0939 Page – Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Appeals Records, 1913, 1914

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

Mr. Dorsey: Holloway says when he got back Monday morning it was
hung up in the office, but Boots Rogers said this man Frank—and he was sus-
tained by other witnesses—when he came there to run that elevator Sunday
morning, found that power box unlocked.
Mr. Rosser: That's not what you asked.
Mr. Dorsey: Yes, it is.
Mr. Rosser: You said Frank had the key in his pocket next morning,
and that isn't the evidence, there's not a line to that effect.
The Court: Do you still insist that he had it in his pocket?
Mr. Dorsey: I don't care anything about that; the point of the proposi-
tion, the gist of the proposition, the force of the proposition is that old Hollo-
way stated, way back yonder in May, when I interviewed him, that the key
was always in Frank's office; this man told you that the power box and the
elevator was unlocked Sunday morning and the elevator started without any-
body going and getting the key.
Mr. Rosser: That's not the point he was making; the point he was making,
to show how clearly Frank must have been connected with it, he had the key
in his pocket. He was willing to state that, when he ought to know that's not
so.
The Court: He's drawing a deduction that he claims he's drawing.
Mr. Rosser: He doesn't claim that. He says the point is it was easily
gotten in the office, but that's not what he said."
The Court: You claim that's a deduction you are drawing?
Mr. Dorsey: Why, sure.
Mr. Dorsey: Now, you don't claim the evidence shows that?
Mr. Dorsey: I claim that the power box was standing open Sunday
morning.
The Court: Do you insist that the evidence shows he had it in his pocket?
Mr. Dorsey: I say that's my recollection, but I'm willing to waive it; but
let them go to the record, and the record will sustain me on that point, just
like it sustains me on the evidence of this man Rogers, which I'm now going
to read.

Movant says that the Court erred in not rebuking the Solicitor-General
for the foregoing improper argument which was not warranted by the evi-
dence, and erred it not stating to the jury that there was no evidence that
Frank had the key in his pocket, and in allowing the Solicitor-General to pro-
ceed unrebuked and uninterrupted with said illegal argument, and in not
making a square and decisive ruling, upon objection of the defendant, and
in allowing the Solicitor-General to proceed with said claim that Frank had
the key in his pocket, as a deduction, the same being totally unwarranted; and
for said illegal and erroneous acts, and failures to act, by the Court, and for
said illegal and improper argument, a new trial should be granted.

101. Movant says that a new trial should be granted, because of the fol-
lowing:

The Solicitor-General, in his concluding argument, in referring to the
testimony of the physicians introduced by the defendant, spoke as follows:

"It wouldn't surprise me if the able, astute gentlemen, vigilant as they
have shown themselves to be, didn't go out and get some doctors who have
been the family physicians and who are well known to some of the members
of this jury, for the effect it might have upon you."
119