 |
the defendant von der Heyde's individual guilt — of finding him
guilty.
The defendant von der Heyde had nothing to do with counts one,
two, and three, because his position neither offered him an opportunity to
exercise any influence in this respect, nor was his field of activity in any
way connected therewith.
Count four can be ignored because the
defendant von der Heyde left the SD as honorary collaborator in 1938, and for
the rest, belonged to the Reiter SS which has not been declared criminal.
Count five of the indictment is not applicable to the defendant von der
Heyde at all, in view of his position. |
| |
| Y. Opening Statement for Defendant Kugler* |
| |
DR. HENZE (counsel for defendant Kugler): May it please the
Tribunal: The prosecution presents the defense counsel in this case with the
difficult task of selecting from the voluminous prosecution material that which
refers to the individual defendants. The prosecution did not specify its
material as regards persons. There is the danger of occupying oneself with
things that are far removed, which is not in the interest of expediting the
proceedings. This danger is especially great in the case of my client. Dr. Hans
Kugler, since he occupies a less important place in this trial, in view of his
position in the IG. I shall endeavor to avoid the introduction of less relevant
matter; at all events, I consider that it is not my fault if I do not succeed.
In my deliberations, I must start from the fact that my client was not
a member of the Vorstand of the IG. Consequently he did not have even the
responsibility (in accordance with the law relating to joint stock companies)
that a member of a Vorstand has, which — as one of my colleagues had
already explained — is a responsibility of civil law but not criminal law.
My client, as regards his business dealings, was responsible merely to his
superiors. He was, however, dependent on the instructions of his superiors too.
I shall have to examine, and I ask Your Honors to observe in the examination,
whether in each individual case my client carried out instructions issued to
him, or acted independently within the scope of the sphere assigned to him. In
the former case, it is of significance whether my client recognized, or had to
recognize, a possibly existing intention which corresponds to the assertions of
the prosecution, if such existed in the case of his superiors at all. How far I
shall still have to |
__________
* Tr. pp. 4933-4944, 19
December 1947.
369 |
. 
