The Case of Leo Frank - Essay Example

He molested women to have sexual contact with him. The investigations asserted collected evidence from Frank Leo's partners, such as Jim Conley to nail him during the trial.

The investigations were based on the evidence collected at the scene of the crime. The notes found at the scene were used as leads to finding the murderer. However, the notes were discarded as they were considered a cover-up. Consequently, a sweeper, Jim Conley was used as a witness to recount the happenings on the material day when the victim was murdered. The witness recounted how Leo Frank requested that Conley keeps the door locked for him to make out sexual activity with Paghan.

The witness disclosed to the court that he kept the doors locked so that no one could access the room. He and Leo had arranged how they would communicate. The prosecution used the witness to assert that the suspect, Mr. Leo admitted to Conley that he hit the victim and called for his help in dumping the body. The prosecution also took issue with the conduct of the suspect regarding female workers. As Conley and several women witnesses stated, Leo was a pervert who lured girls into having sex with him.

Upon completion of the hearings, the amount of evidence availed by the prosecution was sufficient to hand a death sentence by hanging. The trial jury held that the suspect, Frank Leo was indeed the murderer and would be executed by hanging. The defense was dissatisfied and sought to appeal in the supreme court of Georgia. The appeal was based on the availability of new evidence. However, the court dismissed the case on a 4-2 vote. The then governor of the state of Georgia, John M. Slaton, believed in the innocence of Leo Frank and reduced the sentencing to a life sentence.

The defense was categorical that the case was racially motivated and biased. Despite the widespread cases of child labor in the state, the murder, especially committed by a Jew, was supposedly the most influential issue in the case. The defense accused the juror and prosecution of racial bias. Consequently, the juror was acting to appease the masses that were baying for Leo’s blood.

The rejection of appeals based on new evidence and admission from Jim Conley and some other female witnesses is disturbing. This is because Conley’s evidence is instrumental in the case. The Supreme Court should have accorded Leo a new trial. The issue posed a challenge to the American system, further supplementing the defense assertions that the case was racially motivated.

The case of Leo Frank posed a challenge to the American judicial system. The technicalities involved complicated the case. The defense was not amused and thought the prosecution and the jury were acting in the public interest rather than rendering an impartial trial. This trial depicted a perfect example of how race and ethnicity influence the outcome of the case in a highly divided society and justice would be compromised. As seen in the end, Leo Frank was innocent, and his extrajudicial killing by Paghan sympathizers is unfortunate.