Reading Time: 4 minutes [670 words]
The Atlanta Georgian,
Wednesday, 25th February 1914,
7th Edition (Final),
PAGE 1, COLUMN 1.
### PAGE 1, COLUMN 1
**NEW TRIAL PLEA NEXT MOVE**
Newly Discovered Evidence To Be Ground for Appeal Hair Point Stressed.
Leo M. Frank was denied a rehearing before the Supreme Court of Georgia on Wednesday regarding his appeal from the decision of Judge L. S. Roan, who last October refused him a new trial. The vote of the Supreme Court justices was unanimous.
Frank's attorneys, Luther Z. Rosser and Reuben R. Arnold, went into immediate conference to determine their next step, which is expected to be an extraordinary motion filed in the court of Judge Ben Hill asking for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Mr. Rosser was not ready to say Wednesday when this motion would be submitted.
**Basis for New Motion.**
It will be based in part on the sensational statement of Dr. H. F. Harris, made six months after the close of Frank's trial, that the hair found on a lathe on the second floor of the pencil factory was not Mary Phagan's hair; the repudiation of his testimony by the Negro Albert Mc Knight; and the charges of Mrs. Mima Formby that her affidavit against Frank was a "frame-up."
Ten days are required for the decision of the Supreme Court, rendered a week ago Tuesday, to become the opinion of the lower court. Solicitor Dorsey plans to ask for the resentencing of Frank within a day or two after the remittitur is sent down by the Supreme Court. He will sue out a writ of habeas corpus to bring Frank before Judge Hill, and then will ask that the death penalty be renewed.
The immediate filing of an extraordinary motion for a new trial will have the effect of delaying, at least for the present, this action on the part of the Solicitor.
**Would Supersede Sentence.**
If the attorneys wait until after the resentencing of Frank before filing the extraordinary motion, it will, if granted, have the effect of superseding the sentence, as was the case at the time of the motion for a new trial filed with Judge Roan after he had imposed the death sentence on the defendant.
Chief Justice Fish and Justice Beck, who dissented from the original decision refusing Frank a new trial, assented to the denial of a rehearing because, as they said, all of the grounds had been carefully gone over in the first deliberation on the appeal, even though they were not discussed in the opinion, and nothing would be gained by going over them again.
Frank's attorneys, in making the motion for a rehearing, asserted that a number of their arguments had been overlooked or ignored by the Supreme Court justices.
**High Court's Ruling.**
The Supreme Court's ruling read:
Frank versus State.
On motion for a rehearing.
The motion for a new trial contained 103 grounds. To have discussed each of them separately would have unduly prolonged an opinion already necessarily of considerable length. So likewise to deal with each of the grounds of the application for a rehearing in detail would serve no useful purpose. Suffice it to say that the matter set out in the motion for a rehearing was not overlooked in making the decision, but was carefully considered and passed upon, though all of them were not discussed at length. While the difference of opinion among the members of the court as to certain questions, which appears from the opinion and the dissenting opinion, still exists, the court is unanimous in overruling the application for a rehearing. Motion overruled.
**Lawyer Seeks New Trial for Conley.**
Contending that the verdict of the jury which brought to Jim Conley a sentence of twelve months in the chain gang as an accessory after the fact in the murder of Mary Phagan was contrary to law and the principles of justice and equity, William M. Smith, an attorney representing the Negro, Wednesday filed a motion for a new trial. Court Officials were not inclined to view the move very seriously.