In fact, all departments which I mentioned just now as being under Dr. Rothen-berger were never under his charge, but they were immediately under the charge of the Reich Ministry of Justice, Dr. Thierack, who immediately after Dr. Rothenberger acceded to office, took those departments under his own charge. Besides, the period of office of Dr. Rothenberger did not go on until the year 1944, but until 1943.
Finally, I should like to point out that all the penal courts were never in charge of the defendant Dr. Rothenberger, but only the civil courts.
I emphasize that what I said just now at this phase of the proceedings because I realize that by that I am not presenting a motion of evidence, but I assume in complete agreement with the Prosecution I wish to present that an error, which if it goes on for days or for weeks, can be fatal for all of the defendants in this trial. Therefore I would like to ask, in agreement with the Prosecution, to have the whole proceedings on an objective basis from the very beginning, that this table should either be corrected accordingly, or that a now table concerning the defendant Dr. Rothenberger should be made which shows correctly the responsibilities of the defendant and shows which courts were under his jurisdiction and also shows his period of office correctly.
I would like to refer you to Document NG 195, for the information of the Prosecution, which says. The Ministry announces that on 6 January 1944 a discussion - that is after the dismissal of Dr. Rothenberger - he said that now departments 3,4, and 5 would be under the Under Secretary of State. That is, these departments previously were not under the direction of the Under Secretary. This document of 6 January says the ordinance of 27 January 1942 is cancelled herewith.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: May it please Your Honors, generally because of my ineffected ability to hear through these things, at least to think when I hear through them -- but I think that I sense the basic objection of counsel, that if there was an error in this chart it shouldn't hang in the court room indefinitely.
We can argue that, I think, later when we get to it. Obviously, counsel is properly attempting to protect his client. But certainly at this stage of the proceedings before we have made any effort to offer the document which will support the chart, the request, I think, at this time is certainly premature. We will not, in fairness, delay indefinitely.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal feels at this time that the objection; however well it might be founded, is premature. All that is being presented at this time is preliminary, and we think the preliminary matters should be gotten out of the way; that before we come to anything substantial in the trial, if inaccuracies or errors are found in this chart, they should of course be remedied and an opportunity will be offered for the purpose. But for the moment we prefer questions of preliminaries all gotten out of the way before that question is made.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The Tribunal's decision is consistent with the Prosecution's ideas. We will not go extensively into evidence in this case before we introduce evidence that, we think, will substantiate our chart. We don't intend to have it hang here till the end of the trial before we do something about it.
May I check back where I was reading? Is it difficult to find it? For the benefit of the stenographers I will go ahead and read.
All of the affidavits witnessed by the individuals were made within the period of time within which they had such authority. Military Tribunal 1 also indicated that it wished the positions cf the person administering the oath to be set forth in the affidavit. The Prosecution has checked all the affidavits which it proposes to offer in evidence in this case and added this information to the original affidavits which will be introduced as Prosecution exhibits. Thus the translations into English and copies in German of these affidavits which were prepared previously will not show these additions. During the authentication of documents to be presented in this trial I come now to the distribution thereof. The Prosecution has made available to the Defendants Information Center thirteen mimeographed copies in German of the great bulk of the documents which will be used in our case in chief, and an index by document numbers has also been provided.
In addition, the Prosecution has prepared document books in both German and English, arranged substantially in the order in which they will be presented in this court. Each document book contains an index giving the document number, description, and page number. A master index to all the document books is contained in Document Book 1. Sixteen copies of the German document books will be filed in the Defendants Information Center at least twenty-four hours prior to the time that particular material will be introduced in court.
In addition to photostatic copies of these documents furnished to the Defendants' Information Center, six copies of the German Document Books will be given to the Secretary General, of which two copies will contain photostats only. Document Books will also be made available to the Interpreters and court reporters.
The English Document Book will contain certified translations of the documents in the German Document Books. The Document Books will be numbered and indexed identically in both English and German versions. It has been agreed that it will be sufficient for Defense Counsel if four copies of the English Document Books are given to the Defendants' Information Center, at the same time the corresponding German Document Book is delivered. Six copies of the English Document Books will be given to the Secretary General, four of which will be for the Tribunal. Sufficient copies will be made available to the interpreters and court reporters.
Copies of all documents introduced in evidence will thereafter be supplied to the press. He Prosecution may have occasion to use documents which have just been discovered and are not in document books. In suck cases, we will try to have copies in the Defendants' Information Center a reasonable time in advance of their use in court. The Prosecution when presenting his document in court will physically hand tho original, or certified copy serving as the original, to the clerk of the Tribunal and give the document a Prosecution exhibit number.
As all of the Prosecution's documents will be translated into German, we will follow the practice before Military Tri bunals 1 and 2 of dispensing with the reading in full of all documents or portions of documents. This had to be done in the International Military Tribunal Trial as only through that method were translations available in all four languages in which that trial was conducted.
But such a necessity is not present. The Prosecution will read some documents in full especially in the early stages of the trial, but we will endeavor to expedite matters by summarizing documents when p*ss i*l*, or otherwise calling the Tribunal's attention to such passages therein as are deemed important and revelant.
I would like to add my own observation here. I have been trying , for myself, to turn much of this procedure into some camparabel understandable relationship to what we do in the practice to which most of us are accustomed. In a sense, I believe, I understand this better and I offer this to the court with the thought that it might be benificial. This is a mass identification. We are accustomed in trials in the states to have witnesses present to identify the documents . The provisions for relaxing the rules of competency arose of necessity for the reasons we discussed yesterday in the opening statement. That is a feasible provision. Since the rules of competency governing the identification to which we are accustomed have been relaxed, in a sense, what we have done is to identify these documents through affidavits.
Authentication, in a sense, for all documents, has now taken place, Normally, in the states, this would take place as each documentary piece of evidence was introduced. That is the way I fool about this.
The Prosecution will of*".r os Prosecution Exhibit dumber 4, a chart certified by the Defendant Schlegelberger which is the basis for the chart which hangs on the wall in this courtroom. It is Document Number NG-774 and is found in Document Book Number 1-A. It is just before Page 9.
Your Honors, I would like to call the attention of the Court to the certificate male by the Defendant Schlegelberger.
It is at the bottom of the chart. I am going to read the English translation:
"I, Franz Schlegelberger declare under oath that I was a Secretary of State of the Reich Justice Ministry and as such I was very familiar with the organization of the Ministry. I have examine this chart and confirm that to the best of my knowledge and belief this (it) is a correct and true partial rendition of the Reich Justice Administration. (added in ink) with the following limitations: I cannot tell you for sure if Mr. von Ammon was in Department III. I am--"
"Only"is stricken.
"* not familiar with the personnel of the drumheadcourt-martials and special-court-martials."
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. Prosecutor, did you say this chart is identical to the one on the wall?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: That is correct , Your Honor.
It will be noted that certification is sworn to by Peter Beauvais. I am entitled to say that in the certificate of General Taylor that I just introduced, Mr. Beauvais is one of the persons entitled to acknowledge sworn statements.
I want to point out that the document on the wall does not have on it certain diagonal lines which Your Honors will not on NG-774. The dotted lines are there, but the diagonal lines from the Reich Chancellory Chief Lammer and from Party Chancellory Chief Bormann to the Reich Ministry of Justice, which are on the chart, have not been placed on the wallchart.
By the same token the diagonal lines under Section III running to Section I have not been placed on the wall chart. We will make those connections by subsequent proof. I only make this point because I do not want it to seem that we have deliberately attempted to overreach the Defendants by putting things on here which ware not contained on the wall chart.
I now offer to introduce into evidence, Prosecution Exhibit Number 4, a chart, which speaks for itself. It is certified by Defendant Franz Schlegelberger.
THE PRESIDENT: We will first hear from Counsel for Mr. Schlegelberger.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Defense counsel for Schlegelberger and von Ammon. This table, under the box, Secretary, does not say in detail reproduce the photostatic copies which Schlegelberger signed. It is not an exact reproduction. The original and photostatic copy show the handwritten addition. In this department under State Secretaries, Schlegelberger, Civil law, 1939 until 1942. In effect, Schlegelberger was only state secretary for civil law not for penal law. For that reason, he in his statement made this addition in handwriting as is shown in the photostatic copy. That addition has not been added to the table.
The error perhaps arose because Schlegelberger, before signing, made this addition and the Prosecutor has in his hand the original copy which does not have that addition. At any rate, the criminal which I hold here, or the Photostatic copy which hold in my hand shows this addition in handwriting.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, I find that the words "civil law" under State Secretary are found in the photostat, the English photostat. I had not seen it. The omission of that as to Mr. Schlegelberger, for the period which he asserts, the date is shown there; if it is not shown on the chart, we will gladly amend the chart to conform. That is an inadvertent omission. We have no desire that the court lock at the chart all day long and not see that.
However, the chart is not evidence and if the court has knowledge of it and feels that the knowledge that it has, which I feel from the evidence will not in any way be influenced by what is on the chart, the court, of course, may feel we need not make the change. We have no disposition in any way in which to affect anyone on the picture.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. La Follette, it's really difficult to get the translation with accuracy. I will be glad if you will point out where the difference is in your own English language, if you will.
MR. La FOLLETTE: I can't get away from the microphone so that the counsel can hear. We have at the top "Hitler," and on the line down it says, "Reich Ministry of Justice," in the block, and right below that block is one that says, "State Secretaries." There are three names in there: "Schlegelberger, 1930 to 1942, Rothenberger, 1942 to 1944 and Klemm, 1944 to 1945." In the Exhibit 4 which we have offered, Your Honors will notice that below Schlegelberger in the state Secretary block is typed the words "Civil Law and that is in German in the defendants' chart which we certified. We inadverdently omitted it on the wall. That is as far as I gather now, the chief bone of contention. My point is that since Your Honors have the exhibit, I do not believe that the court will be adversely influenced against the defendant Schlegelberger through the chart because the chart isn't evidence; on the other hand, if the court feels that for its protection, in a sense, we should in some way get a line on there and put "Civil Law," as is indicated on the exhibit, we would be glad to do that. I think it's a pure technical matter.
JUDGE BRAID: The fact is, is it not, that the objection is not made to the exhibit which is offered in evidence, but the objection is made to the chart on the wall which is not offered in evidence?
MR. La FOLLETTE: That is what I understand and I believe I have properly stated the counsel's position.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask one more question? It appears that Division on the left on the wall read II, IV, and V.
MR. La FOLLETTE: They read III, IV and V, but form the position that the court sits, I can well understand that you can see only two strikes there. That is a matter of it being pretty small and looking at it as an angle, but they are III, IV, and V.
THE PRESIDENT: I assume there are other counsels who have other objections?
MR. KUBUSCHOK: Counsel for von Ammon. I refer to the handwritten addition in the statement by Schlegelberger, to the last sentence Schlegelberger says, "i cannot remember whether Mr. von Ammon was in Department III." In effect, von Ammon was in Department III, but only for one month and that in fact in January 1941--only January 1941. From the table, one could believe that he spent all the time of his employment at the Ministry in Department III. That is not so. In effect, he was there only for one single month and that was in January 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal feels that this is competent evidence against Mr. Schlegelberger and to any other defendant who is making no objection. If there are defendants who do make objections, it seems they will have their opportunity when it comes to their defense to show any facts other that those here.
MR. La FOLLETTE: That was my thought exactly as to the proper procedure. No have a chart signed by Schlegelberger. Dr. von Ammon is now concerned--he says he is not sure. As far as our case in chief is concerned, I think we are entitled to have this exhibit admitted in evidence. Then when tho defendants make their defense, then they can object to it. I do not feel that this Tribunal composed of judges capable of objective study of what the evidence is, will be adversely affected by the chart. We would like to have the chart there because occasionally. certainly as to all that which is not in dispute, we may find it more easily to refer to than to ask Your Honors to got out Exhibit IV all the tho time. For that reason, I ask that it be introduced into evidence at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems that the objection just made does not refer to the words on the chart being admitted, but to the language of the affidavit of Mr. Schlegelberger insofar as he makes statements about von Ammon. Am I right? (Mr. Kubuschok nods affirmatively) So as to that point, I still say that I think that can all be met in the defense.
LA FOLLETTE: I am sure it can.
MR. HAENSEL: Defense counsel Karl Haensel for Joel. I have a principle objection to raise against this table. We are here apprising an event which lasted from 1933 until 1945. This table contains some dates, and these dates appear at a spot where they can be misinterpreted. Yesterday, the prosecution gave us a document in which contained tables of the German Reich Ministry offices. If one looks at these tables and compares them with this table, one immediately finds that this table is not a simplification and is not a table which clarifies the organization, but it represents an attempt optically to show matter which can only be shown in a film which shows the events one after another. And this table reduces them to one picture, and that can. not be done. The fundamental mistake on the table is that on top it does not bear a date according to what year it made out this documentation because the Ministry in the years between '33 and '45 was several times fundamentally reorganized. I set forth the department. I have not the documents with me, but I can present such documents after the break. In 1942, German justice was reorganized. Department IV used to Department III, etc. New departments were established, as for example XV. In '34-'35, the organization was completely different from what it was in the year '45, and this is not only formality but it is important for tho question of guilt for the various defendants; in fact, it is of fundamental importance. The Ministry before Thierach and the Ministry after Thierach can not be put in one table like that. Therefore, if one looks at this table, there are abbreviations through which the understanding of the events is made much more difficult. There are also direct mistakes as concerns the situation, as you see it now.
Those are the District Courts of Appeal, which were about the District Courts and the Local Courts. But Joel was attorney general, not a member of Landgericht, and therefore he was not in charge of the Landgericht and Amtgericht. That is not the way to represent it without making a misleading statement. One can only either have several tables which show the several times and dates, or this table which was obviously misleading will have to be given up.
THE PRESIDENT: I should like to make an observation at this time. It is said by the defense counsel who last addressed the Tribunal that this could not be the same chart in different periods. However, it is the correct chart as to same particular period as shwon by the affidavit of Mr. Schlegelberger and that being true it's admissible in evidence for that purpose, and if it should appear that at different times, a different chart will apply, different classification, that can be shown at the proper time. But if there is any time when this chart correctly stated the organization, it's properly received in evidence.
We will receive this in evidence unless there is something more vital to offer at this time.
DR. BRIEGER (For Defendant Hermann Cuhorst) Your Honors, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that at the bottom of that table there is an entry "special court", which means a German special court.
That is important to my client because he was in the special court; accordingly I must raise an abjection against having the special court mentioned here; the special court was nothing more than a chamber of the district court. In other words, it was not an extraordinary court. I shall present an expert opinion on this whom I think I can rightly call an expert in this field, and at the same time -
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will be afforded at the proper time to make the objection you are now urging, but at this time we feel there is sufficient reason for receiving the chart in evidence which has been presented to the Tribunal.
DR. SCHILF (For the Defendants Herbert Klemm and Wolfgang Mettgenberg) :
Mr. President, I have against the value of the evidence of your table the following objection: The defendant, Mettgenberg, was under-secretary until 1942. In 1942 he retired; that is, he left the ministry. Now, we see on the table that the name Mettgenberg appears before the time and after that date; and he made a statement in his affidavit on events during that time; and I should like to ascertain, there is a date under the name of Schlegelberger and another date under Klemm, if Mettgenberg in 1943 left the office, in my opinion he cannot make a statement that would be valued as evidence regarding events that happened after that date. He cannot make a statement on that as far as decisions and personal knowledge is concerned. There is a change in time, and I should like to say the whole of this document has no value as evidence for the time after Mettgenberg had left the ministry, and that was in the spring, and that was in August, 1942; sometime after August, 1942, and he cannot make relevant statements on events in the ministry.
He could only have had such knowledge privately; that considerably decreases the value of this evidence. For example, my client Klemm, there are several wrong statements on the table as well as in the affidavit. Schlegelberger and Klemm appear on the party chancellery as immediately under Hitler, Department III c. until 1944.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If your Honors, please, this all goes to weight and sufficiency; not to relevancy.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has ruled on this that it has some probative value as to some defendant, or defendants, as of a certain period, and for that reason it will be admitted in evidence, and if any defendant can show a different state of facts, on a certain period as affecting certain defendants, that opportunity will be afforded. But I think we have ruled that this is admissible for that purpose and to that extent.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: At this the the Prosecution requests a short recess.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I shall now offer 1 to 12 biographical affidavits into evidence and which I shall read. First, I wish to introduce into evidence document NO 693, found on page 9 of the English Document book, and which is the biographical affidavit of the defendant Joseph Alstoetter, and sworn to before Peter Beauvois. I shall read the affidavits in English and then make my comments on the documents.
"I, Joseph Alstoetter, Ministerialdirektor (Chief of Civil Law and Procedure Division) in the Reichsministry of Justice, swear, deposite and say:
"I was born on 4 January 1892, in Griesbach, Lower Bavaria. Until 1902 I went to the elementary school St. Nicholas in Landshut gymnasium in Landshut on the Isar. From 1911 to 1914 I studied for a short while in Erlangen."
I shall not read the parenthetical remarks unless the court desires.
"Entered the army beginning of August 1914, but continued to maintain my matriculation in Munich where I passed my final examination at the University in 1915. In November 1920 I passed my state examination in jurisprudence in Munich.
"During the first World War I was a lieutenant in the Bavarian Infantry Regiment No 16. From 1935 until 1939 I took part in the military training maneuvers as a reserve lieutenant in the 7th and 11th Regiments of the new Wehrmacht. In the second World War I served with the Infantry Regiment 475 of the 255th Infantry Division from 25 August 1939 until November 1942, and my last rank was that of a major and commander of a Ballalion of the reserve forces. On 25 January 1943 I was classified upon request of the Reichs-ministry of Justice as indespensible, prior to that having been transferred to the reserve leaders of the Supreme Command of the army and to the 14th Replacement Infantry Division. I received the following military decorations: the Iron Cross I and II, the German cross in gold, the East-medal, the Infantry assualt badge, the veteran cross.
"According to my memory I joined the NSDAP in September 1933, retroactive date of 1 May 1937. My party number according to my memory is 5823836. I held no position within the party. For a short while I belonged to the SA Reserve.
I was taken over as a member of the ex-service-men's association. Since 1938 I have been a member of the General SS, last in the rank of an Oberfuehrer. On the records I was carried as an honorary leader in the Staff of the SS Main Office. Moreover, I belonged to the NSV, National Socialist People's Welfare League, to the National Socialist Lawyers' League and to the National Socialist League of Alumni. I joined the SS upon request of Himmler who assured me that I would be carried only as honorary member, that I would not have to do any service and would not have to secede from the Catholic church. Before I joined, I had a discussion with the President of the Reich Supreme Court who emphatically advised me to do so.
"My professional career was the following:
"In March 1921 I became assistant judge in the Bavarian State Ministry of Justice, I believe. In March 1923, I was nominated 3rd Attorney General and in June 1925 district judge. In this Last position I remained until Whitsuntide 1927."
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I now offer to introduce in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit 5 - I beg your pardon, Your Honor. There are two more pages I would like to read. However, the document can be considered in evidence:
THE PRESIDENT: You are offering all of it?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: All of it, yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I didn't see the pages.
"My activity in the Bavarian State Ministry of Justice comprised the handling of requests for clemency and work in the domains of common law, civil law and law dealing with the Civil Procedure Code. Whitsuntide 1927 I was ordered to the Reichsministry of Justice in Berlin as an assistant. In 1928 the Bavarian State Ministry of Justice promoted me to the position of a second attorney general. From 1928 until 1931 I held the office of a chief judge of the District Court Sonthofen in the Allgaeu. From 1931 until 1932 I was councillor of Provincial Court of Munich; used as assistant legal advisor for the Notary Division in the Bavarian State Ministry of Justice. On 1 June 1932 I was made Chief Justice of the Landgericht and was ordered to the Reich Supreme Court in Leipzig as assistant judge, where I worked until 1 February 1933 as a member of Civil Senate V, IX, and XII. From 1 February 1933 until April 1933 I was a member of Civil Senate IV at the Reich Supreme Court in Leipzig. From 1 April 1933 until the beginning of 1935 I was a member of appeals Criminal Senate II and leader appeals Criminal Senate V with the Reich Supreme Court. There I handled appeals against verdicts of the Criminal Chamber (Strafkammer) and the Criminal Court (Schwurgericht) coming from the districts of the Higher Courts of Appeal under the competence of these Senates, and pertaining to the domain of general criminal justice. On 22 January 1935 I was promoted to be councillor of the Reich Supreme Court. Soon after that I was transferred to Civil Senate III. There I handled appeals against sentences of Higher Courts of Appeal in civil matters, especially indemnity and liability claims against the Reich, the provinces and other public legal entities, claims arising from salary and pension payments to civil servants, claims resulting from agreements, particularly also arising from physicians', lawyers', notaries', and architects' agreements.
Since about 1936 I was also a member of the Reich Labor Court. From 25 August 1939 until 25 January 1943 I served with the Wehrmacht. January 1943 I was assigned to the Reich Ministry of Justice for commissioner service in the Department of Civil Law or Civil Administration of Justice. Later I became commissioner chief of this Department VI was entrusted to me. In May" - I think it's 1944 - "In May 1944 I was promoted to be chief of the civil law and procedure division of the Reich Ministry of Justice and finally was entrusted with the management of Department VI."
TEE PRESIDENT: One moment. It appears from the examination of this document that should be 1943, I think.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: 1943. It's completely blank here. We will read it as 1943.
"I held this position until the end of the war. In the fall of 1943 I, moreover, was made Deputy Director of Department VII.
"I have read the above statement in the German language and I declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief it is the full truth. I had an opportunity to make changes and corrections in the above statement. I have made this declaration voluntarily without any promise of reward and I was not placed under duress or compulsion. Nuernberg, Germany, 30 January 1947."
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I now offer Prosecution Exhibit No. 6, which is the affidavit, biographical in nature, of the defendant Paul Barnickel. It appears on page 13 of Book 1-A as Document NG-735. I would like to read from the document book. Dr. Paul Barnickel.
"I, Dr. Raul Barnickel, late Reich Prosecutor at the Reich Court in Leipzig, declare under oath:
"I was born on 4 May 1886 in Augsburg, After passing through the High School (Liberal Arts) in Augsburg, I attended the universities of Munich, Paris, Munich, and Erlangen. I made my preliminary studies in Augsburg and passed my State Examination in 1910.
"I did not belong to the Wehrmacht either in the first or in the second world war or at any time.
"I joined the NSDAP on 1 May 1933. My Party number was about 1700000. In July 1933 I became a member of the SA. My highest rank in the SA was that of a non-active Sturmfuehrer (1943). I received no decorations. I also belonged to the NSV and the NS-National-Socialistic Jurists's League, in addition, to the RKB-National Colonial League and the Reich Association for Air Raid Precaution, amongst others.
"My professional career was as follows:
"In 1911 I worked as a volunteer in the MAN engineering works Augsburg-Nuernberg. From 1912 to 1913 I worked as a lawyer in the office of Dr. Suessheim in Nuernberg.
"In 1913 I was appointed to the office of the public prosecutor in Nuernberg. From 1913 to 1919 I worked in the office of the public prosecutor at Kaiserslautern and in 1919 I was transferred to Munich as local court judge for civil matters. From 1924 to 1929 I was assigned to the office of the public prosecutor in Munich. From 1929 to 1934 I held the office of Landgerichtsrat for civil and penal matters at the District Court Munich I.
"Then in 1934 I was promoted Attorney General at the District Court Munich II. I held this position until my appointment as Reich Prosecutor at the People's Court in Berlin in 1938. As Reich Prosecutor I presided over a department of the Reich Prosecutor's Office at the People's Court. In 1944 I was transferred to the Reich Court at Leipzig, as a Reich prosecutor. I held this position until the end of the war.
"I have read the above affidavit in the German language and declare that it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I was given the opportunity to make changes in the above affidavit. This affidavit was given by me freely and voluntarily, without any promise or reward, and I was subjected to no compulsion or duress of any kind. Nuernberg, 6 February 1947. (Signed) Dr. Paul Barnickel"
THE PRESIDENT: Do you formally offer this?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I now formally offer to introduce it in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit - I think it's 6.
THE PRESIDENT: There being no objection it will be received in evidence
DR. MARX: Mr. President, for the counsel for the defendant Barnickel, I should like to make a correction. The defendant Dr. Barnickel was not general prosecutor in Munich, but he was prosecutor at the Landgericht Munich 2 during the period until 1938--until 1938. In other words, he was not the general prosecutor, but only a senior prosecutor at the Landgericht Munich 2, the District Court Munich 2. I ask if that could be corrected for the purpose of the record.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, I don't know what the Court's reaction is, and I don't want to preclude counsel, but it seems to me that these matters of substantive corrections of affidavits more properly come when the defense produce their case in chief. There may be certain objections to affidavits which go immediately to the sufficiency of the whole affidavit, but this type of objection I don't think does. And while I have no desire to undly preclude counsel for the defendants at all, I am wondering if perhaps, in the interests of procedure, we can't make it clear that no one will be precluded from saying what he wishes when he does wish to say so, but that this is an ineffective time to do it.
JUDGE BRAND: I would like to make a brief comment on the matter which the prosecutor has just brought up. I think counsel, perhaps, do not understand that when an exhibit has been offered and is authenticated sufficiently to warrant its receipt in evidence, even if there should br some error in it that error cannot be corrected merely by statement of counsel for the opposing party. The exhibit would be received in evidence and the opposing party who finds an error in it would be privileged, at a later time, to produce testimony or an exhibit to correct that error. That is the position that you take, as I understand it. I think possibly counsel for the defense haven't fully understood that corrections cannot be made merely by statement of counsel for either opposing parties.
MR. LAFOLLETTE. I appreciate the Court having made that statement.
THE PRESIDENT: I agree with what Judge Brand has said, but I am wondering whether there may not be some immaterial corrections that do not go to the merits of an affidavit that might be corrected without waiting.