| |
| The provisions of Article II,
paragraph 2, of Control Council Law No. 10, are clear and unambiguous. It
enumerates, in a descending scale of culpability, the persons who are deemed to
have committed crimes: |
| |
(1) Principals.
(2)
Accessories or abettors.
(3) Persons taking a consenting part.
(4) Persons connected with plans or enterprises involving its
commission.
(5) Members of certain organizations or groups.
(6)
Holders of high political, civil, or military positions.
|
The burden of most of the defense briefs is
that the defendants do not come within class 1, so Q.E.D., they are innocent.
That is exactly the position taken by counsel for Frank, as indicated by his
argument quoted above. Of course, he was "removed" from the fountain head of
the criminal project but not removed far enough to escape implication in it.
Much time and language has been spent in these trials in ingenious attempts to
distort or evade the plain meaning of the clear language of Control Council Law
No. 10, especially Article II, paragraph 2. Frank's efforts to do this are
futile.
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 Frank and said judgment is accordingly affirmed in all
respects including the sentence imposed thereunder. |
| |
| GEORG
LOERNER |
| |
| On behalf of the defendant Georg Loerner, it
is claimed that Document NO-2147, Pros. Ex. 30, designated as a report of Georg
Loerner and others to Pohl, which was referred to in the original judgment as a
"significant document", was not, in fact, signed by Loerner. This contention is
correct, but it must be stated that in the English translation of this document
contained in document book 2, page 46, the document purports to have been
signed by Loerner, and his typed signature appears at the end of the translated
document. This exhibit was admitted in evidence without objection, and the only
form in which it came to the Tribunal was translated into English in document
hook 2. It was only after the judgment had been entered that attention was
called by defense counsel to the fact that the original German document
|
1180 |