. C. Ashford, for cause; E. E. Wochendorff, prejudice; Nicholas Ittner, age; Bud Waites, prejudice; W. W. Sorrell, by defense; Soloman Benjamin, member of Grand Jury.

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 impaneling 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 converge 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.

“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 belied 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.

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.

Judge Andrew Calhoun entered the courtroom when the court was about midway in its forenoon session and took a seat by Judge Roan. In the intervals when the proceedings were interrupted by conferences of the attorneys, he conversed with Judge Roan.

Newt Lee, who found Mary Phagan’s body, was brought from the Tower in the middle of the forenoon in the custody of a deputy sheriff. He was placed in an anteroom adjoining the courtroom. It was expected that he would be one of the early witnesses, if not the first, to be called by the State. Lee testified before the Coroner’s inquest that he found the body of the slain factory girl in the […the end of the article appears to have not been printed]

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.

The Atlanta Georgian

Monday, June 16, 1913

Attorney Hooper Declares State Is Prepared for Any Move the Defense May Make.

Frank A. Hooper, the well-known criminal lawyer who has been engaged to assist Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey in the trial of Leo M. Frank for the alleged murder of Mary Phagan, said Monday that the case was complete and was ready for presentation in court at any time.

Mr. Hooper asserted that the attorneys interested in the prosecution had investigated every angle of the mystery so thoroughly and fortified themselves against any defense that Frank will present, that practically nothing remained to be done until the case was called for trial. The departure of Solicitor Dorsey for a week’s vacation, he said, was an indication of the preparedness of the prosecution.

No new developments are expected by the prosecution, according to Mr. Hooper. All of the stories and rumors have been run down to their original source. The defense, in his opinion, will be able to spring no surprise that has not been anticipated by the prosecution.

Mrs. Frank Gives Interview.

The American printed Sunday an exclusive interview with Mrs. Frank, whose husband, Leo M. Frank, is under indictment chraged with the murder of 14-year-old Mary Phagan. It was the first time that Mrs. Frank had permitted himself to be interviewed since the Coroner’s jury a month ago recommended that the Grand Jury hold her husband for trial.

She broke her silence to tell the thousands who have been gripped by the remarkable murder mystery just why she is absolutely confident and positive that Frank could not have been the author of the terrible deed. She made no plea for sympathy, but expressed herself as fully reconciled to the processes of the law, even though they temporarily caused her the greatest sorrow and kept her husband behind the cars as a man suspected of one of the most brutal crimes thinkable. The loyal wife said that she was able to bear the present belief because of the assurance of Frank’s ultimate and complete vindication.

Why She Believes Husband.

On the fact that she believes from her life with the suspected slayer that any gross or immoral act is utterly apart from his nature, she bases much of her belief in his entire innocence.

She said, in part:

“In all the year and a half of our engagement, in the happy knowledge and consent of both our parents, I was Leo’s ‘best girl’ and he was my one and only beau. If I went to a party, it was conceded that I should go with Leo, and if Leo went, he invariably went with me. You know, the people of my faith do those things in that way—with us, betrothal is all but as sacred as marriage itself.

“Leo Frank and myself have been man and wife for two years and a half. I state it as a circumstance showing how sweet and mutually happy our home life has been, and not as a thing I should mention ordinarily, that during all the two and a half years of our wedded life not once has Leo been away from me at night, save when once a month he attended the meetings of the Jewish Order of B’nai Brith, of which he was the president in Atlanta until he was arrested.

He Preferred Staying Home.

“He might have gone out in the evenings, perhaps without my knowledge, to places he should not have gone, so far as my free consent may have figured as a factor in his going. I merely cite it as a truthful circumstance that he has not elected to go. He seemed rather to prefer staying home with me. Naturally, that made[…]

Continued on Page 2, Column 2.

FRANK TIGHT IN NET, SAYS AIDE TO DORSEY

Continued From Page 1.

[…]me very happy—for I am, after all, a woman, like other women, and a woman never gets to the point where she does not dearly love for her husband to show her that he is still her sweetheart.

“We have lived here in this house, with my father and mother. To them, Leo has been devoted and always most considerate. They love him as a son, they took him close to their hearts before the wedding bells had ceased to ring—for that is the way our people do in those matters.

“I will tell you another reason why I think Leo Frank could not have committed the diabolical crime charged to him. He is devoted to children—little children especially.

“We have no children of our own, unfortunately, but there are several nieces and nephews in the family, and to every one of them Mr. Frank is affectionately attached. I have seen him play with a two-year-old child for hours, not once, but many times.

Helps Little Orphan Children.

“He has been with Mr. Milton Klein, for many years one of the moving spirits in providing innocent and healthful outdoor recreation and pleasure for the children of the Hebrews’ Orphan Home.

“Is a man who loves children as Leo Frank loves them likely to have a hand in the slaying of an innocent child; not yet budded into youthful womanhood, as Mary Phagan is said to have been?

“If there is one person in all the world he has been more devoted to than me, it is his aged and blind uncle, M. Frank. Is a man who is kind and considerate to the lame, the halt and the blind such a man as would take a hand in the killing of a child?

“Ah, surely, surely, there are few people who will—who can—believe that!

Always Kind and Generous.

“In the home, where Leo Frank has spent his time away from his business, he always has ben the most kind, the most generous, the most thoughtful, the most considerate and the most affectionate of men.

“I think my knowledge of Leo Frank and the kind of man he is is worth more than the word of a shiftless negro who has lied persistently and vigorously ever since he was arrested as a suspect—but while my voice will be hushed in the court room, his will be heard by both the judge and the jury trying my husband for his life.

“There is, of course, much in this case that has seemed to me cruel—and now and then I have been moved to some measure of bitterness in my thoughts. But I believe that truth is mighty, and all I want is fair play.

She Wants Fair Play.

“If we can get fair play, my husband will be restored soon to me and to his family and his friends—and when he is, we shall take up calmly, and in such degree of forgetfulness as we can summon to our aid, the disrupted thread of our life, bind up our wounds, and try to hold against no man aught of ill will or resentment.

“That’s the way I feel about it, and that’s the way Leo feels about it. That’s the way mother and father feel about it, too.

“We await the trial of Leo Frank in confidence. We have come to think that, after all, we shall get fair treatment—and as that is all we have asked for, we are more and more optimistic every day as to the conclusion.”

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, June 16th 1913, “Dorsey Aide Says Frank Is Fast In Net,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Sunday, June 15, 1913

Questions Put to Lanford Indicate That Investigation of Police Methods Is Being Conducted.

TORTURE ERA IS PAST, CHIEF INFORMS JURY

Science and Skill Now Employed by Detectives in Securing Confessions From Criminals, He Says.

The police “third degree,” which has created such widespread discussion during the Mary Phagan murder investigation, has been thoroughly explained to the grand jury by Detective Chief Newport A. Lanford, who appeared before that body at its request.

Detective John Black, of headquarters, who has been an active figure in the Phagan case, is also said to have been quizzed about methods employed by the police and detectives. He will not talk of the subject. Members of the jury are reluctant to give any information.

Chief Lanford, however, willingly told a Constitution reporter of his testimony before the jury and of the nature of queries which were put to him. He says he gave a complete and apparently satisfactory account of the “third degree” and the manner in which it is practiced at police headquarters.

Is Jury Probing Police Methods?

The belief is prevalent in both police and court circles that a secret probe is being promoted by the grand jury into methods employed by both the police and detective departments, and that it was in pursuit of this investigation that the detective head and Black were examined. Chief Lanford is inclined to scout this theory, although he is unable to account for the testimony that was required of him and of Black in the “third degree” probe.

The use of the “third degree” during the Phagan mystery has caused much comment. Its most effective employment, it will be recalled, was in extracting three sensational confessions from the negro sweeper, James Conley. Newt Lee, the negro watchman, the first suspect in the murder case, was subjected to a “degree” equally as strenuous.

The public letter of Mrs. Leo Frank, in which she took the detectives and Solicitor General Dorsey to task for subjecting her servant girl, Minola McKnight, to a system of cross-examination, which, she asserted, left the girl in a state of exhaustion, probably served to actuate the jury’s inquiry into police methods. Mrs. Frank’s letter was a stinging arraignment, and[…]

Continued on Page Four.

CHIEF OF DETECTIVES BEFORE GRAND JURY

Continued From Page One.

[…]many other such letters have attacked the detectives and police severely.

Not a Torture Method.

Chief Lanford, in his talk, averred that the public has the wrong conception of the “third degree,” and naturally pictured it as a torture method. This is wholly wrong, he declared, and utterly at variance with the explanation which he gave to the grand jury.

The “third degree,” he told the jury, is one of the most valuable assets of the detective department, and without it many of a city’s most glaring crimes would go forever unsolved. He admitted that in one era of police history the method has been barbarous, but declared that in the present day science and skill had replaced the torture of the past.

In Conley’s case Chief Lanford told the jury the negro’s confession had been secured through clever detective work in confronting him with damaging discrepancies in his stories of innocence. The method employed with him is a popular one and is a plan that has served successfully with negro criminals.

“It is worked in this manner,” the chief said. “Only two men operate the scheme. They study their subject thoroughly by preliminary conversations, learn his traits of character and his weak points. They they warm up to the real work—clamp down the screws, so to speak.

How Confession Is Secured.

“The first detective begins to taunt and deride the prisoner. He confronts him with all incriminating evidence gathered against him, pictures the form of punishment to which he is liable and vividly illustrates the fate of others in predicaments similar to the prisoner’s. The detective attitude is threatening and belligerent. When the subject is worked up into a state of fear the belligerent examiner leaves the room in an assumed fit of anger.

“The second detective, who has quietly watched his fellow sleuth’s operations, during which he has looked on, distinterestedly [sic], takes up the ‘degree’ where the other left off. He affects an entirely different attitude. He soothes the prisoner, encourages him and offers sympathy. His partner, he tells the prisoner, is quick of temper and is easily prejudiced.

“The prisoner is warned that the detective who threatened will strive to convict and is prevailed upon to confess in order to save himself from the vengeance of the sleuth who has just left the room. With assumed sympathy, encouragement and advice, the second detective almost invariably cajoles a confession from the ‘third degree’ subject.”

Different Treatment Needed.

With white prisoners the method is different. They are credulous and prejudiced against detectives and are keen to divine the false attitude of sympathy which wins so easily over the negro. The whites are subjected to an incessant volley of questions for many hours.

These methods are calculated to frazzle the nerves and drive the subject into admission. The duration of the “degree” is general the most effective phase of the entire examination. Under the severe mental pressure created by the constant necessity of having to meet the bombardment of questions with plausible answers and the accompanying physical strain the guilty prisoner frequently reaches a point of exhaustion which forces confession.

The inocent [sic] subject is seldom forced to endure such methods. His innocence is easily divined by his frankness, his collaborative answers and his story. Guilt is quickly detected in even the shrewdest and most experienced of crooks. Even the best of rehearsed stories are often broken down under the strain of constant examination.

Series of Examinations.

As explained by Chief Lanford, the “third degree” is merely the last of a series of examinations. In the first degree the prisoner is allowed to tell his story without cross-examination. He signs a written statement, following which the detectives “run it down,” finding whatever discrepancies they may and obtaining corroboration.

The second degree is for the purpose of confronting the subject with the fruits in his tale and the evidence unearthed against him. If he fails to confess in this stage of the examination he is forced to remain in solitude and confinement for hours, to meditate over the situation, sum up the probability of conviction and to consider the strain to which he will be subjected in the following degree, of which he has been made vividly aware during the previous examination.

The queries put to him by the grand jury, says the chief, were of a nature meant to ascertain whether or not the police methods were tortuous and whether or not they often resulted in prisoners making false confessions in order to escape suffering. The chief declares he informed the jury that the methods were not barbarous and that it was only the guilty who suffered and that they experienced suffering only through the mental strain which attended the necessity of having to answer volleys of questions with faked answers.

So far as is known the jury has taken no action regarding their investigation of police methods. Lanford expresses belief that they were pleased with his explanation of the “third degree” and that they have learned definitely that it is only a method of science and not torture.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, June 15th 1913, “Detective Chief Tells Grand Jury of “Third Degree”,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)