Q From your own observations you don't know anything about that?
A No, I did not attend the session.
DR. SCHUBERT: I am at the end of my cross examination of the witness, Your Honor.
EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHILF: (Attorney for defendant Klomm)
Q I should like to put only one question to this witness concerning the Reich Ministry of Justice at that time. Witness, in your affidavit of 19 December, 1946, on the first page of the German text, you mention that apparently on principle the Defense before Oeschey, and you state literally -- was quite helpless. Then you continued -- if already the party was against the Defense Counsel, then Oeschey was as much in particular. Then comes the passage which I want to quote: "At that time I heard about a secret decree of the Reich Ministry of Justice, but had not seen it, which supposedly instructed the judges to supervise the attorneys, and to report their, "slip-ups to the proper authorities." Could you tell us in some mere detail what that was supposed to have been -- that secret decree.
A Whether there was such a decree, in fact, I could not say; I have not seen any decree of that kind, but I heard people talk about it by way of rumor, that there existed a decree of that kind.
Q Was anything mentioned in that connection with the socalled lawyers letters?
A That I could not remember.
Q Do you know the socalled lawyers letters?
A I remember only very vaguely -
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I object. That is completely outside the scope of the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: There is nothing in there about the lawyers letters. I do not recall anything about lawyers letters in any of the affidavit.
DR. SCHILF: I put the question only because the witness just told us that he only heard a rumor about a secret decree, possibly we could get a clarification whether by the secret decree he meant lawyers letters, but he denied that, and that finished that question.
Q May I summarize and ask you: You only heard rumors without having been in a position to investigate what part was true and what part was not?
A Yes.
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any redirect examination at this time.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:Just one question your Honor.
Q Dr. Eichinger, on the 20th of March 1945, did you move into a new office in the courthouse here?
AAt about that date.
Q Now, the next month, on the 5th of April, as you later learned did the trial of Count Montgelas occur?
A Yes.
Q When did you hear about the trial of Count Montgelas for the first time?
A If I remember correctly, on Tuesday, the 10th of April 1945, when I ....
Q Excuse me, Dr. Eichinger, in other words, you heard about the trial of Count Montgelas five days after it happened; is that correct?
A Yes, indeed.
Q And, was Count Montgelas your client; were you defending him?
A Yes.
Q After you moved into your new office on or about the 20th of the preceding month, who occupied the office next door -- in general, I do not want their names; were they defense counsel, lawyers, prosecutors, or who were they?
AAs far as I can remember, on one side of the defense counsel office was the office of the president of the chamber of lawyers, and on the other side of that, defense counsel office which was an emergency office at that time. There were two more rooms, which were put to the disposal of the chamber for attorneys, and were used as emergency offices for defense counsel whose offices had been bombed out. I believe Dr. Hundrisser a friend of mine and attorney Sammetreuter were working in these rooms.
Q Dr. Eichinger, you were surrounded by all the various lawyers. Now, did you receive at anytime, on or before the 5th of April any notification of the fact that your client, Count Montgelas, was going to be tried for his life on the 5th of April; were you notified?
A I was not told a thing about it; so, that on the 10th of April I intended to visit him in the prison, and to my greatest surprise, I heard that several days ago he had been sentence and executed.
Q Now, Dr. Eichinger, the statements that you made before the district court in Ebermannstadt on the 27th of June 1946 which if I interpolate for the Court, is part of Exhibit 150--do you now affirm the facts that you there stated?
A Yes.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
(The witness was then excused and withdrew from the courtroom.)
THE PRESIDENT: At this time, ten minutes before the usual time for the morning recess, may we have the name of the next witness.
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Tribunal, the next witness is the witness Kroher.
JUDGE BRAND: What is the exhibit number?
DR. SCHUBERT: It is 230.
THE PRESIDENT: I would like to ask the Prosecution again whether this is among those to which you have no objection?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No objection, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It is so near the usual recess time, that we will take our recess of fifteen minutes at this time, and have your witness ready after reconvening.
(Thereupon a recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, I have to make a request on behalf of all the defense counsel. Perhaps we will also get the support of the gentlemen of the prosecution. Next Monday is the second day of Whitsuntide. In Germany that is a very high holiday. We have just been informed -- it had been intended -- that next Monday witnesses will be called. That would mean that the Court will probably be in session on Monday. Difficulties, however, arise from the fact that it is a high holiday in Germany. Witnesses who come from other places will probably not find proper means of transportation. There is a holiday schedule on, and other limitations on traffic. As we have just been told, the Tribunal in the medical trial, and in the Flick trial, have already decided not to hold court on Monday. In consideration of the difficulties which might arise for the witnesses, I believe that I have also stated a technical reason for our request not to hold a court session on Monday.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be no court next Monday.
HERMANN KRONER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BRAND: Witness, will you raise your right hand repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE BRAND: You may be seated.
EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q. Witness, please tell your name and profession to the Court.
A. Dr. Hermann Kroher, lawyer, in Nurnberg.
Q. Witness, on the 7th of January 1947 you submitted an affidavit for the prosecution. In this affidavit you make statements regarding the Special Court in Nurnberg. May I ask you whether, before other courts also, and Special Courts, you were defense counsel?
A. I was defense counsel at the District Court, Nurnberg, the Penal Chamber; and only also before the Special Court in Nurnberg, not before other Special courts.
Q. You made certain statements about the Special Court Nurnberg without differentiating, in so doing, between the individual presiding judges and associate judges who were sitting on the Special Court. Do your remarks refer to the entire Special Court?
A. First of all they refer to the two presiding judges of the Special Court.
Q. Which two?
A. To Landgerichtsdirector Rothaug, and Landgerichtsdirector Oeschey.
Q. Did the Special Court also have other presiding judges?
A. Yes, there was also a presiding judge, Landgerichtsdirector Forber, at least during the later years.
Q. Did other gentlemen also preside?
A. Yes, certainly; before that other gentlemen also were presiding judges.
Q. And in later times, witness?
A. In later times I can really only remember Rothaug, Oeschey, and Ferber. It may be that perhaps Landgerichtsrat Pfaff was also presiding judge.
Q. Witness, you stated that once, because of a remark you made during a session, a denunciation was made against you to the prosecution, that than there was a trial because of violation of the law for punichment for malicious acts, and that finally you had to pay a fine of five hundred marks, which was imposed by the Lawyers' Chamber.
A. Correct.
Q. Who was in this session when you made the remark?
A. Landgerichtsdirector Ferber, District Court Director Ferber.
Q. Dr. Ferber was p residing judge?
A. Yes, Ferber was presiding judge.
Q. Do you know who initiated the denunciation?
A. No.
Q. In this connection, can you make a reproach against the defendant Oeschey?
A. No, not at all.
Q. Here in your affidavit you mention a case Bachhuber, in which you were defense counsel.
A. Yes.
Q. Unfortunately, I do not have the files of this case at hand, so that I cannot question you extensively about it. Therefore, I will have to refrain from my submission of evidence to that extent until I have tho file. I only want to ask you one question.
From your statements it is apparent that you considered the sentence harsh. Do you mean to say by that that it was a wrong sentence?
A. I cannot say that.
Q. You then mention a case Gruber, in which you were also defense counsel. In this case was there an examination of a woman witness cutside of Numberg? Can you remember that?
A. Yes. The witness was interrogated by a member of the Special Court in her apartment in Feucht.
Q. Witness, are you of the opinion that the proceedings were extensive and exhaustive before and during the main trial?
A. In the case Gruber, all material evidence which I offered, as far as I remember, was admitted.
Q. Dr. Kroher, you say, furthermore, that the presiding judges of the Nurnberg Special Court, during a trial, were in the habit of making remarks of this kind; "We will put your head at your foot", or, "We shall show you, you may be sure, as to how criminals are extermination."
Did you hear such remarks made by tho presiding judge Oeschey?
A. Both presiding judges of the Nurnberg Special Court liked to make remarks of that kind.
Q. Did the presiding judge Oeschey ever make a remark to the effect "We will put your head at your feet"? Can you remember that?
A. Literally, I cannot remember such a statement of the presiding judge Oeschey.
DR. SCHUBER: Thank you very much.
My cross-examination is concluded.
BY DR. KOESSL (Counsel for the defendant Rothaug):
Q. Witness, in your affidavit you say that you were treated harshly but correctly.
A. Correct.
Q. From that may I infer that you absolutely had the possibility to make requests for submission of evidence?
A. I could offer evidence, but there was very little chance that it would be admitted in any way whatsoever.
Q. Perhaps you had little chance to offer evidence because of the method of conducting the trial; that is, that during the trial all questions had been treated in such an exhaustive manner that there was little need for the submission of evidence?
A. I don't want to say that, but rather, matters were as follows, namely, that requests for the submission of evidence on the part of defense counsel were refused as being unnecessary in the case, even thought defense counsel, as such, considered this evidence as being necessary for the trial; otherwise he would not have asked to have it submitted.
Q. In such a case, witness, you of course had the possibility of appealing against the sentence if you had a well-founded supposition that your offer of evidence was refused unjustly.
A. Yes.
Q. In the Malicious Acts case against Korher, did you--
MR. WOOLEYHAN (Interposing): May it please the Court, I don't like to interrupt, but the answer to that last question, as I got it, was that the witness had the right to appeal a sentence. Now, if they are talking about the Special Court, that clearly is erroneous because, as a matter of law, there was no appeal.
THE PRESIDENT: The observation of the prosecutor is certainly true, so please specify which court you have reference to when you ask him if he could appeal.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Court, from the law we can prove that all of the sentences of the Special Courts could be contested, on the basis of Article 26, Section 2 of the Code of Legal Procedure, by means of reopening a case.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you refer to extraordinary appeals and nullity pleas in your last statement?
DR. KOESSL: No, to the method of reopening a case, according to Article 26, Section 2 of the competence order. This regulation offered the possibility to have all sentences by the Special Courts contested, and not only for legal reasons, but also for factual reasons, because, by a circumstance in the meaning of this regulation, legal as well as factual points of view were considered.
JUDGE BRAND: By what Tribunal is it you claim the application for a reopening of the case was to be decided when the case had been tried in the Special Court?
DR. KOESSL: The facts were as follows:
The application for the reopening of a case could be made so that the Penal Chamber, in a regular procedure, could reopen the case -until 1943. That is, during the whole time when Rothaug was presiding judge of the Special Court. If the reopening of the case was refused, a possibility for complaint existed. The Senate of the Oberlandesgericht, of the District Court of Appeals, decided about this complaint. Members of this Senate at the District Court of Appeals at that time are still today holding high offices in the Administration of Justice. Thus, there was a very great possibility to reexamine all sentences.
JUDGE BRAND: You refer to the period up to 1943?
DR. KOESSL: Yes.
JUDGE BRAND: What happened after that?
DR. KOESSL: After 1943 there was only a small difference, because from that time on this procedure was carried on by the Special Courts themselves, and no longer by the Penal Chamber. However, it is not a significant difference, because the possibility of complaint to the District Court of Appeals was maintained.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Dr. Koessl. You have used the word "reopen". I think I am pretty familiar with the procedure during that period, and I have never seen the word "reopening". I have seen the word "revision." Is that the word you refer to?
DR. KOESSL: No, Your Honor. In Germany we differentiate between different types of possibilities of contesting a judgment. All of these possibilities of contesting a sentence are called legal recourse. One of the subdivision of legal recourse are the so-called legal remedy. There are three types of legal remedies, according to the German code of legal procedure. First, the complaint; second, the appeal against sentences. The appeal made it possible to examine the facts as well as the legal reasons. Third, the revision. The revision could only examine the legal grounds.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Keossl, surely neither the ordinary appeal nor the revision could be employed concerning sentences rendered by the Special Court.
DR. KOESSL: These legal remedies could not be used. However, the legal aid of the reopening of a case was there. If the Court permits, I shall conclude the matter in brief sentences. If the legal remedies were used, the decision was first tested by a higher court. In the case of the legal recourse, by using the legal aid of reopening a case, etc., the examination was first principally done by the same court, the same instance. The trials by Special Courts, however, during the whole time when Rothaug was active there until 1943, the special circumstance existed that here regarding the reopening of the trial and the carrying out of the reopening was not done by the same Special Court but by means of a regular procedure outside of the Special Court, in the penal chambers of the District Courts. And this regulation was, unfortunately, relative little known in the circles of lawyers in its true significance. However, it was repeatedly applied with success, and I shall prove this.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Well, I hope he can prove it, Your Honor. This does not constitute proof.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, you say you can prove this.
DR. KOESSL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: If you can, you will have to prove it when you come to your defense. You can't prove it by argument with this witness.
DR. KOESSL: No, the witness did not enter into this matter to any further extent. I just happened to come to speak about this matter right now, and in my own case I shall prove to you that the reopening was done with success in several cases. May I proceed with the examination of the witness?
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, but no further along that line.
DR. KOESSL: All right.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Witness, in the matter of the denunciation in regard to the malicious acts, was the defendant Rothaug participating?
A. Do you mean the denunciation against me?
Q. Yes.
A. I cannot say who made this denunciation.
Q. Which prosecutor was the representative of the prosecution during this malicious acts trial?
A. Prosecutor Markl.
Q. Was it the same prosecutor who has been present during the session before when you made this remark?
A. No.
Q. When was this offense which gave the cause for the trial according to the malicious acts law?
A. I believe in 1943.
Q. In the first of second half?
A. I can't remember that any more.
Q. Do you know, witness, that the brief periods that were allowed before the trial was opened had been ordered from above?
A. No, I only know that the prosecution, through this short period before the trial was opened, was hampered extraordinarily because they hardly had the possibility to discuss the matter with the defendants after they had examined the files.
JUDGE BRAND: Just a minute. Did the witness say that the Prosecution was hampered or that the defense was hampered?
THE WITNESS: The defense. The prosecution had already prepared the indictment in advance. It was the matter of the defense to take -they had to talk with the defendant in order to get evidence for the trial. In most cases this was not possible for the defense because the time was so short that they had only one or at the most two days.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Did you try to have the time extended?
A. Yes.
Q. With success?
A., No, without success. They were refused with a remark that the pressure of business did not permit it.
Q. Did you make use of the method of reopening a case?
A. No.
Q. You say in your affidavit that the scheduling of a case in Room 600 was always a sign that Rothaug or the Special Court in general was considering the death penalty.
A. Yes.
Q. Could that not be seen also from the fact that the defense counsel appointed by the court, which was required by law, was appointed in this case?
A. Sometimes defense counsel were also appointed by the Court in cases where there was no death penalty considered. If a summons for a trial in Room 600 was issued and the summons was given at the same time with the request to be duty defense counsel, Pflicht-verteidiger, then one know that the head of the client was at stake.
Q. But that could also be seen from the indictment.
A. Certainly. Then one looked at the indictment under these points of view and one saw then when one received the indictment.
Q. In courtroom 600, you probably also experienced trials where there was no death penalty?
A. Hardly.
Q. But you did experience it?
A. It may be, of course. Today after such a long time I cannot remember the individual trials any more.
Q. In how many cases about did you act as defense counsel?
A. That I really cannot remember. It could be 20, 30, 40, 50. I can't remember.
Q. However, it is correct that again and again you were defense counsel before the Special Court?
A. Yes, of course, until the end.
DR. KOESSL: I have no further questions.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In direct examination, Your Honor, I have one question.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Dr. Kroher -
A. Yes?
Q. In your entire experience before the Special Court in Nuremberg did you ever have a case that was reopened for the benefit of the defendant after the sentence had been passed and revoked by another court?
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Court, I believe I forgot to put a question. If I would be permitted --
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I object to further questions, Your Honor. The examination is finished.
DR. KOESSL: Then I will confine myself to these questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is another witness available at this time. Have you some other witness available, Capt. Lewis?
THE MARSHAL: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Tell us the name if you can.
THE MARSHAL: Ostermayer.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, bring him in.
ROBERT OSTERMAYER; a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BLAIR: Held up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
JUDGE BLAIR: You may be seated.
DR. KEOSSL (For the defendant Rothaug):
The affidavit of the witness Ostermayer is in Document Book 3-I in German on Page 13 and the English on Page 18, Document NG-738 -No, Exhibit 222, NG 378.
JUDGE BRAND: 738 it should be.
DR. KOESSL: Yes, 738.
EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Witness, between 1938 and the end of 1940 you were at the Special Court Nurmberg?
A. Yes, all the time.
Q. As such from the very beginning you preferred to be in the civil chamber and you always stated that?
A Yes.
Q Witness, did you experience any case in which Rothaug charged the defendant with something that he had not committed at all?
A No.
Q The basis of the sentence as regards the facts, did they actually always correspond with the actual facts as they could be clarified during the trial?
AAs it was found out during the trial, so it was taken over into the sentence.
Q So, that you never saw a distortion of the facts? You never observed it?
A I have never observed it.
Q Can you confirm, witness, that Rothaug, in regard to the material in the trial, was in such excellent command of the facts as well as the legal questions involved that for the associate judges it was difficult to attack his conception with good reasons?
A Rothaug had an excellent memory.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That question I object to for the reason that it calls for the personal opinion of the witness on matters to which he is not qualified as an expert.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection will be overruled.
EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q I ask you to answer this question. I shall repeat the question.
A Yes, please.
Q Can you confirm, witness, that Rothaug, in regard to the material in the trial, had good command of the material as regards the facts and the legal questions involved so that it was difficult for the associate judge to attack his conception with good reasons?
A Rothaug -- this is what I wanted to say before -- already had an excellent memory, and probably he had very good legal abilities, and he also had long years of experience as presiding judge in criminal cases;
and so for these reasons, without doubt, he knew the material in the trial. I have to say "Yes," for the reason that it was naturally difficult for us to make any objections against his opinion.
Q I only have now this question: whether during your interrogation by the prosecution in regard to the case Wendel, the files were submitted to you?
A The files were submitted, to me; otherwise, I would not have been in the position at all to remember details due to the long time that had expired.
Q May it please the Court, since the files in the criminal case which have just been mentioned are available, I believe it would be best that I discontinue the examination, because I can submit my evidence and it would perhaps be clearer if I did it by means of documents. Therefore, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any redirect examination?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
Is there another witness available?
THE MARSHAL: Robert Rauh.
ROBERT RAUH, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows?
JUDGE BRAND: Will you raise your right hand and be sworn. Repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Koessl for the defendant Rothaug. We are concerned with the affidavit, Exhibit 225, NG-526 in Document Book 3-I; in the German on Page 67, in the English, Page 62.
Witness, do you know the circumstances under which Rothaug in 1934 was transferred from Nurnberg to Schweinfurt?
A I do not know any details about this.
Q Do you know, witness, why Rothaug in 1937 was retransferred from Schweinfurt to Nurnberg?
AAt that time, there was some talk that he had come to Nurnberg in order to be presiding judge in the Special Court. Whether that was absolutely correct, I do not know. That was just talk.
Q Thank you. In your affidavit, you say that Rothaug, in the course of time, became one of the most influential persons in the administration of justice. You probably were only thinking of Nurnberg?
A Yes, I was only thinking of the conditions in Nurnberg. Beyond that, I did not know anything.
Q May it please the Court, I have just been handed a piece of paper, according to which, I have overlooked to ask the witness what his name is. I ask you to excuse this mistake. I would like to make up for this.
Witness, please tell your name and your profession.
A My name is Robert Rauh.
Q And your profession?
A I was Landgerichtsrat, and according to the decree of the Military Government, I was discharged.
Q Witness, of what kind were the instructions which Rothaug gave to the members of the NS Lawyer's League in a dictatorial tone of voice? Were they only invitations and similar things?
A They were invitations; whether other regulations of behavior were also given, that I cannot remember at the moment. But usually, they were longer statements, and the dictatorial tone of these instructions was noticed by several other people, and his distatorial tone toward me was complained about by several other people.
Q Was that the form that was usual at the time?
A Yes, usually in the National Socialist state, they were definite orders.
Q Witness, between April 1940 and Rothaug's leaving in 1934, were you only active as an associate judge, and that is as substitute associate judge?
A Yes. I was substitute associate judge until about November or December 1944.
Q Thus you were not a constant member of the Special Court at the time of Rothaug?
A No.
Q Did you at that time constantly follow up the writings and procedures in the field of criminal procedure and war time criminal procedure?
A That was difficult in part. However, I did read up on it, especially as the Deutsche Justiz -- the Journal -- was at my disposal.
Q Did you experience any case, witness, in which Rothaug distorted evidence or the facts in a case in any way in the opinion that he stated them incorrectly?
A No; at least, I never became conscious of it. I always had the impression as though nothing was done to the facts, as if facts were not violated.
Q In your affidavit, you say: "To object to his wishes would have meant suicide." Did this phrase originate with you?
A Mr. Einstein dictated this passage to me, and at that time I also had misgivings about this expression "suicide," but I was told that these words would not be so put on the scales as they were in the Third Reich, and I then calmed myself because I thought: that is a moral suicide, so to say.
Q Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any redirect examination?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: There being no redirect examination, the witness may be excused.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Court, the clarification which was made yesterday showed that it is possible for us also to submit affidavits of those witnesses, so, therefore, I would like to refrain from examining the witness in regard to the defendant Rothaug, and to content myself with affidavits; and I would like to inform the Court so that the woman witness can be dismissed -- the witness Rothaug. I was told only this morning that Miss Rothaug will be summoned.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be entirely agreeable. You may substitute an affidavit in place of your cross examination as to the witness Rothaug. In other words, you waive your cross examination as to this witness.
DR. KEOSSL: I waive the cross examination, and shall submit an affidavit later.
DR. JOSEF BRUEB? a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE BLAIR:
Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL: (Attorney for Defendant Rothaug)
Q. We are concerned with Document NG-672, Exhibit 179, in Book III-I. Witness, please state your full name and your profession to the Court.
A. Dr. Josef Grueb; my last position was Oberlandesgerichsrat.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's get the record clear -- its Book III-E, page 95; III-E, page 95.
DR. KEOSSL: E. It is page 106 in the German, and I don't know the English at the moment.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 95.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, please state your full name and your profession.
A Dr. Josef Grueb, my last position was Oberlandesgerichsrat in Nuernberg, District Court of Appeals counsel.
Q Witness, you worked for the General Public Prosecutor in Nuernberg?
A Yes.
Q When did you start and how long were you working for the General Public Prosecutor, Nuernberg.
A From the first of January, 1937 until the collapse.
Q Thus, during the entire time of the activity of the defendant Rothaug at the special court, you were working for the General Public Prosecutor?
A I don't know when Rothaug began his activities.
Q The 1st of May 1937, until the first of May, 1943.
A Yes.
Q Which special field were you working on with the public General Prosecutor?
A General penal matters, with the exception of political penal matters; political penal cases, were cases against priests, those who belonged to that order, and against Jews.
Q That did not belong to your field?
A No.
Q That is in your division, the purely criminal matters, did crimes of Poles belong to that field too?
AAs such not; matters of Polish cases could be among them because it depended upon the nature of their criminal case; if they were of a general, merely criminal nature, they belonged to my field.
Q In the case of a Pole, thus the same situation existed as with the Germans--it just depended upon what crime he had committed that the treatment of the case then belonged to your referat, your special department, or to another?
A Yes, regarding the competence giving into a special department, I can say yes.