"It was known generally and, of course, also to me, that if Dr. Rothaug or Oeschey gave a summons for appearance in Courtroom No. 600, they desired and had already intended to sentence the defendant to death, which actually happened in the majority of cases. By fixing proceedings for Courtroom 600 the presidents Rothaug and Oeschey, who were responsible this necessarily gave a catastrophic turn to the case for the defendant. I felt this to be an illegal method of influencing the decision which was to be taken by three judges. But as I have seen from my present study of the court Records and the manual of the Public Prosecution in the case of Kleinlein and Schailer - I was defense counsel for the defendant Kleinlein in this case - Rothaug was not afraid to urge the prosecuting authorities to pronounce a harsher judgment than was a proposed in the indictment. It is true that in the indictment of 8 January 1945 Frau Schaller was charged in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the People's Parasite Act in coincidence with the crime of habitually concealing stolen goods according to Paragraph 259 and 260 of the Penal Code, but the Public Prosecution had not made a particularly serious case out of it. The President of the Special Court, Dr. Rothaug, who received this indictment (Pages 105 - 107 of the Court Records) on 12 January 1945, sent a letter to the Chief Public Prosecutor on 20 January 1945 (Page 11 of the files of the Chief Public Prosecutor) which reads literally: 'It is supposed that the basic offense in the Schaller case is the habitual receiving of stolen goods. It is also clear that there is no intention of making the charge against her a serious one. I cannot share this opinion...'
"This letter of Rothaug's confirms what I feel as regards the facts in Paragraph 336 of the Penal Code. The decision as to how Schaller's actions were to be judged according to criminal jurisdiction was for the court to take thus, for the three judges. According to Paragraph 202 of the Penal Code, when the President had received the Indictment he had only to fix the date for the proceedings. Every decision in the case itself after the trial was over was exclusively responsibility of the court with its three judges, By his inadmissible letter to the Public Prosecution Rothaug anticipated the decision of the court and caused the Public Prosecution to change their original and milder standpoint to one which was Unfavorable to the defendant SCHALLER.
The death sentence was also actually demanded in the trial by the Public Prosecutor, and the court passed the sentence because of the overwhelming lending influence of ROTHAUG.
The monstrous letter addressed by ROTHAUG to the Senior Public Prosecutor was not attached to the court regards which the counsel for the defense is entitled to examine before the trial according to the regulations of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Art. 147); it was added to the private files of the prosecution instead. Had the defense counsel known about the letter before the trial it would have been his duty to challenge judge ROTHAUG for apprehension of bias according to Art. 24 , of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The presiding judges ROTHAUG and OESCEEY further had a habit, which was uncomfortable for the defendant as well as for the defense, of inserting a court recess in the proceedings immediately before the pleadings of the Public prosecutor and the defense, and during this recess they would call the Public Prosecutor into the court council chamber. This happened, according to my experience only in the Special Court. Every defense counsel was naturally convinced that during this conference which took place behind locked doors between the court, with prosecution but without defense, the public prosecutor was instructed as to what sentence he would have to propose, the court having already shown by its instructions to the prosecution that it agreed with the penalty which was to be imposed without ever having heard the arguments of the defense. In this attitude also I see a violation of art. 356 of the Penal Code."
THE PRESIDENT: Is that 336 or 36?
MR. KING: It appears as 36 in the English translation which you have, but that is an error; it should be 336.
That is all from this affidavit that we wish to read at this time. It is to be noted that in the English text which your Honor has, the signature of the affiant was omitted; that does appear on the original though. As Prosecution's Exhibit 223, we offer at this time the Document NG-697.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence; and we will take our usual recess at this time.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. KING: May it please the Court, for purposes of finding our program tomorrow I wonder if it would be in order to inquire at this time if Dr. Koessl plans to proceed with the cross examination of the witness Ferber tomorrow? I appreciate that probably he hasn't received the copy of the German transcript as yet and it was on that probability that I raise the question at this time.
DR. KOESSL: Counsel for the defendant Rothaug. May it please the Court the German copies of the transcript have not yet come to me -- I have not received them yet. In spite of that I wanted to start the cross examination tomorrow. I thought that I would be able to continue the cross examination during the entire day and continue it also on Tuesday and in so doing to discuss those points which after the receipt of the transcript will be brought out by the defendant himself still. It is, of course, possible that the plans which I have already discussed with the defendant -- that they will have finished about three o'clock in the afternoon and that then I would have to ask permission to continue the cross examination on Tuesday, However, I believe that I would be able to use the entire day tomorrow in discussion the points which I have already discussed with the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: That matter will be entirely left to your satisfaction, Dr. Koessl and if you can go ahead tomorrow and will go ahead tomorrow and if you want more time you shall have more time. Then we will begin tomorrow? Shall we?
Dr. Koessl: Yes, that's correct.
Mr. King: The prosecution will then, on the basis of Dr. Koessl's statement of intention, have the witness Ferber notified and if as the Court says, he is not ready to proceed tomorrow certainly no harm will be done and we will proceed with the further reading of documents. We ask the Court to turn to Page 58 in the English text which is page 63 in the German text. We desire to introduce at this time the Document NG-532 which will become when formally offered, Prosecution Exhibit 224. This is the sworn affidavit of Hans Groben:
"I, Hans GRQBEN, counsellor of a District Court, Nuernberg, Solgerstrasse 8, hereby give the following affidavit on oath:
"Through my nomination to the Special Court in October 1941 I have come in close contact with Rothaug. There I got to know him as a political fanatic and a choleric person. Partly these qualities and partly his great political influence with the Gauleiters and the SD (Security Service, a part of the SS) made him the most powerful and most dangerous personality in the sphere of justice at the Court of Appeal in the district of Nuernberg. This great power and position could not have been underlined more strikingly than by the nickname "Tenno" (emperor of Japan). This caused conditions of submission and servility."
MR. KING: We skip down to the bottom, the very bottom of page 58 in the English text, which is close to the top of page 64 in the German, beginning with the sentence:
"He looked upon a trial as a political meeting at which he was a propaganda speaker. There he could make a show of his political fanaticism, filling the popular masses present with enthusiasm in doing so. He had a limited choice of subjects which he repeatedly inserted in some connection. Before the meeting he called the assessors together and explained to us, categorically, as to how he would conduct the case. His word for us was law. Already at the beginning of the trial he treated the defendant as if he were convicted, and in cases where death sentences were imposed, he often drew the attention of the defendant to the undoubted result of the trial."
MR. KING: We drop now to the bottom of page 59, the third line from the bottom, which is near the top of page 65 in the German text:
"Rothaug used to influence the application of the public prosecutor mostly during the usual recess after the evidence. At this stage the public prosecutor received the last instructions concerning the demand of penalty.
"Rothaug naturally wanted to decide the verdict (through his propaganda speeches) as he had already settled it during the main proceeding.
He never did allow any contradiction, "by principle."
MR. KING: We skip now to the bottom of page 60. The last full paragraph - the beginning of the last paragraph on that page which is at the top of page 66 of the German:
"Rothaug's hobbyhorse was the decree against people's parasites which, before the enactment of the so-called decree for Poles and Jews, he also applied to Poles liable to a penalty. I have often advocated the opinion against this, during and outside the proceedings that the decree against people's parasite is not applicate to a Polo, but only to Germans.
At this basic question did not give me any peace, I wanted to state my legal reasons to ROTHAUG once more, during a railroad trip. He did not give me a chance however to speak, but told me in a categorical voice, "I do not wish to be bothered any more with this question."
"In matters of pardon, ROTHAUG represented the view that a death sentence which had been pronounced by him had to be carried out. He regarded a pardon as an interference into his sphere of power.
"Finally ROTHAUG must be characterized as a national-socialist of rare fanaticism which made him a devil as a judge and a tyrant to his subordinates. "Nurnberg, 14 December 1946. (signed) Hans GROBEN.
"Before Henry Einstein."
We offer now as Exhibit 224, document NG 532.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence MR. KING: May we turn now to page 62 in the English and 67 in the German -- I am informed it is 65 in the German. This document NNG 526, which when formally offered in evidence will become Prosecution's exhibit 225.THE PRESIDENT:
Will you repeat that document number again?
MR. KING: It is document No. NG526. It is a sworn affidavit of Robert Rauh.
"I, Robert RAUH, Landgerichsrat, (retired), residence in Nuremberg, Roomstrasse 3, hereby declare under oath:
"I became acquainted with the former President of the Special Court, Dr. Oswald ROTHAUG; when ho was still a Public Prosecutor in Nuremberg. He was, at that time, an inconspicuous official.
In 1937, he was promoted to the the position of Landesgerichtsdirektor (President of the District Court) and sent back from Schweinfurt to Nuremberg to become President of the Special Court. It was generally rumored that this was engineered by the General Public Prosecutor and Gau Chief of Attorneys, Dr. DENZLER, to provide the Special Court with an appropriate President and to acquire control of other important proceedings.
"At the time, he already had the reputation of a very severe judge; at least, he was known to be extremely temperamental. In the course of the years, ROTHAUG became one of the most influential personalities in the Justice Administration and it was said he was the actual head of the entire Court of Appeals. As a judge, he was praised for his juridical knowledge but he was, at the same time, known for his lack of consideration and his severity. When ROTHAUG became Gau group director of the judges and attorneys, he adopted, frequently, a dictatorial tone in orders or invitations to members. In 1938 or 1939 I was appointed substitute Assessor at the Special Court, Nuremberg, and took part in a session of the Special Court for the first time in April 1940. Later, I often took part in sessions presided over by ROTHAUG.
"His manner of conducting the trials was clover but rough, and the proceedings were constantly interrupted by his sudden bursts of violence that seemed to me injustified. He never overlooked any opportunity to draw attention to some aspect of the National-Socialist ideology and its conception of justice and the state. The sentences passed under his Presidency were always extremely severe; ROTHAUG invariably exploited the harshness implicit in the Nazi laws to the limit. He was never moved to pity.
His personal lack of consideration, the significance of his position in the Nuremberg Justice Administration and his connections with the highest Party officials all contributed to give him an exalted conception of his own importance and authority, extending over and beyond that of other court presidents, even of the most distinguished men, so that, under ROTHAUG one could very well say that the so-called "Fuchrer-Prinzip" was realized in actual fact.
"ROTHAUG's manner of conducting the trials crippled the efficiency of the defense counsels who felt intimidated or, at least, constrained in their presentation of the defense. With regard to the judges, the direction or control of the legal procedure was not as effective at the time ROTHAUG presided over the Special Court as it became later, because ROTHAUG, so I heard, had supposedly refused to attend the conferences of the Prosident of Court of Appeals. On the other hand, already under ROTHAUG, as I remember, the Public Prosecutors came to the judge's room to discuss the pleas of the prosecution which they were to present. However, ROTHAUG was so autocratic, he frequently found the intended please still to be too mild."
"ROTHAUG always behaved towards us, the Assessors, in a dictatorial fashion and rarely consulted us for our opinions. To oppose his wishes would have meant suicide, for his excellent party connections were both known and feared. The whole atmosphere at the Nuremberg Special Court, was, as one may well imagine extemely bad, Whenever a procedure was started by ROTHAUG in the Criminal Court of Assizes, the opinion prevailed throughout the Palace of Justice that he death sentence would be pronounced. Then he presided over any sessions in some place other than Nuremberg, particularly in Amberg, these trials invariably took place in large rooms to admit as great and audience as possible to hear him.
During such "exhibitions", ROTHAUG delivered eloquent speeches to "educate the people politically", so that, in actual fact, the court procedure was more like a propaganda meeting. These statements contain the whole truth and were recorded under no compulsion whatsoever. I have read it, signed and have sworn to it under oath.
(signed Robert RAUH)
Before Henry Einstein.
Nuremberg, 16 December 1946 The prosecution offers document NG 526 as Exhibit 225 THE PRESIDENT:
The document will be admitted.
MR. KING: We invite the Court to turn now to page 68 in the English, page 72 in the German text. We introduce this document, NG 662, which when formally offered will become Prosecution's exhibit 226. This is the affidavit of Dr. Josef Mayer.
"I, Dr. jr. Josef Mayer, former Amtsgerichtsrat in Nuernberg, Brucknerstr. 26, declare the following under oath:
"In the spring of 1943 I was appointed to the Public Prosecuting Authority in Nuernberg. Counter to my express wishes put before the President of the Appellate Court Deebig, the General Prosecutor Dr. Bems and the Chief Public Prosecutor Dr. Schroeder, I was transferred to Department I of the Public Prosecuting Authority as Referent, where the Special Court cases were dealt with . I served there from spring 1943 to the end of the war. In February 1944 I became ill with recurring severe haemorrhage which prevented me from working, with one interruption, until August 1944. In August 1945 I was discharged from the Legal Service by the Military Government, Nuernberg."
We turn non to the top of page 69 in the English test which is on page 73 in the German. This paragraph begins immediately with:
"My immediate superior at the Public Prosecuting Authority was Chief Public Prosecutor Dr. Schroeder, a friend of Rothaug, with whom I had many differences of opinion and arguments in the course of my work. On occasions this went so far, that Dr. Schroeder gave to other advisers cases on the treatment of which we could come to no agreement.
"The President of the Special Court at the time was Landgerichtsdirektor Dr. Faerber, who was succeeded by Direktor of the Country Oeschey towards the end of the year 1943. The latter was obviously of Rothaug's school. Outwardly he gave the impression of being morose and unrelenting. I cannot remember ever having had a personal conversation with him. As a rule he began the proceedings with a preconceived opinion to which he adhered. Anyone who tried to oppose this opinion was overridden by him in the most brutal way. He insulted the defendants all the time in a most offensive manner, informing them repeatedly all the way through, what he intended to do with them. He had an extensive vocabulary of invectives for that purpose, the use of which he developed to a fine art. According to whether the evidence suited him, he also used this method on the witnesses. He scarcely gave the lawyers an opportunity to take part in the proceedings and interrogations, and if they attempted to do so ho not infrequently worked himself up into a state of animosity against them.
"It was literally tormenting if one had to listen to this tirade often for hours at a time. When his face became distorted into a repulsive mask by his continual scolding and abusive language.
Faust's words to Mephistopheles would often quite involuntarily come to my mind: "The assistant judges merely played the role of lay-figures. They scarcely ever put any questions, and so did not show their participation in the proceedings.
"Whenever Oeschey became particularly excited, he not infrequently interrupted the proceedings at the end of the hearing of witnesses in order to summon the representative of the Public Prosecuting Authority to the consultation room and inform him in commanding tones of his opinion on the case and the sentence they should ask for. His wishes had then to be complied with.
"Of course, the extraordinary conditions of war stood Oeschey in good stead, as a fanatical National Socialist so that he could pronounce verdicts with statistical severity which were unsupportable from a purely human point of view. It was obvious that ho never allowed himself to be dissuaded from doing what he wished from any legal considerations. He was known, as a fanatical exponent of the extermination idea, which applied mainly to foreigners? In order, to illustrate his severity matters of punishment more particularly, I would like to quote the following cases:" Some of the following cases we do not wish to refer to.
We turn to Page 71 in the English text, which comes close to the top of Page 76 in the German:
"Frieda Bayer, a female pedlar from the Noumarkt district, had succecded after the air raid on Nuremberg on 11 August 1943 in getting parents amounting to 1000 RM from the office for war damage on false pretences, although she had only lost a few brushes. She had provided herself with an identity card, saying she had lost everything, and had obtained under false pretences payments in advance from several agencies of the office for war damage. In doing so she had continuously increased the figures given in the statement about the damage she had suffered. At first she asserted that she had lost the furniture of one room, labor on the furniture of a 2-room flat and of a 4-room flat, until she finally finished up with an 8-room flat, the lost value of which she gave as 40-50,000 RM. In this fashion, as far as I remember she obtained 4-5,000 RM on false pretences. I had worked out the indictment and had proposed in it a sentence of 3-4 years penal servitude. She caused Oeschey to have wild outbreaks of temper, to which he gave vent in long outbursts of abusive language. This ended with Oeschey's remark that the Bayer woman n was a "Gipsy-type" without value and she therefore had to be "exterminated". With this statement, her fate was scaled and Bayer was sentenced to death.
"Adam Pirner of Nuremberg, in 1943 had committed a series of thefts in and outside Nuremberg. In doing so, he had partly taken advantage of the blackout measures. The smaller part of his criminal actions were committed before he reached the ago of 18; most of them afterwards. Pirner had been ruder corrective education from October 1939 to January 1943, but he had not been previously convicted. He was in a reformatory for two years of that time. In his written statement, on 30 August 1943 the court's physician Dr. Baur had declared, that on the available evidence he was not prepared to affirm that Pirner was incapable of improvement. The court declined to discuss the question of Pirner's ability to improve. It maintained that for criminals of his sort there could be no more room in the community.
In view of Pirner's youth there should have been sufficient reason to grant him an opportunity of improvement and probation. Obviously, Pirner fell prey to Oeschey's fanatical desire for extermination."
We skip the next paragraph and begin with the following one, which reads:
"In the case of Fuschsbauer, an automobile thief w s concerned, who stole cars and used them as long as there was gasoline in them, merely to abandon them later at random. The medical export Dr. Kunz summed up in his written judgment of 11 March 1943, as follows: according to his opinion, it could be considered as justified to accept a decreased responsibility for criminal actions as envisaged by art. 51, para II penal code. This opinion, however, was refused as evidence by the court. His presumption is not justified by the facts. For Fuchsbauer, already prior to this trial, had been previously convicted throe times on charges of using cars without authorization. As can be seen from the expert's statement, all these actions were connected with his "feeble minded, extravagant hobby". Apparently Fuchsbauer suffered from some sort of kleptomania as far as cars were concerned, originating from his feeble-mindedness. Obviously Oeschey overlooked this fact on purpose, to be able to pass the death sentence upon Fuchsbauer, because he did not consider him any more as "worthy to live". This is one of those cases in which he distorted the decreased responsibility for a person's criminal actions into a reason for imposing severer punishment".
That statement is signed by Dr. Joseph Mayer, dated 21 January, 1947. The Prosecution offers the document NG 662 as Exhibit 226.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: May we turn to page 79 in the English text or to 84 in the German text. We introduce at this time Document NG 561 which when formally offered will become Prosecution Exhibit 227. Phis is the sworn affidavit of Joseph Eichinger.
"I, Joseph EICHINGER, Nuremberg, Erhardstrasse 15, hereby delare under oath:
"I have been an attorney since 1917, was formerly active in Landau, and since 1934, in Nuremberg. I joined the NSDAP in 1937. In my position as a defense counsel at the Special Court, Nuremberg, I had the opportunity to observe District Court President Oeschey's inhuman manner of conducting proceedings.
"When sometime during 1943 Oeschey became the Presiding Judge of the Special Court of Nuremberg, replacing Rothaug, oven greater severity was introduced in the administration of Justice; the number of death sentences increased. Evidently he adhered to tho rather well-known, though at that time unofficial, instruction of Hitler in which tho courts were advised not to use death sentences sparingly. He applied the severe war measures with particular inhumanity and lack of consideration.
"It was my impression that ho usually entered the court room with the sentence already settled in his mind. His prejudice was so strong that he did not consider seriously the statements of the defense, and dismissed them rudely or ironically. Even during tho trial he reportedly addressed the defendant thus: "People such as you deserve to be exterminated," "You will be convicted", or he called the defendant insulting and humiliating names such as "criminal", "scoundrel", "enemy of the people". In his relations with Oeschey, tho defense counsel was practically powerless. If the party in general was already prejudiced "contra advocates", ho was particularly so. At that time, I hoard about a secret decree of the Reich minister of Justice, but had not seen it, however, which supposedly instructed the judges to supervise the attorneys and to report their "slips" to the proper authorities. As leader of the Gau legal Office and, after the latter's disbanding, as member in the Gau Staff, he enjoyed a special position of power which enabled him to hold tho defense strongly in chock; it was well known that a sign from the Gau authorities, instigated by Oeschey, was sufficient to have a lawyer turned over to the Gestapo.
"In one particular case which I will discuss more fully below, ho hah also restricted my presentation of tho defense. His intentions were entirely political and extremely cruel. I had the impression that no supported, knowingly and willingly, the policy of Hitler to "decimate" aliens, especially Poles, by increasing the number of death sentences against them, regardless of the existence of any lawful obligation. As further indication of Oeschey's attitude I noted that he attempted by means of his sentences to rectify previous sentences against the defendants before him if ho considered these too lenient. This was certainly not legal. At times I had the impression that a defendant would be condemned to death not so much on the basis of his last crime, but on the basis of his previous deeds.
"With reference to particular cases, I would like to mention briefly that the case of Montgelas has already been discussed in another affidavit."
We turn to tho next page, Page 81 in the English text, which comes close to the bottom of Page 86 in tho German, to tho paragraph which begins with the sentence:
"The eases of RIEGELBAUER and FRIEDCHEN arc similar, insofar as both had been sterilized and that in itself was already an extenuating circumstance. RIEGELBAUER was declared (by medical experts) to be a subnormal mental deficient while FRIEDCHEN was declared to be suffering from hereditary feeble-mindedness. These extenuating circumstances were not taken into consideration by OESCHEY either and, accordingly, the death penalty was decreed.
"I also remember the case of a young Pole, although I have forgotten his name. He had been employed in Germany as an agricultural worker for the past two or three years and had been praised by his employer. Once he had had an argument with the maid which was nothing but a verbal battle. During the dispute, however, the Pole had raised a hatchet threateningly, and had put it down again, almost immediately. Nothing further occurred. The Special Court, under the Presidency of OESCHEY, condemned him to death, some time during 1943. I was quite indignant for I considered the sentence ruthless.
"I remember, furthermore, the case of a young Frenchman, the son of a baker from Caen, but I can not recall his name. This youth, with several others, had broken into a summer-resort community several times and had stolon rabbits, geese and similar articles, which ho and his comrades afterwards consumed. He had never been previously convicted. The Special Court, under the Presidency of OESCHEY, condemned him to death some time during the years of 1943-44. At that time, I considered it a cruel sentence and still consider it so today.
"In the case of ZIPPELIUS, I an convinced that OESCHEY restrained no in tho presentation of the defense.
It was my last appearance as defense counsel and tho trial took place on Saturday 14 April 1945 before the Court Martial (Standgericht) of Nuremberg. OESCHEY conducted the proceedings; associate justices wore Gauinspektor HABERKERN and a Wehrmacht officer. A woman witness for the prosecution was heard whoso name I no longer remember. During the main trial, this witness revised the testimony she had made in the course of the preliminary proceedings. This fact was extremely important for me as defense counsel. This witness spoke so quiet that I, at my table, could not understand her, or could hear her with the greatest difficulty only. Therefore I stood up, which, in tho past had always been my custom in such cases; I had frequently done so before and it had never occasioned any objections. Slowly and respectfully, I advanced a few steps, OESCHEY in severe tone ordered me to go back. I explained that from my table, the witness could not be understood. Then he said something of this nature: "I understand the witness well and will repeat loudly what she says." I objected on the grounds of my legal rights to hear tho witness myself, directly. Then he commanded in still harsher tones "Go to your seat." I returned to my place. I considered that, at the time, and still consider it to be an unjust restriction of the defense. I was so filled with anxiety during those days, that I did not dare to voice my opinion further, especially since, just a few days before, I had experienced such unpleasantness with OESCHEY concerning the MONTGELAS case. I believed him capable of anything."
That statement is signed by Joseph Eichinger on 19 December 1946. The prosecution now offers as Exhibit 227 the Document NG-561.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: We turn now to page 84 in the English text or 89 in the German. This is an affidavit of Herbert Lipps.
"I, Dr. Herbert Lipps, domiciled in Neustadt/Aisch, Bambergerstrasse 1, born on 30 July 1911, being duly sworn, depose and state:" "We skip the next two paragraphs.
"During my activities at the Special Court of Nuremberg , I was subordinate to Landesgerichtsdirektor OESCHEY. When, during a hearing I was nominated as assistant judge, the documents were not available to me and I was loft to arrive at my own conclusion during the trial. OESCHEY was of the opinion that only he had to be acquainted with the case from the documents and he considered the assistant judges as a necessary evil. He directed the session in an autocratic manner and would not tolerate nay contradiction no matter from where it came. He treated defense counsels haughtily during the trial and considered their evidence as unnecessarily delaying the trial and as contempt of his person. Defendants were insulted by OESCHEY in the most abusive manner and death candidates were told by OESCHEY right at the beginning of the session that they had forfeited the life. I considered it a humiliation of one's jurisdicial character to have to assist at a trial presided over by OESCHEY.
"STROBEL was indicted for a political utterance under Par. 2. The first trial was discontinued because no defense counsel had been assigned to the defendant. The president, however, deemed capital punishment necessary for the man with serious previous convictions. During the deliberations with the prosecutor, OESCHEY expressed this opinion.