Reading Time: 3 minutes [401 words]

410 X. AMERICAN STATE TRIALS.

THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE—THE
APPEALS TO THE COURTS—THE COMMUTA-
TION BY THE GOVERNOR—THE LYNCH-
ING OF THE PRISONER.

October 31, 1913, Judge Roan denied the motion for a new
trial; February 17, 1914, the Supreme Court of Georgia af-
firmed the verdict of the lower court by a vote of four to two,
and February 25, unanimously overruled a motion for re-
hearing* March 7 Frank was sentenced for a second time,
April 17 being set as the date for the execution. April 16
an extraordinary motion for a new trial was filed and sen-
tence was again stayed. April 22, Judge B. H. Hill, former
chief justice of the Court of Appeals,* who had succeeded to
the judgeship of Fulton Superior Court, denied the extraord-
inary motion for a new trial. April 25 Frank’s sanity was
examined and he was declared sane. November 14 the Geor-
gia Supreme Court again denied a new trial* and on Novem-

1A large number of technical errors in procedure and in the admis-
sion of evidence and the prejudiee of the jurymen were alleged by
the prisoner's attorneys, but were all overruled by the Supreme
Court. Frank vy. State, 80 §. E. Rep. 1016. The Court also ruled
that the disorder in the court room during the trial was not of suck
acharacter as to impugn its fairnesa or furnish ground for reversing
the verdict; and that the cheering in the streets on the last day of
the trial was not heard by the jury, and they had no knowledge of
it until after they had rendered their verdict. The absence of tha
prisoner from the Court room when the verdiet was given was not
mentioned by his attorneys in this appeal, Frank v, State, 83 8. E.

sp. 33.

18 See post, p. 628.

,? The error here alleged was the absence of the prisoner without
hia consent from the Court room when the verdiet waa rendered.
Frank v. State, 83 5. E. Rep. 645, The Court stated the case in
these ‘words:

“At the time the verdict was received and the jury trying the case
discharged, the defendant was in the custody of the law and incar-
cerated in the common jail of the county. He was not present when
the verdiet was received, and the jury discharged as he had the, right
in law to be, snd as the law required he should be. He did not waive
the right to be present, nor did he authorize anyone to waive it for
him, nor consent that he should not be present. He did not know

Related Posts