. NMT05-T1196
Volume V · Page 1196
that the judgment heretofore entered as to any defendant is not then supported by the evidence and that his guilt has not 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 so determined. |
| On 29 July 1948 the defendant filed what
purported to be a brief. It consisted largely of the following: motion for the
Tribunal to disqualify itself on account of alleged bias, motion for a new
trial and that oral proceedings be resumed, summation of errors, incorrect
statements and contradictions allegedly appearing in the judgment, arguments in
regard to conclusions reached by the Tribunal in its judgment, a copy of
defendant's appeal for clemency to the Military Governor for the United States
Zone of Occupation, a large number of affidavits, all of which were filed and
dated subsequent to the rendition of the judgment, testimony taken from
witnesses before a Commissioner for the United States Military Tribunal IV in
Case No. 11 which were taken during the month of June 1948, approximately eight
pages of alleged errors in translation in the record and one error in
translation which the Tribunal corrected by order. In his so-called brief of seventy-two pages the only reference to the closing brief of the prosecution is found on page two and states the following: |
"With regard to the Tribunal's decision of 23 July 1948 I wish to give my opinion on the closing brief of the prosecution and on the judgment which thereupon was announced by the Tribunal on 3 February (November) 1947, a verdict which was given following upon the closing brief of the prosecution and in a large measure based upon it. I am restricting myself to the most important points but add the brief submitted as a clemency plea to Military Governor General Clay on 17 November 1947, and make it an integral part of my arguments." |
| The brief of the defendant does not attempt to nor does it in any manner reply to the prosecution's brief. Therefore it is not in conformity with the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by virtue of the order of the Military Governor dated 7 June 1948, is convened for the purpose of receiving such brief in reply to the prosecution's briefs as counsel for the defense wished to file and to then "reconsider and revise its judgment as may be appropriate." The brief of the defendant does not state in what factual excerpts the brief of the prosecution is in error but it |
