III
Lastly I take the liberty of suggesting that the films which have been taken of the atrocities in concentration camps and other criminal acts be shown to all the defense counsel of the persons accused as this seems necessary for the instruction of counsel for the defense.
| /s/ | Dr. MARX |
| [16] | Part I of this motion was withdrawn by Dr. Marx, 15 November 1945, with permission of the Tribunal. |
MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES
PROSECUTION ON THE MOTION ON BEHALF
OF DEFENDANT STREICHER
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
The United States of America, acting through its Chief Prosecutor, opposes the Motion of Counsel for Defendant STREICHER for the following reasons:
(1)
Since Counsel accepted the assignment to represent said defendant on 27 October 1945, he has been provided with a list of documents relied upon by the Prosecutor, and has been permitted to examine the documents and decrees referred to in such list; that such documents and exhibits will remain available to said Counsel throughout the Trial in the Defendant’s Information Center in Room No. 54 of the Court House in Nuremberg where German-speaking custodians are available for assistance in expediting such examination.
(2)
Said defendant will have additional time to examine documentary evidence and further prepare his defense until the Prosecution presents its Case in Chief.
(3)
Defendant STREICHER is the only defendant who has requested postponement, and his application does not show any facts of hardship that would follow which would be limited to his particular defense. Further he does not show any specific injury to his defense if the Motion should be denied.
(4)
No objection is made to request in Section II of the Motion.
(5)
It is agreed that the film on Concentration Camps may be shown to Defense Counsel prior to the Trial.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Motion be overruled.
| ROBERT H. JACKSON | ||
| U. S. Chief of Counsel | ||
| by | ||
| /s/ | ROBERT G. STOREY | |
| Asst. U. S. Chief of Counsel |
14 November 1945
MEMORANDUM OF THE BRITISH PROSECUTION
ON THE MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
STREICHER
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
The Chief Prosecutor of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectfully opposes the application for an adjournment of Counsel for the Defendant STREICHER for the following reasons:
I.
| 1) | Counsel for the Defendant Streicher accepted that position on 27 October 1945. |
| 2) | The Indictment against the said defendant and others was published on 18 October 1945 and served on the Defendant Streicher shortly thereafter. |
| 3) | The said Counsel has therefore had a considerable time to familiarise himself with the contents of the Indictment and especially these which, as appears in the part of the Appendix A, page 33 relating to the said defendant, are particularly relevant to him. In this connection the Chief Prosecutor respectfully refers to Page 5, Section IV(D)(3)(d) and page 26 Section X(A) and (B) of the Indictment. |
| 4) | This Chief Prosecutor further respectfully reminds the Court that the said Counsel has got a week from the filing of this answer until the commencement of the Trial, and in addition any time which may be occupied by the opening of the case and any matters preliminary to evidence being produced requiring cross-examination by Counsel for the Defendant Streicher. |
| 5) | If oral evidence is called relating to the part alleged to have been played by the said defendant and the said Counsel is not ready to cross-examine, he will be able to ask for a postponement of his cross-examination. |
| 6) | It is therefore respectfully submitted that this Application is premature, and that the time for applying for an adjournment to assist Counsel for the said defendant is when a difficulty actually arises at the Trial. |
| 7) | This Chief Prosecutor respectfully reminds the Tribunal of the words of General Nikitchenko, then its President, uttered at Berlin on 18 October 1945: “It must be understood that the Tribunal which is directed by the Charter to secure an expeditious hearing of the issues raised by the charges will not permit any delay either in the preparation of the defense or of the Trial.” |
II.
This Chief Prosecutor has no objection to the request made in Section II of the said application.
III.
This Chief Prosecutor has also no objection to the suggestion, contained in Section III thereof.
| /s/ | HARTLEY SHAWCROSS |
14 November 1945
MOTION OF THE SOVIET PROSECUTION
FOR A PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION
OF DEFENDANT STREICHER
CHIEF PROSECUTOR OF THE U.S.S.R.
TO THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
As shown by the Indictment of the major war criminals, Julius Streicher is to be tried in common with the other major war criminals and also for acts committed by himself, including, in particular, the incitement of the persecution of the Jews set forth in Count One and Count Four of the Indictment.
Thus, Streicher must bear the personal responsibility in the first place, for deriding the Jews, for their being tortured and murdered as a direct result of his propaganda and of that of his followers.
Pursuant to this Indictment the interrogations of Streicher were carried on.
At the interrogation of 10 November 1945 by representatives of the Delegation of the Soviet Union, Streicher declared quite unexpectedly that he “had been holding the viewpoint of Zionism.”
If, in addition to this, we remember the motion of Streicher’s Defense Counsel at the session of the Military Tribunal of 15 November 1945 of the irresponsibility (psychical) of his client, it seems to me evident that there is every reason for appointing psychiatric experts.
This measure should not encounter any difficulties, as right at this moment there are in Nuremberg a sufficient number of highly qualified specialists, who have just solved a similar problem in connection with the Defendant Hess.
An immediate examination would give the Tribunal, before even the beginning of the session, exact information as to whether the Defendant Streicher is responsible or irresponsible. There is still amply sufficient time to do so.
To resort to experts when the Trial had already begun, would undoubtedly delay the normal procedure of the Tribunal.
Given consideration to the above, I request that the Defendant Streicher be submitted to a psychiatric examination before the beginning of the Trial.
| /s/ | POKROVSKY | |
| Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R. |
16 November 1945
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REGARDING
A PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION
OF DEFENDANT STREICHER
17 November 1945
| MEMORANDUM TO: | DR. JEAN DELAY, Professor of Psychiatry at |
| the Faculty of Medicine in Paris. | |
| PROFESSOR EUGENE KRASNUSHKIN, | |
| Professor of the Scientific Research Institute in | |
| Moscow. | |
| COLONEL PAUL L. SCHROEDER, U.S. Army. |
The Tribunal desires that you examine the Defendant JULIUS STREICHER to determine:
| 1. | Is he sane or insane? |
| 2. | Is he fit to appear before the Tribunal and present his defense? |
| 3. | If he is insane, was he for that reason incapable of understanding the nature and quality of his acts during the period of time covered by the Indictment? |
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL:
| /s/ | WILLIAM L. MITCHELL | |
| Brig. General, GSC | ||
| General Secretary |
REPORT OF EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT
STREICHER
18 November 1945
| MEMORANDUM FOR: | Brig. Gen. William L. Mitchell, |
| General Secretary. | |
| FOR THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL. | |
In response to the Tribunal’s request that the Defendant Julius Streicher be examined, the undersigned psychiatrists did examine the Defendant Julius Streicher, on 17 November 1945. The following examinations were made: Physical, neurological and psychiatric examinations.
In addition, the following documents were studied: All available interrogations, biographical data, inspection of examples of his written works, all psychological investigations and observations of the prison psychiatrist.
The following results of the examination and unanimous conclusions are submitted:
| 1) | Defendant Julius Streicher is sane. |
| 2) | Defendant Julius Streicher is fit to appear before the Tribunal and to present his defense. |
| 3) | It being the unanimous conclusion of the examiners that Julius Streicher is sane, he is for that reason capable of understanding the nature and quality of his acts during the period of time covered by the Indictment. |
| /s/ | DR. JEAN DELAY, | |
| Professor of Psychiatry at the Faculty of Medicine in Paris. | ||
| /s/ | EUGENE KRASNUSHKIN, | |
| Professor of the Scientific Research Institute in Moscow. | ||
| /s/ | COLONEL PAUL L. SCHROEDER, AUS, | |
| Neuropsychiatric Consultant. |
MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT HESS FOR
AN EXAMINATION BY A NEUTRAL EXPERT WITH
REFERENCE TO HIS MENTAL COMPETENCE AND
CAPACITY TO STAND TRIAL
| TO: | The General Secretary of the International Military Tribunal, |
| Nuremberg. |
On behalf of the Defendant Hess I hereby make the following application in my capacity of counsel:
I
A. That a medical expert be asked by the Court to make a thorough examination of the Defendant Hess and to report in an exhaustive manner as to whether the said defendant is
a) mentally competent,
b) capable of being tried, and to summon the medical expert as a witness at the Trial.
The expert should be named to the Tribunal by the medical faculty of the University of Zürich or, if a competent expert should not be available there, by the medical faculty of Lausanne.
B. If the Court has already appointed an expert, that the expert applied for and appointed as in I A. be appointed and summoned to act together with the Court’s own expert at the examination, and to testify in Court.
C. In the event of the Court’s having already in the meantime ordered a report by a board of experts, that this panel be completed by the appointment, as well as the expert mentioned in I A., of another expert also to be named by the medical faculty of Zürich or Lausanne.
II
. . . .
Reasons:
Re I. The undersigned Counsel has grave doubts as to the mental responsibility and the fitness for Trial of the Defendant Hess owing to defendant’s behavior during his numerous talks with him, and owing to the numerous publications, past and present, in the German and foreign press about the “Hess Case”. The defendant is not in a position to give his Counsel any information whatsoever regarding the crimes imputed to him in the Indictment. The expression of his face is lifeless and his attitude towards his Counsel and in view of the impending Trial is the reverse of every natural reaction of any other defendant.
The defendant declares that he has completely lost his memory since a long period of time, the period of which he can no longer determine.
The official Party declaration issued by the German Propaganda Ministry of 12 May 1941 even mentions “a disease which had been increasing over a period of years” and of “signs of mental derangement”. English press reports also state that defendant’s conduct after his landing in Scotland showed an absence of “mental clarity”.
Those facts are important for the allegation of Defendant’s irresponsibility as a result of morbid disorder of his mental capacity, and sufficient grounds for application numbered I.
Those facts at the same time justify the examination of defendant’s ability to plead. In the event of the Court’s having already, on its own authority, entrusted a panel of experts with the preparation of a report, it would be fair to the defendant to concede the addition of several experts to be appointed by the Defense.
. . . .
| /s/ | VON ROHRSCHEIDT | |
| Attorney |
Nuremberg, 7 November 1945
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REJECTING
THE MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT HESS,
AND DESIGNATING A COMMISSION TO
EXAMINE DEFENDANT HESS WITH REFERENCE
TO HIS MENTAL COMPETENCE AND CAPACITY
TO STAND TRIAL
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
1. Counsel for the Defendant Hess has made application to the Tribunal to appoint an expert designated by the medical faculty of the University of Zürich or of Lausanne to examine the Defendant Hess with reference to his mental competence and capacity to stand trial. This application is denied.
2. The Tribunal has designated a commission composed of the following members:
| Eugene Krasnushkin, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry, | ||
| Medical Institute of Moscow, assisted by | ||
| Eugene Sepp, M.D., Professor of Neurology, | ||
| Medical Institute of Moscow | ||
| Member, Academy of Medical Sciences, U.S.S.R., and | ||
| Nicolas Kurshakov, M.D., Professor of Medicine | ||
| Medical Institute of Moscow | ||
| Chief Internist, Commissariat of Public Health, U.S.S.R. | ||
| Lord Moran, M.D. F.R.C.P. | ||
| President of the Royal College of Physicians, assisted by | ||
| Dr. T. Rees, M.D. F.R.C.P. | ||
| Chief Consultant Psychiatrist to the War Office, and | ||
| Dr. George Riddoch, M.D. F.R.C.P. | ||
| Director of Neurology at the London Hospital and | ||
| Chief Consultant Neurologist to the War Office | ||
| Dr. Nolan D. C. Lewis, assisted by | ||
| Dr. D. Ewen Cameron and | ||
| Colonel Paul Schroeder, M.D. | ||
| Professor Jean Delay. | ||
The Tribunal has requested the commission to examine the Defendant Hess and furnish a report on the mental state of the defendant with particular reference to the question whether he is able to take his part in the Trial, specifically:
1. Is the defendant able to plead to the Indictment?
2. Is the defendant sane or not, and on this last issue the Tribunal wishes to be advised whether the defendant is of sufficient intellect to comprehend the course of the proceedings of the Trial so as to make a proper defense, to challenge a witness to whom he might wish to object and to understand the details of the evidence.
3. The examiners have presented their reports to the Tribunal in the form which commends itself to them. It is directed that copies of the reports be furnished to each of the Chief Prosecutors and to Defense Counsel. The Tribunal will hear argument by the Prosecution and by Defense Counsel on the issues presented by the reports on Friday, 30 November at 4 P.M.
| INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL | ||
| /s/ | GEOFFREY LAWRENCE | |
| President |
Dated at Nuremberg, Germany, this
24th day of November 1945.