A No. I was not afraid of that.
Q Do you know the reason the objection of defense counsel was rejected?
A No. The Court did not consider it important enough.
Q You were asked whether you made your statements before Rothaug under oath.
A Yes.
Q Did the defense tell you you should have been sworn.
A I had already been sworn.
Q Did defense counsel make the motion to examine you under oath before the special court?
AAs far as I remember, no.
Q Can you imagine why you were not sworn before the Special Court?
A No. I cannot imagine why. I never thought about it at all because I made my statements under oath.
Q In what capacity did you appear for the Special Court as a witness or as a defendant?
AAs a defendant.
Q Have you ever heard that in Germany, a defendant is sworn?
A I never occupied myself with court matters. I did not know about it. I did not know about it.
Q You referred to Mr. Katzenberger's age?
A Yes.
Q For what purpose did you do that?
A I was asked how old Herr Katzenberger was, at that time, and I gave my answer.
Q Can you remember that Mr. Katzenberger admitted that in spite of his age, he was still able to have sexual intercourse?
A He was asked that question by the court, and he gave his answer.
Q How did he answer?
AAs far as I remember, he said yes.
Q During the direct examination, the prosecutor asked you the following question: "You and Katzenberger, under oath, denied that those relations existed?"
Is that correct? You answered this question with "Yes."
A Whether those questions were put, I do not remember.
Q It was during the direct examination.
A Yes. That is correct.
Q You answered that question with "Yes."
A Yes.
Q Will you tell me when Mr. Katzenberger took his oath?
A I do not know.
Q I just read to you a question asked by the Prosecution as to whether you and Herr Katzenberger denied your relationship under oath. You answered that with yes.
A Yes. I said yes, as far as I am concerned.
Q Only as far as you are concerned. Furthermore, you stated that your defense said in pleading, that you had not intentionally committed perjury. He asked for a lenient sentence.
A I said the defense counsel said if I committed perjury, I did not do that intentionally. He asked, therefore, for a lenient sentence.
Q That is to say, he did not ask that you be acquitted.
A I cannot say. That day I was much too excited.
Q You said the Defendant Rothaug, at that time, in reply to that motion by the defense counsel, took no measures as far as you remember? Yes? Do you want to say yes to that?
AAs far as I remember, there was nothing like that.
Q That is to say, after that motion, the sentence was passed?
A Yes.
Q Did you expect anything beside the motion by your defense counsel?
A I really don't know what sort of sophistry this is.
Q At that time, did the Defendant Rothaugh read out the sentence?
A He pronounced it. I should imagine he had notes, so he could read from them.
Q He did not read the sentence? Do you remember that?
A No. I do not remember that.
Q You said in the statements of the Defendant Rothaug, there were word addressed to the audience concerning the Jews?
A Yes. He spoke of the Jews. He said the Jews are guilty of this war. He said those who deal with the Jews will be ruined by them.
Q Did you ever read "Die Sturmer"?
A Yes. I have a copy of that paper which reported my trial. I therefore have a judgment on that matter.
Q You read in "Die Sturmer" the statements which just now described as statements by the Defendant Rothaug?
AAnd I also know that he did say that.
Q Were you not too excited and because of that, you cannot remember?
A But I can remember, I can.
Q Can you remember in detail what was said during the sentence?
A Yes. For example, it was said that racial pollution is worse than murder and poisons the blood for generations to come. It can only be made good by the physical destruction of those who committed it. That is what Rothaug said. I know it exactly, physical destruction of the defendant, that I remember exactly.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you. I have no further questions to ask.
May I ask Your Honor to return the photograph to me which I previously submitted to the witness?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Witness, you have said on cross-examination by defense, that at your trial before the Special Court, Nuernberg, at which the presiding judge was Rothaug, a witness testified that you had been in a cafe on the Ring in company with Mr. Katzenberger. Is that true?
A Yes.
Q The witness did say that?
A Yes. Yes.
Q After the witness said that, as you have described, your defense counsel sought to introduce evidence to the contrary. Is that true.
A Yes.
Q The evidence which your defense counsel sought to introduce, so you have said, was designed to show that your presence in that cafe with Katzenberger was impossible. Is that true?
A Yes.
Q And then you testified here that that evidence was rejected; is that true?
A Yes.
Q Repeat again the charge for which you were tried before the Judge Rothaug. I believe you stated it was perjury; is that true?
A Yes.
Q Is it also true from what you have said recently, that your alleged untrue statement, your perjured statement, was that sexual relations between and Katzenberger were impossible? Is that true?
A Yes.
Q Witness, you mentioned during cross examination that a man named Holz was in the audience during your trial, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q Who was this man Holz?
A Holz was deputy Gauleiter for Franconia in Nurnberg.
Q Is it correct to say that Holz then, as Gauleiter of Franconia, was leading party official of the NSDAP in Franconia; is that true?
AAs far as I know, yes.
Q Witness, you also mentioned that in the audience during your trial was a person named Haberkorn, did you not?
A Yes.
Q Who was this person, Haberkorn?
A He was a leading personality in the NSDAP in Nurnberg. I am not sure whether he was the Kreisleiter, but as far as I remember, he was.
Q Witness, can you describe what a Kreisleiter is?
A I can't do that.
Q However, you do know, do you not, that a Kreisleiter is a Party official of some rank?
A Yes.
DR. KOESSL: I want to make an objection to that question because the witness just said she did not know what a Kreisleiter is.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I withdraw the question, your Honor.
Q Witness, you mentioned at various times this morning that as you first began your trial you looked about the audience in the courtroom, did you not?
A I looked at the audience when I entered the courtroom, and then I saw only those who were sitting opposite to the witness stand.
Q Yes, and you also said that although you can remember no particular details, that you saw uniforms in the audience, did you not?
A Yes.
Q Witness, do you know what an SD uniform looks like?
A No.
Q You have said that Holz and Haberkorn were in the audience, have you not?
A Yes.
Q You have also said that you knew who Holz and Haberkorn were?
A Yes.
Q You have further said that Holz was Gauleiter of Franconia?
A Deputy, I said.
Q Deputy Gauleiter of Franconia, and that Haberkorn was Kreisleiter in the Nurnberg area of the NSDAP -- that is true?
A Yes.
Q You further indicated that repeatedly during your trial the Judge Rothaug addressed himself specifically to the audience, did you not?
A Yes.
Q Can you elaborate on what the Judge Rothaug said to the audience?
A One witness, for example, said that I bought cigarets from her. It was the tobacco store at the Plaerrer, and Rothaug used that opportunity to criticize sharply my inclination for smoking and to tell the audience that in that way too I was undisciplined towards the Party, because at that time it was the custom for a German woman not to smoke.
Q During the times that the Judge Rothaug, as you have described, addressed the audience, did he at any time discuss the policy of racial pollution or the problem of Jewry?
A Yes. For example, he said -
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Wooleyhan, those questions were covered and the Court remembers those answers.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Very well, your Honor. We have finished with redirect.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there anything further from this witness? Do any of the defense counsel care to further examine this witness? If not, the prosecution will proceed. The witness may be excused, I take it.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes sir.
(Witness excused.)
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We turn now to Document Book 3-C at page 82, page 76 in the German book. There is found Document NG--554, which is a sworn affidavit reading as follows:
"I, Hans Groben, County Court Counsellor, Nuremberg, Solgerstrasse 8, hereby give the following affidavit under oath?
"I was judge for preliminary investigations at the local court in Nuernberg from 1 September 1939 until October 1941. In 1941, probably still in the first half of the year, Katzenberger was brought before me. In the absent of my colleague Dr. Ankenbrand I had to issue the warrant of arrest. Katzenberger was accused of having had intimate relations with the photographer Seiler. According to the results of the police inquiry which was submitted to me, actual intercourse had not been proven. The police had, however, collect a number of facts provided by neighbors, which did not allow them to discard this accusation altogether. Katzenberger denied the charges against him and explained the incriminating facts as expressions of childish affection by the Seiler girl, whose family he had known for a long time. In view of this, Katzenberger had to be taken into custody. I gave him detailed advice and explained to him the legal situation. He agreed that at present there was much which seemed to speak against him. I assured him that I would keep this matter in mind and would certainly set him free at once as soon as further inquiries proved the accuracy of his side of the story. Katzenberger understood this, a did not raise objection against the warrant of arrest, so as not to hold up proceedings unnecessarily.
"Soon after Katzenberger's imprisonment, the attorney Dr. Herz presented himself as his defense counsel. I discussed with him the situation and its legal aspect. He, too, thought it was right to await the result of further investigations and not to act against the warrant. But unfortunately, those further inquiries by the police were very lengthy. Again and again, both personally and over the telephone, I pressed the public prosecution for speed, and asked them to hand over to me the dossiers for a verification of the necessity for further detention. As the public prosecution opposed the usual arrangement that would have permitted Katzenberger to receive visitors during his confinement, I frequently made it possible for him to receive visits during the long months of his imprisonment, by letting him come into my office, after previous agreement with his counsel and (through him) with his wife. There an undisturbed discussion could take place with which I would not interfere in any way.
"The investigations, as I was able to ascertain from the files later on, were drawn out so long because the police tried desperately but without success to get the necessary conclusive evidence. According to paragraph 66, Section 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the only thing left for the Public Prosecution to obtain as a final means of clarification was a sworn affidavit by the witness, as Seiler herself had denied any intimate relationship. As investigating judge, I had to obtain this sworn affidavit. The result was that Seiler, after the most thorough instruction of a warning against perjury, I insisted that she had never had any intimate relationship with Katzenberger; according to my recollection she confirmed, in principle, Katzenberger's presentation of the story.
"As I had no reason to doubt the truth of Seiler's sworn statement, it was clear to me that I could not keep Katzenberger in custody any longer. Therefore I informed his counsel, Dr. Herz, about the issue of this interrogation and gave him to understand that now was the right time to act against the warrant. Dr. Herz naturally understood this hint and at once he filed an appeal against the warrant.
According to the regulation I put the appeal before the Public Prosecution adding in this report, that I had the intention to comply with this complaint i. e. to set Katzenberger free again. I thus clearly expressed with this additional remark that I believed Katzenberger not to be guilty. Such an attitude called the Jew-hater Rothaug to the scene; it was a signal for him to take this case over himself. As was explained to me, the accusation already filed with the Criminal District Court was withdrawn and replaced by one filed with the Special Court. As judge for preliminary investigations, I had became incompetent for the preparatory proceedings, due to Rothaug's order to continue the confinement for investigation and thus I was no longer in a position to put into effect my decision to set Katzenberger at liberty.
I did not take part in the final judgment against Datzenberger at the special court in Nuernberg. I was called to the proceedings as a witness, but I was not questioned as everybody renounced to do so. According to the German Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not customary for a witness to be in court during the trial and therefore I am not in the position to give details about the proceedings.
I was shocked when I heard of the result of the trial. The fact that Rothaug combined the trial against Seiler, a case of perjury, with the trial against Katzenberger shows clearly that he took over the case of katzenberger with definite prejudice and that ho was determined to exclude Seiler as a witness for the defendant. According to normal procedures, Seiler should have been a witness in Katzenberger's trial and should have testified for him, stating that the accusation against Katzenberger was not true. This normally should have lead to the acquittal of Katzenberger as there was nothing decisive against him.
Rothaug's verdict, in my opinion, was based solely on blind hatred for Jews. As there were no reasons for Katzenberger's condemnation on the ground of socalled race-defilement, there was still less reason to reply Paragraph 4 of the "Decree against Public Enemies"; because, if it were altogether impossible to ascertain when Katzenberger and Seiler had the alleged intimate relations, it was still less possible to explain that this had happened "in exploitation of war conditions." To arrive at Katzenberger's condemnation on the grounds of so-called "race defilement" and to sentence him in connection with Paragraph 4 of the "Decree against Public Enemies", it was necessary to violate all the facts of the case.
It has always depressed me that this verdict which cannot be designated as anything but judicial murder, was pronounced by Rothaug. How dangerous it was to take the part of a Jew as openly as I had done is shown by the fact that they suggested, before sending Katzenberger to Berlin for a decision in the question of clemency - that I should eliminate from the records my statement concerning the intended acquittal of katzenberger, so as not to expose myself to unpleasant official reprecussions from Berlin; But I refused to do this.
I declare that this statements correspond to the truth and were made without any coercion. I have read, signed and sworn to them.
(signed) Hans Grobin.
The prosecution offers as Exhibit 153, the Document NG-554.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Turning now to Page 73 of the same book, which is Page 71 in the German, we find Document NG-681.
JUDGE BRAND: What page?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Page 73. There is a sworn affidavit reading as fallows:
"I, Hermann Markl, retired public prosecutor, Argelsried Post Gilching, Kreis Starnberg, Rochenrstrasse 19, herewith declare under oath: Skipping to the middle of the second paragraph: " 0 n 1 April 1935, I became a prosecutor in Nuernberg whore I was active in diverse special fields. In 1936 or 1937, I was appointed, for about 6 weeks altogether, to substitute for someone (without participating in trials) in political and Special Court matters in a representative capacity. From 1 June 1939, I was permanently assigned to work on political matters and on the affairs of the Special Court.
In 1933 or 1934, I joined the SA, and on 1 May 1935, the NSDAP. In 1944, I was appointed assistant "Block Warden" of the NSDAP. I served as a confidence man in the SD from the end of 1941.
In the course of my work as a prosecutor to the Special Court in Nuernberg, I came to know the former Presiding Official, Dr. Oswald Rothaug, quite well. Rothaug was man of choleric disposition, an exceedingly sharp-tempered person, and quick to start an argument. When angry, he could be very insulting and behaved thus with a complete lack of control toward defendants during public trials. His great ability enabled him to force his will in everything; he could be persistent and or the utmost fanaticisn in his pursuance of a goal, which he had in mind. To this end, with no consideration, he exploited his excellent politic 1 connections which afforded him a great deal of power. He was generally called the real (Presiding officer of the Court of Appeals of Nuernberg for, as a rule, it was he who had the final say in deciding on promotions.
Politically, he was an enthusiastic and fanatical Nazi. He was an ideological follower of the Ludendorff movement and, therefore, an enemy of Christianity.
He, alone, was the ruling force in the conduct, as well as in the general organization, of his trials. He used his powers of convincing others which were supported by a strong will, to maintain his own opinion and to see that his personal will prevailed in all instances. The associate judges were more puppets in his hands. It was he who introduced the extreme severity in the degree of punishment at the Special court, Nuernberg, and it was he again who steadily increased this severity. His influence was also felt by the prosecutors, especially through his close friendship with the Senior Public Prosecutor Dr. Schroeder. Schroeder was dependent on him in every respect and thus Rothaug also held the Prosecutor's office completely under his thumb. It was an unwritten law that we had to submit to his will. His power of convincing others was manifest in such a direct and forceful fashion during a trial, that it brought all the participants, including the prosecutors under his influence. I, personally secretly feared Rothaug, and such, surely, was the case with all the others who had to work with him."
Skipping to Page 4 of this affidavit:
"To illustrate Rothaug's reprehensible behavior even more clearly, I should like to mention the following cases: The worst and most inhuman trial of the Nuernberg Special Court was that against the 68-year-old Jew, Katzenberger, which Rothaug conducted like a public exhibition. I took part in this trial as prosecutor assigned to the case and representative of the prosecution at the trial. This case involved the chairman of an Israelite cultural society in Nuernberg in an accusation of race-defilement with a German women.
The 31-year-old Irene Seiler was the woman involved in this affair. Already in the preliminary proceedings both denied the charge of sexual intercourse. I prosecuted the case at the Criminal Divisional Court and am sure that Katzenberger would have received a moderate punishment from this court. One day the defense counsel's complaint against a prison sentence was sent to me by the investigating judge." -
If we may make an interpolation here: It's apparent, from a comparison of the two affidavits, at least the prosecution so contends, that the complaint sent to the affiant here by the investigating judge was the one described in the document last read--the one appearing in the affidavit of Hans Groben.-
"When Rothaug learned of this, he ordered that Katzenberger's case be transferred from the Criminal Divisional Court to the Special Court. As a result, I had to take back the first plea and draw up another indictment for the Special Court which accused Katzenberger of race defilement, but this time, also of the additional violation of the Decree against Public Enemies. This new indictment also charged the Seiler woman with perjury. Rothaug personally ordered the inclusion of the Decree against Public Enemies and the charge of perjury. I considered the charge of perjury especially untenable, since it was entirely based on the supposition that Seiler had made a false statement, a fact which, in truth, could not be disproved, but which, neverthe less, rested entirely on inference. Rothaug clearly informed me that there was sufficient proof of sexual intercourse between seller and Katzenberger to convince him. He added that he was prepared to condemn Katzenberger to death. Since Rothaug knew he could not obtain this on the basis of the Law for Racial Protection" -May we interpolate a moment to refer the Court to Page 46 of Document Book 2, therein is set forth the law herein referred to.
It's a bad translation here. The best translation is the "Law for Protection of German Blood and Honor." Page 46, Document Book 2.
"Since Rothaug knew he could not obtain this on the basis of the Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor, he dragged in the Decree against Public Enemies which would make it possible to achieve the goal he desired.
Rothaug further explained that he felt justified in this, since Ratzenberger had conducted his relations with Seiler under cover of the black-out and by taking advantage of peculiar war conditions. This fantastic distortion of the situation excluded an objective view of the case. By simultaneously combining the perjury charge with the violation of the race defilement law, Rothaug forced Seiler to appear before the court, nut as a witness, but as a defendant. Such a combination, which contradicted all established practice, was the result of Rothaug's expressed directive. If perjury had actually been committed, then this trial should have been held either before or after that against Katzenberger was begun. Just in this very case I informed the Ministry of Rothaug's intended procedure against Katzenberger, as I have described it above. I was told that if this was Rothaug's wish, then this procedure would be approved. The trial of Katzenberger was the must horrible experience of my life. Rothaug had invited high party officials to turn the proceedings into a political demonstration. No evidence whatsoever was brought into court which could have been proof of sexual intercourse between the two defendants. Rothaug tried with all his power to encourage the witnesses to make incriminating statements; however, the witnesses' ignorance of facts in the situation became more and more obvious. A Nazi witness for the prosecution called from the audience, while the trial was in progress, and wanted to offer some incriminating testimony. Rothaug, overjoyed with this request, praised the witness highly in spite of the fact that her statements were of absolutely no importance. During the pause before my plea, Rothaug told me what points he wished me to make in my plea for punishment. In my plea I expressed what he asked. The sentence decreed the death sentence for Katzenberger and 2 years in a house of correction for Seiler.
In his speech justifying the sentence, Rothaug indulged again in the most despicable expressions of hatred against Jewry, for, in order to impress the audience with this propaganda, Seiler was pardoned after partially serving her sentence. Katzenberger was executed."
Skipping to the signature on the last page of this document that: "These statements are the truth and offered without coercion. I have read then, signed then and declared under oath. Signed Nurenberg, 23 January 1947, Hermann Markl."
In possible anticipation of a question either from Defense Counsel or from the Court, I wish to invite the Tribunal's attention to the fact that on page 81, which is the last page of this document I have just read, the jurat on that affidavit was omitted in the typing. A jurat, however, in the usual form docs appear on the face of the original which we are offering in evidence. At this time the Prosecution offers as Exhibit No. 154 Document NG-681.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Turning now to page 65, correction, page 64 of the same book, which is page 60 in the German, Document NG-270; this is an excerpt from the newspaper, The Stuermer, dated Nurnberg, April 2, 1942. The article is entitled "Death to the Race Defiler." I continue: "A Trial before the Nurnberg Special Court. The prosecutor reads the charge. The Jew Katzenberger has committed "race defilement" with the now 31 year old business proprietress in Nurnberg Irene S., of German blood, from the year 1932 until the year 1940 by exploiting this woman's financial difficulties. He did not even shrink back from exploiting the conditions caused by the war and the absence of the husband of S. who had been conscripted for his talmudic activity for military service. Irene S. is charged with attempting to withhold the deserved punishment from the Jew by commiting perjury in the pre-trial interrogation.
How KATZENBERGER defends himself - How will Katzenber try to deceive the court and get away from the avenging justice? The Jew Katzenberger made a quite special tactic his own. Alleged he has not engaged in a "race-defiling", but a "fatherly" relationship with Irene S. Only out of "pure fatherly" sentiment has he thrown her cigarettes through the window and given her shoes in whole quantities.
Before the verdict After the presentation of evidence has been concluded, the Prosecutor rises.
With sharp words he characterizes the defendant as a criminal, who did not even shrink back from exploiting war conditions for his shameless activities. As a race defiler and public parasite in the sense of the law, Katzenberger had forfeited his life. Therefore the death sentence should be pronounced against him. The other defendant, Irene S., should be sentenced to two years penal servitude and to the loss of her civic rights for two years.
In his final words the Jew Katzenberger finally tries at least to save what can be saved.
Once more he tries to play the "benefactor", in order to appeal to the pity of the judges. With an impudence, which only a Jew can possess, he characterizes all that, has been presented against him, as "backstairsgossip" and finally even wants to claim Frederick The Great as his principal witness. But the President does not permit a Jewish race defiler to soil the figure of the great Prussian King.
The court then adjourned for deliberation.
Sentenced to deaths!
When the court re-enters the court-room to announce the verdict, one can already see from the serious faces of the judges, that the fate of the Talmudic criminal has been scaled. As a race defiler and public parasite Katzenberger is sentenced to death.
The co-defendant Irene S. gets two years penal servitude and loss of her civic rights for two years for two years for perjury. Head of the District Court (Landgerichtsdirektor) R. finds certain words in the findings of the verdict which prove to what extent the German judges are impregnated by the tremendous significance of the racial laws. The President brands the depravity of the defendant and stamps him as an evil public parasite, "Racial defilement is worse than murder! Whole generations until the whole future will be affec ted by it!" Head of the District Court (Landgerichtsdirektor) R. in his speech also refers to the fuilt of the Jewry in this war. "If today German soldiers are bleeding to death, then the guilt falls upon that race, which from the very beginning strived for Germany's ruin and still hope today, that the German people would not emerge from this struggle." In the case of Katzenberger the court had to pronounce the death sentence. The physical destruction of the perpetrator was the only possible atonement.
The end - with the findings of the verdict the sentence of the Special Court has become effective.
Why the "Stuermer" describes the Katzenberger trial in detail. The Jew Katzenberger was sentenced to death as race defiler and public parasite. This sentence (it is not the first of this kind in the Reich) was pronounced in Nuernberg and thus honors the city, whose name was bestowed upon the racial laws of 15 September, 1935. For the Stuermer, however this sentence signified a special satisfaction, because it was the "Stuermer", which in a special edition of the year 1938, had demanded the death penalty for race defilers. If today Jewish race defilers are really sentenced to death, then this proves that the Stuermer has been a good prophet already years ago. Race defilers are public parasites. Jewish race defilers therefore will have to take care in future. They not only risk their freedom but also their heads and necks.
The patience of the German people has become exhausted. It does not greet Jewish public parasites more tenderly anymore than the public parasites from our own ranks. In this sense the Katzenberger trial has received a significance which goes far beyond the Nurnberg court-room. Everything for the German people. The world, Jewry will discover that Germany knows how to defend herself with the severe measures against Jewish race defilers. No it will again write according the old confirmed tactic, about the "mediaeval conditions" prevailing in Germany. It will again glorify those "poor, deplorable, harmless Jews", who become the victims of National-Socialist legislation. It will give vent to spite and malice toward Germany."
The Prosecution offers as Exhibit No. 155 the Document NG-270.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence. We call attention to the time and wonder if you can get far with another exhibit.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Do you wish to adjourn at 12:15?
THE PRESIDENT: You couldn't go far with the next exhibit in three minutes. We will adjourn at this time until 1:30.
(A recess was taken until 1330, 26 March 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May I ask if Document NG-649 has been received by the Court?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Does the Defense Counsel have that document?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, they have indicated that they do.
Document NG-649 is a sworn affidavit which reads as follows:
INTERPRETER (HAHN): We do not have the document.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Will you please ask the Defense Counsel if they have an extra copy.
(An extra copy was delivered to the Interpreters by the Defense Counsel).
THE PRESIDENT: This may be a good time to get this properly placed in the Document Book. What page number and what book does it belong.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It should be placed at the end of Document Book 3-C, just after Document NG-154.
THE PRESIDENT: It will become page 108.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It is a sworn affidavit and reads as follows:
"I, Dr. George Engert, born 10 May 1903 in Plappeville near Metz, attended elementary and high school in Bischweiler, Alsace, then junior college in Strassburg and Wuerzburg. I get by bachelor's degree 1921 in Wuerzburg and entered Wuerzburg University to study law."
Skipping over the majority of these biographical details to the middle of the next paragraph:
"In April 1939 I became member of the Nuernberg Special Court and remained there until 1 August 1941. From then on I was Senior Public Prosecutor at the General Public Prosecutor's Office in Nuernberg. I joined the NSDAP on 1 May 1937 and was, since 1943, "Gauschulungswart" (Gau Chief Instructor) of the NSRE (National Socialist Lawyers' League), I had been a member of the NSRB since the end of 1933.
At the time when I joined the Nuernberg Special Court, District Judge ROTHAUG was Presiding Judge of the Special Court and at the same time Presiding Judge of the court of Assizes and of the IVth Criminal Divisional Court. Until the outbreak of war , the major part of the work had to be done in the Court of Assizes.