## Facts

- Leo M. Frank was indicted in Georgia for the murder of Mary Phagan and, after a lengthy jury trial, was convicted and sentenced to death.
- Frank moved for a new trial, later raising extensive grounds, including that hostile public sentiment and courtroom disorder amounted to mob pressure depriving him of a fair trial.
- Frank was not present in the courtroom when the verdict was returned; counsel had waived his presence, asserting fear of violence if he appeared.
- The trial court denied relief after considering competing affidavits; the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting mob-domination claims and treating the absence-from-verdict objection as waived under state procedure.
- Frank pursued additional state remedies to set aside the verdict as a nullity on similar grounds and again was denied.
- Frank then sought federal habeas corpus relief, alleging that his custody under a state death sentence violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; the federal district court refused to issue the writ based on the petition and exhibits.

## Issues

1. Whether the conviction and sentence violated Fourteenth Amendment due process because the trial was allegedly dominated by a hostile mob that overbore the court and jury.
2. Whether Frank’s absence when the verdict was returned, allegedly compelled by fear of mob violence, deprived him of due process.
3. Whether the state court’s waiver ruling on Frank’s absence-from-verdict claim was so unforeseeable under state law as to violate the federal Constitution.
4. Whether federal habeas corpus permits reexamination of these claims after state courts of competent jurisdiction adjudicated them on the merits with a full opportunity to be heard.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the writ of habeas corpus.
- The Court held that, considering the entire course of state proceedings, Frank was not deprived of liberty without due process of law.
- The Court declined to relitigate, on federal habeas, factual and legal questions the Georgia courts had fully considered and decided, absent a jurisdictional defect or a fundamental denial of opportunity to be heard.
- The Court accepted the Georgia courts’ treatment of the verdict-absence issue as a matter of state procedural law and rejected the claim that it created a federal constitutional violation.

## Legal Principles

- Due process under the Fourteenth Amendment is assessed by examining the entire course of the state criminal process, including corrective and appellate review, not by isolating a single step.
- Federal habeas corpus is not a substitute for appeal; it generally does not authorize federal courts to reweigh evidence or correct alleged errors of state law when the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in state courts.
- Where state courts, after hearing and considering supporting and rebutting proofs, resolve factual allegations (including claims of mob influence), federal habeas ordinarily treats those determinations as conclusive absent a basic failure of process.
- State-law determinations that a claim was waived through failure to raise it properly and timely are ordinarily controlling on federal habeas unless the state procedure itself denies due process.

## Conclusion

The Court denied federal habeas relief because Georgia’s judicial process—trial, post-trial motions, and repeated appellate review—provided sufficient due process, and federal habeas could not be used to relitigate mob-domination and verdict-absence claims already fully adjudicated in state court.


Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (1915)