. NMT05-T1207
Volume V · Page 1207
| 1943. Such conduct on the part
of defense counsel causes the Tribunal to have grave doubts and genuine
suspicion as to many other assertions made by defense counsel in his closing
briefs. The closing brief of the defendant, dated 8 October 1947, contained
approximately 11½ pages, answering in minute detail every assertion of
fact made by the prosecution in its closing brief. For a period of
approximately 25 days prior to the rendition of its judgment and sentence the
Tribunal had, for its consideration, the closing reply brief of the defendant.
In preparing its judgment the Tribunal gave careful considerations to the written closing argument of the defendant which was delivered in open Court, together with his closing brief, and failed to agree with his contentions as to what constituted facts of the case. After a careful review of the entire record and after due consideration given to the closing brief of the defendant the Tribunal found and concluded otherwise. Therefore the Tribunal, after having again fully considered the closing brief of the defendant dated 8 October 1947, together with his brief of 12 July 1948 and his statement of 27 July 1943, with the entire record of the case, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the defendant has had a fair, just, and complete hearing of his case and now finds no just cause to vacate, modify, or amend its original judgment and sentence and hereby reiterates and reaffirms the same. |
| HANS BAIER |
| Counsel for Hans Baier begins his brief with
a reference to the Court Order of 13 October 1947. On 3 October 1947, the
prosecution filed a closing brief against Baier. It is evident that the
prosecution did not regard the statement in open court on 15 August as a bar to
filing briefs. It is evident that counsel for the defendants Pook and Klein did
not regard the statement in open court on 15 August as a bar to filing briefs.
It is evident that a misunderstanding occurred on the subject of filing briefs.
It must be emphasized, however, that the facts in the case are not altered by
briefs. To the extent that assertions in any of the prosecution briefs were
accepted by the Tribunal, the assertions were based on the documents and the
transcript of the record. The documents and the transcript speak for themselves
regardless of the briefs. Nonetheless, with the reconvening of the Court,
counsel was given every opportunity to file briefs which, because of the Order
of 13 October they felt they were not entitled to file. Counsel for Baier has
availed himself of this opportunity. The comparisons between prosecution brief and judgment have |
