Q. Is it correct also that the population could not be informed in any other way about this danger than by going into the matter of the State doctrine theory?
A. I know that in 1939 laws which mentioned the death penalty as the highest State penalty were introduced by the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich and in that connection there was a propagandistic introduction by the Ministry of Propaganda at the proper time, that is, at the local places. In the districts the population found out about the execution of these laws by means of punishments. I am thinking, above all of black market slaughtering.
Q. Did Rothaug speak with you or any of his other colleagues about this, that this manner of conducting a trial was being used by him just for that very reason, so that the necessary penalties could be justified for the population, or the public, and that the general public would be warned sufficiently?
A. The statement of Rothaug in regard to this theme clarifies this in a very picturesque manner. He said that one had to spread fear and terror. That was according to the principle, "You may hate me, if you only fear me."
At the end there was also talk about the fact that he represented the point of view within the audience to make them understand a sentence propagandistically, according to the National Socialist philosophy.
Q. What was your own attitude at that time toward the education of the population?
A. I myself, since July of 1941, as Deputy President of the court, occasionally conducted trials which Rothaug had referred to me as being, at that time, the President. In my own manner of conducting a trial I had an opportunity, in trials regarding black market slaughtering, as well as public enemies, criminals who had been indicted under the Malicious Acts Law - I had to point out that the reaction of the State was a strict one, especially in cases where we had to balance the question of the food problem, and we had to balance the relationship between city and country, and that, seen on the whole, this strict threat of punishment, which was made by the laws, was not a pleasure to apply in the individual case, to be sure, but in the framework of the just extent, it simply had to be applied.
Q. As far as you remember, how large was the interest of the population in the trials of the Special Courts?
A. Experience showed that there was a considerable difference. If, when we had trials here in Nurnberg or in the outlying areas -in a normal trial here in the Special Court in Nurnberg, which had not been announced by the press, the interest of the population was not especially large. There could not be as many people who could come in the city to attend the trials because of the general commitment of labor. If a trial had boon announced, that is, a sentencing of a deed which aroused or which from general interest could be expected, then there were more people who attended the trial. The trials in the districts outside of Nurnberg had the following form: At a trial at a distant local court, the courtrooms were filled because usually there was the sentence -- it was a question of sentencing a case in which concerned a man or woman who was known in the entire locality.
Q. Question.
A (Interposing) I am not quite finished, sir. If there were cities like Regensburg, Amberg, Weiden or Straubing, the interest was again somewhat more because that was -- the local political office had mobilized a certain audience of a certain city.
Q. As far as you remember, how large were the courtrooms in the local courts; for example, of the local court of Neumarkt and Upper Paletine?
A. The local courtroom of the local court of Neumarkt was, well,-in relationship to the general size of the other local courts. It was obviously a small courtroom. When I was already, at the time, when I was still public prosecutor, the leading question was to either bring the case into Nurnberg or try it in the room in the Rathaus, the Mayor's Town Hall. That was the room in which the Communal Counsel of Neumarkt met.
Q. Can you remember that in Amberg the trials had to be conducted in the Town Hall because there had been some difficulties because of the courtroom, and also in Regenburg?
A. About these conditions in Amberg -
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, the Prosecution objects to this line of questions. I cannot remember at any time during the direct examination in which the Prosecution attempted either directly or by inference, to establish the fact that the size of a courtroom had any relationship to the case.
DR. KOESSL: May I say a word in answer to this, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
DR. KOESSL: The Prosecution reproached the defendant Rothaug that for purely propaganda reasons he had gone to larger courtrooms. The witness has also said something in regard to this, and said that it would have been better to use the courtrooms at the place - at the local place where the trial was being conducted. I am limiting myself only to two or three localities in order to point out with these examples that the external forces consisted -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): The objection will be overruled. Go ahead with your questions.
Q. Do you remember the difficulties with the courtroom in Amberg?
A. The conditions in Amberg, I know more in detail because I, on the 1st of May 1943, together with Landgerichtspresident Schmidthammer, conducted a trial in Amberg because of the return of OO I had a meeting with the Landgerichtspresident regarding the return of courtrooms in Amberg. The conditions in Amberg were as follows: The district court was separated from the local court. The presiding judge of the district court was -- he wanted to put a courtroom at our disposal regularly for our trials, and in the course of the years 1940-41, occasionally it came about that we were to refer to the local court.
Q. Witness, I believe you do not have to go into too much detail.
A. Well, there was only somewhat more external connections which brought it about that the large hall in the Town Hall was accepted by us, and that Kreisleiter Kolb was an intermediary there in Amberg.
Herr Rothaug kept this room after the Oberpresident had said that he was willing to defray the cost. According to my ability to judge the situation, however, in the course of the months it would have been possible after all to make a better -- to establish better relationship with the administration of justice in Amberg and to return to their rooms as I did it myself, after the first of May 1943.
Q. Now, let us summarize: Can we say this, that local differences could be overcome and that the President of the District Court of Appeals had approved to hold the trials of holding the trials in other rooms?
The Oberpresident in this one case of Amberg, namely, had to be asked any questions, and that was because of -- in the case, in regard to the Town Hall in Neumarkt, the room there and in Kahm, the use of the Town Hall, they were paid by the local administration, through the intermediation of the Kreisleiter of Neumarkt and through the intermediation of the Kreisleiter of Kahm.
Q. Did the defendant Rothaug have any contact with the Kreisleiter at Ansbach? Answer, yes or no.
A. Until after the war, after there had been a change, when there was a change in the appointment of the Kreisleiter of Ansbach, there was no contact with the Kreisleiter Ansbach observable as Rothaug in general did not have any special contact with the district Ansbach.
Q. And, how about the Kreisleiter in Rothenburg. Answer, yes or no.
A. A Trial was once held through his mediation, one trial that I know about.
Q. In Neustadt?
A. That I don't know.
Q. In Weiden?
A. The Kreisleiter in Weiden was outside of the territory.
Q. Did Rothaug have contact with him?
A. No, no, I can't say.
Q. With the Kreisleiter in Regensburg?
A. The Kreisleiter in Regensburg did not appear in this contact.
Q. And, in Straubing?
A. Rothaug was corresponding with him, two letters were exchanged and then it was interrupted.
Q. Did you ever see the Ortsgruppenleiter of these cities in Rothaug's office?
A. Well, I cannot answer that just like that. Partly there was a personal union between the Mayor and Ortsgruppenleiter, one man held the same position simultaneously. I would not like to answer that question.
Q. Since you arc talking so much about the cooperation with Rothaug, with the Party office, I would like to ask you to mention all of the Ortsgruppenleiters to enumerate them for me, Who, in your opinion or your own observation cooperated or collaborated with Rothaug?
A. Here in Nurnberg, there was Kreisleiter Zimmermann, then in the direction to the East, Austria and Kahm Kreisleiter Kolb. Kreisleiter of Kahm, his name was Schlemmer. Then in Neumarkt, Kreisleiter Dozer. That in the main are the parties of which I was thinking of when I was talking about.
Q That is in the north part of Bavaria, according to this, he knew about three Kreisleiters; is that correct?
A Yes. Half of Bavaria, north of the Danube, as you said, Rothaug probably knew more Kreisleiters, but those who had any connection with the trials; it was only to the extent which I just mentioned. I know, for example, that the Kreisleiter of Munich, I might also mention, had contact with Herr Rothaug exactly as a party officer, in writing, and it was so that the essential connection of Rothaug with the party did not appear so obviously in the external contact with these Kreisleiters and Ortsgruppenleiter but rather as party connection toward us and his circle of collaborators was manifest by his social contact, his orientation, his information, with the important party leaders here in Nurnberg; in a similar manner, after all he was a leader of the Gau and Haberkern was one of the best friends of Rothaug and that in itself shows that in meeting with Haberkern and Zimmermann Rothaug was at the top of the Gau administration and that he received information from them; and how often on official calls the "die Jante" was mentioned. This was the code name for the SD, die jante; if somebody called and Rothaug was not there was on his desk a piece of paper, a note by somebody who had received the telephone call and this said your aunt has called; and in the course of the months and years this increased to such an extent that it is absolutely not a product of my imagination, a phantom of imagination, but it really happened, it is an experience that I had.
Q What questions were discussed when you, together with Rothaug and Fischer and with Zimmermann were in the Blaue Traube.
A In the presence of Herr Zimmermann I never sat with Mr. Rothaug because that is a fundamental difference, counsel, which I made at the beginning of the cross examination, or which I wanted to make at the beginning of your cross examination when I said that if I was very often in the Blaue Traube, even if I put it -
Q Witness, we discussed that the other day.
A I never sat with Zimmermann; Zimmermann probably doesn't know me at all, if you were to show him to me; if you were to show me to him.
Q Which observations could you then make about the relationship of Rothaug to Zimmermann.
A The immediate observations is that of some one listening to a conversation; that observation I could not make. However, Herr Rothaug after all repeatedly within the framework of official business at the time when Zimmermann was Gau leader, Rothaug said, talking about the manner in one direction or another, what the wishes of the Gau leader were; I am here thinking particularly about a trial against an Ortsgruppenleiter Ramsteck, not about the trial which I conducted myself, where Zimmermann was a witness, but in a trial against Ramsteck because of a fraud. There a defense counsel, Mr. Biddle, said himself that his client was enraged about it; that he could observe that the penal files were returned by Haberkern in the presence of Zimmermann to Mr. Rothaug in the Blaue Traube.
Q Do you still know the attitude of Rothaug towards this political leader Ramsteck?
A There was absolutely a negative attitude.
Q Perhaps you can even confirm that Rothaug because of his attitude against this party leader had been reprimanded by the Gau leadership.
A I heard about that, yes.
Q Do you also know that the Deputy Gau leader Holtz, because of this case even complained to the Reich Ministry of Justice about Rothaug?
AAs far as I remember the attitude of Holz became important only in connection with the second trial of Ramsteck. The possibility that Holz already during the first trial of Ramsteck which he wanted to conduct; that he already made some complaint to higher authorities.
Q Witness, what were the consequences of the legal clause that the party was the bearer of the idea of the State. What was the consequences in regard to the application of political penal laws?
A This question makes it apparent the difference between justice and the party, and actually can be explained in its basis; in our sphere of work in the Justice Administration, there were a number of jurists who did not recognize the sphere in the Administration of Justice, who only wanted to let justice speak; and there were a number of jurists who because cf principles which you have just mentioned had adjusted their manner of pronouncing a sentence, as Herr Rothaug said, to base it upon the National Socialist ideas; this battle actually was never concluded.
Q Did you make observations that Rothaug in stating his opinion in this connection ever left the framework of the laws?
A Left the frame work of the laws; no; one cannot say so, but insofar as I observed it should be formulated as follows: The laws were for Rothaug, the tool by means of which in his field the Administration of Justice by which he could anchor the political idea or theory.
Q Did Rothaug in this activity which you now criticize, did he execute the will of the law giver?
A We know from our university days what should be the will of the law giver.
Q I asked you to answer the question which I put:
A I can hardly answer this question yes or no.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Court please, in the first place it has not been established in any degree what this so-called will of the law giver is, and in the second place, even if it had been, it calls for a purely personal opinion of this witness; and the Prosecution objects to that.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection of that question will be sustained. The objection will be sustained.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Was the activity in the Special Court ever regarded or judged as an activity in the framework of the party activities, because the Special Courts were often, or rather had to apply overwhelming National Socialist penal laws?
A I don't know anything about that; I never heard about that.
Q Can you confirm that as a consequence of the intertwining of Party and state, there was no resistance to the party imaginable without endangering the country; and that conversely, every service to the country was of use to the party of necessity.
A To this question, as it applies concretely to Rothaug, and that is the only thing that you can mean after all, I would like to say that it would have been possible in the framework of the party; it would have been condoned in the party if Rothaug would have exercised a certain reserve.
Q. Now let's go to the case Schlamminger. You maintained that the law for the application of legal peace could be applied only if the deed was motivated by political reasons.
A. The law which I mentioned -
Q. Just a moment. Just a moment. The law for maintaining of legal peace, Reichsgesetzblatt 1, Page 723.
A. Even if an official, because of his official activity -- the law is applied even if somebody tries to kill him. It is a combination between political motives. If the attacked person is a bearer of party emblems, SA people, SS people, Gau leaders or policemen or in the case of prison officials, on the basis of their official activity.
Q. In the case of Schlamminger it was a police official, wasn't it?
A. Yes, it was police official Alt.
Q. If, therefore, Alt was attacked, assaulted, was it then still necessary to prove political motives?
A. Only in the case of Alt? No. If it only applies in regard to Alt -
Q. What application for punishment did you make in your indictment as Prosecutor at the time for Schlamminger? What law did you base your indictment on?
A. In my capacity as Prosecutor I talked with the Chief Public Prosecutor on the basis of the information I had. After establishing contact with Rothaug I received the guidance to ask for the death penalty, and I believe the same legal basis which was used for the opinion was also the reason in my indictment -- for my plea.
Q. What was your position in regard to the clemency plea?
A. I wanted to report to Denzler. Chief Public Prosecutor Denzler was somewhat affected in an unfavorable manner because of the discussion Kahm-Nuernberg and because it had been conducted my me with Generalstaatsanwalt Bems, and in regard to the clemency plea he reported me to the General Public Prosecutor. There we discussed and decided that the office of the General Public Prosecutor would then state the reasons for the clemency plea and also be in charge of it. Then in the lower office, in the Oberstaatsanwalt's office who had to sign the clemency plea, that is Oberstaatsanwalt Denzler, I submitted him the clemency plea which was based on the opinion and was for an execution of the sentence.
I think that I am remembering this correctly.
Q. You said that Schlamminger was in the end finally pardoned.
A. Yes, I did. That was for a penitentiary of six or eight years -well, that doesn't matter.
Q. What did you consider the extension of power of Rothaug after the outbreak of the war?
A. Because the war time laws with the very large possibility for penalties, the large basis, reasons, which could be given for penalty, therefore made it possible to inflict capital punishment to a larger extent than before the outbreak of the war.
Q. That was an increase in power which every judge of a Special Court, and especially every presiding judge, was given?
A. We only thought that it was somewhat over-extended in the hands of Herr Roghaug, in our opinion, because in the application of the laws toward the guidance of the Ministry of Justice Herr Rothaug very often went over to a strict application and maintained it, carried it through.
Q. Do you remember that at the outbreak of the war Rothaug was drafted into the Wehrmacht?
A. Herr Roghaug -- yes; yes; yes. For a few days.
Q. Although he was a soldier already during the first World War?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know that Roghaug against his will was recalled into the Justice service by the Landgerichtspresident?
A. I don't know that.
Q. 1939, Roghaug was presiding judge of the jury court, that was of a penal chamber, and of the special court. Now you spoke about another old party member to whom the penal chamber was allegedly transferred.
A. Yes. That was Herr Baierle.
Q. That was Baierle?
A. Baierle.
Q. And who was the one other party member, because there must have been two if you speak about the other.
A. No, that was just a mistaken expression. I didn't mean to say that.
Q. You didn't want to say by that that Roghaug perhaps -
A. No, no, no, no.
Q. Do you know what Roghaug's attitude was toward Baierle when he was supposed to become presiding judge of the penal chamber?
A. His attitude was bad, unfavorable.
Q. Bad?
A. Yes.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, the Prosecution would appreciate a clarification of the Tribunal's position with regard to the cross examination on matters involving persons and personalities not raised in the direct examination.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Court -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal cannot lay down any rule to govern a line of questions nor to declare the policy of cross examination. The rules of cross examination are pretty well understood and we don't either make them or change them. We only rule on objections that may be made. We will either sustain or overrule them as made.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May the Court please, I object to the questioning of a person or personality not raised in the direct examination, in re the last question just asked the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: We will sustain the objection.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Court, may I briefly explain why I put this question? During the direct examination through corresponding terms and statements it was expressed, and it can also be detected in the answer of the witness, that the defendant Roghaug was supposed at the time to have given the presiding judgeship of the fourth penal chamber to an old party member, that he was supposed to have handed it to him. That is one of the many mosaics of a small mature out of which the Prosecution makes its picture in the case. I am therefore forced to go into these details because other questions were not raised in the direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT. The Court has ruled on this question.
Q Would Rothaug or any other judge during tho war in addition to the special court--could they have taken over another penal chamber in addition if the increased amount of work is taken into consideration?
A The taking over of additional presiding judgeships was absolutely impossible, especially since Herr Rothaug was given the cases for the Special Court, partly on the free will of the public prosecution, partly after the discussion about it with him, which in normal times perhaps these cases would have gone to a penal chamber; that is to say, the Special Court in Nurnberg had such an enormous amount of penal cases that another presiding judgeship in addition would have been impossible. It was overlooked with cases.
Q Did in general one team of judges carry out the job on the special court--was that sufficient in order to finish all cases which had to be finished?
A Normally, no; Nurnberg, as in all other places, would have needed two or three special courts as penal chambers. Herr Rothaug maintained the principle that at the top of the special court there was supposed to be one, and that the division of labor, however then was supposed to take place through special appointments; so it happened that we had one presiding judge, Herr Rothaug, constantly--one deputy presiding judge, a further deputy presiding judge, and then so many associate justices that the special court was in a position on one day, for example, to try three cases because of the division.
Q On this day, for example, there were three different presiding judges?
AAs I just told you.
Q I now have the Document NG-409; it's Exhibit 238 from Document Book 3-L. And now I would like to ask you, witness, from the list of these sentences, would you tell me which of these death sentences under your presiding judgeship were pronounced?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the court. We find that the document to which counsel for defense refers was offered and introduced into evidence after the direct examination of this witness. Surely there can be no cross examination on that document.
THE PRESIDENT: The fact that the evidence was introduced during the course of the cross examination doesn't make that unavailable to counsel on cross examination of this witness.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I merely used that point of time, if the Court please, to show that in our opinion it was beyond the scope of the cross examination pleaded.
THE PRESIDENT: So far it's a part of the testimony in this case and I see no reason, especially if we look at the character of that exhibit, why he has not certainly the right to inquire of any witness who testifies against Herr Rothaug. We overrule that objection.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q I would like you to tell me the number of the cases in which you were presiding judge of the court that was judging the cases.
A For me, only the time can be considered during which from the first of July 1941, I was the second deputy presiding judge at the special court. Basically, Rothaug himself-
Q I just asked you to state the numbers. It must be very simple to say, "During these death sentences, I was presiding judge."
A I would know that from the time until the first of May 1943 until Herr Rothaug went away, I don't remember that I was presiding judge in a case which ended in a death sentence.
Q Please read the names and take your time about it; then your memory will be refreshed. I believe that a death sentence pronounced on a man is a matter which one can remember for some time.
You can remember all kinds of little details otherwise.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter which is likely to consume some little time. As we will take a recess in about seven minutes. I think he should have the opportunity to look these over during this recess. You may put the question to him in the meantime.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q I shall also ask the witness to tell me after that in which case he was associate judge and in which he was a prosecutor. That is what I would like to say now so that tho witness can try to remember that.
Witness, what proportion of all cases before the special court was tried under the presiding judgeship of Rothaug and what proportion of the cases was given to tho deputies of Rothaug--in what proportion were they presiding judges? Of course, I can only ask you for an estimate.
A The basis for the estimate is as follows: During the week, there were regularly two trial sessions in Nurnberg. It happened that in addition, on two or three other days on such week, there were also trials outside of Nurnberg. One session in Nurnberg was conducted normally by Rothaug always. The rips to Regensburg, Straubing, to Amberg, Kahm, Schwandorf, Weiden, were regularly also undertaken by Herr Rothaug himself. If one assumes that during one trial session, there were regularly four to five cases, then it results from this that there were about ten sentences per week in Nurnberg. In the outside localities, there were not so many because time was lost during travel. I estimate that during one week, there were about five additional sentences from outside localities, perhaps a little more sometimes. Of these, 15 sentences, on the average in a week; there were, after all, ten regularly which were under when Rothaug was presiding judge, and five were conducted by the one or two deputies.
That should be about it, regularly speaking.
Q That is, about one-third of the cases were tried under Rothaug, when Rothaug was presiding judge?
A On the average, yes.
Q If the facts are thus-
JUDGE BRAND: May I interrupt you, please. I think we misunderstood. I understand from the witness that about two-thirds of the cases tried a week were under the presiding control of Rothaug.
DR. KOESSL: Yes, and one-third by others.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Since the facts were so, why did you say that Rothaug kept the activity of the special court--reserved it exclusively for himself? That is what they said before.
A The setting of the date of those trials which he did not conduct himself--that Rothaug reserved to himself--it was not so that he, when the files were handed in from the very beginning, understood a certain division of the case, but he considered it important to give to his deputies only those cases which they could also deal with. That was my regular observation. If here in Nurnberg there had been a case which was of significance and he himself was anxious to be in charge of this trial. It happened that such a file was deferred one or two weeks once in a while until Herr Rothaug gained the appropriate time in order to be the presiding judge in the trial of such a case.
Q. But I believe, witness -
JUDGE BRAND (Interposing): Just before the recess, which is due now, I wanted to ask the witness what Party position this man Haberkern held. I don't recollect.
THE WITNESS: Haberkern was Gau-inspector in the Gau Franken. In addition, he was Ortsgruppenleiter of the Nazi Party for the old City of Nurnberg. In addition, in matters regarding inns and lodges, he
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): We will take our morning recess at this time for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the witness had time to examine that document?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
DR. KOESSL: Unfortunately I did not understand.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. Witness, can you tell me now during which cases you were the presiding judge of the court?
A. On the 1st of May 1943, concerning this list - I could not find one case during which I was the deputy presiding judge at the court, but I do remember that in two cases in Weiden I did conduct the trial and that a death sentence was passed. I do not remember the name of the man and I cannot find it in the list. That must have been in October, perhaps September, 1942, but I cannot find the case here.
Q. Just one moment, witness. You spoke of two cases.
A. Yes, I did. I spoke of two cases when I was the presiding judge.
Q. Both in Weiden?
A. Yes, both in Weiden on the same day.
Q. Both cases are missing in the list?
A. I can't say because I no longer remember the names. It was a farm worker. I think it is not very important.
Q. Were you the associate judge?
A. I started to be an associate judge - just a minute. Number 11 in the year 1940, Breifenthaler, that was the first case, 5 December 1940; that was when my office as judge at the Special Court started. The next case, No. 12, Neupert; then 1941, Case No. 7, Rost; then Cases 8 and 9 and 10 belong together. This is the case of Dwetryszyn, Klarzynski, and Ocejniezak. No. 11, Gruber; No. 12, Becher; No. 20, Dassler; No. 22, Rottenkolber; No. 28, Katzenberger; No. 34, Schieber. Then in 1942 No. 16 and 17, I am not sure whether I took part in those cases, Maderer and Ketterer, but I did take part in one of these cases. No. 30, Grasser; No. 35, Scibiar, Essentially those are the cases which at first sight, immediately when I was presiding and I am doubtful about Case 75, Wota, and 83, Petlikowski.
I am not sure about those cases. That concerns my work as an associate judge under Rothaug.
Q. Did you at the end of the list, during the time when you were presiding judge of the Special Court, do you not pass any death sentence?
A. From the time beginning on the 1st of May, yes.
Q. Do you know whether all those sentences were passed by you?
A. No, no, from 1 May 1943 those cases included cases with which I did not deal. I know that from the pre-examination. At the time from 1 May 1943 until 1 October 1943 those cases included a number which do not effect me personally.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, during the direct examination of this witness, whenever a case specifically was discussed, the official relationship of the witness to that was always brought out, whether he was the prosecutor or whether he was an associate judge or presiding judge or whether he had no official relationship with it. In other words, the prosecution inquires at this time if any of the present questions are relevant. The questioning is concerned solely with the witness's official relationship to a list of cases, a great number of which were never touched upon in the direct examination. We, therefore, object to this line of questioning.
THE PRESIDENT: It is apparent that the direct examination thought to show the severity of Rothaug in sentences pronounced. Therefore, it seems to be competent to show that a great number, or such persons as he may be able to show, of the severe sentences were not pronounced by Rothaug.
DR. KOESSL: May I continue?
TEE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Witness, at what case did you act as public prosecutor?
A. In four cases. They were Case No. 1 and Case No. 3, 1939. And No. 40. No. 9 and 10 belong together. I acted as public prosecutor for those four cases.