436 Slide – American State Trials 1918 Volume X Leo Frank Document

404 X. AMERICAN STATE TRIALS.

eonvict. But the jury may consider the good character of
the defendant, whether the rest of the testimony leaves the
question of his guilt doubtful or not, and if a consideration
of the proof of hia good character, considered along with the
evidence, creates a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury
ag to the defendant's guilt, then it would be the duty of the
Jury to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt thus
raised by his good character, and to acquit him.

The ‘‘character”? as used in this connection, means that
general reputation which he bore among the people who knew
him prior to the time of the death of Mary Phagan. There-
fore, when the witnesses by which a defendant seeks to prove
his good character are put upon the stand, and testify that
his character is good, the effect of the testimony is to say that
the people who knew him spoke well of him, and that his
general reputation was otherwise good. When a defendant
has put his character in insue, the state is 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.

Henee, the Solicitor General has been allowed to eross-ex-
amine the witnesses for the defenss who were introduced to
testify to his good character. In the crossexamination 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 question along
this line he pleased, in order thoroughly to sift the witnesses,
and to see if anything derogatory to the defendant’s reputa-
tion could be proved by them,

The Court now wishes to say to yon that, although the
Solicitor General was allowed to ask the defendant’s charae-
ter 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 te it. Furthermore,