"he has never been politically active. Out of love for his non-Ayran wife alone, he did not report as a German after setting up of the Protectorate and remained a national of the Protectorate. In deference to his wife he remained alo of from all political activity and devoted himself to his work Corresponding investigations will prove the correctness of these statement.
"He did not know that "Nina" (Anna Kopalewa), who was slightly acquainted with his wife and who visited the latter only occasionally, was, an out-and-out communist. During one of her visits to the house of the condemned she accidentally not there the son of his employer, Boris Geluatjew, but no political discussion took place. Both left together, and the condemned man is completely ignorant of the conversation which took place between these two. In any ca*** Boris Geluatjew asked him next day, if Anna Kopalowa **** not given him "something to read" for kin. When this happened after a few days, and Nina gave him a parcel of books or other printed matter wrapped on newspaper, which he could not read, because they were in Czech, and in the contents of which he was not interested, he did not refuse to take out of social considerations, and without giving much thought to their contents, purpose, and effect he handed then to Boris G., to when as the son of his employer he thought himself under an obligation and whose potential intercession with his father he did not want to forfeit. In the same way and in the same wrapping he received it back. This was repeated once or twice since Boris G. enquired frequently and a sked him to act as intermediary."
We turn now to Page 73, the third paragraph from t******t of the page in the English text:
"He remembers quite clearly that these packages were always wrapped in newspaper when received, handed on, unopened.
received , handed on, uponed, received back, and redirected to Nina.
"Besides , Boris G. will be able to confirm that between him and the condemned nothing was said about the contents of the paper which would have been likely, if the condemned would have been interested in the contents and in influencing Boris G., or if on the other hand Boris G. had intended to convict the condemned of Anti-German endeavors. I ask that Boris G., in case it should be relevant for a declared on the pardoning, be heard on this matter.
"With regard to the preceding remarks I beg you to examine the petition for a pardon and to grant it.
"Attorney for the Defense; A. Gruenwald, Notary Public."
We call attention only to one final note on Page 77, which we will not read, but only summarize to the effect that Jose. Weiss was executed in Ploetensee on 28 April 1943.
We therefore offer as Exhibit 184 the Document NG 356.
JUDGE BRAND: Was that addressed to any defendant in this case?
MR. KING: Which letter, Your Honor?
JUDGE BRAND: Of the defense attorney.
MR. KING: Oh. It was stated generally to be to the Chief Reich Prosecutor at the Peoples Court. At the time the defendant Lautz held that positon, although the letter does not mention his name specifically.
The next document which we wish to present and introduce at this time is NG 350 which, when for ally offered will beg Exhibit 185. That is to be found beginning on Page 86 of the English text.
THE PRESIDENT: There seems to be a difference of opinion among the Tribunal as to whether counsel offered Exhibit 184.
Document No. 356.
MR. KING: If I did not, Your Honor, I intended to c******l Document NG 356 as Exhibit 184.
THE PRESIDENT: Not knowing whet her it has been ruled upon I will rule now. It is received in evidence.
MR. KING: The record may show some duplication. May I say at this time for the benefit of the defense-counsel that after the case which I am next going to present we will the proceed to Document Book 3-H.
"In the name of the German people, in the criminal proceedings against the miner Josef Jamrozy from Michalkowitz, born on 6 July 1906 in Schlesisch-Ostrau, the miner Emil Dolas from Michalkowitz, born on 16 January 1911 in Michalkowitz, the miner Josef Voverka of Michalkowitz, born on 17 March 1910 in Sobesovice, all subjects of the Protectorate and at present in detention pending judicial i******gation for preparation for high treason, and other charge the People's Court, 6th Senate, on the strength of the trial at which attented as judges:
"Volsgerichtsrat Hartmann, Presiding Judge, Landgerichtsdirektor Dr. Lorenz, SS Oberfuebrer Tscharmann, SA Brigadefuehrer Hauer, Ministerialrat Singer , as deputy of Chief Public Prosecutor; Amtsgerichtsrat Rathmeyer, has judged:
"The defendants Jamrozy and Dolass have, until October 1941 been active in the Protectorate as functionaries" of the Communist Party in an organizing and agitating capacity. For having treasonably aided the enemy in conjunction with prepartation for high treason they are therefore sentence to death and to loss of their civil rights for life We turn to page 87, the last Paragraph on that page.
"It has thus been proved that the defendants Jamrozy and Dolas were active as functionaries of the KPD" - which is the Communist party, which would be clear if I had read the preceding portions of the opinion - "and that the defendant Voverka was an ordinary member of the KPD. The defendants were aware of this while engaged in their activities, nor did they have any doubt as to the aims of the KPD. As a section of the Komintern, the KPD aims at establishing a workers' and peasants' dictatorship of the proletariate in the territory of former Czechoslovakia and, since the foundation of the Protectorate, its abolition by force and its separation from the German Reich.
"The defendants, being politically interested and maintaining a hostile attitude to the German Reich, were acquainted with these aims. The statements which the leading functionary Bohac made at a meeting of his group in the presence of the defendants Jamrozy and Voverka as par ticularly illuminating regarding the aims of the KPD. They culminate in the statement that the Red Army would soon march into Czechoslovakia and put an end to the German rule. Accordingly, all three defendants are guilty of preparing territorial as well as constitutional high treason within the meaning of articles 80, paragraphs 1 and 2, 83, Paragraphs 2 and 3, Nos. 1 and 3 of the Criminal Code.
"Furthermore, the defendants Jamrozy and Dolas have also fulfilled the prerequisites of treasonably supporting and giving aid to the enemy under article 91b of the Criminal Code. Every Communist who after the outbreak of the war against Bolshevism continues to work for Communism, thereby promotes the enemies' plans for the annihilation of the Reich and adversely affects the war potential of the Reich by contributing through his undermining activities towards a weakening of the German homefront. At least every functionary who holds a more senior p****** in the illegal organization realizes this consequence of his anti-crime activities. For that reason, the defendants Jamrozy and Dolas also were aware of the significance of their actions. In the case of the defendant Voverka, on the other hand, the Senate does not consider it proved that he realized this significance, and he must be regarded as a hanger-on rather than as a driving force.
"The defendants Jamrozy and Dolas had therefore to be sentenced for treasonably supporting and giving aid to the enemy in conjunction with preparation for high treason and the defendant Voverka for preparation of high treason.
"If the conditions for article 91b, paragraph 2, of the Crime Code do not exist, the above articles only leave the alternatives of the death sentence or imprisonment with hand labor for life. Article 91b, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Code is, therefore, not applicable because the possibility cannot be excluded that serious consequences might arise from the action of the defendants by reason of the manner and the extent of their activities. From the two sentences which are therefore permissible in the cases of defendants Jamrozy and Bohac only the highest sentences can fulfil the purpose of the punishment. These **************** defendants worked until the late Fall of 1941 as authoritative officials and thereby constituted a considerable danger to order and the peace in the Protectorate. In this way they placed themselves, in the worst time of trial of the German people, on the side of the enemy, and so forfeited their right to continue living under the protection of the German******* They have proved themselves such dangerous enemies of the German******* that the people can only be protected against them effectively by ***** death sentence. In the case of the defendants Jamrozy and Dolas the death sentence was therefore considered the only appropriate and correct atonement."
That is all of this document that we wish to read at this time and we therefore offer as Exhibit 185 the document NG 350.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: May we invite the Court now to turn to Document Book 3-B
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May the Court please, having done a little cutting and fitting, Document NG 337, which is the last document in Book 3-E, and now, we believe, be coherently presented.
This document begins on page 114 of the English book, which is page 127 in the German. This appears to be the verdict of the district court Neumarkt:
"In the name of the German people. Verdict. District Court Neumarkt pronounces in the case against Jan Lopata, Polish farmhand in Bodenhof at present detained for assault, in the court's public session of 28 April 1942" - we will omit the reading of the judges and prosecutors "on the basis of the trial: Jan Lopata, Polish farmhand, at present in detention, is sentenced to an imprisonment of two years in a prison camp for the crime of assault according to Article 185 of the Penal Code, together with an infringement according to Article 1-a, 7 of the Polish regulation of the governor of Regensburg, dated 28 May 1940 and of ** December 1941, both in connection with Articles 3 and 14 of the penal decree for Poles."
THE PRESIDENT: What page is that on?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One hundred fourteen, Your Honor, 127 in the German. Supplying a brief omission in the English: "You are sentenced to a prison camp term for two years and to a fine of 35 Reichmarks, and in default of ** ment, an additional week in prison camp and to the costs for the trial and the execution of the sentence." The local court verdict in Neumarkt continue on page 116 of the English, 128 in the German.
Reasons "The accused, who is a pole, and who on 1 September 1939 was resident at Kajscewka, in the district of Myslenice, in Poland, was employed as agricultural laborer by the farmer, Therese Schwenzl, at Bodenhof in the part of Muehlen.
In the beginning of February 1942, Frau Schwenzl together with the accused and a Polish maid were cutting chaff. The accused stood to the right of the chaff-cutting engine. Without speaking, he suddenly touched by hand over her dress Frau Schwenzl's private parts. When thereupon she said: "You think nothing terrifies me. You think you can do this to me because my husband is ill, the accused just laughed and repeated his action. On this Frau Schwenzl struck him across the face. In spite of this he did it a air. Finally, he had a quarrel with the Polish maid and left his mistress alone.
"On 8 February 1942, the accused left his place of employment without permission and was arrested on 9 February, when calling at the employment exchange at Neumarkt/Opf."
"These circumstances are proved by the witness's quite trustworthy statement under oath. The foolhardy denial of the accused is disproved by statements made by the witness."
"In the witness Schwenzl's description there is nothing to prove that perchance the accused used force against the witness. Therefore, no case of indecent assault according to Art. 176, Penal Code, is being submitted, instead of a case of ordinary assault. " "No sentence has been proposed pursuant to Art.
2 of the decree concern the wage scale regulations of 25 June 1938. The accused's quitting of his j** cannot be punished under Art. 2, 8 of the ordinance, dated 5 September ****.
dealing with the treatment of foreigners, since it has not been clu******** that the accused had left the place where ho stayed at the time of a public summons."
Turning to the next page, 117, which is a hundred thirty in the German, we find this verdict of the Neumarkt District Court, signed by presiding judge in confirmation of the previously read sentence of two years in a prison camp and fine of 35 Reichsmarks, which we noticed on page 114. This camp continues on page 119, which is page 132 in the German. On page 119 we find a decision of the Reich Supreme Court, dated 21 July 1942. (That date appears on the following page.)
"In the case against the polish agricultural. laborer, Jan Lopata for assault among other things the supreme Reich Court, first criminal division, in secret session of 14 July 1942 has decided with regard to the appeal for nullification of the Chief Reich Prosecutor.--"
May the Prosecution interpolate here a moment? That is a cl****** lation of a term that is by now familiar. They don't mean "an appeal or nullification. " That is just a nullity plea, such as has been mentioned in this court many times.
"The sentence of the Lower Court at Newmarkt dated 28 April 1942 is annulled with its relevant findings in as far as the accused was sentence for assault. In this connection the case will be returned to the Lower Court namely to the Special Court at Nurnberg, for a new trial and sentence.
"Reasons. According to Art. 185, Penal Code, in condution with Art. I** and XIV of the criminal code for poles, the accused has been sentenced to the years at a detention camp by the sentence referred to. The sentence has been declared valid. " "The Chief Reich Prosecutor has raised and applied for nullity plea, to suspend the sentence by resolution and to return the case to the lower inat* namely the Special Court at Nurnberg for a now trial and sentence.
application has been granted."
"The judgment passed by the Lower Court is defective in law insofar as does not discuss in detail whether article 4 of the law against Public Enemies of 5 September 1939 is applicable at all.
That this is applicable seems to be apparent according to the facts established."
"With this judicial error the judgment has become unjust, since if al* Article 4 of the Public Enemy Law is applicable, a thing which seems rather probable, a much more severe sentence is deemed necessary."
On the following page, this decision of the Reich Supreme Court, certain signed and stamped 21 July 1942, Next follows the indictment at the special Court in Nurnberg which is found on page 118 in the English, and 131 in the German:
"I. Indictment for the Special Court for the district of the Appellate Court at Nurnberg."
"Lopata, Jan. Bachelor, Agricultural laborer, born 24 June 1916, now in detention in the prison at Neumarkt since 25 March 1942 is adequately suspected of making use of the extraordinary conditions caused by the war, having intentionally insulted another person by an act for which the sound sentime of the people seems to demand a punishment in excess to the ordinary ******** because of tho special vileness of the criminal act."
"The accused is a pole. On 1 September 1939 he was living in the formed Poland, Since March 1940 he was employed as agricultural laborer by the farm Therese Schwenzl at Bodenhof."
"In the beginning of February 1942, whilst working, he repeatedly t*** through her dress the private parts of the farmer Therese Schwenzl, inspite of being strongly repulsed."
"Hereby, he made use of the war conditions. He know that the supervision of foreign labor was aggravated by the shortage of labor power; besides he thought he would not be denounced in order not to lose him as laborer."
This indictment continues on page 111 of the English book, 121 in the German. We will omit reading the rest of the indictment except to ******* Court's attention to tho fact that it is dated "Nurnberg, 18 August **** it is signed by tho Chief Public Prosecutor for prosecution with the Special Court, Dr. Schroeder. Following the indictment for the second trial at the Nurnberg Special Court, the judgment of the Nurnberg Special Court is found, beginning on page 101 in the English, which is page 110 in the German:
"Verdict In the Name of the German People.
The Special Court for the district of the Appelate Court Nurnberg, at the District Court Nurnberg-Purth, pronounces the following sentence in the case against lopata, Polish agricultural worker.
The sentence was pronounced in the session on 26 October 1942, persons present were: The presiding Judge: Landesgerichsdirector Dr. Rothaug. The Associate Judges: Dr. Ferber and Dr. Pfaff "The Prosecutor at the Special Court:
First Prosecutor Paulus Lopata Jan born on 24 June 1916 in Kayscowka, single, Polish agricultural worker, last place of abode Bodenhof, in jail awaiting trial for this case is, by application of articles II, III and XIV of the decree concerning Poles and Jews."
Reasons "l). The accused is a Pole; he belongs to the polish ethnical group.
He grow up in Kayscowka as son of a farmer and cattle dealer, he went to school for 6 years according to local custom. He cannot read, calculate and write. According to his testimony the parents of the accused died over 20 years a "2). After he reported voluntarily the accused was assigned by the lab office Neumarkt to work for the farmer Josef Schwenzl in Bodenhof district Neumarkt/Oberpfalz.
In the beginning of February 1942 - on a day which can no longer be clearly specified -- the wife of farmer Schwenzl, together with the accused and a Polish girl chopped straw in the barn. The accused was standing on the righthand side of the machine to carry out the work. Suddenly in the middle of the work, the accused, without saying anything, touched with his hand the genitals of the wife of farmer Schwenzl through her skirt. If she said after this unexpected action of the defendant: "you hog, do you th I am not disgusted about anything, you think you can do that because my husband is sick", the accused laughed and touched, in spite of this dissuasion -
again the genitals of the farmer's wife above her skirt or through her skirt The wife of farmer Schwenzl slapped him after that. In spite of this, the accused, continued, with his impertinent behavior, for a third, time" "On account of that the farmer's wife started a heated, quarrel with the accused.
The accused started to quarrel with the Polish maid too, and did no longer molest the farmer's wife."
"The accused did not make a complete confession. He states that no only once, for fun, touched the farmer's wife's genitals through the skirt "The Court is convinced, on account of the testimony given by the witness Therese Schwenzl, who makes a trustworthy impression, that the affair occurred exactly as described by the witness.
Therefore, its findings were arrived at according to the testimony given by her.
"The prohibition to have sexual intercourse with a German woman was known to the accused, he knew also about the severe punishments which awaited. The Poles if they did not comply with this prohibition. When the accused was assigned a place of work by the labor office Neumarkt in spring 1940, this prohibition was pointed out to him according to the testimony of the witness Reiser, he received also a printed informative pamphlet for enlight ment. The statement of the accused that in spite of all that be had no knowledge about this prohibition proves to be a threadbare excuse: because when asked why he denied having shown any importunity toward the farmer's wife when interrogated by the Lower Court at Neumarkt, a fact which can be proved on hand of the record made there, the accused says that he did not want to make a confession, not even a part of a confession, because he was afraid of the death sentence."
"So the defendant gives the impression of a definitely degenerate personality who is distinguished by irritability and a positive propensity for lying, the absolute inferiority of the defendant is based on his character and is obviously based on his belonging to the polish subhuman rac "The established facts show at first that the defendant grossly Insulted the feminine honor of the wife of farmer Schwenzl, by his frequently snatching at her private parts.
The defendant fully realized the despicable nature of his mean and base approaches. He thereby committed the offence on assault."
"This, however, does not cover the full extent of the defendant's culpa bility."
"The drafting of men into the armed forces effected a heavy labor and age in all spheres of life at home, last not least in agriculture. To compensate this, Polish laborers , among others, had to be used to a large extent, mainly as farm hands. These men can not be supervised by ******** to such on extent as would be necessary due to their insubordinate and criminal disposition."
"Since there is a lack of the necessary supervision, these Poles are becoming fresh and unruly. At the same time they know that they can dare to do a lot of things because we have to depend on them and it is difficult to find replacements."
"The defendant lived in the Greater German living space for a sufficient length of time to know about these circumstances caused by the war, because he saw them daily with his own eyes."
"From the beginning the defendant was a lazy and stubborn fall during his work contact with Schwenzl. Frequently he refused to when once in the morning in presence of the Pole the wife of the farmer Schwenzl made an occasional remark to the farmer Schwenzl, somebody would have to beat her to death if she had to eat as much as the Polak did, the defendant at noontime refused to take his noonmeal. He also induced the Polish servant maid to offer the same passive resistance. Farmer Schwenzl did not permit the defendant to act like that, he called the Pole to account in the stable. The defendant put up resistance towards his admonitions by arming himself with a dung fork."
Skipping to the next page, next paragraph:
"As proved by the behavior of the defendant as a whole, he also took advantage of the circumstances caused by the war in the case on hand. Bei a Pole who was given the opportunity to make a proper living in the Reich he acted in the meanest possible way. His crime as well as all t****** of his impudent behavior distinguish his as a public enemy."
"Accordingly, the defendant was to be sentenced in connection assault, also for a crime under article 4 of the Ordinance against Public Enemies of 5 September 1939."
Skipping to the last page of this verdict, which is page 106 in the English and 116 in the German, we find that this verdict is signed as Presiding Judge by Dr. Rothaug and by Dr. Ferber as associate judge. That is a notation under these signatures stating that Judge Pfaff is out on official business, signed "Rothaug." On the same page in the English but on page 117 in the German, this verdict is certified at Nurnberg on the 29 of October 1942. On page 115 in the English and 125 in the Germany find a hand-written letter.
It is from the original that it is hand-written hand-written note prepared apparently from the face of the document, it s*** seems, while the Special Court of Nurnberg was sitting in Neumarkt. Apparently the Special Court's decision regarding a possible plea for clemency in the Lopata case... The note begins: "Jan Lopata, Polish farmhand, for the consideration of the Special Court in matters of clemency. The character of the defendant as a whole, as explained at the trial. May I interpolate a moment? The trial therein referred to, the ******** submits, was the trial described in the verdict just read, " -- especially the facts that the defendant, in addition to the proven crime which was already a serious crime in view of the manner and the stubbornness with who it was carried out, and the fact that he committed another offense by his brutal conduct towards his employer, require that the death sentence be carried out." Dated Neumarkt, 26 October, 1942. Further stating, "The Special Court for the District of Provincial Court of appeal." Thereunder appear under written signature of Rothaug, Ferber and Pfaff. Under that the following statement: "I agree with the comments of the Special Court, (Signed) The President of the Special Court Rothaug."
On page 100 of the English book, which is page 109 in the German, we find a prison report on Jan Lopata's conduct. This prison report was dated Neumarkt, 26 October 1942, and apparently was sent by the superintendent of the Court Prison at Neumarkt to the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Nurnberg Special Court concerning Jan Lopata. "Death sentence pronounced by the Special Court Nurnberg" on 26 October 1942. The condemned man, Jan Lopata gave no cause for complaint during his stay at the local prison. His condemn was always according to the regulations of prisoners."
On page 112 of the English, which is page 123 in the German, we find Nurnberg General Public Prosecutor, Nurnberg, 5 November 1942; stamped "U** and it is addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice in Berlin, Subject: nal case against Jan Lopata. And with this letter -- so states the origin were enclosed various volumes and folders of documents. I submit the report of the General Public Prosecutor in Nurnberg regarding the execution of the death penalty pronounced on 26 November 1942 by the Special Court in Nurnberg against the Pole, Jan Lopata.
"I. The condemned man was sentenced to 2 years in prison camp for facts on which the verdict of the District Court of Neumarkt of 2 April was based. This verdict was annulled due to the nullity plea of the Chief Public Prosecutor by decision of the Reich Supreme Court."
"There are no objections to the verdict of the Special Court."
"II. In regard to the question of clemency, I consider the following points as essential:"
On the following page facts are recited which are familiar in that they have appeared in material heretofore read and we will therefore skip it. The letter to the Ministry of Justice end up with the statement: can not recommend an act of mercy. (Signed) Dr. Engert."
One page 108 is found the Ministry of Justice decision not to reprieve or grant clemency in the case of Lopata; this is page 122 of the German.
DR. KOESSL:(Attorney for Defendant Rothaug) May it please the Tribunal, for my colleague Dr. Marx I would like to find out and establish that Dr. Engert; whose name was just read, who signed the denial of the clemency plea, that is, he signed the denial of the Public prosecution, this Dr. Engert is not the same one as the Defendant Engert.
The Dr. Engert who signed this document was an expert, a specialist at the public prosecution in Nurnberg.
MR. WOOLEYHAN : May the Court please, the Defense Counsel's information at the moment is very well taken. The Prosecution had intended to make it clear that this was not the defendant Engert. T his is Dr. Engert. I am sorry I was a little slow in pointing this out, but I am grateful to Defense Counsel for so doing.
Resuming with the ministry of Justices decision not to grant clemancy, which we find on page 108 of the English and page 122 of the German, we find a certified true copy, " In the criminal case against Jan Lopata, sentenced to death by the Special Court with the Nurnberg-Fuerth District Court, on 26 October 1942 as a public enemy according to the Ordinance concerning penal law applying to Poles, I determined after authorization by the Fuehrer not to make any use of the prerogative to grant pardon, vested in me, but to let justice take its free course. Berlin, 19 November, 1942; The Reich Minister of Justice; signed: Thierack."
On the next page, 109, which is page 120 in the German, we find a petition for pardon written by Johann Lopata himself. In this petition for pardon, Johann Lopata states the following: "In 1940 I stayed in Germany as an agricultural worker with the farmer Josef Bodenhof" -- if the Court please, there is no point in reading this petition for pardon signed by Johann Lopata; it speaks for itself; it ends on tho next page, 110.
On page 99 of the English -- I am sorry I cannot supply the German page for that, but it is a telegram entitled "German Mail Service", addressed to the "Chief Public Prosecutor, Nurnberg; received 30 November; stamped arrived 1 December 1942, Public prosecution, Nurnberg-Fuerth." The message reads as follows: "Sentence against," and there is an obvious garrble," against Lopata Jan," and another irrelevant person, "carried out."
On page 107 of tho English, page 118 of the German, we find a few details of the execution under the letterhead, "The chief Public Prosecutor, Nurnberg, 3 December 1942; a report to the General Public Prosecutor in Nurnberg, concerning execution of the death sentence against the Polish farm worker Jan Lopata.
The death sentence was carried out on 30 November 1942. The execution took 1 minute 10 seconds altogether; from the defendant's being handed over to the executioner until the falling of the axo 7 seconds elapsed. The execution took place without incidents." At the bottom we note the signature of "Hollmann, Senior Public Prosecutor". In the margin on the left, opposite the details of the execution, we find some reference to the ordinance of the Reich Ministry of Justice: "IV" and a code serial number, "issued 19 November 1942."
The Prosecution offers this Document NG-337 in evidence as Exhibit 186.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Mr. Secretary, may I inquire if the bench has copies of Document NG-634 which was to be inserted at the end of Book III-E ; if not, I have extra copies here. This document, if the Court please, was distributed separately from the book both to the bench and to the Defense yesterday morning.
I believe you already inserted the Paulus affidavit at the end of Book III-E, and this follows that. Just insert it loosely at the end of this book, Document NG-634. Document NG-634 is a sworn affidavit reading as follows:
"I, Dr. Theodor Pfaff, born on 16 July in Arnstein, 28 mar gj M II Ia Sampson (Wartenberg) Lower Franconia, declare hereby under oath:
In 1930 I passed the state bar examination in munich, and In Munich I worked first as an assessor then as laywer, until 31 May 1935. From 1 April 1935 until 30 September 1936 I was assistant judge in Bamberg and several other courts. On 1 October 1936 I became Magistrate at the Local Court of Nuernberg. I worked as Magistrate in the criminal division and was, I believe, from 1938 on, active as judge specializing in cases of traffic violations. In the middle of 1942, as I remember, I was transferred against my wishes to the special Court of Nuernberg to assist them for four or six weeks. Later this transfer was extended. In October 1944 i served for the last time as a judge of the special court. My superiors at the special Court were: ROTHAUG, who later became Reich Prosecutor, FERBER, chief justice of District Court, and OESCHEY, chief justice of district court.
ROTHAUG's way of conducting a trial was quite different from anything I had ever seen before, and I could not reconcile his methods with my conscience. His attitude towards defendants as well as towards some witnesses, when he believed these witnesses were not telling the whole truth, was incompatible with the dignity of the court. During a session ROTHAUG sometimes spoke the defense counsels in a disrespectful tone. ROTHAUG's cynicism was something absolutely foreign to me. He behaved autocratically and did not hesitate to use offensive expressions before defendants. I can no longer remember them, but I do know that he made remarks with repelled me. I still remember such expressions as "I will place you head in front of your feet" or "If you have the nerf to commit crime after crime in your country, then I ( for the german people) will have the nerve to make you pay the consequences" or "Are the people to look on, complacently, as the best men die on the front, while you at home exploit the situation?"
I know that such expressions or, at any rate, expressions carrying such as meaning, were used."
Continuing on the next page, the page, the second paragraph:
- As illustrative of rothaug's severe jurisdiction, I would like to mention a few critical cases in which I participated as aspirated judge. " Skipping to page 4, the second paragraph:
"Lopata, a young pole had offended the honor of his woman employer, and for this the Local Court in Neumarkt condemned him to two years in a labor camp. The Reich Supreme Court considered this sentence too mild and declared it null and void. Rothaug explained to us during the second trial, that his case involved a despicable assault on a german woman by a pole, and that the rural population had to be protected from such terroristic elements. It was obvious that ROTHAUG would not admit the possibility of any exonerating motives of the part of this pole, Rothaug used all his power of suggestion to discourage any considerations which might have led to a milder sentence and made use of the Fuehrer principle" He told us we did not possess the necessary experience and knowledge in the political-judicial field, and that he had sources of information at his disposal which proved the great danger of poles. Lopata was sentenced to death and executed.
Finally, it must be mentioned that Rothaug had sold himself completely to National Socialism and criminal justice. He inserted a political note into every case by referring to the sound sentiment of the people. At the same time, however, it must be said that people were terribly afraid of Rothaug.
"These statements are the whole truth, made without any coercion, I have read them, signed and declared under oath, Signed Nurnberg, 15 January 1947, Dr. Theodore Pfaff."
The prosecution offers this Document NG-634 as Exhibit 187 The PRESIDENT:
It will be received in evidence. I am advised that when we ruled upon Exhibit 186 the switch was closed, and therefore, now repeat that we have received Exhibit 186 in evidence.
At this time we will take noon recess, and assemble again at 1:30.
( A recess was taken until 1330 hours)