 |
| THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until 8 December. (The
Tribunal adjourned until 8 December 1947, at 0930 hours.) |
| |
| * * * * * * * * * * |
| |
PRESIDING JUDGE ANDERSON: Counsel for the prosecution and Dr.
Kranzbuehler, a representative of defense counsel, at their joint request, met
with the members of the Tribunal in an informal conference on 2 December 1947,
for the purpose of discussing certain aspects of the announcement made by the
Tribunal on the day the defendants were arraigned, as well as certain other
matters. As a result of that conference, the following statement is made:
1. With respect to fixing the date after which no documentary evidence
will be received, it has come to our attention that in some of the cases
heretofore tried a large mass of documentary evidence was introduced on the
last day of the trial, with the result that the sitting Tribunal could not
begin consideration of their judgment until the documents were translated.
There was thus caused considerable delay, during which the members of the
Tribunal were necessarily idle. This Tribunal intends to prevent that situation
if it can be done without prejudice to any substantial right of the defendants,
and to that end made the announcement about which counsel inquired. If, as the
trial progresses, the plan announced still seems feasible, it will be carried
out.
2. With respect to the necessity of objections to the admission of
documents at the time they are offered in evidence, it was intended to give
notice that in order to expedite the trial it would not be necessary to object
to documentary evidence on the ground that it lacked the requisite probative
value; that in their final judgment the Tribunal would consider and determine
that question with respect to all documentary evidence, without regard to
whether specific objection had been made to its introduction, but that both
prosecution and defense would have a full opportunity to be heard upon all such
questions in the final arguments and briefs. The original statement is
amplified to the extent of making clear that objections to evidence on other
grounds may be made at the time the evidence is offered.
3. As to the
request of the representative of the defense to clarify the matter of saving
their rights when cross-examination of a witness is waived, the members of the
Tribunal have considered this question and announce the following as a general
rule: Where a witness testifies orally from the witness stand, he shall be
cross-examined at the conclusion of the direct examination. When it is desired
to cross-examine an affiant whose affi- […davit] |
58 |
. 
