"The defendants had the last word."
I now turn to the next page which would be 81. That is the way it is numbered.
"The costs of the proceedings have to be borne by the defendants. The Presiding Judge, Rothaug, Director of the District Court, The Official Registrar, Signature Wittl, Senior Secretary of Justice End 1655 hours."
Below that, "The sentence is final, Nuernberg, 9 February 1943, The Official Registrar of the office of the District Court Section for Criminal Cases."
I now turn to pages 19 and 20 of the document. This is the second page of the petition for pardon prepared by Dr. Ernst Escher who was counsel for the defendant Keinlein.
I start with the paragraph which begins "However this may be -- " It is the second paragraph from the top of page 19. It reads as follows:
"However this may be, the one fact remains clearly, namely, that the condemned is an epileptic now and that before, be became an epileptic, he was a decent person who never committed offense, while after the settingin of the epilepsy, still during his military service he was in tho first place sentenced to a prison term on a charge of falsifying documents. He only partly served this term of imprisonment and then was discharged from military service by reason of his epilepsy. Only afterwards he committed crimes, as established in the trial and on which the sentence is based.
"The course of events does not permit any other conclusion than that a change in the personality of the condemned has taken place for which he cannot be hold responsible, as it has been caused by epilepsy.
"The psychiatrist who expressed his expert opinion on the condemned man, has therefore quite rightly recommended a lenient judgment of the defendant in spite of his declining article 51. He established that epilepsy represents a heavy mental burden for a young person, which might create a state of mind entirely unknown to a healthy person and which also could bring about a complete change of tho patient's mental outlook.
The expert also maintained this point of view during the main trial.
"The Special Court did not give consideration to this point of view in their findings on which the sentence was based.
"This change in the personality of the defendant, stated by the expert, might also make disputable the defendant's classification as public enemy. I make reference to the decision reached by the Reich Court RGSt. Volume 76, page 88, 90, the reasoning of which seems applicable to this case. In the verbally stated reasons for the verdict the court did not consider this point. The written statement of reasons --" I think that should be "No written statement of reasons underlying the sentences has been made available for me yet."
I turn now to what are pages 24 and 24A of the document. This is the matter which apparently disposes of the plea for pardon.
Concerning: Criminal proceedings against Emil KLEINLEIN born on 2 April 1922 in Fuerth, single, painter in Fuerth and against Pauline SCHILLER, nee HEILER, born on 12 November 1901 in Fuerth, worker's wife in Fuerth.
Reference: Report of the Nuernberg special Court concerning the question of granting a pardon.
The increased spreading of criminal symptoms of the kind submitted requires the execution of the death sentence.
Nuernberg, 25 January 1943.
The Special Court.
ROTHAUG Dr. GROS GROBEN I agree to that.
Nuernberg, 29 January 1943 The presiding Judge of the Special Court ROTHAUG (signature) Page 24A is the notice on 23 March 1943 that the two defendants were executed.
I offer to introduce into evidence, as Prosecution's Exhibit Number 207, Document NG-751.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be received in evidence.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I may say for Your Honors that there is a notation in my book that we have not yet received the exhibit for Document NG-279. I want to check Document NG-657 further before I consider offering it into evidence. Otherwise, together with the documents introduced by Mr. Wooleyhan, yesterday, that disposes of Book 3-H.
I would like to proceed with Book 3-K, if I may. I understand it has been delivered by Colonel Nesbitt.
I wish to state for the benefit of Dr. Briefer that the documents in this book, as he will note, deal almost exclusively with the Defendant Cuhorst.
THE PRESIDENT: You say it pertains to the Defendant Oeschey?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I said the Defendant Cuhorst. Page 4 of the English, which is page 5 and 6 of the German text is an affidavit of Dr. Oskar Ruisinger. If introduced into evidence, it will be Prosecution's Exhibit Number 208.
"In 1942-43. being, officially appointed substitute of the lawyer Dr. Fischinger, Stuttgart, I have occasionally acted as defense counsel before the Special Court, Sondergericht in Stuttgart. About two or three times the former Senatspraesident Cuhorst presided over these proceedings."
I shall not read any more of this document, but I offer into evidence, at this time, Exhibit 208.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I next turn to page five of the English Book which is pages seven to thirteen of the German Book, in NG 485, which, if introduced, will be Exhibit No. 209. I begin reading at the top of the page:
"I, Eberhard Schwarz, assessor, domiciled in Stuttgart, Alexanderstrasse 109, herewith state under oath:"
"In the course of my juridical training I was transferred to the Prosecutor's Office in Stuttgart in November 1941. Inasmuch as it had been my intention already at that time to become a lawyer, so as to devote myself primarily to the field of penal law after having passed the second state examination, I regularly attended penal law hearings before Stuttgart courts from that time on to the extent that my official duties so permitted, penal law hearings before Stuttgart courts. Until that time I knew nothing about the existence of the so-called special courts."
I now drop down to what is the third paragraph of the affidavit, and it is on page 8 of the German Book -- I think at the top, probably. I now go to the bottom of the page 5 which would be the paragraph after the next in the German.
"At the time of my transfer to Stuttgart the official presiding over the special court located there was Senate President Hermann Cuhorst. His deputy was Director Bohm of the Landgericht."
"It was typical for Cuhorst's concept of the administration of law that even in important cases of a different pattern he merely directed one chief proceedings on the basis of the indictment submitted to him by the Public Prosecutor and he evidently did not study beforehand the entire material for the trial."
"The second, very striking characteristic was that he tried even big cases with astounding rapidity and especially failed to listen to evidence which would exonerate the defendant, refusing the respective applications for evidence of the defense counsel as unnecessary. His conduct of trials was absolutely authoritarian with the sole aim of bringing about the announcement of the verdict of a case once started at the earliest possible moment."
I jump down to the third paragraph following the one that I read which may be on page 9 -- I am not sure -- of the Germans'. I am still on page 6 of the English.
"One case is known to me in which Cuhorst asked the defense counsel, Dr. Ruisinger in Stuttgart into the conference room before the beginning of the proceedings in chief, and that he announced to him there he would sentence the two defendants for whom he acted as counsel to death, and that consequently, lengthy deliverations by Dr. Ruisinger were superfluous and that he did not wish to have them."
The paragraph after the next:
"Perhaps the most significant expression for the tendency of the special court was reflected in a remark reported to me where Cuhorst was to have said to his colleagues of the bench when leaving the conference room to enter the courtroom: "Voila, gentlemen, let us go to the abatoir." The verdict which was to follow was a death sentence."
I would like to go near the bottom of page 7, third paragraph from the bottom of that page in the English book, and probably the last or next to last paragraph on page 10 of the German.
"Another particularly outstanding case to be mentioned was the trial of Friedrich ECKSTEIN, Robert WINTER, and others, which took place on 9 November 1942, with CUHORST presiding."
"The defendants were sentenced to death as dangerous professional criminals on the charge of having committed several thefts of bicycles."
"Since in the case most of these defendants were gypsies this trial may be termed an extermination process. The defendant Robert WINTER had a criminal record which listed two previous sentences, one a five-day prison term and the other time a fine of RM 10, - nevertheless he was sentenced to death as a professional criminal and an enemy of the people."
"In the main proceedings CUHORST encountered considerable difficulty in that the defendants considerably modified the statements they had made before the Criminal Police. However, the court paid no attention to the new statements but considered the guilt of all defendants as proven."
"After announcement of the death penalty the defense counsel asked for reopening of the case in the legally prescribed form and offering admission of evidence.
"At that time the Criminal Divisional Court at the district court of Stuttgart was competent for the reopening of the trial."
"This court also was ready to resume the case and ruled that the execution of the death penalty be postpones because on the strength of new arguments produced by the defense counsel the sentence was considered not tenable."
"Through a new regulation the authority for conducting hearings for the reopening of a case was at that time transfered to the special court itself so that CUHORST who was highly indignant about the fact that the Criminal Division had set aside his verdict, was thus given the possibility to refuse application for reopening of the trial and to have the verdict executed."
I turn to page 9 of the English which is apparently the first paragraph at the top of page 13 of the German -- or completely at the bottom of page 12 of the German.
"In the beginning when I listened to proceedings, in the special court, cases which ended with death penalties were frequently tried against Poles, some of them still juveniles - because if illegal relations with German women."
"Cuhorst presided also in such cases."
"In most instances such cases took at the utmost one hour from the beginning of the hearing until announcement of the verdict. Generally speaking, it should be added, that for the special court under Cuhorst the short time for consultations was also typical.
Death sentences were frequently announced after a consultation of but a few minutes."
The Prosecution now offers to introduce into evidence as Exhibit No. 209, Document NG 485.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted into evidence.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I next turn to page 11 of the English Book which is pages 14-20 of the German. This will be Exhibit 210, when and if received. Beginning at the top of the page:
"I, Dr. Willi SCHOECK, attorney-at-law, Stuttgart-O, Payerstr. 10, state herewith under oath:"
"During the War, I acted often in the capacity of defense counsel before the Special Court and the Criminal Senate of the Court of Appeals in Stuttgart and had in many cases the occasion to observe the Senate president, Hermann CUHORST in his activity as president of these ways and methods of conducting a case, his attitude towards defense counsel and defendants and his general policy. In this respect I give the following details:
"I know Cuhorst from his whole professional activity in Stuttgart. There he was first a justice of the peace whose juristic knowledge was generally judged very modest. His ascension began in 1933. That year he became government councilor, soon thereafter Senate president, a position which he would never have attained under normal conditions. It is significant that when Cuhorst became Senate president, the president of the Court of Appeals in Stuttgart at the time, Hess, asked to be pensioned off as an expression of protest. Soon afterwards, and doubtlessly for political motives, Cuhorst took over the presidency of the Special Court and later on of the First Criminal Senate. Administratively he was completely in charge of both courts and this being so he would let no one have anything to say to him. He alone decided which cases he wanted to preside over and took for himself all those cases that were either effective for political propaganda or likely to be so and all the "sensational cases," particularly, and to a far-reaching extent, most of the cases involving the death penalty.
In all other cases he decided which of his deputies should assume the presidency. It was he who determined the time of the summons, he who scheduled the innumerable trips, he who decided which cases were to be tried in Stuttgart and which in the locality where the offense was committed or at the place of residence of the offender, and the pains he took to have every major case all ever the country, especially those of a political character, tried under his presidency had the result that in the later years of his activity, Cuhorst was more often outside Stuttgart."
His behavior was essentially self-assertive and forceful and it was impossible to sway him. His respect for human life was certainly extremely small and I am convinced that none of the innumerable death sentences he pronounced did affect him. When moreover foreigners were involved, he had still less respect for human life as expressed several times by remarks which I heard along with other people, the terns of which I cannot remember, of course."
Turning to page 13, which is still probably on page 16 of the German book, I begin at the first sentence in the English book from the top of the page, which reads: "I have myself repeatedly made representations to Cuhorst in this respect and requested adjournments, which were categorically refused in almost every case. I asked to keep the documents some time longer and this was many times refused on the ground that he must look at the documents himself before the trial and I have frequently been answered to the effect that everything was quite clear in the indictment, that everything was there all right and that in this case there was no need at all to prepare the defense. That was actually how the defense was restricted to such a considerable extent."
I now go to the next paragraph, which will be on page 17 of the German and 13 of the English, and I read: "The defendant himself, to whom Cuhorst only gave a defense counsel when the law so ordered, hardly ever had any opportunity to speak. The indictment was put before him and he was expected to acquiesce to its contents. If he failed to do so, he was either told not to lie to the tribunal in such a manner or screamed at or threatened with a heavier penalty for lying or ridiculed with sarcastic remarks (especially when there was a numerous public), or again the defendant was denied a proper hearing and told that everybody already knew what he had to say, that it indeed had already been disclosed by the documents."
I turn now to page 14 of the English text, and it would be found at the botton of page 18, I would think, of the German text. It is the case Jatzek. "The case Jatzek. Proceedings took place before the Crimi nal Senate.
The indictment charged preparation to high treason. There were about six defendants, socialists or communists who were charged with enemy propaganda against the State, illegal association, etc. As far as I remember the circumstances were that the defendants had made copies of and spread propaganda material and that in small quantities and intended to maintain or create an association with people of the same opinion. As I remember, Jatzek had also hidden a communist or socialist functionary for a few days of whom he ought to have known, as the prosecution maintained, that he was wanted by the police. Jatzek had contested that. The defendants pleaded guilty only in part and contested in particular to have known what had been the contents of the closed packages or envelopes they had passed on. This was especially contested by the co-defendant Wagner, a woman in her sixties, who, as far as I remember, was only charged with having passed on such envelopes. In the case of Mrs. Wagner I had counted on a penal servitude of 8-10 years (we were accustomed to high penalties), but the death penalty imposed on both of them was exerbitant. Besides, the evidence with regard to the knowledge of the defendants was more than poor; it was just "alleged" that the defendants had already at a previous time belonged to such political groups and therefore had known very well what it was all about. Even when, by applying the most severe standards I still could have understood the sentence on Jatzek, the verdict on Mrs. Wagner was impossible."
The prosecution offers as Exhibit No. 210, NG-489.
DR. BRIEGER (Attorney for defendant Cuhorst):
I do not object to the submission of this document. The only objection is as follows: No. A, the case Jatzek is reported here and it says on the first line expressly that the trial was before the Criminal Senate. So here there is a valued judgment given regarding the defendant Cuhorst, not in his capacity as presiding judge of the Special Court but in his capacity as president of the Criminal Senate. However, as I understood it already at the tine, from the time of the indictment, as I understand it, the entire trial procedure until now, the defendant Cuhorst is indicted here only because of his activities as president of the Special Court, Stuttgart, and not in his capacity as president of the Criminal Penal Senate in Stuttgart.
I have to make a further statement in regard to this document but first of all I would like to ask the Tribunal to state its opinion on this point.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I do not recall, of course, the exact language of the indictnent, but the language of the indictment is that of war crimes against humanity which were committed.
The indictment does charge, as I recall, that Cuhorst was the president of a Special Court, but I do not believe that that language of the indictment so drawn can be interpreted to restrict the general language of the charge of the commission of war crimes, atrocities, murders, and the other things which were provided for in the statute solely through his activity as the president of the one court. It happens that he was also president of both courts. It seems to me that the question is whether or not in his capacity as a judge the act apparently judicial in character was actually an act of another kind, and that the evidence will show, and that being true whether the act upon which the prosecution relies was a judicial one is the determining factor, and not what particular court under which the defendant acted. That, generally, is my position.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honors, may I have permission to answer the statement made by the prosecutor. Matters are not as they have been described here by the prosecution, namely, that in his capacity as president of the Senate it was only a question that these proceedings were in another room, but rather, I believe one has to state here that the indictment, which obviously is of the opinion that during the Nazi time the Special Court, namely, the People's Court and also the Special Court, were created in order that the law could be handled in a lax manner, perhaps even to destroy the applicable laws as in the ordinary court, among which the People's Court belonged. In those courts it could not be done in the same manner. May I ask the Tribunal for a moment to look at the chart over there.
The defendant Cuhorst is listed on it in his capacity as president of the Special Court. From that very moment on, it was considered the opinion of myself and the defendant himself that he would be held responsible solely in his capacity as president of the Special Court. Your Honors, I consider this question so important and so complicated in nature that at this moment I am not asking the high Tribunal to make a decision. On the contrary, I would like to request the Tribunal to reserve its decision until some later date so that it will have an opportunity to examine the question, but in addition, I would like to say also, insofar as we would be concerned, the definition of his activities as a judge I would not even be inclined to contradict, that his activities as president of the Senate should also be scrutinized.
If, however, it goes to the extent in which it goes in this affidavit where individual cases under trial are discussed, the material is extended to a large extent, considerably, and extended in a manner which we did not expect at all so that the trial is for us made much more difficult and to such an extent as we, after a careful study of the indictment, could never have expected.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal sees no occasion for postponing a decision of the question raised by Dr. Brieger. We are prepared to answer it now. Of course, this Tribunal will observe the rule of criminal evidence. There must be no variance in the evidence from the allegations of the indictment, and if this were at variance it would be disregarded in its entirety. The question arises, therefore, does this evidence support some material allegation in the indictment?
How, on that point I will read paragraph 23 of this indictment. "The German criminal laws through a series of additions, expansions and perversions by the defendants became a powerful weapon for the subjugation of the German people and for tho extermination of certain nationals of the occupied countries. This program resulted in the murder, torture, illegal imprisonment, and ill treatment of thousands of Germans and nationals of occupied countries." Then it further recites the names of the people who are defendants in this matter and defendant Cuhorst is among those names.
We think, therefore, that this affidavit is not at variance; that it is pertinent; and will therefore be received.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, as regards this document I would briefly like to point in another direction. Per se I do not have the intention to correct mistakes in translation during the course of this trial all tho time, but in this one case I would like to make an exception because it seems to be especially important to me. Here, at the beginning of the affidavit the question is discussed in tho English text, that Cuhorst was formerly justice of the peace. That would mean in German Friedensrichter, and according to the German conception, a Friedensrichter does not have to have any legal training.
It should say municipal judge here if correctly translated; in other words, that even at that time he already hold a position which required full legal preparation. That means two State examinations.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If your Honors please, I have just been advised by my associate that in this respect Dr. Brieger is absolutely correct and the language should show that it was a judicial position which the defendant occupied.
With that understanding I introduce as prosecution Exhibit Number 210 Document NG-489.
THE PRESIDENT: With that understanding and upon those conditions it will be received in evidence, but I wonder whether it would not be well to make that correction now so that while the document is on the bench it will be correctly stated.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Exactly, and in connection with the explanation that Dr. Brieger made of the character of the position.
Page 17 of the English text, Document NG-490, which we introduced, will be prosecution exhibit number 211. It's 21 and 22 in the German book. I begin at the top.
"I, Dr. Renatus Rimelin, retired prosecutor, born on the 12th of April 1909 in Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, hereby state under oath:
"From 1940 until 1945 I was prosecutor of the Special Court. I particularly dealt with offenses against war economy, crimes against the people's parasites decree, immoral crimes and murders. I was a member of the NSDAP since May 1st, 1933, and member of the SA cavalry unit since 1934. Of Hermann Cuhorst, former president of the Special Court in Stuttgart I know the following:" I now come to a sentence twelve lines down in the next paragraph. That's page 17 in the English text, probably near the bottom of page 22 of the German or lower bottom. The sentence begins: "I wish to report here that defense counsels often complained that the day appointed for the hearing was fixed within a very short time and thus withdrawing the right from the defense counsel of being sufficiently prepared for the day of the hearing.
I know myself that during the proceeding he told the defense counsels to be brief. I wish to emphasize here that all proceedings under Cuhorst were conducted with a ridiculous speed, so that an objective conduct of the proceeding was effected. During the main proceeding no mostly worked by the indictment. He presented the therein occurring facts to the defendants and dealt little or not at all with the documents. Thus his sentences would seem dependent on the indictment. He also behaved very loudly otherwise and always had in mind to end the trial once started as fast as possible. Deliberation of the tribunal under his presidency usually was very short; that is, before the sentence was passed the tribunal know within a very few minutes which decision they would make. Considering that death sentences were passed one after another, such proceedings of a presiding judge are unusual."
I now drop to the next paragraph which is on page 17 of the English and either the last line or two of page 21 of the German or at the very top of page 22 of the German.
"The affair Wolff fell under one of these laws, which because of the inadmissible profiteering of rationing tickets was punished with death. Then the criminal case against two trunk thieves of Ulm, who stole two trunks when it was dark. Besides that I wish to mention the case of an illegal slaughterer, Johann Soell, in this connection, who slaughtered cattle without police authorization had who, in spite of his advanced age, 68 years, was sentenced to death. Furthermore he was very severe in proceedings against foreigners and passed death sentences as often as possible. He also had a special aversion for Poles. He passed death sentences not only for murders but also in cases of less important crimes in order to intimidate the foreign workers. There existed cases in which such penalties were passed although it was not a question of brutal or professional murders."
I would now like to go to page 18 in the English book which is probably still page 22 of the German, and begin seven lines from the top in the English, a sentence which starts in this way:
"A particular inglorious case I wish to mention was the proceeding against Luisa Togni, who was sentenced to death because of pillage. She was only convicted once before (one year imprisonment) and had stolen two trunks with linen after an air raid. According to the law it was possible to punish this crime with death. It was evident that also in this case Cuhorst applied the highest possible punishment.
"In conclusion I want to mention that Cuhorst conducted his proceedings in a real sadistic way: the laws created by the national socialist government were applied by Cuhorst to the extreme."
The prosecution now offers to introduce into evidence as prosecution exhibit number 211 Document NG-490.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence, and we will take the noon recess at this time.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: May it please your Honors, just before the Court risos, I am advised also by Dr. Brieger this morning that I believe defense counsel are willing or would desire to discuss the motion which I had previously filed with reference to the examination of witnesses. They would like to conduct that, meeting tho Court's approval, we would like to proceed when we return after lunch. I think the Secretary General can obtain -- Colonel Nesbit can obtain tho original copy, and I have found the opportunity to prepare four extra, copies that I will furnish to the Court, if you don't have four copies. I also am advised that defense counsel largely have been furnished with copies; is that correct?
DR. BRIEGER: I hope that after the noon recess the technical prerequisites for the discussion of this question will have been furnished. Mr. Wartina has in the meantime, already seen to it that every defense counsel has received a copy of the motion made by the prosecution. Now, however, it is of extraordinary importance for us, and it is the necessary prerequisite for discussion, that each one of us will also be informed about the contents of the important article, Rule Number 23.
Mr. Wartina, however, has assured me that if at all possible during lunch time the necessary copies will be made available to us also, of this rule.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If you please, your Honors, may I just add this inter view of that, and I hope perhaps this would -- I am offering this perhaps as a more orderly suggestion. I believe that I can finish the presentation of this book within an hour or an hour and a half and when we have concluded that book, perhaps then would be an equally appropriate time for this discussion.
DR. SOHILF (Counsel for Defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg): I would like to make the suggestion that the discussion about this motion should be postponed a little bit after all. If, during the course of the afternoon session we shall discuss this question here it will probably be necessary that several gentlemen state their opinion about this question because we have not yet had the opportunity to discuss this question among ourselves. That would take up the time of the Tribunal unnecessarily. Therefore I beg to make the suggestion that the discussion shall be held only tomorrow when the session starts, so that not several counsels have to state their opinion on this question; that perhaps one or the other of then will be commissioned by his colleagues to speak for then. That, however, we can do only if we have had an opportunity to discuss it in advance, and since this noon we do not yet have the material at our disposal so that we need some time, my suggestion seems as to be reasonable.
MR. LaFOLLETTE. Whatever your Honors determine, either in the morning or after lunch, is agreeable to the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: That's entirely agreeable.
MR. LaFOLLETE: In the morning I take it then?
THE PRESIDENT: In the morning if counsel will be ready.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours)
"The case ESTERLE again was a proceeding, in which CUHORST asserted his will. Here it was a case of the first war-economy crime on a larger scale. Here is the object of intimidation was also placed in the foreground. It was not a question of a professional criminal and a suitable term of penal servitude would have undoubtedly been sufficient."
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Prosecution offers in evidence Prosecution Exhibit No. 212, which is Document NG-495.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Page 21 of the English book which is page 26 to 32 of the German, NG-464 but turning to page 25 of the English book the Court will ascertain that this is the affidavit of Dr. Max Stuber, Judge of a Court of Appeals. I read from the top of page 21. That is the second paragraph. It will be 26 in the German book:
"The following I have to say before making the statement itself: In the Spring 1937 I was appointed assistant judge to the Superior Provincial Court of Stuttgart without my having done anything to bring this about."
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Then I drop down four or five lines beginning:
"After the beginning of the war I was temporarily assigned to the Special Court as well for reasons due to the war presumably on instigation of Mr. Cuhorst. Beside my regular activity at the Superior Provincial Court I was actually also required to assist temporarily in sessions of the Special Court during the following period - I would estimate once or twice every 8 to 14 days - mainly in minor cases of delicts against war economics and of occasional political delicts. I participated in a relatively small number of cases. From the middle or the end of 1943 to the spring or the middle of 1944 I also worked temporarily at the Second Criminal Senate of the Superior Provincial Court so that I was even less in a position to occupy myself with sessions of the Special Court. Approximately in October 1944 both Criminal Senates were merged. After that time I no longer was active at the Special Court at all. During an air raid of Stuttgart on 12 September 1944, my office with all my written records as well as all my short hand notes of the sessions were destroyed so that I can make my statements today by memory only.
My relations to President Cuhorst and the other of the members of the Criminal Senates and the Special Court were always only official ones and I have never had any private connections with any of them so that every personal consideration in making this statement is out of the question.
"President Cuhorst was as far as I know an old Nazi fighter and I have no doubt, that only by virtue of his party membership he was promoted from a judge at the Local Court to President of the Senate. He was a convinced Nazi and I am sure he also was an absolute follower of the "Fuehrer principle". The main result of this as far as the official routine was concerned, was that he alone transacted the official business of the Criminal Senate and the Special Court, that he himself regularly appointed the reporters and the presidents at the sessions and that he himself determined the time of beginning of the various trials in and outside of Stuttgart."
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The bottom of page 21, which is fairly near the bottom of page 27 of the German a sentence which begins:
"He loved to conduct the proceedings a tense and rapid manner which, I must admit, was at times too fast for me and which was prone to convey the impression of obstinacy and willfulness. As a rule he conducted the proceedings on the basis of the indictments."
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I will turn to page 22 of the English book, approximately the middle of the page in the English, it is here following the words "Mr. Cuhorst." In the German it's probably the middle of page 28. This begins this way:
"There is one case, which, I remember fairly well; one in which I was called to assist and where the attitude of Cuhorst appeared to me to be untenable.
"It was, if I remember correctly, the case Abt which among others was tried before the Special Court of Ulm on the Monday preceding Easter of 1943.