I hesitate to grant his wish because measures connected with death sentences, cremation has not been specifically mentioned. I, therefore, as for instructions. The father of the convict furthermore requests to give him time for paying the funeral expenses. That is another ground why I think that I can not grant the request for cremation. Since, if the relatives of convicts wish to have the dead body handed over to them have to bear the expenses for the funeral, including the costs cf the police supervision, and because in these cases of urgency the police must pass on instructions to the cemetery administration, I have on principle and with rare exceptions made hitherto the handing ever of the dead body to the relatives dependent on payment in advance of the funeral expenses."
The following item on page 15 of the German, page 12 of the English is indicated as a certified copy in the "Criminal action against Hans Klausner, a criminal committing acts of violence, sentenced to death by the Special Court in Stuttgart, dated 9 May 1941. I have decided not to make use of the right of pardon betowed upon me by authorization of the Fuehrer on 3 September 1939, but to let justice take its course. Berlin, 28 July 1941, the Reich Minister of Justice, charged with the conduct of official business; signed Dr. Schlegelberger."
This document concludes with page 13, which is page 16 in the German, under the letterhead "The Director of the Remand Prison, in Stuttgart, dated Stuttgart 8 August, 1941; addressed to Attorney General in Stuttgart; Reference, Execution of a death sentence in the Remand Prison."
"Early this morning Hans Klausner was executed in the covered court yard of the justice premises. The execution took place without incident."
The Prosecution offers Document NG-719 as Exhibit 191.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Turning now to Document NG-594, which is the second document in this same book.
To avoid confusion, may I ask the Tribunal's indulgence. My book starts with page 2, at the beginning of Document NG-594.
THE PRESIDENT: That concurs with our record.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Fine. This document is a typewritten note, bearing certain hand-written language at the end. The note is as follows: "Communist-inspired high treason is being prosecuted with particular ruthlessness since the outbreak of war with Soviet Russia.
In its administration of justice the People's Court establishes as a principle that all communist activity after 22 June 1941 will be subject to the death penalty. This line of action was at the time instituted by the minister and on the whole maintained up to the spring of this year. In the Courts of Appeal, to which the less important cases are transferred, it has, however, proved impossible to apply it with equal vigor. As a rule the Courts of Appeal have only seen fit to inflict the death penalty for communistic high treason after 22 June 1941, if the perpetrator had in any way taken an active part in the Communist Party over and behond joining it as a member and paying his contributions.
"The Stern administration of justice by the People's Court was always fully supported by the ministry's method of granting reprieve. Reprieves were only granted on very rare occasions, and then only if there were very special reasons."
Skipping down to the last paragraph:
"The Gauleiter Von Schirach and Uiberreither appear to approve of the harsh policy of the People's Court. They have hardly ever approached the Reich Ministry of Justice of their own accord with recommendations for a reprieve. In cases where a reprieve was contemplated by us and they were advised of our intention in advance, an agreement was nearly always obtained."
Skipping down to the last paragraph, Note 2:
"The death sentences which the People's Court has imposed in cases of high treason have of late often shown too much of a condensed presentation. In most cases nothing at all is said about the personal circumstances of the condemned: at best, a short indication is given of their political background. Of greater weight is the fact that also in cases of the condemned persons' plea of innocence the appraisal of the evidence, as related to actual facts of the case, is confined to brief hints at statements made by the condemned person before the judge in preliminary proceedings, or before the police, or even simply on the conviction of the Senate itself.
A critical estimation of such a verdict is hardly possible. The recommendation to put it into effect presupposes absolute confidence in the Court of Justice. Such confidence, however, is shaken when, as for instance in the case of Schwarz et al, facts become known afterwards which make a condemned person's declarations previously brushed aside as being untrue appear very probable, and which thus must result in the case being retried."
Then, a handwritten, Paragraph 3: "See the minister's letter, Berlin, 4 June 1943, signed Vollmer," and to the right of the former's signature is a handwritten initial which the prosecution contends is that of the defendant Joel.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER (Counsel for defendant Rothenberger): This document has by the additional note at the end some relation to the case of the defendant Rothenberger. I point out that on this document there is no signature or no initial of the defendant Rothenberger. Moreover, from the beginning of this document it is not apparent who actually sent this document. There is no letterhead on it so that I would ask the Tribunal to rule whether it shall be admitted as evidence, which I would like to reject, or whether it will be accepted with the certain amount of probative value.
DR. PETERSDORF (Counsel for defendant Joel): May I point out that the signature under the document is a large "I", not the signature of the defendant Joel but probably of another official whose name is Jaeger, who signed this document probably. A comparison of this initial on the document with the signatures on photostats of the defendant's will clarify this without any further difficulty. The initials of the defendant Joel consist of a large "I" with a horizontal line with through it and can be distinguished from the "J" which is on this document. Therefore, the document cannot be brought into relation with the case of the defendant Joel.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The prosecution invites the Tribunal to compare the initial on this document just being discussed as being possibly that of the defendant Joel with Exhibit No. 57 which was the initialed exhibit and if in the Court's opinion they seem similar; otherwise, the prosecution will be forced to again introduce expert testimony to the end of establishing, as far as we are concerned, and for the Court's edification, that this is the initial of the defendant Joel.
THE PRESIDENT: One difficulty about the matter at this time is that the Tribunal does not have on the bench, Document 57. Another difficulty , is that the Court does not exactly relish being experts on the matter of handwriting or comparisons of handwriting or heireglyphics. It is therefore suggested that we wait until tomorrow morning and see if Counsel for the Prosecution and defense can reach an agreement on this matter. If not it may be necessary to have expert testimony.
MR. WOOLEYHAND: We will withhold introduction of that document then.
THE PRESIDENT: It is so near to the usual adjournment time, this impasse makes it -
MR. WOOLEYHAND: If you will indulge the Prosecution for a moment, I think we can obviate the necessity of bringing any document to Court tomorrow morning if I can but read one short affidavit concerning the film to be shown tomorrow morning. That will relieve our taking anything in the way of documents into Court tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed. It will not take very long, I take it.
MR. WOOLEYHAND: This document is NG-1020. NG-1020 is a sworn affidavit reading as follows:
"I, Karl Jocoby, make the following statement under oath:
"In 1945 I worked with the Field Photographic Branch of the Office of Strategic Services, Washington, D.C. in the capacity of Chief Photographic Analyst, and participated , on behalf of the Office of U.S. Chief of Counsel, in the production of the film "Rise and Decline of the Nazi Party".
"On this occasion, I saw the film called "Proceedings against the criminals of 20 July 1944" in Berlin in Autumn 1945 and I am, therefore, able to confirm the identity of the present cutting with the material found in Berlin.
"The present cutting of the film called "Proceedings aga inst the criminals of 20 July 1944" NG-1019 is a copy made from films confiscated in Autumn 1945 by the American Military Government in the Berlin-Tempelhof offices of the "Afifa", which is a Joint stock company for motion picture productions.
"According to the Fifa's information, the original negative was 11-14,000 meters long and had been taken by the "Deutsche Wachenschau" by order of Goebbels' Ministry for Propaganda. According to a statement of the director of the Afifa, the Ministry for Propaganda sent for and destroyed tho negative of the first version before the end of the war on 18 April 1945.
"In Autumn 1945 a copy was made from the remaining films found at the Afifa, by the Field Photographic Brand of the Office of Strategic Services, Washington, D.C.
"This film is identical with the film I saw in Autumn 1945 in Berlin, which was made out of the remaining material of the Afifa; it is, however, merely a cutting of this film."
This is signed, "Nuernberg, 6 March 1947, Karl Jacoby." It bears the requisite jurat.
The resecution offers as Exhibit 192 this document, NG1020.
THE PRESIDENT: But your number 192 is the number applied to the previous exhibit. Do you want this as a part of that?
MR. WOOLEYHAND: He previous exhibit , I believe , was withdrawn, Your Honor, at the suggestion of the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought it was me merely withheld to be disposed of Monday morning.
MR. WOOLEYHAND: In the event, this will be 193.
THE PRESIDENT: What book and page do you think this should be in so we will have *uniform records.
MR. WOOLEYHAND: There is no place where it has to be. It can be inserted at the end of Book 3-e. I believe that is about the most convenient place.
THE PRESIDENT: He will receive this inevidence.
We will adjourn at this time, but we will meet tomorrow morning, Saturday morning , at 10 o'clock a.m., in Room 600. It will be a regular session of the court in which the defendants will all be present. For further identification, it is the room heretofore used for Tribunal Number 1, but it is Room 600.
The Court may now be adjourned.
(At 1630 , 28 March 1947, the Tribunal recessed to reconvene at 1000 hours, 29 March 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Alsteeter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 31 March 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Carrington T. Marshall, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III Military Tribunal III is now in session.
God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshall, you will please ascertain if the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHALL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of defendants Engert and Rothaug who are absent through illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The proper notation will be made.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: May I ask the Court's indulgence for a minute or two while I call the Court's attention to a motion filed by the Prosecution entitled, "Prosecution's Motion for an Order of the Court' Approval to the Interrogation of Witnesses." This motion was duly filed, translated, and given to the Secretary General on March 19th. Thereafter it remained in the Secretary General's possession until Tuesday of last week. Which, after some interrogation, I found that it was in the possession of Mr. John R. Niesley, the Legal Counsel for the Secretary General, and it was returned to my office. It was returned with a notation that in substance, the motion was not very good and I should rewrite it.
Well, I am of the opinion that the Secretary General's Office primarily exercises the function of a Clerk for these Tribunals, and that Mr. Niesley's functions are a little unusual in that they are not found in the normal Clerk's office, and that he is an advisor to the Tribunal. All of which I have no quarrel with, but it strikes me that the limit of Mr. Niesley's authority would be to make his recommendations to the Court, and not to delegate to himself the power to return directly to the Counsel who had filed a motion, a motion with the notation that Counsel should re-prepare it or prepare it anew.
That is my first objection to that procedure.
The second is, that the notation returned stated, that is, to the matter set out in paragraph 1 of my motion: The fact of the matter and reference made in paragraph a, that this Court had provided by Rule 23, for the method of interrogating witnesses by a Commissioner where the witness was a defendant in the Nurnberg jail -- I mean was a prisoner in the Nurnberg jail, excuse me, and the Defense desired to interrogate him, and the interrogation was approved by the Tribunal. I am aware of the fact that the rule was made. We simply ask, in the motion, that the Tribunal should make an order for the orderly interrogation of such witnesses.
As I recall Rule 23, I did not bring it with me, it also provided, from after the date that any Counsel for Defense, desired to interrogate a person who is held as a prisoner in the Nurnberg jail, that the Court approves the right to interrogate; that thereafter the Prosecution shall likewise not interrogate that witness except under the Commissioner.
My point is -- I have on hand an extra copy of the motion, and perhaps the Tribunal would like me to send it up. I do not know whether there is a copy with the Court.
(The motion was delivered to the Tribunal.)
All I am asking, beginning at the bottom of page 2, is that: Wherefore, the Prosecution respectfully motions to the Court to make and enter the following orders on each of them: A) That all interrogations of all persons named in paragraph I shall be interviewed and interrogated by either the Prosecution or the Defense solely in the manner provided by Rule 23 of this Court. And, that the Court forthwith issue an order against the Prosecution and the Defense, prohibiting them interviewing any of the aforesaid witnesses, from and after the day this Tribunal shall act upon this motion, except in the manner provided by Rule 23 of this Court.
That is purely a request for the Court, that it is the proper type and manner. I feel we should call it to the Court's attention, to make an order to provide for the appointment of a Commissioner under the method provided in Rule 23. he have not yet done that.
Since that time, there have been other requests by the Defense to interview witnesses who are prisoners in the Nurnberg jail, and this comes within the rule. The provisions of Rule 23 , and we have been noting on those requests that we are withholding full approval subject to the action of the Court upon the motion, which I am now reading, and which was held up in Mr. Niesley's office.
I come now to paragraph B which is on page 3 of the motion, and because that brings up new matter I am asking the Court to extend the provisions of Rule 23 to another class of witnesses other than those not mentioned in Rule 23; namely, those witnesses who are brought here by the Prosecution through the facilities of the Government of the United States, and are maintained here in what is known as the Witness House. Such witnesses are not prisoners and, therefore, do not come under the provisions of Rule 23. They are persons whom the United States pays to have brought here, and in some instances goes out and obtains them, lodges them in a house for voluntary witnesses. My feeling is, that in a sense, the action of the United States in bringing these witnesses and maintaining them in a guest house is comparable to its actions in having people who are now prisoners, held. In other words, it expends the energy and money to bring these witnesses here. I do not desire to exclude Defense Counsel from interrogating those witnesses. I do feel, however, that I am on sound ground in asking this Court to say that such witnesses shall be interrogated, if request is made by the Defense, after they have reached Nurnberg and are put in the guest witness house, in the same manner as is provided in Rule 23.
I specifically exclude any witnesses for the Prosecution who are anywhere in Germany and who are not being maintained in the Witness House. In other words, I do not say and I would not say, that any Counsel for any defendant find a witness in any city in Germany, whom the Prosecution has interviewed and intended to use as a witness, and any city, including Nurnberg, whom we have not brought here, that I ask the Court to put any limitation on whatsoever on the right and authority of the Defense Counsel to interview that witness. All I am asking for is that once we have gone -- we will say to Stuttgart or to Berlin, or to any place in Germany, pay for the transportation of a witness, possibly in some instances found it necessary to send some one to bring a witness, who though voluntarily, is not too voluntarily, and lodged him in a Witness House; that then, if the Defense desires to interrogate that witness he should be, during that period of time that he is in the Witness House, until he is discharged as a witness and sent home, that he should be interrogated under the provisions of Rule 23 or in the manner provided by Rule 23, through the appointment of a Commissioner.
Now, reviewing clearly under provision A: My first request: All that I have asked is that the Court make an order to implement Rule 23.
As to provision B: This is a matter which the Tribunal may want to discuss, and certainly upon which the Defense Counsel may well want to be heard. I am asking that the method of interrogation as provided in Rule 23 be extended to those witnesses who are brought here and maintained in the Witness House.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire as to what you refer to when you say, "to implement Rule 23"?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: As I have been informed, your Honor, where this question has arisen before, and I believe it arose first in Case No. II before Tribunal II, the Court entered an order appointing one of its members or it alternate as a Commissioner, as provided for in Rule 23, to conduct the interrogations of witnesses who are covered by Rule 23.
This Tribunal has not yet done so and consequently both the Defense Counsel and the Prosecution have been held in abeyance in any interrogations they want to make of those witnesses.
It may well be that this Tribunal may desire to make another practical solution of that problem. I only give that as an illusion of what I had in mind.
THE PRESIDENT: Without ruling upon the merite of this motion or whether it needs amendments or revision, we will merely say at this time that if the Secretary General or any of his assistants have any matters they want to present, they should present them to the Tribunal.
JUDGE BRAND: Has this motion been delivered by the Secretary General to the Tribunal?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: To my knowledge it has not.
JUDGE BRAND: Has it been served on the defendants?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, it was sent when it was originally sent to the office of the Secretary General. I did all that I could do, which I am advised -- May I state -- ,
JUDGE BRAND: Just answer me, If you will, please, whether it had been served in accordance with the rule.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: As far as I know, it has. A translation was made and the translation and the English copy were delivered to the office of the Secretary General, which I am advised is the procedure that I must follow. There were not sixteen copies made, of course, because I didn't assume that that was necessary, but I know that at least one translation was delivered with the English version to the office of the Secretary General, and maybe two.
JUDGE BRAND: I am simply calling attention to Rule 10, which provides that the adverse party shall have two days after delivery of a motion. I am wondering if he has had the delivery and if the two days have expired.
MR. LAFFOLLETTE: My answer to your Honor's question is very positive, that I assume under the rules that delivery means delivery to the office of the Secretary General, and that the the Secretary General delivers to the Defense Center. I know that in addition to the English version at least one translation was delivered to the office of the Secretary General on the 19th of March.
Thereafter the English translation was on Mr. Niesley's desk until last Monday, which was the 25th -- lost tuesday. I believe defense counsel have not received any copy. I don't know.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: The Prosecution a few days ago gave a German translation of this application to the Prosecution -- put it at the disposal of the defense. The defense had several copies of it made. However, at the moment it is not yet possible for who defense to state its position in regard to this application, this motion, because it is important for consideration of this motion to know Rule 23 very exactly, which this motion refers to, and of which, however, we do not yet have a copy. In the rules regarding a trial of this kind it is not possible to refer only to t he oral delivery, since the difficulties of translation are, in any case, so big that the niceties of a rule can be determined only when the written application is seen. That I want to say in general. If it please the Tribunal, I would like to state my opinion with regard to one point which Mr. LaFollette has just opened up. I do not know whether the Tribunal would like me to do so at the moment.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has one copy which has just been handed to the bench. We do not each have copies, and we therefore prefer to wait until copies have been furnished to each member of the bench. After that has been done we will take measures to consider and maybe have this matter discussed.
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. LaFollette.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes?
JUDGE BRAND: Counsel says that they have not received Rule 23. The rules of this Tribunal have been mimeographed, and it was my understanding that every attorney in the case had copies of those rules. If they haven't they should have.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: There is no question about that, Your Honor. I assumed that some one in this vast organization would arrange for a translation of those rules. It was not again until last Tuesday, or possibly last Friday, a week ago, that Dr. Brieger informed, me he had no copy, either English or otherwise, and I personally gave him an English copy.
It is a matter that rather confounds me. I don't know where to lay the blame. But certainly defense counsel are intitled to copies in German of the rules of this Tribunal. Therefore I don't press the motion. The only thing is that I think defense counsel particularly are being placed at a disavantage in not being able to interrogate the witnesses for whom they made a request. I shall cooperate in any way I can to expedite this whole thing.
One thing more and then I am through, and that is that I want to report to the Tribunal that I think we have made considerable progress in the matter of attempting to arrange a stipulation for the disposition of disputed translations and interpretations which appear in the transcript -the translation of documents and interpretations as they appear in the transcript. I have furnished a copy in English and German and received a copy of one by Dr, Schilf. I don't see either Dr. Schilf or Dr. Brieger in the courtroom this morning, but I would like to have this opportunity to say -- or Dr. Haensel -- that if other defense counsel will confer with them and advise the members of their committees, which were Dr. Schilf, Dr. Haensel and Dr. Brieger, I am ready now to enter into further discussion hoping that we can dispose of the matter. I believe that those were all the matters I have at this time. The Prosecution has a witness.
JUDGE BLAIR: Mr. LaFollette, I understand that there is furnished the defense counsel a liaison officer to whom they can apply for all matters of this sort, and I was wondering if they are availing themselves of this liaison officer and are not depending too much upon the Court or somebody to help them out, rather than to go and secure the information from the liaison officer.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: My only reaction to that is that, of course, that is generally true. However, if we never furnished defense counsel in any form a copy of Rule 23 -- I mean, of the rules of this Tribunal, I must say in all fairness I don't quite put the burden on them to find out that we have printed rules.
Somewhere I think the obligation is on the organization, either the prosecution organization as such, or in the Secretary General's office to obtain a German translation of these rules and make them available.
THE PRESIDENT: Speaking for myself, it has seemed to me that the defense counsel cannot know, unless they are mindreaders, that documents have been deposited in the office of the Secretary General. It wouldn't be a matter of very great difficulty for the Secretary General's office to notify defense counsel when documents have been deposited so that they can then be properly studied. We will proceed now with the prosecution.
MR. WOOLEYHAND: The Prosecution calls as a witness Karl Feber.
JUDGE BRAND: Will the witness testify in German?
MR. WOOLEYHAND: The witness will testify in German, Your Honor.
KARL FEBER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BRAND: Witness, you will raise your right hand and repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Onmiscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
JUDGE BRAND: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAND:
Q Witness, please tell the court your full name.
A Dr. Jur. Karl Feber.
Q What was your last official title?
A Landgerichtsdirecktor, Associate Justice of the Special Court.
Q Where?
AAt the Special Court, Nurnberg-Furth, Nurnberg. I was presiding judge of the Criminal Division Court.
Q State briefly to the Court, your education and your professional career.
A I was born on the 36th of September 1901. At Landau on the Rheinpfalz. For four and half years, I went to grade school. Then for nine years, I went through high school. I followed a humanistic course. In 1921, I passed my final examination high school examination at Speyer/Rehin in tho gymnasium.
After that I studied law and political science. I studied eight semesters, four years, in Wuerzburg, Munich and Heidelberg. In 1925 I finished my studies and passed a legal examination. In 1926, I wrote a dissertation on civil law and received my degree. In 1929, I passed the state examination, and thereafter, I wanted to enter into the service of the Reich.
To prepare to work for the Reich Supervision Control Office for Private Insurance Companies in Berlin, from 1929 until 1935, I worked for an insurance company. In 1932 I had been called to the Bavarian Justice Service in Bamberg. At that time, I refused the appointment that offered to me. The Planning Office of the Reich Service in Berlin forced me, again, in 1934, to make application, to be employed in the Justice Service in Bavaria. At that time, I had to talk with the personnel officer in Munich, one of the defendants in this court, Ministerial Counselor Dr. Engert. At that time, I was, in no way, connected with the party.
Ministerial Counselor Engert told me I could enter the Bavarian Civil Service only if in some way or other I proved my political reliability. I met the Ministerial requirement by paying one mark monthly as a contributing member of the SS on the 1st of March 1935. I was then appointed to the general public prosecutor's office in Nurnberg.
My official career in brief is as follows: From the 1st of March, 1935, I was legal assistant in the General Public prosecutor's Office in Nurnberg. At first, that was in all branches of the office.
On the 1st of February, 1936, I became public prosecutor in the economic department, in the general, and in the prosecution for the Special Court, Nurnberg.
In July 1939, I temporarily left the office of the Prosecution and entered the service for the prisons in Nurnberg. My renewed efforts to leave the Prosecution were successful on the 1st of November, 1940. I received an appointment as Councilor of the District Court, Furth. My activities as a judge began at the Special Court, Nurnberg-Furth. The presiding judge, at the time, was District Court Judge Rothaug. Beginning on the 1st of August, 1941-
Q Witness, May I interrupt you a moment?
MR. WOOLEYHAND: May it please the Court, the Defendant Rothaug, is outside the courtroom the present moment. The prison physician states he believes the defendant is fit to be in court today. May we have the Court's permission to have him enter the lock at this time?
DR. DOESSL: May it please the Tribunal, during the past week, I found out for myself, that the defendant is not in a position to attend the trial for even half a day. I know that he is suffering very much. And I ask you therefore, in accordance with the rule which the high Tribunal has established, to let that rule remain in effect.
According to this rule, the defendant should not be forced to be present here. He has the opportunity, by means of reading the transcript in the courtroom.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, I have just been advised of this matter. The prison physician is here. From what I know of the proceedings, last week there was considerable complaint, originally because the defendant was not here. Certainly, there is no desire on the part of the Prosecution to force this defendant to sit in the dock. The prison physician is here. He will testify as to whether the defendant wants to come to court or whether he is in a position to come. Whether he comes or not is immaterial to us. I thought we were affording him an opportunity to come. I do not understand the complaint of counsel. He will do whatever the Tribunal wants.
JUDGE BRAND: Is the defendant objecting on the ground that he is unable to be in court at this time? I mean personally?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I assume that is what what implied by the statement of his counsel. I do not know, Your Honor. The prison physician is here. He has been talking to him for half a week. Ask him.
JUDGE BRAND: It is my understanding of what counsel for the defense called the Court's Rule, that that rule, if it were a rule, applied only to such times and occasions when the defendant was physically unable to be here. That has been the procedure which the Court outlined would apply. Of course, it will not apply if the defendant is physically able to attend Court.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honor please. I have just been advised by Mr. Wooleyhand that he felt the defendant would want to be present when this witness testified. In fairness, he called the prison physician and stated that this witness would be on the stand today and asked if the defendant would be able to be present today, and if ho wanted to be present. He should be here today in his own interest. That is all we have done. The prison physician has brought him. I assume he is able to be here today. If he does not want to stay, or if he wants to go to the hospital, it is all right with us.