. NMT05-T1166
Volume V · Page 1166
| Hans Baier | 41 pages | ||
| Hans Hohberg | 63 pages | ||
| Leo Volk | 55 pages | ||
| Karl Mummenthey | 33 pages | ||
| Hans Bobermin | 55 pages | ||
| Josef Vogt | 39 pages | ||
| Rudolf Scheide | 43 pages | ||
| Horst Klein | 31 pages | ||
| ______ | |||
| Total | 909 pages | ||
| The transcript of the closing
argument for the prosecution against all defendants comprises 73 pages. The
transcripts of these arguments were in the hands of the Tribunal at all times
while considering its judgment and were given an attentive reading. These were
considered in the nature of trial briefs. The record also discloses (Tr. p. 6253) that on 15 August 1947 the Tribunal stated in open Court: |
|||
"This Tribunal does not need both a closing argument and a brief from either prosecution or defense. You say what you want in your closing argument. We will have a transcript of it, and we do not want a repetition of it in the way of a brief after that". |
|||
| Subsequent to the rendition of
the judgment on 3 November 1947, each of the defendants found guilty therein
filed petition and appeal with the Military Governor of the U.S. Zone of
Occupation. In such petitions and appeals two of said defendants claimed that
as to them the Tribunal had made use of briefs filed by the prosecution after
the taking of proofs and oral arguments were concluded, in the preparation of
its judgment. The remaining thirteen of the convicted defendants made no such
claim. Two of the defendants, Pook and Klein, actually filed written briefs in
reply to the prosecution briefs. In conformity with the policy of the Tribunal to afford defense counsel every possible opportunity to present full and complete arguments in behalf of the defense, such counsel as wish to do so will now be permitted to prepare and submit briefs in reply to the prosecution's briefs. If, after fully considering such defense briefs, it should appear to the Tribunal that the judgment heretofore entered as to any defendant is not then supported by the evidence and that his guilt has not then been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, or that the sentence imposed is unjust, the Tribunal will thereupon vacate, modify, or amend the judgment now entered in accordance with the facts and the law as so determined. |
|||
