059 Page – American State Trials 1918 Volume X Leo Frank Document

Here is the translated text as follows:

EDWARD D. WORRELL

The purpose of this text is to address the case made by the prosecution and to outline the grounds of the defense.

The defense will be presented under two general headings:

I. I shall first consider, on the supposition that Worrell is to be treated as a responsible being—a rational creature, having control over his actions—a man, amenable to his Maker and to government, whether the State has proven the charges against him as they are set forth in the indictment. In Missouri, we have two kinds of murder—one takes life, the other only liberty. Has the proof implicated the prisoner in the killing of Gordon? Has the circumstantial evidence excluded every hypothesis but his guilt? May all that has been proven be true—and yet Worrell not have killed the deceased? If so, the circumstantial evidence is insufficient for conviction. There is no positive evidence in the case—all is circumstantial. No human being, from the proof, knows the circumstances under which Gordon came to his death. We have to reach conclusions from circumstances only, and they are insufficient to establish the fact that Worrell killed Gordon. Every fact proven may be true—and yet Worrell may not have killed him. This is the legal test of insufficiency. It is an indispensable legal quality of circumstantial evidence that the supposition of the guilt it seeks to establish is the only thing that can explain the facts proven. It is not my purpose now to analyze the testimony offered; but in spite of what has been said by way of estoppel of the defense by my friend, Mr. Coalter (who comes into this tribunal as the employed agent and representative of the friends of the deceased), to him, to the worthy officer of the law, Mr. Gale—to my other excellent friend, Mr. Bay, whose position is not defined, whether adjunct representative of the friends of the deceased, railroad attorney, or patriotic volunteer—to all this array, I present propositions of law and fact, touching their case which may demand their joint attention. In the beginning, you were told by Mr. Coalter that the killing of Gordon by the defendant would not be denied. This was before the proof. Now, after the State has exhausted its evidence,