The summary of the judgment in the last sentence of the affidavit shows that Ruehl, to be sure, was his political opponent, but that as such he had to respect him as well as he had to respect him as a man.
DR. LINCK (continued) I further offer Ruehl Document #6 as Exhibit #11. This is the affidavit of Justice Secretary Kurt Hoeche also from Luckenwalde. Under this affiant the defendant had allegedly been active as an employee in the District Court in Luckenwalde without exercising any function or pressure as member of the Nazi Party or the SA or without spying on his colleagues or denouncing them. The witness emphasizes that his wife is Jewish and that the entire family, therefore, had to suffer from chicanery of military authorities. That he did, therefore, not support any National socialists who are war criminals or guilty of any type of offense. As far as the last two documents are concerned I may point out that I consider them very strong evidence because it was possible for me to obtain them from the Russian Zone and because it is less customary for them that Anti-Fascist should exonerate a former Nazi. The other documents concern themselves merely with the time in which the defendant was temporarily director of the State police in Augsburg after he had completed his training and after he had obtained his first somewhat independent position and therefore was able to act with some independence. These affidavits were made out particularly by collaborators of the defendant, partly from affiants with whom he worked together and especially by the racially and political persecuted people whom the defendant helped.
I offer Ruehl Document #8 on page 21 of the book. This is Exhibit 12. It is the affidavit of Josef Brandl of 10 September 1947. Brandl was Police Inspector and had the closest contact with the defendant as director of the executive service. According to this, the defendant never bothered about personal opinions of others and never tried to influence him in Party political sense. Brandl testifies to the tolerant attitude of the defendant, especially in connection with an action which called for the allocation of labor of half Jews and those related to Jews which had been ordered by the entire Reich from Berlin. Contrary to directives and orders from Berlin, Ruehl on his own responsibility excused a number of people from this and thus saved them COURT II CASE IX from labor assignment and its consequence.
The example of a Dr. Fetzer is mentioned especially who had to be assigned immediately, but Ruehl always managed to postpone or suspend his assignment so that Ruehl had considerable unpleasantness since a brother of Dr. Fetzer was assigned for labor by another Gestapo agency. This agency demanded an explanation why Ruehl had not taken the same measures. Hanns Grahammer. He characterizes the defendant in a similar manner as Brandl did. The affiant was an expert for the just mentioned action. The operation, namely this labor assignment of Jews, half Jews and those related to Jews. It was Ruehl's intention to mitigate harshness of this operation and by urgent requests to Berlin he succeeded from the beginning in having all doctors subject to this decree excused from this or, at least, for the time being excused from it. In many other individual cases which Grahammer lists, Ruehl on his own responsibility always exempted those people so that those effected were always saved. These were people from all circles of the population. The regulations that only people who were unfit to work were to be exempted were not observed. The women related to Jews would have had to be used for labor at the place where they lived but this measure was not carried out. Grahammer emphasized the extraordinary risks which Ruehl took with this attitude and he only ascribes it to his clever delaying tactics that he did not suffer any serious consequences. Document 11 as Exhibit 14. It is the affidavit of the former Police President of Augsburg, Wilhelm Stark. Stark got to know Ruehl as an official on whose support one could count when it was a matter of helping endangered people. Stark mentions the example of half Jewish lawyer Kitzinger whom Ruehl had repeatedly exempted from the draft and left him on his job so that Kitzinger was spared until the end of the War. Stark also mentions the case of an officer under his supervision who because of seditious remarks was prosecuted. These utterances had COURT II CASE IX to do with the War which he considered as lost.
Ruehl managed to suspend the proceedings so that no harm came to the person concerned even though he had to count on the fact that the matter might become known.
The next document Ruehl document 12 is offered as Exhibit 15. It was made out by the former Mayor of Augsburg who worked together with Ruehl, as the witness said, in the most loyal manner. Ruehl told that affiant that he would rather have contact with him than with the party because in all cases he wanted to form an objective judgment. This affiant, too, lists a number of individual examples showing how Ruehl conducted himself to Jews who were effected by the action named above to the Reich Security Main Office. He mentioned the Augsburg doctors who were secretly notified so that they could dispose accordingly and be left unharmed. Another example is the case of a Jewish composer professor Plechler who, if I may add this here, had just given the premiere of a new opera according to press reports recently. Piechler had fled and was hiding. On the basis of Ruehl's promises to notify the affiant immediately in case Piechler would be threatened by a new danger, the composer was able to return. This affiant, too, says that Ruehl was able to get around orders of the RSHA on his own risk.
I furthermore offer Ruehl Document 13 as Ruehl Exhibit 16. The former Gauleiter Karl Wahl summarizes the attitude of the defendant Roehl as far as the efforts are concerned which have been mentioned before, and I quote one sentence: "He went to the extreme and although I protected him in individual cases, he always exposed himself to danger of being rebuked by Himmler since Himmler was very strict in those matters as was well known." a collaborator of the above mentioned Gauleiter Karl Wahl, a man by the name of Fritz Thierbach, It concerns itself with the question of a certain Otto Zauner who had received a forcible consignment order to report at a camp. Ruehl had this order revoked and thus was consistent in his tolerant and helpful attitude as the affiant observes.
DR. LINCK(continued) : Ruehl Document 15 is the affidavit of Kurt Muehlen and is submitted as Exhibit 18. The affiant is a confidence man of the CIC in Augsburg. In his former capacity as a plant guard he had considerable official contact with Ruehl. He summarizes his judgment saying that Ruehl did not have the inclination to participate in an extermination program. He bases his opinion, above other things, on the question, of a half Jew named Spieler, who had been drafted into a work camp of the OT. In order to escape this, he was called to Berlin by Ruehl under the pretext that missing family papers had to be obtained. As had been discussed with Ruehl previously, he did not return from there and thus he escaped further persecution.
The next document No. 16 is offered as Exhibit 19 and is the affidavit of Heinrich Riehm. It is reported how Ruehl disclosed to this affiant that the order of the RSHA also effected the leading directors of MAN (machine factory in Augsburg) - Nuernberg. Ruehl willingly listened to what the affiant had to say, reported to Berlin accordingly in order to gain time for those people effected and when Berlin was stubborn as expected, about it he postponed the draft on his own responsibility so that finally these racial victims were saved beyond the time of the collapse. from among the effected, the victims themselves and I submit Ruehl Document 17 as Ruehl Exhibit 20. Dr. Hans Fetzer as also-called non-Aryan, mixed off-spring, was on the list of those who were to be consigned to a camp. To his surprise, he did not receive the expected order and he heard that he had to thank the defendant Ruehl for that. In personal contact with the defendant Ruehl the affiant gained the impression that here the defendant acted in human sympathy and that despite the general order of the RSHA, Ruehl knew how to postpone his transport in such a way that the affiant remained free until the occupation troops arrived. ment 19 as Exhibit 21. The affiant had a Jewish employee, Bertold Auerbach, who was to be transported, too.
After all efforts of the affiant had proved in vain, he turned directly to the defendant Ruehl, found complete human understanding and succeeded in having Ruehl revoke this order.
The next document 20 is offered as Exhibit 22. In this the affiant, Harms Ritter, confirms, and he is active here as Landgerichtsdirektor, that Ruehl supported him and his Jewish wife even though the latter were expressly declared to be fit for work by the District Medical Officer and even though general orders of the Reich Security Main Office were present, Ruehl furnished a dentist's certificate and on this weak basis he managed to postpone the transport of this couple on his own responsibility. Ritter especially emphasizes that he and his wife were complete strangers to the defendant and that the help which he offered was not given from a personal view point. Kitzinger mentioned above, a half Jew of the first degree, mentioned how Ruehl tried to protect him from being sent to a work camp which was very similar to a concentration camp even though the application to Berlin was refused as could be expected. The matter was postponed in such a way that Kitzinger was spared. a Police persecutee by the name of Karl Wernthaler who already was in prison in 1933 and after that was in concentration camp Dachau and after his release from Dachau he was under police supervision until the end of the War. Today he is president of the Social Democratic Municipal Council fraction in Augsburg. He confirms that during the time Ruehl was competent for him, he suffered no persecution. and I offer document 18 as Exhibit 25. It was made out by the wife of a painter named Strupp who had been persecuted for political reasons by the Third Reich after he had spent a lengthy time in a concentration camp in 1933 already.
Strupp was again arrested in April 1944 because of suspicion of espionage and undermining remarks and had been handed over to the courts. Frau Strupp was refused any hearing from all the competent court authorities and finally turned to Ruehl with the request to do something to got her husband released. Ruehl asked for the court records and finally made it possible for the witness to apply to the Justice authorities in Munich and he also personally helped her and her husband. The proper political agencies were indignant about the fact that he disregarded his competence, and the district attorney was just as indignant. The affiant was told that the good offices of the State Police Agencies for her husband were not looked upon with any favor. Ruehl himself was reprimanded. Nevertheless he continued to help the family Strupp. Document Book and I offer it as Exhibit 26. It comes from an employee of the Augsburg office of the defendant. Her name is Marie Luise Henning and it is concerned with the human and professional conduct of the defendant Ruehl as superior. The affiant mentions particularly complaints of various private firms to the effect that Ruehl did not take sufficient action against some people who broke contracts without these complaints having any effect on the defendant at all. The affiant finally reports the judgment which the CIC officer gave here who was in charge with investigating members of the State Police in Augsburg. This said that he was amazed about the leadership of the Augsburg State Police and it was a pity that Ruehl did not have any other profession. reserve the right to submit 1, 2, or 3 further documents next week when the Tribunal reconvenes.
THE PRESIDENT: That right will be reserved.
Mr. Walton.
MR. WALTON: May it please the Tribunal, to those portions of the documents in Document Book I which are character affidavits of the defendant Ruehl, of course, the Prosecution does not object. However, as to his official duties and to his activities in Augsburg after he returned to Russia the Prosecution does enter an objection on the grounds of immateriality. In Document Book II, document 25, being the affidavit of Reinhold Aust, we believe this document to be immaterial In that it gives the activities of Department Ia in Augsburg of the Political Police, the Police Abwehr, and the Gestapo Abwehr. The document then concludes with the lament that old civil servants should not be removed just because the former government has changed which is completely irrelevant and immaterial to the issue. of Dr. Hans Schmitz, being Ruehl Document 26. It is corroborative of the Aust affidavit just mentioned and it contains justification of the Abwehr Police activities and shows cooperation between the Dutch officials and the State Police and it is certainly, we believe, immaterial and irrelevant.
THE PRESIDENT: which counsel will be ready this afternoon to present document books? Any who are here now? Apparently not.
DR. LINCK for Ruehl; As to the objections of the Prosecution, I would like to say only the following. I have submitted the affidavits of Schmitz and Aust to show not what jobs the Gestapo Counter-Expionage had, but the Counter-Expionage in the Police before 1933 and afterwards, namely, the sane tasks, and in order to show that I am not of the opinion of the Prosecution that every member of an Einsatzkommando was born to be such, as the Prosecution claims in the Indictment or makes it seem.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you refute tie thought that Kommando leaders like poets are born and not made?
DR. LINCK: They concern themselves with jobs of Police officials of CIC, the job which my client had and from which he was turned away at the time he served with the Einsatzkommando during his studios at the university.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, be have a list here which would indicate that document books are ready in the cases of Fendler, Jost, Naumann, Radetzky, Sandberger, Schulz, Seibert and Strauch. Now the attornies in those cases ought to be here this afternoon with those books.
MR, WALTON: Your Honor, I don't know about the others but I have only gotten one document book on the defendant Seibert. I haven't been served with Document Book II yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, do you have any document books presented by the defense which are ready now for submission in court?
MR. WALTON: I can only answer for those in Einsatzgruppe D, that is what I am attempting to do. I have one on Seibert and I was under the impression it had already been presented by Dr. Gawlik. As to Document Book II, I have not received, Whatever your list says - I don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: This list says they are in translation but since I received the list several days ago I assumed by this time they were ready. Mr. Ferencz, do you have any outstanding defense document books that have not yet been presented in open court that you know of?
MR. FERENCZ: I believe there are sons, your Honor, which I received in German and not the English copies yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Secretary General please immediately after we recess this morning inquire at the Defense Information Center as to what document books are now ready and sec to it that counsel who may present books, will report to the Tribunal when we reconvene.
Dr. Aschenauer, may I ask a question, please of you.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Pardon me - wrong earphone.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, in order that we may develop a schedule beforehand as to the presentation of summation arguments we would like to get an idea of the length of time you believe you will require in order to present your summation. Do you think that the morning of Monday February 2 would be sufficient for you to present your entire summation?
DR. ASCHENAUER: No, I would say that my final plea will take more than 120 pages and that the whole day will be taken up with it.
THE PRESIDENT: Pretty long speech.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes, and considerable large problems are treated in it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Are you going to be here this afternoon, Dr. Aschenauer?
DR. ASCHENAUER: I shall come back here at 1:30.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, during the recess time we will discuss this among ourselves so that we can work out a schedule, so if you will be here at 2o'clock, we can discuss this anew.
The Tribunal will new be in recess until 2 o'clock.
22 Jan 1948_A_MSD_16_1_Mills (Juelich) (The hearing reconvened at 1415 hours)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: There may be a slight modification in the schedule as announced this morning so that we will now again go over the same ground and indicate specifically what we hope to have from the defense counsel. Dr. Aschenauer will deliver his summation on Saturday, January 31. He will have the entire day for the presentation of his final speech. In view of the fact that he intends to cover, on behalf of many of the defendants, certain legal problems, it is only fair that he should be allowed ample opportunity to develop those legal propositions and thus he will have that entire day. He has promised to have his manuscript in the hands of the translator in ample time so that the Tribunal will have the English version before it on the morning of January 31. The other defense counsel will take up their summations beginning with the morning of Monday, February 2. Since we are naturally always confronted with the translation problem, it is obvious that those manuscripts must be presented for translation in ample time before February 2 so that they may be translated in time. Defense counsel, therefore, are advised that they should have their summation speeches, in German, in the hands of Major Hodges in room 106, no later than the morning of Friday, January 30. Those who can complete their speeches before that time will naturally help everybody concerned if they will deliver their manuscripts to Major Hodges bofore the 30th. But no one should submit it later than the morning of January 30 in room 106, Take it directly to Major Hodges and not to any other office, because he will see that the translation is done immediately. If there is no comment from defense counsel on that point we assume that that will be satisfactory. Dr. Aschenauer submitted a subject for discussion which we have no hesitancy in touch upon. He expressed the apprehension, which I think is shared by attornies throughout the world, that if a speech is delivered and then it is followed by a 23 Jan 1948_A_MSD_16_2_Mills (Juelich) speech from the other side, that the first speech's effect is dissipated in the oratory and eloquence of the succeeding speech.
That is a matter of psychology and a matter of opinion. If the speech delivered on one side is good, effective, and convincing, the deliverer of that speech does not need to be concerned that when his opponent gets up to talk that the effect of his arguments will be forgotten or lost. We only mention this because, as the schedule works out, the prosecution will follow the speeches of the defendants. In other cases it has happened that the prosecution made the first closing statement. He rule was laid down in this case as to who should be first and who should be last. It just developed in these closing days that in order to meet all deadlines, that it might be well if Dr. A chenauer and the other defense counsel followed, and then Mr. Ferencz and prosecution counsel will conclude the arguments. But no one need to fear that merely because the prosecution will deliver the last speech, that that in any way is going to cause the Tribunal not to give the fullest weight, thought, and solemn consideration to what proceeded the final summation speech by the prosecution. Then again, it isn't the prosecution which has the last word in this controversy between two sides, if we want to term it as such, because under the Charter and the law which controls the procedure of this Tribunal, the defendants themselves make the final statements. Is there any comment from either side on that point?
DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for Naumann and Seibert): Your Honor, I am fully convinced that the Tribunal will weigh the speeches independently of the fact who speaks first and who speaks last. But in spite of that, as a defense counsel, I have considerable misgivings if the prosecution should speak after the defense. As far as I know in most legal procedures it is such that the prosecution speaks first and then the defense. The word defense means this because I can only defend myself against something if I am attacked first, and the attack is launched by the prosecution here, and it does not depend on the psychological 22 Jan 1948_A_MSD_16_3_Mills (Juelich) effect, but I have to have an opportunity, if the prosecution should state any incorrectnesses in their final summation which I shall have to correct, and I have to discuss them and I shall not have that opportunity if I have to speak first.
and the prosecution speaks after me. While, if it is the other way around the prosecution has the advantage because the prosecution can answer to my final summation and discuss the various points and give their opinions on it. and I shall be unable to do so, to refute statements made by the prosecution. Therefore I would consider it more correct if the prosecution spoke first so that we should have an opportunity to hear what weight the prosecution factually and physically will give it.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know what the procedure is according to German law, but in all Anglo-American courts, the prosecution speaks last and the reason for that is that the prosecution has the burden of proof. According to Anglo-American law, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution has the burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty. So that the procedure in the English speaking countries is that way that the prosecution speaks last. However that was not the reason that the prosecution was scheduled to speak last in this trial. A I indicated before it was more a matter of accident than anything else, because in the Pohl case where Judge Speight and I say, the prosecution spoke first and it has happened, it's only a matter of arrangements and convenience, as to who speaks first and who speaks last and if you allow one side to answer the other side, each time one side finished there can never be an end to a controversy. because there will always be another word to be said. Certainly every attorney, by this time, has formulated, in his mind, just what he is going to say -- what his defense is, and he doesn't need to have the prosecution tell him at this late date what he is being charged with. I don't see this great psychological advantage, Dr. Gawlik, and certainly no legal advantage, in speaking after the prosecution.
22 Jan 1948_A_MSD_16_4_Mills (Juelich)
DR. GAWLIK: May I say the following to this, your Honor, According to German legal procedure the prosecution speaks first and then the defense. Buat apart from this I would like you to consider this point of view. In all trials which took place here before all Tribunals, the prosecution has spoken first and in all cases the prosecution has applied that they might be allowed to speak last. Until now this has always been refused, and we found that in the final summation the matter is described differently by the prosecution than has been shown in their cse in chief and also was given different weight, from a legal point of view. That is why we think it necessary that we be given an opportunity to comment in someway or other to the final summation by the prosecution, and I don't know, your Honor, why the prosecution whould want to speak here last -- whether there are technical reasons or -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the only reason is, their burden, as you will admit, is a greater one than the derense's, not only legally, but factually and physically. You have twenty-two lawyers, each lawyer concerned only with one client, whereas the prosecution, made up of four lawyers, must consider twenty-two defendants. From a physical point of view they have more work to do and that is the only reason which has been advanced to the Tribunal and which the Tribunal considered in allowing the prosecution to follow. And it is impossible, in any event, for either side to construct its argument at the last moment, because we have these technical things to consider. Where you speak extemporaneously I can understand some slight psychological advantage, perhaps, in following another speaker because you may pick up some argument which he has made and immediately conjure up a reply. But here your speech has to be written out, must be typewritten, it must be translated, it must be mimeographed, all this before it's delivered. So that even if you immediately followed the prosecution you still wouldn't have an opportunity to go through all those features in the preparation of your defense.
DR. GAWLIK: Certainly, Your Honor, we always had that opportunity until now, even if we handed in our final summation before, we always had that opportunity to add into our summation one, two or three sentences after an agreement of interpreter, in order to discuss some problem which had only been raised owing to some submission by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, will you please come to the podium, please. What is your situation from a factual point of view about getting a summation ready.
HR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, there are several considerations in the mind of the prosecution. First, I would like to reply to some statements made by Dr. Gawlik, which I regard as not quite accurate. In the case of the International Military Tribunal, the Prosecution did speak last, and the uniform rules, of procedure as first laid down by all of the Tribunals provided that the Prosecution would speak last. The present rule of procedure as amended, makes the matter come completely within the discretion of the Tribunal. Actually our position is well described by the Tribunal, we are all quite busy trying to get the closing briefs in, in time, so that the defense counsel may have those. He would welcome very strongly to have an additional week in which to prepare our closing statements. It is simply a matter of time so that we may do a thorough job. Of course, we are not going to introduce in our closing statements anything which is not now before all of the defense counsel. They know our position completely two days after we began the case, and closed the case, that was four months ago, and I, therefore, don't feel much impressed by their argument that they are now going to be taken by surprise by something we are going to say.
THE PRESIDENT: DR. Gawlik, you said that in previous trials the Prosecution spoke first. You were in the IMT trial, who spoke last?
DR: GAWLIK: The IMT was different because that was an International Military Trial where a different procedure was applied. The procedure which was determined for these trials, like in Tribunal No. I, the Doctors' trial, there the Prosecution spoke first.
In the Pohl trial, the Prose cution spoke first.
In the Judges' trial I think the Prosecution also spoke first, and also in the Flick trial, sofar as I heard.
THE PRESIDENT: well, your main point seems to be, Dr. Gawlik, that even though you must prepare your speech, as of course, you must, several days before delivery, that it could happen if you followed the Prosecution, that you could extemporaneously introduce two or three sentences or statements in reply to the Prosecution, something which you could not have anticipated when you wrote out your speech beforehand.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: In accordance with the policy which we have attempted so strenuously to follow throughout this trial, of giving the defense every opportunity, suppose we make this suggestion, which will certainly be novel and unique, and sofar as I know never yet done in these trials, but does not concern us if something is new, if it is effective and if it is just. If after the Prosecution finishes -- and I know the Prosecution is not going to be very happy about this suggestion, and maybe they might be because they also have been very fair -- if after the Prosecution completes their argument, any defense counsel feels that some undue advantage has been taken of him by some novel twisting of the facts, or of the law, has been presented by the Prosecution, to which defense counsel whould reply, defense counsel may get up a make a very brief statement; he will have to extemproize of course, because We won't have the time, naturally, to wait for any written presentation. So in that way, it Can not be said, you will be taken advantage of, because your lips will be scaled, after you will have made your closing statement. Pardon me.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, the rules provide that the defendants' will address the Tribunal and make a statement, that is, the last word, so the Prosecution actually does not have the final statement, and I am afraid that if we allow defense counsel to get up and make a second closing statement, we will have twenty-three closing statements half as long as the first, and be here for another week.
If the defendants feel that we have suddenly pulled something very surprising on them and put it into our closing statement, they themselves are able to answer it, and we will have the last word with the Tribunal, and we don't see any necessity for giving the defense counsel the opportunity to be heard twice on the same subject, and then the defendants on the some subject.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, I am sure this will meet with your approval: After the Prosecution will have completed its summation, all of defense counsel will certainly know whether anything strikingly new has been presented to which a reply must be made, because it has not been covered by any of the twenty-two defense counsel. One of defense counsel will be permitted -- this is a suggestion we are making, or the thought we are presenting -- one of defense counsel will be allowed, let's say a matter of ten, fifteen or twenty minutes to reply on behalf of all of defense counsel to any particular thing which may be advanced in the Prosecution's speech, which has not already been covered in the twentytwo defense speeches.
DR. GAWLIK: I believe, Your Honor, if I may state my opinion, that the last suggestion is not practical in the interest of the defense, if we as defense counsel want to realize our rights, as it is our duty, only the defense counsel of each defendant concerned knows the subject and the discussion that is proper, and it is impossible for one of my colleagues to fully realize all the problems concerning all twenty-three defendants in such a manner as it should be our duty as defense counsel. On the other hand I do not see why the Prosecution objects to the first suggestion made by the Tribunal; we realize that there is a lack of time, but please consider, Your Honor, this lack of time is only a matter of one week. It is only one week, and that this not be used to the disadvantage of the defendants, so that no opportunity exists that anything be brought to the knowledge of the Tribunal which we as defense counsel consider our duty.
I would like to add the following. Your Honor, although if we should speak for a second time to ready to a summation of the Prosecution, it will not be the same affect which would exist if we could do this as part of our final summation. If we base our final summation on conclusions by which we went to refute statements of the Prosecution, then our speech will be much more convincing, but in spite of this, because I realize the lack of time. I think I can say for myself, I don't want to say anything for my colleagues, if each one of us will be given sufficient opportunity to reply to a speech by the Prosecution, I think I can say, for my part, I agree. How my colleagues think about it, I don't know, but I think the last suggestion, that one should speak for all defendants within fifteen to twenty minutes, I think that is not practical, if I may express my opinion in this case.
DR. LUMMERT: Dr. Lummert for the defendant Blume. I would like to follow the request of my Gawlik, that the first suggestion made by Your Honor should be chosen as the final decision. I am not convinced that but a very few defense counsel will avail themselves of the opporttunity of speaking for a second time, but I think it would be better if we be given this opportunity.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, the procedure an English-speaking countries is that the prosecution has the first speech and the last speech too just because it does have the burden of proof. Now are effect we are being asked to reverse then procedure completely, that you have the first and the last speech, the defense, but we are not disinclined to grant that request. just because, as we have indicated throughout this entire trial. that the defense shall have every opportunity imaginable, to present its case because a serious issue is involved here, as you and your fellow counsel well know, Now, within the limits of reason, after the prosecution has finished, any counsel who feels that he has not had an opportunity to consider a certain proposition advanced by the prosecution in his, the defense counsel's, closing speech, will be given an opportunity to say a few words with regard to that new matter, Naturally, he may not get up and repeat what he said in his first speech just because it has been denied in the prosecution's speech, because it is quite obvious that that is merely a repetition of the same matter. But if something new, novel, unique has been presented, or if you think some unfair advantage has been taken in the matter of presentation of argument, we will allow defense counsel to reply to that. We assume that all defense counsel, if they should all avail themselves of that privilege, would not consume more than a matter of a couple hours' time.
DR. GAWLIK: Thank you, Your Honor, may I make another request? Perhaps a deadline could be fixed by what time the prosecution will have to give their closing briefs to us so that we at least will have opportunity to respond to these closing briefs.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Now on the matter of closing briefs, Dr. Gawlik, again we come to the matter of understanding the purpose of any particular act in legal procedure. What is the object of a trial brief? The object of a brief is to allow the attorney to analyze his Own testimony, testimony of his own client and all the evidence presented by him or against him, and indicate to the Tribunal his point of view.
It doesn't depend upon what the other side says in their brief, because they themselves must do the same thing. The object of a trial brief is not to reply to the trial brief of the other side but to present your case in as favorable a manner as possible. that the opposing side will have an opportunity of glancing at the brief before preparing its own brief, but there can't be any guarantee that those briefs will be ready in time so that they can always be replying. Otherwise this goes on indefinitely. You realize the mechanical obstacles that are presented each time a document has to be presented, so that all we can say is that every attorney involved in this case, on the prosecution side and on the defense side, should work on his brief and get it in as quickly as possible. Since the summation will have ended by February 7 and then the Tribunal immediately goes into deliberation on the case, it is obvious that if the briefs come in very late that they cannot be given that solemn and deliberate consideration which they are entitled to receive and which they would receive if they were submitted in time. So defense counsel makes a big mistake in waiting for the prosecution trial brief in order to prepare his own trial brief. to defense counsel, but others are not.
DR. GAWLIK: But, your Honor, it isn't like this, that we are waiting in writing our final summations until we get the trial brief of the prosecution: but everyone of us has the duty only to hand in the final summation after having read the trial brief of the prosecution, and apart from that it would be unfair treatment if some defendants get the trial briefs in time and the defense counsel can consider it in their statements and other defendants do not get them. And I shall state this, according to experience I had with the previous trials, some of us got the trial briefs after we had made our final summation.