0980 Page – Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Appeals Records, 1913, 1914

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

allowed to attack it by proving that his general reputation is not good, or by showing that the witnesses who have stated that his character is good, have untruly reported it. Hence, the Solicitor-General has been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses for the defense who were introduced to testify to his good character. In the cross-examination of these witnesses, he was allowed to ask them if they had not heard of various acts of misconduct on the defendant's part. The Solicitor-General had the right to ask any questions along this line he pleased, in order thoroughly to sift the witnesses, and to see if anything derogatory to the defendant's reputation could be proved by them. The Court now wishes to caution you that, although the Solicitor-General was allowed to ask the defendant's character witnesses these questions as to their having heard of various acts of alleged misconduct on the defendant's part, the jury is not to consider this as evidence that the defendant has been guilty of any such misconduct as may have been indicated in the questions of the Solicitor-General, or any of them, unless the alleged witnesses testify to it. Furthermore, where a man's character is put in evidence, and in the course of the investigation any specific act of misconduct is shown, this does not go before the jury for the purpose of showing affirmatively that his character is bad or that he is guilty of the offense with which he stands charged, but is to be considered by the jury only in determining the credibility and the degree of information possessed by those witnesses who have testified to his good character. (Henderson's case, 56 Ga. App. 495 (3)).

When the defendant has put his character in issue, the State is allowed to bring witnesses to prove that his general character is bad, and thereby to disprove the testimony of those who have stated that it is good. The jury is allowed to take this testimony, and have the right to consider it along with all the other evidence introduced on the subject of the general character of the defendant, and it is for the jury finally to determine from all character evidence whether his character was good or bad. But a defendant is not evidence of the crime with which he stands charged, even though, upon the consideration of all the evidence, as to his character, the jury believes that a character is bad, unless from all the other testimony in the case they believe he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

You will, therefore, observe that this is the rule you will be guided in determining the effect to be given to the evidence on the subject of the defendant's character: If, after considering all the evidence pro and con, on the subject of the defendant's character, you believe that prior to the time of Mary Phagan's death he bore a good reputation among those who knew him, that his general character was good, you will consider that as one of the facts in the case, and it may be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, if it so impresses your minds and consciences, after considering it along with all the other evidence in the case; and if, after consideration, you should believe the benefit of the doubt and acquit him it does you should give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and acquit him. If, however, though you should believe his general character was good, still, after giving due weight to it as one of the facts in the case, you believe from the evidence as a whole that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you would be authorized to convict him.

If you believe beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence in this case that this defendant is guilty of murder, then you would be authorized in that event to say "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty." Should you go no further, gentlemen, and say nothing else in your verdict, the Court would have to sentence the defendant to the extreme penalty for murder, to-wit: to be hanged by the neck until he is dead. But should you see fit to do so, in the event you arrive at the conclusion and belief beyond a reasonable doubt from
158