0092 Page – Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Appeals Records, 1913, 1914

Here is the extracted text from the image:

were, also, Greek crosses on the picture. It was conceded by the
State that these dotted lines and crosses were no part of nor
represented any part of the building, but were put in the picture
for the purpose of illustrating the theory of the State, as show-
ing where the body was found and where it was carried.
The admission of the picture in evidence, with the lines and
crosses thereon, was, when offered, objected to because, as
movant contends, it was argumentative, representing and
illustrating the State's view of the case by means of red lines
and crosses, which was no part of, nor illustrated any part of
the building.
The admission of said diagram and drawing was error for the
same reasons as set out in the above objections, the objection
being that the same was illegal and prejudicial, and movant
assigns error in their admission for the same reason.
6. Because the Court, over objection made when the evidence
was offered, that the same was a conclusion, permitted the
witness Black to testify that in a conversation had with Frank
months before the tragedy that he didn't remember any thing that
caused him to believe that Frank was nervous, the hurtful purpose
being to compare his then conduct with that after the tragedy.
This evidence here objected to was illegal, a conclusion, and
prejudicial and movant says its admission was error for said
reasons.
7. Because the Court, over objection made when the evidence
was offered that the same was irrelevant, permitted the witness
Black to testify that Frank had counsel, Messrs. Rosser and Haas
about eight or eight thirty o'clock Monday morning while
Frank was in the station house, brought there by detectives
Black and Haslett.
Movant contends the employment of counsel, under the cir-
cumstances was no evidence of guilt; but the Court's conduct in
conducting the trial to the jury was greatly hurtful to the de-
fendant.
said evidence was illegal, irrelevant and prejudicial and its
admission over objection is here assigned as error for said
reasons.
9