THE PRESIDENT: Well, I take it that by invoking the judicial notice ruling, as set forth in Articles IX and X, that if we yielded to your persuasions that the rule about advance notice and translations would not apply.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I think that is correct; that has been the effort of course of judicial notice. If Your Honors will recall, that was what we did when we brought in certain other proceedings from the Hague Tribunal and others, and Dr. Schilf and I agreed that the reading of that gave a full record, and it was judicial notice of course; the judicial notice rule is not affected by the other rule.
DR. SCHILF, for the Defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg. If the Prosecution uses documents, that is as evidence, which were submitted to the IMT here, if it wishes to introduce these documents here through the channel of judicial notice, then we would seriously suffer if the German translation were not available to us. Therefore, if we are concerned with that point, we would have to ask if the Prosecution wishes to read the documents from the record; it has been said that documents were read into the record of the IMT, and because they now appear in the record, they can new be put forward for judicial notice; and if we are going to be concerned with the documents, we have the right to have twenty--four hours notice, and we further have the right to ask for the translations.
THE PRESIDENT: Speaking for myself, I should like to know just what you expect to prove, what evidence you would offer. This isn't a jury trial, and we will not be prejudiced by learning in advance what you desire to prove.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In any event the Prosecution will probably be permitted to read certain excerpts from the findings of the IMT; it was our proposal, in addition to that, to read, certain excerpts from the evidence which on their face purport to have been the support and the basis and the reasons for those findings. That, in short, is our position?
THE PRESIDENT: The reason why you are limited at this time is because you don't have the translations of them to submit to opposing counsel; is that true?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If we had at our disposal all the documents that had been admitted in IMT, from which I hope to quote, we would have submitted them as exhibits, as new evidence, subject to linking them up; but we felt that this would be a much more expeditious procedure, and with no prejudice of Defense Counsel, for the reason that the German transcript has every word that we would read; it appears in the German transcript of IMT, one copy of which is now in the interpreter's booth and several other copies which are available in the library, in the same place we get this.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me direct a question, if I may, to Defense Counsel, and that is as to why this availability of those German translations doesn't fully protect you so that you can go ahead without this delay.
DR. GRUBE (Attorney for Defendant Lautz):
May it please the Court, I believe the Defense would suffer a disadvantage even if we did receive the German records very early for the following reason: In the same way as it happened earlier, and as is being done before the IMT too, documents were only read into the record in extracts by the Prosecution, and important passages which interested the Defense were never entered into the record. In many cases the passages which were read into the record were taken out of their context, and not comprehensible unless one has the entire document available. Therefore, I believe that we can demand to have the entire document placed at our disposal.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honors, the answer to that is that if the Defense in their case in chief feel that in any one of the excerpts that we read, there are extenuating circumstances that we didn't read, it is certainly within their power to introduce the entire document.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I think there is one more thing I would like to say on this point, to tell the Court, in order to make our position clear. The basic document was a very large exhibit that contains references concerning concentration camps, evidence of the IMT, that is reports on concentration camps, ten or twelve as I recall. We felt that largely for the purpose of this record, that part of those reports which referred to the camps which are linked in our evidence , namely Auschwitz, Flossenberg, and Mauthausen; that is what we want. Now, in addition, we will prepare a document, because in our opinion that is part of our case, and we want it in this record, but we will here to extract, and then may be have new stencils out, both in English and German, of what we take out of this larger document. It is all right; I just wanted to point out that we felt that we were entitled under article 9 to do this by judicial notice. If we are not, then we will put it in, though it may take a little time to resume the Prosecution's case.
THE PRESIDENT: The character of the evidence introduced relates to concentration camps, as I understand it; is that true?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Entirely so, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire at this time how many concentration camps there were in Germany?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I would not like to say, your Honor. I would only like to say that in this case we are primarily concerned with three.
THE PRESIDENT: I am concerned, however, with the number.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I would hesitate to say that except as a matter of evidence. If the Defense Cares to make a statement on that, we have no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Do Defense Counsel desire to make a statement , on that? They are not compelled to answer; I don't want to ask them any questions, but if they are willing to answer, I would be glad to hear the answer.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honors please, the question can't be answered by us. I think there is now a discussion among counsel here; some say there is seventeen; some say there are two hundred; some people say there were five hundred; and some say there were less. As to what constitutes a concentration camp, too, is questionable; I have heard there was one out on the edge of Furth, but I don't know it. There are three of them that we are primarily interested in; what we want to show, Your Honors, is the number of people that died in Mauthausen, Auschwitz, and Flossenberg; how many were beaten up there; how many entered and how many died in that time; that is what that document seeks to prove; that is what is in this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Somewhere I have seen a map of Germany with indications of the location of concentration camps; it may not have been complete, but -
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I mean, I don't know, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I have made the suggestion, but no Defense Counsel have volunteered, and I will not propound the question any further.
JUDGE BRAND: I should like to ask, if Counsel for the Defense care to answer, if a large and voluminous document was offered and received in the IMT trial, and if it gave information concerning many concentration camps, and if the Prosecution only wanted to show what happened in three concentration camps, would Defense Counsel be disposed to object to the admission in evidence of only these portions which relate to the three concentration camps? In other words, would you raise the objection, which you have raised in some other cases, that the entire document, which includes much irrelevant to this case, was not reproduced hero; if Counsel for the Defense would be willing that only the excerpts which relate to the three concentration camps, which are in issue here, should be reproduced, and, I mean, offered in evidence like other documents without objecting on the ground that the entire volume was not reproduced. Then, that would simplify the problem of the Prosecution, and would be perfectly fair to the Defense;
would it not?
DR. KUBOSCHOK (Attorney for Defendants von Ammon and Schlegelberger):
It is natural for the Defense to attach importance to judicial notice. We could, therefore, safely restrict ourselves to material concerning those camps which are being mentioned here, but it is important that material should be submitted from the entire document, and were able to judge whether in their case, on the basis of only extract being read, an objection was necessary or not. The interest of the defendants in this trial may be different from these of the defendants in the IMT, but it is the duty of the Defense Counsel to examine that; for that, he needs the entire document. Naturally, he only needs that document which the prosecution refers to; furthermore, I would ask for an explanation; it did not become quite clear from the German translation as to whether the Prosecution actually, concerning new evidence, in view cf the objections of the Court, whether it will be submitted as evidence or for judicial notice.
I believe that I understood from the German translation that the material is now in effect purely to be submitted in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Is the Court under any misapprehension as to whether or not we offer this as judicial notice. For the benefit of Defense Counsel, we will repeat again it was offered as judicial notice.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal has heard all the argument that would really aid the Court, and I think it would be well to give further thought to this matter. We will, therefore, recess at this time until 1:30 this afternoon, at which time we will finally rule on this matter.
(A recess was then taken until 1330 hours, 29 April 1947).
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 29 April 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Without further argument, I think we may as well settle the matter that we discussed this forenoon once for all. We will take judicial notice of anything that appears in the judgments of the IMT, subject, of course, to rebuttal on new evidence. We interpret the word "record" as found in Article 9 of Ordinance No. 7 more narrowly than the prosecution counsel do, and the record does not include evidence unless that evidence is discussed in the International Tribunal's judgment.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, in line with the ruling of the Tribunal, the prosecution offers for the judicial notice of the Tribunal a few pertinent excerpts from the judgment of the International Military Tribunal referring to concentration camps. I regret that we have not a German transcript, we only have the English, but proceeding on the same ground as heretofore, we feel that defense counsel will not be prejudiced in any way in view of the fact that German transcripts translating the English do exist in the library, and it is a matter of cross-reference to the portions which we read here in English.
The first portion to which we invite the attention of the Tribunal is found on page 16945 of the official English transcript of the judgment. It concerns the criminal activity of the Gestapo, and reads as follows.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. You said 16945? That is a little confusing to my mind. You mean of the printed volume 169?
MR WOOLEYHAN: On my copy of the official transcript, Your Honor, the page number from which I am reading is 16945.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand; that is all right.
MR WOOLEYHAN: "Criminal Activity.
"Originally, one of the primary functions of the Gestapo was the prevention of any political opposition to its Nazi regime, a function which it performed with the assistance of the SD.
The principal weapon used in performing this function was the concentration camp."
Skipping to page 16948 of the judgment, paragraph headed "Conclusion" "The Gestapo and SD were used for purposes which were criminal under the charter involving the persecution and extermination of the Jews, brutalities and killings in concentration camps," and other excesses and brutalities which we will not read.
Skipping to page 16954 of the judgment, under the paragraph headed "Criminal Activities of the SS":
"From 1934 onward, the SS was responsible for the guarding and administration of concentration camps. The evidence leaves no doubt that the consistently brutal treatment of the inmates of concentration camps was carried out as a result of the general policy of the SS, which was that the inmates were racial inferiors to be treated only with contempt. There is evidence that whore manpower considerations permitted, Himmler wanted to rotate guard battalions so that all members of the SS would be instructed as to the proper attitude to take to inferior races. After 1942, when the concentration camps were placed under the control of the WVHA, these concentration camps were used as a source of slave labor.
"An agreement made with the Ministry of Justice on 18 September 1942 provided that antisocial elements who had finished prison sentences were to be delivered to the SS to be worked to death."
Skipping to page 16958 of the judgment, under the paragraph headed "Conclusions" width regard to the SS:
"The SS was utilized for purposes which were criminal under the Charter involving the persecution and extermination of the Jews, brutalities and killings in concentration camps," and other excesses and brutalities which we will not read.
May it please the Court, this morning the Tribunal asked the prosecution a question concerning how many concentration camps we thought were in Europe, that is, within Germany and the occupied territories.
The prosecution did not want to answer that question this morning for at least two reasons, the most important of which probably was that we could not answer it with any degree of accuracy impromptu.
We see now on the wall a map of Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, and other areas, and I wish to explain what this map purports to be. This map was made nearly two years ago for presentation during sessions of the International Military Tribunal; it was in fact so exhibited before that Court. It has also been exhibited before Military Tribunal No. IV very recently. It purports to show, by each red dot and its satellite smaller dots, the principal concentration camps operated by the Nazis both within and outside the Reich. We do not offer it as evidence, nor has it ever been offered as evidence before any court. It has merely been submitted in answer to questions similar to the one posed by this Tribunal by way of information, and we feel it is not prejudicial to the defense, not undue surprise, since they are at liberty either now or later to offer anything in the way of evidence or argument in rebuttal thereto.
We do submit, however, that on that chart is pointed out the location of the concentration camp Mauthausen, the concentration camp Auschwitz, and the concentration camp Flossenbuerg, each designated by a large red dot, surrounded by its satellite subordinate camps. Those were the three camps referred to this morning which, we submit on the face of the record, are linked directly to the evidence already presented in this case with regard to specific concentration camps.
Without saying more, other than to point out furthermore that it will be noted that a number of these concentration camps, particularly Mauthausen which is in Austria, and Auschwitz which is in Poland, are outside of the Reich, we leave the question open as to whether either the Tribunal or the defense have any remarks to make before we remove the chart.
THE PRESIDENT: You spoke of the larger dots and smaller dots. It is difficult at this range of vision to tell which are large and which are small. Would you indicate a few small ones so that I can see the distinction?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: As an example, Your Honor, I show you the large dot which is indicated as being Mauthausen concentration camp. Surrounding this large dot you see satellites of smaller dots, which is to indicate the subordinate concentration camps located nearby and under the administration of the mother camp at Mauthausen. That is found in parallel design throughout the map.
DR. HAENSEL (Counsel for defendant Joel): Because I am also working as defense counsel in the Pohl trial, and therefore I have a special knowledge of the facts, not because it concerns the defendant whom I am defending in this trial particularly, I wanted to say only for the information of the Tribunal that this map, this chart, naturally has to be exaggerated in order to make proper impression. If one looks at the chart one would have to think that all of Germany was at that time a concentration camp, which some who suffered under this maintain was true.
The subject of concentration camps is extremely complicated and is temporarily different at periods of time. Before 1939 there were altogether less than ten concentration camps, and shortly before the collapse there were about 200. The administration between the mother camps and the working or outside camps differentiated between these. The number of inmates increased accordingly from 40 to 60,000 before 1939 to millions towards the end of the war. And all of the difficulties which led to these terrible consequences which we saw in the end films are connected with the collapse of the entire German food economy.
It is therefore very difficult from the conditions in one special camp to generalize. However, I believe no one will deny that in these camps terrible things happened.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honors, I would like further to point out only one thing. As I have said before without pointing, Flossenbuerg concentration camp is within the Reich. As is seen by the arrow, it is somewhere south and west of the town of Bayreuth. Mauthausen is in Austria, south and west of Linz. Auschwitz is in Poland. I can give no town to which it is near -- Kattowice, the borders of the Reich being roughly indicated as this line.
I believe that is all, and if there are no further questions from the Tribunal we will have this sign removed by tonight.
JUDGE BRAND: I wanted to ask only about the identification of these matters for judicial notice. You read additional portions of the Hague Convention this morning. Did you intend that be treated as part of the same exhibit number for Judicial notice as the other portions?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE BRAND: And your reading for judicial notice this afternoon, did you want to give an exhibit number merely for identification as to that?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If it would of value, I have an Exhibit prepared here including the relevant portions of the IMT judgment in an official transcript from which I read. If you desire that, I can submit it as Exhibit 403.
JUDGE BRAND: I am not suggesting that it be treated in any way other than for judicial notice, but I think we would like to have an exhibit number on it to identify it.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Well, as regards judicial notice, Your Honor, I am in complete agreement, except that we do petition the Tribunal that it be treated under the provisions of Article 10. Then we offer as Exhibit 403 that portion of the judgment of the International Military Tribunal which I have just read.
THE PRESIDENT: So that we will have a clear understanding of what is happening here, I would like to inquire if the voluntary statement made by Dr. Haensel, which of course was a statement not under oath, but which we are perfectly willing to receive as being under oath whether that may be in the record as part of the evidence in this case.
DR. HAENSEL: I wanted not to submit it as evidence, but I only wanted to inform the Tribunal. I would suggest that these matters that regard the figures are in documents which cannot be refuted, which are correct. For example, reports of the WVHA. If the Prosecution submits evidence as to this matter, it can find the figures in two or three irrefutable documents for judicial notice.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honors, in line with what defense counsel has just said, the Prosecution would like to add, to clarify what has happened this morning and so far this afternoon, that those documents to which we sought to refer via judicial notice, we will offer as separate exhibits as soon as they can be processed.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it that includes the reports to which Dr. Haensel has just referred?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It does, Your Honor.
MR. KING: Before I refer to Document Book 9-A, may I take up a pending matter from the document book 8-A?
JUDGE BLAIR: May we counsel that what exhibit number is that you are referring to?
MR. KING: I haven't referred to an exhibit number yet. I wish to refer to Document Book 8-A to Page 63 in the English and Page 70 in the German text. As Exhibit 404 we introduce at this time Document 629 PS. This is a letter written anonymously to the Reich Minister of Justice and is dated 8 July, 1940. The writer informs the Minister of Justice that he has a son in a mental institution and he has learned via the rumor route that there is a possibility that his son may be put to death because of his mental condition. He threatens to inform the foreign press if anything should happen to his son. The letter is unsigned and he gives his reasons for submitting it in that form. The Reich Minister of Justice at that time, Dr. Guertner, merely passed it on to State Secretary Freisler with a request to collect such letters, he offer ---
THE PRESIDENT: What is the page in that book please?
MR. KING: 66. Document Book 8-A. We offer the document 629 PS as Exhibit 404.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: May I ask the Court to turn now to Document Book 9-A. Reading from the index page of this book it is apparent that some of the documents listed there have been introduced in connection with other document books. For the Court's information I refer now to those documents that have been previously introduced.
In the case of NG 693 it is to be found as Exhibit No. 5 from Document Book 1-A. The document NG 705 is Exhibit 8 also in 1-A. The document NG 734 is Exhibit 9 from 1-A. The document NG 692 is Exhibit 14, and the Document NG 694 is Exhibit 13, both of the latter two being from the document Book 1-A.
Document Book 9-A and 9-B -- "B" has not been circulated as yet -are addressed especially to Count IV in the Indictment which is entitled "Membership in Criminal Organizations." With the exception of the documents referred to in the index, which have been previously introduced, the documents in Book 9-A are personnel records of the individuals charged in Count IV of the Indictment with being participants in criminal organizations, and are from the personnel records of the Justice Ministry, Personnel Section. They were records kept of all of the employees and officials connected with the Reich Ministry of Justice. For the most part, we will introduce these without any extensive reference.
In passing, it might be well to refer briefly to one or two references in the personnel files. First, may we turn to the personnel records of the defendant Altstoetter, which is the first document in both the English and German books. It's NG-6143. On page 1 of the English, we find the date of joining and party membership number. On page 2, at the top of the page, we find information as to the other organizations to which he belonged. Paragraph 32 of the Indictment states that he was a member of the SS, and at the top of Page 2 of the Document NG-643, we find that confirmed. Then on page 3, the middle of the page, we find the honorary medals and badges which he received in connection with some of his party activities.
As soon as defense counsel have finished with the examination of the document, we will offer this personnel record as Exhibit 405.
DR. ORTH: Dr. Orth for the defendant Alstoetter. The prosecution stated, in explanation of the document, that the honorary badges which the defendant Alstoetter received was because of his membership in the Party. I do not find these awards in the document. The badges which have been enumerated here are exclusively purely military badges and awards.
MR. KING: It is possible, of course, that I interpret the information on page 3 incorrectly. However, I do find there a reference to the SA bronze sports' lieutenant badge.
Now if I am wrong in that, I wish Dr. Orth would correct me; however, it's not of great significance to the use we wish to make of it. If these are primarily military decorations. I will be glad to accept Dr. Orth's statement that is the case.
DR. ORTH: The SA sports' badge is an award for sport records and activities.
The person who received this badge, no matter whether he belonged to the Party or not, received it if he completely fulfilled the sport requirements by the SA.
MR. KING: I have no further comment to make. We offer the Document NG-643 as Exhibit 405.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The next set of personnel records which we wish to introduce concern the defendant Cuhorst and is Document NG-338, to be found on page 13 of the English text. I am sorry I do not have the number in the German text. At the top of page 16 in the English text, we wish to point to the fact that the defendant Cuhorst became a sponsoring member of the SS on 1 January 1934. At the bottom of page 15 is also information concerning his time of joining the party and his Party number. There is also correspondence in this file concerning Cuhorst's service, both before, during, and after his period of service in Stuttgart, to-which we may at some later time refer. At this time, however, wo do not make special reference to it.
We offer the Document NG-583 as Exhibit 406.
MR. DOETZER: May it please the Tribunal. Again, I do not object to the submission of this document. As regards the statement of the gentleman of the prosecution, which in the German translation said that the defendant Cuhorst was Fuehrendos Mitglied -- sponsoring member -of the SS, I want to remark that this is not shown in the document. on the cited page of the document, to remark is FM "SS", since the first of January 1934, Number 278,656. That means that Cuhorst was a sponsoring member of the SS -- Foerderndes Mitglied -- that is, that he was not actually a member of the SS at all.
MR. KING: I think my memory is long enough to let me correctly recall that defense counsel and I uttered exactly the same phrase. We are not at this time, I think, arguing as to the import of the term "sponsoring member", and I believe from what defense counsel says that he and we agree as to how that phrase should be translated.
I offer again the Document NG-583 us Exhibit 406.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
May I inquire of the Court who is acting for the defendant Engert? I don't see Dr. Link in the courtroom.
The next personnel record concerning the defendant Engert is found beginning on page 78 in the English document book. When offered, these records will be found with the next Exhibit No. 407. On the bottom of page 78 in the English text is the date the defendant Engert joined the Party, with the Party number, and at the top of page 39 we find his rank in the SS, as that of Oberfuehrer.
THE PRESIDENT: You say Page 39?
MR. KING: At the top of the page. If I said page 39, I should have said 79.
THE PRESIDENT: It is here, the same place. What document number are you referring to?
MR. KING: 580.
THE PRESIDENT: That is at page 38?
MR. KING: Excuse me, the page numbering in my book is confused. It is 38 instead of 78. It also follows that at the top of page 39 instead of 79. Does the Court find that is correct according to your copy?
THE PRESIDENT: We find such a page and such a reference, yes.
MR. KING: As in the case of other Personnel records introduced this afternoon, we at this time are making no other references and, therefore, offer the document NG-580 as Prosecutor's Exhibit No. 407.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence as Prosecutor's Exhibit No. 407.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, I would like to say something which I think we have indicated. When we have completed this book, we hope to have three witnesses tomorrow, but we will have to ask the Court to recess again for the simple reason that there is no documentary proof available, and the witness which we had anticipated for today had not shown up, and on one of them the twenty-four hours have not expired, but we win start at 9:30 tomorrow morning and expect to have three witnesses before the Tribunal tomorrow.
For the benefit of the defense counsel, we will have the witnesses Hlavac, a Czech, and probably the witness Dr. Cross and the witness Elkar. With our present anticipation we have given notice of these and we hope we will be able to present them.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: If the delay is due only to the fact that the twenty-four hour period has not expired in the case of one of the witnesses, I believe that I can speak on behalf of the defense counsel that in this case we would give up the twenty-four hour yule and dispense with it in view of an expeditious trial.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I thank Dr. Kuboschok very much. The witness twenty-four hour rule will expire in the morning on this one witness. He is at present testifying in another tribunal this afternoon and we could not produce him in here anyhow.
MR. KING: The next personnel record which we introduce at this time refers to the defendant Oeschey. They are contained in Document NG-599 to be found on page 50 - to be found at the beginning of page 50 of the English document book, and will become when formally offered the next exhibit No. 408. The defendant Oeschey is charged in paragraph 33 of Count 4 with being a member of the Party Leadership Corps. We think the Document NG-599 is at least partial evidence in support of this charge, or, at least, evidence in partial support of this charge. On page 50, approximately in the middle of the page, we find that the personnel record shows that since December 1, 1931 he was provisional director of the Reichsamt and on page 62 of the English document book we find a note dated Nuernberg, 13 August 1940, from Oeschey to the president of the district court in Nuernberg in which Oeschey says the following: "By decree of 30 July 1940 of the Reich Legal Office of the NSDAP I was provisionally commissioned with the direction of the Legal Office of the NSDAP in the Franconia Gau and the leadership of the Franconia Gau in the NSRB," which is the National Socialist Jurists' League, "As of 1/8/40," and he signs that note.
For the present we don't wish to refer to the other material contained. in this personnel record of Oeschey and, therefore, offer the document NG-599 as Prosecutor's Exhibit No. 408. As soon as the defense counsel has completed their examination of the document, we will ask it be handed up to the representative of the Secretary General. It has been called to my attention to correctly say that the signature on the document which I have just read, dated Nuernberg, 13 August 1940, is not in this copy the written signature, but rather a typed signature. I understand that there is no objection to the admission, except that the defense counsel wants to have that correctly stated in the record.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence as Prosecutor's Exhibit No. 408.
MR. KING: We next refer to the personnel records of the defendant Nebelung, which begins on page 70 - one moment please - which begins on page 71 of the English text. The defendant Nebelung is charged in paragraph 33, Count 4, with being a member of the Party Leadership Corps. On page 77 of the Document NG-600 we find reference to his Party leadership activities in which it is stated that he is the Ortsgrupponleiter. Also in the same reference is the date of his joining the Party, and his membership number. We offer the document NG-600 as Prosecutor's Exhibit No. 409.