The Mazal Library

©MAZAL LIBRARY

NMT05-T1200

NUERNBERG MILITARY TRIBUNAL
Volume V · Page 1200

cannot be recognized at once in the open but may be evaluated as creating atmosphere.

"The closing brief of the prosecution evaluates the evidence submitted in the case Sommer in a manner and a form which is anything else but objective. The statements by the prosecution are, from the beginning aimed at creating a certain impression and are often made in a tone which make it difficult to formulate the answer in an objective manner in keeping with the dignity of the Tribunal."

On page 11 of the defendant's brief counsel for the defense states the following:

"1. The judgment passed by the Military Tribunal II Nuernberg, on the defendant Karl Sommer included grave factual mistakes, most of which are taken from the closing brief of the prosecution."

In his brief of fifty pages there is no contention made by the defendant that any sentence or any paragraph of the judgment was taken from the brief of the prosecution. Neither does he quote any part of the judgment which he says was taken from the brief of the prosecution. In the preparation of its judgment as against the defendant Sommer the brief of the prosecution was not referred to nor was it used in any manner.

In his attempt to show that certain findings by the Tribunal were taken from the brief of the prosecution, counsel for the defendant enumerated certain findings as being incorrect and then attempted to answer the same by his interpretation of what should have been the correct findings of the Tribunal. An example of these statements is as follows:

"4. Incorrect is the statement of the judgment that Sommer was 'transferred' to the DEST in March 1941. Correct is Sommer 'joined' the DEST on the basis of a private employment contract as a bookkeeper in 1941.

"5. Absolutely incorrect. It is the allegation of the judgment that ‘later on Mummenthey managed to get Sommer employed by the office D II to collaborate with Maurer in the allocation of prisoners’. In fact, Sommer was requested by Maurer for office D II against Mummenthey's wishes."

It is interesting to note that not in a single instance has counsel for the defense shown where any finding of the Tribunal was taken from the brief of the prosecution. Of course, it is true that the prosecution, in its brief, gave fully and completely its contentions as to what the evidence disclosed and its contentions as to what conclusions the Tribunal should reach but this is natural when the prosecution was dealing with the evidence in the light of the prosecution's case.

1200