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.
A. Concerning the presiding judges whom I knew and under whom I served, compared to those, Freisler certainly is in quite an exposed position.
Court 3 Case 3 (COMMISSION III)
Q. Do you know whether Freisler had been active as a judge before?
A. Freisler was a counsel before, and I remember from the time I was in the Vorstand of the Bar Association in Berlin until 1933, that at that time already he was known for his violent statements and above all for his fanatical and unlimited inhumane anti-Semetic statements. And, at that time we of the Bar - Association -- in 1932 we decided to intervene against him as a group, and he was at that time. I believe, a lawyer in Kassel.
Q. Was it known to you that Freisler before he went to Kassel was a food Commissioner in Russia?
A. I only heard that from hearsay, that during the war of 1914 he became a prisoner of war in Russia, and was alleged to have had a certain position in the camp, but I do not know anything definite about it.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honors, I object to any further questioning on one Freisler as being irrelevant to any of the defendants in the case.
DR. ASCHENAUER: May I answer. In all these questions we are concerned with an attempt to characterize the features of Freisler, the personality of Freisler, who was quite different from all the judges of the People's Court; for that reason his character and his past are important.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you nay limit yourself to his career as a judge without going into his past.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Also in tins connection, I do not have to put any more questions.
Q. How many sessions of Freisler's did you attend?
A. I attended four or five sessions in the People's Court when Freisler was the presiding judge.
Q. Can one consider the cases of the 20th of July as exaggerated cases?
A. I, myself, did not defend in the cases of the 20th of July because Court 3 Case 3 (COMMISSION III) in three cases in which I had volunteered to defend, I had been rejected by the People's Court; therefore, I am not in a position to say anything about the trials in the cases of the 20th of July, except for reports which one may have received from colleagues who were defense counsel, and after the war from some reports received from sources and archives which had only then become accessible.
Q. Did you observe during your work as defense counsel that the lay-judges showed a very active political attitude during the trial and tried to steer the procedure into a definite course?
A. No, any specific observations in that direction, I did not make.
Q. Can you think of any definite examples where the professional judges had been outvoted by the lay-judges?
A. That is a question which is very difficult to answer if it is put to me as witness because we did not take pert in the deliberations; since, if I am not mistaken, a two-thirds majority was required in the consultation, theoretically it would not be possible for them to be out-voted.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Thank you. I have no further questions.
DR. GRUBE (for the defendant Lautz): May it please the Commission, I ask to be permitted to continue to cross examine concerning the same affidavit.
Q. Witness, in your affidavit, you mentioned the admissibility of appointed and selected defense counsel. May I ask you did the Chief Reich Prosecutor have any influence in that matter; that is to say, concerning the appointments or selection of defense counsel?
A. I said before that immediately after the beginning of the National Socialist regime I was forced to have the Vorstand of the Bar Association at Berlin. The discussion which were conducted before the list of appointed counsel was published is not known to me.
Q. Witness, who according to German procedure determines the time limit for the main trial?
Court 3 Case (COMMISSION III)
A. The presiding judge of the court.
Q. Not the Chief Reich Prosecutor?
A. No, the presiding judge.
Q. According to paragraph 217 of the Legal Code of Procedure, originally, was it not so, that a time limit of at least one week had to be given?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it correct that that regulation during the course of that war, that is to say, in 1943, was amended to the effect that the time limit, in certain cases, could be reduced to 24 hours?
A. Yes, a modification of that regulation took place during the war.
Q. And, who had to make that decision as to whether the time limit should be reduced to 24 hours?
A. I assume that was also the presiding judge, but I have no knowledge of that.
Q. Witness, may I ask you whether you received permission from the Chief Reich Prosecutor to speak to the defendants?
A. As Defense Counsel, one received permission to speak to the defendants.
Q. You were permitted to discuss with the defendants what they were charged with?
A. We did have full possibility to talk to them. Frequently we were worried as to whether there were any gadgets built in which would make it possible to pisten to cur conversation, but experience has shown that this could not have been the case, because the conversation between the defendant and defense counsel would have caused new and extended procedures.
Q. Witness, did a representative of the Reich Prosecution ever exert a decisive influence in a session of the People's Court, on the manner in which the trial was conducted?
A. A noticeable influence on the part of a representative of the Reich Prosecution at the People's Court, as far as the trial procedure Court 3 Case 3 (COMMISSION III) itself was concerned, was not exerted.
Q. Did a representative of the Reich Prosecution, ever use profane language during sessions?
A. No, I never heard any profane language on the part of the Reich Prosecution.
Q. Did a representative of the Reich Prosecution ever interrupt a defendant or a witness?
A. That is difficult to answer. In the course of an excited discussion in the proceedings, that may have occurred; that is not impossible, but it is not typical of the way in which the trials took place, as far as the Reich Prosecution was concerned.
Q. Were you ever present when the defendant Lautz, as a representtative of the Reich Prosecution, attended a session of the People's Court?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever heard that the defendant Lautz treated defendants or witnesses incorrectly?
A. I have herd nothing about that either.
Q. Another question. Is anything known to you as to the attitude, the political attitude of Lautz?
A. I do not know anything about that. During the course of discussions ft the end of 1944 the name was mentioned once in connection with a case, that was the case against the brothers Bonn Hoefer. The Clergyman Bonn Hoefer, Dietrich Bonn Hoefer was before the Reich Military Court, Kreigsgericht, in 1943 and 1944, and was defended by me. His brother the lawyer, Klaus Bonn Hoefer, at that time Chief Legal Advisor of the German Lufthansa, was also closely connected with the circle of the 20th of July, and both brothers, in April 1945, immediately before the arrival of Allied troops were killed by the State Police, Gestapo. I conducted the defense of Dietrich Bonn Hoefer until about the time of the 20th of July; after that time, the trial was transferred from the Reich Military Court, and was taken over Court 3 Case 3 (COMMISSION III) exclusively by the Secret State Police, so that, of course, any connection and contact with the Clergyman Dietrich Bonn Hoefer had been active during the war in the office of Admiral Canaris had been cut off.
I had intervened for Dr. Klaus Bonn Hoefer, who was an old friend of nine, by volunteering as defense counsel for him before the People's Court, but the People's Court did not grant us the permission. On the 2nd of February 1945, that was the last sentence pronounced by Freisler, Dr. Klaus Bonn Hoefer was sentenced to death. I then tried together with his wife, to gain time until the end of the war to postpone the execution. We tried repeatedly to obtain an approval for me to take over as defense counsel and to start a re-trial procedure. Mrs. Bonn Hoefer at that time, repeatedly approached the Vice-President of the People's Court. Crohne, who had promised that the approval for me to take over the defense would be given. That promise was never kept. I, of course, discussed that with Frau Bonn Hoefer later, as to what the attitude of the Chief Reich Prosecutor Lautz might he in the matter. Brothers Bonn Hoefer. Frau Bonn Hoefer told me that she believed that his attitude would be a positive one because she believed she had received certain information that the then Chief Reich Prosecutor, Lautz was very much in sympathy with circles of 20th of July. That was the only utterance which I have heard in any concrete about Lautz; whether it is true, I do not know cut of my own knowledge.
Q. Witness, do you know that the family Bonn Hoefer had close contact with Dr. Sack?
A. Yes, Dr. Sack was the Chief of the Army, Legal Department, and I was soon informed that Dr. Sack belonged to those circles Within the Army who prepared the overthrow of Hitler through German initiative.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. The hour for our noon recess has arrived. We will recess now until 1:30 this afternoon. The witness will return at 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was then taken until 1330 hours, 3 June 1947.)
Commission 111 Court 111 AFTERNOON SESSION.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their scats.
The commission is again in session.
DR. GRUBE ( for the defendant Lautz): May it please the Court, I would ask you to permit me to continue with cross examination.
DR. KURT WEGRIN - Resumed EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. GRUBE:
Q Witness, before the interval you had stopped at describing the close relations between the family of the defendant Bonhoeffer on the one hand, and the chief of the Army Legal Office Dr. Sack on the ether hand.
A Yes.
Q Unless I am wrong, you told us that Dr. Sack was involved on the 20th of July --
A Yes.
Q Will you tell the Court, please, what was Dr. Sack's fate.
A I spoke the last time with Dr. Sach, who was the chief cf the Army Legal Department shortly before 20th July 1944. As there was an agreement between us concerning the movement in the Army against Hitler, it had become customary for me to make all my applications too the Reich Military Court first by submitting them to Dr. Sack, the chief cf the Legal Office of the Army, and asking him to state his opinion as to whether he agreed with this version. An occurrence which was only possible because Dr. Sack also belonged to the circle around the 20th of July and because there was an agreement about the necessity incoming the pending trials to follow a policy which was bound to avoid all rec very cf circles which participated. Together with parson Bonhoeffer in the indictment General Oster was indicted - the general who for many years had been on the side cf the enemies of the Hitler regime.
Commission 111 Court 111
Q Witness, do you know that defendant Lautz was a close friend of Dr. Sack?
A From my own knowledge I do not know anything about that friend ship but I dc know from remarks made by members cf the Bonhoeffer family in particular by Dr. Klaus Bonhoeffer, that a contact-- in how far it was a contact of friendship I cannot say--did exist between Lautz and Dr. Sack.
Q I am not going to another point. Witness in your affidavit you stated that the trials before the People's Court varied a great deal according to the person cf the presiding judge.
A Yes, yes.
Q I ask you, did the Reich prosecutors have any influence on the Senate before a trial was heard?
A Concerning internal matters of the Peoples Court at the Reich prosecution and the Ministry I can not give any information because I lack the necessary documents. According to what one could establish from actually looking at the files, an influence by the Reich prosecution on appointing the Senate before whom the case was to be heard, did not exist.
Q I am now coming to another p int. On page 5 of your affidavit you say, literally, and I quote: "The concept of high treason to as far reaching extension was to correspond to the concept such as literature and jurisdiction in a former period had applied." End of quotation
A Yes.
Q Do you know that during the conferences of the Reichstag Committee in 1928, the same facts of high treason and of preparation for high treason and of preparation for high treason were fixed and decided upon, which later on in the legislation of the Third Reich were ordered?
A I do not know about that.
Q Witness, may I ask you... dc you know that the Chief Reich Prosecutor, Oberreichsanwalt - that is to say, the Reich Prosecution, had the possibility to pass on cases, so-called less grave cases, to Commission 111 Court 111 the prosecution?
A Yes ... I do know about that.
Q What happened in a number of cases?
A Yes... In a number of cases that right was made use of in cases where I conducted the defense, and the cases were transferred to a special Penal Senate, at the Kammergaiht, which specialized in political eases. In a few very rare cases, as far as I remember, they were also transferred to a Special Court.
Q That was, wasn't it before the indictment was filed?
A Yes, that was before the indictment was filed, and it concerned cases of very young people, women, or persons who obviously, politically speaking, were uninteresting, for the authorities who were concerned in these cases.
Q Witness, if you achieve that in many cases was only possible, because you were precisely informed about the facts that the particular defendant was char ed with.
A That is not correct, but frequently the case only reached me at a phase when it had already been transferred to the other court. That is to say--I only became appointed defense counsel after the Penal Senate of the Kammergericht or the Prosecutor General of the Kammergericht had taken over the case.
Q Did you yourself never achieve a case being regarded as a less severe case, and being handed over to a law authority?
A No.
DR. GRUBE: Thank you. I have no further questions.
DR. DOETZER( for defendant Nebelung): Your Honors, may I put a few questions on the same affidavit.
BY DR. DOETZER:
Q Witness, did you ever conduct a defense before a Senate of the Peoples Court where the defendant Nebelung was the presiding judge?
A No.
Commission 111 Court 111
Q Did the defendant Nebelung as a presiding judge of the Fourth Senate ever, for any reason, refuse to accept, an application by you to conduct a defense, or not?
A No.
Q During the time when you acted as defense counsel before the Peoples Court, or in your capacity as president of the Lawyers Union, Rechtsanwaltskammer, did you ever hear from any colleague of yours that they acted as defense counsel with Nebelung as presiding judge, and that they had cause to criticize the sentence?
A No.
DR. DOETZER: Thank you.
BY DR. SCHILF ( for defendant Klemm):
Q Witness, just now spoke cf transferring cases of lesser gravity to the prosecutor general at the Oberlandsgericht, in your case the Kammergericht, and you said that with the Prosecutor General at the Kammergericht an indictment was submitted perhaps only for an offense against the Malicious Acts law.
A Yes.
Q Do you know such a case, and can you describe such a case to us?
A It is not altogether easy from memory to reconstruct the case in detail. I remember two cases at this moment where, on the part of the Oberreichsanwalt at the People's Court, the case was transferred to the Prosecutor General at the Kammergericht. Those were cases concerning statements by people who had exercised very serious criticism against the Hitler regime and who, in conversations had said that the war had to be lost in all circumstances. In one case it was a young girl, of about twenty to twenty-two years, and the other case was that of an engineer cf the age of about sixty, who had had a professional discussion with business friends from outside Berlin, and who at lunch , while the discussion had been interrupted, had made such remarks and had been denounced by one of his business friends.
Commission 111 Court 111
A I can not say for certain whether the indictment was restricted to the malicious acts Law. I only remember that in the first case a penitentiary sentence of two to three years, and in the latter case a prison sentence of about three years, were pronounced by the Penal Senate cf the Kammergericht.