. NMT05-T1233
Volume V · Page 1233
| on statements in the brief.
Nonetheless, since the point was raised by defense counsel and so that no
possible injustice could result because of the defendants not filing a reply to
the prosecution briefs, this opportunity has been afforded the defendant to
file additional briefs which he has now done twice. In reply to the prosecution's brief, defense counsel, in his second further brief mentions four points. Number one has already been explained in the Mummenthey judgment as heretofore stated. Numbers two and three were already discussed in the defense counsel's final plea and were considered in arriving at the original judgment. The Tribunal sees no reason to change its conclusion with regard to these two items. With regard to number four, the Tribunal has found from all the evidence that Dr. Volk's activities within the WVHA clearly established that he took a consenting part in the commission of crimes against humanity. This matter has also been discussed at some length in this supplemental opinion. Defense counsel stated in his second further brief: |
"If one denies any personal initiative on the part of a general, as chief of staff of an army, in action which he takes within his sphere of jurisdiction by virtue of his position because solely the commander is responsible, then this principle should be applied to Dr. Volk who could not possibly have acted on his own initiative in the DWB G.m.b.H." |
| The answer to this is a simple one. If the
chief of staff simply performs military duties, he commits no crime, but if he
himself violates the rules of war and the laws of humanity as established by
international law he is responsible. Field Marshal Keitel, Chief of the High
Command of the German Army [Armed Forces] was found guilty of war crimes and
crimes against humanity and was convicted and executed even though he claimed
that he had committed all his acts under the order of Hitler. After a thorough reconsideration of the entire record in tire case of Leo Volk, the Tribunal finds no reason to disturb its judgment of 3 November. The judgment and sentence against Leo Volk are therefore reaffirmed. |
| KARL MUMMENTHEY |
| On 16 November 1947, defense counsel for Karl Mummenthey filed a petition with the Military Governor for modification of sentence imposed on his client, alleging therein certain errors on the part of the Tribunal. On 12 July 1948, as the result of the order of the Tribunal defense counsel filed a "memorandum" in which much of what was argued in the petition for modification |
