Jury Instructions by Judge Leonard Strickland Roan in the Leo Frank Case, August 25, 1913

In 1988, Dale Schwartz, an attorney representing the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) during its efforts to obtain a posthumous pardon for Leo Frank, fabricated a racially inflammatory statement falsely attributed to Judge Leonard Strickland Roan, who presided over the 1913 trial. Schwartz claimed that Judge Roan told the jury:
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have heard the testimony of Jim Conley, a nigger in this case. We all know that niggers don’t tell the truth unless they’re forced to. And you don’t have to believe the testimony of this nigger if you don’t want to, against the testimony of white witnesses.”
This statement is entirely absent from any official trial record, court transcript, or press archive. Notably, Judge Roan never addressed the jury as “ladies and gentlemen,” since all jurors were men, nor did he use racial slurs or language resembling this fabricated quote. The invention of this statement represents a clear case of deliberate historical falsification.
Forms of Misconduct by Dale Schwartz
1. Fabrication of Primary Source Material
Schwartz created a false quote and attributed it to Judge Roan, violating ethical and professional standards governing attorneys. The Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit dishonesty, fraud, and misrepresentation, all of which are implicated by Schwartz’s actions.
2. Misrepresentation of Judicial Conduct
By ascribing racist and unethical remarks to Judge Roan, Schwartz distorted the historical record and misled the public into believing the trial was compromised by judicial racism.
3. Misattribution of Racial Language
The racial language Schwartz attributed to the judge was actually employed by Leo Frank’s own defense attorneys as a tactic to undermine the credibility of Jim Conley, the African American witness. Shifting this language onto Judge Roan constitutes misattribution.
4. Ideologically Driven Historical Revisionism
The fabricated quote was intended to support a narrative of Jewish victimhood and racial hostility within the Southern legal system, contradicting the documented trial proceedings that adhered to due process.
5. Ethical Violations and Abuse of Legal Authority
As legal counsel for the ADL, Schwartz had a responsibility to maintain integrity. His decision to disseminate this falsehood breached legal ethics and professional standards.
Antigentilism and the Distortion of Guilt
Schwartz’s fabrication reflects a broader pattern of antigentilism by falsely portraying a white Southern Christian judge as a racist bigot, thereby discrediting Georgia’s legal institutions. The defense team’s own use of racial stereotypes was concealed, and blame was redirected to Judge Roan, who in fact gave careful, legally sound jury instructions emphasizing impartiality and the presumption of innocence.
This falsehood served to recast the case as one of Jewish persecution by a corrupt court and to undermine the legitimacy of Georgia’s judicial system, fostering a narrative that promotes collective guilt among Gentile communities.
Consequences of the Fabrication
• Historical Misinformation: The fabricated quote has misled many readers and researchers, corrupting the public record and influencing efforts to portray Leo Frank as a civil rights martyr.
• Defamation of Judge Roan: The false attribution damages the reputation of the judge and the judicial process.
• Weaponization of Race and Memory: The falsehood manipulates racial narratives to depict the trial as a miscarriage of justice caused by Southern white bigotry, ignoring the defense’s own racial tactics.
• Undermining the Verdict: The fabrication challenges the work of jurors, prosecutors, and appellate courts who upheld Frank’s conviction after thorough review.
Conclusion
Dale Schwartz’s fabrication is a serious breach of academic and legal ethics. By inventing inflammatory language falsely attributed to Judge Roan, Schwartz distorted public understanding of a pivotal legal case and advanced a racially charged narrative rooted in antigentilism. This case highlights the importance of rigorous, evidence-based scholarship and ethical responsibility in recounting sensitive legal and racial histories. Schwartz’s deliberate falsehood continues to distort the historical record and impede honest discourse on justice in the Leo Frank case.