On the next page, page 26 in the original test, or on page 7 of the document that has been distributed, the second paragraph on the page: "The concentration camp Kemna was established in a vacant factory building, and was supposed to serve only temporarily for housing of prisoners in protect custody. It was situated in a remote part of the suburbs of Wuppertal-Bar** and was not protected from the outside by any security installations whatsoever. Although its capacity was only 200-300 prisoners, it was almost permanently overcrowded. At times up to 100 prisoners," -
THE PRESIDENT: The text reads one thousand.
MR. KING: I meant to have said one thousand, your Honor. "At time up to 1000 prisoners were housed there. This large number of prisoners he in insufficient localities was guarded by about 30 - 35 persons (including administrative personnel).
I skip to the last paragraph, which continues on to the following page:
"In any case it is certain that the lack of organization of the camp the inadequate supervision and the absence of clearly defined limits of responsibility are the main cause for the events described. The guard was composed of SA-men, who where appointed in a rush and who were -- according to the latest statement of the witness Lowinski - in part only recently inducted, who had no previous training or experience in the police service, who were left entirely to their own resources in regard to the guarding, detailed organization and administration of the camp. They evidently were gradually endeavoring to make it clear from the start towards the bulk of arriving prisoners that rigid strictness would be applied in order to nip in the bud any thought of resistance or flight."
Now, we skip down to page 29 in the text, or on page 10 of the English document or text which has been distributed, and begin with the last full paragraph on that page:
"Furthermore it seems to me that the attitude of the Supreme Party Court with regard to the matter of the preliminary investigations is of vi*** importance.
After all, the Supreme Party Court has passed its sentence before these criminal cases started. In this sentence the Party Court decide to !show mercy instead of the rigid enforcement of the law', because of the extraordinary conditions of the year 1933, the bona fides of the defendant to act in the interest of the party and of the state and because of the services which the defendants rendered to the Nazi movement."
This apparently does not appear in the German text; is that correct Your Honors, we will rectify the insufficiency in the German text; and may inquire if the last paragraph on page 30, in the text on page 11 of the document as distributed -- the last paragraph, consisting of three lines
INTERPRETER: Yes, it is.
MR. KING: The last paragraph: "I believe, therefore, that I may submit the document to the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor with the recommendation to quash the entire proceedings." That is signed by the Deputy of the Prosecutor for the District Court in Wuppertal.
The next portion of this document appears on page 12 of the original or page 12 of the document as distributed -- page 31 in the text. We merely wish to point out that it is a letter from tho Reich Minister of Justice to the Public Prosecutor in Wuppertal-Elberfled, with the statement that, "The files are sent back. The proceedings have been cancelled by a decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor, dated 20 February, 1936. The Lower Rhine gr** of the SA and the Supreme Party Court have been notified by us."
The next page, page 13, as distributed, page 32 in tho text, and the following three pages -- in other words, four pages altogether, 32, 33, 34 and 35 in the English Text are notes and short letters, all of which are signed by the defendant Joel. We only wish to point out that his signature appears on these notes and short letters; they all pertain to the question of quashing the proceedings, and we do not believe it necessary to read the at length.
The final letter to which we call attention in this document begins on page 17 of the document as distributed, and is to be found beginning on page 36 of the text.
This is a letter from the Reich Ministry of Justice, it is dated February, 1936. It was written by Guertner; primarily it is a letter which reviews the facts, the gist of which I already conveyed by having read previous excerpts. We only wish in that letter to call attention to the very last paragraph on page 20 of the document, as circulated, and page 39 in the text, in which the Minister closes the letter by saying, " view of all these circumstances. I request that the proceedings be cancel.
I regret that there is still an insufficiency in the German copies but we will see to it that the changes are promptly made, so that the Def*** Counsel need be under no fear that their copies differ from the copies from which we read or from which we introduce in evidence.
I now offer formally in evidence Prosecution's Exhibit No. 120, which is NG-249.
DR. BRIEGER: (Attorney for Defendant Cuhorst) I have to make an objection against this document.
The document consists of photostats of a file copy, and it begins after the photostats with page 102. This results from numbers in the right upper-hand corner; they begin with 102, 103, 104, etc., until page 116. The second part of the document consists of photostats of letters which have been pulled from the fi*** in such an unfortunate manner -- they have been cut off rather so that the numbers of the file pages are not any more on them. In a case such as th*** one, it is up to the Prosecution to point out that the defendant Joel has taken part in turning down the proceedings. however, it is up to the Defense to point out that the defendant Joel started this proceeding altogether and that all the unfortunate circumstances which have been read here have been discovered by him, and were brought by him to the jurisdiction of the cour If thus, this file copy is presented, it has to be presented in its entire not only pages 102 to 116, whose origin is not even known. Therefore, I would like to request that the entire file copy be presented in their entirety. Where the files can be presented, one cannot be satisfied with photostats which present only certain paragraphs of the entire proceedings.
MR. KING: Your honor, we are conscious of the objection which the Defense Counsel has made. The gist of what is in the file which we arc offering in evidence is not complete as evidence by the fact taut the page, first page, of the document of the file as page 1 is actually on the photostatic copy page 102, and the conclusion therefore is drawn that a large part of the file is missing. It occurs to us that this part, so far as the Defense Counsel has gone, is well taken. Undoubtedly there may be other portions of this file which are not here reproduced. However, it is the position of the Prosecution that the letter which we have submitted does speak for itself; that the statement of the defendant Joel are in the defendant's own handwriting and surely, therefore, he cannot deny that authorship. Those notes as reproduced in document 249 show that he had knowledge, that he was involved in the quashing of these proceedings one way or another.
We do not, as the Defense Counsel implied a few moments ago, at this time, wish to draw any further conclusions from the fact that Joel signature, Joel's handwriting appears in this document. It is our position that the letter as introduced, speaks for itself, and has a certain amount of probative value and should be accepted as such.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER (for defendant Rothenberg): May it please the Tribunal, may I express my opinion on this, which in my opinion, is of decisive importance for the entire Tribunal, and from the mental importance. The Prosecution has to present, as is its right, only those things which charge the defendants. Therefore, it has only presented only such excerpts from the files, which of course, is obvious, and which they have the right to do. However, in all of these trials one has to consider that, because of the special situation of such trials after the end of the war, all of the defendants in contrast to the Prosecution are almost in no way in a position or in the same manner or nearly the same manner to present the material that will justify their actions.
The Defense material would be possible under normal circumstances, and, therefore, can be expected of them. I remind the Tribunal that at the beginning of this trial we discussed, when the Prosecution read some parts from their document, whether only those particular parts from the document should have probative value or whether the entire excerpt should have probative value. At that time I said with emphasis that the entire exhibit should be regarded as evidence material, and I remember that the Tribunal expressly agreed with this opinion through a special ruling. The meaning of this ruling was necessary and was correct because all those who are involved in this trial, who are taking part in this trial, wanted that the entire evidence material should be presented and should be admitted in their entirety as evidence even if the Prosecution read only parts of those documents which were presented in their entirety or only read particular letters iron them. I ask you with urgency since the question raised by my coDefense Counsel, Dr. Haensel, is of particular significance for each one of the defendants, that in similar cases, as to the one under discussion now, it should be seen to it that in accordance with the basic principals, that the entire exhibit is admitted as evidence material. It should be ruled that the Prosecution has to present the entire document even if the Prosecution wants to read only or wants to use only parts of it as evidence for its own purpose.
DR. HAENSEL: May I say only a few additional words. It is very much appreciated that my colleague extended the point of view from the individual case to a general one. However, I think that we can proceed quicker and better in our work if we decide first of all the case under discussion, the individual case. It is being discussed here today, but from a file copy which exists without doubt in its entirety.
Pages 102 to 116 of them are submitted in the photostatic copies, and the pages 1 to 102 have not been submitted. I make the request that pages 1 to 102 be also submitted.
MR. KING: Your Honor, may we say one more word. The Defense Counsel has presented the argument which, if the Court were to follow, would delay and impose--would delay the trial and impose an insuperable burden upon the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) I think the Tribunal can rule upon this without further arguments. In the first place I call your attention to rule 12 formulated by the Tribunal of which I quote:
"A defendant nay apply to the Tribunal for the production of witnesses or of documents on his behalf by filing his application therefore with the Secretary General at the Military Tribunals" Now that is one remedy available to the Defense Counsel.
May I further state the rule as to the entirety of documents? Of course, it is not permissible in English and American jurisprudence, and I take it that it would net be permissible in the jurisprudence of other nations, that certain words of document could be separated from their contents thereby changing the entire meaning of that. It certainly is permissible on the part of either the Prosecution or the Defense Counsel to take certain portions of a document, and neither the Prosecution nor the Defense Counsel should be required to introduce an entire document when great portions of it seem to have no materiality. If the rule was otherwise, if the Prosecution or the Defense Counsel would refer to a large volume, only a portion of which would have any bearing upon the Prosecution or the Defense; any ruling other than that which I have stated would require the entire volume to be read or at least to be considered by the Tribunal.
I am sure that the Counsel will agree that either side may present such portions of a document, when the time comes for the Defense to introduce their case, they can use any portion other than those which have been read. And, if there are certain portions of this document which are -- I will not use the word "withheld", I will use the word "not produced", and the Defense feels that there are other portions of this document which is material to the Defense, they can introduce it at the proper time.
MR. KING: I do not believe you have ruled, your Honor, whether Exhibit 120 is admitted in evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: And, the ruling of the court, already stated, the document will be admissible.
MR. KING: Thank you.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Tribunal pleases, does it wish to recess at this time?
TEE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you for calling it to our attention. We will recess for 15 minutes.
Before we recess, are there any other of these documents not complete.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your honor, there is a further additional problem which I did not go into this morning, which I was hoping we could dispense with, the transportation involved in getting these books into and out of the Court. Throughout the remaining document books, we occasionally will refer back to documents which have appeared in book 1 and we will refer back in later books to documents which have appeared in book 3 and some of the later ones. At first glance it might appear as the case progresses it will be necessary to bring to the court every day all of the document books that have been distributed, which of course we should not find ourselves forced into.
Therefore, it seems to me that we will have to arrive at some working arrangement whereby, when we refer back to documents in other books which have already been passed, we give the Court and defense counsel some noti that we are coming to them, so that those books can be brought in the day on which we expect to revert to them. Otherwise, I think the situation remains very much as it was yesterday. We are not through with the document books I series, and I think we cannot dispense with the availability of th** in Court for another day or two.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Court please, yesterday the Prosecution undertook to supply to defense counsel certain aids in following the Prosecution's presentation of Document Book 2 and 3. The Prosecution is now prepared to make good on these undertaking.
The first is a list of three pages setting forth in order each statute or excerpt from a German legal text that we will refer to and setting forth specifically what defense was interested in, namely, the various articles, sections, and paragraphs of each statute to which the Prosecution would refer. That has been prepared in some fifteen copies, of which eight are in this folder and the other seven or eight will be up here in a few minutes. Here are the others now.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the Court, I would like to ask for your forgiveness for interrupting here briefly on a cc*unr** of a personal matter. First I all, I would like to thank the bench and the prosecution for their generous assistance which has been loyal in every way, as far as we, the defense counsel, are concerned. At the moment I find it difficult to follow the proceedings calmly, because I have witnessed an incident which appears not important, but which does impede me personally. I believe that I and my colleagues have tried to observe the peace, the quiet, and the decency in this court and to observe it fully.
Before the Court entered this room I was standing and not sitting, as prescribed -- I don't really know -- and I was talking to my client, Dr. Rothenberger. While I was talking to him, suddenly an MP in this room pushed me against my arm and I locked around completely surprised because I didn't knew what was happening to me. The MP wanted, as I realized later, to indicate to me that I ought ti sit down so that when the judges re-entered the room I would be able to rise again. I entirely understand this matter. I understand that all due respect should naturally be paid by us to the Tribunal, and I have always tried to do so. But if here in the room I am pushed about by the MP's, that is a thing which I as an honorable man, and a man who is willing on the basis of law to work here, that is something which I cannot put up with.
I am therefore asking, with all due respect, that we the defense counsel should, as hitherto, have a guarantee for the physical condition of being independent of such hindrances on account of a pure mistake on my part. In fact, we should be protected from such incidents.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One word for the Prosecution, if the Court please. We certainly feel that unnecessary rudeness has no place here.
THE PRESIDENT: Naturally, this Tribunal regrets that there should be any occasion for any of defense counsel to make any rementrances of this character. We will not at this time enter into a trial of the matter, but we will content ourselves with stating, not only to MP's but to all others, that the persons of defense counsel are inviolable. No one has any right to touch them unless there is a breach of the peace. It should be, and is, sufficient to speak to them politely when occasion demands.
R. WOOLEYHAN: The second aid to the defense, which the Prosecution undertook to furnish yesterday, was an order of presentation of documents that were to accompany the more or less concrete presentation of the statutes in book 2. We have copied for the defense's benefit the Prosecution's own notes, which were all we had on the point of the manner in which we sought to offer the contents of Book 3 concurrently with that of Book 2. At this time we have ten copies of that order of presentation which we will hand to the defense. If more necessary, we will undertake to make them. I take it is net necessary to furnish copies of that to the English speaking members of the Court, since they already have that same information set out in the Document Book 2 itself.
Turning, to Document Book 2 on Page 10 of the English version -correction, Page 9b of the English version, 1934 Reichs Gesetzblatt, part I page 91. I am only going to read one two-line article and it will not be necessary to look it up. The statute is entitled "First law for the transfer of the Administration of Justice to the Reich, 16 February 1934.
The Reich cabinet has promulgated the following law --" of which we will read only Article 5. "The Minister of Justice is authorized to issue executive regulations for the transfer of the Administration of Justice to the Reich."
Turning to page 10 Document Book 2, 1934 Reichs Gesetzblatt, Part I page 1214, Second law of 5 December 1934.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, please. Page 10 seems to be omitted from one of the document books.
JUDGE BRAND: Document Book 2 pages from 9b to 11.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: You are missing a page?
JUDGE BRAND: Yes. You may supply it later.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May I supply it later, Your Honor?
JUDGE BRAND: Yes, go ahead.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Second law of 5 December 1934, concerning the transfer of Administration of Justice to the Reich.
"In the National-Socialist State, the administration of justice in uniform. It is under the jurisdiction of the Reich and requires uniform administration by the Reich. After the Ministries cf Justice of the Reich and of Prussia have been combined, the Reich takes over the immediate direction of justice in the other states in accordance with the following provisions:
"Article I. The jurisdiction of the supreme state agencies administering justice is transferred to the Reich Minister of Justice. He is authorized to transfer them to agencies subordinate to him."
We will omit the remainder of that statute and skip to Page 6 of the English Book 2, 1934 Reichsgestzblatt, Part 1, Page 341.
"Law of 21 April 1934 Amending Provisions of the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure.
"Article I. In the second part of the Criminal Code, the first chapter sections 80 to 93 is amended as follows:
"Chapter 1. High Treason.
"Section 80. 1. Anyone attempting to incorporate by violence or by threat of violence, the German territory in its entirety or in part into a foreign state, or to detach from the Reich Territory belonging to the Reich will be punished by death."
I skip now to Page 9 of English Document Book 2.
"Article III. People's Court, Section 1.
" (1) For the trial of cases of high treason the People's Court is established.
" (2) Decisions of the People's Court are made by five members during the trial, by three members outside the trial. This includes the president. The president and one further member must be qualified judges. Several senates may be established."
At this point, if the Prosecution may interpolate, according defense counsel the right to interpolate at any time, we would like to call your attention to the fact that the word "senate" occurs so frequently that we find it is incumbent upon us to remind the bench, although they probably know already that the word "senate" is roughly comparable to chamber or division of the court.
"Senate" is the literal translation. For those of other nationalities to understand it better, we think you should read "division" or "chamber" whenever you see this word. Is that permissable?
DR. SCHUBERT: That is right.
" (3) The Prosecution is represented by the Chief Prosecutor of the Reich."
I skip to Section 3.
" (1) The People's Court is competent for the investigation and decision in the first and last instance in the cases of high treason according to Sections 80 through 84, treason according to Sections 89 through 92--" There are various other jurisdiction which we will not read.
I skip to Paragraph 3, Section 3.
" (3) If another punishable act is in factual connection with a crime or offense subject to the jurisdiction of the People's Court, the trial against the perpetrators and participants of the other punishable act may be brought before the People's Court by way of combination of the respective cases.
"Section 4.
" (1) The Chief Prosecutor of the Reich can transfer the prosecution of the crimes of preparation of high treason listed in Sections 82 and 83 of the Penal Code and of the treasonable offenses listed in Sections 90b through 90e of the penal Code to the Prosecutor at the Court of Appeal. The Chief Prosecutor of the Reich can withdraw the transfer until the opening of the investigation."
DR. BRIEGER: In the American translation "high treason" is mentioned several times when the German text says "Hoch und Landesverrat." That is high-treason and treason, or "Hoch Landesverrat." At the moment I do not know whether the English technical, term high treason really does cover both German expressions, high treason as well as treason. Recording to the German law, the difference between the two, Landesverrat, treason, is treason committed in favor of a foreign power; whereas, Hochverrat, high-treason, means a revolutionary act.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The Prosecution seeks to make no distinction at that time. If it later becomes relevant, we will so distinguish.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem that until a distinction is sought, that is nothing that can be ruled upon.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It is more of an informative thing at the moment, and we are appreciative of it.
I turn now to Book 3-A, Document Number NG-202, found on Page 12 of English version and Page 13 of the German version.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Wooleyhan, the pages 10, 6, and 9 which you have read are sought to be separate exhibits? Or are they a part of the early exhibit?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That and every other reference we are reading from Document Book 2 will be merely a reference to an exhibit previously admit in evidence, if that has the Court's permission.
Document NG-202 is offered by the Prosecution as Exhibit 121. It is offered without reading or any other reference thereto except for a brief description of what the document purports to be. It is rather lengthy and on its face appears to be a collection of correspondence.
Going to the only point that the Prosecution is interested in, namely that it deals with the appointment of German Air Force, Luftwaffe, Office to the People's Court as lay judges. We only to call the Court's attention in passing to Page 15 of the English Document Book which is Page 16 of the German, wherein a letterhead of the President of the People's Court dated 1 December 1934 appears. This is addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice in Berlin. It has as its subject the appointment of additional members of the People's Court who do not have to have judicial qualifications. This was pointed out. Those were, in fact, Air Force Officers. We now offer Document NG-202 as Prosecution Exhibit 121.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
I turn now to Page 2-, NG-622. NG-622 combines two newspaper clippings from the same newspaper, the "Voelkischer Beobachter," Southern Germany edition.
These clippings are from two different issues. The first clippings is entitled, "Appointment of Honorary Members of the People's Court, Berlin 15 August 1939.
"By an edict dated 1 August 1939, the Fuehrer has appointed as honorary members of the People's Court for a period of five years;" four officials whose names the Prosecution will not read except to direct the court's attention that one is an SS-Standartenfuehrer, another is a Major, and another is a NSKK Gruppenfuehrer, aNSKK, for the Tribunal's information was the National Socialist Motor Transport Copr. The Source is "Voelkischer Beobac South German Edition, 16 August 1939, Page 2, Column 5."
The second clipping collected is entitled "New Members of the People's Court, Berlin, 20 October 1939."
This is found on Pages 22 and 23 of the German Document Book.
"In accordance with the proposal, of the Reich Minister of Justice, the Fuehrer has appointed, or re-appointed as honorary members of the People's Court for a period of five year the following list of officials." I will not read the names, but I do wish to direct the Court's attention to the fact that each appears to be either a Colonel, a 1st Lieutenant, a Navy Captain, Major-General, a General of the Anti-Aircraft Artillery, a. General of the Airforce, two SA-Obergruppenfuehrers, that is an SA General, a Chairman of a Party District, a Party County Leader or an SS-Standartenfuehrer.
Source: Voelkischer Beobachter, South German Edition, 21 October 1939 Page S, Column 3.
The Prosecution offers as Exhibit Number 122, Document NG-622.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we understand the last matter at the bottom of the is the third clipping?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, Your Honor. The matter at the bottom of the page entitled "Certificate of Translation" is added by the Office of Chief Counsel order to certify that what we have read in English is an accurate translation the German original.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: At this juncture, the prosecution seeks to direct the Court's attention only in pasting, mainly to have some reference in the record more than anything else, to Exhibit No. 52 admitted some time age, which was Document NG-148. On its face, it purported to be a proposal that pressure was needed to fill the lay posts in the People's Court. That document is found in Document Book 1-B at Page 164 of the English Version.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask a question, exposing my ignorance thereby? It's your position, is it, that the persons appointed as honorary members of the People's Court, sat as members of Tribunals in trials?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: They did in fact, Your Honor.
Turning now to Document NG-178 which is found on page 21 of the English Document Book, and appears to be scattered between pages 24 and 27 of the German Document Book.
THE PRESIDENT: Which English book do you refer to?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Book 3-A, Page 21, Document NG-178. That document, in the German Books, is accurate. The English books were inaccurate in their translations and we sought to amend it. Has the clerk received the amended copies of Document NG-178? I have a few extra copies here which suffice for the Court. It is only the English that was faulty; the German was in order. Will that suffice or shall we later supply you with more copies?
(Secretary-General indicates that there are sufficient copies.)
Reading now from Document NG-178. This, too is an excerpt from a German newspaper, and is entitled, "Talks with the President of the People's Court." The source is the Voelkischer Beobachter (newspaper), South German Edition, 17 January 1939, page 2.
"Declarations of Vice President ENGERT:
Senate President ENGERT, Vice President of the People's Court, furnished information during an interview with our AT-correspondent regarding some particularly interesting questions.
Question:
Performance and significance of the People's Court are not always sufficiently known to the public.
Is the People's Court to be considered as a special court which does net conform to other legal provisions?
Answer:
Yes and no. The People's Court is a court of first and last instance and has sole jurisdiction of these crimes which affect the foundation of the state, such as high treason, treason, economic sabotage. However, the trial is conducted under the general provisions of the Law of Criminal Procedure, at least in principle, which stipulate the conduct of public trial, right of retaining defense counsel observance of certain time limits, declaration of the accused etc.
Question:
Is the People's Court to be considered a political court?
Answer:
Again, yes and no. Notwithstanding the fact that we must pass sentence on political crimes, we must demand from our judges and public prosecutors an exact knowledge of the political ideas in the world. We must know the development of all movements which are hostile to National Socialism We must always knew the position of Germany in the world, and be aware of the methods by which a hostile political philosophy attempts to fight us. In short, we must have a thorough understanding of what is usually called politics. From this point of view, the People's Court is a political court. Otherwise, politics do not determine the fate of a human being but solely the laws.
Question:
Which trials are public?
Answer:
In principle, all trials are public except these where state secrecies are involved. In these cases, the public is excluded. This is also the practice in other states. The People's Court particularly welcomes the press reports on the public trials since they are capable of enlightening large part of the population and simultaneously clear up many still existing misconception for example with regard to the measure of punishment in the sentences of the senates.
Certain instigators abroad frequently assert that the People's Court pronounces only death sentences day after day. The fact is that the number of acquittals during the last six months was eight times as high as the number of death sentences. The latter did not exceed a single digit number during this period."
The prosecution offers as Exhibit No. 123, Document NG-178.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Turning now to Page 49 of the English Document Book, which is page 61 of the German, there appears NG-160, bearing the letterhead, "The President of the People's Court," dated 11 January 1943, Berlin, stamped: Secret, and sent to the Reich Minister of Justice in Berlin, "For your information and on your approval."
"My dear Reich Minister:
"Enclosed, please find two surveys giving y u a summary on the activity of the People's Court from the 1st of January until the 31st December 1942.
"Heil Hitler!
"Respectfully yours, "Signed Freisler."
The enclosed survey that Freisler referred to are found on the following pages. The first survey of page 50 of the English is entitled: Summary on the Activity of the People's Court. From 1 January until 31 December 1942. On this table, which breaks down the business of the People's Court by its various Divisions or Senates, we wish to direct the Court's attention to a comparison of the items number 5 et sequitor to number 13. Those numbers are found in the left-hand margin. There we find that death sentence from 1 January until 31 December 1942 totaled 1,192. Parenthetically, I might remark that I am reading from the original photostat at the moment because the mimeograph, at least in the English book, is faulty on the right margin, and I want to be careful to read the correct digits into the record. You may fee that the numbers that I read, that do not appear in the right-hand column are being read from the exhibit.
In contrast to the 1,192 death sentences pronounced by the People's Court in the above mentioned period -- I am not reading from the document now, Your Honor, I am merely describing it -- in contrast to those death sentences, we found the number of acquittals to be 107 -- approximately onetenth. We also wish to direct the Court's attention to the total life terms, item number 6, which is 79, as contrasted to item number 5, death sentences, which are 1,192. Items number 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are likewise but a fraction of item 5; and, indeed, item 12, namely fines, is non-existent.
Turning now to Page 52, which is 63 in the German, we wish to call the Court's attention to this table which is similar to the one just referred to, except that it covers the period, as it's entitled in fact, "Summary on the Activity cf the People's Court, from 1 January until 30 June 1943." Attention is invited to item 5, death sentences, which total 804. To that, contrast item 13, acquittals which reads a total of 95. As further contrast to item 5, death sentences, we invite the Tribunal's attention to item 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, which are but a fraction of item 5, and in fact item 12, fines, is likewise non-existent in this table.
At this time, the prosecution offers in evidence as Exhibit No. 124, Document NO-160.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Turning now to Document NG-669, on page 22 of the English book III-A, which is page 28 in the German; by way of a brief description, Document NG-669 is an official Peoples' Court case record, plus a number of attachments, including the indictment. The Prosecution, in this present document and all others like it, that is all other court case records, professes to skip through the rather voluminous case record and read in some semblance of chronological order only those portions of the indictment, the facts, the findings, the legal reasons advanced therefore in the barest details sufficient to acquaint the Court through oral reading of what the voluminous document is about. Of course the whole document will be introduced in evidence and can be perused more at leisure, but for the purpose of presentation, it appears that a chronological sampling of what happened in the case is better than a verbatim plou***hing through of the pages of the legal mind at work.
DR. GRUBE: (Attorney for Defendant Lautz) May it please, Court, I really meant to speak on this point when the indictment was handed over, but now the representative of the Prosecution has made a general statement on the point in what form, judgment and indictment of the People's Court are to be recognized here.
As you will see later, as indictment are presented, these indictments regularly refer to files; the indictment always say compare with pages so and so and file so and so. These indictments, therefore, looked upon alone do not constitute a complete document. This part is very important for the evaluation of the defendant Lautz, and for the following reasons: First of all, on the occasion of an interrogation, the interrogator, among other things, raised the reproach that charges had been made although his suspicion that a criminal act had been ommitted was not one hundred percent. The defendant Lautz at that time said according to German criminal law that it is not necessary that the certainty is one hundred per cent, that is to say that a certainty that a criminal act was committed. Later on he felt he wanted to say more about this in effect, in accordance with German laws the prosecutor is obliged to start the prosecution if there is sufficient suspicion.