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 have entailed a detailed and close examination of the Vichy regime. Finally, it was perfectly clear from the comments of the jurors, whose selection was flawed to begin with, that they did not have an open mind and that their expressions to that effect went unnoted by the court.64
When the trial resumed the next day, Laval’s lawyers again asked to be relieved from representing him. They specifically pointed to the broken promise that the investigatory stage would take place over at least twenty-five sessions. In light of the stated need to end the trial before the elections, then just two weeks away, they felt there was not nearly enough time to present a defense that touched on all facets of France’s complex history during the Second World War. Raising the bar, they asked that Laval be given at least the same rights as the “monsters” of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, being tried at the same time by the British in occupied Germany65
Mornet, the prosecutor, responded that the case was not complex. Rather, it was based almost entirely on documents, specifically Laval’s speeches or other public statements that were not disputed and which made France the accomplice of its aggressor and dishonored it in the eyes of the world.66 The court then took a recess. On its return, the court announced that it did not have the power to reopen the preliminary investigation. The trial would proceed. Laval could raise whatever defenses he felt were appropriate during the course of the trial.67
The trial continued with Laval representing himself, with his roles as witness and advocate constantly shifting. The prosecution focused on his involvement in the transport of thousands of French men to work in Germany, a major component of the collaboration charge. Laval had repeatedly justified his involvement by noting that he arranged for the release of French prisoners of war in exchange for sending workers to Germany. In a rejoinder, the prosecution alluded to evidence that Laval said that most French prisoners would have to wait until the end of the war to be released.68 Agreeing that he signed documents that directed workers to Germany, Laval urged it was important to know why he signed such documents and then restated the moot point that this type of investigation should have been done during the preliminary stage.69 In a concession to Laval, the court noted that the charge was not that he was complicit in the creation of the new form of government—the National Assembly had voted overwhelmingly in favor of it—rather, he was liable for abuses that occurred under the new form of government.70
Laval spent much of the balance of the October 5 session going into extraordinary depth and detail with regard to the history of his leadership. One of his lawyers, present, though not participating in the proceedings, commented that “Laval finished up by being terribly verbose and boring. His interminable expositions on the birth of the Vichy regime were listened to by an icy jury, upon whom no argument seemed to have any effect…. [The] hearing which had begun in a high state of excitement ended in somnolence.”71 Of course, this is precisely why ordinarily an accused should not represent himself. It is difficult to remain objective and perceive events through eyes and ears other than one’s own if one is also the litigant in the case, with a direct and powerful stake in its outcome.
The following day, October 6, began tranquilly enough. Laval read into evidence correspondence relating to his efforts at having a full preliminary examination and a lengthier trial.72 His reiteration of a lost issue seemed to have raised the emotions of everyone in court again. The prosecutor asked about the enactment of laws under the Vichy regime that Laval had signed. Laval replied that the prosecutor had applied these laws without objection at the time. The court then rushed to the defense of the prosecutor by warning Laval of the serious consequences of contempt.73 A dispute then arose when Laval, with his “nonparticipating” lawyers, added they had been deprived of documents. The prosecutor responded that everything they needed to know was in the indictment. The court then asked several questions, and at one point interrupted Laval’s answer by observing that France knew all about what he had done over the four years of the Vichy regime.74 Laval observed that the court asked the questions and at the same time answered them.75 Several jurors then shouted that “justice would be done,”76 and “French justice”77—whereupon Laval said he would not answer any further questions. As he did on the trial’s first day, the presiding judge directed the guards to remove Laval from the courtroom. Jurors then shouted out “instigator,” “a bastard,” “twelve bullets,” and “he will never change.”78 Laval remarked that this was extraordinary.79 The wild scene ended with the disturbingly accurate statement by a juror that Laval had already been judged and France had judged him as well.80
When the trial resumed later in the afternoon, Mongibeaux, the presiding judge, announced that the court had completed the first phase of the case relating to the charge of plotting against the state. It now turned to the second charge: collaboration with the enemy.81 This was remarkable since no witnesses had yet been called by the prosecution; the entire process had been a dialogue with Laval resulting in a narrowing of the charge, so as not to include the actual creation of the Vichy regime. Laval responded that in light of the way the court had questioned him and the reactions of some of the jurors, he felt he might be the victim of a judicial crime and, therefore, he would remain silent, not wishing to be an accomplice to the process.82 The court then directed Mornet to call the first prosecution witness. When Mornet said he had none, Mongibeaux adjourned the proceedings for the day.83 When the trial resumed the next day, Laval was not present.
The first witness called by the prosecution on the following day was Albert Lebrun, the last president of the Third Republic. Lebrun testified as to Laval’s part in the transition from the Third Republic to the Vichy regime. This was odd since the court had previously indicated that Laval’s part in the transition would not be part of the charge, but only what he had done afterwards. Lebrun testified it was his view that after the collapse of the French army, it would have been better to have a government-in-exile than a French government that would only be endorsing the policies of the occupier.84 This was juxtaposed with Laval’s view that to leave France was treasonous.85 Lebrun’s testimony ended with a less than ringing