dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
THE PRESIDENT: (d) A defendant who does not wish to testify on his own behalf but who is willing to testify on behalf of a co-defendant may do so during the presentation of the case of the co-defendant. Counsel for other co-defendants and for the Prosecution shall examine and cross-examine him when he has concluded his testimony on behalf of the co-defendant. (e) Subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) do not limit the power of the Tribunal to allow a defendant to be recalled for further testimony in exceptional cases, if in the opinion of the Tribunal the interest of justice so requires. 7. In addition to the addresses of each defendants counsel under Article 24(h), one counsel representing all the defendants will be permitted to address the Tribunal on legal issues arising out of the Indictment and the Charter which are common to all defendants, but in making such address he will be held to strict compliance with Article 3 of the Charter. This address will take place at the conclusion of the presentation of all the evidence on behalf of the defendants, but must not last more than half a day. If possible, a copy of the written text of the address shall be delivered to the General Secretary in time to enable him to have translations made in the English, French, and Russian languages. 8. In exercising his right to make a statement to the Tribunal under Article 24(j), a defendant may not repeat matters which already have been the subject of evidence or already have been dealt with by his counsel when addressing the Court under Article 24(h), but will be limited to dealing with such additional matters as he may consider necessary before the judgment of the Tribunal is delivered and sentence pronounced. 9. The procedure prescribed by this order may be altered by the Tribunal at any time if it appears to the Tribunal necessary in the interest of justice.
THE PRESIDENT: Now the Tribunal will deal with the application for witnesses and documents on behalf of the Defendant Goering, and the procedure which the Tribunal proposes to adopt is to ask counsel for the defendant whose case is being dealt with to deal, in the first instance, with his first witness, and then to ask Counsel for the Prosecution to reply upon that witness and then, when that has been done, to ask defendant's counsel to deal with his second application for a witness, and then for the Prosecution Counsel to deal with that witness; that is to say, to hear the defendant's counsel and the Prosecution Counsel upon each witness in turn. That procedure will probably not be necessary when the Tribunal comes to deal with documents. Probably it will be more convenient for defendant's counsel to deal with the documents together and prosecuting counsel to deal in answer to the documents together. But, so far as the witnesses are concerned, each will be taken in turn. I call upon Dr. Stahmer.
DR.MARTIN HORN (Counsel for Defendant Von Ribbentrop): Before we go into these details I ask to be informed why the Court has the intention of treating the Defense in a fundamentally different manner from the Prosecution. In Article 24 of the Charter it is stated that the Tribunal will ask the Prosecution and the Defense whether they will submit evidence to the Tribunal and if so, what evidence. This decision has so far not been applied by the Tribunal in relation to the Prosecution. I am glad that today the Defense has been granted the possibility to name to the Tribunal those documents and witnesses, which up to now have been difficult to obtain. I am prepared today to tell the Tribunal the essential points which establish the necessity of calling the witnesses and the relevancy of the documents. I ask the Court, therefore on the basis of past practice, not to allow the Prosecution to take part in judging whether a document should be considered relevant or not. As Defense Counsel I am convinced that I would have to submit to a sort of precensorship by the Prosecution which would impair the unity of my entire evidence. I may point out that the protests of the Defense have constantly been postponed with the remark that the Defense would be heard about these points at a later date. If selection of evidence, on the basis of objections by the Prosecution, takes place here today the danger arises that protests which have been postponed will not be able to be treated later. For the reasons stated, therefore, I request the Court to proceed according to past practice, and decide as to the right of the Prosecution to protest against the procurement of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Counsel for Ribbentrop come back to the rostrum? The Tribunal is not altogether clear what motion you are making.
DR. HORN: I propose that the Prosecution should not, at this stage of the Trial, be entitled to make a decision about the calling of witnesses and the relevancy of documents. Mr. President, I should like to plead further on that point. I meant by making a decision that the Prosecution should not yet, at this time, have anything to say about the question of the admissibility or non-admissibility of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that your motion cannot be granted, for this reason: It is true that the Defense is being asked to apply for witnesses and documents now, in accordance with Article 24(d). One principal reason for that is that the Tribunal has got to bring all your witnesses here. The Tribunal has been, for many weeks, attempting to find your witnesses and to produce them here, and to produce the documents which you want. The relevancy of those witnesses and of those documents has got to be decided by the Tribunal; but it is obvious that Counsel for the Prosecution must be allowed to argue upon the question of relevancy, just as counsel for the defendants have been allowed to argue upon the relevancy of every witness and every document which has been introduced by the Prosecution. Exactly the same procedure is being adopted now for the defendants as has been adopted for the Prosecution, with the sole exception that the defendants are being asked to make applications for the witnesses and documents and to deal with the matter at one time, rather than to deal with it as each witness or document is produced. The reason for that is that the Tribunal, as I have stated, have got to find and bring the witnesses here for the defendants and also to produce the documents. Your motion was that the Prosecution should not receive any possibility to decide on the calling of witnesses. The Prosecution, of course, will not decide upon it; the Tribunal will decide upon it. The Prosecution must have the right to argue upon it, to argue that the evidence of a certain witness is irrelevant or cumulative, and to argue that any document is not relevant. And I am reminded that all of these documents have got to be translated for the purposes of the Tribunal.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, many of the defendants' counsel, myself included, have, so far, not been able to question decisive witnesses for the purpose of obtaining information. Therefore, in decisive points we often do not even know exactly what a witness can prove. If, now, we already have to deal with the Prosecution before we know definitely how far it is desirable to fight or not to fight for a witness, we are in an essentially worse situation than the Prosecution, which, whenever the defendants' counsel made protests, knew exactly for what their witness or their evidence was important. In this regard the Defense is, for the most part, in a considerably worse situation, and I am of the opinion that this situation will become even worse if here, besides the Tribunal, the Prosecution can also make protests against the evidence at this stage of the Trial.
THE PRESIDENT: It is true that it is impossible to decide finally upon the admissibility of any piece of evidence until the actual question is asked; and for that reason the Tribunal has already, in deciding provisionally upon the application for witnesses, acted in the most liberal way. If it appears that there is any possible relevancy in the evidence to be given by a witness, they have allowed that witness to be alerted. Therefore, if there is any witness whose evidence appears to be, by any possibility, relevant, the Tribunal will allow that witness, subject, of course, to the directions of the Charter to hold the Trial expeditiously. Subject to those limitations, the Tribunal will allow any witness to be called whose evidence appears to be possibly relevant. That is all the Tribunal can do because, as I have already stated, it is the Tribunal who has to undertake the difficult task of securing these witnesses for the defendants, who cannot secure them themselves.
DR. HORN: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Stahmer.
DR. OTTO STAHMER (Counsel for Defendant Goering): Mr. President, I do not wish to repeat, but I believe that the objection of Dr. Horn has not been understood quite rightly. Dr. Horn wanted only to complain about the fact that the Defense in no case has been asked previously whether an item of evidence that the Prosecution has presented was relevant or not, but we have always been surprised when a witness was brought in and we had no possible opportunity to make any material objections relative to him. Insofar as objections against documents were concerned, that is, as to their relevance, the Defense has always been told that for such an objection the time had not yet come for the Defense...
THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon, Dr. Stahmer, but you have misunderstood. The Defense have never been told that objections to the admissibility of documents could be left over until later. Every objection to the admissibility of a document has been dealt with at the time. Observations upon the weight of the document are to be dealt with now, during the course of the Defense. I don't mean today, but during the course of the Defense. There is a fundamental distinction between the admissibility of a document and the weight of a document, and all questions of admissibility have been dealt with at the time.
DR.STAHMER: Mr. President, I fully understood that distinction. Nor did I want to say that objections against admissibility were turned down, but rather objections against relevancy.
THE PRESIDENT: Objections to the relevancy of documents -- that is to say, their admissibility -- that is the governing consideration under this Charter as to the admissibility of documents. If they are relevant, they are admissible. That is what the Charter says. And any objection which has been made to documents or to evidence by defendants' counsel has been heard by the Tribunal and has been decided at the time. Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal wishes me to point out to the defendants' counsel that they have had long notice of this form of procedure, long notice that under Article 24(d) they were going to be called upon to specify or name their witnesses and the documents which they wish to produce, and to state what the relevancy of the witnesses and the documents would be. It seems to the Tribunal obvious that that procedure is really necessary when one remembers that it is for the Tribunal, with very great difficulty and at considerable expense, to find these witnesses and to bring them to Nuremberg, and to find the documents, if possible, and to bring them to Nuremberg. Now, as to your or to Dr. Horn's objections to the procedure which has been adopted with reference to the Prosecution, it is open to defendants' counsel at any time, if they wish to do so, to apply to strike from the record any document which they think ought not to have been admitted. One of his objections, or possibly your objection, appeared to be that defendants' counsel have not had sufficient time to consider whether a particular document or a particular witness was relevant, and therefore admissible. You have had ample time now to consider the point and if now you wish to apply to strike out any document or to strike out any evidence, you will make that application in writing and the Tribunal will consider it. As I have said, the object of the procedure is to help the defendants and their counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: And it is a necessary procedure because the defendants are unable, naturally, and defendants' counsel are unable, naturally, to procure the attendance of witnesses here in Nuremberg, and in some cases to procure the production of documents. In order that we should do so, on their behalf, it is necessary that we should know whom they want to have produced here, what documents they want to have produced here; and, in order that time should not be wasted and money should not be unduly wasted, it is necessary to know whether the witnesses and the documents have any shadow of relevancy to the issues raised.
DR.STAHMER: Then I shall begin with the naming of those witnesses whose interrogation before the Tribunal I consider necessary. I name first General of the Air Force Karl Bodenschatz.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal does not desire you to read your application. If you will just say in your own words, as shortly as you can, why you want the particular witness, they will then consider it. And if Counsel for the Prosecution wish to object, they will do so. Then the Tribunal will finally decide the matter.
DR. STAHMER: The witness I have named, General of the Air Force Bodenschatz, who is here in the Nuremberg prison, was with the Defendant Goering since 1933, first as adjutant and later as minister, as Chief of the Ministerial Office. He is, therefore, informed about all the principal events of that time. I have named him as a witness for a number of facts which are individually contained in my written statement, but especially that he took part in a conference which took place at the beginning of August 1939 in Soenke Nissen Koog, at which Goering met with English negotiators in order to bring about, with them, the possibility of a peaceful solution of the difficulties already existing at that time between Germany and Poland. At that time he declared to the English negotiators that a war must not take place under any circumstances, and that they must endeavor to settle these differences peacefully. Furthermore, he has made known statements, made by Goering during the past years, particularly 1936 to 1939, from which it can be seen that the intention of the Defendant Goering was to avoid a war, if possible. He declared that the policy of the Reich should be conducted in such a way that a war could not break out under any circumstances. Furthermore, this witness knows about the attitude of Goering when he first heard from Hitler that Hitler intended to attack Russia. Finally he is also informed about the social attitude of Goering whom he had ample opportunity to know very well, particularly after 1939. Those are, generally, the facts about which Bodenschatz could testify here as a witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom): May it please the Tribunal, may I say one general word about the procedure of the Prosecution? My colleagues in all the delegations have asked me to deal primarily with these particular applications. There will be some of them, if the Tribunal pleases, on which certain of my colleagues would like to add a word as they have special interest in them. But in general, and on the whole, I shall deal with the applications for the Prosecution. May I say that the Prosecution has proceeded on this principle that if there is any point of relevance in a witness for whom application is made, they will not, of course, object. But they want to make it quite clear, so the Tribunal will understand, that they are not, by making no objections, accepting the position that every point set out in the document or mentioned by counsel is admitted to be relevant. By making no objection they are simply admitting that there is some relevant point in the matter put forward. On that basis -- and the Tribunal will understand why I have to be careful in the matter -- the Prosecution makes no objection in the case of General Bodenschatz.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer.
DR. STAHMER: I further name as a witness the former Gauleiter, Dr.Uiberreither, who is at present here in the prison a Nuremberg. Uiberreither is to offer the following evidence. He can give information about a speech....
THE PRESIDENT: May I say this to Sir David that perhaps, in view of what you have said, you might be able to indicate at the opening of Dr. Stahmer's motion in respect to each witness whether the Prosecution has any objection to the witness. Perhaps that would make it easier for him to deal shortly with it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May I say that we have no objection to Dr. Uiberreither, on the same basis as I mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: I only meant that if Counsel for the Prosecution indicate to us that they have no objection to a particular witness, then Dr. Stahmer can deal more shortly with the witness.
DR. STAHMER: Surely.
THE PRESIDENT: Just inform us what the relevance of the evidence is, but do it shortly because the Prosecution has got no objection.
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: In the case of this particular witness, would it not be equally convenient to the Defense, for the purpose of shortening things, to have this evidence taken either out of an affidavit or by interrogatories?
DR. STAHMER: Regarding the witness Uiberreither, I have no objections if I have the possibility of getting a statement from the witness himself.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you pass on, you might just tell us what the substance of the evidence is.
DR. STAHMER: Uiberreither was present when Goering, in the summer of 1938, delivered a speech before the new Gauleiter of Austria in which he dealt with the policy of the Reich and in which he spoke about the goal and purpose of the Four Year Plan. The witness, furthermore, was present when Goering, some time after 10 November 1938, that is, after the demonstration against the Jews, called all the Gauleiter to Berlin and there criticized those actions very severely. Those are the two subjects of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then we can pass on to Number 3 now.
DR. STAHMER: The witness is Lord Halifax. Referring to this witness . . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If I may indicate -- the interrogatories have been served on and answered by Lord Halifax. The Prosecution has no objection to the interrogatories. Of course, it objects to his being called as a witness, but we understand that the Tribunal and Dr. Stahmer agree to Lord Halifax being dealt with by means of interrogatories, and we have no objections.
DR. STAHMER: I am satisfied with the reply to my interrogatories which I have already received and I do not insist on summoning the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STAHMER: The next witness is the witness Forbes. I may say that also in this case the submission of an interrogatory was approved and the interrogatory, as far as I have been able to determine, has been sent out already. I have not yet received an answer
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, we have no objection to Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes being dealt with by interrogatories. I will do my best to see that the answer will be forthcoming as soon as possible. My recollection -- I wasn't able to check it -- is that Sir George is at a foreign capital, but I will do my best to see that the answers are brought and certainly will do everything to help or the point.
DR. STAHMER: Whether I can ultimately forego him I shall naturally be able to judge only when I have the interrogatory before me. It may be that in regard to some questions he has given an insufficient answer.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean Dahlerus or Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes?
DR. STAHMER: Forbes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, the interrogatories will be submitted to you as soon as they are answered.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: And I think the same is true of Dahlerus. Interrogatories have been granted for him.
DR. STAHMER: With regard to the testimony of Dahlerus I have to say the following: The testimony of this witness seems to me so important that an interrogatory could not exhaust all his knowledge and therefore I ask to have the witness called so that he cat be interrogated here in court. If this should not be possible, I ask for the opportunity to question him personally at Stockholm. Dr. Siemers knows Dahlerus personally, and he will make a statement concerning this witness.
DR. WALTER SIEMERS (Counsel for Defendant Raeder): I have known Mr. Dahlerus personally for many years. Dahlerus has written to me about the fact that Dr. Stahmer intends to call him as a witness. Mr. Dahlerus, in principle, is prepared to come to Nuremberg without further ado if the Court approves. As soon a the Tribunal agrees, Mr. Dahlerus, as far as I can deduce from his letter, will certainly be ready to come personally. I wish to say something else, as a matter of principle. In the case of important witnesses who, as for instance Mr. Dahlerus, could answer questions which are of far-reaching historic importance, most probably not only one defendant's counsel will want to ask questions, but the subject concerns several Defense Counsels. Therefore, an interrogatory which comes only from Dr.Stahmer, would, in my opinion, not be sufficient in such a case. I therefore ask the admission of the witness also from this point of view.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the position as to the Witness Dahlerus is that Dr. Stahmer has put in interrogatories consisting of 62 questions. I make no complaint of that at all. I only bring it to the notice of the Tribunal to show that Dr. Stahmer has certainly covered the ground. In addition, if the Tribunal would turn for a moment to Dr. Stahmer's application for documents, they will see that Item 26 is Dahlerus' book -- if the Tribunal will pardon my Swedish -- Sista Forsoket, (The Last Attempt). That is a quite lengthy book, dealing in detail with this point, and it is desired, and the Tribunal has allowed, that Dr. Stahmer will use it. In addition, the position of Mr. Dahlerus has been the subject of interrogatories to Lord Halifax, who was then the British Foreign Minister, and to Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes, who was then Counsellor in Berlin, and on the main point of the matter, that Dr. Dahlerus had certain negotiations and paid certain visits, there is no dispute. In my respectful submission, the defendant is well covered by the interrogatories, the connected interrogatories to Lord Halifax and Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes, and the book, and the evidence of the Defendant Goering himself; and it is unnecessary to investigate this matter further as to whether Mr. Dahlerus wishes to come and can come and should come from Sweden.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, may I ask you, has the Prosecution administered cross-interrogatories to Dahlerus?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No.