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

Here is the translated text as follows:

74 YY. AMERICAN STATE TRIALS.

To establish murder in the first degree, the prosecution must prove deliberation and premeditation, which together form the legal definition of malice: the concurrence of these states of mind and intention. Upon hearing this, I assume your minds are prepared to analyze this case. If you find there was express malice, you must find the prisoner guilty of murder in the first degree. If express malice is not clearly proven to your satisfaction, you must find the defendant guilty of murder in the second degree. The defendant's counsel read to you from Wharton to argue that intoxication would reduce the grade of murder to the second degree. However, intoxication cannot do so. When a murder is committed for a specific purpose, it does not indicate a very insane person. Intoxication is no defense when it is shown that a clear purpose is evident in the commission of the fatal deed. A sane person will kill with a purpose, whether it be from prejudice, for robbery, or another criminal intent. An insane person, on the other hand, has no such purpose. If whoever killed Gordon had a purpose in mind, it only tends to demonstrate their sanity.

Major Wright, I admit, is highly knowledgeable in medical jurisprudence. However, doctors often disagree. The two medical witnesses in this case are referenced, but the authors of all books on this still unsettled and misunderstood subject are all theorists. Dr. Bassett, in his profession, seems never to have observed any particular effect of epilepsy on the mental faculties, while other physicians have observed the opposite. Medical professionals have never reached a consensus. This is peculiar to their profession, as they do not possess any fixed unity of views. With them, their systems are all theories. Therefore, I caution you against relying on such learning and opinions, whether delivered orally or from books. The defendant's counsel will bring in authors most favorable to their current argument.

There is something peculiar and astonishing in the conduct of this defense. We expected to hear testimony tending to show hereditary insanity, but when none was proven, the defense suddenly shifted to epilepsy. It is not for me to discriminate as to the authors that will be quoted for the defense. I cannot anticipate them, and I leave that for the counsel who will conclude this on behalf of the State.

I then come to two conclusions: First, a murder was committed; second, it was committed by Wor-