0934 Page – Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Appeals Records, 1913, 1914

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

the defendant's wife had not visited him for a certain time after he was first
imprisoned, told the jury:

"Do you tell me that there lives a true wife, conscious of her husband's
innocence, that wouldn't have gone through snap-shooters, reporters and
everything else, to have seen him."
Whereupon the following colloquy ensued:
Mr. Arnold: I must object to as unfair and outrageous an argument as
that, that his wife didn't go there because of any consciousness of guilt on his
part. I have sat here and heard the fairest argument I have ever heard,
and I can't object to it, but I do object to his making any allusion to the fail-
ure of the wife to go and see him; it's unfair, it isn't the way to treat a man
on trial for his life.
The Court: Is there any evidence to that effect?
Mr. Dorsey: Here is the statement I have read.
Mr. Arnold: I object to his drawing any conclusions from his wife going
or not going, one way or the other—it's an outrage upon law and decency and
fairness.
The Court: Whatever was in the evidence or the statement I must allow
it.
Mr. Dorsey (resuming): Let the galled jade wince—
Mr. Arnold: I object to that. I am not a "galled jade," and I've got a
right to object. I'm not galled at all, and that statement is entirely un-
called for.
The Court: He has got the right to interrupt you.
Mr. Dorsey: You've had your speech.
Mr. Rosser: And we've had any such dirty speech as that either.
Mr. Dorsey: I object to his remark, your Honor; I have a right to argue
this case.
Mr. Rosser: I said that remark he made about Mr. Arnold, and your
Honor said it was correct; I'm not criticising his speech, I don't care about
that.
Mr. Dorsey (resuming): Frank said that his wife never went back there
because she was afraid that the snap-shooters would get her picture—because
she didn't want to go through the line of snap-shooters. I tell you, gentlemen
of the jury, that there never lived a woman, conscious of the rectitude and
innocence of her husband, who wouldn't have gone to him through snap-
shooters, reporters and advice of any Rabbi under the sun. And you know it.

over rule

Movant says that the Court erred in not taking positive action, under the
circumstances aforesaid, and in not restraining the Solicitor-General from
making his unfounded and unjust conclusions from the alleged failure of
the defendant's wife to visit him, which was not authorized by the evidence
in the case, and erred in allowing the Solicitor-General to argue upon this
subject at all, and erred in not admonishing the jury that such argument
could not be considered and should have no weight with the jury, and the
Court erred in not rebuking the Solicitor-General for making the reply which
he made to the interruption, to the effect: "Let the galled jade wince," and
erred in not rebuking the Solicitor-General for such unjust comments upon
a merited interruption,—and because of such failures of the Court, and be-
cause of the aforesaid erroneous, unjust and unfounded arguments of the
Solicitor-General, movant says that a new trial should be granted.
114