Commission III, Case III
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Not NG, but NO -- NO-2253, Exhibit 419.
DR. KUBUSCHOK:NO-2253, Exhibit 419, Document Book VIII-A.
JUDGE BRAND: And the witness' name?
A.- Dr. Hugo Suchomel.
JUDGE BRAND: You may proceed.
Q Witness, I am now going to put a question to you. In this affidavit, on the second, page, you refer to a conference which was held during the second half of 1942, at a time when Thierack was already Minister of Justice, and which was concerned with the euthanasia question. You mention that, in your recollection, several gentlemen of the Ministry were present, among others, you mention the name of Ammon. Witness, your recollection of those who attended that conference, is it absolutely correct or is it possible that your memory may have been at fault on some points?
A Concerning that paragraph of my affidavit I have to make a correction. I remember that that conference was secret; for secret conferences only persons were invited who in some way or another were concerned with the subject which was discussed at such a secret conference; that was based on a so-called order by the Fuehrer Fuehrerbefehl according to which every official was allowed to receive information about secret matters only to the extent required for the particular official's work. At that conference referents of the Penal Division, that is to say, Division IV Had been invited; probably only those officials who possibly might have had to deal with euthanasia cases. If my recollection is correct of all the gentlemen whose names I have given here, the names of Ministerialrat Joel, Ministerialrat Ammon, would have to be omitted, also Ministerial Dirigent Grau, and Ministerialrat Rietsche, because at the time when that conference was held those persons still belonged to Division III. And, Division III only dealt with legislative matters. Regarding Oberreigierungsrat Dr. Hans Heder, my recollection is certainly correct. As far as Ministerial Dirigent Mettgenberg is concerned, Ministerial Millke, and Dr. Westphal, I cannot altogether exclude the possibility that one of these gentlemen perhaps was not present; be it that he was on leave or had gone on an official tour or was ill. For the rest, I have nothing further to say about the affidavit.
Court, III, Case III
Q A supplementary question. Did von Ammon, at any time, have anything to do with euthanasia questions?
A No.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I object, your Honor. There has been no foundation laid to show that this witness is qualified to answer that question. It calls for a technical knowledge of the Ministry's functions, and there is nothing showing either in the affidavit or here that he is qualified to pass an opinion on that question.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I also ask, your Honor, that the answer be stricken.
THE PRESIDENT: The answer will be stricken. It is not within the purview of the cross examination under this affidavit.
Q Do you know von Ammon through official contacts and privately?
A I did not know him privately, but I did get to know him through our work.
Q What you found out about him through your work, does that entitle you to assume that von Ammon during his work was always endeavoring to adhere to a human course?
A Dr. von Ammon was not my subordinate, therefore, I cannot give any information about Ms work.
Q Your knowledge of him from living together from working together in the same building at the Ministry, what impression did that give you?
A Dr. von Ammon, according to my own personal impression, was a quiet official, who, in no way, gave me the impression of a particularly ardent person.
Q Your position as Sub-division Head for Austrian Legal Affairs since 1939, probably gave you an opportunity to get to know the Undersecretary of the time, Dr. Schlegelberger, in your work?
A Yes, I became acquainted with Dr. Schlegelberger for the first time when he came to Vienna at the end of 1938 or at the beginning of 1939 he asked the staff in the Ministry of Justice in Vienna whether they were willing to be employed outside of Austria.
When in March 1939, I came to the Ministry of Justice, at first I had nothing to do in my work with Under-Secretary Schlegelberger, for I had to work exclusively on the penal legislation for Austria; penal legislation was under the direction of Under-Secretary Dr. Freisler, whereas Under-Secretary Schlegelberger dealt with civil matters.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I object to further questions on this matter for the reason that the defendant Schlegelberger is in no ways mentioned in the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Your examination clearly exceeds the scope of the affidavit; there can be no question about that. If you desire to make this witness your own, vouching for him as to his credibility, to that extent, the Commission will hear such testimony as you may offer in behalf of the defense, as your witness; otherwise, the objection must certainly be sustained.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: As the witness lives in Vienna, and as it would be difficult to recall him, I would like to claim him as a witness for Schlegelberger, and would like to direct questions to him as that.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In that event, your Honor, I request a 24 hour notice in order to be able to prepare some kind of cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Under the circumstances, the witness being a resident of points rather far distant, we will permit the Defense Counsel to examine him in behalf of the defendant Schlegelberger; and, we will shorten the time allowing the Prosecution to reall this witness the latter part of this afternoon for cross examination. We will not hold him ever for the full period of 24 hours under the circumstances. You may proceed.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: May I proceed? Did I understand that correctly?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Witness, you stated before that Under-Secretary Schlegelberger did not deal with penal matters, but that was the exclusive sphere of Under-Secretary Freisler. Did that distribution of spheres of work remain in force after the death of Guertner, and during the interim until the appointment of Thierack?
Did Freisler remain Undersecretary?
A Yes, because Under-Secretary Schlegelberger was put in charge, of the Ministry of Justice. The distribution was not changed in any way. The Penal Division continued to send us only instructions issued by Freisler Under-Secretary. To what extent Under-Secretary Freisler's before or after, consulted with Under-Secretary Schlegelberger, I do not know.
Q. From your knowledge in an official and other capacity of your superior of the time, Dr. Schlegelberger; and furthermore from your knowledge of the personality of the later Minister of Justice Thierack - can you give us a brief summary and account of the personality and the course under Minister of Justice Guertner, Under-Secretary Schlegelberger and Minister of Justice Thierack?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One moment, please. Your Honor, this is obviously calls for an oration of some length which can wander in any direction. I cannot conceive from the question asked in which direction it is headed I ask for a specific question, on some specific point.
JUDGE BRAND: The objection is overruled.
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q. Witness, will you kindly answer the question?
A. I gained the impression that in the sphere of penal legislation the driving force for the extreme severity of the National Socialist laws was Under Secretary Freisler. When Minister Thierack took over office he, to begin with, reserved to himself penal matters and penal legislation because under secretary Rothenberger was appointed to deal with civil matters. Minister Thierack and also Under Secretary Freisler both upheld a very severe attitude. When in 1942 -- and that was at the end of March because Ernst Schaefer, the Ministerial Director at that time had retired and the senior Ministerialdirigent Dr. Leopold Schaefer had fallen seriously ill -- I had to take over the direction of penal legislation for the Reich as well, I called on Minister Thierack twice and put to him that German justice had lost all standards in meeting out sentences; that the death sentence was being applied to an extent which was altogether untenable, and in particular I called his attention to the fact that I had received a letter from the front in which a front line soldier complained that a man who had raped and murdered his wife had been sentenced to death, just as a farmer who had slaughtered cattle black. I drew Minister Thierack's attention to the fact that because the death sentence has no gradations it was impossible to pronounce death sentences for minor offenses, for black slaughtering, on such a scale as was actually being done.
Minister Thierack told me that while there was a war on he could not become soft. He admitted that state of affairs was untenable for peace time, and that not only legislation but practice, too would have to become more lenient but only after peace had come. When next, at the beginning of 1943, the former prosecutor general of Koenigsverg, Dr. Vollmer, took over Division IV and later on also Division III, that severe course became even more evident than before.
Q. Can Schlegelberger's resignation and Thierack's taking of office be described as a change on the general course at tho Ministry towards severity?
A. As far as penal legislation is concerned increased severity was hardly possible. In individual penal matters Dr. Freisler already adhered to a very severe course. That policy under Thierack became even more harsh, and that - because Thierack, as he said, at the suggestion of Hitler, wanted to decimate the criminals so that the good elements would not be killed in action at the front while the dangerous criminals would remain incarcerated in penitentiaries. Under Thierack, therefore, the number of death sentences rose by leaps and bounds.
Q. Did you, during your work at the Ministry, gain the impression that Schlegelberger, in the direction of affairs after the death of Guertner, generally speaking adhered to Guertner's policy?
A. I had the impression that Guertner's policy was continued under Schlegelberger. In the sphere of penal law, however, tho policy had already been laid down by Freisler and that policy laid down by Freisler did not change under Schlegelberger. In any case, it did not become more severe.
Q. From your collaboration with Schlegelberger would you give us an account of Schlegelberger's personality?
A. I can hardly talk of a collaboration with Under Secretary Schlegelberger because, as I said before. Under Secretary Freisler governed matters of penal legislation; but I was under the impression that Under Secretary Schlegelberger in no way would have urged a policy which would have made special concessions to the demands of the Party.
I can no longer remember details today because those points which I had to deal with in matters concerning Schlegelberger's department, I do not remember any more. Their number must have been small. Concerning the civil department and its work I gained the personal impression that the outstanding scientific position of Schlegelberger, at any rate, did not promote a change such as happened in penal legislation. Perhaps it even detained it.
DR. GRUBE (for defendant Lautz): May it please the Court, I do not wish to question the witness on his affidavit, but I would like to question him as my own witness under the same conditions as Dr. Kubuschok has just done. Would you permit me to address some few questions concerning the defendant Lautz to this witness?
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. Wooleyhan, do you think that you can adequately prepare for the cross-examination if the witness is returned here the latter part of the afternoon after some interventing witness?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE BRAND: Do you think you can do that?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor, we have no objection.
JUDGE BRAND: I think it will save time. I take it that the defense has no objection to this intervention by some of their own number, in spite of the fact that we are sitting only as Commissioners today. If you have any objections they will certainly be sustained.
The Commissioners will permit you Dr. Grube, to make him your witness.
I am advised that technical reasons require us to take a recess at this time.
(A recess was taken)
Commission 111 Case 111
THE PRESIDENT: Before the examination begins, the Commissioners have considered that it should be a matter of record that such testimony as the defense may introduce beyond the scope of cross examination will be certified to the full Tribunal and will be considered by it as being in evidence. I assume that is the purpose of defense counsel in introducing this evidence.
DR. GRUBE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: One further matter. Inquiries have been made concerning the manner in which the testimony shall be recorded during the sitting of the Commission. The transcript will continue with the same paging and in exactly the same manner as if the Tribunal were sitting at this time. The pages of the transcript which represent the hearings before the Commission will be certified to the full Tribunal as being the evidence taken before the Commission, but the paging will continue exactly as it would continue if the hearings were before the full court.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honors, before the direct examination proceeds any further of this new defense witness, the fact that he is now a defense witness has raised a sudden problem not heretofore foreseen. The problem is this-- the Prosecution has retained two affidavits of Dr. Suchomel which we had intended to use as a rebuttal evidence. The defense, as I understand from Dr. Brieger during the recess, likewise has an affidavit from Dr. Suchomel which they had intended to use in their case in chief. Since part of the defense's case-in-chief has been suddenly projected into this proceeding, we feel that some ruling should be made as to the admissibility of these affidavits now, because I for one fear as possible prejudice in not being able to get these affidavits in after this witness leaves. I think Dr. Brieger has something to say about that too.
THE PRESIDENT: An inquiry: What would counsel for both sides think about putting in all of your affidavits and completing thereafter the verbal examination of this witness upon all of them?
Commission 111 Case 111
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That was my point in bringing up this matter now. That is agreeable with me.
DR. BRIEGER: On my part I do not want to speak to the suggestion made by Mr. Wooleyhan, but I prefer to have one of those colleagues speak whose client is concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry, but the translation didn't come through to the bench.
THE INTERPRETER: Dr. Brieger said, I don't like to speak myself to what Mr. Wooleyhan has said, but I should prefer to have another one of my colleagues speak whose client is affected by this matter.
DR. ORTH (Counsel for Defendant Altstoetter): I had the intention in defending my client Altstoetter to submit an affidavit by the witness Suchomel. The affidavit is up to now, available only in the German text. Up to now it has not been mimeographed. Therefore at this time I can only submit it to the court in German in one copy. That is the original. I believe that this would without doubt not be fair to the prosecution, because the prosecution should also know this affidavit. Therefore if the court is in agreement, I should like to submit the affidavit only when I come to my case in defense of Altstoetter.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is this witness residing, Berlin?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In Vienna, Your Honor. I might like to add to Dr. Orth's remarks that the documents that we wish to submit at a later time in rebuttal that comprise the affidavits of this witness are not ready at the moment. They arc being prepared, but they a re not ready.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the suggestion which we made appears to be impossible.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It appears to be impossible so far as the German translation of Dr. Orth's. We could get our exhibits in this afternoon, but I could not possibly cross examine on this. I was not aware of the fact that he hadn't had it translated.
THE PRESIDENT: I assume that the Prosecution will want the right which has been accorded to the defense, to have this witness produced Commission 111 Case 111 for cross examination upon the affidavit which he will later submit.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, Your Honor, we wouldn't insist on that.
THE PRESIDENT: You would have that right.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We realize that, but we wouldn't insist on it. I suggest, Your Honor, in view of the hiatus here, that direct examination of this witness proceed so far as all defense counsel here are concerned and then release him, subject to recall at a later date if, after the bilateral evidence goes in, defense counsel with the cross examine on it.
THE PRESIDENT: Will that be agreeable to the defense counsel?
DR. SCHILF: As far as I am concerned, may I say the following: If the prosecution has kept more affidavits from the same witness, and if these affidavits are submitted now, then these arc, of course, affidavits which the Prosecution intends to use against the defendants That material against the defendants would give us the right to cross examine about these affidavits which we do not know at this moment. Therefore the question arises whether the Prosecution still has the right or the possibility to submit affidavits of this witness, that is to say affidavits against the defendants after the prosecution has already rested its case. It would be different were these affidavits already available as counteraffidavits and could be characterized as such. That seems to be hardly possible, because a counteraffidavit has to be restricted to the subject of the direct examination. Therefore I believe it would be more practical if we ask the Tribunal for a decision as to whether the Prosecution still has the right to submit affidavits though they have been written previously and to introduce them as evidence against the defendants. Should the Court not grant this, then we would be in a position to complete the direct examination for the defense today and the prosecution would thereby obtain the possibility if it does not want to waive it--the witness this afternoon concerning this direct examination.
Commission III, Case III But we would not gain anything if the prosecution now at this late stage would submit material against the defendants because the defense would have to examine that material and discuss it with its clients, so that the witness presumably would have to remain here for several days.
As far as I am informed, the witness considers it important to be able to return to Vienna tonight because he has urgent official business to attend to in Vienna. Therefore on my part, may I personally suggest the following: if the prosecution is permitted at this time still to submit evidence against the defendants, then we should discontinue the examination of the witness today and at a later date have him recalled again that is, if the preparation of the affidavits from the prosecution and the defense has come to a point that a fertile cross examination is possible.
But may I repeat. The first question is whether the prosecution has a right to submit today one or more affidavits of this witness against the defendant, and I may suggest and ask the Tribunal to decide that question first.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I don't think that Dr. Schilf means to deny the prosecution of the existence and use of rebuttal evidence. I am quite sure he doesn't mean that, although he said so. The peculiar problem here, Your Honor, is that one segment of our rebuttal evidence comprises affidavits of this witness. That pure and simple is the problem. Now, I am willing to make any concession to be fair, but also it occurs to me that there is a question as to whether or net the affidavits of a witness used in rebuttal of the prosecution's case arc subject to cress examination by the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: You must bear in mind other difficulties Commission III, Case III which confront us here.
Counsel is asking the commissioners to make a ruling as to what the Court will do. That we cannot do. I think Counsel should be advised, however, that the scope of rebuttal evidence is largely in the discretion of any Tribunal, and that if it is rebuttal evidence, an affidavit may, if proper be received in rebuttal. That however, cannot be taken as a ruling of the Tribunal because the Tribunal is not in session. The members of the commission are tentatively of the opinion that in view of these difficulties, technical and otherwise, it will be necessary for us to simply discontinue the direct examination of this witness in behalf of the various defendants, and recall him at a later time as a defense witness. I take it that it would not be improper to permit a brief cross examination as to the matters which the witness has already testified to as a defense witness. That will be the ruling of the Commission. We will simply have to call him back, gentlemen, as your witness. The difficulties seem to be insurmountable.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: With that in mind, Your Honor, may I ask that for a short time this afternoon, the witness be recalled for cross examination.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I believe that I could reduce the difficulties by agreeing that the direct examination which I have conducted so far could be stricken from the record and that I would in the place of that examination submit an affidavit in the same manner as my colleagues will do. Thereby, the witness would function today merely as a witness for cross examination by the defense. For my own evidence, I would be satisfied with an affidavit and this would do away with the question of precedent as to the possibility of a direct examination by the defense today.
Commission III, Case III
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, I object to that. The direct examination by Dr. Kuboschok is in the record. It's the best evidence. It was made with the concession cf the prosecution, and I wish to cross examine on it.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be the ruling of the commission. The evidence will not be stricken. Me will hoar another witness at this time and this witness will be recalled for cross examination only as to the matters which were introduced in evidence in behalf cf the defense this morning. This witness may be excused until one-thirty this afternoon at which time he will return to the courtroom.
DR. KURT WERGIN, 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.
EXAMINATION BY DR. ASCHENAUER (for the defendant Petersen):Q.- The cross examination refers to the affidavit NG-403 of Document Bock III-C, Exhibit No. 146.
Witness, will you please give your name.
A.- Dr. Kurt Wergin, lawyer and notary at Berlin, and I am holding the office cf the President cf the Bar Association cf Berlin, which has been reorganized by the Allies after the war.
Q.- From your affidavit, I gather that only during the war you were defense counsel before the People's Court and always as selected defense counsel, is that correct?
Commission III, Case III A.- Yes, only from about the end of the year 1942 on or the beginning of 1943, I defended before the People's Court, and then only as a selected defense counsel.
Q.- Is it known to you whether it was a prerequisite to be a member of the NSDAP in order to be entered on the list cf appointed defense counsels?
A.- The prerequisite to be entered on the lists of appointed defense counsels -- membership in the NSDAP was certainly not, because a number cf colleagues who are known to me were entered on that list as appointed defense counsel, without having been members of the Party.
Q.- Do you know for what reasons in the Modification Law of 1934, the necessity of approval for defense counsel was required by law?
A.- The reasons for that regulation are not known to me. I do not know the motives of this legal regulation.
Q.- Do you know of cases where defense counsel were rejected before the People's Court?
A.- Yes, cases of that kind were known to me. I, myself have been rejected in a number cf cases as defense counsel before the People's Court.
Q.- What may have been the reasons in these individual cases?
A.- I said before that the reasons for the regulation which contained the limitation in the selection of defense counsel before the People's Court are not known to me. If you ask me about my conviction, what. I think about it, I am cf the opinion that defense counsel who for political reasons were not desirable in certain cases were rejected for that reason. I could not think of any other reason for discrimination in individual cases and neither in my own case.
Q. Do you know whether an examination of the political reliability of defense counsel was very thorough, or whether it was sufficient to be a nominal member, or to show circumstances which would permit one to conclude as to an attitude in favor of the state?
A. About the details of the examination nothing is known to me.
Q. In your affidavit I see that in 1944 you defended members of a plant; will you please describe these eases in detail?
A. In 1944, precisely beginning in the early summer, I conducted defenses in a sphere that dealt with the formation of cells in plants in Berlin and all over Germany, which were supposed to constitute an consolidation organization for the removal of the National Socialist regime.
Q. Were the penalties within the framework of the law?
A. The extent of penalty provided by issued by Hitler's cabinet which had any political shade whatsoever was drawn so far that it included in addition to prison terms almost always the death sentence, so that if you ask mo whether the penalties were within the extent, provided by the ordinance, I have to affirm that.
Q. In that connection what can you say about the case Pechel which you mention in your affidavit?
A. Dr. Rudolf Pechel, a political journalist and writer, at the time when I defended his wife, was already for several years a prisoner of the State Police. His wife was charged with high treason, that is, she had contacted members of a group whose task it was active and organized resistance against the regime of Hitler, and in so doing she ha,d let one or more -- I don't know for sure any more -- members of this group stay in her house and helped him to obtain contacts with other people in that group.
Q. Witness, in your affidavit you set forth that the People's Court in its trials maintained the outside forms of the rules of procedure
A. I have--
Q. One moment, I have not finished. Do you mean to raise the objection before that the trial by the investigating procedure by the officials of the Chief Reich Prosecution that various elements were not sufficiently cleared up?
A. The preliminary procedure which was conducted, was in fact conducted by offices of the State Police; in each individual case, in such close connection with these offices that the State Police was considered the decisive factor in these investigations. If I have stated that that procedure, as far as certain external aspects were concerned, was conducted in accordance with the forms of procedure, I meant to say that according to the Ordinance creating the People's Court and the regulations, from other codes of procedure which applied, I said that the external forms were maintained.
Q. Was the trial before the People's Court public on principle?
A. The cases which I defended were conducted in public. Counsel, may I make a supplementary statement to the statement I have just made concerning the form of procedure? In my affidavit I have stated that certain occurrences, such as, for instance, a summons by telephone or telegraph of a defense counsel, which he received on Saturday afternoon to appear on Monday morning in court; furthermore, events which occurred during the trial where the defendant was sharply cut off when he wanted to say something, in the very same moment when he dated to express the slightest criticism of the system or for example as in the trial, which I mentioned before against these people who had organized factory cells, when he quite objectively wanted to explain to the Senate that in the opinion of the defendant the war was lost, and that in order to avoid chaos in Germany it should be possible and it was really necessary to prepare certain forms of political reconstruction in order to be prepared for that event; that in all these cases a discussion before the court was practically made impossible by interruption and cutting off any attempt to state it; that I have to add because that is essential to explain what I mean when I say that certain outward forms were maintained while practically full possibility of the maintenance of the rights of the defense.
Q. You said that the time limit for the indictment was very short? was the time limit generally very short?
A. The time limit was very short, in general? so short that in some cases, from one day to another people were summonded; other times there was a Sunday in between. Among the cases which I defended myself, that happened in about half of the cases.
Q. Was it not possible for a clever counsel inspite of that to safeguard the interests of his clients?
A. I am of the opinion that a defense counsel, even before the People's Court, had the possibility to defend, that is to say, not only according to the purely formal aspects, but also in the true performance of his activity as defense counsel. However, he had to take one thing into consideration, as I have explained in my affidavit, he could only restrict himself in his defense either to denying the facts as such or to choosing a form of defense which would tend to dispell the suspicion that the attitude of the defendant was directed against the regime, because at the very moment when a statement of that kind had been made before the court, the fate of the defendant was doomed.
Q. Was it possible that in case of such a short time limit to have the cases delayed by means of a well-funded nation for procuring more evidence?
A. In such cases with a very short time limit, a delay in one case or in several cases - I cannot remember that anymore - could be and was obtained for reasons of procuring more evidence.
Q. Do you know of any acquittals in your experience?
A. In cases which I have defended myself, I myself know of some acquittals before the People's Court.
Q You said in your affidavit that a lot depended upon the character of the presiding judge; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Do you happen to know the presiding judge Fickeis?
A Yes, I believe I remember the name -- Oberlandesgerichtsrat Fickeis, whom I had in a case as presiding judge, where the defendant was charged with undermining of the defensive strength, and where, in fact, an acquittal occurred, although one statement under oath was available against the defendant. Therefore, I have pointed out in my affidavit that the manner of conducting the trial of this presiding judge, if I remember his name correctly, Fickeis, was outstanding in my opinion.
Q Do you remember the deputy of Freisler -- Stiehr?
A Yes. I defended before Stiehr.
Q What was his attitude?
A Stiehr, as a matter of fact, was a very severe presiding judge; nonetheless, Stiehr was a presiding judge where the possibility still existed to find some psychological reaction -- if objective arguments were submitted, particularly well-founded motions for more evidence were submitted.
Q Is it fair to say that both of these presiding judges safeguarded the rights of the defendant?
AAs far as the cases which I have defended where Stiehr and Oberlandesgerichtsrat Fickeis were presiding judges, I am of the opinion that they at least did not exclude all rights of the defense.
Q Now, I come to Freisler -- you say he had the moods of a demagogue. Was Freisler a typical judge?
A The manner of conducting trials under Freisler could not be called that of a judge at all. According to my observations that was the manner of a purely fanatical demagogue without any qualifications of a judge.
Q Therefore, as a judge, you could describe him as a man quite different from all others.
