Page 2

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
replies to the Defense argument — just as a reference. It can in no way be prejudicial to the Prosecution. It will take only two or three days' time but will give the Prose¬cution a chance to again state their views. This reply should be concerned not only with mis-statements of fact or other errors but also as a means of corroborating the Prosecution's point of view once more. It is very diffi¬cult to decide now how to put to use the information because we have not seen the Defense argument so far but from experience we will have grounds for plenty of reply by the Prosecution. The order of presentation of closing arguments was reversed contrary to the Charter and the Prosecution should not lose sight of its right to have the last word and to be compensated for what has been done. Our decision, of course, will be determined by the informa¬tion that we are going to receive and I don't think the Prosecution's reply should be long — only one or two days. But in case of necessity the Prosecution should reply. Everyone's attention is called to the fact that pointing errors of the Defense is a minor point. Mr. Hastings has been appointed by the Court to check for errors of the Prosecution and probably this same work will be done on the Defense summations. Mr. Tavenner stated that although the Prosecution had anticipated most of the points to be made some of them may not have been anticipated and may necessitate a reply. Mr. Tavenner said the summations should be checked for erroneous statements and mis-quotations of documents or testimony. Mr. Comyns Carr suggested that they also be checked for statements based on evidence not dealt with in the Prosecution's summation but that should have been shown to be untrue. Mr. Tavenner mentioned that there might be a pro¬blem of inference where the Prosecution and Defense might draw two different inferences from the same exhibit. Judge Nyi pointed out that though a documents as a whole might mean one thing, individual sentences might con¬vey a completely different meaning. Mr. Fixel commented: If it is a vital matter, I think the question will be thoroughly examined by the Court. If you start in on rebuttal arguments and inferences of each exhibit individual by individual it will require a great deal of time. We have presented our arguments and facts with