0905 Page – Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Appeals Records, 1913, 1914

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

"I got hold of the information about Conley knowing how to write through my operatives that I had investigating while I was out of town. McWorth told me in person when I returned."

The Court permitted this testimony over the defendant's objections, as above stated, and in doing so committed error. It was prejudicial to the defendant, because the solicitor contended that the failure of Frank to report the fact that Conley could write, was a circumstance against Frank's innocence, and he sought to show by the above testimony that the detectives were forced to get that information from someone other than Frank.

55. Because the Court permitted the witness L. T. Kendrick over the objection of the defendant, made at the time the evidence was offered that the same was irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent, to testify substantially as follows:

"The clock at the pencil factory, when I worked there, needed setting about every 24 hours. You would have to change it from about three to five minutes, I reckon."

The Court permitted this testimony to be heard over the above stated objections of the defendant, and in doing so committed error.

Kendricks had not worked at the factory for months and whether or not the clock was correct at that time was immaterial and tended to confuse the jury in their effort to determine whether or not the clock was accurate upon the date of the tragedy.

56. Because the Court, over the objection of the defendant made at the time the evidence was offered that the same was irrelevant, immaterial, incompetent, illegal and prejudicial to the defendant, permitted the witnesses, Miss Maggie Griffin, Miss Myrtie Cato, Mrs. C. D. Donagan, Mrs. H. R. Johnson, Miss Marie Karst, Miss Nellie Pettis, Mrs. Mary Davis, Mrs. Mary E. Wallace, Miss Carrie Smith and Miss Estelle Winkle to testify that they were acquainted with the general character of Leo M. Frank prior to April 26, 1913, with reference to lasciviousness, and his relations to women and girls and that it was bad.

The Court admitted this evidence over the objections above stated, and in doing so erred for the reasons herein stated.

In determining general character in cases of murder, lasciviousness or misconduct with women is not one of the traits of character involved. The traits of character involved are peaceableness, gentleness, kindness, and it is utterly immaterial to prove bad character for lasciviousness in a murder trial.

To permit this evidence was highly prejudicial to the defendant. It attacked his moral character and while such attack would not tend to convict him of murder nor show him a person of such character as would likely commit murder, its introduction prejudiced the jury against him.
85