That is purely a request for the Court, that it is the proper type and manner. I feel we should call it to the Court's attention, to make an order to provide for the appointment of a Commissioner under the method provided in Rule 23. he have not yet done that.
Since that time, there have been other requests by the Defense to interview witnesses who are prisoners in the Nurnberg jail, and this comes within the rule. The provisions of Rule 23 , and we have been noting on those requests that we are withholding full approval subject to the action of the Court upon the motion, which I am now reading, and which was held up in Mr. Niesley's office.
I come now to paragraph B which is on page 3 of the motion, and because that brings up new matter I am asking the Court to extend the provisions of Rule 23 to another class of witnesses other than those not mentioned in Rule 23; namely, those witnesses who are brought here by the Prosecution through the facilities of the Government of the United States, and are maintained here in what is known as the Witness House. Such witnesses are not prisoners and, therefore, do not come under the provisions of Rule 23. They are persons whom the United States pays to have brought here, and in some instances goes out and obtains them, lodges them in a house for voluntary witnesses. My feeling is, that in a sense, the action of the United States in bringing these witnesses and maintaining them in a guest house is comparable to its actions in having people who are now prisoners, held. In other words, it expends the energy and money to bring these witnesses here. I do not desire to exclude Defense Counsel from interrogating those witnesses. I do feel, however, that I am on sound ground in asking this Court to say that such witnesses shall be interrogated, if request is made by the Defense, after they have reached Nurnberg and are put in the guest witness house, in the same manner as is provided in Rule 23.
I specifically exclude any witnesses for the Prosecution who are anywhere in Germany and who are not being maintained in the Witness House. In other words, I do not say and I would not say, that any Counsel for any defendant find a witness in any city in Germany, whom the Prosecution has interviewed and intended to use as a witness, and any city, including Nurnberg, whom we have not brought here, that I ask the Court to put any limitation on whatsoever on the right and authority of the Defense Counsel to interview that witness. All I am asking for is that once we have gone -- we will say to Stuttgart or to Berlin, or to any place in Germany, pay for the transportation of a witness, possibly in some instances found it necessary to send some one to bring a witness, who though voluntarily, is not too voluntarily, and lodged him in a Witness House; that then, if the Defense desires to interrogate that witness he should be, during that period of time that he is in the Witness House, until he is discharged as a witness and sent home, that he should be interrogated under the provisions of Rule 23 or in the manner provided by Rule 23, through the appointment of a Commissioner.
Now, reviewing clearly under provision A: My first request: All that I have asked is that the Court make an order to implement Rule 23.
As to provision B: This is a matter which the Tribunal may want to discuss, and certainly upon which the Defense Counsel may well want to be heard. I am asking that the method of interrogation as provided in Rule 23 be extended to those witnesses who are brought here and maintained in the Witness House.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire as to what you refer to when you say, "to implement Rule 23"?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: As I have been informed, your Honor, where this question has arisen before, and I believe it arose first in Case No. II before Tribunal II, the Court entered an order appointing one of its members or it alternate as a Commissioner, as provided for in Rule 23, to conduct the interrogations of witnesses who are covered by Rule 23.
This Tribunal has not yet done so and consequently both the Defense Counsel and the Prosecution have been held in abeyance in any interrogations they want to make of those witnesses.
It may well be that this Tribunal may desire to make another practical solution of that problem. I only give that as an illusion of what I had in mind.
THE PRESIDENT: Without ruling upon the merite of this motion or whether it needs amendments or revision, we will merely say at this time that if the Secretary General or any of his assistants have any matters they want to present, they should present them to the Tribunal.
JUDGE BRAND: Has this motion been delivered by the Secretary General to the Tribunal?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: To my knowledge it has not.
JUDGE BRAND: Has it been served on the defendants?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, it was sent when it was originally sent to the office of the Secretary General. I did all that I could do, which I am advised -- May I state -- ,
JUDGE BRAND: Just answer me, If you will, please, whether it had been served in accordance with the rule.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: As far as I know, it has. A translation was made and the translation and the English copy were delivered to the office of the Secretary General, which I am advised is the procedure that I must follow. There were not sixteen copies made, of course, because I didn't assume that that was necessary, but I know that at least one translation was delivered with the English version to the office of the Secretary General, and maybe two.
JUDGE BRAND: I am simply calling attention to Rule 10, which provides that the adverse party shall have two days after delivery of a motion. I am wondering if he has had the delivery and if the two days have expired.
MR. LAFFOLLETTE: My answer to your Honor's question is very positive, that I assume under the rules that delivery means delivery to the office of the Secretary General, and that the the Secretary General delivers to the Defense Center. I know that in addition to the English version at least one translation was delivered to the office of the Secretary General on the 19th of March.
Thereafter the English translation was on Mr. Niesley's desk until last Monday, which was the 25th -- lost tuesday. I believe defense counsel have not received any copy. I don't know.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: The Prosecution a few days ago gave a German translation of this application to the Prosecution -- put it at the disposal of the defense. The defense had several copies of it made. However, at the moment it is not yet possible for who defense to state its position in regard to this application, this motion, because it is important for consideration of this motion to know Rule 23 very exactly, which this motion refers to, and of which, however, we do not yet have a copy. In the rules regarding a trial of this kind it is not possible to refer only to t he oral delivery, since the difficulties of translation are, in any case, so big that the niceties of a rule can be determined only when the written application is seen. That I want to say in general. If it please the Tribunal, I would like to state my opinion with regard to one point which Mr. LaFollette has just opened up. I do not know whether the Tribunal would like me to do so at the moment.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has one copy which has just been handed to the bench. We do not each have copies, and we therefore prefer to wait until copies have been furnished to each member of the bench. After that has been done we will take measures to consider and maybe have this matter discussed.
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. LaFollette.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes?
JUDGE BRAND: Counsel says that they have not received Rule 23. The rules of this Tribunal have been mimeographed, and it was my understanding that every attorney in the case had copies of those rules. If they haven't they should have.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: There is no question about that, Your Honor. I assumed that some one in this vast organization would arrange for a translation of those rules. It was not again until last Tuesday, or possibly last Friday, a week ago, that Dr. Brieger informed, me he had no copy, either English or otherwise, and I personally gave him an English copy.
It is a matter that rather confounds me. I don't know where to lay the blame. But certainly defense counsel are intitled to copies in German of the rules of this Tribunal. Therefore I don't press the motion. The only thing is that I think defense counsel particularly are being placed at a disavantage in not being able to interrogate the witnesses for whom they made a request. I shall cooperate in any way I can to expedite this whole thing.
One thing more and then I am through, and that is that I want to report to the Tribunal that I think we have made considerable progress in the matter of attempting to arrange a stipulation for the disposition of disputed translations and interpretations which appear in the transcript -the translation of documents and interpretations as they appear in the transcript. I have furnished a copy in English and German and received a copy of one by Dr, Schilf. I don't see either Dr. Schilf or Dr. Brieger in the courtroom this morning, but I would like to have this opportunity to say -- or Dr. Haensel -- that if other defense counsel will confer with them and advise the members of their committees, which were Dr. Schilf, Dr. Haensel and Dr. Brieger, I am ready now to enter into further discussion hoping that we can dispose of the matter. I believe that those were all the matters I have at this time. The Prosecution has a witness.
JUDGE BLAIR: Mr. LaFollette, I understand that there is furnished the defense counsel a liaison officer to whom they can apply for all matters of this sort, and I was wondering if they are availing themselves of this liaison officer and are not depending too much upon the Court or somebody to help them out, rather than to go and secure the information from the liaison officer.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: My only reaction to that is that, of course, that is generally true. However, if we never furnished defense counsel in any form a copy of Rule 23 -- I mean, of the rules of this Tribunal, I must say in all fairness I don't quite put the burden on them to find out that we have printed rules.
Somewhere I think the obligation is on the organization, either the prosecution organization as such, or in the Secretary General's office to obtain a German translation of these rules and make them available.
THE PRESIDENT: Speaking for myself, it has seemed to me that the defense counsel cannot know, unless they are mindreaders, that documents have been deposited in the office of the Secretary General. It wouldn't be a matter of very great difficulty for the Secretary General's office to notify defense counsel when documents have been deposited so that they can then be properly studied. We will proceed now with the prosecution.
MR. WOOLEYHAND: The Prosecution calls as a witness Karl Feber.
JUDGE BRAND: Will the witness testify in German?
MR. WOOLEYHAND: The witness will testify in German, Your Honor.
KARL FEBER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BRAND: Witness, you will raise your right hand and repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Onmiscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
JUDGE BRAND: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAND:
Q Witness, please tell the court your full name.
A Dr. Jur. Karl Feber.
Q What was your last official title?
A Landgerichtsdirecktor, Associate Justice of the Special Court.
Q Where?
AAt the Special Court, Nurnberg-Furth, Nurnberg. I was presiding judge of the Criminal Division Court.
Q State briefly to the Court, your education and your professional career.
A I was born on the 36th of September 1901. At Landau on the Rheinpfalz. For four and half years, I went to grade school. Then for nine years, I went through high school. I followed a humanistic course. In 1921, I passed my final examination high school examination at Speyer/Rehin in tho gymnasium.
After that I studied law and political science. I studied eight semesters, four years, in Wuerzburg, Munich and Heidelberg. In 1925 I finished my studies and passed a legal examination. In 1926, I wrote a dissertation on civil law and received my degree. In 1929, I passed the state examination, and thereafter, I wanted to enter into the service of the Reich.
To prepare to work for the Reich Supervision Control Office for Private Insurance Companies in Berlin, from 1929 until 1935, I worked for an insurance company. In 1932 I had been called to the Bavarian Justice Service in Bamberg. At that time, I refused the appointment that offered to me. The Planning Office of the Reich Service in Berlin forced me, again, in 1934, to make application, to be employed in the Justice Service in Bavaria. At that time, I had to talk with the personnel officer in Munich, one of the defendants in this court, Ministerial Counselor Dr. Engert. At that time, I was, in no way, connected with the party.
Ministerial Counselor Engert told me I could enter the Bavarian Civil Service only if in some way or other I proved my political reliability. I met the Ministerial requirement by paying one mark monthly as a contributing member of the SS on the 1st of March 1935. I was then appointed to the general public prosecutor's office in Nurnberg.
My official career in brief is as follows: From the 1st of March, 1935, I was legal assistant in the General Public prosecutor's Office in Nurnberg. At first, that was in all branches of the office.
On the 1st of February, 1936, I became public prosecutor in the economic department, in the general, and in the prosecution for the Special Court, Nurnberg.
In July 1939, I temporarily left the office of the Prosecution and entered the service for the prisons in Nurnberg. My renewed efforts to leave the Prosecution were successful on the 1st of November, 1940. I received an appointment as Councilor of the District Court, Furth. My activities as a judge began at the Special Court, Nurnberg-Furth. The presiding judge, at the time, was District Court Judge Rothaug. Beginning on the 1st of August, 1941-
Q Witness, May I interrupt you a moment?
MR. WOOLEYHAND: May it please the Court, the Defendant Rothaug, is outside the courtroom the present moment. The prison physician states he believes the defendant is fit to be in court today. May we have the Court's permission to have him enter the lock at this time?
DR. DOESSL: May it please the Tribunal, during the past week, I found out for myself, that the defendant is not in a position to attend the trial for even half a day. I know that he is suffering very much. And I ask you therefore, in accordance with the rule which the high Tribunal has established, to let that rule remain in effect.
According to this rule, the defendant should not be forced to be present here. He has the opportunity, by means of reading the transcript in the courtroom.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, I have just been advised of this matter. The prison physician is here. From what I know of the proceedings, last week there was considerable complaint, originally because the defendant was not here. Certainly, there is no desire on the part of the Prosecution to force this defendant to sit in the dock. The prison physician is here. He will testify as to whether the defendant wants to come to court or whether he is in a position to come. Whether he comes or not is immaterial to us. I thought we were affording him an opportunity to come. I do not understand the complaint of counsel. He will do whatever the Tribunal wants.
JUDGE BRAND: Is the defendant objecting on the ground that he is unable to be in court at this time? I mean personally?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I assume that is what what implied by the statement of his counsel. I do not know, Your Honor. The prison physician is here. He has been talking to him for half a week. Ask him.
JUDGE BRAND: It is my understanding of what counsel for the defense called the Court's Rule, that that rule, if it were a rule, applied only to such times and occasions when the defendant was physically unable to be here. That has been the procedure which the Court outlined would apply. Of course, it will not apply if the defendant is physically able to attend Court.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honor please. I have just been advised by Mr. Wooleyhand that he felt the defendant would want to be present when this witness testified. In fairness, he called the prison physician and stated that this witness would be on the stand today and asked if the defendant would be able to be present today, and if ho wanted to be present. He should be here today in his own interest. That is all we have done. The prison physician has brought him. I assume he is able to be here today. If he does not want to stay, or if he wants to go to the hospital, it is all right with us.
JUDGE BRAND: Why should we not hear some testimony as to whether he is here willingly.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is what I am advising Your Honor. The Captain is here if the Court will call him as its own witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the physician be called as a witness. The other witness will temporarily stand aside.
CAPTAIN CHARLES J. ROSCOE: A witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE BLAIR: Be sworn. Raise your right hand. Be sworn. You solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give in this case shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
A Yes. I do.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q Captain, you will state your name, please.
A Charles j. Roscoe.
Q And you are a qualified physician?
A Yes, sir.
Q What is your present position?
A Prison Medical Officer.
Q Have you examined the defendant Rothaug last night and this morning
A I saw him; I didn't examine him thoroughly. I spoke with him.
Q Did he -- does he object to coming co Court, or do you find it impossible for him to be in Court: What is your opinion?
A I think it is possible for him to appear in Court today -- if it that necessary that he appear here. I think that he is perfectly able to stand at least one session of Court.
Q You don't understand that the Prosecution orders him to appear, * that they said that if he was able to appear, he should appear. Is that correct?
A I was told that it was in his interests to appear today in Court, and that if he could be here the Prosecution would like to have him here, so think that he is able to appear today.
Q Did the defendant -- What did the defendant say -- if anything -when you told him that he could come, or that you would bring him?
A He told me that last night he did have some gastric pain and that he had some discomfort at the present time, but he is not physically incapacitated by it.
Q I still want to know whether or not he objected to coming-- or do you know?
A That I don't know; I didn't go into that. I didn't ask him that is any detail.
Q In your opinion, it will not be injurious to his health to be in the court room on this day?
A That is right.
Q If the Tribunal desires to ask -- or the Defense?
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Doctor, during the last days I spoke quite frequently with the defendant. He was not even in a position during the few hours which I was with him to remain with me without interruption. May I ask you whether you are con vinced that the defendant can sit here without interruption -- if only for the hours?
A I think he is able to do that.
Q Did you ask him?
A No, I didn't ask him that.
Q When did you examine him more thoroughly for the last time?
A I have left the examination mostly up to the physician at the hos pital there, Dr. Windisch, and he has been advising me of his progress from day to day.
Q Thank you.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I just want to make it clear that we do not, of course, insist that this witness stay.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will make this ruling. Let him be brought in with the understanding on his part that if he feels that his physical con dition is such that he wants to leave, he may leave at any time; in which event the rule we have heretofore made will apply, and we understand that i the wish of this defendant to be absent and for the trial to go on in his absence under the rules we have heretofore laid down.
(Witness excused)
MR. WOLLEYHAND: Would you please see if the defendant Rothaug is able to be brought in?
THE PRESIDENT: Let the defendant Rothaug be provided with ear 'phones hear what I am about to say.
MR. WOLLEYHAN: Will you test the English channel?
INTERPRETER: (Tests channel)
MR. WOLLEYHAN: Dr. Feber -
MR. LA FOLLETTE: One moment.
MR. WOLLEYHAN: I am sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Rothaug, can you hear what I am saying?
DR. ROTHAUG (From the dock): Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You are now advised that your presence here is desirable and -- if you are physically able to be present -- necessary. On the other * there seems to be some question as to your physical condition and your ability to be here during the course of the examination of this witness.
This witness is testifying concerning a matter in which you are personally interested. are at liberty to leave the court room at any time when you feel that your physical condition is such that you can not safely remain. Whenever (I will this to Dr. Brieger ) the witness desires to -
DR. KOESSL: Dr. Koessl -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl... Whenever the defendant desires to leave he will communicate that fact to you and a guard will then be furnished to take him from the room.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you very much.
Dr. FEBER: a witness, resumed his place on the stand, and testified follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. WOLLEYHAN:
Q Dr. Feber, continue where you left off in describing your profession al career.
A When, on the first of November 1940, as counsel with the District Court Nurnberg-Furth, I was transferred there, I came as a judicial member a member to the Special Court. At that time, Dr. Rothaug was the presiding judge of that Special Court. He had two deputies. At that time the first deputy was Dr. Engert and the second one Mr. Oeschey. Mr. Oeschey was, on the first of April 1941, with his promotion as Director of the District Court he became the first deputy of Mr. Rothaug. And on the first of August 1941, when Mr. Engert asked Chief Public Prosecutor Oberstaatsanwalt, was promote to the office of the Public Prosecutor Nurnberg -
Q Witness, may I interrupt a moment? Please confine your testimony your own professional career, and not that of any other.
A Yes, yes. On the first of August 1941, therefore, I became deput Mr. Oeschey should not be available. I became deputy for Mr. Rothaug. On to first of January 1943, I was promoted to Director of the District Court, La gericht Director. It became effective at the end -- It was announced at the end of February 1943 and was pre-dated.
Therefore, I could have left the Special Court in March 1943 because, however, at that time, the transfer of Mr. Rothaug to Berlin as Reichsanwalt, Reich Prosecutor at the People's Court, was about to take place. And because Landgerichtdirector Counsellor, Kock, who had been considered as successor to Mr. Rothaug, and could not take this place because of illness, from the time of the first of May 1943 on, five months following that time until the first of October 1943, I was appointed as the presiding judge of the Special Court in Nurnberg. On the first of October 1943, Mr. Oeschey took over the Special Courtand I, myself, became presiding judge of a criminal division of the court. As regards my political career, I would like to add the following: That during the time when I was Public Prosecutor in 1937, the director of the office Oberstaatsanwalt, Chief Public Prosecutor Denzler reported everybody to become a member of the party via a gau -- all those who were at that time not members of the party... In the fall of 1937, through this report, I became a member of the NSDAP, and the date of my entry was recorded as the first of May 1937... The Gau Group leader for judges and prosecutors, Mr. Rothaug, in 1941, later in the year, told the director of the Gau Legal Office at the time -- Oeschey ---- he suggested to Oeschey that I should become an associate in the Gau-Office. However, I did not receive an appointment through the Gau leader.
That, in brief, is my career.
Q It appears, Dr. Feber, that you know Oswald Rothaug; is that true? You know him?
A Yes, I know him.
Q You mentioned his being in Nurnberg in one position or another...When did Rothaug come to Nurnberg?
A Hr. Rothaug took over the Special Court Nurnberg on the first of April 1937 when he was appointed director of the district court in Nurnberg. At that time he came from Schweinfurth.
Q You were prosecutor in Nurnberg at that time, were you not?
A Yes, I was prosecutor with the Special Court. I was for the Prosecution.
Q Yes -
AAnd I knew the conditions at the Special Court. I knew them even before the time of Mr. Rothaug.
Q Do you know whether or not anyone requested that Rothaug come to Nurnberg in 1937?
A The conditions in Nurnberg were at that time as follows:
Against the presiding judges at that time of the Special Court, Mr. Rothaug, some attacks had been made, and from discussions with the Gauleader in the Rechtswahrerbund -- the Lawyers' Association -- at that time the leader of the office, Staatsekretaer Denzler, and the leader in the NSDAP -- that was the First Prosecutor, Dr. Buettner -- through them I knew and found out that wishes of the party were aimed at appointing a more politically active, more definitely political judge to the Special Court.
The gentlemen whom I have just mentioned, Denzler, Buettner, and also Public Prosecutor Engert, who was still active at the time, who knew the conditions frequently expressed the opinion that Herr Rothaug, whom I did not know at that time at all, would come and that thus a new air would blow in the Special Court.
Q. Witness, when Rothaug, as you describe, came to Nuernberg in 1937, did he come - I am merely recalling your memory - did he come as presiding judge of the Special Court in Nuernberg?
A. Herr Rothaug came through a promotion. He came to Nuernberg and took the place of the at that time presiding judge at the Special Court. His name was Kreiner. Herr Kreiner became deputy president and his task as presiding judge at the Special Court and judge of the Jury Court was taken over by Mr. Rothaug.
Q. Witness, as prosecutor before the Nuernberg Special Court in 1937 did you notice any changes in the conduct after Rothaug become presiding judge?
A. The changes were already recognizable when Mr. Rothaug was about to come. If I may use a common expression, it happened with the political accompanying music. I already mentioned the gentlemen Denzler, Engert, and Buettner, who at that time especially pointed towards this man, especially in official conversations. Soon there was talk also and after Mr. Rothaug was where this could be observed by me, too, that he was in close contact, with the leadership of the Party. At that time it was Gauleiter Streicher Gau Inspector Haberkorn, Kreisleiter of Nuernberg Zimmermann, and other gentlemen of the SA, for example, Witzbacher. There was talk that he had contact with them and social contact with them, and this also made its influence felt in conversations in other directions.
Q. Witness, this is very confusing. Wasn't Rothaug a member of the Ludendorff movement?
A. At that time people --
Q. Witness, may I interrupt once again? Would you please answer whether or not at that time Rothaug was a member of the Ludendorff Movement.
A. Rothaug always admitted that he was a member of that group and on the 1st of April, 1937, when he came to Nuernberg, Rothaug was not at all a Party member yet.
Q. Wasn't the Ludendorff Movement an opponent of the NSDAP?
A. About that I had a conversation with the chief of the office at the time, Chief Public Prosecutor Denzler. Denzler at that time pointed out to me that he had certain difficulties in high-up Party circles and that he had to clear up these difficulties - aversions - to the person of Rothaug just because he was a follower of Ludendorff. However, Herr Denzler had succeeded in convincing the Party authorities that Rothaug in spite of being a follower of Ludendorff was an absolutely reliable man working in the direction of the Party and was reliable for the Special Court in Nuernberg. That Rothaug further was active as a member of the Ludendorff Movement he never denied and through the writings which he read and which he brought into the office he emphasized and manifested this.
Q. Dr. Feber, since Rothaug, as you say, was a member of the Ludendorff Movement which, as you have further said, was an opponent of the Nazi Party, how then did he become so intimate and acceptable as you have described with Party officials in Nuernberg? How did that happen?
A. About this problem, of course, there was at the time a lot of talk and as explanation it was generally accepted that there was especially close contact of Mr. Rothaug and the then Gau Inspector Haberkorn and that this was the main cause, or was supposed to have been the main cause that the higher Party authorities did not make any objections against Rothaug. Through Haberkorn Rothaug had made contact with all important Party leaders and leaders of affiliated organizations of the Party and this was made possible because Haberkorn was an owner of a restaurant, the "Blaue Traube", which was well known at the time, and in Court No. 3 i this restaurant the important leaders of the SA, the SS, the Party itself, and of economic associations were often there and through the acquaintance with the inspector of the Gau and his followers it was very easy for Rothaug to meet leaders of the Party in higher offices outside of Nuernberg.
Q. Dr. Feber, do you know what happened to the Ludendorff Movement?
A. The Ludendorff Movement did not seem to be important enough for me personally to concern myself with its fate. I only know that essentially there was a change when in newspapers and public posters one could read that Adolf Hitler had visited Ludendorff in Munich. And from then on one could observe that the followers of the Ludendorff Movement too were acceptable in society, if I may say so.
Q. Acceptable, witness, in what society?
A. Within the Party, of course.
Q. Dr. Feber, according to your professional history which you have just related, you were prosecutor before the Special Court in Nuernberg in 1938, is that right?
A. Yes, yes, that's correct.
Q. In 1938 do you remember a case before that court; namely, the Nuernberg Special Court, involving a defendant named Heller?
A. The prosecutor seems to refer to the criminal matter, the case against the two lovers, Heller and a girl, who were charged because of a so-called automobile trap. Is that correct, that they came to court because of that automobile trap?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, I remember that case.
Q. Did you have anything to do with that case?
A. In this case I did not take part personally. I did not work on it. However, I observed it because the prosecutor who worked on this case often asked me for advice. I also was present in the sessions of the court in the audience, and the public prosecutor, after the sentence had been executed, informed be about all the events since the pro nouncing of the sentence until he returned to Nuernberg.
Q. Dr. Feber, basing your statements on what your associate public prosecutor told you and what you saw in the courtroom during the trial of this Heller case to which you refer, can you describe what happened in that case?
A. Yes, I can sketch the case - describe it briefly. The Reich, on the special wish of Adolf Hitler, had promulgated a law according to which the putting of an automobile trap was punishable or threatened with capital punishment. This was the first case in Nuernberg which happened soon after the promulgation of the law. A driver of a taxi was asked by a couple to drive it outside of Nuernberg. On the way the fare, the taxi fare, forced the driver to stop. He wanted to rob his money from the taxi meter. The use of force consisted of a pistol, the holding up of a pistol. The driver could resist this attack. The couple fled.