THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal has allowed you to ask questions which, strictly speaking, are not admissible in re-examination and I want to make it clear to you what questions are admissible in re-examination -- only those which arise out of the cross examination. As to this particular question, the Defendant Goering was allowed to make what were really speeches in his examination in chief without any interruption whatever and he went over the whole history of the Nazi regime from its inception until the end of the war and the Tribunal does not consider that he ought to be at liberty to go over the same ground again in re-examination.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I had merely put that question because up to now it had not been dealt with in summary and I thought it advisable for the judgment of the defendant and his attitude during that time, to have a complete and detailed story of this phase which is important for the decision made in this trial. If, however, the Tribunal objects to this question, I shall certainly submit to that decision and withdraw the question. BY DR. STAHMER:
Q. I have another question. During your examination, you have stated regarding certain accusations, that you considered yourself responsible and that you assume responsibility.
A. In connection with responsibility, you have to make a difference between factual and formal. Formally, I am assuming responsibility for all that that was done by all those departments and offices who were under my command; although I could not possibly have known or previously seen everything that was discussed or issued by those departments, I must nevertheless assume responsibility, formally speaking, for that, particularly where we are concerned with directives and measures which I had given generally and which were then executed. The actual responsibility, I see wherever orders, directives or measures were immediately originating from me and all facts and orders which were wigned by me personally and issued by me; that I am talking about facts and not so much general words and statements which were made during those twenty-five years here and there or in smaller circles. In detail, I want to talk about responsibility very clearly. The Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, is dead.
I was regarded as his successor in the leading of the Ferman nation. Consequently, I must declare and state upon the question of my responsibility that it was my aim -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would wish that you should not make speeches. The Tribunal is perfectly well able to understand the difference between formal responsibility and actual responsibility for orders given by you.
THE WITNESS: Consequently, I acknowledge that I am responsible for all I have done, that I have prepared the seizure of power, carried it through, strengthened it, and that I was attempting to make Germany free and great. I have done everything to avoid this war but after it had started, it was my duty to do everything that I had to do.
THE PRESIDENT: We have already heard you say that more than once and we do not wish to hear it again.
THE WITNESS: On the question of labor during the war, the inhabitants of the occupied territories were used to work in Germany and their countries were exploited economincally.
THE PRESIDENT: You are supposed to be asking questions of the witness. Now, what question is that in answer to?
DR. STAHMER: I had asked him on the question of his responsibility -
THE TRIBUNAL: You can ask him questions and not ask him general question which invite speeches. If you have any particular questions to ask him which arise out of the cross examination, now is the time to ask it.
DR. STAHMER: Then I put this question: To what extend does he consider himself responsible for the questions which have been mentioned here regarding the deportation of laborers and workers from the East?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I object to this question being put.
THE PRESIDENT: He has already told us about that. He answered that question more than once.
DR. STAHMER: In that case, I have not further questions to put.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then the defendant can retire.
(The witness retired.)
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer.
DR. STAHMER: May I first of all give a summary of the present position of the trial so that the Tribunal can clearly seen how we are at present regarding the list of witnesses, and I was going to forego Dr. Lohse's examination.
THE PRESIDENT: "Dr. Lohse" did you way?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, as I said, Dr. Lohse. I do not wish to call. Then, the defendant has already given sufficient statements on that subject. Further more, I had been granted the Ambassador, Dr. Paul Schmidt, as a witness. That witness to whom I want to ask a few questions only, I should like to hear later on, namely, when he is being interrogated for the Defendant Ribbentrop, where he is to answer a large number of questions, and it appears to me more suitable to do it then; and I am in accord with the wish of my colleague, Dr. Horn, as well, if the Tribunal will agree to that procedure, to hear the witness Kollar.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
DR. STAHMER: The Witness Kollar, as it has just been ascertained, is in Belgium and not, as previously thought, in Germany. Originally, it was planned to have him brought before the Tribunal provided he was resident in Germany Consequently, I shall have to submit an interrogatory to that witness, which has been done, but the questionnaire has not yet been received in return.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: Furthermore, I had received permission to put the questions to the Witness Freiherr von Hammerstein, Ondanza, Student, and Veltjens. I have been given permission to submit interrogatories to them, and this has been done but I have not yet received them back. In this case, the situation is that the addresses of the first two have since been ascertained; the rest, as to the other three witnesses, inquiries are still being made, so that I cannot yet read out their answers; and furthermore, interrogatories have been sent to Lord Halifax and Forbes and the questionnaires have been received, and I can read them out; and then there is a written statement as well.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by "a written statement as well"? You said there are the interrogatories for Lord Halifax and Sir George Ogilvie Forbes.
DR. STAHMER: Lord Halifax, and Forbes, interrogatories have been received. Regarding Ueberreiter, a written affidavit is available and I assume that that may take the place of the interrogatory or questionnaire.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I understand.
DR. STAHMER: Furthermore, we are prepared with the case Katyn. Five witnesses were considered and regarding their addresses. I am still making inquiries. I haven't received anything further and, therefore, I am not yet in a position to have these witnesses called before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer. Was that all that you wish to say at this stage?
DR. STAHMER: Well, they are merely upon the question of the witnesses and now, of course, I shall still have to say what I have to say about the document and present them and then for the time being, I shall have completed my case. What I have to say about the documents has been compiled.
THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal approves of the course which you suggest.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May I, in the interest of time, make a sugges-
tion, Your Honor, that these documents which Dr. Stahmer proposes to offer have been translated in all four languages, so that the necessity of reading them in open court does not sustain. I cannot speak for my colleagues since I have not consulted them, but so far as the United States is concerned, we will not raise a question of relevancy. I suggest that the reading of whole document book seems a waste of time of the Trial Court since the documents are available in all four languages.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, before we consider that course which has been suggested by Mr. Jackson, we should like to hear whether any of the Chief Prosecutors have anything to add to it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I would suggest that it is an excellent suggestion and I want to make it clear to the defense counsel that it will, on the whole, avoid agruments on relevancy and on the other hand the defense counsel could use any of the excerpts, and probably with more help to the Tribunal, if he would wait until his final argument to present these excerpts in support of his final argument. I consider that it will improve the general condition.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Sir David. We will hear in in a moment, Dr. Stahmer, but I do not want you to go away. Has General Rudenk anything to say?
GENERAL RUDENKO: I am fully in agreement with the suggestion of Judge Jackson and we think it wise and also consider that the Tribunal accept these documents which have been translated in four languages. This does not exclude the right of the defense to submit various documents. In particular I have an objection against submitting documents as exhibits from documents of the supposedly "white books" which are being submitted by Dr. Stahmer. These exhibits have nothing to do with the present case and they should not be submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the French Chief Prosecutor wish to add anything to what has been said?
M. DE RIBES: The French Prosecution would like to inform the Tribunal of a note concerning document 26, and wish to express objection to the admittance of this letter from the German Government to the French Govern-ment which concerns the treatment of German prisoners-of-war in France.
This extract comes from a secret order of the Commanding General of the 9th French Army. The General commanding the 9th French Army is said to have published an order. This order was not given to us, therefore, it is only an assumption of the German government, which is the government of the defendant, and therefore we contend that the extract which is offered to us has no relevancy and we therefore ask the Tribunal to reject it.
THE PRESIDENT: We are not concerned with a question of relevancy at this point. The Tribunal at the moment is not considering the question of relevancy of any particular document. They are only considering Justice Jackson's suggestion that instead of having all of these documents read in full, which will trice a very long time, the reason no longer exists to have these documents read since they have been put into four different languages by the prosecution's documentation department. The question of relevancy of individual documents or particular passages in the documents is decided by the Tribunal. As a general rule, and for the purpose of avoiding delay, the suggestion of Justice Jackson appears to have a great deal to recommend.
M. DE RIBES: The matter which is before us today, I thought, was to know whether all of the documents which are to be presented today are relevant, and that is why I asked that the Tribunal reject Document No. 26. If it is understood that this question may be reached later, there is not objection to postponing my objection, I wish only to state that Document Number 26 as Dr. Stahmer wishes to present it should be read in full to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: We would like to consider this matter, but before doing so, I would like to know if Dr. Stahmer understood what Justice Jackson said.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, indeed I understood, Mr. President, I should like to have a short discussion with the other defense counsels on this matter. I also want to point out now that come time ago we were willing to forego the reading of the indictment and that was not granted.
THE PRESIDENT: What did you say about the reading of the indictment?
DR. STAHMER: I now --
THE PRESIDENT: Are you making a complaint because the indictment has been read?
DR. STAHMER: No, no, no.
THE PRESIDENT: The matter stands upon a definite footing. The Charter, which is the document which governs the actions of this Tribunal, provided that the indictment must be read. What is not being suggested is not provided for in the Charter. The only reason why we reuled that the documents which the Prosecution must rely upon must be read in open court was because the Prosecution, at that time, had not found it possible to translate these documents into four different languages, and for the convenience and in fairness to the defendants and their counsel, we ordered that every sentence in a document upon which the prosecution relied would be read into the earphones so t hat they could come to you in German and so so that they could be put into the record at once in the transcript. That principle no longer applies to the documents which have been translated into four different languages by the Prosecution's Translation Division. Therefore, in the interest of time, which must be always equally important to the defense as well as to everyone else concerned, the Tribunal feels that the suggestion which Justice Jackson has made is a very sound one and you, of course, must comment in any way you think right during the course of your final presentation upon the document which is subject to any question of relevancy which may seem of importance. There may be certain documents submitted by the Prosecution, and as Justice Jackson said, he will not raise a question of relevancy, which should be into the document book and should be considered by the Tribunal. discuss the question with your colleagues.
(A short recess was taken)
DR. DIX (Counsel for defendant Schacht): Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I was of course not in a position to have a writ cast among my colleagues on the suggestion of Mr. Justice Jackson, particularly for the reason that not all defense counsel are present here at the moment. But I have been able to convince myself that the majority of the defense counsel, so far as the reason for my statement is concerned, approve, and I have no doubt whatever that all defense counsel are behind the application which I am about to make and which will be that the motion of Mr. Justice Jackson should be turned down. But for reasons of correctness and loyalty I think it is my duty to emphasize that naturally everyone of the gentlemen is entitled to speak on this question for his own case and the complex problems which he represents.
And now to the matter as such. The application of Mr. Justice Jackson was that in principle all the documents to be submitted by the defense, -- that in such a case such an accumulation of the contents of documents would be introduced into the trial without that their verbal presentation in opposition should assure that they are brought to the knowledge of the public; which would mean that the whole world which is passionately interested in this trial, would not know their contents. quote miles which could be used to contradict Mr. Justice Jackson's application. But I do quote and put at the head the principle which refers to the absolute correctness which is in existence between the Tribunal and us and the prosecution and us, and I am sure that there will be no difference of opinion, namely, that this whole trial must regard as its first principle that of justice and fairness. For that reason too the authors of the Charter have included paragraph four of the Charter and have given it quite a definite heading. It says, "Rules For a Just Trial." But I cannot consider it just and I cannot consider it fair if the prosecution month after month have the right to present their documents not only once but sometimes repeatedly and often. brought to the knowledge of the public, and I must remark at this point that when these documents were presented not only parts of the documents were presented, which in the opinion of the prosecution were implicating to the defendants, but parts were omitted which in our opinion were of importance to the defendants and mitigating.
It must be considered an injustice that a defendant should not have the opportunity too, and through his defense to bring to the knowledge of the world and the public those matters which are and in the opinion of the defense are in his favor. If the prosecution have previously had the right and opportunity to apply that procedure to that detail, which was implicating, may I draw your attention to the fact, as I have said previously, and repeatedly, that certain implicating points have not only been brought to the knowledge of the world when documents were presented, but were repeated under the heading that they were put to the witness, or to the Defendant who was used as a witness.
In that manner the listening world was again and again given the contents of these documents. put yourself behind the furtherance of a just proceeding, which you and the authors of this Charter must have desired, and to give the same opportunities to the Defendant.
In addition, as a reason for this application of Mr. Justice Jackson, it was stated that the point of view of shortening the trial was important. We the Defense do in no way deny the necessity that this trial should be confined to the necessary time. But perhaps I may in this connection draw your attention to a statement of the President at the Belsen trial which he made to the press when the press had criticized the lengthy duration of that proceedings. The sense of that statement was that no matter how long a trial would last, this was not to be regretted, as long as it served the truth and the hearing of the truth. That principle, too, I ask you to put before the time-saving factor in this trial. refer to the extent of the criticism which is stated by the Prosecution, and may I draw your attention to the fact that in connection with the duration of the trial so far, should anybody consider it too long, it is my feeling that it is not too long. At any rate, it was not caused by the Defense. We up to now -- and I think I can say this with a clear conscience -- have not done anything, said anything or caused anything which would give reason for our being accused of delaying this trial, at least not justly. exists which caused the Tribunal originally to order that those parts of documents which were the subject of the trial substance should be presented verbally, then I should like to point out that the most important majority of the documents which were produced at the time and partly presented verbally were even at that time available in the translation, in four languages.
if it is to be understandable to the Tribunal and to serve the purpose of finding the truth, is without doubt in many cases in need of the explanation of the Defense Counsel. The possibility of an amplification or explanation would disappear if we are not able to present that material to the Tribunal verbally. anybody here, my colleagues have by no means any intention of quoting the entire contents of the document book.
As far as I understand it, they have in most cases merely intended only to present excerpts which they are going to designate and about the relevancy of which one can talk afterwards. That emphasis which is to put on those relevant parts of the doument would not be possible, either, if the Tribunal would permit the application of Mr. Justice Jackson go through. Likewise, as I said before, it would not be possible -- in connection with documents read by the Prosecution -- to have those parts of documents which have not been read but which are mitigating for the Defendant accused. that the Defense Counsel have an opportunity to refer to these parts of documents during their presentation, then I am of the opinion that I agree with the Judges that the presentation should if possible include a coherent and clear summary of the total substance of the trial. If we must rely during our presentation on parts of documents and can quote them once more, to which we attach importance as evidence, but which we wish to mention during our case only summarily, then the danger arises that the completeness and coherence of our case is to infringed. And the further danger arises that the saving of time which Mr. Justice Jackson wishes to achieve through his application, is once more lost; because the final statements which we have to make will be correspondingly longer, which they need not be if their purpose and their task is to be fulfilled by having a strict summarization of the total substance. of opinion as to the importance of an individual document might arise, which would mean a considerable disturbance and delay in the proceedings, whereas if one can submit the document in its important parts here, together with an explaining part, one would have an immediate opportunity to state just why one considers the presentation of that document as relevant so that the Tribunal would have an opportunity to make an early decision about the relevancy of that document. Justice Jackson's application can be deceiving. I summarize: of fairness and justice. The Defense would have to, as I ascertained without doubt in conversation during the interval, consider it a very severe and unbearable limitation of the Defense, if they are deprived of the possibility contrary to the practice exercised by the Prosecution, of presenting in their turn, the relevant and important parts of the documentary evidence to the Tribunal verbally, together with an explanation.
agreement between Prosecution and Defense that now the Defense, too, should have the same possibilities and facilities which the Prosecution-- and this is not meant to be a criticism but merely a statement of fact--has had to a considerable and sometimes cumulative degree for themselves. me with this request--that the application of Mr. Justice Jackson be refused.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. You began your address by saying that you would not refer to the Charter. On what Article of the Charter do you rely for your argument that all documents which are presented must now be read?
DR. DIX: I said that I would not refer to the detailed parts of the Charter while giving the reasons for my application. I have based my application merely on the heading of Article 4, where it says "Rules for a Just Trial", and I have explained and need not repeat that I would consider that the consequences of Mr. Justice Jackson's application would not lead to a just trial, but I knew that I would probably have my attention drawn to certain details of the Charter which, directly or indirectly, being given a certain legal meaning, could be used as reasons for my application, but I have consciously and deliberately refrained from doing so, since those rules in detail are not sufficiently strong. the other considerations are such as I have presented to the Tribunal. I think perhaps here we must have a misunderstanding.
THE PRESIDENT: But you will not have omitted to notice that Article 24 deals expressly with the course of the trial. Do you rely upon any part of Article 24?
DR. DIX: No, no, I have deliberately not referred to any part of Article 24, since that Article gives considerable powers to the Tribunal regarding the general ruling on proceedings which, so far as the question with which we are concerned now, do not apply. This is merely a question of fairness, and, if I may add, it is a question of the principal basis of a verbal trial and an oral trial, and we have a public session, an oral trial.
It is here in existence. I am not sure whether--I do not think it is meant to be public in the Charter, but it exists and since it is in existence, we must adhere to the basic principles. Thus, in my opinion, the defendant must have the right to quote in public what is in his favor after the prosecution has once more, before the world and public, stated just what is against the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: I want to ask you another question. Are you suggesting that the Defense should be able to quote, to read documents, more than once?
DR. DIX: I am not suggesting that at all. As far as I am concerned, my documents will only be read in part; certainly not twice. I have merely said that the Prosecution have done so had have read it twice, possibly even three times, it has just been told me, but it is not my task to criticise that attitude of the Prosecution but merely to state the fact.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal would like to put a further question to Dr. Dix before they hear you, and also-
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I would like to make a simple statement of fact.
THE PRESIDENT: Please do.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Which I think will clarify this situation some in justice to the United States of America.
As to the fairness, I call the Tribunal's attention to the fact that we have printed, mimeographed, 250 copies of Dr. Stahmer's entire document book, and it is in the press room waiting for delivery to the press when it is received by this Tribunal, so that we have done everything that we could-everything that we did for ourselves--to make public his documents. Court ruled out, even, rather than to have controversy. Charter, to spread propaganda. A large part of this is stuff that is twenty years old and is in every good library and will not be used by the newspapers. It constitutes a waste of our money. We have tried to do it in order to make this trial completely fair to these people, and now that I have discovered that we are printing documents that the Court has already ruled out, I must say that I shall stop it. I think we have been imposed upon, and this document book will show it.
There is document after document that the Tribunal has already ruled irrelevant, and we have gone to the expense of printing them in order to be more than fair.
DR. DIX: May I answer to that very briefly? As far as the point of view of propaganda is concerned, I regret that my suggestion has not been followed, according to which the public and the world would only hear what has been considered and recognized as relevant by the Tribunal and is presented by us. If the contents of the document book would produce certain propaganda effects, which is entirely against our intentions, then it is merely due to the fact that the contents of the document book did not go through normal and legal channels when they were brought to the knowledge of the press; in other words, from the open sessions of this trial, but that the document book of the Defense, without our knowledge, was placed at the disposal of the press, which probably led to things being communicated to the press and the public which, in the opinion of the Tribunal, may be irrelevant. I am not saying that they are; I am merely talking in the abstract, but if you want to avoid just that; namely, what Justice Jackson wishes to avoid, namely that political propaganda is made by means of this trial, then you must follow my suggestion, and I want only that presented and brought to the knowledge of the world which has been considered relevant by the Tribunal and admitted for the presentation here.
earphones, but if Justice Jackson meant that we are desiring a propaganda effect here, then that is certainly not the case. If he said, furthermore, that the point of fairness was observed and that the Prosecution had done everything to inform the public and the world by placing at the disposal all the documents, then I have no criticism to offer in that respect. Far be it from me to call that unfair, but here we are facing a tribunal and a proceeding, a proper trial. We are not making press propaganda. The presss must have knowledge of what reports come from this Tribunal and from this Courtroom, and the Defense is only grateful if they have the support of the Tribunal in that desire of theirs to have a properly regulated proceeding.
But this is not the crucial point. I have not accused anybody of being unfair. I have merely emphasized that it is in the interest of fairness that the Defense can do the same things which have continually and repeatedly been done by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Dix, will you tell me this: what suggestion you have for shortening the trial? You must recollect in the criticism that you have been making of the Prosecution's case with reference to their documents, that their case has been based almost entirely upon documents. They have called -- I do not know how many witnesses, but very few witnesses You and the other defendants' Counsel are proposing to call a very great number of witnesses, and what I would ask you is. How do you propose that the trial should be shortened so that it may not last until the end of July or August?
DR. DIX: If I make a suggestion, then I can only do so for myself and my case, my own defense. May I suggest to your Lordship that, first of all, we examine the documentary evidence, and I would ask you to realize that none of the Defense Counsel intends to read their entire document book here before the Tribunal. At any rate, the majority certainly do not.
Those of them I have talked to propose only to use excerpts, and in the choice of those and in the discussion of their relevancy of presentation, a measure could be applied which would, of course, take into consideration the importance but also consider the question of time. I do not think that the presentation of the documents will take that long. My colleague, Dr. Stahmer, has told me, for instance, that although he has an enormous defense case to present, he is of the opinion that he will probably complete his case in less than two hours. I am not a prophet, but I think that the Tribunal is regarding this as more dangerous than it is.
Please give us a trial. We are all anxious not to delay the proceedings. I am sure you can understand that, and we are only too willing to be taught a lesson. If the Court will say that "We do not consider that important," then we shall learn and we shall make advances. without it and to accept our assurances that we shall assist in shortening the trial, but, please, may we have permission first to present what we consider relevant and important? If it should be discovered that we occupy too much time -- and I do not think we will, as I said before -- then we could also discuss that matter again. After all, the Tribunal is at liberty to make decisions, but at this present moment may I ask you not to do anything drastic, since I think that the Tribunal, on the strength of the experience with the documentary evidence of the Prosecution, is overestimating the presentation of our documentary material. Far be it from me to criticise. I know that the Prosecution has mostly relied on documents, and naturally that did take a lot of time.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Dr. Dix. The Tribunal would like to hear-Of course, they cannot hear all the defendants' counsel on this matter, but they would like to hear one other representative Counsel.
DR. KUBUSCHOK( Counsel for defendant von Papen): May I have permission to draw the attention of the Tribunal some time back to the legal consideration The Tribunal quite rightly raised the question that, in accordance with the Charter regarding the evidence, the difficulty arises that express rules are not contained in the Charter.
Regarding the proceedings, we have in session -- which according to the ruling on all criminal proceedings can be nothing other than oral hearing and a verbal discussion. What is lacking is a sub-paragraph 24 which concerns itself with the collection of documentary evidence, but may I draw your attention to sub-paragraph (e), where rebuttal evidence for the witness is discussed, rebuttal evidence which is not only based upon witnesses but also the production of documents.
It states expressly there that evidence will be collected. At any rate, if you use the German translation and German usage of language, it would not be permissible if this evidence were not produced during sessions but if the treatment of that evidence, on the strength of considerable written material, were to be transferred to the separate room of the Judges. of several Judges, the impression which is to be conveyed to the Tribunal must be immediate. That can only be achieved if, during oral and verbal sessions, the material is presented and discussed. experiences have been gathered during this trial. I am sure that everyone who has presented a document must be very grateful fo the President of the Tribunal when he eliminated certain parts or extended certain parts, interfering during the trial and, thus, by conducting the trial in this manner, assisted the Defense Counsel or the Prosecution and indicated to them what the opinion of the Tribunal was; in other words, what was important, and we are sure that the same guidance of the Tribunal would have a favorable effect for the further proceedings. Paragraph 21, which deals with a special ruling on those facts which are general knowledge and do not require discussion. That special ruling in Paragraph 21 underlines the difference between those things which are in need of discussion and which can be discussed. Everything that can be discussed and should be discussed must in one way or another be taken before the Tribunal so that the Tribunal has the possibility to intervene and make explanatory and guiding remarks.
That is the legal side.
Apart from that, I think that I seem to have understood Mr. Justice Jackson's suggestions differently. I think later on his application was somewhat enlarged. I think what he was suggesting was that we, the Defense Counsel, should impose certain limits upon ourselves and that we should not indiscriminately present the documents we have chosen but that we should confine ourselves to take out just those parts which were worth mentioning at the present stage of the trial. Defense Counsel. Nothing is more killing for the Defense Counsel and the Prosecution than an unlimited departure into irrelevant facts.