Et. Seq: The Harvard Law School Library Blog

The Law and Police Searches

I recently returned from a leave of absence from the library. During my leave, I was fortunate to teach a US Criminal Law and Procedure course at the University of Würzburg in Germany.  Criminal Procedure was one of my favorite classes in law school, and I relished the opportunity to talk about the Fourth Amendment with German law students for an entire semester.

The language of the Fourth Amendment is, perhaps, as broad as it is on purpose:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This, of course, is where we started the semester – we spent a whole class session exploring what the students thought words like “secure” and “persons” and “search” and “unreasonable” should and do mean.  Then, we spent the rest of the course digging through the American case law on the topic, in which the courts have provided definitions of those legal terms of art.  We read and discussed some of the U.S. Supreme Court’s seminal cases on Fourth Amendment searches: Terry, Mapp, Kyllo, Stoner, and Chambers.  We also looked briefly at many cases in which U.S. courts have carved out exceptions to the requirement that the police get a warrant before conducting a search.

I was SO impressed by the German students during this course!  Germany has a civil law tradition, which means that, aside from opinions issued by the country’s Federal Constitutional Court, German judicial decisions are not viewed as binding legal precedent.  This means that German law students spend most of law school studying statutory codes, not reading cases, let alone cases in a foreign language.  But they were up for every challenge, and we had enough time left over at the end of the course that I could throw in a class dedicated to Miranda.

Week after week, we kept coming back to the use of the exclusionary rule, which states that evidence that was seized by the police in violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights cannot be used against the defendant at his or her criminal trial.

One case we discussed, U.S. v. Nora, 765 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2014), had a particular impact.  In the home in which a criminal suspect lived with his wife and kids (!), the police conducted a warrantless search and seized the following:

Narcotics: cocaine, cocaine base, marijuana, heroin, and methamphetamine, hidden in drawers and behind the refrigerator.

Weapons: six handguns, one rifle, and two shotguns (all with ammunition), hidden in a closet and in the garage.

The search was ruled to be unconstitutional, which meant that, under the mandatory application of the exclusionary rule, the evidence could not be used against the defendant in his criminal trial.

In the face of a case with these facts, is it even possible that the exclusionary rule is a good idea?

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas perhaps doesn’t think so.  Earlier this week, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of Collins v. Virginia, in which a warrantless search of the defendant’s driveway led to the seizure of a stolen motorcycle.  In an 8-1 decision, the Court held that searching a driveway, which is to be considered as part of the curtilage of the defendant’s residence, without a warrant or an applicable search warrant exception, violated the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Justice Thomas agreed with the Court’s holding, but wrote separately to express his doubt about the validity of the mandatory application of the exclusionary rule.  ScotusBlog described Justice Thomas’s opinion as follows:

“Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion in which he agreed with the majority’s resolution of the Fourth Amendment question. But Thomas stressed that the case was before the justices because, if Collins is correct and his Fourth Amendment rights were violated, the state courts would have to apply the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the government from using evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution, and “potentially suppress the incriminating evidence against him.” Thomas expressed “serious doubts” about the Supreme Court’s authority to require states to follow the exclusionary rule, which is “not rooted in the Constitution or a federal statute,” and he urged the court to take up that question.”

(http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/05/opinion-analysis-justices-decline-to-extend-fourth-amendments-automobile-exception/)

Overall, after talking about it every week for the whole semester, the German students in the course came out in favor of the exclusionary rule as an important check on the power of the police, although they were, at times, disappointed in its mandatory application.  The course also made them think a lot more carefully about police procedure in their own country, and about the idea that the separation of powers provides important checks and balances in a legal system (here, the judicial branch checks the executive branch).

If you’re interested in reading more about this topic, the Harvard Library collections have some recent books you might want to explore:

The Fourth Amendment in Flux: The Roberts Court, Crime Control, and Digital Privacy, by Michael Gizzi and R. Craig Curtis (University Press of Kansas, 2016)

The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning, by William J. Cuddihy (Oxford University Press, 2016)

Police: A Field Guide, by Davide Correia and Tyler Wall (Verso, 2018)

The Unexpected Scalia: A Conservative Justice’s Liberal Opinions, by David M. Dorsen (Cambridge University Press, 2017)

Written Out of History: The Forgotten Founders Who Fought Big Government, by Mike Lee (Sentinel, 2017).

Visit Historical & Special Collections (and lots of other archives!) during Cambridge Open Archives this June

This year Historical & Special Collections is celebrating Cambridge Open Archives’ 10th Anniversary as part of two weeks of behind-the-scenes tours at 15 archives, libraries, and special collections around Cambridge! Get a closer look at special collections and archival material here at HLS, as well as 14 other archives at Harvard and across the city.

 

: Unite to Support Rent Control flyer with additional information about Cambridge Open Archives

Unite to Support Rent Control flyer, Records of the Cambridge Tenants’ Union, Harvard Law School Library, Historical & Special Collections, Box 11, Folder 1.

When:   June 11-15 and June 18-21, 2018
Where: 
Various locations in Cambridge, including Historical & Special Collections
Cost:     
Free! Space is limited, however, so be sure to register below.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER [Read More]

Coming to Historical & Special Collections on June 1: HOLLIS Special Request

On June 1, 2018, Harvard Law School Library’s Historical & Special Collections (HSC) will begin using HOLLIS Special Request!

HOLLIS Special Request allows you to request material to view in our reading room and to request reproductions of HSC’s materials. HOLLIS Special Request replaces paper registration and request forms, and will make it easier for you to keep track of appointment and reproduction requests. Appointments in HSC’s reading room, the Root Room, are available Tuesday-Friday between 10:00 and 5:00.

Use HOLLIS Special Request to:

  • Submit requests to use HSC material in our reading room via links in the Harvard Library catalog, HOLLIS
  • Submit orders for reproductions including digital scans of Harvard special collections materials
  • Track the status of your requests in a single location
  • Access detailed information about past requests

Many Harvard special collections and archives already use HOLLIS Special Request. Once you have created an account you can use it to request material from all participating Harvard libraries and keep track of your requests in a single location.

To get started, create your HOLLIS Special Request account now!

Here’s a quick tutorial to help you get started, and some FAQs about using HOLLIS Special Request and HSC’s collections. We are excited about HOLLIS Special Request and look forward to going live on June 1!

The Royal Wedding and the Law: an Update!

Seven years ago when the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (aka Prince William and Kate Middleton) tied the knot, we gave you an overview of the extra legal hurdles the royal couple were required to surmount beyond simply notifying the vicar or local register office.

There’s another royal wedding happening in just a few days, so we’re using this as an excuse to tell you about the new UK law that effected some changes after William and Kate’s big day, including a requirement that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle had to follow in order for their wedding on Saturday to be lawful. The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 repealed the Royal Marriages Act 1772 doing away gender inequity, a religious requirement for royal spouses, and a cumbersome hurdle for very distant royal relations.

The first provision of the 2013 act was in the news just weeks ago: it instated absolute primogeniture rather than male-preference primogeniture in the United Kingdom. When William and Kate’s third child, Prince Louis, was born on April 23, his sister Princess Charlotte became the first British princess ever to retain her position in line to the throne and not be leapfrogged by a younger brother. She remains fourth in line to the throne after her grandfather Prince Charles, father Prince William, and elder brother Prince George.

In making this change, the UK joined Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, and Luxembourg in modernizing their monarchies. Fun side note: Belgium, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands all have one or more female heirs in direct line to their thrones! As we shared in 2011, the UK monarch is also the head of state in 15 Commonwealth realms (including Canada, New Zealand, and Jamaica). In order not to have different heads of state in these countries, during the biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting (aka CHOGM) held in Perth, Australia in October 2011, these nations agreed to update their laws to match, which they all did in 2015. Alas for any ambitions of Princess Anne–Queen Elizabeth II’s only daughter–the UK and Commonwealth laws were not retroactive and she remains in her place after younger brothers Princes Andrew and Edward.

The second provision of the Succession of the Crown Act 2013 removed the provision of the Act of Settlement 1701 that those in the line of succession who married Roman Catholics be disqualified from the line of succession. This provision was retroactive, and restored the Queen’s cousin, Prince Michael of Kent, and his children and grandchildren, to the line of succession starting in position number 46. Read about the history of why Catholic spouses were forbidden for heirs to the throne in our earlier post.

As for Harry and Meghan, the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 requires–as did the defunct Royal Marriages Act of 1772–that they seek permission from the Queen in order to marry. The big difference here is the number of other people the new act affects compared to the prior act. The Royal Marriages Act of 1772 specified that:

No descendant of his late Majesty, [King George II] (other than the issue of princesses married, or who may marry into foreign families) shall be capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of his Majesty, his heirs, &c.

This might have been reasonable at the time, but over 200 years later there are so many descendants of George II that even dedicated royal watchers won’t recognize some names of recent couples on the list of consents for marriages under the Act who had to seek the Queen’s permission in order to have a valid marriage.

The 2013 Act stipulates that “a person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying.” Since Harry is currently 6th in line, his marriage is likely to be the last such instance of permission sought and granted for a good 20-30 years–presumably when his nephews or niece marry.

Hand-illuminated Instrument of Consent

Hand-illuminated Instrument of Consent

Harry and Meghan’s consent to marry was officially approved by his grandmother the Queen on March 14. They will also receive a hand-illuminated Instrument of Consent on vellum, suitable for framing, just as his brother and sister-in-law did. Although this aspect of the consent isn’t law-related, it’s both fun and strange as an American to see some of our symbols included on such a document in honor of Markle’s American and Californian heritage. The left side of the document contains traditional emblems of the realms of the United Kingdom, and Harry’s coronet. On the right is a leek–an emblem of Wales (as son of the Prince of Wales aka Prince Charles, Harry’s formal title until his grandmother gives him the job title upgrade to Duke on the wedding morning is Prince Henry of Wales)–surrounded by a heraldic-style rose (national flower of the United States since 1986), California’s golden poppies, and olive branches adapted from the Great Seal of the United States. Heraldry geeks may also note the labels on both sides featuring shells or “escallops” from the Spencer coat of arms, the family of Harry’s mother, Diana. Read more about the art and symbolism and get some closeups at ye olde royal website.

In addition to all the other things that will change in her life, there’s one more thing the formerly politically active American bride will have to get used to: not voting.  Watchers of Netflix’s The Crown may have picked up on the requirement that the Queen be politically neutral, including not voting. This is a requirement that comes from tradition rather than law, and the rest of her family are presumed to follow suit. Read more about the Queen’s role in government.

Happy royal wedding watching to everyone who will be up at 4am this Saturday!

We’re hiring: Project Archivist, Justice Antonin Scalia Papers

Antonin Scalia, HLS Yearbook Photo, 1960The Harvard Law School Library seeks an experienced, collaborative, and service-oriented processing archivist for a one-year term beginning July 1, 2018. Reporting to the Curator of Modern Manuscripts within the Historical & Special Collections unit (HSC), the successful candidate will survey United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s collection of scholarly and professional work, develop a multi-year processing plan, and begin describing the collection in an Encoded Archival Description (EAD) finding aid.

More details–including duties, responsibilities, and qualifications and how to apply–available at our job posting.

Learn more about the donation of the Justice’s papers to the Library in our earlier post, Justice Scalia’s papers donated to HLS Library–what’s next?

About Historical & Special Collections: HSC is a small and energetic team within Harvard Law School Library engaged with all aspects of special collections work. Harvard Law School Library’s collection of historic legal materials is one of the largest in the world, and includes rare books, early manuscripts, visual materials, and modern manuscripts. As members of the Harvard Law School Library, team members contribute to the Law School’s mission by collecting and sharing our materials with the HLS community and with researchers worldwide. As active members of the large and thriving Harvard Library community, HSC staff collaborate with colleagues to share information, solve problems, and learn.

Photo credit: Justice Antonin Scalia’s HLS Year Book portrait, 1960. Justice Scalia graduated from the Harvard Law School in 1960. He worked at a large law firm, taught law at the University of Virginia, the University of Chicago, and Stanford; and held several administrative posts in the federal government. He served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, before being appointed to the Supreme Court in 1986. The collection includes material relating to all of these activities.

Scanning Nuremberg: “Your child belongs to us already.”

Post by Matt Seccombe, May 7, 2018

During April I analyzed the documents in seven IMT prosecution document books, covering 245 documents and 770 pages of material. The subjects covered diverse elements of the “Common plan or conspiracy” charge (count 1), including totalitarian control, education and youth, propaganda, purges and terrorization, labor, and suppression of Christian churches. The material reflects the prosecution’s central argument, that the war crimes and crimes against humanity (counts 3 and 4) were derivative of the primary crime—the war of aggression (count 2)—and that the entire Nazi regime was a common plan to take control of Germany and mobilize it for that war.

Tactics: While the main story of the rise to power is familiar, partly due to the trial’s function in presenting the record to the world, some of the details are surprising. Beyond thuggery in the streets, some of the early measures were more subtle. One affidavit described a tactic used by Goebbels in Berlin: “Once, in order to disrupt the premiere of the film ‘All Quiet on the Western Front,’ he had white mice smuggled into the theater and then set them free; this caused an indescribable panic among the female moviegoers.”

Militarization: The evidence confirms the theme that the regime was dedicated to war from the outset and that it worked systematically to militarize every element of German society. The take-over of the trade unions in May 1933 was not simply a matter of controlling the organizations. It extended to the reorientation of work, as reflected in the rhetoric: Nazi activists in workplaces were the “Factory Troops,” and workers became “Soldiers of Labor.”

The message was pervasive in the Hitler Youth organizations: “He who wants to live should also fight!” “Fight is the highest aim of youth.” “For Hitler we live, For Hitler we die.” (By the way, Hitler Youth organizations operated in many countries outside Germany, including the United States.)

The indoctrination extended to young children, including one very young boy who was visited by a monitor at home. She told him, “You must grow up and be a big boy so you can fight for the Fuehrer.” He replied, “I don’t like to fight.” The lesson was repeated.

Hitler himself made the point most emphatically. In a speech in November 1933 he addressed those who had opposed him and would never support him. That no longer mattered, he told them: “Your child belongs to us already”

The HLS Library holds approximately one million pages of documents relating to the trial of military and political leaders of Nazi Germany before the International Military Tribunal (IMT) and to the twelve trials of other accused war criminals before the United States Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT). We have posted five trials so far (NMT 1 through NMT 4 and NMT 7) and have completed digitization of all the documents and transcripts. 

We are now engaged in the process of analyzing, describing and making machine readable the remaining trials’ materials in preparation for posting them to the Web. We hope to complete this work as soon as possible based upon available funding.  For more information about this project, please contact Jocelyn Kennedy.

Summer Renovations Coming to a Library Near You!

We are improving our spaces to improve our services!

Beginning May 2018, the HLS Library will undergo renovation to bring our Research Services, Teaching, Learning, & Curriculum Solutions, and administrative staff closer to you, our users! Our renovations will occur over two summers, and our renovated spaces will include updated technology in our study rooms; open collaborative spaces; new private talking spaces; and easy access to library experts on the 2nd and 3rd floors of Langdell Hall.

During the Summer of 2018, we will renovate Langdell 3 South and Langdell 2 South. Our second renovation aka Phase 2 will take place during summer 2019 (more about this below).

Here’s our tentative schedule for phase 1:

Friday, May 18: Langdell 3 South will be walled off for the start of the renovation

Friday, May 25: The Lemann Lounge will be walled off for construction immediately after Commencement.

Construction will take place throughout the summer.

October 2018: Research Services and Teaching, Learning, & Curriculum Solutions will move from the fourth and fifth floors of Areeda Hall to the renovated area in Langdell 3 South. The renovated space will include an open, collaborative area and three group study rooms with improved technology.

Library Administration will move from the fifth floor of Areeda Hall to the south side of Langdell 2.

What about the art?

Don’t worry–paintings and sculptures in affected areas will be stored or relocated in the Library to prevent any damage during renovation.

What about noise?

We will do everything we can to minimize the sound and disruption during renovation. However, there is always some disruption and noise. All heavy construction will finish by 10am each day. We’ll have plenty of earplugs available and noise-canceling headphones available for check out at the Circulation Desk on a first-come, first-served basis.

What if it’s still noisy or I have a question or suggestion? 

Please email hlslweb@law.harvard.edu.

What about the Reading Room?

We love the Reading Room just the way it is! No changes are planned.

How do I find a book?

Check our guide to finding items at the HLS Library, which is being updated regularly. If you still can’t find something, just ask.

What about Phase 2?

We will start planning for Phase 2 in late summer. We value your input! Please watch your email, library and student org space bulletin boards, and our lightning lesson table for opportunities to participate in the planning. We’ve done some preliminary research with student groups and can tell you that the area will remain student-focused for study and collaboration. Have thoughts now? Email hlslweb@law.harvard.edu.

How can I stay up to date on what’s happening?

Watch this blog space and our social media for periodic progress reports.

Are you really excited about the renovations?

Yes, we’re super excited about getting more collaborative and modular space that will bring us closer to our community. We can’t wait to welcome you to our new and improved Research Services, TLC, and Library Administration areas in October!

852 Rare: Feud in Wiltshire

This is the third in a series of five blogs about Historical & Special Collections’ English Manor Rolls (1305-1770). HSC was honored to have Eleanor GoerssPforzheimer Fellow ’17, with us last summer to perform research on and enhance description of this internationally-important collection, including authoring these posts. Stay tuned for more of what you’ll find, often unexpectedly, in this collection.

 

Here’s what a fourteenth-century English feud looks like, pieced together from court manor records. Warning: it involves blood.

Great Wishford, Wiltshire, Folder 162, Membrane HH (June, 1374)

Great Wishford, Wiltshire, Folder 162, Membrane HH (June, 1374)

The first entry in the section of the roll pictured above says that Gonne Brighamton, “unjustly and against the peace, drew blood from Margaret Conperes” [Gonne Brighamton iniuste et contra pacem traxit sanguinem de Margareta] and was fined four pence for it. In the next entry Walter Conperes and his wife Margaret bring a complaint against Gonne Brighamton for trespassing, saying that “she assaulted the said Margaret, who was beaten and badly handled against the peace, to damages of 50 s.” Gonne was fined three pence.

But we quickly learn that Margaret was not exactly a passive victim. The next two entries say: first, Margaret drew blood from the Gonne, and second that Margaret was fined for trespassing against Gonne, beating her and handling her badly, also for damages of 50 shillings.

In other words, Margaret and Gonne settled their bloody fight in court, loudly letting everyone know about it while also paying out a total of fourteen pence to the lord. An out-of-court settlement would have been much cheaper; in fourteenth-century Wiltshire the going rate for a “license of concord,” or permission to let charges drop, was only two pence!

Voting With Your Feet? Better Check Protocol First…

Today we’re sharing an addendum to our Scanning Nuremberg series written by document analyst Judith Haran.

Post by Judith Haran, May 3, 2018

I’ve been analyzing documents for the HLS Nuremberg Project for a year now, and I’ve seen a lot of odd and often disturbing tales: stories of slave labor on a scale difficult to imagine, starvation, beatings, even kidnapping of children from lands to the east of the Third Reich. My task for the past three months has been to read through and index transcripts of the “Industrialist Trials”—the trials of the directors of Krupp (armament makers), I.G. Farben (a huge chemical conglomerate, whose product line included Zyklon B) and the Flick concern (a coal/steel industrial empire). The transcripts are long, up to 13,000 pages in the case of the Krupp trial, and can get repetitive at times. But the stories they tell are endlessly fascinating.

April was devoted to the Krupp trial. Over two hundred witnesses testified between November 1947 and the following June. In addition to ‘hearing’ what the witnesses had to say (which included accounts of people being locked inside steel cabinets, beaten with shovels, and dying in air raids after being excluded from shelters), I find that some of the juiciest tidbits come from ‘eavesdropping’ on conversations between the judges and the attorneys . . .endless arguments over admissibility of evidence, techniques of cross-examination (apparently not part of the European tradition), and other points of legal strategy. But the atmosphere, as far as this reader can tell, remained cordial and professional . . . most of the time.

Members of the defense counsel watch and listen as evidence is presented against their clients in the Justice Case. Left to right: Dr. Alfred Schilf of Ansbach defending Herbert Klemm; Dr. Erich Wandschneider of Hamburg-Othmarschen defending Curt Rothenberger and Dr. Heinrich Grub of Nurnberg defending Ernst Lautz.

Members of the defense counsel watch and listen as evidence is presented against their clients in the Justice Case, one of the current war crimes trials at Nurnberg directed against the former Nazi judges and public prosecutors. Left to right: Dr. Alfred Schilf of Ansbach defending Herbert Klemm; Dr. Erich Wandschneider of Hamburg-Othmarschen defending Curt Rothenberger and Dr. Heinrich Grub of Nurnberg defending Ernst Lautz. olvwork376096

Three American jurists ran the Krupp trial: Judge Anderson of Tennessee, Judge Daly of Connecticut, and Judge Wilkins of Seattle, Washington. Anderson, the official presiding judge, ran a tight ship. However, a major upheaval in his otherwise peaceful courtroom occurred on trial day 21, a cold, damp day in January, 1948. Perhaps it was the ongoing lack of decent food in the city, or the sub-par accommodations. Perhaps the heat, which wasn’t that great to begin with, wasn’t working that day. In any event, the tensions that had been simmering beneath the surface since the start of the trials in 1945 finally came to a boil. Alfred Schilf, counsel for defendant Friedrich Janssen, lost his composure.

 

After listening to the prosecution present written evidence for all of a Friday morning, Herr Schilf tried to raise a point about an issue from the day before. Judge Daly, who was presiding that day, interrupted him. Things quickly began to get heated. Schilf got angry and attempted yet again to speak. Daly shot him down harshly: “There will be no further discussion on that.”

Schilf, however, wouldn’t give up.

“Your honor, I protest that I am not permitted to go on. . .”
“Did you hear me say, counselor, that there will be no further discussion on this question?”
“Yes, and I protest against this ruling and request that a decision of another court. . .”
“You will please take your seat or I will order you removed from the courtroom.”
“Ich bitte darum,” (I ask you to) replied Schilf, with an acid tone of voice (as it later emerged in testimony).
“All right, you can remove yourself, then,” the judge replied.1

Schilf left the courtroom in a huff, and the prosecution continued presenting written evidence for the next few hours. After 47 additional pieces of evidence had been presented, Judge Daly finally noticed that none of the twenty-odd members of the defense team were present in the courtroom, remarking “They perhaps folded their tents.” He sent the marshal out to round them up. It took thirty minutes to find them.

What happened next came as a shock to the defense team. Daly found that twelve of them had left deliberately and announced that these twelve were to be held in contempt of court. Asked why they had left, a spokesman for the group told the judges, “An injustice had been done to our honor.” Daly ordered the marshal to arrest the leaders of the group and to keep them in prison for the weekend.

One of the accused tried to speak, through the interpreter. Daly was having none of it.

“No, you are not going to say anything. You are in contempt of this Tribunal, and you’re not going to say anything until you’ve purged yourself.” It was late Friday afternoon; Daly adjourned the court until Monday. Over the weekend, newspapers around the world ran the story about the arrest of the German lawyers.

The offenders all trooped back into court on Monday morning. The presiding judge read them the riot act, accusing them of openly challenging not only the Tribunal’s authority, but also the authority of all of the nations currently occupying Germany. After he said his piece, the “trial within a trial” began.

Otto Kranzbuehler, the brilliant (and bilingual) leading defense attorney, who’d been absent on the fateful day, was appointed to represent the accused. His first motion, to have the case heard by a different tribunal, was quickly overruled. He called Schilf to testify. Together they examined Friday’s events in minute, excruciating detail. Schilf had taken umbrage over Daly repeatedly interrupting him, and insisted that in his 25 years of legal practice, neither he nor anyone else he knew had ever been removed from a courtroom.

6 Krupp Lawyers Jailed by Court: New York Times article about the incident, January 17, 1946.

6 Krupp Lawyers Jailed by Court: New York Times article about the incident, January 17, 1946.

Translation difficulties, as it turned out, accounted for some of the misunderstanding. Differences between German and American court protocol and expectations accounted for much of the rest. Grievances were aired; explanations were made on both sides. Apologies were asked for and given, first by Schilf, and then, as Monday dragged on into Tuesday, by most of the others involved. Only one, Guenther Geisseler, held out, refusing to apologize or even admit to any wrongdoing.

At the end of the two days of testimony, Kranzbuehler summarized the events, as well as German legal custom, for the Tribunal.  The American judges must have been surprised to hear that it was perfectly legal in Germany for counsel to walk out of the courtroom in protest, and that lawyers of that country were never found “in contempt” for any reason. Unfortunately for the lawyers in question, that country, the Germany they had grown up in, lay in ruins around them. Another sixteen months would have to pass before its successor state, the Federal Republic of Germany, was officially founded in May 1949.

It was Wednesday before the bench announced that it would accept the apologies of the five lawyers (graciously, one hopes), but would disqualify Geisseler, the intransigent one, from continuing in the case. The larger trial got underway again, and the transcript continues on (and on, and on) for another eleven thousand pages. I’m happy to report that after January 16th, with the exception of a few snide remarks (on both sides), everyone behaved themselves just fine.

Judith Haran is a graduate student in Library and Information Sciences who works part time as a document analyst for the Nuremberg Project at HLS. She also writes fiction about WW2, and maintains a blog at judithharan.com. She posts on Twitter as @judithharan.

1 William Manchester, The Arms of Krupp, New York, Little Brown, 1968, 651-652.

In addition to Manchester’s book, the following are useful sources on the trials:

  • Taylor, T. (1992). The anatomy of the Nuremberg trials: A personal memoir­­­­­­­­­­­­. New York, NY: Knopf.
    An insider account written years later by the Chief Counsel of the US prosecution team.
  • von Knieriem, A. (1959). The Nuremberg Trials. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co.
    A legal analysis of the trials, from point of view of a German lawyer. Translated from the German. The author, who was general counsel to IG Farben, was himself tried and acquitted after the war.

The HLS Library holds approximately one million pages of documents relating to the trial of military and political leaders of Nazi Germany before the International Military Tribunal (IMT) and to the twelve trials of other accused war criminals before the United States Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT). We have posted five trials so far (NMT 1 through NMT 4 and NMT 7) and have completed digitization of all the documents and transcripts. 

We are now engaged in the process of analyzing, describing and making machine readable the remaining trials’ materials in preparation for posting them to the Web. We hope to complete this work as soon as possible based upon available funding. For more information about this project, please contact Jocelyn Kennedy.

Summer 2018 and new alumni access to legal research databases

Summer is coming–really! And with it, questions about access to our databases. Read on for answers for both continuing students and those of you who will soon be alumni!

BLOOMBERG LAW
For summer: if your workplace has a Bloomberg Law account, you are expected to use that, but there are no restrictions on your HLS Bloomberg accounts over the summer. Need an account? Just sign up with your HLS email address.

For new alumni: graduating students will have access to Bloomberg Law for a six month post-graduation grace period, ending November 30, 2018.

For questions and assistance with Bloomberg Law, please contact our rep, Rebecca Schwartz.

LEXIS
For summer
: Harvard Law students have free, unlimited summer access, regardless of their summer position, to Lexis Advance for the summer of 2018. Students can use their Harvard Law student account regardless of whether they are getting paid to work this summer. Please note that some employers may ask that students not conduct work related legal research on their school ID. So long as a student has a current, active Lexis Advance account, they do not need to sign-up for anything to take advantage of summer access.

For new alumni: graduating students will have free, unlimited access to Lexis Advance through their HLS accounts until June 2018. In July 2018, Lexis Advance student IDs will automatically transition to Graduate IDs. Graduate IDs are not affiliated with the law school and expire on December 31, 2018. Graduate IDs offer recent graduates the opportunity to continue to do free, unlimited research on Lexis Advance while studying for the bar and becoming more confident with their legal research skills.

For questions and assistance with Lexis, please contact our rep, Reeves Gillis.

WESTLAW
For summer: You can use Thomson Reuters products, including Westlaw and Practical Law, over the summer for non-commercial research. You can turn to these resources to gain understanding and build confidence in your research skills, but you cannot use them in situations where you are billing a client. Examples of permissible uses for your academic password include the following:

  • Summer coursework
  • Research assistant assignments
  • Law Review or Journal research
  • Moot Court research
  • Non-Profit work
  • Clinical work
  • Externship sponsored by the school
  • Pro bono work required or encouraged by the school

You do not have to do anything to gain access to these tools over the summer.

For new alumni: you have access to Thomson Reuters products, including Westlaw and Practical Law, for six months after graduation by registering for Grad Elite access here. Your “Grad Elite” access gives you 60-hours of usage on these products per month to gain understanding and build confidence in your research skills. While you cannot use it in situations where you are billing a client, Thomson Reuters encourages you to use these tools to build your knowledge of the law and prepare for your bar exam.

For questions and assistance with Westlaw, please contact our Thomson Reuters Academic Account Manager, Mark Frongillo.

OTHER DATABASES
Continuing students have full access over the summer to most other library resources at Harvard simply using your HUIDs and PINs. So if you need JSTOR, HeinOnline, Academic Search Premier or most other databases, you’re all set!

New alumni continue to have access to some databases, including HeinOnline’s Law Journal Library and the CQ Press Library, a great source for information and data on government and politics. Click through to our guide to Library Services for HLS Alumni for information about how to claim your Harvard Key and get access, plus learn about other resources for alumni and how to stay connected from afar.

QUESTIONS?
If you have questions about summer access, alumni access, or any research-related questions over the summer and beyond, you can always contact the library. Our full contact details are available at Ask a Librarian.

%d bloggers like this: