Q Mr. President, do you know that in this denazification proceeding it was discussed in detail, the clique around the Reich President? I only have remind you of the person of his son, Undersecretary Meissner, etc.
A. Yes.
Q With this preface may I now ask you, do you assume that the Govern ment Bruening, this law regarding special courts was not any more ****** action? That is, in other words, that the special courts were not establish at that time for the reason that the government of Bruening was already to weak to take any action against the personality of the Reich President an those in his confidence - to take any effective action against them.
A. This possibility I can neither affirm nor deny. I only point out that the third emergency decree about five months or a half year before was promulgated half a year before the second presidential election, and far as I remember, Bruening at that time still had the confidence of the second Reich I resident -- at least to a considerable extent. I don't want to talk about 100% because that is a circumstance about which I can not make a positive statement.
A. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honor, I do not want to preclude counsel, part cularly because I have a very high regard for counsel. I assume that he a purpose which will follow a very -- knowing him, I think he has a part which will follow a very devious course and end up with a very devastating question. But if it should not, we are a little far off the course. And while I don't like to ask the cross examiner to state fully his purpose, believe that counsel should make some statement as to the ultimate relevant of this line of questioning.
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we assume that he expects to pursue that further There is no question pending at this time.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: It is so hard to get here and jump around and state objections. I simply wanted to ask the Court possibly to inquire of count if there is a relevant purposes in this examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it may be well enough for defense counsel to st*** whether he expects to pursue this inquiry further and if so, for what purpose
DR. BRIEGER: Mr. President, I may assure you that just today -- that the high Tribunal as well as the witness are tired out today on the third day of the examination, and therefore I am very anxious not to put any unnecessary questions to the witness. Therefore, contrary to most co-defense counsel, I have avoided asking any questions whatsoever, with the exception of this particular one regarding his personal career. But the high Tribunal will under stand the purpose of my questioning, which I shall make known to the Tribunal in time - that is, in the effort to be fair intended, already during my cross examination, that with this aim in mind I really want to keep it back for the moment.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Of course, Your Honor, I do not want to preclude counsel and I simply withdraw any possible objection.
THE PRESIDENT: May I say on behalf of the Tribunal that, speaking for myself, and I trust I speak for my colleagues, we are not too weary to listen to this if it is pertinent. We will, pay very patient attention to anything which we think is pertinent, and weariness is no part of our problem.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q Mr. President, I here have in front of me the Reich Law Gazette 1920, volume of the year 1920, volume 1, page 985, entitled "Order of the Reich President" on the basis of Article 48, Paragraph 2 of the Reich constitution concerning the restitution of public safety and order, - regarding the measure necessary for this restitution. This law bears the signature, with the date 19 May 1920, of Reich President Ebert, Reich Chancellor Mueller, and Reich Minister of the Interior Koch. Mr. President, may I ask you to tell the ** Tribunal which party or which parties these three personalities belonged to to signed this law? May I ask you, to which party did Reich President Ebert belong to?
A Social Democratic Party.
Q Reich Chancellor Mueller?
A Social Democratic party.
Q Reich Minister of the Interior Koch?
AAlso the Social Democratic Party. They all belonged to the Social Democratic Party.
Q Witness, may I acquaint you -- excuse me if some numbers don't mean anything to you right now. I shall explain it to you later. Paragraph 8 says the extraordinary courts are competent - first, witness, may I ask you I assume that you have the Reich Criminal Code at hand. May I ask you to write down these figures fer the moment, because later on I must absolutely ******* the opportunity to read over the regulations of the laws. Paragraph * says the extraordinary courts are competent, first of all, for those crimes mentioned in Article I, Article 6,7,20,27 of the Criminal Code. I ask you, did you fellow along with me?
A No.
Q I shall repeat again. In Part I, Section 1, 6,7,20,27. The Crime and delicts mentioned in these sections. Secondly, for the crimes and delicts against paragraph 211 until 215 of the Reich Code of Criminal Procedure. Third, against the crimes and delicts against the law against the criminal use of explosives and endangering the public. Fourth , for crimes against the order of the 10th of April 1920 about the delivery of weapons. If the action took place after the promulgation of the order of 13 January 1920 for the restoration of public safety and order, the measures necessary for this can be continued. Still another paragraph.
A I take the liberty to make the suggestion to the President to give the witness the opportunity, if the President agrees to it, to read over these parts of the Criminal Code in the Criminal Code itself, and that *** I ask him to give me then the explanation whether these courts were institution for crimes of minor importance, of medium importance, or of considerable importance, for capital crimes.
THE PRESIDENT: We will first inquire of the witness whether he is sufficiently familiar with those sections to answer the question without taking -
THE WITNESS: I could do it, Your Honor. I only need in place of the figures to read the headings and then I know what it is all about. Then I can answer.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q Would you please, Mr. President, familiarize the Tribunal with those Paragraph headings?
A Part 2, Section 1 -
THE PRESIDENT: It is not necessary. I think the Tribunal is familiar with those sections just as the witness is.
A. Of course, we are concerned with considerable crimes and capital crimes.
Q. Her with, I am finished with this particular law, Mr. Presidents Mr. President, on the first day you stated, also, that as a human being, I may also say as a jurist, you felt obligated to read Hitler's "Mein Ka
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Defense Counsel, the time has arrived for our usual recess. I will take a fifteen minute recess before pursuing the question further.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, Your Honor.
(A short recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again session.
CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Witness, you again affirmed to us that you have read Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" (My Strugle). Do you remember that Adolf Hitler, concerning his time in prison at the Fortress of Landsberg after the Putsch before the Feldherrnhalle, that he was sentenced by a Bavarian Special Court?
A. I should like to use the opportunity, concerning these two questions, to talk about the decree of 1920 of Reich President Ebert, and I should like to revert to the background of that decree. At that time, Nationalist quarters made organized the Kapp Putsch which caused unrest as it was being beaten down. This unrest was caused in Central Germany. The measures were justified by the Reich Constitution, Article 48, and they were controlled by Parliament These measures later were rescinded. The extraordinary calls, "which in virtue of that decree, were introduced, did not exist until the end of the Reimar Republic. That is evident from the act that when renewed unrest threatened in 1931, again this emergency measure, was taken. It is a different matter if, after the accession to power of National Socialism, for that constitutional control, which was excluded, by the Enabling Act, now special courts were established with which, as the development followed, there was no thought of having them only for emergency periods, but a permanent institution as a means for putting into effect Nazi dictatorship, and which did not continue to exist. Professional judges of the people's court were appoint for life. This was what I wanted to add to the question conc*** the 19** ***********ch defense counsel addressed to me because it was necessary to understand this decree, comparing it with the special courts of National Socialism.
Q. Mr. President, if I understood, you properly, you reward the Kapp Putsch as a nationalist action.
A. As a nationalist action.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel an witness are both talking at once again, and we cannot have a translation of two voices at the same time.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. To clarify this beyond all doubt, may I ask you another question, although you may consider it superflous? Was Kapp at any time a member of the Nazi Party?
A. No. In 1920, the Nazi Party only existed in hidin ,in the form from which Hitler then developed it for his own purpose and prepared it for his own purpose.
Q. Would you be inclined to say that Kapp and the great industrialists and the a rarian circles with whom he was closely connected -- Would you say that he was closer to these than to Hitler and his people?
A. He belonged to the so-called reaction of the right, to which Hitler and his movement did not want to count themselves.
Q. Would you say that the leader of the right reaction of that time was Hugenber and his people or Hitler and his people?
A. That results from at my answer that Hitler did not count himself among the party of the Reich.
Q. Mr. President, I wish to quote some provisions of the law, the Decree for the Establishment of People's Courts, printed in the Ministry of Justice periodical for Bavaria in 1918, page 229. The book is here in our library and accordingly is accessible to the Tribunal at any tine without difficulty. This law is signed by a number of persons. I will read out the names and perhaps you, Mr. President, will be good enough with every names, as far as it is possible, to tell me to what party the gentleman concerned belonged. I don't know what they called themselves at the time, judges or deputies of the people. The law is signed with the date, 19 November 1918 in Munich, the Government of the People's State, Bavaria. The first name is Kurt Eisner, Mr. President, to what party did Kurt Eisner belong ?
A. Independent Socialist Party.
Q. E. Auer?
A. S.P.D.
Q. H. von Frauendorfer?
A. I believe, also the S.P.D.
Q. Hoffmann?
A. S.P.D.
Q. Dr. Jaffe?
A. I believe, the Independent Socialist Party.
Q. Rosshaupter?
A. S.P.D.
Q. E. Rimm?
A. I don't know.
Q. If you think it over for a moment, perhaps you will remember because his name appears particularly important to me, as he signed the executory orders.
A. I do not know to what party he belonged.
Q. Unterleitner?
A. No.
Q. Now, I will read some of the provisions and I should like to ask you to compare them with the provisions of the Nazi period concerning people's courts and special courts, and accordingly, I should like to leave it to youto your personal opinion--whether you would like to give us your view concerning every article or whether you would like to do so at the and when you have finished reading them. Don't tell definitely now. I would not consider it impolite if you wish to interrupt me every now and then.
"Decree on the Establishment of People's Courts." I may say at the start that I do not want to claims much time of the Tribunal by reading the whole decree. I do not want to do that. I only want to read some important extracts.
"Article 1. Military persons, permitting murder, manslaughter, sexual crimes, robbery, plunder, theft or arson, if they are found in the act, will, in those districts of the people's state where there are people's courts, be sentenced by these courts.
"Article 2. The general provisions of the penal code are valid for the sentences. Murder, manslaughter, sexual crimes, robbery, plunder and arson will be punished with the full gravity of the law.
"These people's court decides regarding the appointment of two professional judges and three lay judges."
I will desist from quoting the remainder of these paragraphs and I now will read the following proclamation on the people's court of the Ministry of Justice.
It says: article 2, the procedure before the Peoples Court is summary, not bound by formalities of ordinary penal procedure and has for its purpose the quickest judgment of the defendant. Article 13 -- against the decision of the Peoples Court and the chairman there is no legal remedy. Article 19 -- on the application of the prosecutor (Article 17, Section 1) the president of the Peoples Court is immediately without decision concerning the opening of the trial before the Peoples' Court, and fixes the time for the trial to be held as soon as possible; no time limit will be adherred to. The place for the trial can by the president be chosen in an additionally one where the Peoples' Court actually has its seat. Article 28, the sentence of the Peoples' Court must be executed immediately; legal remedy does not exist. The reopening of the trial is out of the question; pleas for clemancy will not achieve putting off such execution of sentence. Article 29 -- death sentences may only be carried out when the counsel of ministers has examined it and has approved of the execution. The prosecutor, therefore, must immediately forward the sentence, with the files, to the Ministry of Justice and must give his own views on the execution of tho sentence.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If your Honors please, I believe I must object to this question on two grounds.
JUDGE BRAND: There has been no question propounded as yet.
MR. LaFOLLE'TTE: He has been reading this as part of his question. And counsel was kind enough to permit me to intervene. If the objection is sustained, I would love to hear this historical document. However, I object for the reason the document from law which he has been reading, as I understand it, is a law of the State of Bavaria, and for the further reason, I am not a sure it is common law from which to make a comparison, and which was not included in the subject matter covered on direct examination; and also for the further reason that this is a law of 19 November 1918, just ten days after the end of the first World War, and I submit that this court takes judicial notice of tho fact that no orderly conditions of any kind existed anywhere in Germany at that time. And for that reason any provisions of this law are not under any circumstances comparable German legislation existing before 1933, and is not a fair comparison for the witness upon an act of this kind; it is not pertinent and not proper cross examination.
DR. BRIEGER: May I say something on this point, your Honor. The witness was called as a witness by the Prosecution to tell us about conditions of German justice under the Nazi regime, and all the time he has Compared these conditions and contrasted them with conditions before and of 1933, and that has never been objected to by the Prosecutor. And I may make a point that a while ago the witness said that Adolph Hitler was sentenced by such a Peoples' Court which was organized under these laws; that was 1923, five years after the end of hostilities of the first World bar. I would fully understand, as far as facts are concerned, for the statement of the prosecutor if we were concerned with the Law of 1916 where there would be no doubt that this law was only inexistence for a few weeks, but not such as it looks for five In these circumstances I believe that it is correct here, years. and an essential source for comparing the penal laws of the Nazi period with the penal laws of the German Republic prior to Hitler's day. I would like the Tribunal to make their decision.
MR. LaFODLETTE: Just a further point. As I understand it, the general concept of laws was discussed on direct examination and the witness went very fully into that law, and I am quite aware of the fact that the period to be covered is not particularly pertinent, but here we have a state law of Bavaria, which was enacted certainly under unsettled conditions. It is not a law of the Weimar Republic as that term is used, applied to the German nation. It was a state law and enacted, under these circumstances which I believe does not make it relevant.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask counsel a question. It has been obvious for some hours that the purpose of various Defense Counsel has been to show that there was not as much difference between the procedure before and after 1933 as the witness had perhaps indicated. If you should, as a part of your cross examination, or thereafter, introduce a copy of this statute from which you have been reading, I think, unless you indulge in the presumption that the Court is composed of morons, they can gather the inferences which you are attempting to present, and we could gather it much more quickly.
DR. BRIEGER: May I add that I am nearly finished with the law, and that it will not appear in the record.
May I, therefore, ask you to give me a few more minutes.
JUDGE BRAND: The Court was asking you a question, not making a ruling.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem to me, speaking for myself, and I trust I speak for my colleagues on this point as well -- instead of asking the opinion of the witness concerning these matters, why not address your argument to the Court, and at the proper time. If there is something material about the comparison between the conditions in 1933 and 1918, and if it appears that that is material, the Court will hear you. But it certainly doesn't aid the case, it doesn't advance the truth of this case, to merely get the opinion of a witness on that comparison. The Court will ultimately have to decide all these questions, and unless you think this witness is more competent than the Court to determine these matters, I suggest it might be to your advantage to address yourself to the Court rather than to a witness.
DR. BRIEGER: I gladly give in to the ruling of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: We didn't make a ruling. I merely was making a suggestion to you. You have gone so far that it will probably take very little time to propound your questions, and we want you to feel that your are getting a fair trial in this matter. Therefore, we will let you complete this question and get the answer.
DR. BRIEGER: I am almost through. I will desist from further reading from the text.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. I would, like now to ask you when, starting from the assumption that Hitler was sentenced by such a Bavarian court, a special court, and if one further considers that this sentence and prison sentence, would you consider it possible that Hitler in his later legislation, after his rise to power, concerning the Peoples' Court and the special courts, and eventually about the law which was applied to him when he was sentenced, do you think he was stimulated by the law which was applied to him in making this legislation?
A. I can only answer to this question the following: To the fear by which this law was surrounded; the law is dated 19 November 1916; it quite definitely a law of the time of the revolution and it set up a tribunal during the revolutionary period; that was the time when there existed no Bavarian constitution and when conditions were critical and unsettled.
Whether the Peoples' Court which sentenced Hitler, after all the provisions had to judge under the provisions of the original law, or whether in the meantime the establishment of a Bavarian constitution which had brought about a control of the legislation of the revolutionary period, whether an amendment of that provision had. occurred, I cannot say.
According to the provisions of the law read out here, I do not believe that would have been allowed. It is known that the sentence passed on Hitler compared with any sentence for a similar case under the Third Reich, it was strikingly lenient. It is further known that the sentence was executed in such a way that he was given the opportunity to write his book Meim Kampf, My Struggle, and particularly if one compares the proceedings against Hitler, the proceedings under the Third Reich, it becomes evident that the comparison is altogether unfavorable for the Third Reich. I believe it is possible that Hitler had the ideas on the People's Court and on the Special Courts, and that he derived them from the provisions and the law at the time of the revolution, just as the idea of permanency of revolution conditions for the effectiveness of his party, just as he submitted that for the effectiveness of his party. The law on the People's court in the Third Reich can, comparing it to the law which has just been read, it could be regarded as a permanent tribunal of a revolutionary period.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Defense Counsel, you have asked for the opinion of the witness and he has given it to you. Are we to understand that you vouch for the soundness of tie opinion he has given us, since you asked the question?
DR. BRIEGER: I was just going to ask him another question which contributes materially to clarify conditions and that question is very important to me because in a certain way I have different views from the witness.
Q Witness, may I ask you who was the Minister, President of Bavaria, the Prime Minister at the time Hitler's sentence was passed?
A Hoffmann.
THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment. You say you want to express your opinion to the witness?
DR. BRIEGER: No, no.
THE PRESIDENT: You did say that?
DR. BRIEGER: I only wanted to say, your Honor, that my views differ materially from those of the witness, and, therefore, there are several things left for me to clear up by my questions.
THE PRESIDENT: You should be advised and admonished at this time, that this is not the time nor the place for you to air your views on any subject. And, I think in view of your apparent desire to get your views before the witness, and before the court at this time, that we will have to rule that your line of questioning is not in order at this time. It is a part of your defense and you will have the opportunity at the proper time to argue these matters to the court and not to the witness.
DR. BRIEGER: Mr. President, I am doing everything not to impress any of my views on the witness because we are not concerned here with my opinion, but in this case I said that my opinion differs and that I, therefore, only said that I wanted to give a reason why I wanted to ask the witness more questions to clarify the matter, as a matter of fact.
Q In other words, Witness, at the time when the sentence was passed on Hitler was the government that of a bourgeois, socialist or communist?
AA bourgeois socialist government.
Q At any rate a bourgeois, and Eisnerauer was still in the government?
A No.
Q Were there any prominent personalities who signed that law?
A No, I can't say so.
Q You said it was essentially a socialist government. Are you convinced that the sentences imposed upon Hitler, which you describe as lenient, would have been just as lenient if the government of Eisnarauer still existed?
A Certainly not, because that was a revolutionary government.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Defense Counsel, we must rule that you shall desist from further questions along this line. We are not at all concerned at this time, concerning any phase of the trial and conviction of Adolpn Hitler at that time; so, you will have to pursue a different line of questions from this point on.
DR. BRIEGER: Mr. President, may I have your views repeated and may I have it a little more clearly because I am very anxious to comply with the Tribunal's wishes. May I ask you to tell me what questions I am to eliminate.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the Reporter read my ruling.
(The ruling was read by the Reporter.)
Q Witness, do you know that at the time during the Eisnerauer government, the Prince von Thurn und Taxis, whom it was known who had no political influence was sentenced by such a tribunal to death and was executed?
A I do not remember exactly but it is possible.
Q Concerning this connection, here is one more question. On the first day when you gave testimony, Witness, you made a formulation saying that all Special Courts before the time of Hitler were merely temporary or very temporary institution. Do you now consider that the law originated from 1918, and until Hitler was sentenced--I am not sure was that in 1923 or 1924?
A 1923.
Q Would you now like to admit your concept of time, do you mean to say some weeks, some months, or do you mean to say a period up to five years?
A In a time of continual disturbance of public order a period of five years could be described as temporary. In Bavaria after the murder of Eisnerauer by Meuchel, who as far as I know was not sentenced by the Tribunal. After that murder, the dictatorship of Meuchel was proclaimed. Later dictator and terroristic crimes were committed on both sides. I remember the murder of hostages, I do not remember it in detail in Bavaria, in particular. There was the continuous unstable state of affairs which was upheld by the mass actions of the National Socialists in Bavaria. The relations between the Bavarian government and the Reich government detoriated thus, and there was continuous friction. There were some slogans such as the "March on Berlin" and-so-forth, until Hitler's Putsch and its consequences.
There was in Bavaria since the revolution of November 1918 a state of affairs which involved uncertainty.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Mr. Defense Counsel, while your questions are slightly different they evoke similar answers from the witness and it's repetition. It's immaterial at this time. It has no proper part in the cross examination and it has no relationship to the direct examination. Let me remind you again that when you cross examine to witness about matters which have not been referred to in the direct examination you vouch for the correctness and the soundness of the answers. Now, if you really desire that, we perhaps should not interfere with you but I merely warn you.
DR. BRIEGER: Mr. president, I would allow for the fact that I was not a defense counsel in the big trial and that I am trying very hard to adapt myself to the customs of this Tribunal but that in this short period I have not completely achieved that. Mr. president, at the instigation of the prosecution I had access to the statements -- I would have liked to have promised the Tribunal that before the time I would announce from what point of view I wished to ask those questions. How, I will do so clearly. I must say in that when the documents were presented by the prosecution the prosecution on its part stressed the point it was an obligation to tell ta this time the Tribunal and the President from what point of view these documents were being submitted. Therefore, I ask you to assume from my statements today that I for my part do not want to tie myself for a future date -- commit myself. I would like a few words on the matter under discussion. I would now like to ask you, witness, whether considerable legal thought in the Hitler Legislation concerning the Peoples Court and the Special Curt were expressed which are the same legal thougnt which later occurred in the statement as you stated -- I would like to ask you to give us -- to speak to us in great outline about the similarities and the deviations.
A. I can only confirm that a number of provisions were later taken into the permanent legislate in of the Special Court and National Socialism which occurred in the emergency law against the revolution curtailing the right of the defendants -- refusing legal remedy and other provisions which occurred in the emergency decree made during the time before 1933 which I would not like to describe again.
Q. Summarizing, these three sources of law from the time before Hitler -- in other words, the three emergency decrees, the Reich Law from the year 1920 and the Bavarian Law-- would you say that Hitler fought back with the same weapons with the Peoples Court and the Special Court?
A. No.
Q. I will leave open the question whether this wouldn't have been effective because Hitler was in power longer than the Eisner Government and the Government Mucller and the Bruening Government.
A. I should not like to answer in detail because I think I have already given my views in detail to the Tribunal. I should only like to emphasize one thing; that the rescinding of the decree -- the abrogation of the 1920 decree --- was abrogated while the Democratic Goverment was still in power. The period of the Ministry of the Reich cannot be compared with the dictatorship period of "Hitler but one can only compare the tasks with the Weimar Republic Laws as a whole -- you can compare that with the period of the Hitler dictatorship as far as that is concerned. Beyond that it isn't correct-the question addressed to me was not correct, saying that Hitler's special legislation only lasted because he remained in power. While the Special Courts, which for a certain reason, were made earlier on were not valid as laws because the Government under which they wore made did not stay in power for the same duration.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, I would like to inquire first of defense counsel, is there a particular hour that the defendants must eat? Can they eat before 12:30 or must they only eat before 12:30? I am just tninking if -- that is, the dining room is usually less full and we can get back faster -- (confers with defense counsel Brieger). Of course, if the defendants can't eat before 12:30 I won't make the request now that we adjourn.
MR. BRIEGER: May I add some in a from my technical knowledge of the situation. If I am correctly informed the lunch period starts at 12:30 but it would help us if at a quarter past twelve we could have the recess so that we would be the first to go to the dining-room. Otherwise, we usually find all seats engaged and we often have to wait until a seat becomes vacant and other things like that.
MR. PRISIDENT: That scene to be a good reason and we will therefore have the noon hour at 12:15.
DR. BRIEGER: I hope that I can finish my cross examination at that time but I don't want to commit myself.
THE PRESIDENT: We think, Mr. Defense Counsel, that you will have to continue this at considerable length. Moreover, you have departed from all reasonable rules of cross examination but I think it isn't too much to say you have been disregarding the ruling of the Tribunal. It will be necessary for us to curtail your cross examination and assume more reasonable lines.
DR. BRIEGER: Mr. President; may I say again that I have not done so on purpose. I shall use the first opportunity to familiarize myself with the questions of the Tribunal so that in the future I shall avoid such. Accordingly, I will be brief now and I shall go over to quite a different subject, Mr. President, may I ask you to translate for me what it means in German "no bis in idea?"
For the some crime a second proceeding -- a second proceeding may not be started against the first defendant if he has already been sentenced by legal sentence -- if a legal sentence has already been passed on him.
Q Will you from that point of view regard this as a violation by the Special Court which have not yet become legally valid from the standpoint of the nullity plea, and an extra-ordinary objection and if it was re-opened and after the second sentence -- would you call that an infringement on the principle of no bis in idom?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Did I understand the question clearly? That because a decision -- a sentence had been made and was subject to be open for a year -if it was opened, that was in double jeopardy? Did I understand the question?
DR. BRIEGER: May I repeat. Would you, Mr. President, after what you told us just now, would you consider the fact that sentences before they become loyally valid were by a higher legal authority -- were quashed by that higher loyal authority in the sense whereby by way of nullity plea of by way of extra-ordinary objection a year later it was again re-opened at a trial?