dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
SIR DAVID MAXVVELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases, the first application is on behalf of the Defendant Von Schirach, who asked for one Hans Marsalek as a witness for cross-examination. The Prosecution have already introduced an affidavit from this man, and they have no objection to him being called for cross-examination. My Lord, the second application on behalf of the Defendant Von Schirach is in respect of one Kaufmann. The Defense desires to administer interrogatories to Kaufmann in lieu of calling Kaufmann, who has already been allowed as a witness. There is no objection to that. My Lord, the next matter is an application by Dr. Seidl on behalf of the Defendant Hess, and it is a request for five documents relating to the German-Soviet agreements in August and September 1939. And it is also a request for the calling of Ambassador Gaus as a witness in connection with the above. But the position with regard to previous applications is somewhat lengthy, and without going into details, I tell the Tribunal that this matter has already been before them on six occasions. I have the details if the Tribunal would like them.
THE PRESIDENT: No, because the Tribunal made an order, did they not, that these documents were to be translated?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: And that they would then be considered by the Tribunal?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, My Lord. The Tribunal made an order for them to be translated on 25 March and, My Lord, if I may just remind Your Lordship of the bare facts, on 28 March Fraulein Blank, the private secretary of the Defendant Von Ribbentrop, was asked about the agreement. Your Lordship may remember that my friend General Rudenko objected, but the Tribunal ruled that the questions were admissible, and the witness said she knew of the existence of the secret pact, but gave no details. Then, on 1 April, in the course of Dr. Seidl's cross-examination of the Defendant Von Ribbentrop, the Gaus affidavit was read, and on 3 April, Dr. Seidl applied for Hilger and Weizsacker to be called as witnesses on this point, and on 15 April Dr. Seidl applied for Ambassador Gaus to be called. Now, My Lord, it was discussed before the Tribunal on 17 April, when I said that in view of the Tribunal's previous ruling I could not contest the question of the agreement, but I objected to the witnesses. General Rudenko, I think, stated that he had submitted written objections, and the Tribunal said they would consider the matter. The position today appears to be, taking the five documents, that the affidavit of Dr. Gaus is already in evidence. My Lord, that is the first affidavit. But the second affidavit of Dr. Gaus is not in evidence. With regard to the Non-Aggression Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union, that is already in evidence. As to the Secret Supplementary Protocol appended to the Non-Aggression Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union, the substance is already in evidence. It was given in the Gaus affidavit. Then, My Lord, we have the German-Soviet Frontier and Friendship Pact of 28 September 1939, and the Secret Supplementary Protocol to that pact. The Prosecution submit that these documents have no relevance to the defense of the Defendant Hess, and they cannot see any reason for them being wanted. If necessary, my Soviet colleague can deal further with the matter, but that is the general position.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And we also submit that the second affidavit of Ambassador Gaus is unnecessary in view of his previous affidavit, and without stating them again, I refer to and repeat my objections to witnesses to the discussions preceding the conclusion of the agreement. It is submitted that this is really an irrelevant matter, and unnecessary to occupy the time of the Tribunal regarding it. My Lord, I do not know whether it is convenient...
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal, as I have said, is going to consider this matter. They have not yet had an opportunity to consider these documents, but I should like to ask you whether there is any reason why Ambassador Gaus should be called as a witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: None at all, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: He has already stated the substance of these documents, as has the Defendant Ribbentrop, and if the documents are now produced and supposing that the Tribunal took the view that they ought to be admitted, it would be entirely irrelevant to call Gaus as a witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In my submission that is so, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the Tribunal had better consider these documents, as they had stated in their order they were going to do when the documents had been produced.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases. Now, My Lord, the next application is on behalf of the Defendant Funk, and he requests permission to read the affidavit of the witness Kallus. The permission was previously granted to the Defendant Funk to submit an interrogatory to Kallus, which has been done, and the interrogatory has already been introduced in evidence. The affidavit now in question has been received and supplements the interrogatory, and the Prosecution have no objection. The next application is on behalf of the Defendant Streicher, and he desires to call the witness Gassner as a witness, and he is desired to speak as to the Sturmer and the size of the circulation and the profits. The Prosecution submit that it is unnecessary to call a witness as to the form of the Sturmer after 1933. A representative number of copies of the newspaper are before the Tribunal and the form of the newspaper can be seen from them. On the second point, both the. Defendant Streicher and the witness Hiemer have given evidence as to the Sturmer's circulation, and it is respectfully submitted that the takings of the Sturmer and the use to which they were put are irrelevant. Then, My Lord, the next application, on behalf of the Defendant Sauckel, is for one Biedermann as a witness, instead of a witness allowed previously who cannot be found. The Prosecution have no objection to that, and they have no objection to the documents that are asked for, so with the approval of the Tribunal I shall not go through them in detail.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, we should like to know when you think the most appropriate time would be to hear the evidence on behalf of those defendants whose cases have already been presented, whether to hear it at the end of all the evidence or to hear it earlier?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I should have thought that it was better to hear it earlier if the Tribunal could put aside a Saturday morning for it, or something of that kind, before the cases of the various defendants have gone too far into the background.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider that and let you know.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases. Now, My Lord, the next application is in behalf of the Defendant SeyssInquart, and he asks for an interrogatory to be submitted to Dr. Stuckart to complement the testimony of the witness Lammers. The Prosecution have no objection to such an interrogatory. They reserve the right, or they ask the Tribunal to let them reserve the right, to put in a cross-interrogatory. The Defendant Frick asks for Dr. Konrad as a witness on the question of Church persecution, and the Prosecution suggest that an interrogatory would be sufficient on this point. I think there is a little confusion here; I think that what is desired is an affidavit. The original application says: "Contrary to the charge to the effect that the defendant participated in the persecution of the Churches, an affidavit by the witness is to establish that Frick strongly defended Church interests." So the only question is between an affidavit and interrogatory, not between an oral witness and an interrogatory. Then, if I might leave the next one, the application on behalf of the Defendant Goering, to my friend Colonel Pokrovsky, who is going to deal with that. I pass to the applications of the Defendants Hess and Frank. That is Dr. Seidl's application; and if I might just read what is stated in the Secretary General's note, it is official information from the ministry of war of the United States of America, or another ministerial service official of the Office of Strategic Services. It is stated that such a report is desired to show that the witness Gisevius had perjured himself on the witness stand and that they desire to show this to attack his credibility. It is alleged that the perjuring consists of his denial under cross-examination that he acted on behalf of foreign powers and his denial of receiving any favors from any power at war with Germany, which is supposed to be at variance with his statement that he had friendly and political relations with the American Secret Service and with some subsequently published reports.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Confirmation of these two factors, alleged to be at variance with his prior statements, is sought by requesting official statement; and they ask for United States Secretary of War, Mr. Patterson, as a witness for the essential points, in case the Tribunal does not consider an official report admissible or sufficient or the United States ministry of war refuses the information. Now, My Lord, I deal with this matter simply as a question of jurisprudence on which I submit that the English view is a sound one and should be followed by this Tribunal. The law of England, as I understand it, is that when you cross-examine a witness to credit, you are bound by his answers. There is only one exception to that which, in my recollection, is contained in a note in Roscoe's Criminal Evidence, that when you have cross-examined a witness to credit, you may call a witness to say that, knowing the general reputation of the witness who has been cross-examined to credit, on that general reputation, and only on that general reputation, the witness would not believe him on it. That is the only exception that I know in English Law.
THE PRESIDENT: And, of course, if he is cross-examined as to a crime or a misdemeanor, he may be contradicted.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly; Your Lordship is quite right. I should have put that as an exception; that if he is cross-examined as to a specific conviction, then the conviction may be proved. I am very grateful to Your Lordship. But, My Lord, what is not permissible in English jurisprudence is that when a witness has been cross-examined to credit on particular facts other than a conviction by the State, evidence may be adduced as to these particular facts. I should submit that the principle which I am sure obtains in all systems of jurisprudence, interest ret publicae at sit finis litium must apply and support that condition. Now, I will put it in English-I am sorry. "It is in the interest of the community that there should be an end of the legal proceedings." My Lord, if one did not apply the limit which English jurisprudence has applied, one would then call evidence to attack the credit of witnesses for the Prosecution. The Prosecution would then render a rebuttal and call evidence to attack the credit of each of these witnesses who had attacked the credit of the Prosecution's witnesses and there would never be an end to legal proceedings at all. My Lord, on that point which is a general point-and I do not mean to be academic; it is a point of practical importance for preserving some decent limit to legal proceedings-I would submit that this application should be refused. My Lord, I think that covers all the points except the question of the Defendant Goering's application with which my friend Colonel Pokrovsky will deal.
COL. POKROVSKY: The Defendant Goering is applying, My Lord, for the calling of supplementary witnesses in connection with the Katyn Forest shootings to clarify the matter from the point of view of the Wehrmacht. That is to say he intends to prove that German Armed Forces were not in any way concerned with this Hitler provocation. The Prosecution of the Soviet Union categorically protests.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky. we have this matter fully in our mind as we have already had to consider it; therefore, it is not necessary for you to deal with it in detail, for I understand that these are new witnesses who have not before been applied for.
COL. POKROVSKY: I had in mind the fact that the new witnesses have been called and I would like to inform the Tribunal of our exact point of view with regard to the calling of the new witnesses, without going into detail about the Katyn Forest incident. The Soviet Prosecution, from the very beginning, considered the Katyn Forest incident as common knowledge. The Tribunal can see, by the limited space allotted to this crime in the Indictment and by the fact that we found it possible to limit ourselves to reading into the record only a few short excerpts from the report of the Commission, that we consider this episode to be only an episode. If the question mentioned by Sir David should be raised, that is, the fact that the Tribunal may have doubts about the credibility of certain witnesses or certain documents accepted as evidence-then, once again, we would be forced to present new evidence in order to discredit the new material again presented by the Defense. Thus, if the Tribunal considers it necessary to admit two new witnesses relative to the Katyn Forest shootings, the Soviet Prosecution will find itself obliged to call about ten more new witnesses who are experts and specialists, and to present to the Tribunal new evidence put at our disposal and which we have recently received -new documents. Furthermore, we shall have to return to the question of reading into the record all of the documents of the Special Commission, excerpts from which were read before the Tribunal. We think that it will greatly delay the proceedings, and it will not be a matter of hours but of days. So far as we are concerned, there is no necessity for doing this, and I think that this request should be refused, since there is absolutely no basis or reason for it. That, My Lord, is what I wanted to say in regard to the Defendant Goering's application. I would also like to add a few words to what Sir David said in regard to Dr. Seidl's application. I will not go into all our motives. We certainly support Sir David fully, and we consider that Dr. Seidl's applications should be refused.
COL. POKROVSKY: But I want to report to you that this morning I signed a document which is being sent to you, Your Honor, and which contains a full and detailed statement of our motives and considerations in regard to this question; and this document is presented to the Tribunal. Therefore, without taking up your time, I have found another way of informing the Tribunal about our position.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, it is not necessary, I think, to ask counsel for the Defendant Schirach to address the Tribunal, because there is no objection to those two applications with reference to the witness Marsalek and the interrogatory of Kaufmann. With reference to the Hess matter, the Tribunal will consider that. They are going to consider it as they said they would in their previous order. With reference to the Defendant Funk, there is no objection to the affidavit of Kallus, and so unless counsel for Funk wants to address us upon it, we need not bother about that. With reference to Streicher, there is an objection to Gassner as a witness, so perhaps the counsel for Streicher had better say anything that he wishes to say. [There was no response.] Well, the Tribunal will consider that, then. As to Sauckel there has been no objection. As to Seyss-Inquart, an interrogatory-there is no objection there. As to the Defendant Frick, Sir David suggested an interrogatory. It was not quite clear whether the application meant that. Is counsel for the Defendant Frick here or not? [There was no response.] Well, we will consider that. And with reference to Goering, the Tribunal will consider the applications for the Defendant Goering And with reference to Hess and Frank, as to Gisevius' evidence- Dr. Seidl, do you wish to say anything about that?
DR.ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendants Hess and Frank): Mr. President, the application regarding the obtaining of official information from the minister of war was made for the sole purpose of obtaining evidence as to the credibility of the witness Gisevius. Afterwards I made another application to examine Secretary of War Patterson by means of an interrogatory dealing with the same subject. On the following day I made an application to examine the Chief of the O.S.S., General Donovan, also by means of an interrogatory. I think that this new application is in the hands of the Tribunal. I have made this further application only because the firstnamed witness, Patterson, was minister of war for only a comparatively short period, and because it seemed helpful to have the chief of that organization himself as an additional witness. As a reason for these applications, I refer to my written statement of 1 May this year, which I have also submitted as Appendix 1 of the form. I further refer to Appendix 2, a report by Associated Press on this incident. I should like to reply very briefly to Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe's statement here. The Tribunal does not appear to be bound by any particular rules in dealing with the question of additional witnesses in connection with the credibility of other witnesses. Neither the Charter of the International Military Tribunal nor the regulations governing its procedure contain any definite rules. In my opinion, it is rather left exclusively to the free judgment of the Tribunal whether such additional evidence referring to the credibility of a witness should be admitted or not, and in what circumstances. In German criminal procedure such evidence is admissible without question. However, since the Tribunal in setting up this procedure is not bound by any rules of procedure, I see no reason why the decision should be based on any of the customary Anglo-American legal procedure, since the Charter is not based on either the Anglo-American legal procedure or the continental European legal procedure.
DR.ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendants Hess and Frank): This Tribunal and its rules of procedure are entirely independent and give complete freedom to the judgment of the court. That is all I wanted to say in that connection.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Dr. Seidl. Do the questions which you wish to put with reference to the witness Gisevius relate solely to credit?
DR. SEIDL: In my written application I have already said that as far as I am concerned, it is not a question of whether in certain circumstances the witness Gisevius was guilty of an action which from the German legal standpoint might constitute the crime of treason. I only put that question in connection with the examination of the credibility of the witness before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I thought. Now, one other question I wanted to ask you. Are these pacts or agreements, which you say existed between the Soviet Republics and Germany-are they published in print? Have all the documents which you wish to use been typewritten or mimeographed and circulated to the Tribunal?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, on 13 November of last year, I gave six copies of those five documents to the Secretary General, and I also gave a corresponding number of documents to the Prosecution. All these documents are typewritten, or, rather, they are mimeographed.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: Perhaps I might add one point. On an earlier occasion the Tribunal admitted as evidence an affidavit made by Ambassador Gaus. This first affidavit is a statement of the contents of these secret agreements. It is my opinion...
THE PRESIDENT: I know that, yes.
DR. SEIDL: . . . that if we have the agreements, we should refer to the agreements themselves and not merely to a summary. If the Tribunal so desires, and considers it necessary, then I should be prepared, now or at some later date, to discuss the relevancy of these agreements. I have noted down eight points from which only these agreements appear relevant as evidence, and perhaps I may point out that these additional agreements...
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has already ordered that these documents should be submitted, and they will then consider them and that is what they propose to do; so it is not necessary to go into them in detail. We will consider the matter.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, during the examination of Defendant Funk, a film was shown here on the screen and an affidavit by a witness-Puhl-was read-Emil Puhl, the Vice President of the Reichsbank. At. that time, following an application of mine, the Tribunal decided that this witness, Emil Puhl, should be called here for examination. Now I should like to ask you to amend your decision in one respect. I think it would be useful to show to the Witness Puhl the film which you saw on this screen a few days ago, so that he may state whether in fact the steel vaults of the Reichsbank looked as they were shown in this film. I should like to ask, therefore, Mr. President, that you order this short film which we were shown twice recently to be shown also to the witness Puhl before his examination. It is, of course, not necessary that this should be done during a session of the Tribunal; it can be done in the presence of the prosecutor and myself, outside this courtroom. I have various questions to put to the witness Puhl, and for that it is necessary that he should first see this film. I wanted to make this application today so that there may be no delay when the witness Puhl is examined.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the witness Puhl know the vaults in Frankfurt which were photographed?
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: He was a director in Berlin, was he not?
DR. SA-UTER: Yes; but I assume, Mr. President, that the witness Puhl, who was the managing Vice President, would also know the steel vaults in Frankfurt. Apart from that, I believe that these vaults in the various branches of the Reichsbank were all built on the same pattern, and were also treated in the same way in practice. He will be able, also, to state whether the method of safe-keeping shown in the film was the type actually used by the Reichsbank in looking after deposits.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the Prosecution anything to say about this?
MR.RALPH G. ALBRECHT (Associate Trial Counsel for the United States): If Your Honor please, I think, as it is a document belonging to the case, we would be very glad to show them to the witness before he is cross-examined by Dr. Sauter.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And perhaps the most convenient way would be, as Dr. Sauter suggests, that he should be shown the film in some room in this court; not actually in this room, but in another room.
MR. ALBRECHT: Yes; we can do so in the presence of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you can arrange that between yourself and Dr. Sauter?
MR. ALBRECHT: Very well, Sir.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you very much indeed.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, has any time been arranged for the calling of Puhl?
DR.SAUTER: No; nothing has been arranged yet. As far as I have heard, the witness is already here. I do not know when he is to be heard. I shall leave that entirely to the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: What would be the most convenient time?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, Mr. Dalton suggests to me, at the close of the case of the Defendant Doenitz.