I think the evidence in this case is legally insufficient to support the conviction. Considered in sum, I think it is more
consistent with a frame-up on the defendant than it is with his guilt. It is far short of showing a "lewd" attempt to "fondle"
the prosecutrix, and, while on trial for a felony with a sex aspect, it is about to condemn defendant to infamy and dishonor
I am convinced that it would not be sufficient to condemn him for chicken stealing, a trial for which would be governed by
the same rules of evidence.
