XIII. DECISION AND JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL, STATEMENT BY JUDGE HEBERT, AND SENTENCES 1 THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal VI. Military Tribunal VI is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the Court. THE PRESIDENT: You may report with respect to the attendance of the defendants, Mr. Marshal. THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all defendants are present in the Court. THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has received unofficial information of the terrible tragedy that occurred last evening at Ludwigshafen, and I am sure that I speak for the Tribunal, as well as for all who are assembled in this room, when we express our sympathy for the de­ ceased and pay a tribute to their memory, as well as to the families of those who have suffered in this unfortunate incident.2 (The assemblage rose in silent tribute) You may be seated. Dr. Dix. DR. DIX (counsel for defendant Schmitz) : May I express to you and to this Tribunal our heartfelt thanks, and the most heartfelt thanks in the name of these men here, in the name of the defense, and in the name of the unfortunate sufferers. THE PRESIDENT: Pursuant to an order of 6 July 1948 this Tribunal has been reconvened for the purpose of publicly announcing its judg­ ment in Case 6, the United States of America V8. Carl Krauch, and others. Signed copies of the judgment have been deposited in the office of the Secretary General. If there are variances between the transcript of the proceedings and said filed copies of the judgment, the latter will prevail and the Tribunal hereby directs that the tran­ script shall be corrected accordingly. Judge Hebert will begin the reading of the judgment. JUDGE HEBERT: The United States of America, plaintiff, V8. Carl Krauch, et al. OPINION AND JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY ITRIBlINAL VI I Organwation of the TribUnal United States Military Tribunal VI was established pursuant to Ordinance No.7, promulgated on 18 October 1946, by the Military ·Governor of the United States Zone of Occupation within Germany. 1 Mimeographed transcript pa.ges 15639-15834, 29 and 30 JUly 1948. • The Presiding Judge refers to an explosion at the Ludwigshafen plant In the French Zone of Occupation In which a large number of persons lost their lives. 213755--53----69 1081 PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/38b077/ The members hereof were appointed by the President of the United States by his Executive Orders No. 9868, dated 24 June 1947 and No. 9882, dated 7 August 1947, respectively, and were designated as Tribu­ llal VI and organized as such by Headquarters EUCOM, General Order No. 87 dated 9 August 1947 and effective 8 August 1947. On 12 August 1947 this case was assigned to the Tribunal for trial by the Supervisory Committee of Presiding Judges of the United States Military Tribunals in Germany, in conformity with Article V of said Ordinance No.7, as amended 17 February 1947. Jwrisdiction The Tribunal derives its basic authority from Control Council Law No. 10, promulgated by the responsible representatives of the occupa­ tion forces of the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union in Germany on 20 December 1945. The purpose of said law was declared to be to establish a uniform legal basis for the prosecu­ tion of war criminals and other similar offenders, and to give effect to the Moscow Declaration of 30 October 1943, the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, and the Charter of the International Military Tri­ bunal (hereinafter referred to as IMT) issued pursuant thereto. The Indictment This proceeding was begun by the filing of an indictment in the Office of the Secretary General by the duly appointed Chief of Counsel for War Crimes on 3 May 1947. The indictment consists of five counts. It purports to be drawn under the provisions of Article II of Control Council Law No. 10. Count one charges the defendants with the commission of crimes against peace through the planning, preparation, initiation, and wag­ ing of wars of aggression and invasions of other countries. Count two charges that the defendants committed war crimes and crimes against humanity through participation in the plunder of public and private property in countries and territories which came under the belligerent occupation of Germany. Count three charges the com­ mission of war crimes and crimes against humanity through participa­ tion in enslavement and forced labor of the civilian population of countries and territories occupied or controlled by Germany, the en­ slavement of concentration-camp inmates within Germany and the nse of prisoners of war in operations and illegal labor. It also charges the mistreatment, terrorization, torture, and murder of enslaved per­ sons. Count four charges the defendants Schneider, Buete:fisch, and von der Heyde with membership in a criminal organization. Count five charges the participation by the defendants in a conspiracy to commit crimes against peace. The counts will be further set forth 1082 PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/38b077/ as they are reached for discussion and determination in the course, of this judgment. The Issues A copy of the indictment in the German language was served upon each defendant at least 30 days before the arraignment. All of the defendants, except Carl Wurster, Carl Lautenschlaeger, and Max Brueggemann, who were absent on account of illness, entered formal pleas of "Not Guilty" in open court on 14 August 1947. The de­ fendants Wurster and Lautenschlaeger subsequently entered like pleas, and Brueggemann was severed from the case and ordered held subject to subsequent proceedings, upon a showing that he was physically unable to stand trial. The indictment and the pleas of "Not Guilty" to the charges contained therein constitute the issues upon which the case was tried. The Trial The trial opened 27 August 1947, and the evidence was closed on 12 May 1948. The case was prosecuted by a staff of 12 American attorneys, headed by the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes. Each defendant was represented by an approved chief counsel and assistant counsel of his own choice, all of whom were recognized and com­ petent members of the German bar. In addition, the defendants, as a group, had the services of a specialist of their own selection in the field of international law, several expert accountants, and an ad­ ministrative assistant to their chief counsel. The proceedings were conducted by simultaneous translation into the English and German languages and were electrically recorded and also stenographically reported. Daily transcripts, including copies of exhibits, in the ap­ propriate language were provided for the use of the Tribunal and counsel. The following tabulation indicates the magnitude of the record: Prose­ De­ cution fense Total Documents submitted (including affidavits)_ 2,282 4,102 6,384 Affidavits submitted _ 419 2,394 2,813 Witnesses called (including those heard by commissioners) . _ 87 102 189 Pages of the transcript (not including the judgment). _ 15,638 Trial days consumed (not including hearings before commissioners)__________________ 152 Between 2 and 11 June 1948, the prosecution consumed 1 day and the defense 6% days in oral argument. Each defendant was allotted .10 minutes in which to address the Court in his own behalf, free of the obligation of an oath, and fourteen availed themselves of this priv­ ilege. Exhaustive briefs were submitted on behalf of both sides. 1083 PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/38b077/ Interlooutory Rulings It is deemed appropriate to call attention to some of the more sig­ nificant rulings made by the Tribunal during the progress of the trial. (a) Article VII of Military Government Ordinance No.7 provides that, "The Tribunals * * * shall admit any evidence which they deem to have probative value (such as) affidavits," and "shall afford the opposing party such opportunity to question the authenticity or probative value of such evidence as in the opinion of the Tribunal the ends of justice require." Among the guaranties for a fair trial ac­ corded defendants by Article IV of said Ordinance is the right "to cross-examine any witness called by the prosecution." The Tribunal ruled, therefore, that it would receive affidavits in evidence, subject to the right of the opposing party to test the same by cross-examina­ tion, if production of the wItnesses was requested and they could be produced for that purpose, and that in instances where the witnesses could not be made available the opposing party might procure counter affidavits from the affiants or submit interrogatories for them to an­ swer, in lieu of cross-examination. In instances where the witnesses could not be cross-examined, counter affidavits procured, or answers to interrogatories obtained, the Tribunal, on motion, struck the affi­ davits from the evidence. Consistent with this ruling, the Tribunal also refused to admit, over objection, the affidavits of deceased persons. (b) During the presentation of its case in chief, the prosecution offered a number of statements made by defendants prior to the filing of the indictment. These offers were objected to on the ground that such defendants would thereby be compelled to give evidence against themselves, in contravention of fundamental principles of enlightened criminal jurisprudence. The Tribunal ruled: (1) That, if volun­ tarily given, such statements were competent as admissions against interest; hut (2) that if the defendants making such statements did not take the witness stand and thereby subject themselves to cross­ examination, such statements would not be regarded as evidence against the other defendants, but that the Tribunal would limit it:> consideration thereof to the defendants making such statements.