Heil Hitler I Yours, Thierack."
It is also to be noted on the original photostatic copy which we are submitting that the initials of Klemm appear on this letter, right under the initials of Thierack.
There has been a correction sheet distributed to the Court, and that addition will be noted on the correction sheet.
We ask the Court now to turn to Page 43 of the English text. This is a letter which also has some marginal head notes,which we'll not read at this time. It is from Gauleiter Stuertz, addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Thierack, and it is dated 31 October 1944. The initials of Klemm appear on the letterhead, indicating that it had at least passed across his desk after its receipt in the Ministry of Justice.
"Your Excellency, Dear Part Comrade Theirack:
"In reply to your letter of 25 September 1944 concerning the execution of the death sentence pronounced by the People's Court against the publisher August Bonness of Potsdam, I find myself obliged after hearing the report of the local Party official and carefully consulting my judicial adviser, to declare myself decidedly against any reprieve."
We ask the Court to turn now to the last two paragraphs of the English text of this letter:
"To pardon Bonness would mean a triumph of those reactionary circles in Potsdam which will never learn to like us but which will then have to dread us, at least in the interest f the State. I therefore urge you to refrain from a reprieve in this case, especially as I am of the opinion that the People's Court, after having been obliged by way of exception to deal with Bonness twice already, even if it judged his crime more leniently, might at least have served a penitentiary term on him in the second session. In my eyes, the execution of this death sentence, when it has been pronounced by the Supreme Court of the German Reich in two sessions. is a question of 'raison d'etat'. The merits of Bonness are, in my opinion, not sufficiently outstanding to justify a reprieve, quite apart from the fact that in my opinion the former merits of a man can net count in all matters which involve the undermining of the morale of the armed forces and high treason.
Heil Hitler I Yours Obediently, Stuertz."
And it will be noted in the left hand corner of that letter, the page from which we have just been reading, the word "execution", signed by Thierack and initialed by Klemm.
We ask the Court to turn to the following page, in the English text, u letter dated 14 November 1944, addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice, "Re: Appeal for reprieve on behalf cf Bonness of Potsdam, sentenced to death for undermining the morale of the armed forces.
"Gauleiter Stuertz has sent a copy of his letter addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice dated 26 October 1944 to the head of the Party Chancellery for information. In case there should be any intention of not carrying out the death sentence on Bonness but of granting him a reprieve, it is requested that copies of the two sentences served on Bonness, together with the documents of the reprieve, first be submitted to the Party Chancellery so that it may be given an opportunity to express its views. Heil Hitler I (By order) Dr. Hopf."
It appears in a letterhead that Klemm initialed the letter, after which we see it in the Ministry of Justice.
We ask the Court to note in passing that the letter on Page 47 of the English text is also initialed by Klemm.
We finally call attention to the brief note on Page 49 of the English text, which is signed by Dr. Thierack and reads:
"In the case against "August Bonness, "sentenced to death by the People's Court on the 8 July 1944, I hereby give orders with the Fuehrer's authorization for the sentence to be carried out.
Berlin, 23 November 1944. The Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Thierack."
We offer the document NG 155 as Exhibit 181.
DR. GRUBE (Counsel for defendant Lautz) May it please the Court, I have just read through the original exhibit, and I find that in regard to this document we are concerned with a complete volume of records. I also find that in this volume of files there are many pages missing. I have already got the impression from the document at cur disposal that the important events which only by themselves explain the whole event have never been presented.
I do not wish to raise a formal objection against the submission of this document, but I would ask you to permit me to make the motion that the missing documents on this case should be submitted afterwards.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we understand that the Defense Counsel wants the opportunity to submit these, or are you asking that the Prosecution be required to submit them?
DR. GRUBE: This case was discussed recently concerning a similar volume of files. At that time we were concerned with the subsidiary files for the indictment and the sentences. At that time the Tribunal took the view that it was a matter for the Defense to make a motion that the missing documents should be submitted. I thought it was necessary for me to say that because of the imperfection of this document and that I should make a motion that the missing documents should be submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is whether they are available and whether they can be found.
DR. GRUBE: Mr. President, may I say that I assume that the missing documents are available, and I assume that because this document, according to its outer appearance, must have been a complete volume of files of the Ministry of Justice, and therefore I think that the missing files must be available. One can see by the numbering of the pages that many pages are missing. For example, there is a gap between pages 24 and 42, and likewise the document begins with two handwritten documents by Thierack which are contained in our documents of 5 August and 12 august, in which Thierack says that a further application will be submitted.
Then the document continues on Page 19. That is to say, all the preceding pages, 1 to 18, are missing, but as there is evidently a complete volume of files, it must be assumed that those missing documents can somehow be found.
MR. KING: Your Honor, this roes back to the old question.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you, do you know anything about these missing pares, assuming there are missing pages?
MR. KING: I only know that we have presented in this document all of the documents that came to us from Berlin. I can not say for sure there is not mere of these documents in Berlin. It is entirely possible that there are additional portions of it. However, when we get a general request from Defense Counsel to supply the entire file in a case like this, it may mean bringing down two or three file cabinets of material until we know what portions of the so-called missing documents the Defense Counsel wants. Vie are not in a very good position to even promise to try to find missing material. We certainly not want to get into the position of premising to bring down a every scrap of paper that may pertain to every one of these files because we all know from cur experience that it runs into volumes and volumes and hundreds of pounds of material.
THE. PRESIDENT: The ruling is that of the one heretofore made; that the Defense Counsel will be permitted to introduce anything they can find. We do not wish to impose further obligations on the Prosecution under the circumstances in this case. That is the ruling.
MR. KING: May I add just the word at this time. I think it must be obvious to the Court and to the Defense Counsel at this time that in many of these cases, we are presenting far mere material than we refer to here in Court, and far more material which we are obviously going to refer to when we come to summarizing our case conclusions. We are continuing to put in an abundance of material, much of which has no relevancy to the conclusions we wish to draw, for the reason that we do not want to delete from material that reaches us. We are putting in every case, with possible one or two exceptions, all of the material that reaches us from the document centers.
DR. BEHRING (For Defendant Klemm): May it please the Court, at this moment, I am just about to go to Berlin and, there I will meet the branch office of the Prosecution. I would like to suggest that at that occasion.
I should draw the attention of the gentlemen there to this matter, and as far as possible, when I come back after Easter, I shall bring with me the complete files.
I, too, in the case of the defendant Klemm, must make a reservation that those files should be complete because as far as I am aware, the files give a wrong picture concerning the conditions which existed at that time in Berlin. As I was in Berlin myself at the time and as I know of the Bonnes case, which caused a great sensation among the public, among the jurists, I believe that it would be in the service of the truth if, particularly, in this case, all files would be brought here.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER (for the defendant Dr. Rothenberger): May it please the Court, on account of the material consideration, I would like to say a few words on this matter. The Tribunal has said and has ruled that the defense should be allowed in such a case, for the purpose of the Defense, to ask for a supplementation of the evidence. The question merely, which in all future cases which may occur, much a ruling which is even still insufficient for the Defense, would do justice to the actual facts.
The Tribunal will remember that at the beginning of this trial, in agreement with the Defense, the opinion was expressed that the documents should be submitted in a uniform manner and should be admitted in their entirety. That, as far as the Defense was concerned, was also in accordance with - need for a clarification as extensive as far as possible of actual facts. If, now, in the individual case, the Prosecution su****s a volume of files as one single document which, evidently, by emitting a few pages, is not complete, then that would upset such an objective picture and it would make it extremely difficult to obtain such an objective picture.
The objection which has been raised by the Defense to the effect that the Prosecution, the objection by the Prosecution that the Prosecution could not be expected to produce all material as in such a case. In my opinion this does not apply, and of decisive importance, the appreciation of the actual facts, we must know of all the motives which were decisive in making a decision and we must become acquainted with all these motives If we, the Defense Counsel, are told that our application concerning the obtaining of missing material, that we should make such applications; then that is theoretical for us and in practice does not help us at all because we have no contacts with the central office in Berlin; and, therefore, in the individual case can not judge which and in what documents are missing.
Therefore, I would like to ask the Prosecution and the Bench that in such cases where a document which should be regarded as one document as, for example, this complete volume of filos is in fact, evidently, incomplete, that in such cases the procution on its own behalf, attempts to obtain the entire volume of files. For the question as to what is essential in such a volume of files will naturally be judged somewhat differently by the Defense than by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: We think the ruling of the Tribunal fully covers the situation. He will assume, of course, that the Prosecution has produced all of the documents that they have in their position or that they know anything about. It will, therefore, be incumbent upon the Defense to find such additional parts of this document as they think will be material to their defense. They certainly will be permitted to do that if they find any such material.
MR. KING: May I have my memory refreshed; has the Court accepted this into evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: We have received the document in evidence.
MR. KING: He invite the Court, at this time, to turn to document book No. 2, page 27.
JUDGE BRAND: Just a brief comment upon the matter that has just been discussed. It seems to me that the Counsel for the Defense perhaps fails to distinguish between the ruling commonly applied with reference to a single entry of a document and the rule which should be applied as to an entire file containing many entire single documents.
That is the practice in many jurisdictions, but when one side offers only a part out of one single and entire document, that the other side is entitled to introduce the rest of that single entire document. I have never heard of any rule which provided, if one side, in a great file, produced a half dozen documents, that the other side is entitled to demand of the proponent the production of all the other documents in that file. The distinction must be whether consideration is given to it. On the other hand, of course, wherever procedure may be available in the rules for the production of evidence by the opponent, either by demand upon the Prosecution, or by the Defense, whichever it may be, and is available to them, to seek out additional separate documents from the great file. Do I make myself clear?
MR. KING: Yes, I think you do, Your Honor.
It is particularly difficult for us of the Prosecution, on the bare statement of the Defense that the document we have presented is incomplete to know in what respect they feel it is incomplete. On the other hand, the Defense would seem to be most largely involved. They wought to remember since one of them was a co-signer of the death sentence, the defendant ought to remember what files he believes important to certain extenuating or mitigating circumstances in his case, and he should be able to direct his counsel, at least, instruct the people who produce the documents, as to what they specifically believe will be of aid to them. We, in the abstract, certainly are not in a position to tell from a l,r.e file, if a large file exists, what wought to produce for them, we think that is up to the Defense.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the Tribunal, I wish to apologize for interrupting again. This is purely a technical matter. The translation was rather faulty and unfortunately I and my colleagues, as well; did not hear clearly the statement which the Judge just made now. The question is extremely important, and I would be grateful if that statement Could repeated in a clear translation, and I am referring to the statements by the Judge and by the Prosecutor.
I could not hear it very good.
JUDGE BRAND: Perhaps the translation when it comes cut, if it is not clear, then the occasion may arise to repeat it.
DR. GRUBE (for defendants Klemm & Lautz): May it please the Tribunal the representative of the Prosecution has just said one of the two defendants, who are obviously greatly interested in this matter, himself, was one of the signers of the death sentence, and should therefore **** to say which documents are parts of documents, which are missing now, are of importance. To clarify the matter I should like to say that neither of the defendants signed the death sentence, nor that Klemm or the defendant Lautz had anything to do with it. The Prosecution just told us now that it was a matter for the Defense to say which documents are important, I should like to point out the following, particularly with reference to this document:
This document is a volume of files of the Reich Ministry of Justice. The defendant Lautz never had the possibility as long as he was in the place to sec these files. It is entirely unknown to him what the **** of the files arc. He suppose on account of gaps in the contents that the must be material parts, in effect, which are important for the Defense. Therefore, we need the missing parts first of all to examine them to see whether whether they arc important, and only then can we decide whether to introduce them as documents.
MR. KING: The Defense has objected further to my statement that one of the Defendants was a co-signer of the death sentence in this case. He do not wish at this time to argue the point further. That was not a conclusion which went, at the time, to material aspects of the case. It was already in connection with the question of documentation for which we will or will not make the statement in connection with the conclusion-we-wish to draw from this document; we do not at this time say. I think it is clear from what Defense Counsel has just said that they are not in a position to say which is important and which is not important; and, therefore **** in that position they want us to produce the entire file.
We have already gone on record to say we can not do this because, as a general rule, it would involve bringing thousands and thousands of pages of documents, and that would impose an insuperable burden upon the Prosecution and tax the time and strength of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has ruled on this matter.
MR. KING: We continue reading now on page 27 of document Book 2. The excerpts which we are about to read deal with cases tried in absentia either when a defendant is physically not present in court whore he is tried, or when the defendant is too ill to appear in court. It is relevant to the next case, NG-437, which we wish to present. NG-715, these are excerpts from the Criminal Code - German Code of Criminal Procedure of 1943, by Dr. Otto Schwarz. Section 205:
"Temporary Suspension "If the absence of the defendant or other obstacles involving the person interfere with the main proceedings; the court may hold up the case temporarily.
The presiding justice secures the evidence if necessary.
"Section 276 "I. Main proceedings can be held against a fugitive from justice if the public feeling for justice demands the prompt conviction of the crime.
"II. fugitive in the sense cf the directives of this paragraph is an accused who escapes German jurisdiction by residing abroad or hiding in the Reich."
Also we wish to read the excerpts from the Code of Criminal Jurisprudence, 1934; by A.O. Loewe, from pages 39-40:
"Proceedings against a defendant can be started only if his state cf health permits a suitable defense of his right. If the defendant shows reliable signs indicating that these prerequisites are lacking because of serious troubles concerning his physical or mental state of health, no proceeding can be maintained against him."
"If the defendant's lack of ability to stand trial has to be taken into consideration without any restriction. This principle has teen served in current decisions."
The next Exhibit, Exhibit 172, the Prosecution, at this time, desire to read portions of NG-437, which begins on page 50 in the English document book 3-G. It is a rather long opinion but it will be clear, we believe, from the portions which we read. We will extract only a small portion of the entire document.
These are the sentences of the Special Court for the Stuttgart or of the Supreme Court of Appeal in Stuttgart.
"In the name cf the German people:
"In the criminal case against "l) the married merchant Ludwig Oehlbach.
"Born on 15 October 1092 in Frankenthal, residing in Singen, **** steinerstr. 24, at present under arrest in the suspects' jail in ******.
"For crimes as public enemies, the Special Court of the Supremo Court of Appeal for the district of Stuttgart in the session on 19 Nov. 1942, and which the following were present:
Division President CUHORST as president Landesgerichtsrat Dr. AZESDORFER as associate judge Amtsgerichtsrat FREY as associate judge assistant public prosecutor STEINLE as representative of the prosecution Secretary of justice RIEDER as reporter The defendant OEHLBACH is sentenced to death as a public enemy and dangerous habitual criminal for continuous crimes against regulations concerning war economy, continuous price control offenses, continuous comni*** and attempted fraud, grave embezzlement and forgers of documents."
We turn now to the next Page 51, and begin in the middle of the pa English text.
"OEHLBACH has a number of previous convictions. In 1912 he receiver at short intervals prison sentences for protecting prostitutes and after served his sentence he was transferred to a labor camp for 6 months, A number of prison sentences for embezzlement and fraud followed, the lasting a sentence of 4 months for fraud. In 1938 he was fined for negligent inflicting bodily injury and in 1940 he was fined for offenses against the law for the protection of the retail trade. For the crimes which are the subject of these proceedings the defendant OEHLBACH was arrested on 13 December 1941. On 16 January 1942 he succeeded in escaping. While escape he committed a number of other crimes, especially in the district of Villingen, in Schwenningen and in the vicinity of Germersheim. Several time during his escape he was discovered, once in Neckargerach and another time in Stuempfelbrunn, district of Mosbach. On both occasions he succeeded i escaping. On 11 May 1942 he was arrested in Germersheim. Another attorney escape was frustrated. On this occasion ho denied obstinately that he was wanted OEHLBACH and declared that he was Alfred JAECKLE of Schwenningen whose passport he had taken and falsified.
He made other attempts to escape from the suspects' jail in Stuttgan and from the local jail in Sigmaringen, but these attempts were frustrate Finally he tried to commit suicide by hanging in the local jail gen on 3 Nov. 1942, but at a time when the prison officials were in the cinity, so that they could cut him down in time. Since then, the defendant who has tried by all possible means to make main proceedings against him impossible, took very little food, so that he was physically very weak when the main trial against him was opened. In spite of that the considered the conducting of the main trial to be necessary. According to a observations of the court as well as according to the experts who were consulted, the defendant was able to understand the course of the main trial He also answered, when he really wanted the questions put to him. His do was in no way restricted. Furthermore, even if the defendant had not beer fit for a trial, the conduct of proceedings would have been permissible according to article 276 ff, of the code for Criminal Procedure, because defendant caused his weakened condition intentionally, with the object making a main trial against him impossible, his conduct therefore bring similar to that of a fugitive defendant. In view of the attention and the unrest the criminal conduct of the defendant caused among the population early sentencing is urgently necessary."
We do not wish to present the details of the crimes charged again the accused; we simply point out that on Page 64, the sentence is sign by the defendant Cuhorst and two others. We offer the Document NG-437 a Exhibit 182.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: As Exhibit 183, we read now the affidavit which is NG-573and appears on Page 66 and 67 of the English text. This affidavit is gin by Mr. Willy Steinle who was, as we noted a few moments ago, the assistant public prosecutor in the case Oelbach.
AFFIDAVIT I, Willy STEINLE, retired public prosecutor hereby state, on oath:
With reference to my former statement I would like to add the following:
In the case of OELBACH it would have been my duty to support the motion of the defense counsel for discontinuation of the proceedings, I think I remember that such a motion was made when OELBACH fainted and can no longer carry on with the proceedings. But it is also possible that the defense counsel had applied for an adjournment of the proceedings at the very beginning, by giving as a just reason that OELBACH probably would not be able to follow the proceedings, because he was too weak. If anybody else but CUHORST had been president, the matter would have been handled differently. But I did not dare cross CUHORST's obvious intention of caring on the proceedings under any conditions. If I had done so, I **** had reason to fear the CUHORST might take measures against me. At the time I still was a young assessor, whereas CUHORST was, in my eyes, the highest ranking judge of the Appellate Court of the district of Stuttgart, and was known for his intolerance of any opposition by any of the participants in trial. This attitude of CUHORST was a severe offense against the rules the court, and a sound reason for a petition for nullification. I should also like to mention, that CUHORST exorcised a brutal pressure on all people sons concerned, and that neither the competent judge nor the defense considared oppose the scandalous activity of CUHORST. CUHORST was unimpressed by the fact that the court physician gave injections to the unconscious OELBACH. I must admit that I myself considered OELBACH's treatment and the sentence passed on him by CUHORST, to be very wrong.
CUHORST was a judge who welcomed the rigour of the national *** laws and who was ready to apply them at any time, in order to give the national socialist state the necessary support thereby. He was a fanatic and convinced leader of the Party who, in spite of his comparative youth, held a position which he had obtained for political reasons and which he need would have got in normal tines, since he was known not to shine in the leg sphere.
I think it quite possible that he was called up so late at his owner wish, in order to disappear and to avoid his just punishment. CUHORST's tribunal could be described as a typical Party-tribunal, and the sentences of not correspond to the will of the people but to the personal wishes of CUHORST.
He was, therefore, the Executor of the criminal penal justice of the Third Reich.
(signed) Willy STEINLE.
These statements are true and have been made by me without constrain I have read them, signed them and made them on oath. Stuttgart, 10 January 1947 (signed again) "Willy STEINLE" There also appears the jurat signed by Henry Einstein, U. S. Civil; B-316209.
We offer NG-372 as Exhibit 183.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: I'd like the Court to turn again to Document Book 2, to page 28 in the English text. The decree which we are about to read from ** has reference to the next two cases from Document Book 3-G, which we will shortly present.
This is from the 1939 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 752.
"The Decree of 14 April Concerning German Jurisdiction in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.
"Article I - Setting up the Jurisdiction.
"Section 1.
"1. To carry out German jurisdiction in the Protectorate and Moravia: The German Provincial Court, Prague; the German District Court Bruenn and Prague; the German Local Courts, Boehmish-Budweis, Bruenn, DeuBred, Gitschin, Goeding, Iglau, Machrisch Ostrau, Olmuetz, Pilsen, Prag and Stakonita; are being established.
"2. Furthermore, the Reich Supreme Court and the People's Court carry out jurisdiction for the Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia.
"Article II - Extent of the Jurisdiction.
"Section 6.
"1. German nationals are subject to German jurisdiction in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.
"2. Persons who are not German nationals are subject to German judge diction for offenses:
"a) to which German criminal law applies, "b) if they are prosecuted under a private action provided the and provided the action has been brought by German national.
"3. Furthermore, persons who are not German nationals are subject the Protectorate jurisdiction insofar as German jurisdiction is not being established by law.
"Section 7. German jurisdiction in the Protectorate of Bohemia Moravia excludes jurisdiction by the courts of the Protectorate unless wise provided.
"Article III - Execution of the Jurisdiction.
"Section 8. The German courts in the Protectorate of Bohemia and. Moravia administer justice in the name of the German people."
MR. KING: We turn now to Document Book 3-E again, to page 68 in the English text, as Exhibit 184. Me wish at this time to introduce two portions in Document NG-356:
"In the Name of the German People In the case of the mechanic Josef Weiss of Prague-Kehlen, born on 9 August 1908 in Olmuetz, national of the Protectorate, at present awaiting trial of this case, because of preparation of high treason, etc.
, the People's Court, 1st division, passed the following sentence on the basis of the trial of 14 December 1942 in which participated as judges:
Oberlandesgerichtsrat Dr. Koehler, president Kammergerichtsrat Rehse, SS-Gruppenfuehrer and Generalleutnant der Waffen-SS Pet***, Major-General Gempp, Kreisleiter Skoda, as representative of the Chief Reich Prosecutor Amtsgerichtsrat Treppens, as official registrar of the office Secretary of Justice Schreiber.
Defendant Weiss aided and abetted Czech communists in the Protectorate in the preparation of high treason and in the treasonable help to the enemy by passing on pamphlets after the fight against the Soviet Union broke out.
Therefore he is sentenced to Death and permanent loss of civic rights.
He will also bear the costs of the proceedings."
MR. KING: That is the opinion. We turn now to several additional documents in connection with this case. The first of which is to be found beginning on page 69 in the English text.
This is written from the Ploetzensee Prison in Berlin, dated 20 December 1942 and is address. to the Chief Reich Prosecutor for the Peoples Court, Berlin. The original shows that it is in the handwriting of the prisoner Josef Weiss:
"Plea for Clemency.
"In the session of the People's Court, 1st division, on 14 December 1942, I, Josef Weiss, born on 9 August 1908 in Olmuetz, Roman-Catholic, profession: mechanic, was sentenced to death for preparation of high treason.
former girl friend of my wife's by the name of "Nina" came to see me in my apartment in January this year and requested me to give 3 communist handbills and 2 books on Leninism to the son of my employer, "Louis", who repeatedly asked for them and to whom I gave them as received from her. I returned them to the woman the following day. From that day on I never met this an again since I forbade her to enter my apartment. Further are , I never engaged in political activities, was not member of any political party. The only association I was a member of was the one of the mechanics in Prague.
"I state and I assert, in the name of all what is holy to me, that I never intended to harm the Greater German Reich by this rash deed. I now know that I thereby made myself liable to punishment and I would like to convince you by honest gratitude and work and diligence that I repent that I permitted myself to be used as an intermediary and that it will be a lesson for me for the time to come.
"In conclusion to my plea, I ask you to grant pardon for my death sentence and to change it to penitentiary or any other sentence. I hope that you will not turn down my first and request to you and that it will not remain unsuccessful, hope that until the good end which I expect eagerly from you God will provide me with patience, fortitude and confidence.
Thanking you in advance I ask you again for pardon.
Signature:
Josef Weiss."
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask you a question?
MR. KING: Yes, sir.
JUDGE BRAND: Does your records show in what territory the trial against this man was held? I didn't find it.
MR. KING: I think the original record will show that the trial was held in Berlin, your Honor, but I will verify that and if the fact is at variance with that I will so state.
THE PRESIDENT: Before referring to the documents which I think will be under this exhibit number, we will take our morning recess.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. KING; We continue reading from document NG-356. We turning now to Page 71 of the English text in Document Book 3-G. This is a letter from the defense counsel for the prisoner Josef Weiss. The letter is addressed to the Chief Reich Prosecutor of the People's Court. It is dated February 15, 1943. We will read only portions of this but will indicate ******** graphs as we come to them.
"In tho case against Josef Weiss from Prague-Kehlen, the accused has been condemened to death and permanent loss of civic rights by judgment of the first division of the People's Court of 14 December 1942 for being an accomplice to treason and to high trea son by aiding the enemy.
"As his defense counsel be has asked me to make an application for pardon.
"I, therefore, beg you to recommend to the appropriate authority that the sentence passed be changed to one of imprisonment by exercising the right of pardon."
We turn now to the top of page 72:
"In this connection, I have the honour to lay before you the following facts:
"The condemned has never been politically interested, **t alone politically organized. All his relations are German citizens and are living partly in the Reich, partly in the Protectorate. His brother-in-law, Hans Opalks, is employed by the security police, the sister, Frl. Liese Weiss, is working at an airfield at Prague and his mother receives a state pens on. The condemned has been brought up the German way, has attended a German school, and has always been an evowed German. He also was a member of the athletic club and other German sports clubs.