Their prize defendant is Goering. But the first prosecuting lawyer, an American called Jackson, has just made a complete mess of his cross-examination. The questions had been too general and the defendant, sobered up and mentally fit after several months' imprisonment, had found it easy to be canny and evasive in his answers.
If Goering is now convicted, it would not be (or seen to be) on the basis of his court testimony; but for him not to be convicted would be unthinkable.
This was a serious problem.
One of the British lawyers at Nuremburg was a then little-known Conservative politician, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe.
It was now his turn to cross-examine Goering.
He adopted a very different approach to the vapid generalizations of the hapless Jackson.
Maxwell-Fyfe instead focused on particular instances, notably the shooting of escaped RAF prisoners of war (later featured in the film Great Escape). He concentrated on documents; he asked detailed and closed questions; in short, he controlled the witness and the course of the examination.
Against this approach, Goering simply had no where to go, and by the end of Maxwell-Fyfe's sequence of questions, Goering's complicity in serious criminal acts was clear.
There is footage of the cross-examination here and a transcript here.
It was reading about this cross-examination which first made me want to be a lawyer: that precise questioning and attention to detail in respect of those who abuse power is an effective way of ensuring that there is accountability and justice.
After the war, and to his credit, Maxwell-Fyfe helped write the European Convention on Human Rights.
Sadly, however, he then became one of the most illiberal Home Secretaries and Lord Chancellors in modern British history.
It is a fair question whether his awful record in office offsets his accomplishments at Nuremburg and with the ECHR.
But, that said, his clinical demolition of Goering remains one of the great achievements of advocacy.
COMMENTS MODERATION
No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters.
Posts
4 comment(s):
Oh, I must read that transcript! I wonder whether Maxwell-Fyfe was particularly effective because Goering was such a blustering, grand-standing show-off. If I remember correctly, Goering was famous for style over substance and diligence.
A more organised, methodical character like Himmler, or (had he lived) Goebbels might have proved more difficult to nail down.
Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding, the airman, the RAF groundstaff who fought the Battle of Britain, supported by great engineers and factory staff is what did for Goering and his evil ways. That it takes such an elaborate and arcane legalistic game under conditions which approximate to the shooting of fish in a barrel is scarcely the law's finest moment. As usual, it's the grandstanders in the public eye that get the publicity, not the poor buggers who do the hard work to get them there.
Incidentally, Hugh Dowding was treated abominably and his great constibution sidelined by others more able to manipulate the Whitehall system.
Firstly, I agree with Steve with regard to "Stuffy" Dowding. The failure to promote him to Marshal of the RAF was absymal. His hard work in setting up a network to detect approaching aircraft probably saved us from invasion at the hands of a Luftwaffe led by Goering. By not reaching the highest rank, Dowding was denied his plaque in the crypt of St Pauls (well worth a visit).
Turning to Maxwell-Fyfe - he had a most interesting career. His pupillage was in Liverpool and he practised a lot in the North West becoming K.C. at age 34. (Quite unusual even today). Lord Shawcross clearly admired Maxwell-Fyfe and referred to him as a lawyer who had learned his skills from the Magistrates' Courts upwards. (How many young barristers of today will be able to say that given the absence of legal aid)? Shawcross (in my view wisely) appointed Maxwell-Fyfe to be his deputy at Nuremberg. It was, of course, a politically shrewed move. His point-by-point taking apart of the swaggering Goering has always been acknowledged as a master class in the art of cross-examination. (Pity that the Chilcot Inquiry does not have a Maxwell-Fyfe - but, to be fair, it is not a trial).
justice Jackson also deserves his place in history. At Nuremberg he said - "The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason."
I also had great admiration for Britain's "alternative judge" at Nuremberg - Lord Birkett of Ulverston. Here in the North Country, his name continues to be revered as a great son of "Lancashire North of the Sands."
"Stay the hand of vengeance" - "judgment of the law." Long may they flourish in our country.
It is a fair question whether his awful record in office offsets his accomplishments at Nuremburg and with the ECHR.
This idea of "balancing the books is a curious one. Does it mean that after a lifetime's selfless service to charity, I get to commit one free murder?
Post a Comment