Q The death sentence, however, could have been executed without any further difficulty after she had been delivered of the baby, is that correct, after the birth?
A Yes, certainly.
Q When was this woman pardoned?
AA few days after the execution of Heller.
Q Thus after all this woman was relieved of the worry and also the suffering about the execution and the uncertain date of it, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q How did it happen at all that the co-defendant Muendler was pregnant, how was that question brought up at all, can you remember that?
A This course of events, this event was something new to the extent that the competent Landgerichtsarzt, Dr. Kuntz, had repeatedly been approached by Streicher and Denzler. He was repeatedly asked whether it was first of all possible at such an early date of the pregnancy, period of the pregnancy, whether the pregnancy can be determined, that it was actually pregnancy, and secondly the Landgerichtsphysician, Dr. Kuntz, was interested in and asked whether for reasons of racial hygiene it would not be advisable to interrupt the pregnancy here in this case.
Q Perhaps you have forgotten something, something slipped your memory, did the defendant Rothaug, not as presiding judge at the time, on his own initiative, bring up this question, before the Lnadgerichtsphysician had been asked yet or that there had been any opinion on this, to make a decision about this question?
A That I do not know.
Q At least you admit the possibility it could have been like that?
A During the session I did not hear anything of the kind. The Landgerichtsphysician was from the very beginning present at the 3*April-A-DJG-15-3-Hoxsie (Int.
Wartenberg) session, and he was also the one who for the preparation of the session had been asked for an expert opinion and had given it during the session of the court.
Q You mentioned that the Defendant Rothaug had gone to the place of execution, had spent sometime there.
A That is correct.
Q Was there, outside of Rothaug, besides Rothaug, another judge who went to the place of execution?
A You mean whether another judge was also in Stadelheim with Rothaug? I don't know that. In any case Streicher was there, was there during the execution.
Q Is it correct that at the time the court had to go to the place of the execution in order to be able to answer a possible application for reopening of the trial?
THE PRESIDENT: It seems that the interrogation channels are not working well, and we will take a little recess at this time in order to repair them. We will recess for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Court, in regard to the case we have just been discussing, I only have a very few questions. May I, after I have asked these questions, interrupt my cross examination and ask for permission to continue it on Tuesday because I only received the second part of the transcript today.
THE PRESIDENT: I am wondering if the prosecution, since defense counsel has requested that further cross examination be postponed until Tuesday, have some matters that we can take up promptly so that time won't be lost.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor, we can proceed with further documentary evidence at any time.
THE PRESIDENT (To defense counsel): You may suspend your cross examination at your pleasure.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Further, we have no objection in any manner whatever if the defense wishes to present this cross examination. I believe the question for which a postponement was asked was with reference to the Heller case.
THE PRESIDENT: He may speak for himself. We didn't so understand it. (To defense counsel) Do you want to suspend entirely or merely to change your line of examination at this time?
DR. KOESSL: I would like to ask your permission to put only two or three more questions to the witness and then to continue it on Tuesday.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q As far as you remember, was the chamber which had to deal with the case, were the members of the chamber in anyway in disagreement as to how the case should be decided?
A No.
Q Was there no difference of opinion of any kind between the prosecution and the judges in the evaluation of the facts in the case?
A They were in absolute agreement.
Q I thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness should be excused now until next Tuesday morning at nine-thirty o'clock. Does anyone know whether the other room is ready for us beginning next Tuesday?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, I believe it was announced in the daily bulletin that as of Tuesday we would reconvene in Court No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness may be excused now, but is to reappear in the other room next Tuesday morning at nine-thirty.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, at this time, I have just sent for documents to continue the prosecution's case. It will be two or three minutes before they get here. We didn't know what time Dr. Koessl was going to finish. May we ask for a brief recess until the documents get here?
Dr. Schubert has reminded me that I should have told the Court and the defense that we will proceed with Document Book "L" as soon as it gets up here.
THE PRESIDENT: That document book should be distributed to the bench. We do not have it.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I believe the Secretary has gone to get it for you.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Wooleyhan, may we inquire whether there will be one book or more books between "I" and "L"?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I believe that Book "K" was put into evidence yesterday, was it not? And the series runs "H", "I", "K", "L".
JUDGE BRAND: No "J"?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No "J".
JUDGE BRAND: Have you finished Book "I"?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Mr. La Follette told me this morning that they had finished books "I" and "K". I believe the only remaining documents, to go back and recapture, as far as introducing them, are a few odds and ends in the first four books.
I have just been informed that the two books that were completed yesterday were "H" and "K" and that in Book "I", there still remains approximately half.
MR. KING: May we ask the Court to turn to page 106 in the English text; that is 109 in the German text. The Prosecution at this time will introduce the Document NG-469 which, when formally offered, will become Prosecution's Exhibit 231. This is a sworn affidavit of -
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say 106 in the English?
MR. KING: In Document Book I, page 106; I am very sorry. This is a sworn affidavit of Dr. Karl Mayer, Nurnberg, 13 Uhlandstrasse: "I, Dr. Karl Mayer, Nurnberg, 13 Uhlandstrasse, hereby declare under oath:
"I know the activities of the two presiding judges of the Special Court, Rothaug and Oeschey, because I frequently acted as defense counsel before the Special Court, and I can say that, judging from my experiences, these two gentlemen contributed decisively to the maintenance of the NSDAP's rule of force through their methods of conducting trials and through their sentences. This was shown often in the spiteful way in which they treated the defendants during trials and in the harshness of their sentences which transcended all justice measures. ROTHAUG, who in 1943 was appointed Reich Prosecutor at the People's Court, was by far the most feared judge of any Special Court and was known as such throughout the country. Even among the circles of jurists in Nurnberg, he was greatly feared. This is explained by his position of Presiding Judge of the worst Special Court in Germany, which, as I heard, pronounced the largest number of death sentences. The severe laws of the Third Reich were used by him in the most brutal manner. In cases in which there was a possibility that the defendant might be sentenced to death, he used to tell him even during the trial that he deserved a death sentence and would be "exterminated". And the sentence was carried out according to his threat. After Rothaug transferred to Berlin, there occurred no essential change, since Oeschey conducted to work in the same manner and even surpassed him in the spitefulness of his manner. I should like to mention a special case, although it did not end in a death sentence, in which Oeschey treated the defendant in such a dastardly manner that the defendant hanged him self in despair.
This was the case of von Praun, who was tried during the first month of 1944. I was then the defense counsel of the defendant.
During an air-raid on Nurnberg in August 1943, which he had observed from Ausbach von Praun has said, among other things, "Here, Goering, too, can no longer help us. Only God can help us now." These and other utterances had been reported to the Gestapo and they led to an accusation of "insidious attack on this state." The minister of Justice had decreed that the case be tried before the Special Court, but had notified the Special Court that if the trial brought out that this was a case of "seditious undermining of German defensive strength", the records should be passed on to the People's Court for further treatment. I had the impression that Oeschey, who conducted the trial very briefly, was decided from the start to transfer this matter to the People's Court. This decision was, in my opinion, not based on the case as such, since the case could have been treated by Oeschey as an offense against the law concerning "insidious attacks on the State and Party," particularly since it had to be taken into account that the defendant had been under the influence of the excitement of a heavy air-raid. What decided the matter, however, was the fact that the defendant was an official of the Protestant Church, whom Oeschey wanted to involve in a capital trial, since according to Ministerial directives, it was impossible for him to treat the case from the point of view of the law against "sedition, undermining of German defensive strength."
Oeschey's spiteful attitude was demonstrated for instance, by the fact that with the strongest emphasis he called the defendant, a highly respectable man, a political criminal, only because the defendant had cabled birthday greetings to the former German Emperor, who was then living in Holland. In addition, Oeschey represented the defendant as a man of particularly low character because he had allegedly refused to admit two young girls into his air-raid shelter. Actually the two girls had been properly assigned to another air-raid shelter, and the defendant had not thrown them out, but had merely asked them to go to their own shelter the next time.
When I attempted to exonerate my client through the submission of a document from the air-raid protection direction, Oeschey yelled at me and told me, "Sir, we don't appreciate that sort of thing." What was most striking about this, was the tone of voice used which cannot be reproduced in writing and which was reminiscent of that of a revolutionary tribunal, an effect evidently desired by Oeschey. When I arose and asked for a more dignified treatment of my person, Oeschey again turned on me. An excited exchange of words developed between Oeschey and myself, which ended in his declaration, "I refuse to deal with you." He then interrupted the session and retired into the consultation room, with his associate judges. After a short time he returned and referred the case to the People's Court.
Oeschey gave the defendant to understand in unmistakable terms that he should expect the fate of a criminal. Oeschey is therefore guilty in the death of Mr. von Praun, who despaired of his life as a result of his cruel treatment. Oeschey's behavior towards me was an unheard-of encroachment on the rights of the defense. My colleagues have told me of similar cases."
That is all of this affidavit that we wish to call to the Court's attention. At this time, therefore, we offer the Document NG-469 as Prosecution's Exhibit 231.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: We ask the Court to turn to page 115 in the English text, which is page 116 in the German text. We will introduce at this time the Document NG-563, which, when formally offered, will become Prosecution's Exhibit 232. This is a sworn affidavit of Hans Kern.
"I, Hans Kern, lawyer, Nurnberg, hereby declare under oath: I was born on 29 December 1896 in Buchschwabach in the district of Fuerth. I did not belong to the Party nor to any of its affiliated organizations. In the year 1924 I passed my second state examination *** became junior attorney.
From 1927 on I was an independent lawyer.
My activities at the Special Court consisted of defenses, partially as chosen counsel, partially as on official defense counsel. On this occasion I had the unpleasant task to appear before Presidents Dr. Oswald Rothaug and Rudolf Oeschey. The verdicts were often inhuman and were not in proportion to the crimes. The conduct of the trial was not that of an impartial judge, having to be called unworthy especially in the casses against foreigners. The presence of a defense counsel, since it was prescribed by law, was considered a necessary evil and a part of the trial. Many of my colleagues declined altogether to accept a defense before the Special Court. I did not take this course in order not to abandon in their distress the clients who sought protection from me. I considered it my duty to carry on as defense counsel, in spite of all unpleasantness. Clashes between presidents and counsels were not rare. You had to be very careful when conducting a defense, in order not to violate the duties of a lawyer, which were formalities in accordance with the National Socialist point of view and thus constituted a considerable limitation of any defense. The judges watched strictly over this. Reprimands in the public court room occurred at almost every session. Dr. Rothaug often took pleasure in giving political lectures of a National Socialist nature. Practically all defendants were addressed like criminals. Especially in the case of foreigners, it was stated at the beginning and also during the trial that they had to be annihilated. Evidence on the part of the defense almost regularly was declined as irrelevant, and nearly exclusively limited to police investigations contained in the case record. A defense attorney had to be summoned by the presiding judge at least a week before the trial. Frequently, however, the time limit was shortened, so that the attorney did not have enough tine to prepare himself and to offer evidence before the prosecution entered its demands for a penalty.
As an especially serious case, I would like to mention the cases of Durka and Struss which were tried on a Saturday. I was summoned as defense counsel two hours before the trial by Rothaug. As I protested against this, Rothaug declared that the trial had to take place in any case. He added that if I did not consent to take over the defense the trial had to be conducted without a defense counsel. I then decided to take over the defense in order not to leave the woman defendant alone during the trial. Rothaug then permitted me to interview my client before the trial. It was a 17 years old Polish girl, who together with another woman defendant, I believe, a few years older, was accused of having started a fire in a factory in Bayreuth. The two defendants denied this.
A police officer who was questioned, made statements on the basis of various interrogations. These statements alone did not prove the two defendants to be the culprits. This was only presumed because they were in the vicinity of the fire at the moment of its outbreak. ROTHAUG and OESCHEY declined, as a matter of principle, to believe Polish citizens who were under accusation. They were branded as liars. It was assumed that their innate tendency made liars of them. DURKA and STRUSS were sentenced to death. I suggested at the main trial that the persons who expressed their views about the case in front of the police officers should be heard before the Court. This offer of evidence was declined as being irrelevant. The two defendants never knew what was in the balance - not even after the sentence. The fact that the case was heard the day after the crime was committed, the absence of legal documents, the fact that the indictment had been prepared a few hours before the trial, and that the whole trial only lasted half an hour, all this deeply affected me, and I considered proceedings as well as sentence an injustice."
"The WENDEL case was that of a summer house burglar who was sentenced twice for the same offense. In 1940 Wendel was sentenced to 8 years penal servitude by the Special Court in Nuremberg. The sentence was repealed by petition of nullification by the Senior Reich Prosecutor and referred to new proceedings. WENDEL was sentenced to death by ROTHAUG on 10 July 1941. The findings were the same in both proceedings. The wishes of the Reich Supreme Court to convict the defendant of a common crime committed during black-out were met by unproved assertions and conclusions. In view of the actual facts, the second sentence could hardly be upheld comparing it with the first, if one were at all of the opinion that an offense as committed by WENDEL should be a crime punishable by death."
"As a sentence which bears purely national-socialist terror-marks and is also an expression of such terror was that against KURZ and confederates. Already the prosecution greatly exaggerated the facts. Under no circumstances was there a political background.
It was about some silly larks of young lads mainly who had in no way a political orientation. They beat each other up on several occasions. They have applied means, when bartering cigarettes for bread, which are apt to occur to thoughtless lads around the Plaerrer. Eventually they went to the home of apprentices in order to beat up the boys living there after having taken the first beatings from the latter a few days before. OESCHEY, who conducted this session, wanted to make a political case out of these harmless tricks, asserting that those who took part represented a counter-movement against the Hitler Youth. Punishments were meted out accordingly. KURZ, MANSCHIUK and MALINOVSKI were sentenced to death; the rest were sentenced to long term penal servitude. MANZUIK, a Ukranian was the one who, according to the findings of the Court was the least responsible for these incidents."
"In the case of BECKER, who was sentenced to death by the Special Court as a dangerous habitual criminal, the assumption that BECKER was a habitual criminal was not justified. Since 1923 BECKER had been sentenced only once to imprisonment and twice for illegal border crossings. One of these two sentences consisted of five months prison. Neither could it be proved that Becker had defrauded three women of considerable values under false pretenses."
We turn now to the page 120 in the English text, page 121 in the German. In the English text, it is the last paragraph on the page.
"As a last case, I would like to refer to the proceedings against four or five foreigners in 1944, in which OESCHEY presided. There were some foreigners who had found, during a walk, some food ration cards dropped from enemy aircraft. They tried to buy foodstuffs with the coupons. One of them obtained half a pound of butter; the other was on the point of buying something, when he was caught red handed. The defendants were sentenced to death by OESCHEY. Here again the punishment did not correspond to the offense, especially not because these foreigners did not know German and were unaware of the fact, that it was forbidden to pick up or to bring into circulation food coupons which were dropped by enemy aircraft.
It is true, this prohibition was published in German newspapers, but in the German language. These foreigners, however, did not know German."
The statement is signed by Hans Kern.
At this time we offer the Document NG 563, as Prosecution Exhibit 232.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: We invite the Court to turn to page 122 in the Document Book 3-1. In the German text it will be page 122 also. I might say to the Court that this is a rather long affidavit of which we want to read extensively, and if during the process of reading, the Court feels that it should recess, I will be glad to interrupt the reading. This is a sworn affidavit of the medical doctor. Gustav Kunz:
"I, Dr. Gustav KUNZ, Chief Medical Counsellor, retired, Nuernberg ROONSTRASSE 1, declare hereby:"
"I was born on 8 March 1882 in Rosenheim (Upper Bavaria). After termination of my pre-college education in 1900, I studied medicine at the University of Munich and Erlangen, and passed my state medical examination in 1905. After a training of many years at different hospitals, especially in psychiatry, and after a trial as a practitioner, I was installed in 1913 as a civil servant doctor in the Bavarian civil service (Administration of Justice). I was prison doctor in Lichtenau and Nuernberg. In 1926 I was commissioned Chief of the psychiatric division of the local prisons into which were brought the bigger and more difficult cases for last consultation by the tribunals of the district courts of appeal of Nuernberg, Bamberg, Wuerzburg and Zweibruecken. In 1929 I became the leading court doctor in Nuernberg; three other doctors were my assistants. The distribution of cases for examination took place according to a schedule made by me for all four doctors, whereby I took over the more difficult cases, observing them constantly in the psychiatric division. Thanks to the arrival of cases from the many above-mentioned juridical districts, where I had to be present at trials and express my opinion, I had an extraordinary possibility to compare verdicts and the conduct of proceedings at different tribunals."
"My opinion decided has to be this: that trial proceeding and sentences at the Nuernberg Special Courts, under the presidency of Dr. ROTHAUG and OESCHEY, differ substantially from those of the other Special Courts. I knew ROTHAUG from the time when he was working here as Public Prosecutor, and at that time he did not attract any attention whatsoever in his official capacity. But in the Nationa-Socialist State he - as well as OESCHEY - believed it necessary to demonstrate their political attitude by omitting every human consideration, and by a cruel treatment of people. The treatment that the two named judges bestowed, not only upon the defendants, but also upon witnesses and defense lawyers which were inopportune to them, must have been unique. Evidence of witnesses in favor of defendants was often hamstrung, and witnesses were intimidated. The same was true with respect to the functions of the lawyers working in favor of their clients it was known, therefore, how very little inclination existed with the lawyers to plead in the Special Courts. Insult, humiliation and mental torture of the defendants were routine and the two judges, especially OESCHEY, did not even renounce them in cases in which - according to the legal situation - the verdict had to be or was acquittal or an insignificant sentence. Typical of both of them, when holding the presidency, was that, general talks, bearing no connection with the case for hours often precede the hearing of the defendants and the evidence. The only purpose could have been Nazi propa ganda and publicity. I remember one case, when the proceedings had started at 8:30 and drew out until the recess at 12:30 with general amplifications, including intimidation and insult of the defendant."
"The medical expert used to be called up in all cases threatened with death sentences, but everybody must have felt that this expert activity was only a matter of form and therefore undignified for an authority judging impartially."
"By far prevailing among cases examined, practically the only ones to be taken into consideration in the Special Courts, were socalled borderline cases in which a deficiency existed either in brainwork, or frame of mind and will power, and which - according to our law should have been included partly in the group with limited criminal responsibility. In my opinion, the court doctor had to give his view on such cases too where there were no psychiatric facts called for discussion, but where the psychology of the action and of the perpetrator had to be analyzed; that of course demanded a certain amount of courage and personality from the counsel a she certainly ran the risk of identifying himself with the action and the perpetrator. Here I am thinking of the not too rare cases where people had to answer for their remarks made against Hitler or any other personality of the Reich government, right after the loss of their property through air-raids."
"For ROTHAUG and OESCHEY there existed no understanding for such presentation of psychiatric borderline cases. They were always looking for cases where they could explain psychologically the action under trial, and thus to help tie down the defendant and to restrict the issue to the short question of "responsible" or "not responsible". Finally, it was simply dangerous for the defendants, if one pointed out the defects in their mental state, because for ROTHAUG and OESCHEY it constituted an additional reason for their elimination from human society. There existed a decided endeavor to force the medical expert away from the proper medical sphere into that of a witness for the prosecution or that of the prosecutor."
"On different occasions, they tried to influence directly my task as expert. As far as it was done by the public prosecutor or by Party persons, it could only have been done upon instruction or with the knowledge of the two presidents."
"I remember more exactly two cases. The first case concerned a young Pole, who was to be sentenced to death, because he had cut off the fingers of his employers's child. I was charged with the investigation of his mental state - which did not show any state of deficiency in my expert opinion I explained however that it must have been the case of a very harmless accident; the young lady must have hurt the girl unintentionally in a childish scuffle as they were both cutting oisiers with sharp knives. ROTHAUG demanded from the public prosecutor dealing with this case, that this part of the record be removed from my opinion as I had only been asked about the mental state, and he (ROTHAUG) tried in vain to prevent this inclusion also at the chief proceedings."
"The other case concerned a young GERMAN woman, who was also to be sentenced to death. At the ordered investigation of her mental state, I made the supposition of a beginning pregnancy. As a death sentence cannot be carried out on a pregnant woman, ROTHAUG and the public prosecutor in charge of the case tried in vain to influence me to suppress this statement."
"In this case one could see especially clearly the influence of the president, which had also been ascertained in some other cases by Gauleiter Streicher, who demanded the death sentence under any circumstances. He called on me personally to suppress my statement, and in order to divert my scruples he proposed to have an abortion made on the girl before her execution."
That is all of the affidavit that we propose to read at this time, and it is signed by Dr. Gustav Kunz. We offer Document NG 531 as Prosecution Exhibit 233.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence, and we will take our usual recess of fifteen minutes at this time.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the Tribunal, I would like to apologize for directing, for claiming the attention of the Court for a minute further to discuss a matter with the Tribunal which is very important to my interests on behalf of my client and which otherwise I would have no opportunity to present before the Easter holiday. I am concerned with the following matter.
The Tribunal will remember that at the beginning of this trial on the count of an affidavit by the defendant Dr. Schlegelberger concerning the offices within the Reich Ministry of Justice all discussion here in particular concerned the table which is hanging on this wall. The objections which were only broached by the defense at the time referred to the defendant Dr. Rothenberger and stated that during his term of office as under-secretary he namely was not in charge of the penal divisions 3, 4, 5, and 6. At the time he substantiated that fact by means of an exhibit which has already been submitted to the Tribunal, No. 45, in which it was stated that in effect the penal divisions were not under the direction of Dr. Rothenberger, under-secretary. It is an established fact that Dr. Schlegelberger's statement on which that survey is based was only made by him in reference to his own term of office and only referred to that period.
Dr. Rothenberger and I openly desire once again to bring up this matter, first to express that that map should not be removed but must be corrected. Dr. Schlegelberger, for technical reasons only now, has given an amendment to his affidavit which I have before me. It is a very brief statement which for reasons of complexity I do not wish to read out.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me interrupt you for a moment. It would seem that the character of the service of Dr. Rothenberger and the time of that service should be a matter of record and therefore not seriously a matter of dispute, and I am wondering if there is any apparent dispute whether that can't be worked out in council without taking the time of the Tribunal.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Maybe it can.
THE PRESIDENT: I may further suggest that although that map is on the wall and therefore easily seen by us, and although we have a copy of it among our documents, that isn't final at all, and it could be corrected, if you can't agree upon it. It could be corrected as part of your defense instead of taking the time of the Tribunal at this time. I am hoping that you can agree upon the real facts and I think you should be able to, since that must necessarily be a matter of public record unless the record has been destroyed.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I thank the Tribunal for giving me the information that this chart is not final, nor do I want this plan to be removed, this chart to be removed, but I merely want this supplement to the affidavit, not only to be used by myself in evidence for the defense, because this is a matter which affects the basis of the trial. Therefore, I had already briefly discussed the matter with the prosecution, that there are no objections to present this affidavit to the Tribunal at the moment. I have no further wishes before the Easter holidays. The further conclusions which I wish to draw and the possible material objections which the prosecution may have against it can easily be left until a later date. I only wish to ask the Tribunal, with the agreement of the prosecution, to accept this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire, Mr. King, whether you still contend, or whether you do contend against the facts as shown by this new affidavit? Are you prepared to answer that question at this time?
MR. KING: The prosecution's position may be stated as follows. We think that aside from typographical corrections in the chart as it exists now that no correction should be made until the defense begins to put in its case in chief. If apart from the typographical corrections, upon which we can agree as the Court suggests, the fundamental basis of the chart is correct, then at this time it means that the defense is merely anticipating itself in the presentation of its case in chief.
Now, it is true that we have told Dr. Wandschneider that if the Court has no objection we would not object to the presentation of the affidavit and the additional Rothenberger chart at this time. However, at the time we told him that we did say that in our opinion we thought that should be held up until the time when defense begins to put in their case in chief. That is still our opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be no difficulty about your having an opportunity to present your side, your contention about this chart at the proper time. This would set a bad precedent to interrupt the prosecution's case by putting in some matters that are really defense's. You will have ample opportunity when it comes to your defense in chief to make those corrections and we think that is the better practice.