. NMT05-T1247
Volume V · Page 1247
[there…] fore, decline to avail myself of the authorization of the Military Tribunal and comment in some way or other upon the contents of the prosecution closing brief." |
| On 27 July 1948 he filed 3 papers entitled
respectively, "Statement", "Declaration", and "Comparison." None of these
papers contains anything which he had not already stated in his petition and
memorandum. Despite his many representations, Dr. Froeschmann cannot in justice
ever protest that he was not given the fullest opportunity to present arguments
in behalf of his client. As in his petition and memorandum, Dr. Froeschmann in his statement, declaration, and comparison again devotes much time to showing that the Tribunal considered the closing brief of the prosecution. A reading of the judgment will show that the Tribunal did not neglect Dr. Froeschmann's brief, but quoted literally therefrom. In making the comparison between the prosecution's closing brief and the Tribunal's judgment, defense counsel should have gone one step further and noted the comparison between the prosecution's closing brief and the evidence in the case. In almost every instance where the Tribunal's judgment parallels the prosecution brief, it will be found also that it corresponds with the evidence as given in Court on the witness stand or from a document. If buildings A and B are to be constructed from material furnished by the C factory, it is inevitable that buildings A and B will in some instances have materials which resemble each other. Instead of demonstrating reasons why the judgment does not justify condemning Mummenthey, if that be a fact, defense counsel numerously repeated that has been accepted as an unprejudicial misunderstanding between what was said in open Court and what appeared in the Court order. From the statement in open Court the prosecution assumed that it could file closing briefs, and did so; and from the same statement some defense counsel assumed they could not. Two of the defense counsel apparently agreed with the prosecution that briefs could be filed, and did so. Prior to 13 October the prosecution filed several closing briefs; some were considered, others were not. The prosecution brief filed in the Mummenthey case in no way prejudiced Mummenthey. With the exception of the letter of 2 May 1944, which has now been excluded, and the typographical error of percentages heretofore referred to, Dr. Froeschmann does not dispute the correctness of findings by the Tribunal which corresponded to assertions in the prosecution brief. And it is on this basis that the judgment must be founded; on the fact in |
