CHARLES BECKER’S FINAL APPEALS

7/31/2019 CHARLES BECKERS FINAL APPEALS

1/3

CHARLES BECKERS FINAL APPEALS

Manton went ahead andfiled his appeal, but it was to no avail. Part of Mantons written

appeal pointed out the unreliability of Marshall as to being a witness to the Harlem

Conference. However, the Court of Appeals accepted Marshalls testimony in the Becker trialto be true, and not the affidavit Marshall signed in Philadelphia.

In opposition to Mantons motion, New York City Assistant District Attorney Groehl had

filed another affidavit signed by Marshall to the Court of Appeals, which said: I testified to thetruth in everything that I said at the Becker trial, and I do not want to change or take back

anything that I have said, and if I am called upon as a witness again, I will tell the same things

because they are true.Justice Weeks, to whom Manton filed his appeal in court, was unimpressed with

Mantons argument. Justice Weeks told Manton, My first impression is that the affidavit ismanifestly an ingenious invasion of Marshalls testimony and does not come within the legal

provisions for granting a new trial.

Justice Weeks then took Manton to task.He said, Does Marshall say he did not see Becker talking to one of two men at the

corner of 124th

Street and Seventh Avenue?

He does not, Manton admitted.

Why does not your affidavit set forth its contents in language that cannot be

misunderstood? Justice Weeks said. An affidavit bearing on an important fact can be made in a

few clear words without circumvention. The affidavit of Marshall said that he did see Beckerspeak to a man. It says that he later identified that man as Jack Rose. Where an affidavit is

produced to interfere with the orderly process of an appeal, it should be so clear as to be

impossible to be misunderstood.

A second part of Mantons appeal questioned Judge Seaburys impartiality in Beckerssecond trial. Mantons appeal stated that, The facts and law were arrayed and marshaled byJudge Seabury in a way highly inimicable to defendants rights and wholly devoid of any serious

and anxious desire to their preservation.However, the Court of Appeals did not buy Mantons argument concerning Judge

Seaburys conduct in the trial (by this time, Judge Seabury was a member of the Court of

Appeals himself, but he recused himself from reviewing Mantons appeal). In the end, for somebaffling reason, the Court of Appeals somehow found Judge Seaburys conduct to be exemplary.

The Court of Appeals said: The most sedulous mare to preserve the rights of the

defendant was manifested, not only in the charge, but throughout the whole trial, and theassertion seems both unwarranted and underserved.

The final vote from the Court of Appeal was 5-1 in favor of denying Beckers appeal.Justice William Bartlett wrote the majority decision. The lone dissenter was Judge John Hogan.

At this point in time, there were only four means available for Becker to escape the deathpenalty. They were:

1. A plea for Executive Clemency from Governor Whitman, the very man who twicesuccessfully prosecuted Becker. (Fat chance)

2. An application for a new trial based on new-found evidence. (There was none)


2/3

3. An application for writ of habeas Corpus in Federal District court, based on anallegation of violation of Beckers constitutional rights. (Longer than a longshot)

4. An application directly to the Supreme Court. (Worth a shot)On July 9, 1915, just days before Beckers execution (scheduled for July 15), his new

high-powered co-counsel, Bourke Cockran, made an impassioned plea to United States SupremeCourt Justice Charles E. Hughes at Hughes summer home on a lake in Maine.Winston Churchill had once said of Cockran, I have never seen his like, or in some

respects his equal.

In his request for a writ of error, Cochran argued that the agreement made by then-New

York City Assistant District Attorney Frank Moss with Harry Vallon, Jack Rose, and Bridgey

Webber, practically demanded that the three informants, in order to avoid prosecution, should

tie Becker up to the murder of Herman Rosenthal.

The second point on which Cockran sought the writ of error was that the defendant

Becker was denied a change of venue. This had been requested on the grounds that, even before

the trial started, District Attorney Whitman had released statements to the press which could

influence possible jurors against Becker.The third point Cockran argued to Justice Hughes, was that Governor Whitman, the man

to whom Backer would have to make his plea for Executive Clemency, was not the unbiasedperson the Constitution holds should pass on this plea.

A week later, Cockrans three pleas were shot down by United States Supreme Court

Justice Hughes. However, Cockran was able to get Beckers execution date pushed back two

weeks to July 30, 1915. During this time, Cockran said he would prepare a new affidavit to theNew York Supreme Court asking for a new trial.

On the same day Cochran saw Justice Hughes, Charles Plitt visited Gov. Whitman in

Whitmans Executive Chamber in Albany. Plitt told the press he supplied Whitman with new

evidence of police graft in connection with Beckers case. According to a report in the

Washington Post, The Governor did examine the statement Plitt gave him, but gave Plitt littleencouragement. Governor Whitman told Plitt to put the statement in legal form and that then he

would examine it.However, Plitt felt his statement was of great importance; much greater importance than

Whitman had indicated to him. Plitt told the press that his statement, which was prepared with

Beckers knowledge, would prove sensational and save Beckers life.As he left the Executive Chamber in Albany, Plitt said, Charles Becker will never go to

the chair.

At that point in time, the only way for Becker to be spared from the electric chair was forGovernor Whitman to grant Becker clemency. Doing so was not unprecedented for a United

States Governor. In fact, this is exactly what had happened on July 19, 1915, less than two weeks

before Beckers execution.

Leo Frank, a manager in a pencil factory in Georgia, was convicted of killing a 14-year-old girl named Mary Phagan. The chief witness against Frank was an ex-convict named Jim

Conley, who some people, including ex-Georgia congressman W.M. Howard, thought was the

murderer himself. Thanks to Howards pleas to Georgia Governor John M. Slaton, and the

aggressive intervention by a Chicago group called the Chicago Anti-Capital Punishment

Society, the night before Frank was scheduled to be executed, Governor Slaton commutedFranks sentence from death to life imprisonment (the Chicago Anti-Capital Punishment Society


3/3

also collected signatures on petitions to induce Governor Whitman to commute Charles Beckers

death sentence, but to no avail).Of course, some people in Georgia were outraged at the murder of Mary Phagan and not

too happy with the Governor cancelling Franks execution. As a result, although Slatons actions

were praised by theAtlanta Journal Constitution, an angry mob charged the Governors

mansion, forcing Governor Slaton to call out the National Guard. A few days later, GovernorSlaton slithered out of Georgia and absconded with his wife to New York City, where they

stayed at the tony Waldorf Astoria Hotel, before departing on a tour of New York State, as well

as Canada, and the Northern Pacific states (it seemed like Georgia Governor Slaton wanted to beanyplace but in Georgia).

When New York City reporters asked him if he had slipped out of Georgia to avoid the

angry mobs, Governor Slaton bristled, I am incapable of slipping out of Georgia, or anywhere

else.

Slaton was then asked if he thought Frank was guilty, and he gave an answer that played

more to his ideology than to Franks innocence or guilt.

I do not know if Frank was guilty, Slaton said. I was simply asked to commute his

sentence. And if I had done otherwise, I would have felt like an assassin. As it was, I went sixnights without sleep. But Id rather go without sleep than to go 40 years, if I live that long, with

the blood of that man on my hands.

Governor Whitman, on the other hand, did not complain about missing any nights sleep,

when within hours of Beckers appeal being turned down again by the New York Court of

Appeals, Whitman refused to commute Beckers sentence.

Documents

CHARLES BECKER’S FINAL APPEALS