Transcript for NMT 3: Justice Case

THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 564, being PS 3757 is received.

MR. LA FOLLETTE: 3757, yes sir.

MR. LA FOLLETTE: I am advised there is one more Rothenberger document which is identified but has not been processed so that we can offer it. The Prosecution, if defendants are not prepared to go ahead, will be prepared during the morning, whenever there is a lull, with the Court's permision, to offer further documents in rebuttal but this cleans up all that had been identified and not formally offered with one exception.

THE PRESIDENT: How about Exhibit 595 and 596?

DR. SCHILF: For the defendant Klemm: I intend to call the witness Franke now. Franke is a witness who has deposed an affidavit for the Prosecution and all I need to do now is cross examine him.

THE PRESIDENT: Is that agreeable with the Prosecution?

MR. LA FOLLETTE: I am sorry, I did not hear, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel wants to cross examine the witness Franke.

MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you, Mr. La Follette, Exhibits 595 and 596 appear to be identified but not offered. Were you intending to offer them or not. I may have neglected to mark them?

MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honor, please, the Prosecution record indicates they were formally offered, if we are in error and the Court will permit it, we will check it immediately and after the cross examination of this witness, we will advise you.

THE PRESIDENT: The record will show that this witness has already been sworn as a witness on Friday, you may cross examine.

CROSS EXAMINATION DR. HORST GUENTHER FRANKE.BY DR. SCHILF:

Q. Witness, will you please once again tell the Court your name?

A. Dr. Horst Guenther Franke.

Q. Dr. Franke you have deposed an affidavit which I have in front of me, dated the 6th of May, 1947, document NG 1474?

A. Yes.

Q. In connection with this affidavit I would like to ask you a few questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schilf, will you kindly tell us the exhibit number of that affidavit.

MR. LA FOLLETTE: Exhibit 515, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

BY DR. SCHILF:

Q.NG 1474, document book 3-4 Supplement. Dr. Franke, in this affidavit you begin by describing your career at the Reich Ministry of Justice, then you pass on to the fact that in the autumn of 1943, you had settled down to your work at the Reich Ministry of Justice. According to your statements in the affidavit in August and September 1943 you became the successor to the defendant Joel and were placed in charge of the section on crimes against the war economy in Department IV. I assume witness, you have a copy of your affidavit in front of you, have you found that passage I mentioned just now?

A. Yes.

Q. You then say and I quote: "In the course of 1944, at the Ministry, in practice it was found that the delimitation of malicious acts crimes and the undermining of military morale was not carried out properly." In other words, you say that happened in the course of 1944. According to my investigation that is an error on your part, this section which was to deal with the delimitation of those two types of offenses was established before 1944. Would you comment on that, please?

A. It is possible that that section was established sooner. When I was interrogated I was asked to fix that date as closely as possible. At that time I pointed out that my memory makes it impossible for me to fix the date more accurately than I did in this affidavit. If you have any evidence to show that section was established at an earlier date, I must concede that is possible.

Q. Without showing you the evidence which I have and which the Tribunal has, the report lists, for the information of the Tribunal, that exhibit number is 252, document book III A, and those lists have been mentioned here a great many times. Witness, those report lists mentioned your section and they mentioned it as early as January 1944. Would you now be able to decide that at that time the section had been established?

A. Yes, that means in January 1944 that section was established, and the dates must be correct then to the effect that the event which is described on page I must have occurred at the end of 1943.

Q. I am now passing on to my second point. In your affidavit you describe the fact that in practice there were two channels through which the cases reached your section. Would you please open the book?

A. I have found the passage.

Q. You say here that in malicious act cases there was a so-called general duty to report on the part of the Senior Public Prosecutor with the Special Courts, and you then go on to describe how the decision, whether it was a case of undermining military morale or a case against malicious acts, how that decision was made, and you say that a report was made to Minister Thierack in the presence of under-secretary Klemm and Ministeral Director Vollmer, and I quote: "Whenever the Minister was not present, the report was made to under--secretary Klemm", is that merely meant as an explanation of the organization or do you actually remember that in the absence of the minister you reported to Klemm only, who was then Under-secretary?

A. The passage which you quoted constitutes a description of the organization of the ministry. It happened occasionally that the Minister was absent and in that case reports concerning the work of Section III were made to Under--Secretary Klemm, but as the Minister wanted to listen to reports from Section IV himself, it only happened very rarely, reports were made to his deputy. As concerns actual examples of that type I cannot remember them because such a long time has passed since those days.

Q. Do you mean to say you can't remember at all that you ever made reports to Klemm?

A. No, that is not what I meant to say. I do remember every now and then making reports to Under--Secretary Klemm when he deputized for the Minister.

Q Can you say roughly how many times you reported to Klemm?

A. No, I cannot give any figures.

Q. Would you say you reported to him more than four or five times in the year 1944?

A. It only happened very rarely.

Q. You further say that the decision if an offense against undermining of military morals or against the malicious acts law occurred, was not made by the minister or in some cases by the under-secretary, but that these were referred to the Oberreichsanwalt with the People's Court, and you say they were passed on to him for examination. Would you please tell the tribunal what you meant to say by that?

A. What I meant to say was that the final decision as to whether in the view of the Prosecution an offense had been committed against the undermining law or malicious acts law, was made by the Reich Prosecution. We passed on these cases to them, above all by way of making a suggestion to the Reich Prosecution, and naturally we stressed those points of view which in our opinion spoke either for one argument or the other, and we expected that our arguments would be taken into consideration by the Reich Prosecution.

Q. Mr. Franke, in your affidavit, you then gave an account of the second method, you say that in. your section at the ministry a case was reported straight away as an offense against the undermining of military morale and you say in such cases it had not been necessary to ask the Minister to make a decision as to whether the case was to be passed on to the Oberreichtsanwalt for his examination for him to decide whether it was a malicious act offense or an undermining offense. You say that in such cases an informative report was made.

A. Yes, an Unterrichtungs vortrag, informative report.

Q. May I point out that in my copy it says, Unterrichts vortrag, informative.

A. In my copy it says, unterrichtungs vortrag, informative. I believe the best way to render that in English is information.

Q. That is to say information was given. Wasn't in that case a decision made by the Minister?

A. In that case a decision was not required unless we had doubts about the case.

Q. If this statement about the informative report you speak I think in general about the manner in which the reports were made to the minister. You have the affidavit in front of you. May I ask you whether my assumption is correct?

A. Your assumption is correct and the paragraph following after figure II was intended to give a general account of the manner in which the reports from my section were made to the Minister. This passage constitutes a reply to the question which the Interrogator put to me.

Q. You mention the sequence in which the reports were made by the various individuals who were concerned, with the matter, and I quote: "Under secretary Klemm always took a very lively part in those discussions and according to my observation when the vote was taken, importance was attached to his opinion, also in cases of undermining military morale." And now you draw the conclusion "so that he did play a part in the decisions." Now, I ask you, did. Klemm, as under-secretary, compared, with the other persons whom you mentioned, have more importance when it came to casting a vote?

A. No, he did have neither that nor the contrary. Everybody was given an opportunity to voice his opinion. As to how much importance was attached, to anybody's suggestion that depended on what that person said, not who said it. It was quite possible that a suggestion which was made in the course of our discussions by auxiliary workers, were decisive for decisions, that is not only true in cases of under-mining but that is true in a general way.

Q In the next paragraph of your affidavit you make statements about extraordinary objections and you describe the discussions that were held on such extraordinary objections. You say that the Undersecretary had to co-sign, and now I ask you, could you state some concrete case to the Tribunal where that was actually done?

A The interrogator asked me to name such individual or concrete cases, and I told him, in accordance with the truth, that I could no longer recollect any such concrete cases. At the time of my interrogation I could not remember any individual case of an extraordinary objection and I cannot recollect any such case now.

Q Dr. Franke, would you please turn to the next page of your affidavit? There, concerning your section, you say that the case then had to be returned to you if a decision had to be made about the clemency question, and there again you mention the various persons who had to cast their vote. Now I want to ask you the same question: Whenever Klemm was present, did the Minister attach any particular importance to his opinion?

A In connection with this question, one must bear in mind that the so-called death cases had already been decided, a vote had been obtained about them in advance, and Undersecretary Klemm was never asked to give his opinion in advance on such cases. That means that when the case was discussed, he knew little about such a case and was dependent on what he heard in the course of the discussion. That was more true of him than of the other persons who attended the discussions, who had given their opinions in advance and who had closely examined the case. As for attaching particular importance to the opinion of the Under-Secretary, that did not exist.

For the rest, I should like to point out, in addition, that it not infrequently happened that Under-Secretary Klemm did not attend the discussions on death cases, which always came at the end of the day, because he had to attend to his other duties.

Q Dr. Franke, do you remember - and as this concerns your section I think you ought to remember - whether, in cases of undermining, Klemm ever made a decision in the absence of the Minister?

AAre you referring to death cases?

Q I am referring to death cases in connection with the clemency question.

A I cannot remember any concrete cases?

Q You cannot remember any concrete cases?

A I cannot exclude the possibility, and I am inclined to assume that occasionally, as a deputy for the Minister, in the absence of the Minister, Klemm must have decided such cases.

Q Mr. Franke, in that case I am surprised about a conclusion which you have drawn in your affidavit, and I should like to put it to you. I quote:

"There was no basic difference in practice between Thierack's and Klemm's methods in cases of undermining."

How do you want me to understand that, if you now say that Klemm only made decisions quite infrequently and that no particular importance was attached to his opinion?

A If you wish to understand that, you must pay attention to the word "basically". And clemency practice - well, perhaps the word "practice" isn't quite correct, perhaps it would have been better to say, "in the question of decisions on clemency cases and in connection with the principles in such matters." I explain in the following paragraph what I wish you to understand by the use of the word "principles", and those subsequent paragraphs must be read in connection with the paragraph which you have just put to me.

Q As to the principle concerning decisions in clemency matters, had that principle already been established by Thierack and his assistants at the time when Klemm joined the Ministry in '44?

A I don't think so, because the principles were developed in the course of dealing with cases.

Naturally, new problems arose such as for example, the question of excluding the public or otherwise, and opinions had to be expressed on that question; naturally, that could only be done in the course of dealing with a case. It was a principle that undermining cases differed from malicious acts cases insofar as the former had the character of mutiny.

Q Dr. Franke, I now ask you, what was the attitude of the Referents, the assistants, the department heads, concerning this principle of which you have just spoken? Did they differ in their opinions? That is, did they differ in their opinions from Klemm and Thierack?

MR. LA FOLLETTE: Just a minute.

I object, Your Honor, for the reason that the opinion of these other people can have no relevance to the probative value either to the affidavit that this affiant has made or tending to prove or disprove any fundamental issue in this case.

DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, in order to make a comparison, it is necessary to mention the opinion of the other people concerned.

THE PRESIDENT: We haven't the exact text of the affidavit before us. We will permit a very brief statement as to the attitude of the others, but frankly, we don't see what the relevancy of it is, they are not here for trial. And it must be brief, or it will have to be excluded.

The question simply was whether these other Referents, and so on, differed from Klemm and Thierack in their attitude. Can you answer it in one sentence?

THE WITNESS: Well, basically there was no difference. Our view of the duty which the situation of our Fatherland imposed on us at the time was basically the same.

BY DR. SCHILF:

Q At the end of this paragraph you say: "Within this framework, as far as possible, consideration was paid to the individual circumstances of the person concerned."

I assume that when you said that you were thinking of a more lenient judgment of the case concerned, and I am assuming that because you say "as far as possible." Is my opinion correct?

A Yes, your opinion is correct. One must bear in mind that we were constantly aware of the fact that the punishment which the law imposed for the undermining of military morale was very severe and that therefore it was necessary to search with great care for mitigating circumstances. Concerning a decision as to whether clemency was to be applied or whether the sentence was to be executed, I believe that in that decision we somewhat approximated the average of other cases.

Q Can you tell the Tribunal what the average was of the cases where mitigating circumstances were granted, in comparison with the death sentences? What was the average? I am referring to the time when you were in the section.

THE PRESIDENT: You are speaking of clemency pleas?

DR. SCHILF: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I am referring to clemency matters. I believe that that average was something like 10 percent, but I cannot give you the exact figure.

THE PRESIDENT: You mean 10 percent were not executed?

THE WITNESS: I mean approximately 10 percent; in 10 percent of the cases clemency was granted.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

BY DR. SCHILF:

Q And in cases of undermining military morale, was that average adhered to?

A Possibly it was exceeded.

Q Oh, I see, possibly it was exceeded.

Mr. Franke, I have now asked you all my objective questions, questions referring to fact and questions with which you have dealt in your affidavit.

However, at the end of your affidavit you state impressions, which obviously are personal impressions, and they refer to the relationship between Klemm and Thierack. I would like to ask you a few questions in connection with that statement of yours.

Would you please turn to the next page?

A I have already done so.

Q There you say, "As far as I know, Klemm and Thierack were close friends." On what facts do you base that knowledge?

The facts on which I base my knowledge are mentioned in the following sentence: They both lived in Lichterfelde; they went to work together and they returned from work together in the evening. We frequently noticed that they had discussed cases outside of office hours, in advance. Finally, when we put through an official telephone call to the apartment of the Minister, quite frequently it was Under-Secretary Klemm who answered the phone. I did not have sufficient personal contact with the two men to be able to state any further facts, but I should like to emphasize that that paragraph, as well as my other statements, constitute replies to questions which were put to me. I cannot state any further facts beyond those which are mentioned in my affidavit, and they represent the impressions which I had when I was with Thierack and Klemm.

Q But you say here "close friends".

THE PRESIDENT: I think the witness has very sufficiently explained his opinion and the reasons for it. There is not a black line between friendship and close friendship, and I don't think he can go any further with the matter. It is a matter of opinion.

Q. Mr. Franke, on the same page you say that in penal cases and I quote: "In penal cases where the Party Chancellery intervened, Klemm's relations with the Party Chancellery were exploited."

A. Yes.

Q. It is the word "exploited" which rather strikes me. What did you mean to say by that?

A. I should like to say first that that sentence doesn't refer only to undermining cases, but it is true in a general way and it refers also, above all, to offenses against the war economy, where the views of the higher leadership had to be obtained. That was done by informing the higher leadership about the facts of a case, which had been established by the prosecution, with the object of causing the Administration of Justice to go into action. Therefore, I believe that what one ought to say here is "exploited in the interests of the administration of Justice."

Q. Did you ever hear anybody say that Klemm exploited his personal relationship with tho Party Chancellery from that point of view? In particular, did you ever hear that he wrote letters to Klopfer and that he started them with "Dear Gert"?

A. Yes, I can remember that.

Q. Dr. Franke, in your affidavit you then talk about the relations between Thierack and Freisler; you say that relations between Freisler and Thierack were very bad, and that it was Klemm who had to deal with any discussions which had to be held with Freisler. Could you tell the Tribunal what observations you made to the effect that Klemm actually spoke to Freisler?

A. As a witness, to help you to understand this matter, I must point out that, concerning the methods by which Freisler conducted his trials before the People's Court and the way in which he expressed his opinion, Minister Thierack did not agree with Freisle in that direction. On the contrary, he was peeved, and I believe I can remember that discussions were held in that connection every now and then.

I can remember one discussion for certain, but that dealt with a different subject. That discussion took place in Undersecretary Klemm's office on the morning of a day shortly before the air raid began in which Freisler was killed.

Q. Do you remember what you discussed that morning?

A. As far as I recollect, we discussed the future methods by which the Senates of the People's Courts would conduct their trials, in connection with the fact that airraids had become more sever and in connection with the air raids on Postdam as such. What I think we may have discussed was evacuation, but I can't tell you for certain.

Q. Well, in other words, it was just a technical, administrative discussion?

A. Yes, above all it was that.

Q. Did you have any other opportunity to observe whether Klemm had any discussions with Freisler?

PR. LA FOLLETTE: Excuse me.

THE WITNESS: I cannot remember any other such occasions.

MR. LA FOLLETTE: All right.

BY DR. SCHILF:

Q. Dr. Franke, at the end of your affidavit you say that on the 2nd of May, 1945. Thierack handed you a piece of paper, an identification paper to save you from arrest. You say that you were handed that identification card in the presence of Undersecretary Klemm, with instructions from Thierack to remain behind in Eutin, in hiding.

A. May I correct this matter? Minister Thierack did not give me a piece of paper, but he issued orders to me, and that is all I said. Those orders were issued to me when we were standing by a car on which I had already loaded my luggage.

I have to assume that Klemm was able to watch us. The identification card was not handed to me by the Minister, but it was some other German agency that gave it to me.

Q. Do you know whether Klemm know anything about that?

A. Of that latter incident?

Q. Yes, I am referring to that.

THE PRESIDENT: Does it make any difference in this case, from the standpoint of Klemm, whether he know about that or not?

DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal -

MR. LA FOLLETTE: May it please Your Honor -

THE PRESIDENT: You think it does?

MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, I think it does.

THE PRESIDENT: All right, go ahead.

THE WITNESS: That identification card was handed to me when both the other men had already left.

BY DR. SCHILF:

Q. In other words, Klemm wasn't even able to see or to watch that affair?

A. No.

Q. Now a last question, Dr. Franke. According to your affidavit, and according to the testimony you have given today, you obviously worked at the Ministry during the whole of 1944.

A. Yes.

Q. And you took part in the reports in connection with death sentences?

A. Not always.

Q. Are you able to tell us about how many cases were dealt with in 1944, and where the clemency question was decided to the effect that executions were ordered to take place? A witness has testified here that in 1944 eight thousand executions were ordered.

A. I think that is quite out of the question; the figure was much lower. I can't give the exact figure, but my estimate is that approximately two thousand cases or a few more were executed. However, I have no definite evidence. All I can say is that you have already told me that you have the report lists here, and those report lists must give some indication.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have the report lists. You need not comment on them.

DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, I have no further questions to ask this witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other cross-examination?

(No response)

Re-direct examination.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION.

BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:

Q. You may not have discussed it with Mr. Beauvais, but the first time that I have heard this morning about the occasions on which Undersecretary Klemm left Eutin--would you say that was very often?

A. No, I am not of that opinion. He was absent only for reasons connected with his official duties. As a rule, the Undersecretary did attend the discussions on reports.

Q. Yes. Now, on page 4 of your original affidavit--do you have it there? you answered some questions with reference to sentences, in the first full paragraph from the top of the page, May I ask you, do you find this in that paragraph? I will start the sentence:

"Both men were sever in their judgments of these cases because it was to avoid, by all means, that the critical military situation might shake the internal front and thus cause a stab in the back of the fighting forces.

The tendency expressed during the decisions was that the "bloody sacrifices at the front and at heme should not he made senseless through a soft clemency policy.

THE PRESIDENT: Is this from the affidavit, Pr. La Follette?

MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is from the affidavit, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: He hasn't contradicted it.

MR. LA FOLLETTE: I thought he had. I simply wanted to ask if, notwithstanding his testimony, he still -- I am sorry, I interpreted it that the witness contradicted that.

THE PRESIDENT: All right.

BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:

Q. Did you find that?

A. Yes, I have that passage here.

THE PRESIDENT : Naturally, yes, of course I do. Of course I do.

MR. LA FOLLETTE: Thank you.

BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:

Q. Now, with reference to this occasion, on the 2nd of May, 1945, after the cabinet meeting in Pleen-

A. (interposing) P-l-o-e-n, Ploen.

Q. It is still true, is it not, that you received orders from Minister Thierack, in the presence of State Secretary Klemm, to remain in Eutin and to camouflage yourself?

A. That is true.

MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is all.

Court No. III, Case No. III.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Franke, you spoke of the occasion of the late air raid at the time of Freisler's death. Do you have personal knowledge as to what the direct cause of the death was?

THE WITNESS: As far as I heard, Freisler went from the Ministry across the Wilhelmstrasse and the Vosstrasse and the Goeringstrasse and the Bellevuestrasse. He Hurried through those streets and he stopped for a short while in another public building. In that building, so I heard, he was advised not to walk on because in the meantime the air raid had started. But Freisler was anxious to get to his office while the air raid was in progress, and therefore he went on. He reached the building of the People's Court but he only got as far as the gateway. He did not get to the big building.

At that very moment, a bomb dropped, and in the cellar of that other building, that bomb pressed him against the wall. I was told that he was laid out on a stretcher where he stayed for a short time quite close to the gateway. When the raid was over, or possibly while the raid was still in progress--however, I think it was after the raid--a doctor identified him. That was a physician who had been on his way to Freisler to talk with him. It was about an hour after the raid was over when we were told at the Ministry that Freisler had been the victim of an air raid.

THE PRESIDENT: Your understanding is that the sole cause of his death was from the bombings Is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: That is all I wanted to know. No further questions. The witness is excused.

(The Witness is excused)

MR. LA FOLLETTE; If your Honors please, with reference to Exhibit 595, the Prosecution is advised that distribution was made in both English and German and that the exhibit is in the possession of the Secretary--General.

Therefore we assume that it was admitted into evidence and asked that it be so noted.

THE PRESIDENT: Does your record show that 595 was admitted in evidence?

THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Yes, it was.

THE PRESIDENT: It will be received now if it wasn't received before.

MR. LA FOLLETTE: And with reference to 596, NG-2220, the English was distributed.

THE PRESIDENT: 596 is 2410, isn't it?

MR. LA FOLLETTE: Our record is that it is 2220.

THE PRESIDENT: That is 597.

MR. LA FOLLETTE: 597 is right, your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: 597 was received. I'm asking about 596, 2410.

MR. LA FOLLETTE: I am sorry, your Honor, but it was received. But may I show that we now distribute German copies of it. It was received without the German being distributed. That is 597.

THE PRESIDENT: 596 has not been received by the Secretary-General.

MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, your Honor. The processing was not complete on that. We will check on that now. I would like to have it still identified as such: 596 is 2410.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's received subject to processing and delivery.

MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Are there witnesses for the defense for examination at this time? The list shows two witnesses for this morning called by Dr. Klemm: Mitzschke and Hazemann.

DR. SCHILF: May it please the court, I intend to call Mitzschke and Hazemann after the lunch recess at half past one. I have made certain now that my colleagues have documents to introduce and there will be no interruption.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, I am now ready to introduce my documents. I offer from Petersen Document Book I, document No. 1, the Exhibit No. of which is 4.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you save me the trouble of looking up my notes? How many exhibits have you already offered for Petersen? Three?

DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: And this is No. 4?

DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes, it is. Document No. 1 from Petersen Document Book I. Petersen Document 2, Exhibit No. 5. Document No. 3, Exhibit No. 6. Document No. 4, Exhibit No. 7. Document No. 5, Exhibit No. 8, Document No. 6, Exhibit No. 9. I should like to refer you to the passage: "There is a unanimous opinion that today there is no opportunity for the judges to examine the laws--." Petersen Document No. 7, I offer as Exhibit No. 10.

THE PRESIDENT: They are all received, 4 to 10 inclusive.

DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 8, Exhibit 11

THE PRESIDENT: Received.

DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 9, Exhibit 12

THE PRESIDENT: Recieved.

DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen No. 10, Exhibit 13.

DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen No. 11, as Exhibit 14.

DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen No. 12, the People's Court against High Treason and Treason, as Exhibit No. 15.

DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 13, Criticism on Decisions of the People's Court, as Exhibit No. 16.

DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 14 as Exhibit No. 17. It deals with the problem of eliminating political factors from the administration of justice.

THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. 14 is received as Exhibit 17; it's received.

DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 15 as Exhibit 18, Wartime Laws.

THE PRESIDENT: It's received.

DR, ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 16 as Exhibit No. 19.

DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 17 as Exhibit 20.

DR. ASCHENAUER: The subject is wartime law in emergency. Petersen No. 18 as Exhibit 21.

DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen No. 19, about the position of the associate judges of the People's Court, as the lay members of the People's Court, as Exhibit No. 22.

DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 20, lay judges and the administration of criminal justice, as Exhibit 25.

DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No, 21 as Exhibit 24.

DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 23 as Exhibit No. 26.

DR. ASCHENAUER; Petersen Document No. 24 as Exhibit 27.

DR, ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 28, Chalupa case, as Exhibit No. 31.

MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honors please, before the court accepts it, so far as I can ascertain, there is no preamble whatsoever to this affidavit as required by the rules. I ask that it be rejected. I object to it.

DR. ASCHENAUER: Just a moment, please. The original document does contain a preamble and the certification. A mistake had occurred and this mistake has been corrected in the original.

MR. LA FOLLETTE: I still object, your Honor.

Transcript for NMT 3: Justice Case

Defendants