ABSTRACT
In some cases, the framing of controversial debates on nationalism and patriotic identity has been involved. At other times, the phalanx of claims that have been marshaled in defense of the status quo depend on racial, gender-specific, and ethnic prefigurations. Scores of participants in the social drama either recanted some of their testimony or changed their opinions of Frank's guilt or innocence. Yet for some agrarian populists, there was little doubt about Frank's guilt. Most historical attention has been focused on the "mob" that sat outside the courtroom or on the circumstantial evidence that was used to convict Frank, but many of Frank's contemporaries also commented on the appellate procedures that allowed Georgia's state court to be the final arbiter in this volatile case. Strategically, Frank's defense team made several major mistakes when they called into question Conley's character and his recollection of events.
