The Mazal Library

©MAZAL LIBRARY

NMT05-T1193

NUERNBERG MILITARY TRIBUNAL
Volume V · Page 1193

brief in answer to the prosecution's brief but did, on 28 July 1948, file a document with Office of the Secretary General which he termed a "statement". In the concluding paragraphs of this document the defendant stated in part as follows:

"* * * the defense must expressly decline to remedy the procedural deficiency which has thus arisen by submitting a brief in reply to the closing brief.

"The whole trial has been legally concluded and it is now the task of the Military Governor, who is alone authorized to do so, to make up for procedural shortcomings in considering the clemency plea.

"He is, therefore, awaiting the decision of the Military Governor, to whom a copy of this brief will be sent."

Thus the defendant spurns the offer of the Tribunal which allowed him the opportunity of filing a closing brief and relies upon his appeal to the Military Governor for clemency. His appeal to the Military Governor for clemency makes no contentions that the Tribunal used the prosecution's brief in preparing its judgment but, in his "statement" of 28 July 1948, this contention is made.

On 13 October 1947 an order of the Tribunal was filed with the Secretary General to the effect that trial briefs filed by the prosecution would be disregarded. However, through misunderstanding or confusion between what had been announced in open Court and the true contents of the order of 13 October 1947, some members of the Tribunal considered excerpts from some of the briefs filed by the prosecution in the preparation of the judgment as to certain defendants only.

When the question of the use of prosecution briefs was raised by defense counsel following the judgment, the Tribunal at once advised the Military Governor for the United States Zone of Occupation that the Tribunal should be reconvened to allow defense counsel every opportunity to reply to prosecution briefs and to submit additional briefs if they so desired.

Notwithstanding the fact that the defendant refuses to file a closing brief in answer to the prosecution's brief, and further, that he is relying solely upon his appeal for clemency to the Military Governor and in order to be eminently fair to this defendant, the Tribunal will again consider the pertinent questions raised in the defendant's "statement" and reconsider the judgment and sentence in the light of the record.

In the defendant's "statement" he complains of a portion of the judgment appearing on Transcript page 8133 and contends that it is not supported by any evidence in the case. This portion of the judgment is as follows:

1193