On the method in which our Indictment is drawn, there is no difficulty, the Prosecution submit, in convicting a defendant who emerges in evidence at a later date on each of the counts.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Just one more question and then I am through. You understand I am asking these questions only in performance of what we are doing to determine what witnesses should be called, and therefore the year 1921 as the beginning of the conspiracy becomes a year obviously not remote in time when we consider witnesses. Would that not follow?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: A year not. . . ?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Not remote in time with relation to the conspiracy.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, it is part of the particular Indictment.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I make some brief remarks in this connection?
I have based myself on the general Indictment as regards the time of the conspiracy. The general Indictment states simply and solely that the definitive point of time which one can take as the start of the conspiracy is any time before 8 May 1945.
The Chief Prosecutor of the United States, in his opening statement, described the Party program, in the form in which it was framed in ’21 and revised, I believe, in ’25, and characterized it as legitimate and unimpeachable—according to the German translation—insofar as these aims were not to be attained by war.
Now, assuming that the Party leadership was to pursue these objectives by war, it is, first of all, not clear with what point of view these goals were set; and the Defense as well as the Prosecution must prove that from this time on these aims were to be attained through war. Furthermore, it can hardly be denied that only a very few people, and perhaps only one person, had knowledge of war plans.
Now, as regards the various defendants, as well as my own client, the times at which they came into contact with the Party are quite different.