AAs far as I remember, it wasn't.
Q Did the prosecution consider both defendants as meriting the death sentence?
A The prosecution from the very beginning considered that the death sentence should be asked for both defendants, and accordingly, it informed the Reich Ministry of Justice before the indictment was filed. The Reich Ministry cf Justice occurred with the view of the prosecution and approved it.
Q I am now passing on to the next case of violent criminals, the case Sippl, S-I-P-P-L, Prosecution exhibit 485. Can you just tell us quite briefly what that case was about?
A Sippl was a man with previous convictions, and he was arrested because he had committed further offenses. He tried to escape by assaulting one of the prison wardens in a particularly base way with a piece of wood that had a sharp edge. That offense was, without any doubt, an offense under Article I of the Law Against Violent Criminals, and for that reason alone the death sentence had to be passed.
Q What view did the Prosecution take of that offense?
A From the very beginning the prosecution thought that the death sentence should be asked for.
Q Did you find that case on that list from the Ministry, the list on clemency cases?
A Yes. It was entered there as so-called clear case.
Q I am referring to Exhibit 252, on page 23. I am now coming to a few special cases; the first case I wish to discuss is the Fischer case, Prosecution Exhibit 479. What was that about?
A Fischer, I think it must have been in the autumn of 1941 so as to avoid being called up, at his place of work stuck his right hand into a machine and had his index finger and his middle finger mutilated. From the legal point of view one could only consider a crime of self-mutilation under Article V, Section I, No. 3, cf the Extraordinary War Time Law.
Q And what sentence was mentioned in that provision?
A The first sentence mentioned was death sentence, and in cases of lesser gravity, it was possible to pass a penitentiary or prison sentence.
Q And why did you not assume that this was a case of lesser seriousness?
A Circumstances which might have characterized the case as being of lesser gravity were not established at the trial. Fischer admitted that merely because he did not want to become a soldier he had mutilated himself. Any motive which might have rendered that act as comprehensible he couldn't mention at all. For instance, he never said that any outsider had tried to influence him; or, that he had committed this act because he was worried about his family; nor, did he say that he was in a state of depression or anything of that kind. It was quite obvious that evasion of service with the armed forces was his motive. One can say that the Fischer case is one of the examples for that type of crime, the crime of self-mutilation for which the death sentence was mandatory.
Q Can you find that case in the clemency list from the Ministry of Justice?
A Yes, I found it there; again, it is entered as a clear case.
Q Exhibit 252, page 86. I am now coming to the Mueller case, M-u-e-l-l-e-r-, Therese. That case has been discussed here frequently, Exhibit 247, examination of Ferber, transcript page 1409, and examination of Doebig, transcript page 1761. In this case the nullity plea was made, and the case was retransferred. What offense was the Mueller woman charged with?
A Mueller had been charged that by her letters to her son at the front she had advised or tried to persuade her son to become a deserter.
Q What was the sentence which passed on the Lueller woman at the first trial?
A She was convicted for having tried to persuade her son to become a deserter and she was sentenced to five years in a penitentiary In passing that sentence the court assumed that the Mueller woman had acted thusly because she was worried about the safety of her son's life and that meant that the case was characterized as a case of lesser gravity.
Q Who was the presiding judge at the first trial?
A Ferber was.
Q Was the judgment contested?
A Yes, a nullity plea was made.
Q And what de decision of the Reich Supreme Court?
A The Reich Supreme Court quashed the sentence passed by the special court in Nuernberg, and the court only referred to the extent of the penalty, the reason being given that according to the facts which had been established by the trial at the special court, the worries which the mother had concerning the safety of her son's life had not been the only motive led her to persuade her son to desert.
Q And what was the question raised at the second trial -- when you were presiding judge, if I remember correctly.
AAt the second trial I was presiding judge, and at the second trial we only had to discuss the extent of the penalty, that is to say we were only dealing with the question was this an ordinary case of lesser gravity.
Q Were any facts established at the second trial which spoke in favor of the case being considered a case of lesser gravity?
A From the original files I could see that I tried that case for about three hours, and that means that I examined the case with great thoroughness. I was unable to find any reasons which in view of the decision of the Reich Supreme Court, the view of which was binding for us, that could justify the assumption of a case of lesser gravity.
Q The witness Doebig thinks that one could have found such a reason as the defendant Mueller had caused her son to volunteer for service with the armed forces to regain his status as a man capable and worthy cf bearing arms.
Please comment on that matter.
AAs a matter of fact, neither Ferber nor myself found that the Mueller woman had caused her son to try and again his status as a man worthy of bearing arms. Her son had done that on his own initiative, and Frau Mueller did nothing more than to abstain from letting her son make such efforts.
Q Ferber further says that at the second trial you had mentioned and had in fact stressed the fact that the Mueller woman had communist views and relegated to the background the relationships between mother and son; is that true?
A No. The communist views of the Mueller woman were discussed at great length at the first trial when Ferber was the presiding judge; and in the judgment of the first trial that was characterized with more severity than it was in the judgment of the second trial. You can see that without any doubt if you compare the two judgments.
Q What was the outcome of the second trial?
A Within the limits that were laid down by the decision of the Reich Supreme Court, neither legal nor factual points cf view turned up which might have justified an assumption that had been a case of lesser gravity. As a result, according to the provisions of Article V of the Extraordinary War Time Criminal Law, the death sentence was mandatory.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q. We shall now discuss the case of Von Praun, as mentioned in Exhibit 231 of the Prosecution, and Ferber has made statements about this in the record on page 1410. Have you had any files about this case?
A. No.
Q. It is alleged that you treated an offense against the Malicious Acts Law, under the Law of Undermining the Fighting Morale.
A. What I remember is that Von Praun was indicted before the Special Court for an offense under paragraph II of the Malicious Acts Law because in an air raid or during an alert he made derogatory remarks about the State, in an air raid shelter. The remarks themselves I do not remember any more. All I know is that objectively speaking they amounted to an undermining of the fighting morale. The Reich Ministry of Justice, it is true, had decided that the man must be prosecuted under paragraph 2 of the Malicious Acts Law and had told the Prosecutor in the main trial to examine particularly whether or not the remarks made by Von Praun amounted to a crime under the law of undermining the fighting morale and to proceed accordingly.
Q. What was the result of the trial?
A. During the case in chief the suspicion could not be removed that the defendant Praun had by his remarks intended to undermine the fighting morale. As I recall the case the Prosecution moved for that reason to interrupt the case in chief so that he, the Prosecution, could have an opportunity with the People's Court to go into the question of undermining the fighting morale.
Q. And what was the decision reached by the Court?
A. The decision was that the Courts, as I remember the case today, gave way to the motion of interrupting the trial. That means it did not turn over the case to the People's Court but the Special Court continued to prosecute the case and all that happened was that the People's Court was given the possibility to examine the case, as to whether or not the case amounted to an undermining of the fighting morale.
Q. What the witness has said now is borne out by the testimony of the witness Lautz in the record on page 5754, and Rothaug on page 6953.
The witness, attorney Meyer, has testified that you made up your mind from the beginning to turn the case to the People's Court, although under the orders of the Ministry you were in a position to deal with the case under tho malicious acts law, particularly as the defendant could be accused by having acted under the impression of a heavy air raid, what about that?
A. What the attorney Meyer says is incorrect. In this, as in any other case, I have formed my opinion on the basis of the case in chief, and, of course, I went into the question of whether or not the question of undermining the fighting morale was important to me, because should that apply it would not only have been illegal but quite pointless to sentence a man under the Malicious Acts Law because otherwise a nullity pleas was a foregone conclusion and sentence would have been suspended. Speaking generally, I went a long way to find out what the offense was about and particularly I feel in that case I had based myself on the act to undermine the fighting morale. On one occasion I myself ruled in a case similar to that of Von Praun. A woman had been indicted who under the impact of an air raid made extremely derogatory remarks which quite definitely amounted to undermining the fighting morale. As these special conditions could be taken into consideration she was sentenced to one year in prison under Malicious Acts Law.
Q. Was that the case of Degen whom you were talking about?
A. Yes, that is the case of Degen.
Q. Attorney Meyer also testified that the decision in the case of Von Praun had been influenced by the fact that he was an official of the Protestant Church?
A. The fact that Praun was an official in the Protestant Church did not play any part in finding the sentence.
Q. On the basis of this decision it is alleged that Von Praun committed suicide. What can you tell us about that?
A. Why Von Praun committed suicide I cannot toll you nor do I think that the witnesses are in a position to say anything about it. Anyway, I do not believe that the decision reached by the Special Court of Nurnberg should raise the point that the man committed suicide Any reason for despair did not exist as far as Von Praun was concerned, as tho case had not yet been turned over to the People's Court. Further more, he and his defense counsel under the rules of procedure knew the value of the order which had reached the Prosecution, namely, that possibly the case could be interrupted and that the question of undermining the fighting morale could be investigated, and the recital of the case at the Special Court in Nurnberg could not have been a surprise either to Von Praun or his defense counsel. I might point out that Herr Von Praun's suicide occurred at the earliest three weeks after the case in chief had been heard in Nurnberg, and that could never have been the reason why he committed suicide.
Q. Now, finally, we have the cases of Scheck. This is contained in Exhibit of the Prosecution No. 228. What can you tell us about that case?
A. Scheck had committed an offense against the war economy regulations. He used a printing works to exploit and to print for his own use a large number of ration cards, in order to have those rations cards then handed over to a number of firms who would then give him merchandise which he then would sell at inflated prices.
We need not go into all detail. Scheck's character, was that of a typical war profiteer. The case of Scheck was perhaps the most grave offense against the war economy regulation with which the Special Court in Nurnberg ever has dealt with in war time.
Q. Very well. Did the Prosecution intend to have the death sentence applied for?
A. From the outset this was the intention of the Prosecution and as I saw from the files it describes the case as a particularly grave case under the war economy regulations.
Q. Witness, Lipps takes exception to the fact that you had never allowed any doubt to be voided that Scheck would be sentenced to death by you. That can you offer about that?
A. In the case of Scheck nobody could have any doubt we were dealing with a particularly grave case, and that therefore the death sentence must be pronounced. That was not a surprise to me, to the associates or to the Prosecution, nor could it have been to the defense counsel and defendant himself, who could see from the indictment what sentence he could expect.
Q. Did you include the case in the ministerial list of cases?
A. Yes, it was what we call a clear case.
Q. This is Exhibit 252 on page 113. witness, apart from those death sentences which the Prosecution submitted mainly in affidavits, there are roughly another twenty deaths sentences included in the list of death sentences submitted by the Prosecution. These arc Exhibits of the Prosecution 238, in volume III L, and 496 in the supplementary volume III D. I don't think we need go into the details of all of these cases. I want to put only a few general questions to you. First of all were you in a position to investigate these cases on the basis of the files?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you decide these cases on the same principles which you described to the Court concerning the treatment of the cases before the Special Courts?
A. All cases were decided on the same principles.
Q. Can you tell us briefly what kind of an offense you had in these cases?
A. They were all of them dangerous habitual criminals, most of them burglars, confidence men, a few cases of rape and violence and a number of public enemies.
Q. Were foreigners included among those cases?
A. The case cf Isonzo Pozzo was a case if a foreigner. I could not find any other cases concerning foreigners. This Isonzo Pozzo was Italian.
Q. Yes, was he sentenced to death?
A. Isonzo Pozzo took advantage of the black out and in four cases assaulted a woman in the streets of Nurnberg in order to rape them. I one case he beat down a woman with a wooden stick and this woman was lying in her blood in the street unconscious. He raped her. In the case of the second woman he did not quite succeed.
Q. Thank you very much. That is enough. Did you, witness, examine this material which the Prosecution has submitted and did you arrive at the figure of sixty death sentences which you mentioned yesterday to the Court?
A. This figure of sixty which I gave yesterday refers to the death sentences submitted by the Prosecution in this trial. I can of course not say that the Special Court under my presidency arrived at only sixty death sentences during the war. I do not know the actual figure.
As you have touched upon that question I should like to remark that the figures which I have mentioned in other connections during my examination I do not claim to be entirely and absolutely reliable. Those are estimates which I arrived at through the best of my knowledge and memory and on the basis of the somewhat inadequate documents. This applies to the figures concerning a number of cases I heard, as well as the acquittals and so forth.
Q.-I shall now come to the next complex of questions, courts martial Towards the end of the war you worked as the President of a civilian court martial. What was the legal basis of these courts? Who appointed them and who appointed the Judges?
A.- On the basis of a decree of the 15th of September 1942 in certain Reich Defense Districts the Reich Defense Commissioners could form courts martial. The same decree also provided for the appointment of judges and prosecution, namely that the Reich Defense Commissioner could do these things.
Q.- The decree to which the witness has now referred is contained in Document Book II, of the Prosecution, page 11. Were the Reich Defense Commissioners officials of the NSDAP?
A.- No.
Q.- Were they officials of the state?
A.- Yes, they were. They were officials of the ministerial counsel for the defense of the Reich. They were under the supervision of the Reich Ministry of the Interior. It was their Q.- Thank you, that is enough.
A.- It was their task to administer all premises of the civilian administration in their district and they were subject to the orders of the plenipotentiaries of the Reich.
Q.- Why was the decree forming the courts martial issued?
A.- The reasons why these courts martial were constituted has been explained by the defendant Klemm in this trial. When the enemy threatened the Reich normal jurisprudence was no longer possible because the administration of justice was under the Reich Minister of Justice, The People's Court and tho Reich Supreme Court in a strongly centralized manner and these top agencies wore cut off from the area by the enemy threat with the result that the competency of the People's Court concerning other matters could no longer hear the cases.
Furthermore, all the facilities of nullity pleas and so forth could no longer be gone into. These effects of tho threat to the Reich by the enemy lead in some cases to a paralyzing of the administration of law and that made it necessary to introduce a new type of administration, which in Germany was effected. The Courts martial were to prevent a negative development.
Q.- What type of offenses were to be dealt with by these civilian courts martial and what procedure was to be observed.
A.- The Courts martial were to sentence such cases as were connected with the defense of tho Reich and the maintenance of law and order. According to the decrees covering courts martial the offense to endanger the resolution to fight or the resolution to defend. Proceedings were to follow the provisions laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure which had been very strongly simplified. Nevertheless, courts martial had observed in their proceedings the most important principles of protecting the interest of the defendant. The defendant's right to be heard, oral trial, admission of defense counsel, thorough presentation of evidence, a freedom of the judge to go into the evidence, a vote among tho judges and so forth.
Q.- Who decided about tho confirmation and execution of a sentence arrived at by the civilian courts martial?
A.- Every sentence of the Court needed the confirmation of the Reich Commissioner of Defense. He decided whether a. sentence should be executed or clemency applied. The Court martial itself was not competent in these cases.
Q.- Did the Reich Defense Commissioner take the same position as that formerly taken by the Reich minister of Justice?
A.- No, the competence of the Reich Commissioner of Defense went beyond that of the Reich Minister of Justice Whereas the Reich Ministry of Justice could, when it did not approve of a sentence, deal with it only through a nullity plea in order to have the trial re-opened before the Supreme Court, the Reich Defense Commissioner could, if he thought a sentence was unjust, himself suspend sentence and order that a new trial be opened. He could also confirm the sentence and order that the man should be pardoned, and all of this, however, without referring to the higher authorities. A sentence arrived at by a civilian court martial depended, in other words, entirely on the Reich Commissioner of Defense. Only and if he had confirmed the sentence, it was final and the sentence could be carried out on that basis. The same conditions applied here as under Wehrmacht jurisdiction.
Q.- The witness Eichinger on the occasion of interrogation by German authorities, which have been submitted here. Prosecution Exhibit 150, said that you had been an adviser of a Gauleiter who was also a Reich Commissioner of Defense when the civilian courts martial were constituted. Will you tell us something about that?
A.- When civilian courts martial were decided on for the area of the Reich Commissioner of Defense in Nurnberg I was in the Wehrmacht and, therefore, had no influence on this. Particularly I did not as Eichinger says recommended the Reich Defense Commissioner Holz in this Commission, nor did I have any influence as to who should be appointed to the position in these Courts Martial for the reason that all the conditions under which the courts martial. were to be appointed were quite in order.
Q.- Will you please tell us how you came to be on the civilian courts martial?
A.- On the 2nd day of April 1945, my superior officer showed me an order of General Commando 13, which was the district responsible for me as a soldier, that for the duration of four weeks I was to be transferred to the civilian courts martial in Nurnberg, that I should report to the Reich Defense Commissioner in Nurnberg forthwith.
I was not dismissed from the Wehrmacht; I remained a member of tho Wehrmacht. This was a military order which I could neither refuse nor turn down unless I deserted.
On 3 April 1945 in accordance with orders, I reported to tho Reich Defense Commissioner Holz in the early morning, and there, after a brief speech, just as all tho other members of tho courts martial wore, I was obligated.
Q Who were the other members of that civilian courts martial?
A The prosecution was Chief Public Prosecutor Schroeder, by appointment of the Reich Defense Commissioner; the associate judges were tho Gau Inspector of the NSDAP, Haberkern, and a representative of tho Wehrmacht, a Major whose name I do not remember.
Q Witness, did you have influence on the indictments served by the courts martial?
A Not in one single case did I have any influence on an indictment served by Schroeder. Quite generally, I had agreed with Schroeder that ho should deal only with grave and clear cases. Schroeder was not always in a position to do that, because he was committed by tho orders of tho Reich Commissioner of Defense. On the other hand, the Reich Defense Commissioner never exercised direct influence upon the decisions of tho courts martial; he did not interfere with the work of tho judges. At any rate, he never discussed a single case with me, neiter before nor after the case in chief. As far as I am concerned, he respected tho independence of a judge.
I should like to add that as far as Reich Commissioner Holz was concerned, I saw him for the last time on 3 April 1945 when I was obligated in my now office.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q May I ask you a question please? You were tho presiding judge, were you not?
A Yes.
Q Just prior to your appointment and qualifying, were you still holding the office of a judge of a criminal court?
A No, I was a soldier in the Wehrmacht.
Q I noticed that tho statute provides that the court martial consists of a judge of a criminal court, a member of tho Political Leadership Corps or a member of tho NSDAP, and an officer of the Wehrmacht. You were not then a judge of a criminal court when you were appointed?
A Well, this decree, Your Honor, only wants to say that tho presiding judge can only be a man who has the qualifications to exercise tho functions of a judge.
Q That is your interpretation of the statute. Now the civilian court martial tried civilians, did it not?
AA civilian court martial, yes.
Q And when the Reich Commissar was not available, tho public prosecutor was authorized to act in his place in approving sentences, wasn't he?
AAccording to tho decree concerning civilian courts martial, tho prosecution was authorized to do so if the Reich Commissioner was not available.
Q Did you ever pronounce any sentences or any judgments other than a judgment of death or a judgment of acquittal?
A Only three types of decisions were possible with a court martial: The sentence could be either death, acquittal, or turning the case ever to a normal court.
Q And did you follow that provision?
A I always followed that provision. I shall give more details about this when I describe the working of the courts martial, but if I felt that the death sentence was not warranted in a case, but merely a term in prison, I would turn the case over to a normal court.
Q And did you make such orders, turning over cases to normal courts?
A Yes, in three cases.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you; that is all.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q Witness, will you please toll us the principles according to which you observed the decree covering civilian courts martial, and particularly the provision that the sentence must be tho death sentence when any punishment was necessary? What was your interpretation?
A From the outset there was a fairly outspoken difference of opinion between myself, on the one hand, and Prosecutor Schroeder on the other, who agreed with the opinions of the Reich Defense Commissioner, and also particularly the man in charge of tho Gestapo. Tho question concerned hero was whether the decree covering civilian courts martial would amount to substantive martial law. I did not think so, but tho others arrived at that opinion on the basis of their interpretation of subsections 3, and 4 of tho decree covering civilian courts martial. From these legal provisions they concluded that all offenses endangering the German fighting vigor, or fighting spirit, should be followed by a death sentence; that is to say, if an offense endangered these things and tho guilt of the perpetrator was proved, the death sentence must be arrived at, and that acquittals could only be possible if and when sufficient evidence could not be produced, and tho turning of tho case over to a normal court could only be done if and when tho Question of guilt was an open one because, under the conditions applicable to a civilian court martial, exhaustive evidence was not feasible.
The practical effect of this interpretation of the decree of civilian courts martial would have been, for instance, that less grave cases of undermining of military morale, even possibly offenses under tho Malicious Acts Law, would have had to be punished by death.
I did not conform with that interpretation of the decree, I opposed it from the very beginning, and I advocated the view that this decree was purely a decree covering procedure.
Q If I understand you correctly, witness, you inflicted the death sentence only if and when tho Penal Code -- outside of the decree covering civilian courts martial, as far as tho act at issue was concerned -- would have commanded tho death sentence.
A Yes. The courts martial applied the same law as was applied up until that time by the normal courts. No intensification of tho then existing laws was arrived at by the court martial, and the principles of jurisprudence as developed wore always observed without any change by me at the court martial.
Q What about your associates? What did they think about the reasons which you have just given?
A I had difficulties at first, but later on I won the day with my associations as far as my principles were concerned. I achieved tho fact that the courts martial in Nurnberg did not intensify jurisdiction, as had been the rule in Nurnberg up until that time.
Q How many cases did these courts martial try?
AAs I remember it, the civilian courts martial had ten sessions and dealt with twelve defendants. Among the twelve defendants, ten had been indicted for political offenses, most of then undermining of military morale, but also aiding and comforting the enemy; one defendant had been indicted for looting, and another one for a particularly grave offense under tho war economy regulations. Among the ten defendants who had been indicted for political offenses, three defendants were acquitted. In three other instances, the case was turned over to a normal court, and in four cases they were sentenced.
Q You were speaking about twelve cases, weren't you?
A The two defendants who had been indicted for looting or for offenses under the war economy regulations were also sentenced.
Q What was the end of the courts martial?
AAs the enemy armies approached Nurnberg, we were to transfer the courts martial to a place which was not in the immediate fighting zone.
That order came from the Reich minister of Defense. The date as of which this order would have come into effect was at lunch-time on 16 April 1945. At that time we had what we called an armed alert, which meant that the allied forces were approaching Nurnberg. In view of the military situation, Schroeder and I agreed to discontinue tho work of the courts martial. Tho battle of Numbers lasted from 16 April until 20 April, and the courts martial did not exist any longer.
Q I am coming back to your answer once again that you had dealt with twelve defendants. Is it true that 25 members of the Volkssturm, the Home Guard, were to be tried?
A Yes. Twenty*five members of the Home Guard had been arrested by the Gestapo because, if I remember the event correctly, they did not follow an order when they were told to go out and fight. At that time I took the view that I was not competent for this case because, as members of the Volkssturm, the men concerned were under the jurisdiction of the Wehrmacht and not the general administration of Justice. Schroeder, as the representative of the prosecution, was subjected to strong pressure to have those 25 men tried by the courts martial, but I told Schroeder categorically that any such thing would be illegal and that therefore I would refuse to have the indictment served. I cannot tell you what the end of all this would have beep but as the armored alert occurred on 10 April, nothing further was heard of the matter.
Q I shall now discuss the various cases tried-
THE PRESIDENT:
Q Witness, I am not sure that I understood your testimony on one point, and I would like to clear it up. I did understand that your work was under the Reich Commissar, but did you say that the Reich Minister of Justice could institute a nullity plea as to judgments of the civilian court martial? I thought you said that, and I am not sure that I am right.
A No, I did not say so Your Honor.
Q Well, was there any court in the Ministry of Justice to review any of your judgments by any means?
A I think that was quite impossible. Under the decree covering civilian courts martial, I think that would have been out of tho question, However, this is purely my interpretation, if Your Honor please.
Q Were reports made to the Ministry of Justice?
A You mean about the activities of the courts martial? No, we no longer had any contact with the Reich Ministry of Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: I think I misunderstood your testimony. Thank you.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q What was the first case tried by the civilian court martial?
A The first case was that of Montgelas.
Q What did you know about that case when you came to the court martial?
A I did not know anything about the case. I had been a soldier since T February 1945, and the remarks which it was alleged that Montgelas had made were made at about the end of January 1945. Then, after the investigations made by the Gestapo the thing was turned over to the Public Prosecutor's Office in Nurnberg by the middle or end of February, still at at a time when I was with the Wehrmacht. I had ho personal contacts or correspondence with the Prosecutor or the Gestapo or the Gauleitung. Therefore, I knew nothing about this case before I started with my work with the civilian courts martial.
Q The witness Mueller, in Exhibit 149, says in this connection that the whole thing had been prearranged and that you were guilty as a participant in this conspiracy on the part of the Gauleitung to exterminate a political opponent. What can you tell us about that?
A I have explained just now that as far as the case of Montgelas was concerned, and as long as the case was still with the Gestapo, I had nothing to do with it. These reproaches are quite unjustified.
Q When the members of the civilian court martial were obligated, was the case of Montgelas discussed?