Reading Time: 4 minutes [559 words]


Visible Translated Text Is As Follows:

Affiant further says that at and before said trial was entered on, and during the whole of said trial that affiant had no knowledge whatsoever as to M. Johenning and A. H. Henslee, two of the jurors, being prejudiced, partial and biased in said case, as evidenced by the affidavits of H. C. Lovenhart, Mrs. J. C. Lovenhart, Miss Marian Lovehart, S. Aron, Max Farkas, R. I. Greener, John W. Holmes, Shi Gray, S. M. Johnson, J. J. Nunnally, W. L. Ricker, J. A. Lehman, and C. P. Stough. Affiant did not know either of said jurors and had never seen or heard of them before.

Further deposing, affiant says that he did not know until after the trial, and did not have any means of knowing until after said trial, that said Johenning and said Henslee, or either of them, had made any statement of any kind to or in the presence of any of the persons hereinafter named. Affiant further says that before said trial, at the time of entering upon said trial, and during said trial, he had no knowledge or means of knowing that said persons were prejudiced, partial or biased as is shown by the affidavits or depositions of the persons named, and the facts stated in said affidavits and depositions were unknown to this affiant until after the verdict and sentence in this case. He further says that he has been guilty of no laches in this matter, and has, together with his counsel, used all the means at hand to obtain the facts and circumstances in connection with the statements made by said parties and all of them. The said facts were discovered after the verdict and sentence of the court in the case above stated, and the affidavits of said witnesses were taken on the dates shown in the jurat to each affidavit, and the same are brought to the attention of the Court by being presented on the day for the return of the rule nisi, which is October 4th, 1913, and which is the earliest time at which such affidavits could be brought to the attention of the Court.

Affiant further says that had he known at the trial of any facts or statements which would disqualify, or tend to disqualify, said jurors, or either of them, when said jurors were upon their voir dire in said case, that this affiant would have had his counsel bring the same to the attention of the Court promptly at that time.

LEO M. FRANK.

Sworn to and subscribed before me
this 3rd day of October, 1913
SAML. H. BREWTON,
Notary Public, Fulton County, Georgia.

EXHIBIT J.

Georgia, Fulton County. )
State of Georgia, ) Notice
Versus )
Leo M. Frank. ) Fulton Superior Court.

Personally appeared W. P. Neill, who makes this affidavit to be used on a motion for new trial in the above stated case.

Deposing he says on oath that he was present in the court-room during the trial of Leo M. Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan, for two full days during the trial, and from time to time on other days; that at the time of the facts hereinafter stated, deponent was sitting just where the jury passed by going from the jury box to the rear end of the court-room, he was sitting on the front row of the spectators' benches.

Related Posts