Analysis of Antisemitism Claims in the Leo Frank Trial
The trial of Leo Frank in 1913 was not influenced by antisemitism, as evidenced by the court proceedings (brief of evidence) and contemporary media coverage. Prosecutor Hugh Dorsey never referenced Frank’s Jewish faith during the trial in any negative way, maintaining a focus on the evidence related to the murder of Mary Phagan.
An incident of religious tension arose from the defense, not the prosecution. During the trial, Leo Frank’s mother caused a disturbance in the courtroom in August, 1913, standing up sharply and shouting at Hugh Dorsey, calling him a “Christian Gentile Dog.” This outburst introduced an anti-Gentile sentiment, originating from Frank’s family, not the state’s case. Rachel Jacobs Frank, Leo's mother had to be removed from the court for her outburst.
The Frank defense, rather than the prosecution, attempted to introduce antisemitism as a factor. On August 21, 1913, during closing arguments, Reuben Arnold, one of Frank’s attorneys, explicitly raised the issue of Frank’s Jewish identity, suggesting it prejudiced the case. This strategic move aimed to portray Frank as a victim of religious bias, despite no evidence of such bias in the prosecution’s arguments or courtroom proceedings.
Contemporary Atlanta press coverage, including major newspapers, consistently avoided mentioning Leo Frank’s religion or casting it in a negative light. Transcriptions from outlets such as The Atlanta Constitution, The Atlanta Georgian, and The Atlanta Journal show no instances of antisemitic rhetoric or references to Frank’s Jewish faith, further undermining claims of widespread religious prejudice.
Source Citation
Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence, 1913.
Atlanta press transcriptions, including The Atlanta Constitution and The Atlanta Journal, August 1913.
Image of Hugh Dorsey with his good friend and roommate during college, Jewish-American attorney Henry Alexander. The prosecutor Hugh Dorsey had Jewish law partners for most of his career.
Mike