The prosecution asked for the death penalty, but the sentence was three years in the penitentiary. The defendant attempted while he was breaking into a house to injure a girl seriously, but she was stronger than the defendant and threw him out of the window, so that the defendant was seriously injured. From the judgment it is apparent that the special court of Stuttgart evaluated the crimes committed by foreigners in the same way as those that were committed by Germans; and that the especially tragic circumstances of the defendant, were taken into consideration fully. The trial took place out of town at the place where the crime was committed the spot where the crime was committed, was examined and I, myself, took photographs of the place of action.
Q. Witness, just not in describing the case you made a remark which I consider of basic importance. You said that this foreigner was in Germany voluntarily. How did you arrive at that finding? Did you ask the defendant expressly; or did, you have any other reasons to believe so?
A. During the trial the defendant said that; and, moreover, extensive medical examinations existed in which the defendant had put down his whole life history. The defendant, who had suffered a serious skull fracture, and had contracted retrograding amnesia, was examined extensively by physicians and when ho was examined by physicians, he told everything that seemed important in his life.
Q. In connection with my previous question, another question. Regardless of this special case, were there cases of foreigners, where due to the manner of living of the defendants, you could conclude with certainty that the person was in Germany voluntarily; or, in each case did you have to rely on asking the defendant; or, how did you find it out?
A. In no case did I find out that a defendant was against his will staying in the sphere of the district of the special court of Stuttgart.
In most cases by far, however, the court gathered from the examination of the defendant and from other circumstances that the defendants were interested in being allowed to work in Germany and thus were in Germany voluntarily.
Q. Witness, at that time did you know anything as to from what time on forced transportation of foreign workers to Germany started? And I am pointing out that this procedure did not start even at the time of the outbreak of the war.
A. The court did not know anything about these methods because it didn't concern itself with the question of recruitment of labor.
Q. Now, I want to go over to the next case, that is No. 35. Here in the mimeographed copy the name of the defendant is not very clear. As far as I remember, his name is Dorota; is that correct, witness?
A. Yes.
Q. It is spelled D-o-r-o-t-a. I submit a document -- no, I don't have it. Please comment on the case as far as you know anything about it.
A. I am going to discuss the case on the basis of the original indictment that I have here; the form of the indictment loads to the conclusion that the prosecution asked for the death penalty. Josef Dorota was a Galician railroad worker, thirty-two years old, who had seven times been previously convicted in Poland, and once in Germany. The Galician Dorota tried in the prison at Esslingen on the Neckar, to strangle the prison warden. The special court made a spot examination at the prison, and even though the motion was made for a death sentence, it merely passed an additional sentence of six months in the penitentiary added it to the penal sentence under which the defendant already was.
Q. In order to inform the Tribunal, I want to say the following: This case will also be discussed in an affidavit that I shall offer to the Tribunal in Document Book, Cuhorst, No. III. I just hear that this document book is still not ready, even though I handed it to the Administration at the end of July. Now, I shall discuss the next case -plunderers at the main station in Stuttgart. The witness Eckert from whom I shall submit an affidavit that he gave me in Document Book No. III describes a, case of plundering by a Frenchman in the main station of Stuttgart.
Do you recall the ease? Was the death sentence to be expected; and, why was it not passed?
A. I remember that case because it was one of the first cases of plundering at all. The defendant, a French worker, had after an air raid on the main station of Stuttgart stolen tobacco, etc., from the burning station. The indictment had as its grounds plundering, and a death sentence was to be expected. The special court found that such a large station, even after an air attack, was not a territory that was unprotected, and sentenced the accused Frenchman, because of theft to a short prison term.
Q. Do you mean to say thus that a court that was less well-wishing could have come to a more serious sentence under the point of view of plundering? What sentence would have been pronounced if they had found that that was a case of plundering?
A. Counsel, the well-wishing attitude of the court is less important than the exact, determined facts, as to whether the facts of plundering exist or not. The special court of Stuttgart, in this case, examined the facts of the case extraordinarily carefully and found that the legal prerequisites for punishing somebody for a case of plundering did not exist.
Q. May I now go on to the next case. After a pause of some time, I now shall again discuss a case sentenced by the penal senate; that is Case 38. Did you try a case in Waldshut against a number of Dutchmen?
A. In the spring of 1944 the penal senate in Waldshut, on the Rhine, tried a case against a number of young voluntary Dutch workmen who were working in a Rhine power station. They had. undertaken large scale destruction in the power plant, and attempted common escape across the Swiss border that was near. I may add that there the Rhine is the border between Switzerland and Germany. The main trial was in Waldshut. The evidence showed that the Defendants were seriously incriminated.
The court decided to take an eye-witness account at the place where the defendants worked and at the camp where they were living; and in so doing the court broached the question as to whether this whole undertaking was meant to be taken seriously at all. The defense counsel followed this possibility up, and when the trial was continued, the defendants could be sentenced only because of a few formal offenses to prison terms of a few months. I remember this case and recall that the father of one of the defendants sent a letter of thanks from Holland to the prosecutor because he had treated his son so well before court.
Q. In Case No. 39, this case will be discussed in an affidavit that I shall submit to the Tribunal. I shall offer the document in Document Book II. From this exhibit I gather, among other things, that the penal senate, while you were presiding judge, witness, sentenced a young Dutchman instead of for preparation for high treason, only for serious misdemeanor. Was this the result of legal facts of the case? It is supposed to be a case that was tried in Ravensburg against Nyhoff. Subsequently, and by referring to what the witness Dr. Barnickel testified here, a few days ago in the witness stand, I first ask if this is identical with the case discussed by Dr. Barnickel.
A. Yes.
Q. Please go into detail.
A. The defendant Nyhoff was a young Dutch workman; I estimate his age was about nineteen.
The general public prosecutor had indicted him for preparation for high treason. The trial took place while I was presiding Judge in Ravensburg. It was a trial by the penal senate of the District Court of Appeal. The defendant had, in front of the railroad station in the main street in Ravensburg, apparently repeatedly shouted "Heil Meskau" with a raised fist.
According to the impression that the penal senate had of this young man, it was rather a boyish prank, than a serious criminal offense, and even though the prosecution asked for a prison term of one year and for 6 months for preparation for high treason, the penal senate passed a prison term, that is, not a penitentiary, but a prison term of 6 weeks for severe misdemeanor and released the defendant. We were surprised at the time that no extraordinary objection was raised. The defense counsel of the defendant Nyhoff, was the lawyer Dieterlein in Ravensburg.
Q May I go to the next case? Did you ever try a Pole because of unnatural rape and crimes against children? Dr. Weber was Defense Counsel. Witness Rumelin was the prosecutor who described the case.
A A Pole, Bartholomaeus Mroviec had committed serious sexual crimes on several 12 to 16 year-old German boys. In my opinion, so far as I know, the trial was near Stuttgart in Vaihin-gen on the Ems.
The prosecution asked for a death sentence. The special court pronounced a prison sentence of five years because it had to make the finding that the Pole who was the defendant was not the only one who was guilty but that a number of his victims were not without guilt in this immoral behavior.
The German juveniles, so far as they were eligible for punishment according to their age were sentenced by the Juvenile Penal Chamber. I do not know any details about this.
Q Witness, do you happen to know, -- that is if you know the date that the sentence was passed -- whether at that time the law against Poles existed already?
A I cannot tell you that. So far as I know the trial was in the beginning of 1941. No -- I beg your pardon, - 1942, so that the law against Poles must leave been promulgated already.
Q Without your being able to say it with certainty?
A They were sentenced on the basis of Paragraph 175-A of the Reich Penal Code, in which the penitentiary sentence is the sentence that is pronounced as a rule.
Q Case 41 is again a case of sex crimes. The witness Eberhard Schwarz and Rumelin, on pages 2051, 2052 and 2085, of the transcript, described parts of a case which was supposedly tried in July against a Pole while you were presiding Judge. This case, which has a special characteristic mark, I want to have clarified. What was it all about? Will you explain it?
A In this case it was Edward Wozinak, who is contained on the death sentence list, exhibit 253, NG 398, under No. 21. The facts of the case are as follows:
Q May I interrupt you, witness. First of all, was he a foreigner?
A A Pole.
Q A Pole?
A Yes, May I continue?
Q Yes, I ask you to.
A The facts of the case were as follows: The Pole who was still a Juvenile; had committed sex crimes to a considerable extent on little girls. When I read the files, it seemed to me as though this was a crime due to puberty -- the puberty of a man who was not fully mature yet. Since from the indictment I had to assume that a motion for a death sentence would be made, I had pictures taken of the defendant without his clothes on, and had the pictures of the defendant put in a closed envelope, -- in a sealed envelope. By these pictures it was easy to determine that he was a young man who was not yet fully developed. The first sentence which was passed outside of Stuttgart, -
Q While you were presiding Judge?
A Yes.
Q Please continue.
A -- inflicted, so far as I know, a prison term of three years. The Reich public prosecutor at the Reich Supreme Court filed a nullity plea, and the Reich Supreme Court quashed the sentence. The case was then tried again in Urach, Wuerttemberg for the second time, and again I was presiding Judge. The prosecutor in the trial was the witness Rumelin. The representative of the General public prosecutor -- for in case of a death sentence, the representative of the General prosecutor had to be present -- was the witness Berthold. Schwarz. Turing this trial, the witness Schwarz and I were urging together the witness Rumelin, not to ask for a death sentence, and the defendant was then, in September, 1942, in the second trial, as the witness Eberhard Schwarz testified correctly, sentenced to five years in a penal camp. There were no more nullity pleas filed.
Q Do you mean to say that this Pole was never sentenced to death, and that accordingly he is incorrectly on the death sentence list submitted by the witness, Eberhard Schwarz?
A I believe that is merely an error made by the witness Eberhard Schwarz, or by another person who compiled that list, for it is not difficult to gather from this list, that the first trial took place first in May, 1942, and the second in September, 1942.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask you with reference to the sentence to a penal camp, that sentence was pursuant to the provisions of the law against the Poles and Jews, was it not, insofar as it provided for punishment or confinement in a penal camp?
A Yes, that is the nature of the penalty was chosen on the basis of the law against Poles, whereas the extent of the penalty was from the German Penal Code.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
May I add to the question, briefly. If the Poles were tried on the basis of the law against Poles, did the Court have the possibility at all to pass a prison sentence, or did they have to pronounce a sentence for a penal camp, or was that optional?
You don't have to answer that question only if you know it for sure.
A The Court had to pass the sentence for a penal camp.
Q Case 42. The witness Eckert described in the affidavit which I referred to already before, and which I shall submit later, further a case of a Pole in which a nullity plea was carried out. Would you know about this case? This is the case which was described as Skiflack, first name Josef, on the list I submitted.
On the death sentence list there is under No. 6, a case against a Pole, Josef Skoflack. I believe I am not mistaken if I think that this Josef Skoflack is the Pole who, due to a nullity plea, was sentenced directly to death by the Reich Supreme Court. Possibly it could also be the Sefka case, No. 48 on this list. The case was first tried by the Supremo Court in Stuttgart because of lending aid and comfort to the enemy, helping French prisoners of war escape.
The defendant made an impression of being mentally backward, and retarded, and he was sentenced on basis of Article 51, Section 2, that is, reduced responsibility, to a prison term, The Reich Supreme Court quashed the sentence, and sentenced the defendant to death.
Q You would thus say that this is an example for the statement you made the other day, that not everybody who was executed in Stuttgart had been sentenced to death by you, but only a portion of them, and that among those who were executed in Stuttgart, there were those who had been sentenced to death by the Reich Supreme Court and not by you?
A Yes, this is such a case.
Q Case 43. This is the case of Louisa Tonie. Here the witness Rumelin, who had to deal with the case, on pages of the Transcript 2058, 2066, and 2069, testified about this; also exhibit 211, NG 490 has been submitted in connection with this case. According to this witness, you were supposed to have exhibited an extra nastiness. Because of this evaluation, I attach importance to the discussion of this case. Please comment.
A The penal case against Louisa Tonia, a young Italian woman, was tried in the summer of 1944, by the Special Court of Stuttgart, while I was presiding Judge, and it was tried in Rabensburg. During an air raid on Friedrichshafen, on the Lake of Constance, the defendant had plundered a clothing store to a considerable extent. Since the court had to expect that a death sentence would be demanded, the court summoned an expert in psychiatry, in order to make sure whether the defendant night not be mentally fully responsible. The expert stated that the defendant was absolutely mentally sound. The facts were so clear that one had to assume that plundering had taken place, and the witness Rumelin as Prosecutor, himself demanded the death sentence.
Already during the consultations prior to the pronouncing of the sentence, the council decided to file a clemency plea which was well founded. The Judge Oberlandesgerichtsdirector Dr. Stuber, wrote this clemency plea, I signed it, and the prosecution also agreed with this plea, and the defendant Tonia, was pardoned to a prison term. I do not know the extent.
Q Have you finished?
A Yes.
Q I now go on to case 44, the case of the Czech at Rottweil. The witness Eckert again discusses this case in the affidavit aforementioned defense affidavit, This is a trial against a young Czech which took place at Rottweil on the Neckar, when you were presiding Judge, Do you remember this case in detail?
A This is the case of a young man who for inexplicable reasons in his papers had made himself one year older than he actually was. He had committed a number of thefts, and if he had actually been over 18 years old, would have been sentenced to a considerable term in a penitentiary. During the trial I myself assumed that the defendant was younger than he had stated to the court, I interrupted the session, and through a police teletype, I inquired in the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, at a parson, what the dates of birth of the defendant were.
It then became apparent that the defendant was one year younger, and he had lied to the court, therefore he was sentenced only to a prison term, and at the end of the session I told him that with his wrong statement he had almost gotten himself into the penitentiary.
Thus in this case, I was, after all, able to determine the age of a young defendant more certainly than he himself.
Q May I go on to Case 45? In 1944 you tried a case against a Frenchman, Sartre in Ravensburg, because of plundering. The defense counsel was Dieterlin in Ravensburg. Please describe this case, because it seems to me to be typical for plunder. Do you still remember the details?
A The defendant, Sartre, and a defendant were French workmen; both had already previous convictions in France for theft. After an air raid on a workers' colony they robbed the rabbit hutches of the workers, but the workers found them and beat them up. They were indicted for plundering. Since a death sentence was to be expected, they had a defense counsel assigned to them who was appointed by the court. During the trial, however, it was shown that the colony which was seriously damaged by the air raid, was not an unprotected territory or otherwise the defendants could not have been beaten up by the inhabitants of that workers' colony.
Both of them were therefore sentenced because of attempted serious theft to 6 months' imprisonment.
Q I now come to the next case, the Esterle case, No. 46. This is a prosecution case, on page 2061 of the transcript it has already been discussed. Moreover, as can be seen from my list, prosecutions' documents were submitted concerning this case, namely Exhibits 212 and 216. Hereafter I shall offer to the Tribunal as Cuhorst's Exhibit No. 15, Cuhorst Document No. 16, - that is the judgment against Christian Esterle of 21 December, 1942. Witness, I submit the document to you. Please comment on it.
A Christian Gottlob Esterle, Case No. 51 on the death sentence list, as is correctly stated in the list, was sentenced by the Special Court of Stuttgart on the 21st of December, 1962, -- and while I was presiding Judge, -- to death for crimes against the war economy.
Esterle was a trained tailor, and in the spring of '39, under very favorable circumstances, he took over a Jewish textile store. Three years later, with a large profit, he sold his store and home for the so-called "facon value" (good-will) of the firm, that is the value of the firm as such, he had to receive 6,0000 Reichsmarks, whereas he had paid to the Jewish firm which were valued at around 90,000 marks, the defendant carried out typical fraudulent deals which are neatly described in this sentence itself.
The defendant had to defense counsel, namely the lawyers, Wacker of Stuttgart and Dr. Klett also of Stuttgart. The trial lasted for a very long time, and went far into. The prosecution asked for a death sentence, and the court passed it accordingly because this was one of the most serious cases of fraud which the special court had sentenced.
The defendant, Esterle, made a plea for reopening of the case, which was forwarded to me by the penal chamber for information. In the plea for the re-opening of the case he pointed out that the two defense counsel had told him the following?
One of them had told him that he was a good friend of the Judge who wrote the opinion; the other one had told him that he had belonged to the same student fraternity as the presiding judge, and he, the defendant, did not have to say very much during the trial, and certainly not much would happen to him.
When I found out about this through official channels, I had my legal dark interrogate the defendant extensively at the Secretariat of the Court, and he repeated to the legal clerk his statements regarding the defense counsel which were so exact that he could not have made them up.
Q I am going on to the next case, may I?
AAnother peculiarity of that case was the fact that when they confiscated the property of the defendant, Esterle, the two defense counsel together possessed themselves of a secret account of, so far as I know, 15000 Reichsmarks, and asked to be paid this as fees for administering his property.
I reported these facts to the General Public Prosecutor, as was my duty; and this meant that a disciplinary proceeding was instituted against the two defense counsel, which let to a complete break between me and the witness Dr. Klett, who, up to that time, had been very close to my family.
Q. In view of the fact that Esterle was a broker, did Dr. Klett tell you, "Why should we lawyers earn less than brokers?" Do you recall that?
A. I remember it, yes, namely, that the defense counsel of Esterle told me that, whereupon I answered that in my opinion that attitude did not seem to be quite in accordance with the professional honor of a lawyer.
Q. Do you recall whether Dr. Klett was appointed as defense counsel by the Court, whether he received his fee from the State Treasury and whether, in spite of that, he wanted to get a private fee?
A. No, both defense counsel were chosen by the defendant, and had already been paid their fees.
THE PRESIDENT: Concerning this case, you said that the defendant took over the Jewish textile store under extremely favorable circumstances. Did the evidence show what those circumstances were?
THE WITNESS: The opinion says the following about it:
In March of 1939, he took over the Jewish textile whole-sale frim of Feldmann and Tanne, under very favorable circumstances.
THE PRESIDENT: I am simply asking you if the evidence disclosed what the favorable circumstances were. You said he paid nothing. How did he get the property?
THE WITNESS: He took over the house and the business. As far as I know, the house was estimated at a value of 120;000 Reichsmarks; it had a mortgage of 110,000 Reichsmarks.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not concerned with that; no, I am not concerned with that. He paid nothing. How did he get the property? Was it given to him by the Jews?
THE WITNESS: He made some kind of a contract of sale with the Jew and paid 10,000 marks for the house and took over the mortgages. For the supplies of the store he paid an amount which we are no longer able to determine. On the other hand; for the value of the firm--in Germany we use the French word "facon" value--he paid nothing.
DR. BRIEGER: In America you speak about "good-will."
THE PRESIDENT: Well; we will ask the question this way. Did the evidence disclose that this was a fair and voluntary transaction between him and the Jew?
THE WITNESS: No, the evidence did not show anything as to that, but, from its own knowledge of the facts, the Court assumed that the conditions which the defendant had to meet when he took over this Jewish firm were very favorable for him.
THE PRESIDENT: And correspondingly unfavorable for the Jew?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Was there evidence of duress in the case, or wasn't there?
THE WITNESS: No, there was no evidence to that effect, but the whold affair, speaking as a judge in civil affairs, did not please me. Therefore, in the opinion, at that time, in 1942, we expressed that with absolute clarity.
THE PRESIDENT: Was there ever any prosecution against him on account of this Aryanization of the Jew's property?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Than would you at this time, for the benefit of the Tribunal; answer the question which was asked you by your attorney as to your understanding of the meaning of the word "Aryanization"? Now I will ask you a leading question in that connection. By the employment of that term, is it fair to say that it meant the acquisition by means of duress of Jewish properties by so-called Aryans?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I comprised, this word, those people who enriched themselves excessively on the occasion of the handing over of Jewish stores to other owners. There were also others who acquired Jewish property and Jewish firms, who concluded absolutely docent contracts. However, in many cases there was an enrichment which seemed to me to be excessive.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, others besides yourself have used the term "Aryanization". I am asking you what you understand that term to have meant. It related to property, did it not?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is, the acquisition, as in this case--the Wolf case--of Jewish businesses by non-Jewish businessmen, and that is the indecent acquisition in cases.
THE PRESIDENT: Indecent acquisition? That answers my question, thank you.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. May I now go into the next case, case 47? This is the Hepting case, In this trial here several witnesses have testified that while you were presiding judge, witness, witnesses occasionally were not treated very politely by you. I now submit the opinion and the judgment in the Hepting case to you, and would like to ask you whether you remember anything to that offset. Later I shall offer this judgment to the Tribunal as Cuhorst Exhibit No. 16, document No. 20. It is the judgment against Karl Hepting and participants, of 25 November 1943.
A. I have the judgment of the Special Court of Stuttgart in from of me, of 23 to 25 November 1943, against Karl Hepting and participants, because of offenses against the war economy and other crimes. I was presiding judge.
During this trial a number of witnesses tried to incriminate the defendant as much as possible in order to achieve that a penitentiary sentence was pronounced against the defendant so that he would have to give up his business.
During the trial there were, therefore, very violent clashes with witnesses. And these witnesses, because they had an interest in incriminating the defendant Hepting, were treated very badly by the prosecutor, as well as by the defense counsel, as well is by me. The defendant Hepting himself was merely sentenced imprisonment of a term of one year and eight months, and the one year and one month in detention pending trial were credited to this term.
During the trial there was an official present of the Reich Criminal Police Office, who was clumsy enough, after the end of the session, in the corridor of the court building, to tell the defense counsel that he would see to it that this sentence was quashed. The result was a violent, written protest of the entire court against such police interference. The Reich Ministry of Justice--in this case it was Ministerial Counsellor Franke--let themselves be convinced that a nullity plea in the Hepting case would be without any point, since the witnesses who had. testified against Hepting were very doubtful characters.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you a question, returning to the matter of the Law Against Poles, during the last two minutes that we have?
THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Can you tell me what, if any, Special Courts, after the war, sat in the territory described as the Territory of the Firmer Polish State? Do you know?
A. There were Special Courts which belonged to the Reich Administration of Justice that functioned in the so-called Incorporated Eastern Territories; that is, predominantly in the former Polish Provinces. The Government General, on its part, had its own Special Courts in the remainder of the Polish Territory which, however, had nothing to do with the Administration of Justice of the Reich.
Q. Did the district judges sit in that territory also?
A. In the Incorporated Eastern Territories, district courts and district courts of appeal were established; for example, the District Court of Appeal of Posnan was again established, the District Court of Litzmannstadt (Lodz), and so forth.
Q. Now the Satute also provides that the State Prosecutor may institute proceedings under the Law Against Poles before the Special Court. Did the State Prosecutor, as such, or under that title, operate in the Occupied Eastern Territories?
A. Your Honor, I cannot toll you that, because I did not work in those fields.
Q. All right. Now, one more question. The first four sections of the Law Against Poles and Jews define certain acts which are made punishable. I am not speaking of procedure, but of substantive crimes. Now, if a Pole resided, on the 1st of September 1939, within what is called the Territory of the Former Polish State, but thereafter committed a crime or violated a provision of any one of the first four sections of the Law Against Poles, and if that crime was committed in the Altreich, could he be prosecuted in the appropriate Special Court in the Altreich?
A. Yes; if the offense was committed in the Altreich, the Special Court was competent. Of course, under other circumstances the Penal Chamber might have been competent too; as for anybody residing in the Altreich.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that clears up what seems to have been unclear in your farmer testimony, and it seems to be clear also under the provisions of the Statute.
We will recess now until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(At 1630 hours, 2 September 1947, a recess was taken until 0930 hours, 3 September 1947).
Official Transcript of Military Tribunal III in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Altstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 3 September 1947, 0930-1630, The Honorable James T. Brand, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III. Military Tribunal III 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, will you ascertain if the defendants arc all present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant Rothaug, excused at his own request.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Rothaug has been excused temporarily. Let the proper notation be made.
You may proceed, Dr. Brieger.
DR. BRIEGER: May I continue with the examination of my client, Herr Cuhorst?
HERMANN CUHORST (Resumed) DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q As far as I can remember, the last case I discussed was case 47 or 46. Did you finish commenting on that matter, witness?
A Yes, and I have also finished with case 47.
Q Oh, you have also finished commenting on case 47, have you?
A Yes.
Q Well, I shall now discuss case 48. The prosecution without giving further details, left open the possibility that verdicts by the Special Court at Stuttgart, with Cuhorst as presiding judge, sanctioned the prosecution persons on religious grounds.
I shall offer an exhibit in my document book I-B, that is, the judgment against Herzer and other persons. This is Cuhorst Exhibit No. 17, NG-21, judgment against Herzer and others, of the 28th of August 1942. Herzer was a clergyman.
Witness, I shall hand you the judgment and I ask you to comment in detail; in particular, will you please state whether it was of importance, when the judgment was pronounced, that Herzer was a clergyman?
A I have before me the judgment passed by the Special Court at Stuttgart of the 28th of August 1942. I was the presiding judge. Public Prosecutor Dr. Rimelin was the prosecutor. The indictment was filed against three clergymen for various sexual offenses, As concerns the facts of the case, the judgment speaks for itself. I point out that in passing the sentence, particularly with reference to they younger clergymen, all extenuating circumstances were taken into account as far as possible. As concerns the main defendant, Herzer, the Special Court, on account of his advanced ago, refused to sentence him to safety custody as a habitual criminal. Concerning the younger clergymen, the court found that from the sexual point of view they were not up to the standards of their profession.
Further, the judgment states that the Bishop's office had taken steps against these incidents, but these incidents which the Bishop had condemned had not been prevented by the Bishop's office.