 |
the defense is correct, namely that only the small select group
who had special knowledge of the individual planned aggressions against
identified countries are criminally responsible, then the attempt of the
international community to prevent planning and preparation and the initiation
of wars of aggression and invasions has failed." A reply of the defense to the
prosecution's answer has not been reproduced herein.
The Tribunal
directed the defense to continue with the defense case on all charges while the
Tribunal took the defense motion under advisement. While the Tribunal still had
the defense motion under advisement, the defense in the Krupp case (Case
10), on 12 March 1948, filed a similar motion to dismiss the aggressive war
charges. The Tribunal in the Krupp case granted this motion on 5 April 1948,
thus dismissing the aggressive war charges in that case. (The defense motion,
parts of the prosecution's answer thereto, the Tribunal's order and several
opinions by the judges in the Krupp case on the dismissal of these charges are
reproduced in vol. IX, this series, sec. VI). The defense in the Farben case
thereupon urged an early decision on its motion. The Tribunal on 22 April 1948
did rule that no crime of spoliation existed as a matter of law with respect to
Austria and Czechoslovakia. (This order is reproduced in the later section on
"Plunder and Spoliation," (sec. VIII B, vol. VIII, this series.) But
early in May the Tribunal announced that, with respect to aggressive war, it
could not "assume the burden of searching the evidence to pass upon those
motions before the final determination of the case." In its decision and
judgment on 28 and 29 July 1948, the Tribunal did find that all of the
defendants were not guilty under counts one and five (sec. XIII, vol. VIII,
this series.) |
| |
2. DEFENSE MOTION FOR A FINDING OF NOT GUILTY,
17 DECEMBER
1947¹ |
| |
May it please the Tribunal:
The undersigned defense counsel,
through me, respectfully ask for permission to file a motion which has been in
our minds for several weeks.² The defense think that now a suitable moment
has arrived to consider the relevancy of the evidence submitted by the
prosecution. |
__________
¹ Official Record, case
6, vol. 12, pp. 3103 3127.
² The somewhat unusual introduction to this
motion ia accounted for by the fact that Dr. von Metzler initially planned to
read the motion into the record in addition to filing it in writing in the
usual manner with the Secretary General. Counsel for all the defendants except
the defendant Gattineau signed this motion.
473 |
. 
