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

412 X. AMERICAN STATE TRIALS.

to hang January 22, 1915. December 21 United States Dis-
trict Judge, W. T. Newman of Georgia, refused a writ of
habeas corpus. December 28, 1914, Mr. Justica Lamar grant-
ed an appeal and certificate of reasonable doubt to the United.

+ States Supreme Court. April 19, 1915, the Supreme Court
of the United States, with Mr. Justices Holmes and Hughes
dissenting, dismissed the appeal? May 31, Frank’s plea for
commutation of sentence to life imprisonment was heard be-
fore the State Prison Commission. June 9, 1915, the State
Prison Commission submitted a divided report to Governor
Slaton, Commissioners Davison and Rainey voting against,
and Commissioner Paterson for commutation. June 21, Gov-
ernor Slaton commuted Frank’s sentence to life imprison-
ment and the prisoner was taken to Milledgeville to begin
his sentence.

On July 17, 1915, Frank was attacked by a fellow convict
who cut his throat with a butcher knife. He lingered be-
tween life and death for several weeks, but finally recovered.

Constitution of the State of Georgia, which provides that the right
of trial by jury except where it is otherwise provided in this Con-
stitution, shall remain invidlate. That the reception of the verdiet in
the absence of the defendant was contrary to and in violation of the
provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, to wit: ‘Nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to
any person within ita jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’
That the reception of the verdict in the absence of the defendant was
in violation of Article 1, See. 1, par. 5, of the Constitution of the
State of Georgia, to wit: ‘Every person charged with an offense
against the lawa of this State shall have the privilege and benefit of
counsel.’

The Supreme Court ruled that because Frank was in court with
his attorneys when he was sentenced and because later, within the
time allowed by law, made a motion for s new trial, which recited,
among other things his absence at the reception of the verdict, and
that his Presence bad been waived by his counsel and his motion for
new was refused by the trial court and its judgement affirmed
by the Supreme Court, the defendant must be considered as having
acquiesced in the waiver made by his counsel of his presence at the
reception of the verdict, and he cannot at a subsequent date set up
euch absence as & ground to set aside the verdict.

* Frank vy, Magnum, 237 U. S. 309.