THE PRESIDENT: Would you state for whom you appear? Do you appear for the Defendant Keitel?
DR. NELTE: Yes. As far as I know, an agreement was reached between the Prosecution and the Defense, to the effect that whenever possible, questions to be brought up in the proceedings on the following day should be announced beforehand. The obvious purpose of this very reasonable understanding was to enable Defense Counsel to discuss forthcoming questions with their clients, and thus to assure a rapid and even progress of the Trial.
I was not informed that the witness Lahousen was to be called by the Prosecution today, nor was I told on what questions he was to be heard.
It was particularly important to know this, because today, I believe, the witness Lahousen was not to be heard on questions connected with the Prosecution’s case as presented during the past days.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the contrary of what I said. What I said was that the witness was to be confined to evidence relating to Count One, which is the Count that has been solely discussed up to the present date.
DR. NELTE: Do you mean, Mr. President, that in order to enable the Defense to cross-examine the witness, there will be a recess after the interrogation by the Prosecution during which Counsel may discuss the questions with their clients? The witness Lahousen, as far as I recall, has never until now been mentioned by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all you have to say?
DR. NELTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal would like to hear Counsel for the United States upon the agreement which counsel for the Defendant Keitel alleges, namely, an agreement that what was to be discussed on the following day should be communicated to defendants’ counsel beforehand.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I know of no agreement to inform defendants’ counsel of any witness, nor of his testimony; nor would I want to make such. There are security reasons involved in disclosing to Defense Counsel the names of witnesses, which I don’t need to enlarge upon, I am quite sure.