LEIPZIG TRIALS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18324, 15 August 1921, Page 8

LEIPZIG TRIALS

HOW EVIDENCE IS DEALT WITH. AN EYE WITNESS’S STORY. (From a Legal Correspondent of the Times.) LEIPZIG, May 23. As it is probable mat low people in England have ever been present at a trial in Germany and still fewer at one in the buprome court, it may, perhaps, be of interest to some of your readers to have a snort description, from a lawyer’s point of view, of uiose which are now proceeding at Leipzig. iho olupromo Court is well housed: the building— not unlike the St. George Hall at Liverpool—has line proportions and contains a central hall infinitely more imposing than the hall in our own London Courts (perhaps not very high praise). This particular Court (it mignt be called a salon) in which the trials are now being held is situated on the first floor. It is a long room with galleries and a sort of dais at .one end, wore sit the judges and counsel. The decorations are gold, tlorid and abundant —indeed, the room is more than slightly reminiscent of the theatre at Monte Carlo, and, with a stage at one end, a grey instead of a light brown background for the decorations, and a couple ot useless boxes in the corner, might well do duty for it. On the dais there is a semi-circular table and nine imposing chairs —seven for the judges and two for the Ober Reichsamvalt (the Crown Prosecutor) and bis assistant; on the right a sort of choir stall for the accused and his lawyers; on the left a table and chairs provided for the English representatives; and in the body of the room rows of chairs, as at a concert, for the audience, who, by the by, can hear little or nothing, ae toe acoustics of the room are appalling. At U a.m. the court is opened, and there enter the seven judges arrayed in marooncoloured gowns with velvet collars and the Reichsamvalt (Public Prosecutor) similarly attired. ’Hie counsel for the accused, robed mostly in black, are already in their places, and also the English representatives attired in black morning (boss, and trying hard to look us if they thought 9 a.m. quite a reasonable and usual hour for a court to sit, though, perhaps, if anything, a little on the late side And now begins a trial which difiers in almost every detail from the English procedure, which outrages almost at every point the rules for a tantrial which we have perfected through the centuries, which gives to the judge the duties of an advocate and to one at least of the advocates the duty of a judge, and yet most undoubtedly gets at the truth as nearly as it is possible for one human being about another, and ensures for the prisoner a conspicuously fair trial.

The audience, who have, of course, risen at the entry of the judges, resume their places. The president makes a short speech explaining the proceedings, and emphasising the tact that no political considerations must be mentioned or considered. Next, he takes in hie band the list of witnesses which both sides have supplied to the court, and which must not be added to without leave, and calls on an officer of the court to read out the names. This is done, each witness rising and answering to his name when called. At the outset of Muller's case his counsel rose and asked leave to add a name to his list oi witnesses —a request which was abrupty and almost angrily refused, the President pointing out that there had boon ample time for him to make up his mind as to whom he would call. Next, the President addresses the witnessess, calling their attention in a few grave and dignified words to the duty which rests upon them, the religious importance of the oath which they will be called upon to take, and the serious punishment which the law imposes on those who in the wit-ness-box do not speak the truth. They arc thereupon dismissed to the rooms provided for them, and none may re-enter the the court until his evidence has to be given. , PRISONER'S STATEMENT.

Now comes what to English minds must appear a bold innovation in cx-iminal procedure. The prisoner (who until a few years ago could not in England bo even called us a witness in his own defence) is told to step forward. There is no dock and no witness-box, so he takes his place on the dais in the centre, with his back to the audience, and within a few feet of the judges. There the President delivers to him a long speech—practically a speech for the prosecution—pointing out his offences, commenting on the serious evidence to be given against him, and finishing by reading the indictment with its detailed charges. The prisoner is called upon to give his explanation. He may speak as he likes —without the slightest reference to the laws of evidence—and for as long as he likes. Tins he, x of course, does, and .it must be admitted that the President follows every word of the speech—with its inevitable contradictions and repetitions—with careful attention, interrupting only by an occasional question when it is not even clear what the prisoner wants to say. Having said everything he can think of, the prisoner returns to his seat next his counsel, and within a few feet of the judges, and the evidence begins. The president calls the name of a witness (chosen as he will from either list), and the man is brought into court and up to the bench to the president; the judges all rise and nlaco on their'heads the ceremonial cap of office; the entire audience also rise, and in the midst of an absolute and impressive silence the president himself administers the oath, which binds the witness in the name of a God ‘all knowing and all seeing” to tell the truth, “adding nothing and concealing nothing.” With a rustle the judges anc] audience resume their seats, and the examination begins, the witness standing where he is and merely turning half-round so that the prisoner and his advocates can hear. The pre.side.nt conducts the whole examination—indeed, he conducts the whole trial,— and with a statement before him which the witness has already made and signed before a subordinate official—first examines and then cross-examines the witness. After having asked what ho thinks proper, he then invites first the Crown Prosecutor, then the prisoner’s advocate, and lastly the prisoner himself to nut any questions they may desire, but through him (the president). He then turns to the prisoner, and, repeating the most salient points in the evidence, demands an explanation there and then. The process is long, but the evidence has certainly been thoroughly tested before the witness retires. THE JUDGE’S POWERS.

And so it continues. There are many dramatic moments. A German witness on the stand gives evidence directly contradictory to that given by an English witness —one Jones—who had already deposed. The President fixes his eyes—and they are alarming eyes—on the Gorman, and calls Jones is brought up and placed in front of the President a couple of feet from the German. “.Repeat your evidence,” says the President to the German. It is clone. ‘‘Translate, ' orders the President, It is done. The piercing eyes are now looking right through Jones “Jones, what do you say?” Jones repeats firmly and respectfully his former evidence. A few short, sharp questions to both, and then the President turns on his compatriot, and almost shouts at him. “I do not believe you. This man Jones is speaking the truth. 1 am ashamed of j/bu,” and the German witness remains speechless while Jones returns to his scat among the audience. An admirable system in tne hands of a brilliant Judge such ns Herr Sonatsprasident Schmidt, but one trembles to think of the chaos to which it might load if practised by one less able or less assured. The evidence continues nil day from 9 to 2, and then again from 4 to 8 (nine hours), until everyone is tired out except the President, who, hud it not been for a respectful representation by the Grown Prosecutor, would apparently have gone on all night. On the following day the evidence is completed, and the speeches begin. First a German general, present to inform the Court on military matters, makes a passionate speech for the defence—to the obvious annoyance of the President, who interrupts him more than once. Next the Crown Prosecutor makes a speech, in which ho summarises the evidence, informs the Court as to which charges ho considers to have been proved and which not, and suggests the sentence; then all three of the defending counsel address the Court at great length (think of it, ye English Judges and juries, and bo thankful for your nationality 1), and, finally, the prisoner has slill another chance to say what ho will. Strange as the system must appear to English lawyers, there was no one in Court who did not recognise at the end of the trial that tljo inquiry (which seems a more appropriate word than trial) had done all that is humanly possible to elicit truth. It is perhaps needless to add that the demeanour in Court of the English witnesses —all of them ex-prisoners of war and none of them officers—was Itoyond all praise. They behaved as English gentlemen, and thoroughly deserved the compliment more than once paid them by the President. Their behaviour on the journey out and in the city has also been beyond reproach, while the good humour of the English soldier is, of course, irrepressible.. On the journey out a coach was reserved for the party, two first-class compartments for the staff and the rest for the witnesses; one first-class compartment was.

however, given up to the witnesses, as they had been rather crowded, and into that compartment there wandered at one of the stations a dignified and wealthy-looking Gorman in search of a seat. Immediately a cheerful voice from the corner “’Ullo, Fritz, and what do yon want?” Fortunately, a guard was near, who gently led the opulent stranger to more appropriate surroundings. This, of course, by the way. But the strain of at tending a Courtwhere they did not understand either the language or the procedure must have boon considerable, and the demeanour of each man was beyond praise.