Page 1

Parent Minutes of Meeting of Prosecution Staff
Date 1 March 1948
Language English
Collection Tavenner Papers & IMTFE Official Records
Box Box 6
Folder General Reports and Memoranda from March 1948
Repository University of Virginia Law Library
MINUTES MEETING OF PROSECUTION STAFF 1000, 1 March 1948 Present: Members of Prosecution Staff Presiding: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., Acting Chief of Counsel Mr. Tavenner stated that Mr. Vote has done some work on an index of the General Summation, a name index. Such a name index to the General Summation as well as to the individual summations would probably be a great help to the Tribunal. Each attorney was asked to prepare an: index of his summation giving the paragraph reference to each accused other than the one covered by the summation. The results of the work of the individual attorneys should be turned in to Mr. Vote, who, in turn, will assemble the material so that the final index will cover the General Summation plus the individual summation. Mr. Tavenner stated that the Prosecution staff is now faced with the problem of determing the points to be considered in the Defense summation such as mis-statements and arguments not based on evidence. Mr. Horwitz suggested that the summations also be checked for points that were not answered by the Prosecution summations. Mr. Comyns Carr posed the question of what this study would be used for. Mr. Tavenner said the responsibility of stopping any propaganda embodied in the summation was on the Court and should be urged on the Court either in court session or in chambers. However, no definite rule as to the use of the material can be made. It might be used in a reply. Mr. Comyns Carr suggested that a list of passages in the nature of a brief showing all statements made in the summation and not supported by the record be made either to be or not to be read, simply a list of statements. Mr. Tavenner said that whether the Court wanted argument or challenge or nothing, the Prosecution should be prepared. Gen. Vasiliev stated: In my opinion the Prosecution should use its right to reply to the Defense. The practice of the Soviet courts is that the Prosecution almost always