I, therefore, ordered them into Court myself, over my own signature. Now, if the Defense Counsel is ready to proceed with crossexamination, you are not entitled to 24 hours notice. These are your witnesses and will appear for cross-examination as soon as the Defense Counsel can have them here---this afternoon if they can have them here. I will inquire of Dr. Schubert now if he can have witnesses here this afternoon.
If you have something to say now, we will hear you.
MR LAFOLLETTE: Yes, I have something to say. The ruling this Tribunal made, originally, appearing on page 393 to 396 of the transcript, was that an affidavit would be received in evidence, and that thereafter the Defense would be given the opportunity to cross-examine, if the witness was available; the affidavit was not received, on the condition preceding, that if the Prosecution did not produce the witness, the affidavit would be disregarded.
Therefore, I had assumed, under that ruling, that the harden of producing these witnesses was upon the Secretary General ... That while they were affiants, they properly are part of the prosecution's case... that technically they were not witnesses of the prosecution. That being true, I consider that they are witnesses called by the Tribunal for the benefit of the defense - if they are not actually defense witnesses. That is the reason why I made the request that we be given notice, - if not twenty-four hours, then some other notice - as to when these witnesses, who are not prosecution witnesses in the sense that we have used that term, nor are under the ruling the Court made in the case of the Bram affidavit, to which I refer. It is certainly necessary for the prosecution to have some lotice as to when a witness will appear. I assume it will be but a waste of time ... Now, without any disrespect - without having been given an opportunity to state my position fully - I again renew my request that the prosecution be given twenty-four hours notice of any witness that may appear so that we may be adequately prepared to be present, at that cross examination,
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Lafollette, may I ask you a question?
MR. LAFOLLETTE* Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Did the secretary general tell you yesterday morning that I had issued an order for the production of witnesses, and assumed you for the addresses of them?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: No, I didn't come here until yesterday afternoon, when I saw your Honor for a few minutes, probably around one--thirty or two o'clock, after I came back from the dentist. Neither myself nor, as I am informed, any member of the prosecution staff, received any such request or any such notice.
DR. SCHUBERT (appearing to address the court)
JUDGE BRAND: Dr. Schubert, as an individual I have observed that you have been exceedingly cooperative. I wonder if you are in a position now, as a matter of courtesy to the prosecution, to tell them who you expect to cross examine tomorrow.
Is that within the possibilities?
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Court; I do not remember precisely what witnesses were suggested by Mr. Koessel, and by me for tomorrow. And I do not remember exactly because I had asked my colleague, Mr. Moessel, to suggest as witnesses for tomorrow those who concerned exclusively his client, because in Room 55 two witnesses who are very important will be available to me for interrogation tomorrow; and since it was very difficult for me to obtain a date for the interrogation of those two witnesses, I did not want to cancel that interrogation. Consequently, I only know the names of those witnesses, with certainty whom we jointly suggested for Friday; but it is an easy matter for me to find out the names of tomorrow's witnesses if you will grant me a five-minute interval. Then I shall be able to name the witnesses who have been suggested for tomorrow.
JUDGE BRAND: You would be willing to communicate that to the prosecution....would you not?
DR. SCHUBERT; Naturally. May I make a fundamental remark concerning Mr. Lafollette's statement. The transcript to which Mr. Lafollette referred is not available to me at the moment, but I remember that the ruling of the Court about the producing of those witnesses who have made affidavits, for cross-examination, was to the effect that the witnesses would thereby not become witnesses for the defense, but would remain witnesses of the prosecution. I can't imagine anything else either, because otherwise the right of the defense to cross examine such witnesses would not exist. Consequently, in my view it was the task of the prosecution now to produce these witnesses as they are their own witnesses. Since the technical arrangements have now seen made in such a way that the Secretary General is to produce the witnesses and not the prosecution, it is natural that the prosecution must be informed of the names of the witnesses and cerrainly some technical arrangement on that point must be mate, and will certainly be possible.
I do not believe, however, that the prosecution in this case has a right to demand that the twenty-four hour limit should be upheld too.
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. Schubert, if it should be the case that the legal -- (interruption). The thing that you are chiefly interested in is having the witnesses here for cross examination. You want to preserve your right to treat them as being prosecution witnesses, hero, for cross-examination. I understand that. If that is understood, you don't greatly care who gets them here... do you?
DR. SCHUBERT: No.
JUDGE BRAND: Now, I want to ash you a couple of questions which may be -- may contain implied suggestions -- but they are only intended as questions. It has been discussed, somewhat informally, that there might be cases in which witnesses have ocean, or rather, affidavits have been presented by the prosecution as a part of their case, and in which, after interviewing those witnesses on the part of the defense, the defense might come to the conclusion that they could, with complete fairness to themselves, instead of calling the witness for cross-examination themselves, take a counter affidavit, to be used in the nature of cross-examination. I have heard that suggested. I thought it might merit consideration on the part of defense counsel, because of the fact that if it can fairly be done, it would expedite the trial. One other question that I should like to submit to you for our views, or your consideration: It has also occurred to me as possible that there may be affiants who have signed affidavits for the prosecution, and whom you desire to cross-examine in open court, but whom you also would desire to examine beyond the scope of the affidavit... In other words, to examine them on other matters not included in the affidavit. And my question in that regard is, would it not also expedite the trial, if such cases exist, for the defense to voluntarily postpone the cross-examination until such time as they have the witness in court for the purpose of direct examination, and then combine both the cross, and the additional examination, in the course of your defense.
I suggest those matters for your consideration. My suggestion further is this: That it would not serve any good purpose for any one to first call an affiant for cross-examination, and then release him, and recall him later, as a witness for the defense. That inconvenience to all of us might well be avoided. I am not ashing for any decision, but I am making a suggestion for your consideration.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, I can't help saying at this time that if, in the course of the period of cross examination of an affiant, the questions go beyond the allegations of the affidavit -- that defense counsel who indulge in the matter of going beyond the allegations of the affidavit would make that particular witness their own witness, and be bound by their answers.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Court, concerning the first point which has just been suggested and for which I am grateful, may I state my position and put a question of my own?
We of the defense have discussed and considered the question as to whether it would be possible, in a number of cases, to avoid the cross-examination or to shorten it by having the defense, on its part, obtain an affidavit from the affiant instead of cross-examining him. I also discussed that matter with Mr. Niesley, but it seems that a number of rather difficult questions do arise out of this and these have so far caused us not to adopt that procedure. The following seems to me to be the most difficult problem. In the case of every cross-examination we saw that a number of objections were raised, stating that the cross-examination exceeded the scope of the direct examination. These same objections--
THE PRESIDENT: There seems to be a little difficulty with the electrical transmission, causing a delay of only a moment.
DR. SCHUBERT: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Court, my colleague Dr. Schilf has just told me that yesterday he discussed this matter with the prosecution. When I came to the microphone just now I did not know the result of that discussion. Perhaps it would be better if Dr. Schilf would briefly explain how far these discussions have got.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, may I make a suggestion? Yesterday we discussed these difficult matters with Mr. La Follette in detail, and very amicably, and this is the result of our discussion. So as to be able to ascertain whether an affiant can become a witness for the defense, so as to be able to investigate as to whether an affiant need not be called to the witness stand if we obtain an affidavit from him, and thirdly, in order to be able to examine whether we can waive a cross-examination altogether in order to speed up matters, we need an opportunity to have a conversation with the affiant beforehand.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Mr. La Follette has told us that he has no objection to our doing so, but ho has asked us to bring this matter up here in open court so that the Court may be informed and so that a ruling may be given as to whether there are any objections or not.
Naturally, it would speed up matters if we could discuss matters first with the affiants if we could find out whether they have anything essential to say. In that case we could find out whether we could do without the cross-examination, whether we could obtain an affidavit, or whether anything else could be done to speed up proceedings.
I would ask the Tribunal to let us have their view, and, if the Tribunal has no objections, whether we would be allowed to have a brief conversation with the prosecution witnesses who are affiants before they appear in the witness stand here. I understood Mr. La Follette to say that he has no objection, and the question now is whether the Tribunal has any objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schilf, maybe we don't fully understand your suggestion. Do you mean by that, that as each witness is called you should have a short period of, say, a few minutes to interview him before he is put on the stand? Or do you mean that you wanted to have time now to go and talk to the witnesses before any witnesses were called? Which is your meaning?
DR. SCHILF: It is difficult to decide that, because that is a technical question. We only wished to obtain the permission of the Tribunal to speak to the witnesses at all at some moment, either before they are called or, if they are called, we want to know whether we may talk to them at the last moment. We cannot see now what course will be taken, because we do not know yet whether we can talk to the witnesses at all.
At this moment we only wish to know whether the Tribunal has any misgivings about the defense questioning prosecution witnesses prior to their appearance in the witness stand, or whether such misgivings do not exist. We cannot tell at the moment what course matters Court No. III, Case No. 3.will take, because we do not know as yet whether these witnesses will be available to us for questioning at all.
JUDGE BRAND: Dr. Schilf, as I understand it, you are not asking for continuance of the trial or postponement of the trial at this time, but merely asking if the Court has any objection to defense counsel, at their convenience and when they can do so, conversing with these affiants in order to determine whether to call them or whether to take an affidavit, or whether to waive cross-examination. Am I understanding you correctly?
DR. SCHILF: Yes.
JUDGE BRAND: And your question is whether the Court objects to that procedure?
DR. SCHILF: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course the Court does not object to that procedure; no member of the Tribunal has any objection to that. However, the point with me individually--I am speaking for myself now, just as I hope Judge Brand was speaking for himself a while ago. I would like to know whether this trial is going to go forward tomorrow morning or whether it will be postponed a while to permit this examination of witnesses that you would like.
DR. SCHIIF: In that case, I can only speak for myself. Since I do not know what witnesses will appear tomorrow, I believe that until we have at least been told the names of the witnesses we cannot say whether we want to interview them before or not because that concerns each individual defense counsel. I myself have no objection to begin with interviewing and to begin with cross-examination tomorrow. However, I can imagine that one or another of my colleagues might like to interview the witnesses beforehand.
DR. GRUBE: May it please the Count, I should like to say that yesterday I asked Major Schaefer to produce the witness Brem here tomorrow. Brem lives in Schwabach, which is quite close to Nurnberg; there is a bus route and the witness can be here tomorrow without any Court No. III, Case No. 3.difficulty.
THE PRESIDENT: Manifestly, it isn't the duty, I suppose, of the Tribunal to bring in witnesses, but inasmuch as the obligation was placed upon the Tribunal to produce witnesses, I personally signed the order, and that order was concurred in by other members of the Tribunal, to order witnesses to appear tomorrow morning. That is the desire of myself and I am sure of the other members of the Tribunal, to have this trial go forward in an expeditious manner.
And as I say, I am sorry to be put in the position of having to ask for the production of witnesses. Usually, according to all my years of experience, the Tribunal does not order witnesses, the parties order them. However, feeling that it was necessary for me to order them in order for the trial to go forward, I did so. Personally, I would like to see the trial go forward in an expeditious manner. If, however, it is necessary for the Tribunal to specify certain particular witnesses to appear at any particular time, I don't feel that we should be a party to that. I hope we have not reached that point.
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Court, I should like to suggest that the Tribunal now go into a short recess, and that during that recess, I find out what witnesses will be here tomorrow and on Friday.
THE PRESIDENT: How long a period would you need for that interview?
DR. SCHUBERT: Five minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will give you 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session,
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If the Tribunal please, it occurs to me that we might possibly make some progress if I read the original ruling of the Tribunal on this matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. La Follette, I don't think anything would be gained by reading something that might have been said in the early stages of this trial. I think there were some suggestions made that if certain witnesses were not reached during the period when the Prosecution was going on, that they might be examined after the defense had started, But I don't believe that is the issue now. Whatever the Tribunal may have then said, it is the wish of the Tribunal at this time that these witnesses, or as many of them as can be reached at this time, should be cross examined by defense counsel.
It may be that some of them may be some stragglers among them who will not be found easily, and yet defense counsel would be entitled to cross examine them. It may very well be that that will be permitted after the defense has begun, but that isn't the wish of the Tribunal. It is better to have them examined as a part of the Prosecution's case, if possible -- if easily possible.
Now let me make one or two things clear that I am afraid maybe defense counsel have the wrong impression. There is no disposition on the part of the Tribunal or any member of the Tribunal to interfere with defense counsel talking to these witnesses before they are produced. No objection to that. The only question is as to when they will do that so as not to interfere with the immediate continuous progress of the trial. Now, that is one thing, and the other is that we don't recognize the 24hour rule as applying to the production of witnesses for cross examination It may be that what I have said might be misconstrued or misunderstood We are not asking that the witnesses be cross examined at all.
When I said we want them examined, I didn't mean that we have any desire about it. If defense counsel wants to examine them, that is their privilege either to have them or to waive.
MR. LA FOLETTE: Of course, the Tribunal has previously said that it wouldn't answer any more questions, and I don't wont to raise that issue; but it occurs to me that certainly if during the cross examination, without a 24 hour notice, if the cross examination exceeds the statement made in the affidavit, then we will have to make a legitime objection at that time, that we have had no 24 hours notice, that is, to any new matter that we go into, I want defense counsel to know what position we will have to take.
THE PRESIDENT: As I understand it, what you really desire, Mr. La Folette, is to have sufficient time to bring in the affidavit itself so that the cross examination may be conducted on the basis of the affidavit. Is there anything more than that in your mind?
MR. LAFOLETTE: There is just this other thing, but that can probably be worked out. There are certain of us who have to some extent specialized with the evidence relating to certain of these defendants, and insofar as it certainly is possible for the defense counsel to advi se us, that member of the prosecution staff would like to be able to get prepared. That is one of the very basic things that was in my mind when I asked for notice of some kind.
THE PRESIDENT: I may ask at this time if defense counsel as prepared to name the witnesses as a result of the recess?
DR, SCHUBERT: Dr. Schubert for the defendant Oeschey. May it please the Tribunal, I am not in a position to emotion the names of those witnesses whom major Schaeffer intends to bring on Thursday and Friday.
On Thursday, the witness Rauh, R-A-U-H, former Landsgerichtsrat at Nuernberg; the witness Recker, who has been a witness before this
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honor please the cross examination of Hecker has been completed and this Court so stated. He has been cross examined upon every affidavit that he made. Right now I object to the production of Hecker.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that objection is well taken, unless you have some better reason than yet appears.
DR, SCHUBERT: May it please the Tribunal, I personally am not informed about the witness Hecker. I have only seen that his name appeared on that list which was signed by Your Honor personally.
THE PRESIDENT: Maybe I should state the reason why that name appears on the list. That name was among the 38 names that were furnished to us on a separate sheet of paper, and I routed them all on. But that doesn't make him competent if he was otherwise incompetent.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Originally, I asked for him before the witness Hecker came into the witness box again. Then I questioned him, and thereby of course it is clear that the cross examination is no more necessary. Therefore, I do not need the witness Hecker any more.
THE PRESIDENT: I want to say, Mr. Lafollette that I am not altogether to blame for this, because you gave me that list yourself.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: There is no question about that, Neither am I your Honor. I got the list sometime ago when the Court asked us to see who they wanted, and the name was still on there.
THE PRESIDENT:NO harm done, at nayrate.
DR, SCHUBERT: ANother witness for tomorrow is Grueb, G-R-U-E-B, for mer Oberlandsgerichtsrat at Nuernberg, the witness Brem, B-R-E-M, former Amtsgerichtsrat--local court counsillor at Nuernberg. For Friday I scheduled the witness Dr. Mayer, M-A-Y-E-R, a lawyer from Nuernberg; the witness Dr. Kunz, K-U-N-Z, court physician at Nuernberg; the witness Dr. Baur, B-A-U-R, at present a court physician at Nuernberg; the witness Dr Kroher, K-R-O-H-E-R, a lawyer from Nuernberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, we recognize the force of what Mr. Lafol lette has suggested, and you have now given us names which seem to be sufficient to occupy these two days, and we hope that you will be equally cooperate and furnish names--other--names for other days well in advance.
Unless there is something further to suggest on the part of counsel on either side, we will now recess until tomorrow morning at ninethirty.
DR, SCUBERT: May it please the Tribunal, I do not know whether I have correctly understood the Tribunal in that I was told to present the names of the witnesses to the Tribunal and the prosecution. I, personally, would gladly do anything to see to it that these examinations take place, but it is quite impossible for me to assume any responsibility that the names of the witnesses are given to the Tribunal and the Prosecution in time. I will certainly pass on the appropriate request to Major Schaeffer in time, but I believe that technical preparations have to be made so that Major Schaeffer who deals with the bringing in of the witnesses should be in a position to submit in time a list of the witnesses to be called to the Tribunal, the Prosecution and the Defense. I do not believe that it is a matter for the defense to take care of the technical matters of these witness examinations, and I reemphasize that the defense, and I believe I am speaking also in the name of my collegues, that the defense will do anything possible in order to facilitate the technical procedure in question. I believe however, that the manner in which it is to be carried out and in which the parties are to be informed is a matter for Major Schaeffer, who also is in a position to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: DR. Schubert, you have given us three names for tomorrow, but do you nave any personal knowledge as to whether those witnesses will be available and will be in fact here tomorrow morning?
DR. SCHUPERT: I only know that Major Schaeffer has done everything possible or will do so within the next hours to bring these witnesses here and I do not think that there will be any difficulties to present these witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will recess at this time until tomorrowmorning at nine-thirty.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 22 May, 1947, 09,30 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Alstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 22 May 1947, 0930-1630 hours, Justice Carrington T. Marshall, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III.
Military Tribunal 3 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, please ascertain if the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court room with the exception of the defendant Engert, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Engert is temporarily absent at his own request. Let the proper notation be made.
May I inquire which witness is desired to be called first?
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Tribunal, there are quite a number of witnesses present this morning, as far as I know, and I ask to be permitted to start with the cross examination of the witness Eichinger. I would be grateful if I could begin this cross examination and then the cross examination of the witness Kroher as the first ones, since, as I explained to the Tribunal yesterday, there will be a witness here whom I have to interview in room 55, in the presence of a commissioner. I had great difficulty in obtaining this arrangement, and I do not want to lose that chance. Therefore, I ask to be permitted to begin with the cross examination of the witness Eichinger, and to examine the witness Kroher after him.
THE PRESIDENT: I am very much afraid that is not in line with that was discussed yesterday. Does the prosecution have any objection to that particular witness being called first?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I have just sent a man to get the necessary affidavit. It is quite a surprise, but we have no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: That being true, the Tribunal has not brought to the Bench the particular document containing that exhibit, and if you will give us the number of the exhibit and the number of the document and where it is found, we will very quickly supply that omission.
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Tribunal, it is document book III-I, first, document NG-561, Exhibit No. 227. Document book III-C also pertains to it--III-C, NG-513, Exhibit NO. 150.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me inquire at this time, will that also be agreable to the prosecution?
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Tribunal, there is also tho affidavit of Kroher in document book III-I, NG-664, Exhibit No. 230.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, we promised the prosecution that we would not bring any of these people in without some notice, so that we will first ascertain whether that is agreable to the prosecution.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, the defense counsel and I are discussing NG-513, which was the result of a German court investigation into the Montgelas case. Now it is true those are a series of affidavits, but they are not affidavits of any affiant that has been called here and therefore I object to cross examination on the basis of that.
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Tribunal, may I be permitted to state my position? At the time that document was submitted I objected to it because it was not an affidavit. It is an investigation, or a report of an investigation against the defendant Oeschey and the former Senior Prosecutor Schroeder, which was made after the war by German authorities. In that report of an investigation there are no sworn statements. Then, at the time, after discussion had taken place about the objection, I withdrew the objection because the prosecution promised that I would be permitted-- also as regards statements in that document--to conduct a cross-examination of the appropriate witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the name of that witness?
DR. SCHUBERT: There are quite a number of witnesses, but with the exception of the witness Eichinger, I do not intend to crossexamine any of them.
JUDGE BRAND: Eichinger made a statement in what Exhibit number? I didn't quite get that--the one you have just been discussing.
DR. SCHUBERT: Yes, that is Exhibit 150.
THE PRESIDENT: III-C, document NG-513.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honors, one moment, if I may. The document to which Dr. Schubert refers is not an affidavit. We had some discussion about that a month or so ago. It is true that in that document a certain witness makes statements that Dr. Schubert is going to call to cross-examine. But if we lay the way open to cross-examine any person mentioned in or making statements in a document which is not an affidavit, in our case in chief, that lays the way open to cross-examine on every document we have in evidence as to anybody therein implicated that the defense chooses to call. Now that is not anything but defensive matter.
JUDGE BRAND: My notes disclose, with reference to Exhibit 150, that Dr. Schubert reserved the right to cross-examine. I have it written in my notes to that effect.
THE PRESIDENT: I suggest, Dr. Schubert, that since there is a question about this being raised by the prosecution counsel, we should proceed with some other witness at this time and we can look into that during the recess with more deliberation than we can now.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, we have no objection to Dr. Schubert's proceeding with the examination of Eichinger on his affidavit; that is perfectly proper.
THE PRESIDENT: Let him be called for that purpose, and if anything further is needed or found to be proper, that can be ruled upon after the recess.
Let the witness be called.
JOSEF EICHINGER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
You may be seated.
EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q. Dr. Eichinger, would you please tell the Court your full name?
A. Joseph Eichinger.
Q. And your profession?
A. Attorney.
Q. Dr. Eichinger, in your affidavit which you gave to the prosecution you state that the defendant Oeschey in about 1943 took over the place of Rothaug as presiding judge of the Special Court at Nuernberg, and that then jurisdiction with increasing severity started, and there were more frequent death sentences rendered. May I ask whether you have made any definite statistical investigations about that matter or on what this impression is based?
A. Statistical investigations I have not made. My impression is based on personal observation, on what I have heard among attorneys and through the press.
Q. Did you yourself, in your work as defense counsel, incur any death sentences to your clients from Rothaug as presiding judge?
A. No.
Q. In the case of Rothaug not?
A. No, I don't remember that.
Q. The impression which you describe in the affidavit may therefore have come about because you had no death sentences as far as Rothaug was concerned, but did have them in the case of Oeschey?
A. It is possible that that was the reason.
Q. You complain, Dr. Eichinger, in the affidavit, if I may say so, about the manner in which proceedings took place. You were frequently defense counsel with Oeschey presiding.
A. Yes.
Q. Weren't there any proceedings that were all right?
A. Yes, there some of those.
Q. Were there any acquittals?
A. Yes, one acquittal. No, I remember two cases.
Q. Two cases?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you tell us anything about how these acquittals came about?
A. As far as I remember, the defendants were Germans and the statements made by the witness made the impression on the court that the witnesses did not speak the truth.
Q. And that court was under Oeschey as presiding judge?
A. Yes.
Q. Dr. Eichinger, on the second page in the German text of your affidavit you state, and I quote literally: "It was known that a sign from the Gau authorities, instigated by Oeschey, was sufficient to have a lawyer turned over to the Gestapo." From the way in which you say "it was know", I may take it that people talked about it, by way of rumor?
A. Yes, but it was also my personal conviction.
Q. Do you know of any case where Oeschey turned over a lawyer to the Gestapo?
A. A case by name is not known to me.
Q. Furthermore you state, witness, that you had the impression that Oeschey supported Hitler's policy to decimate the foreigners, particularly the Poles, consciously and intentionally. Then afterwards in your affidavit you mention two cases, one a Pole and another one a Frenchman. Are these the only cases of foreigners which in your recollection you defended before Oeschey - in your definite recollection?
A. No, I had more cases of foreigners before Oeschey.
Q. You had more cases of foreigners?
A. Yes.
Q. But these two cases, in your recollection, were the only cases of foreigners whom you defended where a death sentence was rendered?