Forgotten Trials of the Holocaust. Michael J. Bazyler

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ were slow and heavily laden with judges who functioned during the Vichy regime, an ordinance of November 18, 1944, established special courts to try collaborators: a High Court of Justice for cabinet ministers and a Court of Justice for others. Magistrates for these purge courts were picked from among the less compromised members of the French judiciary. This selection method was driven by the embarrassing fact that only one French magistrate had refused to swear an oath of allegiance to Marshal Pétain.⁴⁶ Hundreds of thousands of persons were processed through these courts, and about fifteen hundred executed. Many of the imprisoned received amnesty once the immediate ardor of the postwar period cooled in the early 1950s.⁴⁷

      The charges against Pétain, drawn under the same provisions of the penal code that were later applied to Laval, alleged that he acted against the interests of France in creating a form of government similar to the Franco dictatorship in Spain (Article 87) and that he collaborated with the enemy (Article 75).⁴⁸ The presiding judge and prosecutor were the same as in the Laval trial and the jury was drawn from two lists: one was comprised of members of the National Assembly who had not voted to end the Third Republic, and the second consisted of names provided by various Resistance networks. Under the French legal system, three judges and a jury deliberate jointly and the verdict is a composite of their votes.

      Pétain’s trial began on July 23, 1945. As a defense witness, Laval testified that Pétain never desired to set up a dictatorship. Pétain’s very able lawyers cross-examined prosecution witnesses and delivered a stirring closing argument, urging that as peace spread throughout Europe at last, France should not bruise itself further by condemning its own. Pétain himself ended the proceeding by saying: “Dispose of me according to your consciences. Mine does not reproach me because during a long life and having arrived by age [he was eighty-nine] at the threshold of death, I affirm that I had no ambition other than to serve France.” On August 15, 1945, Pétain was found guilty and sentenced to death. General de Gaulle, however, commuted his sentence to life imprisonment. Pétain was to remain in prison until his death of natural causes in 1951, at the age of ninety-five.⁴⁹

      Before turning to the trial against Laval, we briefly set out the basics of the French criminal process. Understanding this process is essential to appreciate how it was ignored in Laval’s case. The French system is a two-stage procedure that relies heavily on the judiciary.⁵⁰ During the initial investigatory stage, an investigating magistrate collects all relevant evidence, both inculpatory and exculpatory, and then decides whether a prosecution should go forward and a trial take place. In Laval’s case, the investigative stage began within three weeks of his testimony in Pétain’s trial. The investigative stage is central to the criminal process since it defines the crimes that may be considered at trial. Given its importance and given the complexity of the case against Laval, it is not surprising that on August 21, 1945, his lawyers were promised that the preliminary stage would be lengthy, involving perhaps twenty-five sessions that would take them well into November.⁵¹ Had that procedure been followed, Laval would have been given pertinent documents and participated at length in presenting his defense. Whatever charges were then recommended would be tried by a court with a jury. Laval would be questioned by the court and the prosecution and allowed to call witnesses in his defense. This would be followed by the French equivalent of closing arguments. The process that was promised never materialized.

      Early on in the preliminary phase, Laval’s lawyers learned through the press that the first stage would be terminated after just five sessions. Several more sessions were quickly arranged, but they were brief and largely ineffective. Laval had a right to review prosecution documents so that he could present a complete defense. When he asked for those documents, Laval was told that the examining magistrate had them in his locked files and was away on vacation. Around the same time, the president of the High Court announced that the trial had to be over by the time of the general elections in France, scheduled for October 21, 1945.⁵² The law required that there be more potential jurors than the number ultimately selected, to give the accused an ability to challenge jurors. When the trial began, however, the number of jurors called was exactly the number required, precluding the ability to strike objectionable jurors.⁵³

      Laval was charged with violations of articles 87 and 75 of the French Penal Code, plotting against the security of the state and collaboration with the enemy (the French term is “intelligence”).⁵⁴ Both the presiding judge in the trial, Pierre Mongibeaux, and the prosecutor, Andrei Mornet, had been active in the judicial process during the Vichy period but, as has been noted, it was impossible to staff a judicial proceeding immediately after liberation without recourse to such jurists. The lawyers assigned to represent Laval, senior counsel Albert Naud and Jacques Baraduc and junior counsel Yves Jaffre, were excellent lawyers. However, given the irregularity of the procedures, they were unable to properly defend their client. The defense lawyers were not given access to key documents, and because the preliminary phase had been completed in such a hurried fashion, they were unable to fully confer with Laval to prepare both him and themselves for trial. The time sequence, with preliminary investigation beginning in late September and trial scheduled for early October, to end before October 21, was just too compressed. Nevertheless, the trial began on October 4, 1945.⁵⁵

      As a lawyer with extensive criminal defense experience, Laval was to be active in his own defense. His lawyers, however, felt there was little they could do because of the hurried and aberrational nature of the legal process. The transcript does not reveal any participation by these lawyers from the inception of the first day of trial until its tumultuous adjournment later in the day. The frustration of Laval’s lawyers was demonstrated at the opening of the proceedings when the presiding judge read a letter from the lawyers in which they asked to be relieved from the responsibility of representing Laval because of the premature termination of the preliminary stage. In their letter, the lawyers also expressed their concern that the haste which characterized the proceedings was driven not by judicial considerations but politics.⁵⁶ The court denied their request. It mattered little, however, since the lawyers were not even present to hear the ruling.

      After the charges were read, including a reference to the deportation of Jews, Laval stated that he wished to be judged by the Jews of France. According to Laval, French Jews knew that he saved them.⁵⁷ In defending himself against the charge that the termination of the Third Republic constituted plotting against the security of the state, Laval observed that 569 out of 649 deputies voted to end the Third Republic and provisionally substitute the more authoritarian form represented by the Vichy regime.⁵⁸ When Laval mentioned that France was now free, a juror shot back: “No thanks to you.” This reaction was perhaps an omen of things to come.⁵⁹

      It was around this point that events became even more heated. Laval kept complaining that his right to counsel had been denied by the irregularity of the proceedings and their rushed nature. The court responded that it had appointed lawyers to represent Laval and the fault lay with them, since they chose not to involve themselves in his defense.⁶⁰ The transparency of this comment, oblivious as it was to the abandonment of procedural norms in the case, seemed to bring Laval to a boil. He then told the court to condemn him right away. Taking this as an insult to the supposed impartiality of the tribunal, the presiding judge instructed the guards to take Laval away.⁶¹ A spectator apparently made a comment supporting Laval, at which point a juror shouted that the spectator should be arrested. Either another or the same juror then shouted: “he [the spectator] deserves 12 bullets in his hide, like Laval.”⁶² On this foreboding note, the first day’s proceedings ended.⁶³

      It should be clear that regardless of whether Laval was guilty as charged, the proceedings were seriously flawed. The preliminary examination, an integral part of the French criminal process, had been prematurely and unjustifiably terminated. Defense counsel, though able, was thwarted from participating on behalf of Laval because of the truncated nature of the proceedings and the inaccessibility of key documents. The stated determination to finish the trial before the national elections scheduled for October 21 made it impossible for both the charges and Laval’s defense to be thoroughly aired, since each would СКАЧАТЬ