. NMT05-T1178
Volume V · Page 1178
statement. I have made this statement of my own free will without any promises of reward whatsoever and I was not subjected to any kind of threat." |
| This repeated affirmation by Pohl makes the
Tribunal somewhat skeptical of the tale of the effect of claimed abuse on a
"highly emotional and sensitive person" (p. 25) like himself, but passing that,
if every affidavit of Pohl was deleted from the record or had never been
offered in evidence, the tremendous volume of credible proof remaining would be
more than ample to establish his guilt of the crimes of which he was convicted.
It would be equivalent to removing a bushel of sand from a carload. The comments of Pohl's counsel on the concurring opinion filed by Judge Musmanno have already been answered herein. It would be useless to repeat or elaborate upon them here. It is pertinent to conclude by stating that the prosecution never filed a closing brief as to the defendant Pohl, but rested upon its final argument in open Court on 22 September 1947. After a careful review of the entire evidence and a thorough study of defense counsel's brief, the Tribunal is of the opinion that no reason has been disclosed for modifying or amending the judgment entered on 3 November 1947 as to the defendant Pohl and said judgment is accordingly affirmed in all respects including the sentence imposed thereunder. |
| FRANK |
| Counsel for defendant Frank states in his
brief (p. 2) : "All important factors which had any bearing on the trial as it
stood at the time of the pronouncement of the judgment were taken into account
at the time of my final plea (argument)". He, therefore, "considers it useless
and superfluous if I am to be limited * * " to a reply to the prosecution
closing brief", unless a complete new trial is held, the record reopened and
further proof taken. In order to keep an anchor to windward, however, he says,
"I nevertheless submit to the Court at this stage a preliminary review showing
how I should present the case of my client in the event of a full
resumption of the case." Under this statement, the Tribunal would be justified
in foregoing any reconsideration of the judgment in Frank's case, but the
Tribunal has no inclination to be technical, and will, therefore, carefully
consider the arguments which counsel so grudgingly offers (or would offer) in
Frank's behalf. Counsel constantly refers to matters outside the record in this case. He quotes from testimony given in trials of other cases before other Tribunals, offered long after the judgment in this case was delivered. Sometimes he paraphrases, sometimes he |
