I simply stated to the Court that some forty-one had been submitted to me as to which I did not think there was any duplication. I did not state the names.
I don't know how the Tribunal wants to act. I simply feel that the Tribunal will make a statement as to what requirements it will make for a request to cross-examine and that then defense counsel will certainly comply with it. I don't want to see them precluded from making their requests. As to how the matter is to be handled, of course, I think we are all waiting for a ruling from the Tribunal on that matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, is it possible that no witness will be produced for cross-examination until the Tribunal rules upon that proviso in the order?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor. We don't know; we have as yet not known. We didn't contemplate that the Court intended to have this cross-examination in open court, because of the extensive period of time. However, we were waiting for the Tribunal to make some ruling as to how it intended to proceed; also, as to whether we were to produce these witnesses or the Secretary General's office. The defense was to make a request for these affiants.
THE PRESIDENT: But the order that was read here was very clear, that a request was to be made for the production of witnesses by name. If the order doesn't read that way, then I certainly don't know it. Following that order, there have been a very large number of those formal requests for production of witnesses and I have issued one of them, stating that where they are not able to produce them we would determine, at the time when that question arose, as to whether we would hear them by commissioner or what might be done. But it certainly seems to the Tribunal -- it certainly seems to me -- that we should begin on those witnesses who are available and who can be produced on very short notice. Why should we delay? I don't see how the Tribunal can pass on that proviso as to each witness unless we know whether the witness is available or not. It certainly is the meaning of that order, or the first half of it, at least, that the witnesses should be produced if available; and if not available, then we will determine whether the proviso requires, or permits, rather, taking the testimony by means of a commissioner.
Have I made myself clear?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honor, I am afraid I don't quite understand what your Honor is saying. I assumed the Court would make an order and would say, "We will appoint a commissioner who will begin hearing witnesses on such and such a date", and thereafter there would be turned over to this commissioner the names of the witnesses who were to be produced; and as rapidly as we could, by asking OCC to use their facilities, or as rapidly as the commissioner could use the facilities of the Secretary General's office, he would begin to say that he wanted such and such a witness produced before him. I mean, that was my understanding.
THE PRESIDENT: That certainly is not my understanding, and I don't think it is the understanding of the Tribunal. If we were preparing to have all this testimony taken by a commissioner, it was only in those cases where there would be some reason why a commissioner would be appointed to take certain testimony. It certainly was not intended to apply to all these witnesses. Frankly, I may say that if that procedure were to be followed here and the testimony were to be taken before a commissioner with no control over the extent of crossexamination, no limitation upon cross-examination, our experience here is that cross-examination would run on for a good many months. There will be some control over that cross-examination, I want to warn everybody now.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honor, as I read this order, it says that in cases where the prosecution has offered the affidavit of a witness and the defense has requested an opportunity to cross-examine that witness, defense counsel shall apply to the Tribunal in the regular manner for his production for cross-examination. "In the regular manner", I assume, means upon the forms which we have been using;
that is the regular manner for his production for cross-examination. Then: Such cross-examination can be conducted in open court, unless the Tribunal determines that such examination can be fairly and accurately conducted before a commissioner, in which event the Tribunal may make such an order.
Now, as I read it, defense counsel shall apply, in the regular manner, for the production of a witness for cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: That application has been made and approved.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That application has been made. Now, the defense counsel -
THE PRESIDENT: And then it goes on to say that testimony will be taken in open court, unless. But that proviso --- it begins with the word "unless" -- must be determined as to each witness as the occasion arises. Surely that must be clear.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I think that is quite clear, but it isn't clear to me, Your Honor, as to whether this Tribunal anticipated that the prosecution should produce Witness A or Witness B or Witness C, or whether the Tribunal would make an order upon some one to produce these witnesses. Since the Court's ruling was not that an affidavit would not be considered under any circumstances unless a witness was produced, it has never occurred to me that it was the sole obligation of the prosecution staff to get these witnesses in.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Their names can be sent to the Secretary General's office by the Tribunal and they could be sent from there, if they have no force, over to Lt. Martin's office. However, if a commissioner were appointed, the commissioner himself could make such orders for the production of these bodies as he could possibly make. I can't get these witnesses. I mean, I didn't know I was to get these witnesses in. If I am, I shall try, but I can't guarantee any day they will be here. That is physically impossible. I don't know why, but it is.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has nothing to do with the production of witnesses. All the Tribunal does is to approve the application for the production of a witness. That other is the red tape that we have nothing to do with, surely. All those applications have been made.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Maybe the Secretary General's office has something to do with it, Your Honor. Some one ought to produce these witnesses in here for the defendants. I don't think it is the obligation of the prosecution. I don't know how we can do it.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't say it is, but it certainly isn't the province of the Tribunal to go out and bring in a witness.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: It occurred to me it was in the province of the Tribunal to make such directions and orders to the Secretary General under Ordinance 7 that they would begin to got them in. That is what I thought the procedure would be.
THE PRESIDENT: We have never been doing that. When applications have been made for a witness we have only -
MR. LA FOLLETTE: No, only for the reason, Your Honor, where we have sought to expand the testimony of a witness or could get him, we have made an affidavit and we produced the witness and the affidavit at the same time.
DR. SCHUBERT (For the Defendant Oeschey): May it please the Court, may I make a remark and a suggestion in order to advance the matter regarding the affiants who are going to be witnesses? This matter concerns, to a special extent, the defendant whom I am represent Court No. III, Case No. 3.ing as well as all of the other defendants who were presiding judges of Special Courts.
As far as the defendant Oeschey is concerned, we are concerned with cases which were pending before the Special Court Nuremberg, and the affiant witnesses who were concerned with this are either living in Nuremberg itself or in the vicinity, the great proximity, and in my opinion in most of the cases all that is needed is a telephone call in order to produce these witnesses. For example, in the case of Oeschey there are four lawyers who are resident here who have given affidavits. These lawyers have their offices here and could be produced, in my opinion, without any difficulty whatsoever. The same is the case with a number of other witnesses. Therefore I believe that these witnesses could appear before the Tribunal in a very short time, and of course I am ready to undertake the cross examination immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: That seems a very pertinent suggestion to me. The Tribunal is here to hear testimony when it is offered, and we certainly are not going to be put in the position of bringing in witnesses on behalf of either the Prosecution or the defense. When witnesses are produced we will hear them, and we will rule upon questions concerning their testimony as those questions are made. That is all we have to say.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Well, if Your Honor please, I haven't anything to say on that subject further at this time. Perhaps I should be obligated to prepare something in writing for the Tribunal Wednesday.
In view of the kind consent given by defense counsel, at this time I would like to offer as Prosecution Exhibit 1393 PS the 1934 Reichs Gesetzblatt Part I, Page 1269, the law on treacherous acts against state and party and for the protection of party uniforms of 20 December 1934. This was a PS document which was used in the IMT. The Prosecution offers that as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 508.
THE PRESIDENT: Give me that exhibit number again.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: I mean not the exhibit number.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, the document number. 1393 PS.
THE PRESIDENT: Where do you suggest that should be attached?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That should be in Book 2, Your Honor. It is a law. That is all we have to offer today.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem to us that very little additional cooperation is necessary to have some witnesses here tomorrow morning. If that is too rapid, then surely by Wednesday morning you should have some witnesses here, because it has been suggested that they live here in Nuremberg, they have telephones, and we see no valid reason for putting this off from day to day.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor. We will do the best we can on Wednesday on that matter. If we can get them in for cross examination, the Tribunal desires to cross examine in open court?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, there are certain witnesses that we have clearly stated will be examined in open court. It is only because they come within the terms of the proviso that we will consider as the cases arise as to whether they should be heard by a commissioner. But it will be our wish and our endeavor to hear all of them in open court if they can be produced in open court.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: But we are not requiring them if they are not available. That is one of the provisos again of the act itself.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all that is suggested today?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is all that is available.
THE PRESIDENT: In just a moment I will have a document here that I will offer. The suggestion has been made, and therefore I make the announcement, that if we had the list of the affiants that defense counsel desire to cross examine so that we could take that list and see who those affiants are and consider the importance of the affidavit and the importance of hearing them in open court rather than by commis Court No. III, Case No. 3.sioner, we will undertake to scan that list and see if we can be of some service in that matter.
In that way we will probably expedite the matter to some extent.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor. We have had a list of those which were in the first instance sent to us by the defense counsel. I will try to get that to the Court. The only thing is I don't want to assume the responsibility of precluding any defense counsel by possibly not making an accurate list, because these same names were sent from Defense Center to the Secretary General's Office to the Court and go back to the Secretary General's office. I will be glad to submit that list. The only thing is, as I say, Your Honor, I just don't want to assume the complete responsibility for maybe making a mistake where I thought I was simply getting a list for the purpose of seeing how many there were and how many were to be cross examined by the same counsel, but I will submit the list that I have certainly tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: I assume, without knowing, that defense counsel will not want to bring in the witnesses on each and every affidavit. Surely there may be some of those that they will not want to have brought in. That is the reason why I suggested a few days ago that defense counsel submit a list of the names of affiants whom they desire to cross examine.
At this point I want to make some observations, and I hope you will listen carefully. I will preface what I am about to read with the statement that it may be that attorneys in Germany are not so much accustomed to cross examination as they are back in the States, and from what we have learned here, cross examination of witnesses is not much indulged, if at all. At any rate, I desire to read something at this time.
"Inasmuch as we are now about to enter upon the cross examination of a large number of affiants whose affidavits have heretofore been introduced into evidence by the prosecution, a few observations concerning cross examination of witnesses will be in order.
"We feel that they are more particularly in order because it is apparent from our experiences up to this time that cross examination of witnesses is something which is indulged very little if at all in court trial in Germany.
"It is further our observation that defense counsel do not fully appreciate the real function of cross examination. It is not the purpose to give an opportunity to counsel to have an argument with opposing witnesses, neither is cross examination primarily a defensive weapon. Cross examination should not go beyond the field of the direct examination and cross examination of affiants must be confined strictly to the allegations of the affidavits. If the cross examiner enters a wider field he makes the witness his own witness and to that extent vouches for the answer of the witness. While he may not strictly be bound by the answer in the sense that he can not thereafter contradict it, it is at least an acceptance of the prima facie truth of such statements.
"It should further be added that questions should not be asked merely to give the witness an opportunity to repeat and possibly re-repeat the testimony which he has given in the direct examination because if the cross examiner has no other purpose than that he has only benefitted the opposing side.
"Cross examination should not in any event be unreasonably long. The Tribunal has the right to limit cross examination within reasonable bounds and will do so if the questions are not pertinent or if they are repetitious.
"Counsel should be admonished that only those members of defense counsel may cross examine a witness if the affidavit of that witness contains allegations affecting the client of such counsel. Not more than one attorney may cross examine any witness unless the testimony of that witness affects definitely more than one defendant.
"Cross examination counsel should not make affirmative statements of fact or law expecting thereby to produce the effect of introducing such statements of fact into evidence or such statements of law as arguments in the case.
"The cross examination for the purpose of challenging the character or the veracity of the witness should ordinarily be limited to very few questions. Unless the cross examiner expects to be able to cause the witness to change or modify some statement given in direct oral examination or affidavit, the cross examination may result in detriment rather than benefit.
"Defense counsel are admonished that if the cross examination becomes lengthy it will result in having the cross examination to be made before a Commissioner.
"Affidavits properly sworn to are admissible in evidence and yet consideration of a fair trial accords to the defendants the right to cross examine the witnesses who have made such affidavits. This right, however, is a matter largely in the discretion of the court to be exercised in a judicial and not in an arbitrary manner.
"We trust that the cross examination of these affiants will be made in accordance with these observations."
I have extra copies. I will give one to the Prosecution; one to the Defense Counsel; and another copy to the Reporters.
We will, therefore, at this time recess the Court until Wednesday morning at nine-thirty.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 21 May 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Altstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 21 May 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Carrington T. Marshall presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III Military Tribunal III is now in session.
God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you please ascertain if the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please, Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant Engert, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Engert has been temporarily excused at his own request. Let proper notation be made.
MR. KING: May I inquire if the Secretary General has copies for distribution of the Document NG-837.
The Document NG-837, which will become Exhibit 509 when received in evidence, should be placed as the last document in the Document Book 3-B Supplement. This document consists of an indictment only, of a number - nine, to be exact of Czechoslovak citizens who were arrested and indicted for high treason - the high treason consisting of distributing pamphlets which spoke against the occupation of Czechoslovakia by the German forces. Each of the nine individuals, as appears from the indictment, were residents of Czechoslovakia, were domiciled there, each have no previous criminal record. All of these facts are clear from the indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: Where were the courts located?
MR. KING: The court before which they were tried was presumably in Berlin since these individuals were held in German prisons and the indictment is dated, Berlin 2 October 1942, and is signed by the defendant Lautz.
We must be frank to say that we do not have the balance of the case record. We do not have the opinion verdict. We do not have the result of the trial. The facts we have at the moment consist of those stated in this indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean by that they have not been found? Or do you mean you do not have them here?
MR. KING: We do not have them here, and to the best of our knowledge they have not been found.
With this introduction we offer this Document NG-837 as Exhibit 509.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: May I ask if the Secretary General has copies for distribution at this time, of the Document NG-988.
The Document NG-988 will be Exhibit 510 The President:
Where will you place this document?
MR. KING: I will place this document, Your Honor, as the last document in Supplement Book One.
It is an extremely long document, consisting of 111 pages. It consists of a statement of the organization of the Ministry of Justice as of January 1944, and in certain instances a period somewhat prior to that, and periods shortly after that. The January 1, 1944 date is a central date, and the organization chart is rather largely concerned with the positions in the Reich Ministry of Justice, and the functions of individuals holding those positions as of that date. We are not going to call attention to any particular portion of it, or summarize it in any way, except to repeat that the individuals in the Reich Ministry of Justice holding positions around or about January 1, 1944, are set down in here, together with their duties and responsibilities.
We offer the Document NG-988 as Prosecution Exhibit 510.
DR. SCHILF (For Defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg):
The prosecutor did not express the fact as to whether these plans showing the distribution of positions are captured documents. The copy which we have before us does not show that. The copy which has been distributed contains, first of all, a statement dated 7 March 1947, signed by a JustizObersekretaer Ernst Ewert. He says at the beginning of the document, the enclosed copies are the authentic plans showing the distribution of offices at the Reich Ministry of Justice compiled on the basis of documents of the combined files of the Departments concerned. That statement, which was only signed this year, has not been sworn to and it does not show in what manner the compilation was made, and as to whether the person who signed the document wished to assume full responsibility - that is to say, under oath. It is possible, however, that the individual plans of distribution as such could become proper documents if the question is clarified as to whether these documents were captured or not. For that reason I believe that the statement by the prosecutor on that point needs supplementing.
MR. KING: The short and complete answer to Dr. Schilf's question is that this is a captured document, as is apparent from the original on the stamp. It bears the stamp of the Ministry of Justice, the date, 1944. So far as the statement from which he read - which is included with the original - that is merely a statement of explanation, and the document for our purposes may be received without it. Our position is that the entire document is a captured document, and anything else that appears, is merely an attempt to explain what the document is.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, may I add the following remark? The documents which I have before me in the original here do not all bear the stamp which would show that these are captured documents. Only one document bears such a stamp, and that is the first one, dated January 1944. All the other documents do not bear the stamp, nor is it revealed whether the first document of the year '44 belongs together with the other documents.
I have just found one document bearing the date of 15 July 1944 without a stamp; 1 April 1943, no stamp; December 1944, no stamp, 19 September 1944, no stamp; 3 October 1944, no stamp. Only one document has a stamp.
MR. KING: It is quite true, as Dr. Schilf has pointed out, that all of the documents do not bear the stamp, and I don't believe that I implied that every one of the separate divisions of this document did. I said that they were captured documents to the best of our knowledge, and as is shown on the first page of the document we are presenting by the stamp. Dr. Schilf, for present purposes, will have to take our word for it that they were captured. We can assure him that we were not in Berlin in April of 1943 or oven in July of 1944 preparing these documents for presentation at this time. They do bear the dates as here indicated and were obviously mimeographed and set up for distribution at that time. I should think on the basis of the date alone that it would be evident that they are captured documents.
Quite apart from that, the documents which we are offering are the originals--that is, the original mimeographed sheets--in German. Our information shows that these were produced out of the Ministry of Justice files as a result of a systematic search conducted there for documents in preparation for this case.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire whether these are separate documents, or whether they are separate parts of one document?
MR. KING: They are obviously separate documents which have been offered together at this time as one document. They relate to the Court No. III, Case No. 3.same general subject matter; that is, the positions held by individuals in the Reich Ministry of Justice and those individuals' responsibilities and duties.
They were found in the same file, and, because they relate to the same subject for approximately the same period, they are offered as one document.
The only better evidence we can offer; Your Honor; is to have the individual who actually found them put on the stand as a witness, which has not been necessary in past cases where we have asserted that the documents were captured. In this instance, where the date and condition of the original make the facts so clear; it would be our opinion that such a witness is not necessary to establish; prima facie at least; that they are captured.
THE PRESIDENT: Undoubtedly there is force in what you say, but never before have we been faced with a situation where every document hasn't borne a stamp.
MR. KING: It might help the Court to make up its mind on this question if the original were handed up. I think it is apparent from the original that it is not a document that has been manufactured very recently.
(Document submitted to the Court.)
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. King, is this document covered to the same extent that the others have been covered by the first two exhibits which were introduced?
MR. KING: That is right; it is covered fully by the Coogan affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel have anything further to say?
MR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, may I add another word? I do not wish to throw any doubt on Mr. King's statement that these documents might be covered by the Coogan affidavit, but it strikes me that Mr. Ewert's statement on the first page of this document, signed on 7 March 1947; shows the words "Patent Office". It appears that these files are at the Patent Office in Berlin and may possibly not be covered Court No. III, Case No. 3.by the Coogan affidavit.
I would like to draw attention to that because the first page includes the note: "Patent Office, Berlin, 7 March 1947."
MR. KING: I think Dr. Schilf's comment probably does not require reply at this time, but just to state our position, the Patent Office, the Patent Amt, is the name of the building where the document center is now located, the documents captured having been moved there* and the individual who signed the statement is obviously a former employee of the Reich Ministry of Justice, who knew something about these documents as they were found and merely, on request, made this statement. I don't think it creates any great mystery at all about the nature of the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is ready to rule on this. Examination shows that the documents are in themselves strong circumstantial evidence that they are authentic documents that must have been found among the archives of the Administration of Justice.
There is something the matter with this sound system; I don't know what it is. I thought I was speaking loud enough.
As I said before, there is strong circumstantial evidence that these documents are documents that were found. It doesn't seem possible that they could have been produced; they must have been found in the files of the archives of the Administration of Justice. There can be no injustice in ruling that they are admissible because these documents are in part, at least, signed by the defendants in the dock. It is, therefore, easily possible for them to prove they are not authentic, if they are in fact not authentic.
We will admit them in evidence.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, I would like to rectify a technical mistake that took place late Monday. Without objection, and by agreement of defense counsel and all of us, document 1393-PS, which is the Reich Law for the Union of Party and State, was considered as introduced into evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 508. Technically we did not have the exhibit at that time, and I supply it now.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: I am wondering whether, at the time the document was talked about on Monday, it was offered and introduced in evidence.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: It was the last thing we did Monday afternoon, Your Honor, and it may well be that the prosecution did not offer it. However, at this time we offer it as Prosecution Exhibit 508.
THE PRESIDENT: I certainly hope the record will not show that I had ruled that it was admitted in evidence at that time. We will admit it in evidence now.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: It was not the fault of the Court any more than it was the fault of myself and defense counsel if it went in.
As Prosecution Exhibit 511, the prosecution will offer the document NG-308.
This consists of originally a letter from one Arthur bieger dated January 20, 1947, together with an affidavit of Bieger dated 3 May 1947, in which he verifies the facts contained.
THE PRESIDENT: We don't know anything about this document, I wish counsel would repeat what he said.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Beg pardon?
THE PRESIDENT: I had no knowledge of the document and I didn't have it before me. I wish you would repeat what you said.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, I shall. This document consists of a letter dated January 20 1947 signed by one Arthur Bieger, together with an affidavit signed by the same person on 3 May 1947. It includes, as shown in the letter, a resume of the acts of the defendant Cuhorst in reporting the affiant to the Gestapo and handwritten letters of the defendant Cuhorst which show that while he was professedly in a friendly manner warning is very close friend Bieger that he must not listen to foreign broadcasts, he was at the same time reporting him to the Gestapo and telling the Gestapo just what he would testify to. He also warns the affiant Bieger that he need get no satisfaction from the fact that Cuhorst may be going to Norway, that Cuhorst's arm is long, and that also if Bieger should escape to Switzerland, his family can be subject to persecution, even if they remained in Germany. Fortunately for Bieger, he avoided arrest a til after the end of the war. The Prosecution offers the document NG 808 as Prosecution Exhibit 511.
THE PRESIDENT: Where shall we place this document?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I would place this document, Your Honor, in Supplement 3-B
JUDGE BRAND: Three ---
MR. LA FOLLETTE: 3-B. Supplement 3-B.
JUDGE BRAND: What I have received is two copies of the same affidavit and nothing else. No. 808.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Is everyone in that shape?
THE PRESIDENT: No, mine is all right.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Do you have another one? Here is the full assembly. I am sorry. Will you bring them back? I thought Dr. Brieger --
DR. BRIEGER: It was my fault. Concerning this affidavit "I would like the Tribunal to allow me to make a further statement, because hitherto it had not been submitted to the defense, and therefore I had my first opportunity here in this courtroom to see this affidavit. Therefore I would ask you to allow me to revert to this in the next session.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I am not sure just what Dr. Brieger is talking about. It was distributed, the whole document, on Friday or Saturday. I had the document in the court room on Monday and handed it to Dr. Brieger and asked him if he would let me waive the 24-hour rule on Monday, so that I could get it in, and he said he would prefer to look at the document further, so I didn't do it. But it has been distributed under the receipt that we have, the whole document, and I don't know whether this is an objection or what the complaint is.
DR. BRIEGER: When Mr. La Follette the other day during the last session discussed this matter with me, I assumed that in the interim this affidavit would be distributed to the defense counsel. In the meantime I did not receive it. Just now I contacted my colleagues, who also told me that hitherto they had not received it. On the other hand, it is of basic importance for my client, and and therefore I am forced to raise an objection so that I do not deprive myself of the opportunity to make a further statement.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Of course Jr. Brieger has the right to object, which is a privilege. In a minute we will have or hope to have, if the Court Doesn't accept my statement for it, the receipt of the Defense Center that this was distributed on Friday. It is another one of those things that if it reached there, we rely on the receipt.
DR. BRIEGER: I believe that this difficulty could be eliminated very speedily if I would be afforded the opportunity in the coarse of this morning to discuss the matter to my client Cuhorst for five or ten minutes. Only to have such an opportunity have I raised my objection. I am not concerned with making difficulties for the Prosecucion.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honor please, I am sure Dr. Brieger isn't, but I have in my hand here a receipt of the Defense Center signed "Burns 5-19-47," and one signed "5-15-47."
THE PRESIDENT: I remember distinctly that Prosecution counsel referred to this particular document on Monday, sayin- it would be introduced today. Now, it will do no harm however, to let this rest until after the morning recess, at which time we will rule on it. We admit the document, however.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: It will be admitted in evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: It will. In the meantime if Dr. Brieger has something further to say after the recess, we will hear it.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Well, if he wants to look at the exhibit further, I have no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what he does want, as I understand it.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: As Prosecution Exhibit No. 512 the Prosecution will offer document NG-1471, which should go into Supplement 3-B. I may say in passing that this will be followed by NG 1472 and NG 1473, all of which should be placed in the same document book.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Secretary General is going to distribute it.
Perhaps, Mr. Secretary General, while Dr. Grube is looking at this document you might distribute to the bench the proper copies of NG 1472, 1473, and 1474, all of which are in the courtroom.
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. La Follette, are all of these to go into Document Book 3-A?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: 3-B, Your Honor.
JUDGE BRAND: Thank you.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: That is, all with the exception of 1474, which I would put in Supplement 3-A. I didn't know whether all of them had been --
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence. I am referring to 512.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: That is NG 471, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.