THE PRESIDENT: May I state at this time that the Witness in his answer on the direct examination referred to the Chief Reich Prosecutor of the Supreme Reich Court, not to the Chief Reich Prosecutor of any People's Cou*** It does seem to me that any interrogation of the Witness as to what might have been said by some other officer does not inter into the discussion this time. He stated that the nullity plea was introduced by a certain official. Now, asking him whether there were certain officials does not anything to the inquiry.
DR. BRUGE: In the discussion of the construction of the German adminis tration of justice which we received at the beginning of the trial, there is one Chief Reich Public Prosecutor mentioned all the time; that is, the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor, Lautz, and in the treatise it says the **** Reich Public Prosecutor Lautz was also the Chief of all Public Prosecutor and was particularly competent for nullity pleas and extraordinary objection for Special Courts and-so-forth, so that the impression is created as th*** there was only one Chief Reich Public Prosecutor in existence. In this connection I want to point out how limited the competence of the defendant Lautz was on the basis of the statements which were made by the witness Behl, and which has in part already been made by him.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears from the statement of the Defense Counsel representing the defendant Lautz, that this is material to his defense, and we will, therefore, permit further pursuit of inquiry.
DR. GRUBE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps the Defense Counsel did not understand. I s*** we will permit the inquiry to be further pursued.
DR. GRUBE: Yes, yes.
BY DR. GRUBE:
Q Witness, you have already enumerated for which crimes the People's Court and the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor at the People's Court, that the defendant Lautz was competent?
A I want to add that, through the constant enlargement of competent finally another list of crimes for the competency of the People's Court made up.
Q Would you please enumerate the list?
AAccording to the Competent Order directive of 1940; the People's Court is competent for high treason, treason, attacks against the Fuehrer Reich Chancellor; serious cases of destruction of armaments; and, endange** ing of the Wehrmacht, of the Armies of friendly States. This is on the bas** of the order for the amendment of the Penal Provisions for the prosecution of definite forces of the German people of 25 November 1939, Reichsgestzb** Reich Law Gazette, part I, page 2319. Then, for not reporting a planned in as far as it concerns the intentions of high treason, treason which co*** under the competence of the People's Court or about the intentions of the serious cases of destruction of armaments; then, crimes according to para**** 5, No. 1, section I, for the order of prosecution of Penal State of 28 February 1933. Further, crimes according to paragraph 1 of the law against sabotage of 1 December 1936, because of public undermining of military mor*** and because of intentional draft evasion. If the Chief Public Prosecutor the People's Court thinks the sentence by this court is -
Q (Interposing) Witness, in all ether crimes this far, the Chief Public Prosecutor or at the Reich Supreme Court was competent this far. crimes for the Special Courts are also in this category are they not?
A Yes.
Q Witness, the Chief Prosecutor at the People's Court was he the superior of all the other Public Prosecutors in the Reich?
A Of other Public Prosecutors, no.
Q Only the superior Public Prosecutor at the People's Court?
A Yes.
Q Therefore, he was not the official superior of the Public Prosecut*** which were active at the Special Courts, was he?
A I can not answer that question.
Q But I can answer it for you, Witness. He was not the superior.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: That is an improper statement, Counsel. That statement will be stricken from the record.
It is not proper to express your opinion to the witness in matters which he said he did not know anything about.
Q I now come to the question of the nullity plea. Did the Chief Public Prosecutor at the People's Court have the possibility to make a nullity pl***
A Yes.
Q On the basis of what prevision?
A I have to correct myself. It is an oversight on my part, I mixed it up with special objections, extraordinary objections. The Chief Public Prosecutor at the Reich Supreme Court has to make nullity pleas according to the Competent Order of 24 February 1940, and of the Fuehrer's order of Agree ment of 1942.
Q Do you then agree with me that the defendant Lautz was, as Public Prosecutor at the People's Court, not competent for nullity pleas?
A No.
Q That he had the right to make them for nullity pleas?
A No, he did not have the right.
THE PRESIDENT: As I understand it, the defendant Lautz has not been charged with introducing this decree. It was the Chief Reich Prosecutor the Supreme Reich Court.
DR. GRUBE: Mr. President, the question is not whether, as it is here translated, the Chief Public Prosecutor introduced the nullity plea, as it also says here. The defendant Lautz is charged in the written Indictment having submitted nullity pleas on the basis of this Competent Order which about the nullity plea, and this is the subject of the question which I am directing to the Witness.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire what the defendant Lautz' office really was?
DR. GRUBE: The defendant Lautz was the Chief Public Prosecutor at the People's Court, in addition to that there were, as the witness Behl already said, there was also a Chief Public Prosecutor at the Reich Supreme Court who was not identical with the defendant Lautz.
Q Witness, I have a further question. In this connection, did the Public Prosecutor at the People's Court, that is, did he have the possible and the right to object or submit nullity pleas against the judgement of Special Courts?
A No, he did not.
Q I now come to the extraordinary objections. You have already mentioned during your questioning that the extraordinary objections by the laws for the changes and provisions of the general penal procedure of the Weimar penal procedure, and of the Code of Criminal procedure of 6 September 1939, that this extraordinary objection was introduced. Fir** of all a question: Was this extraordinary objection admissible only in those cases in which the sentence seemed to be too mild or could extraordinary objections also be made in favor of a sentenced person?
AAccording to the wording of the provision that was possible be**** it said if serious doubt against the correctness cf the judgement existe**
Q. Witness, who was competent for the submission of an extraordinary objection?
A. The Chief Reich Public Prosecutor of the Reich Supreme Court, and the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Peoples Court.
Q. Was there also a sharp separation of competency or could, for example the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Peoples Court also submit the extraordinary objection against the judgment of other courts?
A. No, each one was within his own competency.
Q. Could the Chief Public Prosecutor therefore submit extraordinary objection in the sentence of a Special Court was supposed to be changed?
A. No, that is expressly stated that the sentence of the Peoples Court, if that is to be changed the objection is to be made by the Chief Prosecutor of the Peoples Court -- the decision of the Special Court. The same applies to sentences of the District Court of Appeals in a criminal proceeding which **** Chief Reich Public Prosecutor of the Peoples Court has made to the Peoples Prosecution of the District Court or the Peoples Court which the Peoples Court has transferred to the District Court of Appeals by the Peoples Court. ******* he could also object to the sentence of an ordinary Court.
Q. This matters were submitted only in those cases in which the competent of the Chief Public Prosecutor was applicable. That was correct. I want you to state it differently. Did you then consider this provision to say that the Chief Prosecutor of the Peoples Court in those cases was competent to make a special objection -- extra-ordinary objection in those cases which per se sere under the competence of the Peoples Court but therefore because they were considered less important had been referred to another Court? Is that correct?
A. You can see the answer from the text which I have just read. It answer the question.
Q. Witness, do you know who had to make the decision whether extraordinary objects had to be made or not.
A. No, I do not know that.
Q. Do you know, since you have studied legal literature -- do you know that in the provisions regarding extra-ordinary objections one had to work with *** example, constitutional arguments?
For instance, do you know this book here? (indicating) "The Standard Works for National Socialism Constitution", which you should know really. With which you should be familiar? Do you know that in an extra-ordinary objection was an interference with a le***** judgment to which only the legislative authority was really entitled?
A. Yes, that was the nature from this objection.
Q. Did you know from this book, for example, or are you familiar with the following sentence: "From the fact that the law allows the raising of special objections in the frame-work of the general jurisprudence to the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor of the Reich Supreme Court and of the Peoples Court which according to their nature are up only for the executive authority of the State buy may he transfer them to him within the framework of the jurisprudence of the Wehrmacht? It is reserved even to the Fuehrer and the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. Therefore, it results clearly **** the new measures are to be applied only in exceptional cases which are special politically and they are used only in such cases." Another quotation from this same book on page 419, Art. 2, paragraph 3: "For the submission an extra-ordinary objection if the Chief Public Prosecutor is declared to be competent then the law assumes that this action of the Chief Public Prosecutor can be carried out only on order of the Chief Executive." Witness, do you know -- well, as I remember you have already denied this.
A. What?
Q. Who gave the initiative in the individual case?
A. In the individual case? I do not know who took the initiative but I do not doubt that this institution in particular obeyed the will of the Fuehrer or it was intended to supply a means to the Fuehrer to introduce something in which we call generally "cabinet justice," and so it was the inten tion to introduce this into the admission of justice.
Q Another point, witness, already during your previous testimony you already stated your opinion about the so-called law Van der Lubbe and in general about the laws which were expost factor.
In this connection I would like to ask you the following: Did you know that German legal theory and German legislation already before 1933 were of the opinion that in the question ******* a law was ex post facto -- could be ex post facto -- one had to dis******* by (a) the fact of the case; that is, the permission or prohibition which is given in the criminal law and, (b) the sanction of the penalty; that is, the threat of a penalty in case that this prohibition or permission is fiolated? Did you know that this distinction was made?
A. Yes, I know.
Q. Did you know that the German legal theory and legislation already before 1933 were of the opinion that the measures of punishment should be increased and changed *********** ex post facto and that Art. 116 of the Constitution already mentions it -- that they would be retroactively increased?
A. I do not know that.
Q. Unfortunately I don't have it here. Do you have a Commentary of Ebermaier?
A. Yes.
Q. He has many quotations. Perhaps I shall show there to you this afternoon ****ask you to state your opinion in regard to that. Anyway, one thing is certain, that already before 1932 there were ex post facto laws promulgated. Do you know any such law?
A. Threats of penalty were retroactive? No.
Q. Did you know the law about money?
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, he has again trangressed the admonition of the Tribunal. Counsel has expressly stated what he thinks a certain law is, and it turns out the witness says he doesn't know anything about it. That sort of statement will not be permitted and I think Dr. Grube, who must know as a skilled counsel, that you are exceeding your rights.
DR. GRUBE: Mr. President, I ask to be excused but I believe it was either translated wrong -- I asked the witness whether laws were known to him which had retroactive power and when he denied this I only asked him whether he knew the law about money penalties of 1933.
THE PRESIDENT: The statement of counsel was the law had a retroactive power and not to question the witness whether it had.
Q. I now come to another part; you mentioned the Peoples Court re**** already and in this connection you also stated that the Peoples Court was a Special Court. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, according to Art. 105 of the Reich Constitution, as you said yourself, it is well-known that certain Special Courts are authorized. Do you know what the Reich Constitution meant by such Special Courts -- Extraordinary Courts?
A I said "courts for a special case."
Q What do you mean by that?
A Expressly for the sentencing of a special, individual case. I would like to say that I did not say that the People's Court was an extraordinary court, an exceptional court.
Q That is just what I want to ask you; that is what I am coming to **** According to your own statement so far, it was not an exceptional court and therefore was in disagreement with Article 105 of the Constitution
A Not with 105.
Q Was it contrary to law in other respects, contrary to the Consti tution?
A I must repeat again what I said yesterday about special, courts general, about Anschuetz, but I would like to spare the Tribunal this repe tition.
Q Witness, is it correct that you stated that the German Special Courts -- among which you include also the People's Court, according to you statement before -- that you considered them contrary to the Constitution because, first, these Special Courts were active not only for special agencies, and second -- I will go into the first point first.
Is it correct that in 1922 there was a Special State Court for the protection of the Republic?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell me for which crimes this State Court was competent?
AAt the moment I cannot enumerate that.
Q Is it correct, witness, that this State Court for the Protecti** the Republic, of the year 1922, was competent for political crimes?
A Yes.
Q Actually, I would have to enumerate to you the entire list of crimes for which it was competent. Perhaps I may show you the list briefly.
(Document shown to witness)
A Yes.
Q Do you think, witness, that this list of competency is larger the list of competency of the People's Court?
A In its external extent, it seems to be larger. I can call it larger.
Q Witness, do you know whether the State Court for the Protection the Republic of 1922 was only created as a temporary institution?
A I do not know that. If I remember correctly, it was created as result of the murder of Walter Rathenau, and as a result of the increasing threats of members of the government of the Weimar Republic by nationalist terrorists. From this it is apparent that if this danger were regarded as finally or mainly overcome, then this State Court would have fulfilled its purpose and it could then be abolished.
Q Do you consider it constitutional, this State Court for the Pro tection of the Republic?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I would like to have the question made -- at least for me -- more definite. Perhaps it is completely definite, but counsel in referring to the State Court. I do not know whether the witness can answer it intelligently, but it seems to me that the question should be more speci fic to the extent whether this was a State Court created by Reich law, *** whether it was a State Court existing within some state of Germany. If *** is referring to one or the other, I believe he should state it in the question because the effect of the answer of the witness would be much better.
THE WITNESS: The State Court was created by Reich law.
BY DR. GRUBE:
Q Do you know the law? Do you know the name of this law?
A The Law for the Protection of the Republic, yes.
Q Was this a court competent for the entire Reich?
A Yes.
Q I return to the question again: Do you consider the State Court the Protection of the Republic constitutional?
A I have already said that according to Article 103 of the Reich Constitution, special courts are not excluded per se. However, I don't want to repeat it, I have already stated my opinion.
The question is whether there were excesses of special courts.
Q Do you consider the State Court for the Protection of the Republic constitutional?
A Yes; I said yes.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I object to that question. If Your Honor please, that question has been answered at least ten times, and he said he considered these courts constitutional.
THE PRESIDENT: He is certainly answering it now.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The question is repetitious.
THE PRESIDENT: He has certainly answered it now, and we hope it will not be asked him again.
BY DR. GRUBE:
Q Witness, you said before that the State Court for the Protection the Republic was introduced for the period of the emergency which exist the time. Is that correct?
A I did not refer to a provision of a limiting position, but I explained the reasons for which it was instituted, and from these I drew con clusions about its period of action.
Q Do you know when this court was abolished, or dissolved?
AAt the moment I don't remember it.
Q Do you know that the State Court for the Protection of the Re*** was dissolved in 1929 or later?
A I can't tell you.
Q However, it is correct that the list of the sphere of competence was at least as large as the People's Court?
A In its external extent, yes.
Q Do you then wish to maintain, witness, that the fact that a law a large list of fields of competence, that that is a decisive consideration as to whether a court is inadmissibly unconstitutional?
A I spoke about this yesterday.
Q Do you know that the State Court for the Protection of the Repu*** was differentiated from the People's Court in an important way?
A I don't know what you are referring to.
Q Do you know whether the State Court for the Protection of the Republic was also competent for crimes which were committed before the establishment of the State Court?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The witness has said he didn't know about it.
BY DR. GRUBE:
Q Another question, witness. You said before what the reason was for the creation of this State Court.
A Yes, the murder of Walter Rathenau.
Q Do you know whether the State Court for the Protection of the Republic was created for the condemning of the murderers of Rathenau?
AAs far as I remember, the trial against Techow was carried on by the State Court, in the State Court. However, I don't remember any more exactly.
Q I want to ask you this, witness. Do you know that the transfer of competence to the State Court for the Protection of the Republic was because the judges of the court in Berlin, of the Schwurgericht, war *** strict enough?
A No, I do not know that.
Q But you consider it to be possible that the State Court for the Protection of the Republic was competent also for crimes which had already been committed?
A I told you I don't know that.
Q May I show you the prevision?
(Document submitted to witness)
A These provisions are to be applied also to crimes which were co mitted before the promulgation of the law.
THE PRESIDENT: I am wondering how that can possibly be material. I certainly isn't a violation of ex post facto law to create a court to try matters where the crimes have really been committed before the law was ma*** This wasn't a law defining crimes, it was a law for the punishment of crime Naturally, the court would not have been created at all unless there was something for the court to do.
DR. GRUBE: Mr. President, may I make a remark in regard to this?
THE PRESIDENT: You certainly may.
DR. GRUBE: According to legal theory, the transfer of competency a court which is newly created applies with retroactive force. That means that the defendant is taken away from the ordinary court.
For instance, in this case, first, from a jury court in Berlin, by special law, the competency was transferred to the State Court. By the question to the witness I only wanted to find out one thing, namely, whether he considered the State Court constitutional.
THE PRESIDENT: He has certainly answered that question more than once.
The time has arrived for the noon recess.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, I ask to be excused. This is only a technical question about the length of the noon recess. The n*** recess lasts for an hour. However, during the last few days it became apparent that this recess is very short. The defendants, after three-quarters of an hour -- that is, fifteen minutes before the afternoon sess*** -- have to be back in court. This means that there is very little time for eating. Therefore, my client has asked me to submit this request to the Tribunal about the noon recess for the easing of this situation; that in whether it can be prolonged by 15 minutes.
For myself, I can say the following. We defense counsel are also short of time during the noon recess. There are about 60 gentlemen of the defense working in the courthouse, and all of them eat between 12:30 an 1:30, outside of the building in their mess. There is such a pressure of time because one cannot get a seat right away and one is not served right away. Therefore, we are always rushed.
I would like, therefore, to make the request for the defendants, and I would like to extend it also to the defense counsel, to prolong the noon recess by 15 minutes. The Tribunal will decide whether these 15 minutes w*** be added later in the afternoon or at any other time.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I find myself in agreement with defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know why it is necessary for the defendant to be in court 15 minutes ahead of time.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I have found, and I say to the Court that this wit ness has found, that an hour is a very short time to get to mess and to get any relaxation so that we can come back prepared to do a good job in the afternoon.
I will join in the request, except to the extent that I don't think it should be added on. I believe we can make progress, and I hope that in the further examination of this witness we can move a little faster, with the permission of the Court. When we get the documents, I am sure we are going to move a little faster.
I definitely join in the request on behalf of the plaintiffs, and know that where we have witnesses it would be helpful.
THE PRESIDENT: An additional time will be granted for today, and will consider the matter later; but the adjournment for this time will be until 1:45.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours)
AFTERNOON SESSION
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. BRUBE: Mr. President, May I be permitted to continue with the cross-examination?
First I would like to make a statement. Twice this morning questions which I put to the witness were objected to by the Tribunal. I asked to be excused if I have put questions, which according to this Tribunal, are not permissable. I ask you to take into consideration that German procedure is entirely different from this. Therefore, of course, mistakes can be made. Certainly, there is no ill intention behind this.
THE PRESIDENT: We accept the statement.
Q. Witness, you said, in your examination, that the People's Court came into the place of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of the Reich, Kechsgericht. Can you tell me whether any illegal means were used in cases which were transferred from the Reichsgericht to the Volksgericht?
A. No.
Q. Was there any possibility of remedying a decision in a high-treason case?
A. No.
Q. This morning, the State Court for the Protection of the Republic was mentioned. Do you know whether there was any legal remedy for tho decision of the State Court for the Protection of the Republic?
A. No. There was one.
Q. When you were examined, you also objected to the institution of the People's Court on account of that fact that its composition gave a political character to that court. You stated especially that the individual senates of the Peo ple's Court consisted of two professional judges and three lay judges.
The lay judges were selected according to political points of view; therefore, on the basis of their majority, three to two, they had a stronger voice then the professional judges. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, May I ask you whether you know how the State Court for the Protection of the Republic was formed? Do you know the composition of that court?
A. I believe they also had lay judges.
Q. Do you know the proportion? Do you know how many members there were in the State Court for the Protection of the Republic?
A. I could not say that from memory.
Q. May I show you the law for the protection of the Republic? It is Paragraph 12, Section I.
A. It reads, "The Court decides in a composition of nine members, where there are three members of the Reich Supreme Court, the remaining six do not have to have the qualifications of a judge. The members are appointed by the Reich President for the duration of the validity of this law."
Q. On the basis of this provision, are you of the opinion that in the case of the State Court for the Protection of the Republic, the lay judges were in a majority as compared to the Professional judges?
A. Yes. That can be seen from this.
Q. You had already mentioned who appointed the lay judges?
A. The Reich President.
Q. Can you tell mo who was Reich President at the time?
A. Friedrich Ebert.
Q. To what party did he belong?
A. He belonged to the Social Democratic Party, but at all times and quite probably, he has stated that he did not consider himself a representative of the Social Democrat ****** but a servant of the State, a servant of all people.
Q. Witness, is it known to you that the existence of the State Court for the Protection of the Republic was based on political reasons?
A. Yes. That can be seen clearly from the fact that a political murder was the cause for the establishment of that court.
Q. Is it known to you that the establishment of a state court occurred on the basis of a suspicion or mistrust of the ordinary justice?
A. There existed, at that time, in the early days, in the beginning of tho Weimar Republic, a reactionary tendency among the judges. Among their functions, within the framework of their duties as judges, they showed an attitude inimical to the Republic in their decisions. In taking into account to the facts, they could not express their won attitude that justified a mistrust against a part of the professional body of judges, but it did not lead actually to the result that tho independent constitutional rights of these judges were inflicted in any way. It cannot be denied that the institution of the State Court served to safeguard against such hidden reactionary nationalistic tendencies.
Q. Thank you. I have no more questions.
A. I should like to ask to be permitted to add that in the case of the People's Court, the composition was different because the lay judges, who were in the majority, were representatives of national socialist thought and national socialism which identified itself with the German nation, the German state.
Q. It is correct, however, that the State Court was a pol itical court?
A. Political thoughts contributed to its creation, yes. I have sail that. I have explained that.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Defense counsel for the defendant Paterson.
BY DR. ASCHENAUR:
Q. Witness, you have just said that the State Court was created for the Protection of the German Republic. It was mainly against seditious attempts and attempts at assasination coming from the Reich?
A. No. I have not said that. I said the cause for the establishment of the State Court was murder. It came from nationalistic circles.
Q. But it is known to you, I am sure, that in practice the State Court, primarily handed verdicts against seditious ******ts from the left?
A. Yes. That occurred also in the course of the activities of the State Court and it shows that the institution itself was not biased and was not used in a one-sided manner by the State.
Q. Witness, do you agree with this? Conditions in Thuringia played an important role in the establishment of the State Court?
A. The disturbance, on the basis of Communistic disturbance contributed.
Q. I also believe that you will agree with me if I say that quite a number of decisions of the State Court were in this direction published?
A. Yes.
Q. Then, Witness, to come to a different point, you were a German representative at the Arvitration Court in London in 1930? 716 A. 1928 and 1929.
Q. I assumed that you received that extraordinary commission on the basis of special work in the field of international law? That is correct, is it now?
A. Yes. Questions of civil were the reason. I do not know if you are familiar with the tasks of the Arbitration Court. We were concerned with the civil trails, civil crimes which on the basis of the Versailles Treaty had to be clarified between the English and German parties with the cooperation of the clearing office.
Q. But I assume on the basis of this position, you have particular knowledge of English and American law?
A. No. Not the American law. I had nothing to do with that.
Q. But during the examination, you have mentioned that the element of prejudice is important in American law?
A. No. In Anglo-Saxon law.
Q. Did you have any connection with the juices of the People's Court?
A. No.
Q. have you ever visited a session of the People's Court?
A. Personally, no, not in person.
Q. How do you know that the lay judges were party officials, that is to say, that they represented individually the interests of the National Socialist party?
A. That can be seen from the selection and from the entire organization of the NSDAP. It would have been quite impossible that functions of the NSDAP would represent other interests than those of National Socialism.
Q. May I ask you, and thereby I come to Document NG-622, which was submitted by the prosecution, Exhibit 122, what was the position of 1st Lieutenant Ruedel from Berlin in the Party?
A. I don't have the exhibit here.
(Dr. Aschehauer offers Dr. Behl the exhibit.)
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honors, I didn't understand. Was that an exhibit number or an NG document number?
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit number; the document number is 622.
MR. La FOLLETTE: May I inquire what book it's in?
JUDGE BRAND: 3-A, page 20.
MR. La FOLLETTE: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: We are confronted here with the representatives of the Armed Forces. They also, just as the Party officials, could be lay judges a called as such into the people's court. The appointment occurred according to a law promulgated by Hitler himself; and it cannot be assumed that he would select members of the Armed Forces who were known for opposition to National Socialism and who had objected to the aims of the Party.
BY DR. ASCHENAUER:
Q. They were probably also active as jurors?
A. Yes, in juror courts.
Q. Did you have the impression that the lay judges had a chance against the professional judges?
A. Yes, they had a chance. It did not occur very often because the lay judges, at least a large number of them, did not have the technical back ground for discussion. But I have experienced cases where lay judges who had a great deal of experience were in a position to stand for their opinion It also occurred that both of them made their point against the judge.
Q. Now these lay judges, on the basis of their experiences, did they appear more severe or loss severe than the professional judges?