[91] Defendant in case of Government of France vs. Hermann Roechling. See Vol. XIV.
[92] Dr. Bergold, Milch’s defense counsel, objected as follows (Tr. p. 134): “May it please the Tribunal, I would like to make a final objection against the introduction of the exhibit just submitted by prosecution, namely 41-A, for the following reason: this is an interrogation of Sauckel, who, in conformance with the sentence passed upon him, was executed. I am of the opinion that such an interrogation cannot be used as evidence here, for, since Sauckel was executed, I have no possibility whatsoever to ask him to appear here before the Tribunal as a witness and to cross-examine him concerning his statements. In this statement there are certain things which are not correct, and, due to the fact that the person who made them is dead, they cannot be corrected. The International Military Tribunal frequently ruled that statements made by witnesses and affidavits can only be introduced when it is possible for the defense counsel to bear these persons as witnesses, and to ask prosecution to produce these people for cross-examination. This is absolutely impossible in the case of Sauckel, and I should like to ask the Tribunal to issue a ruling on whether or not these statements can be used as evidence here.
The Court ruled as follows (Tr. p. 194):
Presiding Judge Toms: The Court has determined that under the Charter and the Ordinance this exhibit is admissible. Its weight, however, in view of the peculiar circumstances attending it, is, of course, still for the Tribunal to determine. This ruling is made after conference with the judges of Tribunal I, who had a similar problem presented, and who made the same ruling as this Tribunal now makes.
Mr. Denney: If your Honors please, that question will come up again, because we have interrogations and affidavits from other defendants in the first trial, who have since either been executed or have taken their own lives.
Presiding Judge Toms: The Tribunal feels that the very broad scope of the section of the Charter and the Ordinance dealing with the admission of evidence justifies the admission of this exhibit.
[93] Defense introduced this paragraph as Defense Exhibit 5. See pp. 509-10.
[94] Another portion of the minutes of this meeting was introduced by the defense as Defense Exhibit 8. See pp. 511-15.
[95] Defendant before International Military Tribunal. See Trial of the Major War Criminals, vols. I-XLII, Nuremberg, 1947.
[96] Another portion of the minutes of this meeting was introduced by the defense as Defense Exhibit 31. See pp. 517 to 523.