We tend to think of history’s great atrocities as moral failures that are obvious in hindsight. Evil acts, evil people, and clear lines between right and wrong.
But the harder question (which still haunts legal systems today) is this: how do you turn moral certainty into legal accountability when the law itself doesn’t yet exist?
That question has been back in public conversation recently with the release of the film Nuremberg. But it was never theoretical for the Allies in the wake of World War II. They weren’t just confronting the scale of the crimes; they were operating in an almost impossible legal position.
No established crime for what we now call crimes against humanity. No clear roadmap for holding individuals responsible for actions carried out under the color of domestic law.
And nowhere was that tension more visible than in the trial of Hermann Göring.
What looks, at first glance, like a straightforward prosecution unravels into something far more complex. A courtroom filled with politics, ego, performance, and legal improvisation. A defendant who understood power, optics, and narrative better than many of the people questioning him. And a cross-examination that’s now infamous.
This case forces us to confront an uncomfortable truth: accountability doesn’t come from outrage alone. It comes from systems, structure, and the discipline to resist fighting on the wrong terrain.
Nuremberg wasn’t just a legal milestone. It was a test of whether law could rise to meet morality without collapsing into vengeance or theater.
To unpack all of this, I sat down with criminal lawyer and Crown prosecutor David Parry. He has spent years studying the Nuremberg trials and their legacy.
Together, we explored what Göring’s testimony reveals about human nature, why Robert Jackson’s cross-examination still matters, and how the innovations born at Nuremberg continue to shape international law today.
You’ll Also Learn
- Why Nuremberg wasn’t inevitable, and how close the Allies came to abandoning trials altogether
- How retroactive justice became one of the most controversial but necessary legal innovations of the 20th century
- Why Göring’s charisma and ego made him such a dangerous witness on the stand
- What not to do in cross-examination when facing a powerful, combative defendant
- How “arguing with the witness” quietly hands them control of the courtroom
- Why structure (not emotion) is the prosecutor’s most powerful tool
- How film evidence changed the trial when words failed
- What Nuremberg teaches us about accountability, power, and the fragility of democratic systems
- Why law is ultimately an attempt to discipline our moral instincts, not replace them
About the Guest
David Parry is a criminal lawyer and Crown prosecutor who began his career in private practice before moving into public prosecution. He has a long-standing interest in international law, legal ethics, and the history of the Nuremberg Trials—particularly how the International Military Tribunal grappled with accountability, morality, and the limits of law in the aftermath of World War II. His work sits at the intersection of legal theory and real-world courtroom practice, which makes him especially well-placed to unpack what actually happened inside the courtroom at Nuremberg.
About Your Host
Areta Lloyd practices estate and trusts litigation, with a particular focus on capacity litigation. She participates in public speaking, mentoring junior lawyers, and presenting courses on the topics of estates law, health law, and law practice management. Areta has written for several publications and has written a column for the Alzheimer's caregiver website ALZlive.com.
Have a suggestion for a great case to feature on the show? Email me at hello@onegreatcase.com
Looking for support in your legal career? The Toronto Lawyers Association offers resources, networking, and legal research at no cost. Visit https://www.tlaonline.ca/.
