Reading Time: 14 minutes [2497 words]
By Mary Phagan-Kean | April 14, 2026
Documentary and Contextualization
The article and transcript archived at the Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project website (maryphagan.com)¹ is exactly one hundred twelve years old today. It ran on Page Two of The Atlanta Journal on Tuesday, April 14, 1914, and it captures the Leo Frank defense operation at one of its more frantic moments in the post-conviction period. The Mary Phagan case was receiving almost daily coverage as Frank was fighting for his life in the appellate courts. He was 72 hours away from blowing out candles and then being hanged.
Leo Frank Sentenced to Hang on His 30th Birthday
Cohen asserts, that Judge Benjamin Hill, on March 7, 1914, sentenced the convict to die on his forthcoming 30th birthday.³ Frank had been found guilty by a Fulton County jury nearly eight months earlier, on August 25, 1913, and sentenced by the presiding Judge Leonard Roan, to hang with the execution date set for October 10th, 1913. The capital punishment was stayed and he was re-sentenced again by Judge Ben Hill. Frank's guilt was affirmed by higher appellate courts. ² The death sentence was hanging over him literally: his execution was scheduled for the following Friday, April 17, 1914, Leo Frank's thirtieth birthday.³ Frank had been born on April 17, 1884, in Cuero, Texas.⁴
The piece covers two things running simultaneously:
First, the defense was preparing to formally file an extraordinary motion for a new trial in the criminal division of the superior court that Thursday, April 16, 1914. They had served the motion on Solicitor General Hugh Manson Dorsey (July 10, 1871 to June 11, 1948)⁵ more than two weeks earlier. Dorsey was not going to let them amend it without a fight, which set up a courtroom battle.
A rule nisi is a court order that says: "This is happening on this date unless you show up and argue against it."
If Judge Benjamin Harvey Hill Jr. (July 1, 1849 to July 19, 1922)⁶ entertained the motion and issued a rule nisi, it would automatically put a hold on the Friday, April 17, 1914, execution by hanging. That stay was the immediate practical goal, because without it Frank was days away from the gallows. If the motion eventually failed, the consequence was procedurally awkward: Frank would have to be formally arraigned and re-sentenced for a third time before the execution could be rescheduled. He would in fact be sentenced again, as the legal proceedings continued well into 1915.²
Second, the article turns a spotlight on William J. Burns and his Detective Agency, the nationally known and expensive outside investigative firm the defense had retained to dig up new exculpatory evidence after the August 25, 1913 verdict. Burns himself was out of town working what Lehon vaguely called "an angle of the investigation." Dan S. Lehon, his subordinate and the agency's operational fixer in Atlanta, was running the local effort in Burns's absence.
Yellow Journalism and Indirect Calumny Against Dorsey
The Burns Agency's press statements were a calculated agitprop campaign, projecting the opposite of the trial record into public consciousness to manufacture outrage in some, and, in others, erode confidence in a lawful conviction.
Lehon made a statement to the paper that deserves careful scrutiny. He claimed the Burns team had found "not a scintilla of evidence" supporting the perversion charge against Frank, and bragged that almost nobody had come forward to claim the agency's $1,000 reward for proof of Frank's lascivious character, noting only that Atlanta Police Chief Lanford had responded at all.¹
Lanford's caveat was that he would show the evidence only to Burns directly and would not collect the reward. The $1,000 reward was a publicity scheme designed to create the impression of evidentiary weakness where the trial record showed none, and to muddy the waters around any witness who might attempt to come forward to collect the cash.
That Lehon statement was spin, and the trial record proves it. Ten girls had already testified under oath at trial that Leo Frank's reputation for lasciviousness was bad.⁷ Their character testimony supported the sexual motive state's prosecution argued drove the crime. Under Georgia law at the time, the prosecution could not raise the issue of character unless the defense opened the door first. The defense made that blunder, introducing Frank's character at trial and handing the prosecution its rebuttal. Other witnesses testified to Leo Frank's lasciviousness, including Dalton and Conley (brief of evidence, 1913).
"Hasbara Style" Early 20th Century
The jury heard the witnesses, weighed the testimony, and returned a guilty verdict on the full weight of the evidence. Lehon and the Burns Agency responded to that settled record not with new facts but with flamboyant public spin in the extreme, issuing dismissive statements designed to create the appearance of doubt where the trial record showed none.
The Burns Publicity Stunt Backfired
Lehon's public claim that no evidence of perversion existed was a direct contradiction of sworn, on-the-record trial testimony that the jury had already credited. Conley's cross examination had been believed over Frank who had only made an unsworn statement, despite the century of claims to the contrary and obfuscation by Frank's modern defenders. ⁸ Frank's attorneys refused to say what they planned to include in any amendments to the motion once Burns returned and filed his report, which strongly suggested they were holding material in reserve for a second round. In the background, Burns operatives were collecting affidavits from witnesses, some connected to the case and some not, who were financially vulnerable and needed the money (Supreme Court of Georgia. (1914). The State of Georgia v. Leo M. Frank: Appeal records, majority and dissenting opinions. Georgia Supreme Court Archive).
The pattern across the article is consistent: procedural delay through the extraordinary motion, manufactured doubt through the Burns reward stunt, and public spin through Lehon's statements, all while the actual trial record and the jury's verdict remained intact.
The same issue of the paper ran a reader letter in the Journal's Letter Box urging ministers to rely on Gospel truth rather than sensationalism and hype to fill pews. In the context of the Frank case media circus, it reads as a pointed, if oblique, critique of the atmosphere the defense operation and its hired investigators were actively helping to sustain.
Where This Article Sits in the Appeals Timeline
April 1914 was roughly the midpoint of Frank's multi-front legal campaign. The Georgia Supreme Court had already reviewed, affirmed the evidence, and upheld the conviction on all grounds. The extraordinary motion was a second attempt at the trial court level on grounds not fully raised in the original motion. Beyond that, the defense was building toward federal habeas corpus arguments that would eventually reach the United States Supreme Court in Frank v. Mangum, decided in April 1915.⁹
The birthday execution stay the defense was angling for through Judge Hill's court was not just about buying time on the calendar. It was about keeping Frank alive long enough to exhaust every available legal avenue, up to and including the nation's highest court. In total, Frank's conviction was reviewed more than thirteen separate times before Governor John Slaton commuted the sentence to life imprisonment on June 21, 1915, a commutation widely criticized as conflicted because Slaton's law firm had represented interests connected to the Frank defense. A pardons board would later deny exonerating Leo Frank in 1983 and 1986.¹⁰
The Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project archive at maryphagan.com preserves this original reporting as a primary source document, allowing readers to see exactly what the Atlanta press recorded in real time during the appeals period, before any retroactive advocacy had a chance to reframe what actually happened.
References
1. Mary Phagan Kean Legacy Project (April 2026). May amend motion for new trial of Leo Frank: The Atlanta Journal, April 14, 1914 [Primary source transcript]. https://www.maryphagan.com/1914-04-14-may-amend-motion-for-new-trial-of-leo-frank-the-atlanta-journal/
2. Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (1915). United States Supreme Court. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/237/309/
3. Cohen, M. (2012, September 3). Did Leo Frank confess? The American Mercury. https://theamericanmercury.org/2012/09/did-leo-frank-confess/
4. Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2026). Leo Frank. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Leo-Frank
5. Georgia Historical Society. (2024). Marker Monday: Governor Hugh M. Dorsey. https://www.georgiahistory.com/marker-monday-governor-hugh-m-dorsey and Find a Grave. (2003). Hugh Manson Dorsey (1871-1948) - Find a Grave Memorial http://www.findagrave.com/memorial/7961127/hugh-manson-dorsey
6. Find a Grave. (November 24, 2008). Judge Benjamin Harvey Hill Jr. (1849 to 1922). https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/31677480/benjamin-harvey-hill
7. Phagan-Kean, M. (2025). The murder of little Mary Phagan (Rev. ed.). American Mercury Books (rough draft). http://www.MaryPhagan.org
8. Leo Frank Case Archive. (2011). Leo Frank documentary and film review: People v. Leo Frank. LeoFrank.org. https://www.leofrank.org/art-and-drama/people-v-leo-frank/
9. Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (1915). United States Supreme Court. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/237/309/
10. Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles. (1986). Posthumous pardon of Leo M. Frank [Official pardon document]. State of Georgia.
Appendix A: Article Transcript
May Amend Motion For New Trial Of Leo Frank
The Atlanta Journal,
Tuesday, 14th April 1914,
PAGE 2, COLUMN 1.
Solicitor Dorsey has intimated that he will contest any effort by the defense to amend the motion as served on him, and as a result, a court fight Thursday over the point is probable. The extraordinary motion for a new trial of Leo M. Frank, as served on the solicitor more than two weeks ago, will be awarded in all probability, when it is formally filed in the criminal division of the superior court on Thursday morning. It is not expected, however, that the defense will attempt to incorporate any of the findings of Detective William J. Burns in any amendment to be filed on Thursday.
When the motion is filed, Judge Ben H. Hill, if he entertains it, will set a definite date for the arguments, and that will be about Tuesday, April 28th. Therefore, before the argument on the extraordinary motion is commenced, Burns will have made his report on the case, and another amendment, incorporating any new evidence the famous detective has found, will be filed. Attorneys for the defense of Frank refuse to discuss the proposed amendments or what they will contain.
When the extraordinary motion is presented to Judge Hill, if he entertains it and issues a rule nisi, setting a date for the hearing, the same order will contain a stay of Frank's execution on next Friday. The execution once stayed means that Frank, in the event his motion is lost, must be arraigned before the superior court and sentenced for a third time.
Burns had not returned to the city on Tuesday, and Dan S. Lehon, who is in charge of the Burns forces in the chief's absence, said that very likely he will not return to Atlanta for several days. Lehon expects Burns to make his report soon after his return to the city. He asserts positively that Burns has made the trip on an angle of the investigation.
Lehon declares that aside from Chief Lanford of the city detectives, no one has answered Burns' offer of a $1,000 reward for the person who will furnish him with evidence proving that Frank is a pervert. "Except for the statement of Conley at the trial, parts of which are inconceivable," says Mr. Lehon, "we have found not a scintilla of evidence to support the perversion charge."
---
The Journal's Letter Box
Editor The Journal:
It might be considered presumption for one of the congregation to suggest to, criticize, or advise the pulpit, but we are all human, and whether in the pulpit or out of it, are apt to make mistakes. And the most learned and lofty can often learn of the most ignorant and lowly. In this time of intensive living and action, it is the danger of bursting the boundaries of propriety that we should all guard against, and should perhaps press the brake pedal harder rather than open up the throttle wider. Pardon me then for a few thoughts that have engaged my brain while I sit by the wayside and look on.
The pulpit is and should be regarded as the leader in all that is elevating, steering clear of all that tends to lower the standard of life. The pulpit should familiarize itself with the common walks of life, analyze the pulsation of the hearts of the people, breathe the atmosphere of the hustings, only for the purpose of being able to apply the proper remedy under the Gospel as taught in the Bible. The pulpit should observe the methods adopted by the hustings and the political platform only for the purpose of being able to steer clear of the objectionable features which tend to attract the public mind to such an extent as to make it lose sight of the more serious and important responsibilities of life. We should expect the pulpit to avoid methods which would lead us to believe that the Gospel truths have lost their interest and power, and are dependent upon worldly methods to draw a hearing from the people. The pulpit should rely upon the power of God through Jesus Christ, and not sensationalism, to arouse the people and fill the pews of our churches.
We naturally expect the state, the political platform, and even the lecturer to advertise and use all sorts of catchy methods of drawing attention; and the play to be presented, the candidate to be advocated, and the subject to be treated must of necessity be paraded before the public long before the appointed time if a hearing is obtained. The names of the teams which will contest upon the athletic fields must be advertised for days if the sportsman reaps his reward at the entrance gates. The press must carry big headlines and strong cartoons if it would swell the circulation and make money.
Appendix B:
Historical Marker: Governor Hugh M. Dorsey (1871 - 1948)
Year Sign Erected: 2006
Marker Text: Hugh Manson Dorsey was born in Fayetteville, and was admitted to the Georgia bar at the Fayette County Courthouse in 1894. After practicing law at his father's firm, Dorsey became solicitor general of the Atlanta Judicial Circuit in 1910. In this capacity, he prosecuted the 1913 murder case against Leo Frank. During his two-term governorship (1917-1921), Dorsey oversaw the wider implementation of the county unit system of election favoring rural areas; appointed Richard R. Wright, Sr. to direct Georgia's African-American war effort during WWI; and published a pamphlet opposing the unjust treatment of African Americans in Georgia. Hugh Dorsey is buried in Atlanta's Westview Cemetery.
Erected by the Georgia Historical Society, the Fayette County Historical Society, the Fayette Heritage Project, Fayetteville Main Street, and Fayetteville Downtown Development Authority
Tips for Finding This Marker: At 240 South Glynn Street in Fayetteville.