0797 Page – Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Appeals Records, 1913, 1914

Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

135 to 137 of the Brief filed in this case.

4. Because the court in rendering the decision in said case, overlooked the following material facts in the record, to-wit: ground two of the motion for new trial, which reads as follows:

"Because the court erred in permitting over objections the witness Lee to testify that Frank, on April 26th, when alone with him at 6 o'clock in the morning, talked to him a shorter time than did W. P. Arnold, one of Frank's attorneys, when he interviewed the witness just before the trial. The detectives had induced Frank to talk to Lee alone on April 26th at the station house for the purpose of inducing Lee to talk. Lee viewed Lee just before the trial, and the jailer, had interviewed Lee the solicitor - over the objections of Frank's attorneys that the evidence offered was irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial - and was introduced to corroborate Lee's testimony, and in so doing, the court erred because the evidence offered was irrelevant and the exclusion of an opinion."

Said ground just quoted, set up material facts constituting error in said case, which the court, in the decision rendered overlooked, and which were not considered in said decision, which appears from the face thereof. Plaintiff in error says that the error committed, as is disclosed from an inspection of the ground are quoted, was material. The facts alleged herein to be overlooked in this ground were discussed in the brief filed by plaintiff in error, as will appear from pages 135 to 137 of the Brief filed in this case.

5. Because the court in rendering the decision in said case, overlooked the following material facts in the record, to-wit: ground seven of the motion for new trial, which reads as follows:-

"Because the court erred in overruling objection made when the evidence was offered that the same was irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, when the witness Black was testified that Frank had counsel Lee permitted the witness Black to eight thirty o'clock London morning while Frank was about eight or nine, brought there by detectives Black and Haslett, in the station house, to the jury was greatly harmful to the defense.

"Lovett contends the employment of counsel, under the circumstances was no evidence of guilt, but the court's conduct in submitting the fact to the jury was greatly harmful to the defense."

"Said evidence was illegal, irrelevant and prejudicial and its admission over objection is here assigned as error for said reasons."

Said ground just quoted set up material facts constituting error in said case, which the court in the decision rendered overlooked and which were not considered in said decision, which appears from the face thereof. Plaintiff in error says that the error committed, as is disclosed from an inspection of the ground are quoted, was material. The facts alleged herein to be overlooked in this ground were discussed in the brief filed by plaintiff in error, as will appear from pages 140