Tag Archives: Luther Rosser

State Ready for Frank Trial on June 30

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Monday, June 23, 1913

Defense Has Announced Its Case Is Complete and Judge Roan Is Free.

Prosecuting Attorney Hugh M. Dorsey announced for the State Monday morning that the trial of Leo M. Frank would be placed on the calendar for the week of June 30.

The defense had announced that its case was completed and no continuance would be asked unless some unforeseen contingency arose.

The trial judge, L. S. Roan, will have the most to say about the date for the trial. He intimated he would be ready on this date and would personally make no move for a continuance. He said, however, that in the event of it being impossible to open the trial June 30, he would be at leisure between July 14 and 28, and it is not improbable the trial may be advanced to that date.

Dorsey Back From East.

Solicitor Dorsey returned to Atlanta Sunday afternoon from a week’s vacation in New York. He called a conference with his assistants, E. A. Stephens and F. A. Hooper, at his home Sunday evening. Following it he announced that he would be ready for trial on June 30 and that unless the defense or the trial judge moved to have the trial postponed he would commence at once summoning witnesses and getting ready. Continue Reading →

Solicitor Will Fix Frank Trial for June 30, He Says

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Monday, June 23, 1913

Unless “Showing” Is Made in Open Court Why the Case Should Be Deferred, Trial Will Proceed

MONTEEN STOVER AGAIN FIGURES IN THE CASE

Detectives Question Her With View to Attacking Theory That Girl Was Slain on the First Floor

Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey, it was definitely learned Monday, will set the case of the State against Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan, for June 30, and the solicitor will insist that a legal “showing” be made by the defense before a postponement is allowed.

During the day Monday or early on Tuesday morning the court calendar for the week of June 30 will be made up and then a small army of bailiffs and deputies will commence to summon talesmen. Owing to the unusual interest in the case it is probable that more than 150 talesmen will be summoned to the court in order that twelve jurors to try Frank may be picked from them.

COURT WON’T INTERFERE.

It is understood that the court of its own volition will not interfere in the matter, and if a postponement of the case is secured it will be on a “legal showing” made in open court next Monday by the attorneys, who represent the accused man.

The illness of one of counsel or the absence from the city of a material witness or the engagement of counsel in another court, or any one of several other perfectly good excuses constitute legal grounds for the postponement of case, so the uncompromising attitude of the state by no means makes the trial of the case on June 30 a certanity [sic].

Luther Z. Rosser and Reuben R. Arnold, the able attorneys, who represent Frank, will give no intimation of their attitude towards entering into the case next Monday.

The published rumor that John W. Moore, another noted Atlanta lawyer, would assist Attorneys Arnold and Rosser and Herbert Haas in the case is without foundation, according to Mr. Moore and the other attorneys connected with the case.

WITNESS QUESTIONED.

What is believed by the prosecution of Leo M. Frank to be a refutation of the defense’s theory that Mary Phagan was slain at the foot of the stairs on the first floor of the pencil factory, occurred at police headquarters Sunday afternoon, when Jim Conley, the negro, identified Monteen Stover, aged 14, 17 South Forsyth street, as the girl in the raincoat and “easy walkers” who went to the office on the second floor at 12:05 o’clock and came down the stairs five or ten minutes later and left the building.

The little Stover girl was taken before Conley in the detectives’ room Sunday and positively identified by the negro, according to the detectives who were present, Chief Lanford and Detectives Campbell and Starnes.

Conley declared that she was the girl he watched while he was hid at the foot of the tsairs [sic]. The Stover girl entered the building, went up the stairs to the office, stayed there some five or ten minutes, and then came down and went out.

J. C. Hines, who went to headquarters with Walter Sudderth and Mr. Edmundson, pointed out Monteen Stover as the girl whom he saw enter the building. Continue Reading →

Jurors, Not Newspapers, To Return Frank Verdict, Declares Old Reporter

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Sunday, June 22, 1913

Writer Declares He Has Only Worked for Fair Trial and Fair Play—Race Question Is No Issue in Phagan Case—Rosser Not Writer.

By AN OLD POLICE REPORTER.

There were few developments in the Phagan case last week that to my mind were worth considering seriously or that threw new light upon the mystery.

Perhaps it was because of this that a good many people wrote letters to “The Old Police Reporter”—some commending my articles, others condemning them; but in every case indicating clearly that the interest has not lessened.

I observe that some of the State newspapers are publishing foolish little paragraphs, bearing the Atlanta date line, to the effect that the Hearst newspapers have been “bought to defend Frank.” This is too foolish to notice.

Still other newspapers are taking advantage of the silly season to point out various phases of the case that to my mind are neither vital nor interesting.

Let me say again, as positively as I can, that these articles written by an old police reporter, are not for the purpose of either making a case for or against any other individual.

Newspapers Will Not Render Verdict.

My aim is to set down in a fair, truthful way my own opinion of the case. I do not know whether the editor of the Hearst newspapers indorses [sic] my views or not.

I am of the opinion that the editor of The Sunday American and The Georgian believes that it is not within his province to try Frank or Conley, but that it is his duty to give all the facts in the case that are obtainable and to let the law and the jury decide WHO is guilty.

I am not a believer in trials by newspapers. I believe in the courts, in our judges, and in our juries.

I know nothing about the Phagan case that has not been published in the newspapers. I do know that Frank has been indicted. I do know, as does everyone else, that there is a chain of circumstantial evidence which, held together in court, will make the case against Frank very serious. Continue Reading →

Leading Law Firms Have Joined Forces

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Sunday, June 22, 1913

Of especial [sic] interest in legal circles is the announcement that two of the leading law firms of Atlanta have joined forces, under the firm name of Rosser, Brandon, Slaton & Phillips. They will begin operation with offices on the west end of the seventh floor of the Grant building on July 1.

Associated with the firm will be Luther Z. Rosser, Morris Brandon, John M. Slaton, Benjamin Z. Phillips, J. H. Porter, I. S. Hopkins, L. Z. Rosser Jr., V. B. Moore, J. J. Ragan, and James J. Slaton.

Governor elect Slaton has been in the practice of law for twenty-six years and with his partner Mr. Phillips has a clientele which he desires preserved. During nine teen years the firms has been known as Slaton & Phillips.

Mr. Slaton will have no connection with the firm made by the combination of his firm and that of Rosser & Brandon and will in nowise be connected with the practice of law nor will he have any participation in the earnings of the firms during his term of office.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, June 22nd 1913, “Leading Law Firms Have Joined Forces,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Rosser & Brandon Join With Slaton & Phillips

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Sunday, June 22, 1913

Two Big Atlanta Law Firms Go Into Partnership Beginning July 1

The law firm of Rosser & Brandon and Slaton & Phillips have formed a partnership beginning July 1, and will be known by the firm name of Rosser, Brandon, Slaton & Phillips, with offices on the seventh floor of the Grant building, the Slaton & Phillips suite being enlarged to accommodate the new firm.

There will be in the new firm the following: Luther Z. Rosser, Morris Brandon, John M. Slaton, Ben Z. Phillips, J. H. Porter, Stiles Hopkins, Luther Z. Rosser, Jr., Verlyn B. Moore and James J. Regan.

During his term of office as governor of Georgia, Mr. Slaton will have no working connection with the firm and will not participate in the firm’s earnings.

Mr. Slaton has been in the practice of law for twenty-six years, and for nineteen years he and Mr. Phillips have been law partners. During that time with his partner he has built up a clientele which he desires preserved, and it goes without saying that the new firm will be more than able to accomplish this purpose.

The consolidation of the two firms has been contemplated two or three months, and has been more or less generally known among Atlanta lawyers for several days. Announcement of the consolidation was reserved until today by the Journal at the request of both firms.

The new firm will be one of the largest and strongest in the state. Messrs. Rosser, Brandon, Slaton, and Phillips stand at the very top in the Atlanta bar, while the younger men of the firm are all of proven ability.

The firm’s suite is on the Forsyth street side of the Grant building and takes up nearly half of the seventh floor. The library made by the consolidation of the firm’s collections will consist of several thousand volumes and will probably be the largest in the city.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 22, 1913, “Rosser & Brandon Join With Slaton & Phillips,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Arnold Declares Frank Innocent and Enters Case

Posted on by
He Will Aid Frank Defense

REUBEN R. ARNOLD,
Able attorney, who declares he would not have entered case were he not firmly convinced of Leo M. Frank’s innocence.

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

The Atlanta Journal

Sunday, June 22, 1913

Famous Lawyer Says He Wouldn’t Defend Man Accused of Such Crime Unless Sure of His Innocence

SCORES CITY DETECTIVES FOR HOLDING TO THEORY

Mr. Arnold Says Detectives Have Tried to Prejudice the Case by Unfair Means—Has Studied Evidence

Reuben R. Arnold, famous Georgia lawyer, has officially entered the Phagan case in the defense of Leo M. Frank, as exclusively forecasted by The Journal last Thursday.

Mr. Arnold comes into the case with a ringing statement declaring his firm belief in the innocence of his client, and asserting that he would never defend a person charged with such an atrocious crime if he were not fully convinced of his innocence. Mr. Arnold says that he has reached the conclusion that there is no room to believe Frank guilty, after carefully studying the evidence in the case.

Mr. Arnold declares that it is surprising that the detectives should continue to put the crime on Frank with the incriminating statements of Conley before them. He scores the detectives because of the publication of the Formby affidavit, declaring that by this and other means they have done Frank a great injustice.

With Mr. Arnold and Luther Z. Rosser working in his behalf a great legal battle is made a certainty when Frank faces a jury in the criminal division of the superior court. Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey and Frank A. Hooper, who is associated with him, will have charge of the state’s case. Lawyers and court attaches predict the most brilliant legal battle ever known in a criminal case in this state.

The date of the trial is still a matter of interesting conjectures, although it may be settled Monday after the return of Solicitor Dorsey to the city.

Mr. Dorsey still expects to set the trial of the case on the court calendar for June 30, but any number of things may interfere. An attorney associated with the defense stated Saturday afternoon that he knew of no reason why there should be a postponement, but would make no more definite statement.

While they know nothing definite it is the opinion of court attaches that the trial of the case will not be reached before July 14 or July 28, and their guess is generally expected to prove correct.

In a statement which he gave the public Mr. Arnold, who has been long regarded as one of the ablest criminal lawyers in the south, intimated that he is thoroughly familiar with all phases of the case, and as a result it is not considered probable that a postponement will be asked on his account.

“It is true that I have accepted employment to assist in the defense of Mr. Leo M. Frank, but I wish to state that before I agreed to take the case, I made it a condition that I should have time to study critically all the evidence delivered at the coroner’s inquest and all the affidavits that have reached the public through the newspapers, so I could form an opinion for myself as to Frank’s innocence or guilt. I would not defend any man if guilty of such a murder as the one in this case.

“After studying the evidence as critically as I can, I am satisfied that I hazard not a thing in saying that there is no room to believe Mr. Frank guilty of this horrible murder. I do not believe that any white man committed the crime.

“Indeed, it is surprising to me that the detectives should continue to try to put this crime on Frank with the positively incriminating affidavits of Conley before them. People of common sense, unless under great excitement, ought not to give a moment’s credence to either the Formby or Conley statements in so far as they attempt to incriminate Mr. Frank.

“I see the detectives are gradually giving it out that Mrs. Formby will not be called as a witness, although her affidavit has been paraded before the public before the unqualified endorsement of the detective department as being perfectly reliable and true. Worse than this, as intimation was published in the newspapers that Frank’s friends had persuaded her to leave town. In this and in many other ways our client has been done a very great injustice. The effort seems to have been not to find the criminal but to try by all means to put the crime on Frank.

“However, I think we will be able to clarify the situation in due time.”

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 22nd 1913, “Arnold Declares Frank Innocent and Enters Case,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Date of Frank Trial Still In Much Doubt

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Saturday, June 21, 1913

Belief Grows That Case Will Not Come Up Before July 14 or 28

Interest in the Phagan case still centers on the time of the trial of Leo M. Frank. Indications still are that the case will not be tried the week of June 30.

Solicitor Dorsey has never finally committed himself on the matter but Colonel Frank A. Hooper, who is associated [with] him, still expects the case to be set for that date.

Mr. Hooper expects the trial to last a week. The jail will not have been cleared by June 30, according to court attaches, and it is the general policy of the court to clear the jail of as many cases as possible before entering into a lengthy trial. In addition the Fourth of July, a holiday, comes in the week of June 30 and this might mean that the jury would be locked up during a day that the court was not in session. Still further there is the possibility that the defense will ask for a postponement.

Judge L. S. Roan will not have to hold court in the Stone Mountain circuit on either the week of July 14, or the week of July 28, and as a result it is now considered extremely probable that Frank will face a jury on one of those dates.

Apparently the Phagan case is at a standstill. Saturday both Luther Z. Rosser and Reuben R. Arnold, who will be associated with the defense in all probability, were out of the city, on business said not to be connected with the case.

Mr. Hooper, who is in charge of the state’s case during the absence in New York of Solicitor Dorsey, states that there have been no developments of importance, and that the state is ready for the trial, whenever Mr. Dorsey returns and sets it on the court calendar.

Mr. Hooper was not interested in the return of Mrs. Mima [sic] Formby, maker of a sensational affidavit, to the city. The state made no effort to find her when she left the city, and apparently there is no chance of her being used as a witness unless the defense puts Frank’s character in issue.

During the absence of Solicitor Dorsey, Detectives Starnes and Campbell have been working under his instructions, smoothing over rough places in the state’s case, but nothing of importance has been developed.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 21st 1913, “Date of Frank Trial Still In Much Doubt,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Justice Aim in Phagan Case, Says Hooper

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Saturday, June 21, 1913

I have not been employed in the case to prosecute Leo M. Frank, but to help find and convict the murderer of Mary Phagan. If the trial proves we are wrong, we will begin work on another angle. We have but one object and idea. It is that justice and the law be vindicated. We are, however, convinced we have a strong case against the accused.

FRANK A. HOOPER,
Attorney.

Mrs. Mina [sic] Formby and her sensational affidavit will not be used by the State in the trial of Leo M. Frank, according to a statement Saturday from Attorney Frank A. Hooper, assisting the prosecution.

Mr. Hooper said the State had never attached any importance to the affidavit, except for the first few days, and that when Mrs. Formby mysteriously disappeared from the city, the State eliminated her from the case entirely and made no effort to locate her. He said time set forth in the affidavit and the alleged facts were at too wide a variance with anything the State expected to prove, and there had been no trouble in making the case without her.

Affidavit Did Not Fit.

“The woman’s affidavit did not fit in anywhere in our case,” said Mr. Hooper. “If it had we would have looked around a long time for witnesses to substantiate it before we put her on the stand. When she left Atlanta we considered her gone for good, and built without her. Mr. Dorsey and myself discussed her statement several times, and we decided she could not be used to any advantage.”

Mr. Hooper said it has been decided to put the Frank case on the calendar for the week of June 30 and the State would be ready for trial on that day.

“When Mr. Dorsey returns from New York to-night or Sunday, we will go into a conference and definitely outline the case to be presented by the State,” said Mr. Hooper. “We had decided to have it called Monday morning, June 30. Unless the defense asks for a continuance, the case will probably be tried then.”

No Weak Points Remain.

He said that he had been acquainted with every bit of evidence that was in the hands of the State and had studied it carefully with the Solicitor. For one week, he said, he and Mr. Dorsey worked incessantly on the sworn statements secured from the probable witnesses.

“Where there was a weak point we either strengthened it or eliminated it entirely. We have not depended on the evidence of any one person alone to build our case on [sic] make it stand up. We are prepared for any emergency, and feel that we have left no stone unturned in our investigation. We are confident there are no more mysterious witnesses to be heard from, for we feel that we have questioned everyone who could possibly know anything of importance.”

Mr. Hooper would not discuss the many conflicting statements of the negro Jim Conley and the part he was expected to play in the State’s case.

The strong probability that Leo Frank will not be called for trial June 30 was discussed Saturday by persons interested in the case. The attorneys for the accused man have stated that they were prepared to go into court at any time, although it is not usual to give the defense so little time in a capital case.

Frank was arrested April 29. If his case is called June 30, only two months will have elapsed since he was seriously suspected of being involved in the crime. More time than this ordinarily is given the attorneys for the defense to investigate every circumstance and story which may point to the innocence of their client. Continue Reading →

Frank Case May Not Be Tried June 30

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Friday, June 20, 1913

Dorsey Expects to Be Ready, He Says, but Postponement Seems Probable

That Leo M. Frank will go on trial for the murder of Mary Phagan on June 30th is not a certainty, although it is generally conceded that Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey will set the case on the court’s calendar for that date when he returns to the city from New York.

Solicitor Dorsey will return to Atlanta on Sunday. In reply to a telegram from The Journal relative to the time of the trial he makes the following statement: “Cannot say definitely that state will be ready on June 30, but expect now to be.”

As to whether or not the trial actually will be commenced on that date depends largely upon the defense, although there is a bare possibility that the court may wish to hold up the trial of the long case until after the jail is cleared. It is the general policy of the criminal division of the superior court to clear the jail for the summer at this time of the year, and it is known that thirty or forty routine cases could be disposed of in the time that it will take to hear the Frank case. The court will grind on routine business for the week of June 23rd, but in that time, it is said, it will be imposible [sic] to clear the jail.

However, it will remain largely with the defense as to whether or not the case comes to trial.

ROSSER LEAVES CITY.

Luther Z. Rosser, counsel for Frank, is expected to leave the city on Friday on business which is said to have no connection with the Frank case. He refuses to discuss the defense’s attitude toward an early trial.

Reuben R. Arnold, who probably will be associated with Mr. Rosser in the defense, is spending the week end at Atlantic Beach.

Mr. Arnold has been busy on a number of court cases, and while he is said to be quite familiar with the evidence in the Frank case, if he does become associated with the defense, it is probable that he will want additional time to study the case before he enters into the trial of such an important matter.

Mary Phagan was killed on April 26th, little more than two months from the date the case will probably be set on the court’s calendar.

It is not often that a person is brought to trial for a criminal offense in Fulton county two months after the commission of the crime with which he is charged.

Another element which, while it may not figure in the court record, is an important factor behind the scenes, is the intense heat at this time of the year. Continue Reading →

Reuben Arnold May Aid Frank’s Defense In Big Murder Trial

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Thursday, June 19, 1913

When questioned last night as to the truth of the rumor that he will be associated with the defense of Leo M. Frank, indicted for the Mary Phagan murder, Reuben R. Arnold, one of Georgia’s most prominent attorneys, refused to either affirm or deny the rumor.

“I am not associated with the defense yet,” Mr. Arnold said. “I cannot make any statement at the present time in regard to this matter.”

When questioned closely as to whether he would be engaged by the defense later on, Mr. Arnold made the same statement. Luther Z. Rosser, Frank’s attorney, would make no statement, one way or the other, as to whether Mr. Arnold would be associated with him.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, June 19th 1913, “Reuben Arnold May Aid Frank’s Defense In Big Murder Trial,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Hooper Returns and Takes Up Phagan Case

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Thursday, June 19, 1913

Declares Trip to Cincinnati Had Nothing to oD [sic] With Murder Mystery

Frank A. Hooper, the experienced prosecutor, who has been engaged to assist Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey in the trial of the case against Leo M. Frank, returned Thursday from a three days’ trip to Cincinnati, and set at rest the rumors that he went to the Ohio city on a matter connected with the investigation of the Phagan murder mystery.

Mr. Hooper declared that his private business called him to Cincinnati, and that his trip was in no way connected with the Phagan case.

While away Mr. Hooper states that he did not see Solicitor Dorsey nor did he see Attorney Thomas B. Felder, who went to the same city on a matter, which he said before leaving, was not connected with the Phagan case nor with the famous dictograph episode.

Mr. Hooper declares that so far as he knows there are no new developments in the Phagan mystery.

“The state’s case is regarded as complete,” Mr. Hooper said, “and we are simply waiting for the hour of the trial to come.”

Mr. Hooper would not discuss the testimony of Mrs. Mima [sic] Formby, who returned to the city Tuesday after an absence of several weeks.

Mrs. Formsby [sic] made an affidavit for the detectives in which she alleged that Leo M. Frank phoned her residence at 400 Piedmont avenue, a number of times between the hours of 6:30 p. m. and 10 p. m. on the evening of the tragedy, and each time begged her to let him bring a girl to her house.

WON’T BE CALLED.

It is considered improbable, however, that Mrs. Formsby will be called as a state’s witness when the case against Frank is tried, for it has been known from the first that her story did not fit in with the theory of the state as to Frank’s actions on the night of the tragedy.

The fact that Mrs. Formsby had returned to the city first became known to the detective department, when she phoned headquarters that practically all of the furniture left in her apartment had mysteriously disappeared. Continue Reading →

Will Reuben R. Arnold Aid Frank’s Defense?

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Wednesday, June 18, 1913

Mr. Arnold and Luther Z. Rosser Both Decline to Discuss Report Circulated

The rumor that Reuben R. Arnold, famous Georgia lawyer, will be associated with the defense of Leo M. Frank, indicted for the Mary Phagan murder, is persistent.

Luther Z. Rosser, who has been retained in the case since Frank was first arrested, refused to deny or affirm the rumor. It is intimated, however, that negotiations are not complete as yet.

Mr. Arnold himself, when questioned about the rumor, refused to discuss it in any way, and his silence has added weight to the report that he will be in the case.

With Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold leading the defense of Frank one of the greatest legal battles in a criminal case in the history of the south is promised. Mr. Arnold and Mr. Rosser have been pitted against each other in the famous McNaughton-Flanders case and in other well known trials, and each time they met there was a legal battle royal. With the two famous lawyers together, a hard and brilliant fight is certain to be given Hugh M. Dorsey, and Frank A. Hooper, the experienced prosecutor who has been engaged to assist the state in the case.

Despite the entry of Mr. Arnold there is said to be little chance that Solicitor Dorsey will have assistance other than that of Mr. Hooper.

DATE OF TRIAL.

Mr. Arnold during the past several weeks has been engaged in the trial before an auditor of the famous Crawford will case. He is said to have closely followed the many developments in the Phagan murder investigation, however, and if he enters the trial, it will not mean necessarily that a postmentment [sic] will be asked by the defense, although it will make a postponement of the trial more probable.

The calendar for the criminal division of the superior court for the week commencing June 23 has been made up and published by E. A. Stephens, the assistant solicitor general.

The calendar for the week commencing June 30 will not be made up until the return next Sunday of Solicitor General Dorsey from Atlantic City, according to Mr. Stephens, who states that as yet he is not certain that the[…]

(Continued on Page Six, Col. 5.)

WILL REUBEN R. ARNOLD AID FRANK’S DEFENSE?

(Continued From Page 1.)

[…]superior court will be in session on that date.

It is said that there is sufficient business of a routine nature pending before the court to occupy it not only during the week of June 23, but through the week of June 30 as well. It is known, however, although there has been no definite announcement, that it is the intention of Solicitor General Dorsey to bring the case against Leo M. Frank to trial on June 30, if possible. Attorney Frank A. Hooper, who will assist Mr. Dorsey in the case, has declared that the state is ready to go to trial at once, and he intimates that efforts to push the trial will be made.

WILL DEFENSE BE READY?

As a result of the attitude of the state’s officials, speculation over the case turns to the defense. Will Attorney Luther Z. Rosser announce ready, if the case is called Monday week?

Mr. Rosser will not discuss the matter. It is known that he has been engaged in the courts in trial of various civil cases practically since the time of Frank’s indictment, and for that reason it is said that he probably would want a postponement of the case.

However, it is known also that regardless of the amount of work he has on hand, Mr. Rosser seldom asks for the postponement of a trial. In fact, he is more often found announcing “ready” than are the majority of other attorneys in Atlanta.

POSTPONEMENT TILL FALL.

If an effort is made to postpone the case at all, it is said that it will be to postpone it until early fall.

The courts generally take a vacation during the months of July and August, and the trial of Mrs. Daisy Grace last July demonstrated the general unpleasantness of a big criminal trial during the summer.

Last year during the Grace trial it was so stifling and hot in the poorly ventilated criminal court room on the fourth floor of the Thrower building, that it was generally considered dangerous to the health of those engaged in the case and of the spectators who thronged there, to hold the trial in the room.

As a result it is probable that the scene of activity will probably be transferred to the old city hall, if the Frank case does come to trial in June. All of the civil courts will not be in session in the first week in July, and one of those rooms probably will be utilized.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 18th 1913, “Will Reuben R. Arnold Aid Frank’s Defense?,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Sensations in Phagan Case at Hand

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Tuesday, June 17, 1913

Out-of-Town Trips Believed To Be of Great Importance—Defense Has Strong Evidence.

Frank A. Hooper, associate counsel with Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey in the prosecution of the Phagan murder mystery, left Atlanta Monday for a trip to Indianapolis. Attorney Hooper was the third man closely connected with the Phagan case to leave town within a space of three days.

Colonel Thomas B. Felder, who took an active part in the hunt for the slayer of Mary Phagan until the dictograph controversy arose, left Sunday, saying that he was going to Cincinnati. He said that it was a business trip and intimated that it was related either to his quarrel with Chief of Detectives Lanford or directly with the Phagan case.

Solicitor Dorsey left the previous afternoon. He gave out that the prosecution entirely had completed its preparation of the Phagan case and that he was going away for a week’s rest at Atlantic City and New York.

Deny Mystery.

At the Hooper home Tuesday it was admitted that Mr. Hooper’s trip was on business, but denial was made that it was in connection with the Phagan case or that there was any significance in his departure practically at the same time as that of Solicitor Dorsey and Colonel Felder.

Rumors are circulating, however, that material witnesses in the case have been uncovered and that their testimony may have a most important bearing in determining the person who strangled Mary Phagan. It is said that the sudden trips out of town of Solicitor Dorsey and his associate, Attorney Hooper, may not be unrelated to these new developments.

The prosecution has been aware for some time that the attorneys for the defense have been weaving a strong net of damaging evidence around the negro sweeper, Jim Conley.

But Attorney Luther Z. Rosser, following his custom of silence, has let neither the public nor the prosecution in on the secret of the source of this important evidence. He has scores of affidavits. That much is known by the prosecution, but by whom they are signed will probably remain a deep mystery until the Frank trial begins. Continue Reading →

Frank A. Hooper to Aid State in Frank Trial

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Journal

Sunday, June 15, 1913

Former Solicitor at Americus Engaged to Assist Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey

That the trial of Leo M. Frank will be a legal battle as brilliant as any ever fought in Atlanta is assured by Solicitor Dorsey’s announcement that Frank A. Hooper, Atlanta lawyer and former solicitor general of the southwestern superior court circuit, has been retained to assist the prosecution.

With the case of the state in the hands of Solicitor Dorsey and Mr. Hooper and the defense resting with Luther Z. Rosser and Herbert Haas the contest is certain to be replete with the unexpected.

Frank A. Hooper, who is Solicitor Dorsey’s choice to help the fight of the state, is distinguished as a state’s solicitor of twelve years experience. No lawyer at the Atlanta bar has seen a similar service as a prosecuting attorney. For this period he acted as solicitor to the southwestern superior court circuit at Americus. Following his term as prosecutor he practiced law in Americus being recently identified with such criminal trials as the Childers trial in Americus and the Cain trial in Cordele. In each of these cases in which the accused was acquitted Hooper appeared for the defense.

He came to Atlanta four years ago as an associate of the late Governor J. M. Terrell.

Pitted against Solicitor Dorsey and Mr. Hooper will be Luther Z. Rosser sometimes known among his confreres as “the best all-around lawyer in Atlanta;” Herbert Haas, a young but experienced attorney, and possibly others.

The report has been persistent in Atlanta for a week that another prominent Atlanta attorney known as a brilliant criminal lawyer is to be associated with the defense. While this report has not been verified there are those who are confident that the defense will be augmented by his weight before Frank faces a jury in the stuffy little Thrower building court room.

In making his announcement that Mr. Hooper was to assist in the Frank prosecution Solicitor Dorsey said that while Mr. Hooper had been his choice, Mr. and Mrs. J. W. Coleman, parents of the slain girl, had been consulted, and they directed him to employ such counsel as he deemed fit. The solicitor asserted that the Colemans had approved the employment of Mr. Hooper.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 15th 1913, “Frank A. Hooper to Aid State in Frank Trial,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

State Takes Advantage of Points Known

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Saturday, June 14, 1913

With certain of the strong defenses of Leo M. Frank exposed by the preliminary battle over the custody of the negro Conley, the prosecution in the Phagan murder mystery went to work on the case to-day with its first definite idea of the sort of a stronghold it must assault.

It was assured that the accused man’s lawyers would not rest with fighting suspicion away from Frank, but would seek to fasten the guilt so firmly upon Conley that Frank not only would be acquitted, but that he would be cleared of every stain which has been cast upon his name and reputation by the terrible charges lodged against him.

Report was rife Saturday morning that the attorneys for Frank had not yet acknowledged defeat in their efforts to have Conley confined at the Tower instead of at the police station, where they charge he is improperly protected and “petted” by the detectives. The next move was rumored to be the swearing out of a warrant charging the negro with the murder, to compel Conley’s removal to the Tower.

Attacked by Rosser.

Luther Z. Rosser, chief of counsel for Frank, has branded at most unusual and irregular the procedure which has allowed the negro, who has confessed to being accessory after the fact, to be left without an indictment[…]

Continued on Page 2, Column 1.

STATE PLANS TO BREAK FRANK DEFENSE

Continued From Page 1.

[…]against him on the charge to which he has virtually pleaded guilty.

Rosser urged an impartial investigation into the possibility that he is even more seriously connected with the crime which resulted in the grewsome death of Mary Phagan.

Chief of Detectives Lanford said Saturday when he was apprised of the contemplated move of those who wish to see the negro’s stories investigated by an impartial body that he assuredly would honor any warrant which on its face appeared bona fide, but that he would fight any effort to take Conley to the jail, which he suspected had back of it the animus of persons unfriendly to the negro and friendly to Frank. Lanford asserted that all of his actions in the Phagan mystery had been inspired by the desire to get the guilty man, and that it was his conviction that the negro was only a tool after the actual crime. Continue Reading →

Conley Released, Then Rearrested

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Saturday, June 14, 1913

After a short hearing in his chambers yesterday Judge L. S. Roan, of the superior court, revoked his former order holding James Conley, the negro sweeper, as a material witness in the Phagan case, and ordered his release from the custody of the state. The negro was immediately rearrested and held by city detectives on a charge of suspicion.

By this the detective department and Solicitor Hugh Dorsey won their first point, as had the negro been ordered held by the state, he would have been transferred to the Tower and placed in the custody of the sheriff, where the detectives could not have reached them at their own free will.

Rosser Makes Protest.

Solicitor Dorsey secured the order for the release of the man who has sworn that Leo M. Frank, now under indictment for the murder of little Mary Phagan, is the real murderer, and Attorney Luther Z. Rosser, representing the indicted man, placed before the court a formal protest to the freeing of the negro.

William M. Smith, counsel for Conley, also filed a bill before the court on behalf of the negro, in which Conley swore to intimidation during the one night he spent at the jail, and declared that he had been approached by a man whom he believed to be in the employ of Frank, and that this man had given him sandwiches, which he feared to eat, and had offered him whisky.

Attorney Rosser stated that he did not wish to make the point that Conley was a material witness, but in his bill which he termed a “protest,” declared that all evidence pointed to Conley as the murderer, and took Chief of Detectives Newport Lanford severely to task for their treatment of the negro.

Attorney Rosser’s Plea.

“To enact the farce in the court’s presence of releasing the negro and immediately returning him to his wet nurses at police station would resemble child’s play,” said Attorney Rosser.

“That the detectives should wish to keep Conley in their custody and entertain him at the city’s expense is not at all surprising,” the attorney declared in his bill. “They have already exacted from him extravagant, unthinkable and unbelievable confessions, three or four in number. To these they have given widest publicity, and to the credibility of the last have staked their reputations and hope of place.”

Attorney Rosser also made the point in his answer that Chief Lanford was not a proper person in which to place the negro’s custody, and declared that he should rightly be turned over to the sheriff of Fulton county, as an unbiased officer of the law, who had nothing at stake in the matter. Continue Reading →

Solicitor H. M. Dorsey Wins in First Clash; L. Z. Rosser Declares Procedure a Farce

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Journal

Friday, June 13th, 1913

Conley is Prisoner of City Detectives, Not of State, Now

Conley Says His Attorney Believes Idea of Transfer Originated With Friends of Frank, to Harm Him

JUSTICE WARRANT MAY ROB DORSEY OF VICTORY

As Negro Is Held Simply on Suspicion, Any Citizen Might Secure Transfer to Tower on J. P. Warrant

James Conley, the negro sweeper, passed from the custody of the superior court Friday morning, and Solicitor General Dorsey won the first legal point in the prosecution of Leo M. Frank, who has been indicted for the murder of Mary Phagan.

Judge L. S. Roan, after a short hearing, which commenced in his chambers at 10 o’clock, granted the solicitor’s petition that the court’s former orders holding Conley as a material witness in the case against Frank, be revoked, thus preventing his transfer to the county jail.

When the court’s action became formally known at police headquarters Conley was released and immediately rearrested on a charge of “suspicion,” and put back in his old cell, where he claims he is afforded protection from friends of Frank, who, he alleges, annoyed him when he was in the Tower.

Judge Roan in opening the hearing remarked that he would have granted the solicitor’s petition instanter had it not been for the unusual excitement about the case. He had issued a rule nisl calling upon any one who so desired to protest the solicitor’s petition, he said, simply out of an abundance of caution.

The court said the only point at issue was whether or not Conley is a material witness in the case.

Present were Luther Z. Rosser, chief counsel for Frank; Stiles Hopkins, of Mr. Rosser’s law firm; Bernard L. Chappell, counsel for Newt Lee; William M. Smith, counsel for Conley, and several attorneys not identified with the case.

The court asked these gentlemen if any one desired to make the point that Conley is a material witness in the case.

While the solicitor has openly stated that Conley is a material witness, he naturally did not make the point before the court.

DECLINED TO MAKE POINT.

Attorney Rosser said that he did not care to say that the negro was material to him.

He stated that he wished to formally file an answer to the rule nisl, with which he had been served, and to make his answer a part of the record in the case. Continue Reading →

Negro Freed But Jailed Again On Suspicion

Posted on by

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Friday, June 13, 1913

Rosser Declares ‘Gibbering Statements’ Point Out Sweeper as Guilty of Slaying.

James Conley, self-confessed accessory after the fact in the murder of Mary Phagan, Friday was discharged by Judge L. S. Roan entirely from the custody of the State on the petition of Solicitor Dorsey.

Technically free, Conley was at once rearrested and held by the police on suspicion in the murder mystery. The action of Judge Roan constituted a victory for Solicitor Dorsey, who was fighting to prevent the authorities returning Conley to the Tower, from which he had been taken on the representation of his attorney, William M. Smith, that the negro was threatened and intimidated in the Tower.

Luther Z. Rosser, attorney for Leo Frank, made a bitter protest against the liberation of the negro, which, in the opinion of Judge Roan, was the only legal alternative of returning him to the county jail. He made a still stronger protest in a formal written statement placed on file as a record in the case.

Accuses Conley as Slayer.

In this he charged that the negro’s series of “gibbering and incoherent statements,” together with the attendant circumstances of the crime and Conley’s subsequent actions, pointed to him as guilty of the murder beyond any reasonable doubt.

Less than ten minutes was occupied in the disposal of the case. Judge Roan did not read either the statement of Attorney Rosser or that of Attorney Smith, who submitted the reasons he wished his client kept at the police station. The dispatch with which the petition was acceded to was a complete surprise. A protracted and hard fought legal battle had been expected.

Judge Roan said that he was without authority to hold the negro in the custody of the State so long as he had no formal application from either side. The Solicitor, he said, was asking for the release of the prisoner, and Attorney Rosser had characterized his statement only as a “suggestion.” Continue Reading →

Judge Roan to Decide Conley’s Jail Fate

Posted on by

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

Atlanta Georgian

Friday, June 13th, 1913

Chief of Detectives Lanford Receives No Order to Take the Negro Sweeper to Court.

A more explicit accusation of murder against Jim Conley, negro sweeper at the National Pencil Factory, than has yet been made since his name has been connected with the Phagan mystery, was expected Friday morning when Luther Z. Rosser, attorney for Leo Frank, was to appear before Judge L. S. Roan to combat Solicitor Dorsey’s move to keep Conley at the police station and away from the tower.

The probability that Conley, accuser, and Frank, accused, would be brought face to face at the hearing was lessened when it was learned that Chief of Detectives Lanford had received no order to take the negro into court and had made the statement that he would not bring the negro out of the station without an order to that effect.

The hearing Friday morning was understood to be largely the outcome of a persistent demand on the part of Frank’s attorneys that Conley, a self-confessed accessory after the fact of Mary Phagan’s murder, and possibly the actual principal, should be removed from the police station and held in the tower.

His Rearrest is Probable.

Judge Roan, following this agitation, decided that he had possessed no authority to remand the negro to the police station, rather than to the Tower. To checkmate the transfer back to the Tower Solicitor Dorsey petitioned that Conley be freed, representing that the need for holding him as material witness no longer existed. Judge Roan set Friday morning for the hearing to show cause why the Solicitor’s petition should not be granted.

The effect of the petition’s success merely will be that Conley will be technically liberated, but will be rearrested and held “on suspicion,” or as a material witness at the police station by the police officers. In the event of the failure of the petition Conley will be returned to the Tower unless the fight is carried still further. Continue Reading →

Luther Z. Rosser Declares Detectives Dare Not Permit Jim Conley to Talk Freely

Posted on by

Luther Z. Rosser, leading attorney in the defense of the indicted pencil factory superintendent. He was snapshotted Friday morning while on his way to the court house to protest to Judge Roan against James Conley, the negro sweeper, remaining in the custody of the city detectives.

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

The Atlanta Journal

Friday, June 13, 1913

“Conley and His Counsel Are Wise—Their Hope Is That the Detectives Will Save Negro From a Confession, Giving Him Immunity, Provided He Continues to Put Guilt on Frank”

Several sensational points are contained in the written answer which Rosser & Brandon, attorneys for Leo M. Frank, made Friday morning to the rule nisi issued by Judge L. S. Roan calling upon Leo M. Frank, Newt Lee, or any other person suspected of the murder of Mary Phagan, or any citizen of the state of Georgia, to show cause why James Conley, the negro sweeper, should not be released as a material witness.

This answer was filed by Attorney Rosser, wkho [sic] referred to it as a “protest” and who asked that it be made a part of the court record. In it the attorneys for Frank declare that “to enact the farce in the court’s presence of releasing the negro and immediately return him to his wet nurses at the police station would resemble child’s play.”

The intimation is very clearly made that the solicitor general and the detectives wish to keep Conley in their custody at police headquarters in order that they may bolster up his sworn confessions and that they dare not let the negro talk freely for fear that he may destroy the value of “one of a number of contradictory statements made by him.”

“That the detectives should wish to keep Conley in custody and entertain him at the city’s expense is not at all surprising,” says the answer. “They have already extracted from him extravagant, unthinkable confessions, three or four in number. To these statements they have given the widest publicity, and to the credibility of the last one they have staked their reputations and hope of place.

“Upon the constancy and stability of this witness they have staked their […]

(ontinued [sic] on Page 7, Col. 1.)

ROSSER DECLARES DETECTIVES DARE NOT LET CONLEY TALK

(Continued from Page 1.)

[…] all. They would be less than human if they did not bend all their power and ingenuity in holding him to his present statement, adding to and taking therefrom only such things as will aid its credibility.” Continue Reading →