Reading Time: 3 minutes [354 words]

LEO M. FRANE. 307

ease and I know the conscience that abides in the breast of
honest, courageous men.

Now, the book says that if a man has good character, never-
theless it will not hinder conviction, if the guilt of the
defendant is plainly proved to the satisfaction of the jury—
as it was in the Durant case, and I submit that, character or
no character, this evidence demands a conviction, And I’m
not asking you for it either because of prejudice—I’m coming
to the perjury after a bit. Have I so forgotten myself that I
would ask you to convict that man if the evidence demanded
that Jim Conley’s neck be broker?

Now, Mr. Arnold said yesterday, and I noticed it, though
it wasn’t in evidence, that Jim Conley wasn’t indicted. No,
he will never be, for this crime, because there is no evidence—
he’s an accessory after the fact, according to his own admis-
sion, and he’s guilty of that and nothing more, And I’m here
to tell you that, unless there’s some other evidence besides that
which has been shown here or heretofore, you’ve got to get
you another Solicitor General before I’ll ask any jury to hang
him, lousy negro though he may be; and if that be treason,
make the most of it. I have got my own conscience to keep,
and I wouldn't rest quite so well to feel that I had been instru-
mental in putting a rope around the neck of Jim Conley for
a crime that Leo M. Frank committed. You’ll do it, too.

I want you to bear in mind, now, we haven’t touched the
body of this case, we have been just clearing up the under-
brush——we'll get to the big timber after awhile. ‘‘Where char-
acter is put in issae’’—and the State can’t do it, it rests with
him—‘‘Where character is put in issue, the direct examina-
tion must relate to the general reputation, good or bed ;”’ that
is, whoever puts character in issue, ean ask the question with
reference to the general reputation, good or bad, as the case
may be, ‘but on ecrogs-examination particular transactions or
statements of single individuals may be brought into the
inquiry in testing the extent and foundation of the witnesses”
knowledge, and the correctness of his teatimony on direct
examination."’

Related Posts