Q. When Cuhorst was presiding, did you defend frequently and apporzimetely how often?
A. I frequently defended when Cuhorst was presiding judge, but I could not tell you approximate number of cases.
Q. What kind of cases did you deal with?
A. They were case of malicious acts, crimes against the war economy listening to broadcasts, preparation for high trasen.
Q. Did you also act as an appointed counsel or were you always a counsel selected by the defendant?
A. Occasionally. I was appointed by the court as defense counsel.
Q. In specific cases or generally?
A. Quite generally?
Q. It is true that particularly in complicated war economy crime cases, you were appointed?
A. Primarily, yes.
Q. Do you remember cases where Cuhorst went beyond the sentence demanded by the prosecution?
A. From my own experience, I do not remember any such case.
Q. Do you remember any cases where Cuhorst's sentence as below the sentence demanded by the prosecution?
A. That occurred frequently.
Q. Were all judges of the Special Court, party members?
A. No. I believe I know that Director Behn and Landgerichtsrat Winter were not members. Of the other judges--that is all the other judges, I could not say it for sure.
Q. Did you defend cases of malicious acts when Cuhorst was presiding?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have the impression that the Special Court under Cuherst was severe or lenient?
A. The expression "lenient" does not seem to be very suitable.
Q. What is your can expression, witness?
A. I should like to say that Cuhorst, in cases of crimes against the war economy or crimes against the public enemy decree.
Q. Did the Gestapo or the SD have any influence on Cuhorst's practice, especially in political cases?
A. Of course, from. my own knowledge, I cannot say to what extent there existed any such influence. Personally I am of the opinion that an influence of that kind could not very well be exerted on the person of Cuhorst because Cuhorst probably did not permit even these offices to interfere with his work. To me. occasionally in the course of conversations, he made mention of the fact that one of these offices in one or another case got in touch with him or intended to get in touch with him; but at the same time, he more or less clearly expressed that he would not acknowledge any influence of that kind. That, considering his character, was quite clear to me from the outset, because it was he who decided.
Q. May I discuss the next question now? Did Cuhorst, according to you observation favor defendants who were Party members?
A. In my opinion, that is not true at all. In that field I had quite a let of experience. Many defendant when I had to defend wanted that I, as the defense counsel, should emphasize that they, the defendants , was a members of the Party or had special merits in the party. I always told these defendants that according to my practical experience in such cases, it would be entirely wrong before Cuhorst for the defense counsel and the defendant of all things to refer to that fact. I experienced to quite frequently that Cuhorst, confronted with defendants who had referred to that, raised the vey elcar reproach, "If you refer to the fact that you are a member of the Party, then you would have been under much greater obligation to keep strictly to the rules of the law." Based on that experience, I gave the advice which I have mentioned before ts the defendants.
Q. Do you happen to know cases where Cuhorst with great Severity, attacked abuses in the Party? Will describe these cases?
A. I happen to know of such cases from my own experience. I want to mention first the case of a manufacturer by the name of Wohlheld, when I defended in Kirchheim-Unterteck. In this case, prominent party members had illicitly received cloth from the defendant who had a textile factory. Cuhorst, in the course of the proceedings preesed the defendant to tell him the names of these prominent Nazis. The defendant refused to do so. During the noon recess, Cuhorst asked me whether I happened to know the names of these people. I told him that I know some of the names but that my duty to observe secrecy as an attorney and counsel did not permit me to mention these names. During the afternoon recess, Cuhorst again asked the defendant to tell him the names. The defendant, however, did not do so.
I remember furthermore the case of the brothers, held and Fullinger who were also indicted for crimes against the war economy. I defended the defendant Fullinger. In that case too, according to my recollection, prominent Nazis illegally had obtained goods. The defendant Wolf--I do no longer remember which one of the two is was-as fast as I remember, mentioned first one name in the whisper; where-upon Cuherst demanded that he should repeat that name aloud. It must have been in that connection t hat the expression was used that were people with a let of glietter on their uniform were involved. What was meant were the golden insignia of the Party uniforms. As far as I heard later, on account of that statement, proceedings before the -so-called party court were instituted against Cuhorst. I had nothing to do with that case.
I remember another case, an offense against the war economy The defendant was the Manufacturer Hepking at Feuerbach near Stuttgart. In that case, two witnesses were heard who incriminated the defendant greatly. Those witnesses were in a relation of dependency with the Party and together with the DAF--the German labor front. They had tried to get the entire enterprise into the hands of the DAF or into their own hands. Cuhorst referred to that in the course of the proceedings and treated the two witnesses rather oughly--so much so that listeners told me afterwards it was a question who had been the defendants.
These are the three cases I can remember.
Q. Now. I want to put my next question. Did Cuhorst consider an interference of administrative offices in to the judiciary admissible or was he against it?
A. About that, I cannot make a definite statement. I can only say what I could gather from statements made by him--the wording of which, of course, is no longer known to me literally. Occasionally, he would say, for instance, that in this or that case the Gestapo or some office of the Party had intentions to interfere in the proceedings or asked for a particularly severe sentence. But always he made it clear that he would not permit anybody to interfere with his decisions.
Q. Did the Penal Chamber during the war ever pronounce death sentences?
A. I do not remember that during the war the Penal Chamber in Stuttgart pronounced a death sentence.
Q. THE PRESIDENT: Merely for clarification, may I ask: the Penal Chamber of what court?
THE WITNESS: I was just going to say the Penal Chamber of Stuttgart.
THE PRESIDENT: The Penal Chamber of the District Court?
THE WITNESS: The Penal Chamber was a part of the District Court, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You are not referring to the Court of Appeals?
THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor, the Court of Appeals did not have a Penal Chamber.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. It does not refer to a court where Cuhorst was ever a judge?
A. No, Cuhorst during the war was not with the Penal Chamber.
THE PRESIDENT: We may understand than that these various references to the testimony on the Penal Chamber all referred to the District Court. It's just a matter of terminology.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, just a parallel for reasons of comparison.
THE WITNESS: May I finish my answer now? I do not remember that the Penal Chamber in Stuttgart during the war ever pronounced a death sentence, but, of course, I have to concede the possibility.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Witness, may I ask you when you finish answering a question to give me some indication. Do you happen to know of any case where the Special Court under Cuhorst violated the substantive penal law?
A. From my own experience, I cannot remember a case of that kind.
Q. Is it correct that Cuhorst considered those directives from. Berlin as too severe and what was his attitude? Do you know of any details? Did you understand the question, witness?
A. I have understood the question. I remember various conversations which were held concerning suck directives which came from. Berlin. I can confirm that Cuhorst, if he spoke about directives of that kind, frequently did that in a disapproving or aggravated tone; for instance, by saying, "Here, there is another one of these instructions."
From the tone of his voice, as he made such remarks, I had to assume that he considered himself independent of such instructions. That, of course, was my personal impression.
Q. Do yon happen to know anything about the difficulties which arose from the introduction of the nullity plea or the extraordinary objection?
A. Difficulties resulted therefrom to the effect that the sentence of the Special Court and Penal Senate now no longer were valid the moment they wore pronounced, but there remained the possibility for superior offices to submit-
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, we know all of that.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Was the practice of the Special Courts and the Penal Senate in accordance with that of the Reich Supreme Court?
A. I would say that according to my knowledge the practice of the Special Court and of the Penal Senate tried to adjust itself to the practice of the Reich Supreme Court. But from my own experience, I can also state that the Special Court as well as the Penal Senate sort of hesitated to follow these practices. For instance, the Special Court Stuttgart for quite some time would consider a case, a case of a malicious act; whereas in a case of a similar kind, according to its practice, the Reich Supreme Court would already have assumed undermining of military morale. I have already stated, however, that the Special Court and the Penal Senate later adjusted themselves to the practice of the Reich Supreme Court.
Q. What you said about Stuttgart in general, did that also refer to Cuhorst in particular?
A. That also referred to Cuhorst.
Q. Did you have an opportunity to observe the practices and sentences to the extent that you could toll the Tribunal in what cases Cuhorst was severe and in which cases he was lenient? I believe you have answered that question already. Therefore, I do not want to repeat that question. As a well-known criminal defense counsel in Stuttgart, did you frequently speak to people of all classes about the practices and sentences of the Special Court, especially about those when Cuhorst was presiding, so that you could gain an impression as to whether the severity which Cuhorst displayed against violent criminals and the worst racketeers was approved by the population?
A. Of course, I had an opportunity, on the basis of my largo practice and the large number of acquaintances, to speak to many people about that question. As far as severe sentences were applied to large-scale offenders against the war economy and black marketeers, to my knowledge severity was approved by every no. It was different, however, in more harmless cases, such as cases of malicious acts or similiar matters.
Q. How arc transgressions against national economy and violent crimes judged by the population today?
THE PRESIDENT: We are not concerned with that.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Witnesses of the prosecution have raised charges against Cuhorst in the case Esterle, a black market operator whom he sentenced to death. What can you say about the events after the sentence? Will you please describe the details?
A. In reference to this point, I can say something from my own knowledge and something from what I have heard about it.
Indirectly I know those things because I had my own office together with an attorney Dr. Wacker, who defended at the time the defendant Esterle together with attorney Dr. Klett; who is now the Lord Mayor of Stuttgart. I know that the defendant Esterle after the sentence was pronounced by the special court filed an application for a so-called reopening of the trial. I know also that Esterle emphasized in that connection that his defense counsel had instructed him that during the main trial he was to admit the facts because in this Cuhorst more or less clearly had promised that the sentence would be only a penitentiary term. To what extent that statement which was made by Estarle was accurate, I cannot say. My colleague, Dr. Wacker, told me at any rate that he had not told Esterle of any promise of such a nature on the part of Cuhorst.
Q May I continue, please. On the basis of your many years of observation as a judge and a human being, would you consider it possible that he would make such an agreement with any defense counsel; regardless of whether he was a member of the same fraternity -- by that I mean a man whom he knew during the time of their studies, belonging to the same fraternity.
THE PRESIDENT: That goes beyond the scope of proper examination. It merely calls for an opinion of the witness as to what some one else might have done. You will have to leave that to the Tribunal to judge.
Q Did you have anything to do with the case against Michael Schmidt, the man who stole field post parcels; whom did you defend and whom did Dr. Diesem defend?
A I took part in that case. Attorney Diesem defended the defendant Michael Schmidt; I defended the co--defendant; I believe Ms name was Bauer, but I could not say for certain. Bauer was charged for receiving the goods.
Q Did you have a conference with Dr. Diesem before the final plea and what did you discuss?
A First I may say -
MR. La FOLLETTE: I object, Your Honor, to Ms testifying to any conference between the witness and Dr. Diesem before the final plea; it certainly could hot be relevant.
DR. BRIEGER: My question is really very important; it will show immediately why, if the witness is given an opportunity to answer -
THE PRESIDENT: What are you deriving at?
DR. BRIEGER: I want to enter into what the witness Diesem was stated here before the Tribunal, that he would have considered the theft of field packages of cigarettes, at the time as a case of minor theft of food and that he made the plea accordingly. That is what the witness wants to discuss now.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the witness know what plea was made by Diesem? Do you know what plea was made by Diesem?
Q Witness, -
THE PRESIDENT: He may answer the question that the Tribunal asked him.
A I know that. I was present at the trial.
THE PRESIDENT: State it. State what it was.
AAm I only to say what he said during the trial or what he told me privately.
THE PRESIDENT: Say what he said during the trial; that is what we are interested in.
A His statements during the trial were in fact to the effect that he described the act committed by the defendant Schmidt only as a case of minor theft of food; that at any rate was how I understood his statements and how I remember them.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q When the witness Diesem spoke of his intention to plead like that, what did he tell you; and what did you answer?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Just a minute. I object for the purpose that there was no ground laid when Diesem was on the stand; it is incompetent.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think we are concerned with that question. The Tribunal isn't bound by what the defendant asked for in his plea as the testimony has repeatedly shown.
The objection is sustained* BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q May I continue; when Diesem pleaded for a sentence for petty theft, did you consider that correct or wrong.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I object -
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained. From my understanding a defense counsel can plead for anything he wanted to plead for, whether he is right or wrong.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q The attitude of Cuhorst toward Diesem on account of that line of defense which he considered wrong has already been submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q May I know from you as to what you know about subsequent events, also concerning Herr Glueck. Will you tell us briefly who Herr Glueck is?
A I knew Herr Glueck personally, and from 1933 until 1945 also professionally I had a lot to do with him. He was a very extraordinary rough character, and always expressed his opinion in rather forceful terms. If complaints were made about an attorney, complaints which he considered justified, and I must use an extension which may be difficult to translatehe balled out the counsel in question, that is to say with harsh words he reprimanded them, harsh words which covered a certain amount of sympathy; and I presume it must have been the same in this case; it happened to me frequently.
THE PRESIDENT: You have described his character, and that is what you wore asked to do. Let me hear the next question.
Q If Cuhorst instead of that had requested a proceeding before a disciplinary court against that man, would that have been more severe?
AA proceeding before a disciplinary court would no doubt have been much more dangerous, simply because at that time the influence from Berlin -- was being felt quite strongly with the disciplinary courts. I know that in some cases instructions came from Berlin requesting that legal remedies were to be used against decisions made by disciplinary courts and which appeared to be too lenient as seen from Berlin.
Q May I continue.
A Yes, please.
Q Did that step by Cuhorst mean for Diesem that he was excluded from the profession as a defense counsel in criminal cases altogether; or only before the special court or the penal senate, and, if so, for how long?
THE PRESIDENT: You have already covered that, have you not?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes. I don't believe that I covered it with this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought you had.
Q Is it correct that after a very short time -- I believe I can skip the next question too. Please comment on the attitude of Cuhorst concerning the manner in which he treated defense counsel who presented their pleas before the court.
A In my affidavit I have already stated that for an attorney it wasn't easy to stress his points in a session under Cuhorst. He demanded of a defense counsel that he should be as brief as possible and restrict himself to purely objective points of view, technical points of view. Defense counsel who did not do that were exposed to a certain amount of danger of being interrupted by him.
According to your observations and experiences, did he cut you off from any further presentation; did it go that far?
A I did not experience a case of that kind.
Q What was Cuhorst's attitude concerning the presentation of facts by the defendant?
A The same thing that he expected from the defense counsel, Cuhorst also expected of the defendant. A brief presentation and purely technical, relevant statements.
Q Did Cuhorst only get excited hen defendants liked to him; or, did he got excited for other reasons - - just trifles?
A That question is very hard to answer. A thing which might be considered a trifle by one person might not be considered such by somebody else. Cuhorst got particularly excited and angry if he had the impression that he was quite obviously being lied to.
Q How did Cuhorst treat the witnesses?
A I have to repeat what I said concerning the defense counsel and the defendants; he expected them too to be brief and to the point.
Q Did Cuhorst interrupt defense counsel when they were about to present something that was really relevant?
A That term of relevancy is difficult to define. I didn't have the impression that a person was interrupted who presented anything relevant in a concentrated form.
Q Were defense counsel prevented from studying files which they needed for the proceedings in a malicious way?
A I cannot think that anything malicious might have occurred, but I have to say that I myself, time and again, had to conduct a struggle in order to get the files. The files were in some cases given to us only for a very short time so that a study of these files was made very difficult if defense counsel had other work and was heavily over-burdened. As I have said, I frequently complained about that point.
Q Is it your opinion that in criminal cases if the trials lasted longer -
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object, Your Honor. I didn't hear that question.
THE PRESIDENT: We haven't heard the question yet.
Q Is it your opinion - did Cuhorst have a good knowledge of the files?
THE PRESIDENT: Did he have a good knowledge of the files?
A From the fact that he frequently stated that he himself needed the files before the trial, I had to conclude that he read them too. I found it out frequently from the fact that the files had remarks in his handwriting on the margin.
Q Well, in the trial concerning treason, the Mannheimer case and Jatzek, were you defense counsel - did you defend in the Mannheimer case?
A Yes.
Q Describe, please, your impressions whom did you defend?
A I defended the defendant jetzek, J-a-t-z-e-k, as appointed defense counsel. Jatzek was sentenced to death in that trial. On the day after the sentence was pronounced, I went to see him in the prison and told him that I was going to submit a clemency plea for him. Jatzek told no that I should refrain from doing so. When I risked him why he wanted me not to do that after he had been sentenced to death, he told me that he had covered up for five others.
Q By way of explanation to the Tribunal, these statements refer to the Case No. 20, out of the list of cases of Cuhorst.
Witness, you have submitted an affidavit for the prosecution. Do you intend to add anything, also concerning the interrogation?
A No.
Q Have you ever heard that Cuhorst during his work with the Special Court or the Penal Senate attended executions?
A I never heard anything about that.
Q No observations of your own, if I understand you correctly.
A Observations of my own I have not made either, particularly because during the last years before the collapse executions were carried out with neither the court nor the defense counsel in attendance.
DR. BRIEGER: May it please the Tribunal, I have come to the end of my examination. Thank you, witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other direct examination? There appears to be none. You may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q First, witness - Dr. Schoeck - that is the witness' name?
A Schoeck, S-c-h-o-e-c-k.
Q Please, Dr. Schoeck, I would appreciate it if you would turn around so you can look at me. I can't interrogate with your back toward me. Thank you very much. You testified that in your opinion Cuhorst never reached a wrong conclusion on the law. You remember the Louise Togni case?
A I remember that case. I had a ---
Q That is all I wanted to know. I just wanted to know if you remembered it; then I will ask you some more. Were you first employed to represent her?
A No, I was not - well, I was not appointed defense counsel - not by the court.
A I am not talking about the court. Were you employed to represent her; I don't care by whom.
A I was ordered by the Italian Consulate in Stuttgart to defend Italian citizens who were residents of Stuttgart -- unless they wanted a different defense counsel.
Q Yes. Now, then, did you write to a lawyer by the name of E. Muff and ask him to take over the defense?
A Yes, I did.
Q Now, let me - you had a file on this case, didn't you? Let me hand you your file on it. Now, you will find a copy of a letter by Attorney E. Muff, dated 25 September, 1944; that is your file case, is it not?
A Yes.
Q Do you see the letter from the Attorney E. Huff?
A Yes.
Q I wish you would look at the second paragraph, which in the translation I have begins - the letter of Lawyer Dr. Schoeck to me with request to take over the defense of Togni - do you find that before the Special Court in the session of the 21st of this month, was received here in time by the 18th of this month. Do you find that sentence?
THE PRESIDENT: What month is that?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The letter is dated. 25th of September, 1944, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Isn't that after Cuhorst left?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: No, Your Honor. He didn't leave - he testified about this case that he tried it - he left in November, 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: It has been stated that he was at the disposal of the armed forces in September.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: But he didn't leave, Your Honor. I think the defendant testified that he tried this case.
Q Will you continue to read then down to where it says -- where I stopped, if you please. Read it slowly and then we will get the translation; I haven't any other translation.
A I read, the second paragraph of that letter, the letter by Attorney Schoeck to me, with the request to take over the defense of Togni before the Special Court in the session of 21st of this month was received here in time by me on the 18th of this month. Because I was prevented by a session out of town of the local civilian chamber I was forced to hand the brief as well as my case file to the very reliable Attorney Dy. Krauss, whose special attention I directed to the latest publication of a Reich Supreme Court decision concerning paragraph 1 of the public enemy decree, which is favorable to the defendant - to the case of the defendant. Attorney Krauss in the trial of 21 September emphatically pointed out this decision of the Reich Supreme Court which according to our opinion should have been applied beyond any doubt as to the facts established in the trial before the Special Court. The Special Court has refused, however, to adopt this legal viewpoint of the Supreme Court as not corresponding to the sentiment of the people. That is, in fact, how Togni was sentenced to death.
Q Thank you. Now then, did you write a letter on the 6th of October, 1944, I believe to the Italian Consulate. Do you find it there. The 6th of October, 1944; I think you will find you discussed the same question of law and the ruling of Cuhorst. It is a copy of your letter, Dr. Schoeck.
A Of the 27th of September 1944 -
Q No, 6th October, 1944. It is right in your file; it was addressed to the Italian Consulate; it should be at the top - right behind the letter you read; right underneath the letter you read. There it is.
AAfter the letter I have read, there is in the file the clemency plea to the Special Court; that is of the 6th October, 1944.
Q That is the one, on Page 2. Didn't you discuss this question of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court?
A That is right, on Page 2.
Q Will you read it?
A On the bottom of Page 2.
Q Thank you - slowly.
AAs a result of the facts established by the main trial, the sentence should not be without possibility of doubt, from the legal point of view, at any rate not comparable with the decision of the Reich Supreme Court of 23 May, 1944 which was published in "Deutsches Recht" of 1944 on Page 166. The Supreme Reich Court quite justly emphasized that the objective prerequisites for the applicability of Paragraph 1, Article 1 of the Public Enemy Decree, was the fact that the belongings were left without protection, but that that fact must have come to the attention of the offender; that is not the case here.
Q Now, can you tell from that letter also - I don't want to ask you to read it - did you call upon the court to discuss or deposit your clemency plea. Do you remember what judge wrote the opinion.
A I don't know what decision the court made thereupon. It may be that it can be found in the files which I no longer have, and the contents of which I don't remember any more in detail.
Q All right. May I just ask you, Dr. Schoeck, one thing more, and it should be close to the top of your file. There is a letter dated 15th of December, 1944, from an under secretary of state in the German foreign office, named Steengracht, addressed to the Italian Consulate, which describes how it was necessary for him to intervene in order to obtain a pardon for Togni. Do you find that letter in your files as Attorney for Togni?
I believe it was on a heavy sheet.
A Yes. It is a copy of the letter of the 15th of December 1944 addressed by the Under-Secretary of the Foreign Office to the Italian Ambassador in Berlin.
Q Would you read it slowly, please?
A "My dear Ambassador: In reply to your letter of the eighth of this month, No. 11482, concerning the sentence against the Italian female laborer, Louisa Togni, I may inform you that the foreign office emphatically intervened with the competent authority for the commutation of the death sentence to an appropriate prison term. I have all hope that this request by the foreign office will be granted and I may, as soon as I have final information about the outcome, be permitted to inform you thereof. I ask you, my dear Ambassador, to accept the expression of my sincerest esteem. Yours, Steengracht."
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I have no further questions.
DR. BRIEGER: Just a few questions concerning the case Togni, which is case No. 43 of the list of Cuhorst cases.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q Witness, do you happen to know in detail in what manner Cuhorst participated in clemency matters or what his personal attitude was?
AAs far as this one case is concerned. I don't know anything about it.
Q Do you happen to know who the gentlemen were at the Reich Ministry of Justice who had to do with it?
A No.
DR. BRIEGER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused. Dr. Brieger, did we understand you to saw that it would meet with your personal convenience if the two witnesses of the prosecution were examined this afternoon?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, it will, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you like to have that done now?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, surely, Your Honor.
HANS WILLI LODUCHOWSKI, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE HARDING:
Q Will you repeat this oath after me:
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.)
JUDGE HARDING: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q Will you state your name, please?
A Loduchowski, Dr. - first name Hans; middle name, Willi.
Q Dr. Loduchowski, you came to render service at the Second Civil Senate of the Court of Appeals at Stuttgart in what year?
A In the year 1943. January, 1943.
Q Do you know the defendant in this case, former Special Court President Cuhorst?
A Yes. I don't know him personally, that is, he doesn't happen to know me personally.
Q Will you tell the Court where you see him sitting in this dock?
A Yes, the third from the right.
Q Now, while you were at Stuttgart were you in a position at any time to overhear any conversations between this defendant Cuhorst and members of the legal fraternity and profession at Stuttgart?
AAs referendar I only worked for civil courts but since, as a special duty scout -- the word "scout" has a bad taste and does not quite apply here - I acted for various organizations and that as far back as in the year 1933. For that reason, because shortly after I arrived in Stuttgart I heard about Cuhorst and had been warned against him, I became very interested in the man and his work. That also for another reason, because I did some research in the field of criminal law - I made some research especially as far as serious crimes were concerned in which I was interested - I made studies about the death sentence.
I have published the results of these studies in book form and prepared myself to make a thesis in that field. So, especially in the field of criminal law I can say I was well-informed. I was interested in it and I was also interested to find out what Cuhorst, as a penal judge, was doing and whether what I was told and what I was told particularly by way of a warning against Cuhorst was true. Therefore, because as referendar I still had plenty of time in spite of the fact that it was shortly before my examination, I frequently went to attend sessions where Cuhorst was presiding judge.
Q Now, just a minute. Did you see him preside in cases over foreigners?
A Of course, considering the large number of cases I can no longer give the names, apart from a case which was not the case against a foreigner, against an alleged murderer, Kappler. However, I do remember cases where foreigners presumably from eastern Europe, that is to say, Poles, Czechs, Russians, were indicted, as far as I remember, for looting. I do not know with absolute certainty whether Dr. Cuhorst presided in a case against a man from Luxembourg who, for alleged desertion, was to be sentenced.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Will you restrain yourself and just answer the questions that counsel asks you?
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q Just listen carefully.
A Yes.
Q From these cases that you saw, will you describe to the Court the conduct of trials against these foreigners very briefly, if you please, with reference to whether or not they were abused, whether they had the opportunity to understand the language, whether they were furnished with defense counsel? Answer these particular three questions.