The German Labor Front even had the intention of turning over the plant of Hepting to one of their people. I know that Cuhorst at the time was very strongly against such witnesses, even if they came from the Party, and treated them rather roughly, witnesses whom ho thought might have rather insincere and indecent reasons. I know also from other trials that he treated witnesses rather badly who spoke against the defendant for reasons which were not objective reasons, and for that he had a very fine ear. He found that out rather quickly.
I also know that Cuhorst complained about the continuous stream of nullity pleas from the Ministry, nullity pleas which had for their purpose the bringing about of more severe penalties. As a rule these nullity pleas were decided against the defendants.
As far as the question of evidence in concerned, I know from my own experience that Cuhorst and the Special Court, and also the Penal Chamber in many cases, rejected evidence because the facts in tho case were considered true facts. I do not believe that by bad treatment of defense counsel, of witnesses, and of defendants, a situation had been brought about according to which one could have contested the sentences.
I am of the conviction that the actual reasons and opinions were incontestible. Also, under the presiding Judge Cuhorst, as far as the extent of the punishment was concerned, I did not always agree with Cuhorst, but that I have already explained.
Now I do not have any more statements to make about Cuhorst, but I am quite ready to answer questions from both sides according to the truth.
THE PRESIDENT: You say you have nothing more to say. That being true, you should not say anything more. You have been given an opportunity, that has boon going on now for hours, to tell anything that you could tell favorable to Mr. Cuhorst, and you new say you have told all that you can think of. Is that true.
THE WITNESS: Yes, it is true.
THE PRESIDENT: "The cross-examination now having closed, the prosecution may proceed with any redirect examination, confining itself, of course, to the cross-examination.
DR. SCHILF: (Counsel for the defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg): Mr. President, the cross-examination, if I remember correctly, was not concluded. May I ask for a decision of the Tribunal as to whether I may be permitted to conduct a cross-examination which does not concern the defendant Cuhorst?
THE PRESIDENT: In answer to your question, you will not be permitted to further cross-examine. Surely when the Tribunal gives this witness, carte blanche, the opportunity to tell anything he knows, that is going further that a cross-examiner would be permitted to go. We did this because of the situation that was created on Friday afternoon. I think it is undoubtedly t rue that Dr. Mandry had completed his cross-examination, and if he had not, the Tribunal has certainly finished it for him. No cross-examiner can go further than the Tribunal has gone in opening the way for additional testimony on cross-examination.
The answer to your question is that the cross-examination of this witness has closed, and the prosecution may now proceed.
DR. SCHILF: Mr. President, may I just say one thing? In my opinion it has become quite clear that the witness Dr. Schwarz, as far as he was concerned, in all details, was permitted to say anything concerning the defendant Cuhorst. However, neither on the cross-examination by Dr. Mandry nor by the interrogation of the witness through the Bench was anything mentioned that concerns the relationship of the Ministry of Justice to the activities of Cuhorst. The witness only emphasized that, from the Ministry of Justice, directives had come down.
The witness, however, in my opinion, has not sufficiently explained in what manner the directives from the Ministry of Justice, for instance, concerning the Special Court or the Penal Senat, or in what relation, they were standing. Therefore, I have made quite a number of notations concerning his statement in the direct examination. The facts which were mentioned by the witness in direct examination have neither been mentioned in the cross-examination by Dr. Mandry for the defendant Cuhorst, nor by his own further statements when he spoke about Cuhorst in great detail.
Therefore, may I be permitted to ask for a decision from the High Tribunal and to ask for a revision of its decision because, in fact, it would mean a limitation of the defense as it would make it impossible to speak for my clients, who were members of the Ministry of Justice?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schiff, we will now make this very definite. Howhere, either in the direct or the cross-examination, have your clients become involved. What you have just now been discussing, and which you want to further discuss through this witness, is the relationship between the Ministry of Justice and the trials. That is defensive matter. You will not be limited in showing that relation. The Court is just as much interested in knowing to what extent the Ministry of Justice directed those trials as any defense counsel can be. You will have your opportunity for that. That is defensive matter; it has nothing to do with this witness. The opinion of this witness on those points is not any more valuable than the opinion of witnesses that you may introduce when the time comes. That is final.
DR. SCHILF: I beg your pardon, but I want to say just just one word more.
The witness, from the year 1936 until the year 1944, was prosecutor at the Penal Sonat, the District Court of appeals, in Stuttgart. Apart from that, he worked with the General Prosecutor on clemency pleas. He has explained in great detail that, on the one hand, the sentence by Cuhorst were, very severe and, on the other hand, they were very lenient; and that the Reich Ministry of Justice, on the one hand, did not disagree with Cuhorst because he was too lenient, and, on the other hand, disagreed with him because he was too severe.
And now this witness is particularly valuable. For years he also dealt with clemency pleas with the Chief Prosecutor in Stuttgart and could give us some clarification about this contradiction, a contradiction which was very clear from his statements and from his affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Schilf, if you think this witness is peculiarly able to throw light upon that subject, call him as your witness when you come to your defense.
DR. SCHILF: I am quite satisfied with that, Fr. President. Thank your.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honor please, as I understand it, the Court's ruling is that this witness has offered no material evidence concerning the relationship to the defendants in the Ministry of Justice, so that everyone understands.
JUDGE BRAND: I think we understand that he has discussed conduct of the Ministry of Justice, but his testimony has not related to any specific defendant.
MR. LA FOLLITTE: Exactly. Exactly, and so that the Tribunal -if I may state the Prosecution's position, we understand that situation I think Dr. Schilf has lost nothing, because we understand there has been no relationship to any defendant.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Dr. Schwarz, in your affidavit which you have been discussing at some length this morning you stated that in the Pietra case that a death sentence was passed by the defendant Cuhorst. Now last Friday during your direct examination you further state on Page 1952 of the transcript of the trial again that the Pole, which from the context appears to be Pietra, was tried with Cuhorst as presiding judge and was sentenced to death. Now, Dr. Schwarz, in your narrative this morning you have said that Pietra was not sentenced to death but was given some term of imprisonment. May I inquire how on two previous occasions under solemn oath, which you as a lawyer are quite aware of the implications thereof, you can unequivocally state that a man was sentenced to death, and this morning deny it completely?
How is that, Dr. Schwarz?
A. I can give ample clarification for that. I have stated in the case Pietra that as I remember, it was a young Pole who, with Cuhorst as presiding judge, was sentenced to death. I have always told the officials of the Prosecution that I remember the case under the name. Pietra, but I do not know quite for sure whether that was the man's name. I have also explained that if I remember correctly I had no close contact with the case and that in particular I do not believe that I had anything to do with the plea for clemency for Pietra, but that that was the prosecutor Wendling. In my statement of this morning I did not mention, or only briefly mentioned, the case Pietra, and the case Pietra reminded me of another case which is not identical with the case Pietra. In the case Pietra there was the relationship of a young Pole with a German woman. In the case which I have mentioned -
Q. Dr. Schwarz, one minute. There seems to be some confusion as to the name of the case. But in any event regardless of the name of the defendant, on those facts some Pole was sentenced to death by Cuhorst; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, with regard to the writing by you on a verdict in the case of Heinz Nimiz, that writing placed by you on the verdict at the time, as you have said, made some notation of your feeling that the added year of the sentence was in some way related to the fa.ct that the crime occurred in the neighborhood where Cuhorst lived. That is correct, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Dr. Schwarz, surely it is obvious to you that at the time you made that notation the Prosecution here could have had nothing to do with it. That is rather obvious, isn't it? We didn't ask you to write that on the verdict, did we?
A. No, that was my own intention, of course.
Q. Yes. That was your own intention. Now, leaving that case, think back if you will to last Thursday afternoon. Do you remember where you were last Thursday afternoon? Perhaps the time would help.
A. Yes, I believe I was interrogated by Mr. LaFollette, but I do not remember whether that was Thursday afternoon. I only know that during the two days I was with Mr. LaFollette and that during one conversation you yourself were present.
Q. Yes. I am speaking of the occasion at which I was also present and that, as you suggest, was with Mr. LaFollette in his office. Now during the occasion that you now remember, what was the subject of conversation?
A. The subject of conversation was the affidavit.
Q. Yes. Now during the course of that afternoon's discussion did you have anything to eat there in Fr. LaFollette's office?
A. Yes, I received some chocolate.
Q. How much chocolate did you receive?
A. Well, it was probably four square centimeters.
Q. Dr. Schwarz, was there any other chocolate in the room?
A. Certainly.
Q. Dr. Schwarz, how much chocolate was in the room that you saw?
A. You yourself got some chocolate and Mr. LaFollette also ate chocolate. Also, if I remember correctly, Mr. Einstein.
Q. And all of the chocolate that you saw, before any one ate any of it , in quantity how much would you say there was?
A. Altogether perhaps one chocolate bar.
Q. Now to refresh possibly your memory and certainly that of defense counsel and the Tribunal, the Prosecution would like to read only a few lines from an exhibit that was previously admitted into evidence before this court. It is Exhibit No. 120, and it is a recital of some occurrences at the Kemna concentration camp. Following these occurrences it was the recommendation of the senior public prosecutor in that area that no criminal proceedings could be instituted as a result of these occurrences.
I will read them very slowly.
DR. BRIEGER (Counsel for the Defendant Cuhorst) I should like to protest to further questions in this direction because they have nothing to do either with the direct or with the cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Ordinarily, Dr. Brieger's statement might apply. Under the circumstances of this case, as they have developed all the morning they do not apply. This witness has become a hostile witness, and the Prosecution may therefore deal with matters by way of cross examination if it desires.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. I think that it is quite apparent from your description, Dr. Schwarz, of this chocolate bar in Mr. LaFollette's office that there was just one chocolate bar that you saw, and you have also stated that every one in the room had some of it. Now, in your opinion, did you feel in Mr. LaFollette's office last Thursday afternoon as a result of the chocolate that you had and that had been divided from the bar that we all ate, that you were being bribed?
A. No. I considered it just a politeness on the part of Mr. LaFollette, whom I had a great deal of confidence in because he asked me very quietly.
Q. Now, Dr. Schwarz, after you accepted the kind gesture, as you have described, on the part of Mr. LaFollette in giving you some of that chocolate, thereafter did you feel yourself under any particular pressure?
A. I would like to ask, do you mean that I felt under a pressure during that conversation? No, but later on Friday.
Q And on Friday, how did you feel?
A Yes.
Q That was traceable to what?
A To the fact that an interrogator was with me between the morning and afternoon sessions. He made some statements concerning my previous statements.
Q You have described that. On this occasion which you mention, were you beaten over the head?
A No.
Q Were you starved?
A On the contrary. The interrogator took me to lunch with him.
Q Were you tortured?
A Not at all, but the interrogator time and time again explained to me in very strong words that he was not satisfied with my statements, and that it was my duty if a question were put to me by the defense, to not only give one answer, but if possible, a second statement when then would weaken the point the defense was making. I explained that I would answer questions I was asked according to the truth. I had the impression that I was net only supposed to be questioned as a witness here, but that in a manner of speaking, I was considered an auxiliary of the Prosecution. My point of view concerning the Prosecution, is not a hostile point of view at all. I try my best to tell the truth always. I cannot understand the manner in which the interrogations were conducted, which interrogations finally led to my affidavit.
Q And after that rather harrowing experience that you had at luncheon, in the course of afternoon, in response to questions from the Tribunal, you stated that there was nothing that you had already said that was untrue. Is that right?
A Yes. According to my recollection, what I have said was not untrue. Only I was not quite sure about the party membership of the Fellow Member Klautzer.
I asked if there were any point which was questionable? And if there was, I asked that that question be put to me again, because my recollection as far as individual points are concerned, is not quite clear.
Q Witness, you also said to the Court, Friday, and you reaffirmed it this morning, that with regard to your affidavit, there was nothing in there that you regarded on its face as being essentially untrue. Is that correct?
A It is correct with the exception of those points which I have explained this morning.
Q Yes, this morning after maxing the statement that there was nothing in the affidavit which was essentially untrue, you went on at some length to indicate that some sentences, grammatical sentences, were not your own.
I show to the witness, now, his original affidavit which bears on its face some 23 to 25 alterations. Each one, I think, is is his own handwriting, and at the bottom of each page, is his signature.
Now, witness, I am not asking you anything about that other than the will you please affirm for the Court that that is, in fact, the original draft that you signed, and that those initials were put there by you?
A Yes, but I ask to be permitted to say something concerning that fact.
Q No, Witness, I am not going to ask you anything further about that. You have said a great deal about it. I have only one final question. You were mentioned toward the last of your narrative this morning, the matter concerning the illegal intercourse between German women and Poles. On the face of your affidavit is stated the fact that the Defendant Cuhorst was especially enraged at these activities between German women and Poles. What I ask you now, Witness, is this: You must have had basis for that statement. Can you tell us whether the basis was the fact they had intercourse, or the fact that men involved were Poles?
Which fact enraged Cuhorst?
A It was particularly the attitude of the women. The women, some cf them were older women, some of them were younger women who were married, and some were unmarried, some were married to soldiers, behaved abominably in their homeland. It was awful to see. They had sexual relations with the Polish prisoners of war who worked in that village. In individual cases, they even stated that they were prepared to marry the Poles and divorce their husbands. There was entertainment in some cases -
Q Witness, one moment please. If the men involved had been Frenchmen, from Paris, would Cuhorst have been so enraged?
A I am quite convinced of that because the attitude of the women, as I may say frankly was quite without shame.
Q One more thing, you remember the case of Lawyer Diesem? He got into trouble with the Special Court in Stuttgart. Some suspension proceedings were started against him. Your affidavit does not indicate that that unfortunate Dr. Diessem was suspended, but your oral testimony on direct examination Friday morning, indicated that he was suspended. Correct me if I misstate this briefly. What was it that defense counsel Diessem disagreed with the Court about? That case was presided over by Cuhorst. Was it not that Diessem disagreed on a point of law?
A Diessem agreed with the Tribunal in that there was a case of a public enemy. He only tried to deal with the basic misdemeanor as if it were a trifle, and there he was in disagreement with the Tribunal and also with me. But it was not only that which enraged Cuhorst, but also the rest of his statements. They, above all, irritated Cuhorst.
Q Is it your opinion, Witness, that irritating a judge so far as you personally are concerned, is reason for disbarment?
A On the basis of that plea about which Cuhorst was angry, he had written a complaint to Glueck. I do not know what the purpose of the complaint was.
I have corrected my affidavit where it reads that Cuhorst demanded and achieved the suspension of Diessem. I could not know whether Cuhorst demanded that Diessem be suspended.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If it please the Court, that concludes the redirect examination except for one small detail. We have again withdrawn the affidavit cf the witness. Before we re-submit it, we are going to count the changes and ask him if he has any more he cares to say about it if that fits in with you.
A Yes. And that is the following: I was asked before whether it was known to me that Cuhorst sentenced a Pole to death. I have stated time and time again that I believe my recollection is correct, that the name is Pietra. He was a Pole. I knew for certain that he was sentenced to death. I believe that Cuhorst was presiding judge at the time. I have always denied that Cuhorst was the man. If I remember correctly, I stated it was one of Cuhorst's cases. I have reasons why I cannot be sure of it. I do not remember having any objective connection with the case myself.
Q Dr. Schwarz, that is quite clear from what you have already said. Before we re-submit that affidavit, will you simply count the changes you made therein?
THE PRESIDENT: One moment please. The changes that were made in the original draft of that affidavit appear on the face cf it. The Tribunal has seen the notations. They have seen his initials. They have seen the signature at the bottom of each page. This Tribunal is able to count the number of changes, and the Tribunal will examine these changes. If the Prosecutor merely desires to introduce that original document in evidence, we will be glad to receive it.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honors please, it is in evidence. These changes don't show on the mimeographed copy.
THE PRESIDENT: It shows on the original draft. That is where the changes appear.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We cannot confine the whole case to the testimony of a witness who contradicts himself. We must go to something else.
MR. WOQLEYHAN: The witness may be excused.
THE PRESIDENT: The time has now come for the usual noon adjournment; we will therefore adjourn until 1:30 this afternoon.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 1330 hours.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 14 April 1947)
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I call the witness Remelin please.
RENATUS RIMELIN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BRAND: Will you raise your right hand and repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Ominscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLETTE:
Q. You will state your name to the court, please.
A. Renatus Rimelin.
Q. And where do you live Dr. Rimelin?
A. At Stuttgart - Bad Cannstatt.
Q. You have given two affidavits in this case, I believe?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. One on November 3, 1946?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. You will find that on Page 21 and 22 of the book that I just gave you.
A. Yes.
Q. The other was given on the 10th of January 1947, and you will find that on Page 38 and 39.
A. Yes.
Q. Will you relate to the Court your professional training and the positions which you had at the courts having criminal jurisdiction in Stuttgart, please.
A. In 1931, I passed my first legal examination. Following that, I worked in the preparatory service. In 1934, I passed my second examination for the legal service. Then as an assistant judge assessor, I was appointed to the local court and I was also used as an assistant public prosecutor by the prosecution. In 1937, I became a permanent judge. I was in that position until January 1940. In that month, I was transferred to the prosecution at Stuttgart to replace a colleague who had been called up. From 1940 until 1945, I was with the public prosecution in Stuttgart.
Q. Are you acquainted with the contents of these two affidavits which you have given?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Do you recall the dates on which you gave each of them?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Have you got anything to say now before I start examining you whether you were in any way forced to sign this affidavit -- or either of them, rather -- or whether you are not satisfied with the contents of them?
A. I was not coerced to depose this affidavit. It is possible that one sentence or the other during the dictation did not completely express my intentions.
Q. Were you threatened in any way to sign these affidavits in the shape that you find them now?
A. No.
Q. Thank you. In the prosecutor's office daring the years 1940 to 1945, what special cases or what special branch of the office did you handle?
A. First of all, I had to deal with cases of a general criminal nature, that is to say, thefts and fraud. Side by side with that, I was the export for economic matters, that is to say, for a census of the price regulations, for infringements against the goods regulations. Then I dealt with war economy matters, public enemy cases, sexual crimes and murders.
Q. Did you know anything about the political position which the defendant Cuhorst occupied in the Nazi Party in and around Stuttgart?
A. I think that Cuhorst was a speaker for the Party.
Q. What were his relationships with the Gauleiter or the Kreisleiter or the Party leaders in that territory?
A. Concerning his relations with the Gauleiter and Kreisleiter--Districtleiter--I can make no statements; but I do know that concerning the head of the state police office, he did entertain relations with him.
Q. And what were those relations?
A. I have no actual facts in my knowledge concerning these relations. I did know that he was friendly with Muskey.
Q. And who was Muskey?
A. Muskey was the head of the state police office at Stuttgart.
Q. Was the Cuhorst family--Cuhorst and his brother and father--were they prominent in the Party?
A. Cuhorst's brother was the expert on cultural matters for the town of Stuttgart.
Q. As such was he the head of the political life and public office life of Stuttgart?
A. As expert on cultural matters, he was in charge of the cultural life in Stuttgart, which naturally was closely connected with the Party.
Q. In your affidavit of January 10, 1947, you state in general that you were afraid of Cuhorst, that owing to his high position in the Party he could have been extremely dangerous to you as a devout Catholic, and that he submitted a complaint against you. Will you tell the court some facts with reference to that statement?
A. I represented the prosecution in the case of several persons who at a printer's office had stolen ration cards. Cuhorst was not the presiding judge. At the end of the trial, the defendants, together with the audience, left the court room. Thus the danger that one or the other among the audience could get away. The responsibility for moving the defendants away was nine. Therefore, I told the head of the office of the District Court, I suggested to him in good intentions, that he should have a barrier out up between the audience part of the room and that part of the court room where the defendants were. Cuhorst heard of my conversation; he then did not raise a complaint with me; he did make a complaint to the prosecution in which he reproached me with having allocated to myself rights which were not my rights, of having disturbed the good relations between the prosecution and the court and he protested energetically against a young republic prosecutor giving orders in his court room. That complaint was through the prosecution, that is to say, the head of the prosecution authorities; he took up that complaint; he dealt with it. It was indicated to me that under all circumstances I was to apologize to Cuhorst, so that no further consequences would arise for me. I did so; Cuhorst accepted my apology, but the relations between him and myself from that moment onwards were disturbed.
Q. Were you in Stuttgart at the time of the big air raids in September, 1944?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Were you there afterwards?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Describe to the Court what happened to the court building and the places where the records of the Special Court and the criminal senate at the District Court were kept.
A. The court building in Stuttgart is a square; the prosecution and the Special Court were housed on the southern side of the building; the southern side of the building was burned out completely.
Q. I will ask you whether or not the records were destroyed.
A. I should assume so, or I even know it for certain; for the criminal record department was housed in the rooms of the prosecution. All those rooms are completely burned out, and that part of the building is broken, or collapsed.
Q. When did the Special Court leave Stuttgart?
A. About one month before the arrival of the allies; before the allies arrived, and that was on the 21st of April; correction, on the 22nd of April.
Q. What became of the records that accumulated after the air raid and until the time they left?
A. The files were destroyed.
Q. Do you know; tell the court what you know with reference to the period of time which Cuhorst set for the trial of cases.
A. The indictments were submitted by the prosecution to the Special Court. Cuhorst, as the presiding judge of the Special Court, decided the date on which the trial was to be held; and besides, he appointed the judges who were to work on the case. It happened that the trial was held two days after the files were received by the Special Court, but as a rule trials were fixed for a term of fourteen days to three weeks after receipt of the files. That was true in particular of trials held outside the town, where according to the trip, those dates were fixed according to the route of the journey.
Q. How did the defense counsel, paid for and retained by the defendant, obtain access to the files; to whom did he have to petition for that right?
A. The defense counsel had the right to look at the files under the criminal code of procedure from the moment when the files arrived at the Special Court.
Q. Did I understand you incorrectly yesterday afternoon then? I thought you said that the presiding judge had the right to determine whether he wanted to continue to look at the files, and that he had the right to refuse a defense counsel the right to look at the files until he was completed with them. I thought I understood you to tell me that yesterday.
A. Certainly, if the presiding judge did not hand the files to the lawyers, then it could not be done because the head of the office was not empowered under the code of procedure to do so. We could do a favor to the defense counsel, if he did so, but concerning the right to look at these files, the judge decided about that.
Q. That, of course, applies; that, of course, applied also to the case of defense counsel appointed by the court or by the presiding judge; is that right?
A. Certainly; that also applied to those cases.
Q. Now, you stated in your affidavit of November 3rd, on what is probably the first page certainly of the English document; you find that on page 22 of your German book; that the defendant Cuhorst was severe in proceedings against foreigners; I am stating this in substance; that he had an especial aversion against Poles; that he passed death sentences for murders, but also in case of less important crimes in order to intimidate the foreign workers. Generally, will you expand on that and tell the court what you know about that?
A. Besides the other cases which I dealt with, I also had to deal with criminal cases against Poles, but Cuhorst, as far as I am able to remember and also correspondence with what I think I can remember for certain after a great deal of reflection, against Poles only such trials were held which considered, or concerned murders. I remember for certain that the trials against the two Poles was con ducted by him, against the two Poles who had murdered a gardener at Bad Cannstatt.