 |
| b.
Ruling of the Tribunal on 7 November 1947 |
| |
| EXTRACT
FROM THE TRANSCRIPT, 7 NOVEMBER 1947* |
PRESIDING JUDGE SHAKE: The Tribunal has had under advisement the
objections of the defendants to the introduction in evidence of the following
Prosecution Exhibits: 1178, NI-1446; 1179, NI-4969; 1180,
NI-6737; 1181,
NI-6697; 1182, NI-4975; 1183,
NI-4972; 1184, NI-6735; and 1185, NI-4974,
contained in prosecution book 63, and Exhibit 15, NI-4971 in book I; also Exhibits 1186, NI-6736;
1187, NI-7468; and 1189, NI-4960, in book 64. It
will be recalled that these exhibits related to the so-called “Russian
Aspect” of the prosecution's case. There may be an error in the
enumeration of the exhibits involved. If there is, we should like to afford you
an opportunity at the conclusion in this announcement to correct the list of
the exhibits. We have taken them from our desk memorandum. The Tribunal now
announces its ruling on said objections.
There is contained in count
five of the indictment a charge of conspiracy to commit crimes against peace.
The prosecution has not yet offered its evidence specifically designed to
sustain that charge. The rules as to the competency of evidence to establish
conspiracy are quite broad. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal is unable
to say at this time that the exhibits objected to may not have some probative
value in establishing that charge when considered in connection with other
evidence relating to that object. Having reached the conclusion just said, it
is unnecessary to consider whether the exhibits are competent to establish any
of the other charges contained in the indictment nor do we express any opinion
as to what weight, if any, should ultimately be attached to said exhibits. The
objection to the introduction of the exhibits enumerated in this ruling is now
overruled by the Tribunal.
Now, if there is any correction in the list
of exhibits embraced in this ruling we shall be glad to have you point it out
to us at this time or to call the matter to our attention subsequently. We
think counsel for both sides are fully advised of the scope of this ruling
insofar as it relates to this group of documents. The President may have
committed an error in the listing of the documents or may have omitted one that
should have been embraced in it, but we shall assume that this ruling covers
all of the documents within the category of the objection. |
__________
* Mimeographed transcript
pages 3483 and 84.
291 |
. 
