During the trial Brothman's lawyer explained that he had passed out unclassified blueprints as a way of drumming up business. (3) The blueprints, which were his own, sometimes were returned and sometimes were not. Elizabeth Bentley was one of the most important witnesses against Brothman. She insisted that Brothman was a secret member of the Communist Party of the United States and that she collected his dues. Bentley testified: "Usually we first had something to eat. By the time it was fairly late and then during the meal I would explain the latest Communist Party policy and theories to Mr. Brothman or he would talk a bit about himself, and then afterwards he would hand me the blueprints and sometimes he would dictate a very involved technical explanation of what the blueprints were all about." (4) Bentley also claimed that Brothman told her that "he had access to blueprints for what he termed a kettle to be made for the United States arsenal in Edgewood, Maryland. She said that Jacob Golos told her that the Soviets "would be very much interested in obtaining that particular blueprint." (5)

Harry Gold also testified against Brothman. He argued that his first meeting was on 29th September, 1941. At the second meeting, Gold told Brothman what industrial information was desired by the Soviet Union and also asked for "any and all information which Abe might find available to him regarding matters of military interest." Gold claimed that at their fourth meeting he gave him a "blueprint of a piece of chemical equipment known as an esterifier." Irving Saypol asked him what he did with this blueprint and he replied that he gave it to Semyon Semyonov. Gold also told the court that Brothman told him that he had given Golos and Bentley "plans regarding high octane gasoline, a turbine aircraft engine, and an early model of the jeep." (6)

Gold admitted that he went to work as chief chemist for Abraham Brothman in May 1946. He was promised the possibility of becoming a partner. However, the company was not profitable. Gold commented: "When there was no money, I was a partner. When there was money, I became an employee." Gold claimed that he was owed $4,000 in back salary when he left the company. Gold was eventually sacked and Brothman changed the locks to keep him out.

Walter Schneir and Miriam Schneir, the authors of Invitation to an Inquest (1983) pointed out: "The forgotten defendant at the trial was Miss Moskowitz. The formal charge against her, conspiring to obstruct justice, provided no details - she was not named in any of the overt acts of the indictment. The single witness against her, Harry Gold, mentioned her only infrequently and in such oblique terms that it was impossible to judge whether she had been a conscious participant in the alleged conspiracy. Gold testified that Miss Moskowitz had been present at some of the dinner and other meetings at which he and Brothman discussed their FBI interviews and grand jury appearances and indicated that she had given them her approval and encouragement, but he told almost nothing about what she had said." It emerged during his testimony, that Gold disliked Moskowitz. He claimed that she treated him badly and without sufficient dignity and was "unkind" and that he had "found her to have a violent temper" and "avoided her." (7)

Abraham Brothman and Miriam Moskowitz did not testify on their own behalf. Moskowitz argued that the reason for this was they did not want to expose the fact that they were having an affair. “He was married. I had no right to do that. And I was overcome, I guess, with humiliation that I had ever let myself get into that.” (8) The jury was not impressed by this decision and after deliberating for three hours and fifty minutes, the jury found both defendants guilty.

Judge Irving Kaufman expressed "regret that the law under which these defendants are to be sentenced is so limited and so restricted that I can only pass the sentence which I am going to pass, for I consider their offense in this case to be of such gross magnitude. I have no sympathy or mercy for these defendants in my heart, none whatsoever." He sentenced both to the maximum term permissible under the statute: Brothman, seven years and a $15,000 fine; Miss Moskowitz, two years and a $10,000 fine. (9)

Alexander Feklissov, a Soviet diplomat working as an intelligence agent in New York City later argued: "On July 29 it would be Harry Gold's former employer Abraham Brothman's turn, along with Miriam Moskowitz, his associate and mistress, to go behind bars. Neither one had anything to do with atomic espionage nor even with the Rosenberg network. Brothman, code named Konstruktor and subsequently Expert, had worked for the INO but had only provided the results of his own research, which had no military value... As for Miriam Moskowitz, while she knew of her lover's secret activities, she had taken no part in them." (10)

His most famous case concerned the trial of Julius Rosenberg, Ethel Rosenberg and Morton Sobell began on 6th March 1951. Irving Saypol opened the case: "The evidence will show that the loyalty and alliance of the Rosenbergs and Sobell were not to our country, but that it was to Communism, Communism in this country and Communism throughout the world... Sobell and Julius Rosenberg, classmates together in college, dedicated themselves to the cause of Communism... this love of Communism and the Soviet Union soon led them into a Soviet espionage ring... You will hear our Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Sobell reached into wartime projects and installations of the United States Government... to obtain... secret information... and speed it on its way to Russia.... We will prove that the Rosenbergs devised and put into operation, with the aid of Soviet... agents in the country, an elaborate scheme which enabled them to steal through David Greenglass this one weapon, that might well hold the key to the survival of this nation and means the peace of the world, the atomic bomb." (11)

Judge Kaufman was criticised for allowing Saypol to question the Rosenbergs about their views about politics and the newspapers they read. Alexander Feklissov, the author of The Man Behind the Rosenbergs (1999) has argued: "Judge Kaufman and prosecutor Saypol insisted on questioning the Rosenbergs about their attitude toward Communism, their membership in the party and the fact that they read Communist newspapers such as The Daily Worker. That was the true purpose of this travesty of justice: to prove that Communist ideals were tantamount to treason toward one's country!" (12) Rosenberg reacted by invoking the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer questions about his possible membership of the Communist Party of the United States. (13)

In his summing up Judge Irving Kaufman was considered by many to have been highly subjective: "Judge Kaufman tied the crimes the Rosenbergs were being accused of to their ideas and the fact that they were sympathetic to the Soviet Union. He stated that they had given the atomic bomb to the Russians, which had triggered Communist aggression in Korea resulting in over 50,000 American casualties. He added that, because of their treason, the Soviet Union was threatening America with an atomic attack and this made it necessary for the United States to spend enormous amounts of money to build underground bomb shelters." (14)

The jury found all three defendants guilty. Thanking the jurors, Judge Kaufman, told them: "My own opinion is that your verdict is a correct verdict... The thought that citizens of our country would lend themselves to the destruction of their own country by the most destructive weapons known to man is so shocking that I can't find words to describe this loathsome offense." (15) Judge Kaufman sentenced Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to the death penalty and Morton Sobell to thirty years in prison.

David Caute, the author of The Great Fear (1978) has pointed out: "The Rosenberg jury found Julius and Ethel guilty of conspiracy to commit espionage, but made no recommendation as to sentence. The onus was on Judge Irving R. Kaufman alone. Although espionage during wartime was a crime punishable, under the Espionage Act of 1917, by death, no American court had ever sentenced a civilian to death for such a crime. And the Rosenbergs, after all, were accused of having passed information to an ally. Nevertheless, Judge Kaufman, clearly indoctrinated by the paranoid xenophobia of the time, treated them as if they - had committed treason, which means making war against or giving aid to an enemy at war with the United States." (16)

A large number of people were shocked by the severity of the sentence as they had not been found guilty of treason. In fact, they had been tried under the terms of the Espionage Act that had been passed in 1917 to deal with the American anti-war movement. Under the terms of this act, it was a crime to pass secrets to the enemy whereas these secrets had gone to an ally, the Soviet Union. During the Second World War several American citizens were convicted of passing information to Nazi Germany. Yet none of these people were executed.

J. Edgar Hoover was one of those who opposed the sentence. As Curt Gentry, the author of J. Edgar Hoover, The Man and the Secrets (1991) has pointed out: "While he thought the arguments against executing a woman were nothing more than sentimentalism, it was the 'psychological reaction' of the public to executing a wife and mother and leaving two small children orphaned that he most feared. The backlash, he predicted, would be an avalanche of adverse criticism, reflecting badly on the FBI, the Justice Department, and the entire government." (17)

However, the vast majority of newspapers in the United States supported the death-sentence of the Rosenbergs. Only the Daily Worker, the journal of the Communist Party of the United States, and the Jewish Daily Forward took a strong stance against the decision. (18) Julius Rosenberg wrote to Ethel that he was "amazed" by the "newspaper campaign organized against us". However, he insisted that "we will never lend ourselves to the tools to implicate innocent people, to confess crimes we never did and to help fan the flames of hysteria and help the growing witch hunt." (19) In another letter five days later he pointed out that it was "indeed a tragedy how the lords of the press can mold public opinion by printing... blatant falsehoods." (20)

In December 1952 the Rosenbergs appealed their sentence. Myles Lane, for the prosecution argued: "In my opinion, your Honor, this and this alone accounts for the stand which the Russians took in Korea, which... caused death and injury to thousands of American boys and untold suffering to countless others, and I submit that these deaths and this suffering, and the rest of the state of the world must be attributed to the fact that the Soviets do have the atomic bomb, and because they do... the Rosenbergs made a tremendous contribution to this despicable cause. If they (the Rosenbergs) wanted to cooperate... it would lead to the detection of any number of people who, in my opinion, are today doing everything that they can to obtain additional information for the Soviet Union... this is no time for a court to be soft with hard-boiled spies.... They have showed no repentance; they have stood steadfast in their insistence on their innocence." (21)

Judge Irving Kaufman agreed and responded with the judgment: "I am again compelled to conclude that the defendants' guilt... was established beyond doubt... Their traitorous acts were of the highest degree... It is apparent that Russia was conscious of the fact that the United States had the one weapon which gave it military superiority and that, at any price, it had to wrest that superiority from the United States by stealing the secret information concerning that weapon... Neither defendant has seen fit to follow the course of David Greenglass and Harry Gold. Their lips have remained sealed and they prefer the glory which they believe will be theirs by the martyrdom which will be bestowed upon them by those who enlisted them in this diabolical conspiracy (and who, indeed, desire them to remain silent)... I still feel that their crime was worse than murder... The application is denied." (22)

Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg remained on death row for twenty-six months. Two weeks before the date scheduled for their deaths, the Rosenbergs were visited by James V. Bennett, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. After the meeting they issued a statement: "Yesterday, we were offered a deal by the Attorney General of the United States. We were told that if we cooperated with the Government, our lives would be spared. By asking us to repudiate the truth of our innocence, the Government admits its own doubts concerning our guilt. We will not help to purify the foul record of a fraudulent conviction and a barbaric sentence. We solemnly declare, now and forever more, that we will not be coerced, even under pain of death, to bear false witness and to yield up to tyranny our rights as free Americans. Our respect for truth, conscience and human dignity is not for sale. Justice is not some bauble to be sold to the highest bidder. If we are executed it will be the murder of innocent people and the shame will be upon the Government of the United States." (23)

The case went before the Supreme Court. Three of the Justices, William Douglas, Hugo Black and Felix Frankfurter, voted for a stay of execution because they agreed with legal representation that the Rosenbergs had been tried under the wrong law. It was claimed that the 1917 Espionage Act, under which the couple had been indicted and sentenced, had been superseded by the penalty provisions of the 1946 Atomic Energy Act. Under the latter act, the death sentence may be imposed only when a jury recommends it and the offense was committed with intent to injure the United States. However, the other six voted for the execution to take place.

The Rosenbergs were executed on 19th June, 1953. "Julius Rosenberg, thirty-five, wordlessly went to his death at 8:06 P.M. Ethel Rosenberg, thirty-seven, entered the execution chamber a few minutes after her husband's body had been removed. Just before being seated in the chair, she held out her hand to a matron accompanying her, drew the other woman close, and kissed her lightly on the cheek. She was pronounced dead at 8:16 P.M." According to the New York Times the Rosenbergs went to their deaths "with a composure that astonished the witnesses." (24)

In 1961 President John F. Kennedy promoted Kaufman to an appellate position on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He served as an active Second Circuit judge for the next 27 years. On 7th October, 1987, he was presented with the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Ronald Reagan.

Irving Kaufman died of pancreatic cancer on 1st February, 1992. Miriam Moskowitz claims she attended the funeral and describes herself issuing a lengthy silent curse over his casket: “I damn you for having lusted for prestige and for having fed your obscene ambitions at my expense... Mr. Kaufman, look me in the eye and tell me that you did right." (25)

(1) Sidney Zion and Roy Cohn, The Autobiography of Roy Cohn (1989) page 66

(2) Walter Schneir and Miriam Schneir, Invitation to an Inquest (1983) page 92

(3) Ted Morgan, Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth-Century America (2003) page 282

(4) Elizabeth Bentley, testimony at the trial of Abraham Brothman and Miriam Moskowitz (14th November, 1950)

(5) The New York Tribune (15th November, 1950)

(6) Walter Schneir and Miriam Schneir, Invitation to an Inquest (1983) page 97

(7) Walter Schneir and Miriam Schneir, Invitation to an Inquest (1983) page 104

(8) Rebecca Mead, The New Yorker (29th November, 2010)

(9) Walter Schneir and Miriam Schneir, Invitation to an Inquest (1983) page 105

(10) Alexander Feklissov, The Man Behind the Rosenbergs (1999) page 252

(11) Irving Saypol, speech in court (6th March, 1951)

(12) Alexander Feklissov, The Man Behind the Rosenbergs (1999) page 264

(13) Walter Schneir and Miriam Schneir, Invitation to an Inquest (1983) page 147

(14) Alexander Feklissov, The Man Behind the Rosenbergs (1999) page 268-269

(15) Walter Schneir and Miriam Schneir, Invitation to an Inquest (1983) page 153

(16) David Caute, The Great Fear (1978) page 66

(17) Curt Gentry, J. Edgar Hoover, The Man and the Secrets (1991) page 424

(18) Walter Schneir and Miriam Schneir, Invitation to an Inquest (1983) page 176

(19) Julius Rosenberg, letter to Ethel Rosenberg (7th December, 1952)

(20) Julius Rosenberg letter to Ethel Rosenberg (12th December, 1952)

(21) Myles Lane, appearing before Judge Irving Kaufman (30th December, 1952)

(22) Judge Irving Kaufman, statement (2nd January, 1953)

(23) Statement issued by the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg after the visit of James V. Bennett, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (May, 1953)

(24) Walter Schneir and Miriam Schneir, Invitation to an Inquest (1983) page 253

(25) Rebecca Mead, The New Yorker (29th November, 2010)