again the genitals of the farmer's wife above her skirt or through her skirt The wife of farmer Schwenzl slapped him after that. In spite of this, the accused, continued, with his impertinent behavior, for a third, time" "On account of that the farmer's wife started a heated, quarrel with the accused.
The accused started to quarrel with the Polish maid too, and did no longer molest the farmer's wife."
"The accused did not make a complete confession. He states that no only once, for fun, touched the farmer's wife's genitals through the skirt "The Court is convinced, on account of the testimony given by the witness Therese Schwenzl, who makes a trustworthy impression, that the affair occurred exactly as described by the witness.
Therefore, its findings were arrived at according to the testimony given by her.
"The prohibition to have sexual intercourse with a German woman was known to the accused, he knew also about the severe punishments which awaited. The Poles if they did not comply with this prohibition. When the accused was assigned a place of work by the labor office Neumarkt in spring 1940, this prohibition was pointed out to him according to the testimony of the witness Reiser, he received also a printed informative pamphlet for enlight ment. The statement of the accused that in spite of all that be had no knowledge about this prohibition proves to be a threadbare excuse: because when asked why he denied having shown any importunity toward the farmer's wife when interrogated by the Lower Court at Neumarkt, a fact which can be proved on hand of the record made there, the accused says that he did not want to make a confession, not even a part of a confession, because he was afraid of the death sentence."
"So the defendant gives the impression of a definitely degenerate personality who is distinguished by irritability and a positive propensity for lying, the absolute inferiority of the defendant is based on his character and is obviously based on his belonging to the polish subhuman rac "The established facts show at first that the defendant grossly Insulted the feminine honor of the wife of farmer Schwenzl, by his frequently snatching at her private parts.
The defendant fully realized the despicable nature of his mean and base approaches. He thereby committed the offence on assault."
"This, however, does not cover the full extent of the defendant's culpa bility."
"The drafting of men into the armed forces effected a heavy labor and age in all spheres of life at home, last not least in agriculture. To compensate this, Polish laborers , among others, had to be used to a large extent, mainly as farm hands. These men can not be supervised by ******** to such on extent as would be necessary due to their insubordinate and criminal disposition."
"Since there is a lack of the necessary supervision, these Poles are becoming fresh and unruly. At the same time they know that they can dare to do a lot of things because we have to depend on them and it is difficult to find replacements."
"The defendant lived in the Greater German living space for a sufficient length of time to know about these circumstances caused by the war, because he saw them daily with his own eyes."
"From the beginning the defendant was a lazy and stubborn fall during his work contact with Schwenzl. Frequently he refused to when once in the morning in presence of the Pole the wife of the farmer Schwenzl made an occasional remark to the farmer Schwenzl, somebody would have to beat her to death if she had to eat as much as the Polak did, the defendant at noontime refused to take his noonmeal. He also induced the Polish servant maid to offer the same passive resistance. Farmer Schwenzl did not permit the defendant to act like that, he called the Pole to account in the stable. The defendant put up resistance towards his admonitions by arming himself with a dung fork."
Skipping to the next page, next paragraph:
"As proved by the behavior of the defendant as a whole, he also took advantage of the circumstances caused by the war in the case on hand. Bei a Pole who was given the opportunity to make a proper living in the Reich he acted in the meanest possible way. His crime as well as all t****** of his impudent behavior distinguish his as a public enemy."
"Accordingly, the defendant was to be sentenced in connection assault, also for a crime under article 4 of the Ordinance against Public Enemies of 5 September 1939."
Skipping to the last page of this verdict, which is page 106 in the English and 116 in the German, we find that this verdict is signed as Presiding Judge by Dr. Rothaug and by Dr. Ferber as associate judge. That is a notation under these signatures stating that Judge Pfaff is out on official business, signed "Rothaug." On the same page in the English but on page 117 in the German, this verdict is certified at Nurnberg on the 29 of October 1942. On page 115 in the English and 125 in the Germany find a hand-written letter.
It is from the original that it is hand-written hand-written note prepared apparently from the face of the document, it s*** seems, while the Special Court of Nurnberg was sitting in Neumarkt. Apparently the Special Court's decision regarding a possible plea for clemency in the Lopata case... The note begins: "Jan Lopata, Polish farmhand, for the consideration of the Special Court in matters of clemency. The character of the defendant as a whole, as explained at the trial. May I interpolate a moment? The trial therein referred to, the ******** submits, was the trial described in the verdict just read, " -- especially the facts that the defendant, in addition to the proven crime which was already a serious crime in view of the manner and the stubbornness with who it was carried out, and the fact that he committed another offense by his brutal conduct towards his employer, require that the death sentence be carried out." Dated Neumarkt, 26 October, 1942. Further stating, "The Special Court for the District of Provincial Court of appeal." Thereunder appear under written signature of Rothaug, Ferber and Pfaff. Under that the following statement: "I agree with the comments of the Special Court, (Signed) The President of the Special Court Rothaug."
On page 100 of the English book, which is page 109 in the German, we find a prison report on Jan Lopata's conduct. This prison report was dated Neumarkt, 26 October 1942, and apparently was sent by the superintendent of the Court Prison at Neumarkt to the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Nurnberg Special Court concerning Jan Lopata. "Death sentence pronounced by the Special Court Nurnberg" on 26 October 1942. The condemned man, Jan Lopata gave no cause for complaint during his stay at the local prison. His condemn was always according to the regulations of prisoners."
On page 112 of the English, which is page 123 in the German, we find Nurnberg General Public Prosecutor, Nurnberg, 5 November 1942; stamped "U** and it is addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice in Berlin, Subject: nal case against Jan Lopata. And with this letter -- so states the origin were enclosed various volumes and folders of documents. I submit the report of the General Public Prosecutor in Nurnberg regarding the execution of the death penalty pronounced on 26 November 1942 by the Special Court in Nurnberg against the Pole, Jan Lopata.
"I. The condemned man was sentenced to 2 years in prison camp for facts on which the verdict of the District Court of Neumarkt of 2 April was based. This verdict was annulled due to the nullity plea of the Chief Public Prosecutor by decision of the Reich Supreme Court."
"There are no objections to the verdict of the Special Court."
"II. In regard to the question of clemency, I consider the following points as essential:"
On the following page facts are recited which are familiar in that they have appeared in material heretofore read and we will therefore skip it. The letter to the Ministry of Justice end up with the statement: can not recommend an act of mercy. (Signed) Dr. Engert."
One page 108 is found the Ministry of Justice decision not to reprieve or grant clemency in the case of Lopata; this is page 122 of the German.
DR. KOESSL:(Attorney for Defendant Rothaug) May it please the Tribunal, for my colleague Dr. Marx I would like to find out and establish that Dr. Engert; whose name was just read, who signed the denial of the clemency plea, that is, he signed the denial of the Public prosecution, this Dr. Engert is not the same one as the Defendant Engert.
The Dr. Engert who signed this document was an expert, a specialist at the public prosecution in Nurnberg.
MR. WOOLEYHAN : May the Court please, the Defense Counsel's information at the moment is very well taken. The Prosecution had intended to make it clear that this was not the defendant Engert. T his is Dr. Engert. I am sorry I was a little slow in pointing this out, but I am grateful to Defense Counsel for so doing.
Resuming with the ministry of Justices decision not to grant clemancy, which we find on page 108 of the English and page 122 of the German, we find a certified true copy, " In the criminal case against Jan Lopata, sentenced to death by the Special Court with the Nurnberg-Fuerth District Court, on 26 October 1942 as a public enemy according to the Ordinance concerning penal law applying to Poles, I determined after authorization by the Fuehrer not to make any use of the prerogative to grant pardon, vested in me, but to let justice take its free course. Berlin, 19 November, 1942; The Reich Minister of Justice; signed: Thierack."
On the next page, 109, which is page 120 in the German, we find a petition for pardon written by Johann Lopata himself. In this petition for pardon, Johann Lopata states the following: "In 1940 I stayed in Germany as an agricultural worker with the farmer Josef Bodenhof" -- if the Court please, there is no point in reading this petition for pardon signed by Johann Lopata; it speaks for itself; it ends on tho next page, 110.
On page 99 of the English -- I am sorry I cannot supply the German page for that, but it is a telegram entitled "German Mail Service", addressed to the "Chief Public Prosecutor, Nurnberg; received 30 November; stamped arrived 1 December 1942, Public prosecution, Nurnberg-Fuerth." The message reads as follows: "Sentence against," and there is an obvious garrble," against Lopata Jan," and another irrelevant person, "carried out."
On page 107 of tho English, page 118 of the German, we find a few details of the execution under the letterhead, "The chief Public Prosecutor, Nurnberg, 3 December 1942; a report to the General Public Prosecutor in Nurnberg, concerning execution of the death sentence against the Polish farm worker Jan Lopata.
The death sentence was carried out on 30 November 1942. The execution took 1 minute 10 seconds altogether; from the defendant's being handed over to the executioner until the falling of the axo 7 seconds elapsed. The execution took place without incidents." At the bottom we note the signature of "Hollmann, Senior Public Prosecutor". In the margin on the left, opposite the details of the execution, we find some reference to the ordinance of the Reich Ministry of Justice: "IV" and a code serial number, "issued 19 November 1942."
The Prosecution offers this Document NG-337 in evidence as Exhibit 186.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Mr. Secretary, may I inquire if the bench has copies of Document NG-634 which was to be inserted at the end of Book III-E ; if not, I have extra copies here. This document, if the Court please, was distributed separately from the book both to the bench and to the Defense yesterday morning.
I believe you already inserted the Paulus affidavit at the end of Book III-E, and this follows that. Just insert it loosely at the end of this book, Document NG-634. Document NG-634 is a sworn affidavit reading as follows:
"I, Dr. Theodor Pfaff, born on 16 July in Arnstein, 28 mar gj M II Ia Sampson (Wartenberg) Lower Franconia, declare hereby under oath:
In 1930 I passed the state bar examination in munich, and In Munich I worked first as an assessor then as laywer, until 31 May 1935. From 1 April 1935 until 30 September 1936 I was assistant judge in Bamberg and several other courts. On 1 October 1936 I became Magistrate at the Local Court of Nuernberg. I worked as Magistrate in the criminal division and was, I believe, from 1938 on, active as judge specializing in cases of traffic violations. In the middle of 1942, as I remember, I was transferred against my wishes to the special Court of Nuernberg to assist them for four or six weeks. Later this transfer was extended. In October 1944 i served for the last time as a judge of the special court. My superiors at the special Court were: ROTHAUG, who later became Reich Prosecutor, FERBER, chief justice of District Court, and OESCHEY, chief justice of district court.
ROTHAUG's way of conducting a trial was quite different from anything I had ever seen before, and I could not reconcile his methods with my conscience. His attitude towards defendants as well as towards some witnesses, when he believed these witnesses were not telling the whole truth, was incompatible with the dignity of the court. During a session ROTHAUG sometimes spoke the defense counsels in a disrespectful tone. ROTHAUG's cynicism was something absolutely foreign to me. He behaved autocratically and did not hesitate to use offensive expressions before defendants. I can no longer remember them, but I do know that he made remarks with repelled me. I still remember such expressions as "I will place you head in front of your feet" or "If you have the nerf to commit crime after crime in your country, then I ( for the german people) will have the nerve to make you pay the consequences" or "Are the people to look on, complacently, as the best men die on the front, while you at home exploit the situation?"
I know that such expressions or, at any rate, expressions carrying such as meaning, were used."
Continuing on the next page, the page, the second paragraph:
- As illustrative of rothaug's severe jurisdiction, I would like to mention a few critical cases in which I participated as aspirated judge. " Skipping to page 4, the second paragraph:
"Lopata, a young pole had offended the honor of his woman employer, and for this the Local Court in Neumarkt condemned him to two years in a labor camp. The Reich Supreme Court considered this sentence too mild and declared it null and void. Rothaug explained to us during the second trial, that his case involved a despicable assault on a german woman by a pole, and that the rural population had to be protected from such terroristic elements. It was obvious that ROTHAUG would not admit the possibility of any exonerating motives of the part of this pole, Rothaug used all his power of suggestion to discourage any considerations which might have led to a milder sentence and made use of the Fuehrer principle" He told us we did not possess the necessary experience and knowledge in the political-judicial field, and that he had sources of information at his disposal which proved the great danger of poles. Lopata was sentenced to death and executed.
Finally, it must be mentioned that Rothaug had sold himself completely to National Socialism and criminal justice. He inserted a political note into every case by referring to the sound sentiment of the people. At the same time, however, it must be said that people were terribly afraid of Rothaug.
"These statements are the whole truth, made without any coercion, I have read them, signed and declared under oath, Signed Nurnberg, 15 January 1947, Dr. Theodore Pfaff."
The prosecution offers this Document NG-634 as Exhibit 187 The PRESIDENT:
It will be received in evidence. I am advised that when we ruled upon Exhibit 186 the switch was closed, and therefore, now repeat that we have received Exhibit 186 in evidence.
At this time we will take noon recess, and assemble again at 1:30.
( A recess was taken until 1330 hours)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 28 March 1947)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
TEE PRESIDENT: It was stated that the Tribunal would make an announcement at this time but I guess the matter was sufficiently covered after that premise but for the further assurance of defense counsel we will merely say that you will not be preculded from making your cross examination until after you have had submitted to you the German translation of the direct examination.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Tribunal, prosecution now turns for a moment to Document Book 3-G. The first document in that book; which is NG-677. This document is a sworn affidavit bearing at the top the letterhead "Dr. Ernst Escher, attorney, *urth, December 7, 1946, Rudolf Breitscheidstrasse No. 8", which reads as follows:
"As a result of the interrogation by the American prosecutiors in the Nuernberg court house, I have the following declaration to make in connection with the questions set before me concerning the procedure of the so-called "Petition for Nullification" by the Senior Reich Prosecutor:
(1) Previous legal situation.
"It is true that the legal principle that a man cannot be tried twice for the same offense (ne bis in idem) is not clearly stated in the German Criminal Code, and since subjected to frequent editorial changes; this maxim, however, was repeatedly acknowledged in the so-called "Motives" of that law. In all of the German legal terminology and literature ** doubt had ever occurred that an individual.
once legally tried, could not be resummoned before a court for the sane criminal act, without the introduction of additional evidence of proof. New proceedings against an accused who had been legally acquitted, could only be initiated in accordance with to rules concerning such a reconsideration of a once legally concluded trial (Paragraphs 359 ff., in particular Paragraph 362 of the Criminal Code.)
"The accused was therefore assured that, once he had been legally acquitted, he would not be summoned a second time before the court on the same charge.
"These principles were never repealed in the Code of Criminal Procedure itself; they remained unaltered until the present, and the criminal code of 1946 , issued by the Contraol Council , also incorporated them, "2) During the war, Hitler's government, in a decree pertaining to the competence of the criminal and special courts and covering other regulations of criminal procedure, dated the 21 February 1940 (RGB1 1940, 1, page 405, in art.
5, paragraphs 34 to 37)",
MR. WOOLEYHAN; At this moment may we interpolate, perhaps unnecessarily, to invite the Courts attention to the fact that statute appears and was read from Document Book 2.
"created the procedure of the so-called "Petition for Nullification, by the Senior Reich-Prosecutor and thereby annulled and destroyed this fundamental legal maxim. Within a year after a verdict became valid, according to this decree, the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Reich Supreme Court was empowered to use the Petition for Nullification against tho final sentences of the local courts of the Criminal Divisional Courts and of the Special Courts if, due to an error in the application of the law to clearly established facts, the sentence could be regarded as unjust.
"In a later decree, dated the 13 August 1942, allowance was made for a further extension in the use of the Petition for Nullification. Published in the Reich Law Journal in in 1942, Reichsgesetz Blatt, page 508 ff, this decree in Article 7, paragraph 2, established the right of the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Reich Supreme Court to employ the Petition for Nullification , if the decision, due to an error in the application of the law, was unjust, or if there were serious objections to the validity of the evidence on which the decision was based or to the sentence itself.
"By this decree , it became practically possible to employ the Petition for Nullification against every final judgment and of summoning an accused tho second time before a criminal court despite the fact that his case had already been legally decided.
"As is evident in the literature and especially in the published decisions of the Reich Supreme Court, the Petition for Nullification was not infrequently employed."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Skipping to the last page of this document we find that it is signed by Dr. Ernest Escher, Attorney, undersigned and sworn by Henry Einstein, Office of Chief of Counsel.
DR. GRUBE: Dr. Grube for the defendant Lautz. May it please the Tribunal , I want to raise an objection to the introduction of this document. After all, my objection is based on tho fact that this document refers to none of the defendants and that not one of the defendants is mentioned in this docment. It is true it does speak of the nullity plea by the Oberreichsanwalt as was established when the expert Behl was examined. Now, the Oberreichsanwalt of the Reich Supreme Court was competent to submit a nullity plea. The Oberreichsanwalt of the Peoples Court had nothing whatsoever to do with with the nullity plea.
The second point on which I base my objection is this; this document is simply a letter which was written after tho collapse, that is, on the 13 September 1946 and it isn't in the prescribed for of an affidavit.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Tho prosecution contends that pointing to only one of a number of examples in the Bartel case, that this was introduced in evidence this morning and involved a plea of nullity in operation, in actual operation. We think that with respect to that case as well as in a number of others, that have been or will be introduced in evidence or offered as us ch, that general factually material by an expert affiant is of great relevance to the legal background and present statutes throughout the War years. As a matter of fact, of the plea of nullity as against - legal provisions against double jeopardy, with regard to the second point, it is true that the document signed by Dr. Eschar is on a business letterhead but it is also true that the document in the original, as it will appear, was undersigned and sworn in the manner in which affidavits are many times undersigned and sworn.
THE PRESIDENT: it isn't stated at the end. There's no jurat attached, in other words.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That's an error in the mimeographed copies. It's an omission, your Honor. It does so appear in the original.
THE PRESIDENT: If your statement was, Dr. Grube, that it had not been sworn - but evidently you are mistaken about that so your objection will be overruled.
MR. WOOLEYHAN Prosecution offers Exhibit 188, Document NG-677.
TEE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Turning now to Document Book 3-E, Document NG-75P, which is found on page 8 of the English book and is distributed separately in English to the Tribunal.
I believe the German book is complete. This is to be inserted in the English book at page 8. Will the interpreters please ask the defense counsel if they have an extra copy of Document 750?
(interpreter inquires of defense counsel)
MR. WOOLEYHAN: You might borrow one from defense counsel if they have an extra.
THE INTERPRETER: Thank you.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Document NG-750 is a case dossier concerning one Margarete Sponsel. The first page appears to be an official cover sheet bearing certain routine data. It's stamped 16 June 1944 and entitled: Prosecution in the District Court, Nurnberg-Furth, criminal case in the Special Court, Nurnberg-Furth against Margarete Sponsel, Post-Office Clerk in Furth. Defense Counsel; Escher, charged with crimes against Art. 4 of the law against public enemies, etc. Attached to this cover sheet and dated sometimes previously namely, Nurnberg 3 April 1944, this is found , by the way, on page two of the document and is a medical report bearing the letterhead, Dr. J. Schnellen, Court Physician at the District Court, Nurnberg-Furth, addressed to the Thief Public Prosecutor at the Special Court in Nurnberg concerning Margarete Sponsel, charged with the crimes against Paragraph 4 of the law against public enemies.
Expert's Opinion.
Today, I examined Margarete SPONSEL, single, post-office clerk, in the Court Prison at Fuerth. She states that she was born at Egloffstei on 23 July 1904, therefore now aged 39.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Skipping two sentences.
"She does not know of any mental diseases in her family. She learned to speak and to walk at the normal time. She attended school at Nuremberg-Fuerth. She was backward at school because she had fallen into the yard from the first floor, when she was a pupil in the first grade. She fainted, but she does not remember how long she remained unconscious. She was confined to bed for 3/4 years after this fall, therefore she had to attend the first grade again. After the accident, she had difficulties in keeping up with her classes, she had to repeat the second and third grade. Then she was sent to a school for backward children. She does not remember what grades she got there. After school, she had several jobs as a servant. In 1932 she gave birth to an illegitimate child".
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Skipping to the next page.
"She never had fits. She had never drunk much. After the accident, she suffered from enuresis fur a while. She stole the contents of the packages because she had been hungry. Other things she bartered for food."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Skip another paragraph.
"SPONSEL's behaviour is according to the circumstances. Her mood is depressed. She answers questions and carries out orders properly. She is aware of time, place and of her surroundings. No schizoid or paranoid tendencies.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Skipping another paragraph.
"According to the result offense of the examination, SPON SEL was able, at the tine of the offense to understand that her deed was illicit, and was punishable accordingly.
Signed: J. Schneller
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Turning to page 5 of this document we find a sentence:
"In the name of the German Peopled The Special Court for the district of the Court of Appeals Nuremberg, attached to the district court Nuremberg-Fuerth, in the criminal proceedings against:
SPONSEL Margarete, charged with a crime under article 4 of the Law against Public Enemies etc.
at a public session of 16 June 1944 in presence of:
District Court Judge OESCHEY, as presiding justice."
"Passes sentence as follows:
THe defendant appropriated numberous postal consignments, Rest of them addressed to soldiers. She is sentenced to Death and to the permanent loss of Civic rights, as a public enemy for embezzlement destruction of documents, both in her official position and violating postal secrecy.
Reasons The defendant was born as the daughter of a labour in Egleffstein."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Skipping to the next paragraph:
"In 1943 she lost her job because the florist shop was moved. After having been ill for some weeks, she applied to the Reich Post for a job as a female letter carrier in August 1943.
On 21 August 1943 she was engaged by Post Office in Fuerth. Her official duties were explained to her and she was sworn in on the Fuehrer by a handshake. She was also told that in the case of an offense she would be treated as an official under the Penal Code and she was expressly told about the severe penalties which the courts impose for thefts of soldiers' mail."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Skipping several lines:
"At the beginning of November 1943 about three weeks after she had started to work on her own, she stole the first package which had been handed to her for delivery; she tore it open, threw the wrappings away and kept the contents. Subsequently, until her arrest on 14 March 1944, she constantly stole, - about two or three times a week - one or several packages on her delivery rounds. She either got rid of the wrappings in the street, or she burnt then in the stove at home. She stole at least a total of 50 packages, most of which were soldiers packages. She used the food she found for herself. She traded the tobacco against foodstuffs or sold it. Other usuable objects, a skein of grey weel, 6 tins of shoe polish, 4 films, spices and one cake of soap were still found in her apartment.
The accused has fully confessed.
Her excuse that she acted, because she was hungry does not exonerate her in any way"
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Skipping to the bottom of the next page:
"The defendant was fully responsible for her crime under the penal law. From the personal impression she made and from the medical export's opinion, the Court judges that though being somewhat feeble-minded, she was quite capable of recognizing the unlawfulness of her deed and of behaving accordingly.
"By the scope of her actions, the defenadnt has assumed an exceedingly grave guilt. For months, she regularly at short intervals robbed field post consignments. Not so much the number of the packages is decisive as the fact that the defendant by the continuous and obstinate disregard of her duties became a dangerous saboteur. The safety of the soldiers' mail must be maintained by all means. The soldier must not get the feeling that he is to risk his life for a corrupt homeland. Nor can the slight mental deficiency of the defendant be a reason for a milder judgment.
The defendant is therefore sentenced to death."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: This verdict bears the signature of Oeschey, Baeumler and Hoffmann. The German book in the mimeographed copies only state the signatures but from the original it appears that Oeschey, Baeumler and Hoffmann signed this form. We submit the rest of this document for the Court's consideration without reading it except to note in passing that the final pages of the document concern a plea for clemency entered by the defense counsel which was denied and the final page notes that the death sentence on Margarete Sponsel was executed on 3 August 1944. The execution took 58 seconds, 7 seconds passed from the transfer to the executioner until the drop of the axe.
DR. SCHUBERT: Dr. Schubert for the defendant Geschcy. May it please the Tribunal, will you forgive me once again. I refer to the thing which played some part this morning, but I will do so now from a different point of view. With the presentation of this document, we are concerned again with individual documents which have been removed from a large file. As events are concerned which occurred at the prosecution Nurnberg-Furth and at the Special Court here, it can be assumed for certain that the entire file is available here and that as far as the documents presented here are concerned, there are only a selection which was made by the prosecution. I would ask the Tribunal to make a ruling on an announcement to the effect that I as the defense counsel am entitled in demanding the presentation of the entire file, and that first of all, only for my personal scrutiny, so that I can establish whether the file contains further documents which in certain circumstances could serve in favor of the defendant.
I would like to emphasize expressly that I am not making a motion to the effect that I wish the entire document to be mimeographed and to be introduced in the trial here, but I am merely asking to give me the right, that I myself as a defense counsel may be entitled to see the whole file so that I can scrutinize the entire file.
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, may I inquire whether there are other parts of this document in the possession of the prosecution and therefore available to defense counsel at this time?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In the preparation of this and many other case records that were captured, the prosecution would find that a case dossier would be as voluminous and crammed with the usual chit-chat of paper work that accomplishes nothing administrative, that the prosecution did excerpt from any given case dossier as uniformly as possible. the indictment, the verdict, all findings of the court, the execution order in each case. There are, in some instances, whether in this particular instance I can't say at the moment, other pieces of paper in some of these case files which have not been processed as documents. Where they are at the moment, I am not prepared to state. They could be searched for.