DR. KOESSL: I believe that the President did not understand me correctly. I just wanted to say that the defense counsel in a German trial, according to the German rules of procedure, of a penal court does not play as important rule as the defense counsel in this EnglishAmerican trial. I do not believe it is an insult to this trial.
THE PRESIDENT: Even so, it is unimportant in this inquiry to make that comparison.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q You said that in the course of the trial Rothaug had already laid down his opinion, or had already decided how he would sentence the defendant in this case. Can it be said that this prospect, this insight into the attitude of the presiding judge in a German criminal trial was much easier to find out because the presiding judge himself was in charge of the taking of evidence?
A The presiding judge is in charge of the taking of evidence during the session. However, if a defense counsel one or two days before the trial starts has received a call as in the Grasser case, that he was asked to go from Room 581 to Room 600, that they are appointed defense counsel by the court, the change of the date of the opening of the trial is not in question; then in this case and in similar cases the defense counsel sees that is a laying down of the attitude of the presiding judge regarding the criminal law and in this way Rothaug puts himself on one side. Even, if for example, he returned the files to the prosecution with the remark on the files I have appointed a defense counsel for the court; I am still trying to get an expert opinion on the files because we have to count on a death sentence; or a violation of Para graph 4 of the Public Enemy Order; or because this is a particularly severe case; or that it is to be expected; that is how I always expressed it.
Q How does the legal point of view and the hint of the presiding judge to the defendant that a stricter penal law is possible; that the application of a stricter penal law is possible. Do you regard that as such a free statement?
AAccording to trial procedure, an indictment which has been submitted by the prosecution, if that has been received the presiding judge either has to set the date of the opening of the trial or he has to decline it for very important reasons to set such a date. This corresponds to the practice that a change in the legal point of view, on the basis of receipt of evidence, or the submission of evidence, must result, but above all that there will be no special difficulties or more serious considerations if acts with Reich Ministry of Justice, or at the Judge of the People's Court, or the Chief Public Prosecutor of the People's Court; and I returned from there because in regard to the competency of the People's Court a special criminal act which belongs within the competency of the People's Court will not be accepted by the Special Court or by the Reich Ministry of Justice, or that the trial shall be conducted according to the malicious acts law. I am saying that this does not generally correspond with the general practice of the judges to lay down a way which must be followed; that there is a special discrimination according to legal points of view without having a group of judges decide about it in advance.
Q You seem to be referring to the case Grasser.
A Yes, there are others too; there are more; case Grasser, case Kleinlein, attorney Escher; then changes in tho date on short notice; those happened several times.
Q I would like to discuss with you the case Grasser. Where was the case Grasser before it came to trial before the Special Court Nurnberg?
A The case Grasser had been submitted first by the prosecution to the Chief Public Prosecutor at the People's Court Oberreichsannalt.
Q Just a minute, witness.
A The prosecution here in Nurnberg. The Public Prosecution here in Nurnberg because Grasser once upon a time had been convicted in Munich, sentenced because of preparation for high treason. The new submission had as its purpose the competent expert at the People's Court, and find out whether he was interested in having the case Grasser in view of the grave offense of Grasser. The case Grasser was returned and the Public Prosecutor Nurnberg obtained; the order from the Reich Ministry of Justice to the Prosecutor according to the malicious acts law. The case Grasser came as a malicious acts case to the Special Court in Nurnberg.
Q The case Grasser, however, was by the Reich Public Prosecutor, the Reich Prosecution in Berlin had it transferred to the Public Prosecution in Munich.
A Yes, that is correct.
Q. Why was this Grasser case not treated any further in Munich?
A. The Munich Penal Senate could receive the cases from the People's Court according to the discretion of the competent expert of the Oberreichsanwalt at the People's Court at Berlin. If then the General Public Prosecutor at the District Court of Appeals Munich had received a commission to handle such a case and had decided to appoint it to the prosecution, then this decree or this order was within the framework of his competency and had to be regarded as though the case had already been returned from Berlin to the Public Prosecution.
Q. Do you still remember with what directive the Chief Public Reich Prosecutor had turned the matter over to the General Public Prosecutor at Munich?
A. No.
Q. You don't remember?
A. No.
Q. Do you know why the General Public Prosecutor in Munich referred the matter to the Special Court in Nuernberg?
A. As far as I am informed about the matter, because preparation for high treason was not accepted - they didn't want to accept it as such.
Q. In the discussion about the question of guilt on the part of Grasser did the question come up also as to whether the original question, the entire complex under indictment, or whether only a part of this original entire indictment should be sentenced or judged in the case?
A. I don't know about that any more.
Q. Do you know perhaps whether the question concerned was whether the subjective facts in the case Grasser went beyond the facts necessary for prosecution under the Malicious Acts Law, whether therefore --
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, the prosecution submits that defense counsel at this time is by specific statements and suggestions attempting to elicit an answer from the witness to a question which, by the preceding question, he stated he did not know. Moreover, the prosecution objects to the seeming irrelevancy of this entire line of ques tioning with regard to refinements of procedure and occurrences in the case not elicited by direct examination which apparently have no probative connection.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Court, during the direct examination it was maintained that in the discussion about the Grasser case there were considerable differences of opinion regarding the law under which he was to be tried. These differences of opinion about the applicable law did not occur only in the main trial as late as that, but already were the subject of the examination of the Oberreichsanwalt and the Generalstaatsanwalt in Munich. Thus the defendant Rothaug was not confronted with the facts which were described in the direct examination, but there were very considerable reasons, important reasons, for Rothaug to consider the case from a larger point of view, and under the point of view of the heavy and more serious facts to examine it. I therefore request you to let me continue my line of questioning because perhaps the witness can clarify one or the other fact. If, however, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the case is suitable for discussion when the witness Doebig is called, I am ready to do it then. I only wanted to be able to get an answer from the witness of things which he actually knows.
THE PRESIDENT: It must be apparent that defense counsel is a little mistaken about his last statement. He is really getting the opinion of the witness concerning the conduct of a certain trial and as to whether the law was properly administered and properly interpreted and applied to the indictment in that case. Now if we would go into every case that was tried before the People's Court while Rothaug was presiding officer or connected with the court, or if we would even go into those details in every case that was brought up by the prosecution, we would take a great deal of time and not advance the cause appreciably, if at all. We think that we should not go into that detail, getting the opinion of this witness as to whether the right results were reached in this or that or the other trial.
DR. KOESSL: I shall confine myself to two or more questions only in regard to this case.
With the agreement of the President I shall ask a few more questions of the witness.
BY DR. KQESSL:
Q. Witness, what was the decisive point in the discussion with the Landgerichtspraesident Doebig, District Court President Doebig?
A. The decisive point was the following: The chief judge of the District Court injected himself into these proceedings in order to achieve that the death penalty and the application of Paragraph 4 of the Public Enemy decree would not be applied. That was the decisive point and the president of the District Court at that time did not speak about it in the council chamber that he had the order from the Ministry - that he was acting on orders of the Ministry. That became apparent outside of the council chamber by means of telephone conversations between the Chief Public Prosecutor at the General Public Prosecutor's office by the name of Engert, the expert in the Ministry, and between Engert and Doebig.
Q. Was not the fact that the Oberlandgerichtspraesident also had a different opinion than Rothaug a possibility for the associate judges to divest themselves of all inhibitions? Did that not give them that possibility? Why did the associate judges in this case in which the opinion of the Oberlandgerichtspraesident also differed - why did they in spite of that maintain the opinion that Rothaug had, too?
A. After the president of the District Courts of Appeal Doebig had left, Rothaug first attacked Doebig. According to all external appearances he was right, because per se it is an unusual procedure if an administrative chief enters the council chamber of the judges. That the Ministry was in back of Doebig was not obvious to us. At first Herr Rothaug asked for the agreement of Herr Gross, who was at that time reporter, and he achieved it in this way. He left the matter Doebig and discussed it in a general state political point of view, that here one should not act in accordance with the opinion of an administrative lawyer in the administration of justice, and I ask you not to overlook the tem poral conditions.
In the spring of '42 the decision of the German Reich --
Q. You didn't mention that.
A. That belongs in this context. From the 26th of April 1942 the Reichstag supplied the background to enable Mr. Rothaug to say decisively, we have to consider the question, how would the Fuehrer decide here? And about this political philosopy which Mr. Rothaug led, and in this manner it happened that Gross thought at first, Well, yes, of course we don't want any scandal on the type of the Oldenburg scandal. We don't want to provoke that. And from this there resulted the further discussion on the clemency plea.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May the Court please, I find it hard to distinguish any difference at all between the answers now elicited and those elicited on direct examination. They seem to be apparently the same answers.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, you can't control the answers. And yet they seem to be responsive to the question up to a certain point. The answers are entirely too long and go way beyond the question, it seems to me. Couldn't you have an abbreviated answer rather than to have a long discourse in answer to each particular question? But I am afraid that the questions do elicit the same answers.
It maybe the questions are not intended to elicit the same answers, but it does seem to us that they are in fact eliciting the same answer. If there were some way to get something new rather than to have a repetition of that which has been already gone over more than once, it would have been very helpful to the case.
BY DR. KOESSL: I shall now open a new line of questioning.
Q Witness, in the direct examination you often mentioned the relationship of Rothaug to the S. D. Which persons of the S. D. were connected with Rothaug?
A It is known from telephone conversations: the chief of the S. D. Division in Nurnberg. His name was Friedrich; a certain Mr. Elka, who once was an assistant judge. Then beyond the borders of Nurnberg: an S. D. chief of Regensburg who received reports of the trials regularly; an S. D. associate worker in Amberg; and a trusted S. D. man in Cham. These are the people I knew.
Q What questions were discussed between Rothaug and the representatives of the S. D. whom you named, as far as you know?
A Partly Rothaug mentioned that he had reports at the S. D. about the echo which meetings of the trial sessions of the special court in the district evoked. He said that also from the Reich, certain constellations from the justice department were criticized and in this connection the special courts from our neighboring towns, Munich and Bamberg; beyond that, Rothaug occasionally let it be heard that with the S. D. he did some work, some writing, and made some criticisms. I remember very clearly the submission of one or two sentences of the special court Saarbrucken.
Q Do you mean to say by your statement that in one or two cases the S. D. submitted to Rothaug a sentence and that Rothaug stated his attitude from a legal point of view?
A Rothaug said that he had been given the task in regard to these two sentences not so much from the purely legal point of view, but from the philosophical point of view to criticize them because politically speaking these somewhat lenient sentences were being objected to.
Q Now what did Rothaug do as far as you know?
A The activity at the S. D. -
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May the prosecution interrupt to inquire whether or not the frequently recurring word "philosophical" as it comes over our headphones should not in fact be "idealogical"? Is that correct?
INTERPRETER: Yes.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Could the record be made to so appear?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know how the record can be changed at this time, but it should be corrected of course since the translator says it should be "ideological." Since what I have said goes into the record, correction will thus be noted in the record.
Q What now did Rothaug actually undertake? What did he do with the S. D. in regard to these sentences in Saarbruecken?
AAs he told us, he stated his opinion in writing in regard to these two cases. Since, however, his assistance in the S. D. per se was supposed to be kept secret, in this building there were people who appeared to be collaborators as workers in the S. D. and I had no idea that they were. Therefore, Herr Rothaug did not state any details about his work in the S. D. Even in Regensberg and Amberg, those people were there always avoided. When we were sitting at the table in the evening together to designate themselves as S. D. people, we knew it because Rothaug himself had told us that.
Q What observations did you make about the activity of these people?
A I know that in two larger political penal cases in Amberg, the defendants, through an "agent provacateur" had been caused to leave a certain political reserve.
Q Just a moment. Was Rothaug important here?
A In the trial, this appeared quite obviously without unequivocally to the S. D. in Amberg on the evening before the trial. I can still see the man before my mental eye. He worked in a savings bank. He approached Rothaug and asked him that during the trial Rothaug should create the impression among the general public that the witness, the provacateur, the one that denounced him, that he was not denounced. One who was in the policie, who served for the police, but that he was doing a task for his country -- patriotic duty -- if he revealed the other person.
Q But here there is nothing apparent which would not agree with the conclusions that you and the other associate justices also drew?
A What conclusions?
Q In the direct examination, you made it apparent that one could not feel secure because Rothaug was cooperating with the S. D. Now, in your entire statements about the S. D. and about Rothaug, I do not see any hints -- any indications -- which would justify this fear. Can you tell me any one thing that Rothaug did with his S. D. connections in order to intimidate you or was somebody put in an unfavorable position because of the S. D. collaboration?
A The break between Rothaug and the administration would probably not have become so deep if Herr Rothaug did not have at his disposal some extraordinary background information about the S. D. and the Party, but that stands in the background. It is not important. I want to say the following: in the discussions, even when public prosecutors came before the submission of the indictment, for example, and if they discussed cases with Rothaug -- whether they should be indicted or not before the special court -- there were a variety of opportunities from Rothaug's own mouth to learn that he was informed about the problematic-not something like broad case monitoring which reported about the past, but the attitude toward the foreigners, the attitude toward the Poles, the general treatment of the asocial persons; that just from this point of view, he had a knowledge and a source of information which was not at our disposal, and he never made any bones about it.
Via the S. D. Abschnitt, Herr Friedrich and Herr Elka, he got this information.
Q But, witness, if the defendant Rothaug merely was informed about the overall directives of the policy, which however could be obtained also from every article that Freisler wrote in the newspaper, how could the associate judges then look upon the S. D. as a black hand or as a means of creating fear? I am only anxious to find out which action of Rothaug's justified to see in him a dangerous man with dangerous connections. With these explanations, you did not plan that to me. I think you can answer that very briefly; other explanations are not necessary.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, the entire line of questioning concerning the S. D. in aspects as general as those here treated just now were completely covered in the findings and judgment of the International Military Tribunal and could be, if the prosecution sought to make a point of at at the moment, be tendered as a matter of judicial notice. The prosecution objects to eliciting a matter of such public notice again at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Wooleyhan, it isn't clear to my mind, after several days lapse of a long line of direct and cross examination intervening, whether you, in the course of your direct examination, went into the matter of the influence of the S. D.
Mr Wooleyhan: If Your Honor Please, I went into the activity of the SD only in so far as it was necessary to show or attempt to show the connection and activities of the defendant Rothaug in connection therewith. I did not go into the general over-all intimidating nature or lack of intimidating nature of the SD in general. That is a matter of public record.
THE PRESIDENT: For the moment we will not interfere with the line of questions.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Thus, witness, please tell me very briefly of the fear-creating matter in the relationship of Rothaug to the SD. That is, the fear arousing.
A. In the general experience with the SD here in Nurnberg, especially in the spring of 1940, as I have already mentioned here in the court, this man was sentenced by the special court. He was sentenced to three years in the penitentiary. After a short time, the man was reported in the newspapers as having been shot because of resistance. It was just a short time after.
Then I also went to Mr. Ohler, whom you mentioned -- Mr. Ohler of the Gestapo -- and I made inquiries as to how such an occurrence could be explained. This Herr Ohler told me this at that time. He explained to me that the Gestapo did not object to this sentence or want to revise this sentence in the Gestapo way, but wanted it to be revised in Berlin. He said, "There are other offices for that purpose." Ernst von Rast Strasse is the street where the SD is, and Ohler referred me to that.
Not only Haeffner was shot. Here in Nurnberg two further people, in the course of 1942-1943, allegedly because of resistance, were shot. If a Pole was hanged because he was in some sexual contact with a German woman, then the SD always played a role in that in a decisive manner. In trial sessions -- I remember in the Lepada case in Neumarkt, in the Town Hall, it was Herr Rothaug who described very realistically to the population that normally in our living space such a Pole was just hanged without any further ado by the competent offices.
However, that is not in such a trial. With the evidence, the relationships which became apparent to us, which he maintained currently, and by telephone calls, in regard to special trials, they pointed out that if Herr Friedrich and Herr Elka wanted to find out about a matter, one was justified in the conclusion that his cooperation with the SD was a fact.
And it was a fact indeed.
Q. Was Elka, whom you mentioned, frequently in Rothaug's office?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Friedrich in Rothaug's office?
A. Twice. I saw Friedrich twice in the Palace of Justice in Rothaug's office, in room 138 downstairs; in that room.
Q. Is it correct that Elka was an official of that court?
A. Before his entry into the service of the SD.
Q. Did Rothaug discuss with you confidentially his contact with the SD, on walks, for example?
A. On official trips to outlying territories to any locality, there was a necessity to stay over-night. Of necessity, by such being together, there were opportunities -- as you say, a walk. I remember once near Kahm, and also once near Weiden, when such matters came up in the discussion.
Q. In these confidential discussions, were any matters unclean matters which aroused fear -- were they spoken of?
A. No. Unclean in that manner? No. As though Rothaug would hang somebody there? NO, no.
Q. Did you have the opinion altogether that Rothaug had anything to do with such things?
A. I was convinced. Not an opinion; I was convinced. I had the conviction that Rothaug within the SD, was working in a leading role to formulate and help in the drafting of laws. Once there was a question that Himmler was supposed to take over the administration of justice, of criminal prosecution. At that time there was a ridiculous suggestion that our sentences had to be confirmed by the police authorities.
I would like to say that my conviction was as follows:
Herr Rothaug did work of a higher level within the SD, which in its aims was toward the top.
It did not concern itself with trials of a local nature, with bagatelles.
May I say one more thing? State Minister Guertner was reproached because, on the occasion of a speech, he once said "Reich Chancellor" and not "Der Fuehrer". Such matters were on the borderline, and even by Mr. Rothaug, were only criticize with a smile. That did not interest him; he wanted to do something on a higher level.
Q. Did you make any observation whatsoever that the SD, in an individual case which was in Rothaug's hands, had anything to do with it; that is, that the SD had anything to do with it? I mean to say by this, that it entered into the jurisdiction of the case; entered into it and took a part in it, interfered with it?
A. You mean taking a part, or interference in the sense of a correction? No. However, one had the impression, for example, ostensibly in the case Katzenberger, that there was a corporation of a political nature, of political and SD forces. With Mr. Rothaug, from the very beginning, they cooperated, on the basis of telephone conversations.
Q. We shall treat of this case later on. Now I would like to go on to toe case Englbauer.
Did you, as public prosecutor, have any doubt in the case Englbauer as to whether Englebauer was the one who committed the deed? That is, whether Englebauer had committed the crime of which he was accused?
A. Not even the defense counsel doubted this, and of all of us who participated, no one had any doubt that he had committed the crime.
Q. Was the use of the blackout regulations -- that is, paragraph 2 of the Public Enemy order -- was that doubtful?
A. Only on one condition, namely, the following condition. Why did Englbauer appear for the first time in the City of Neumarkt? I would like to explain this. Police Chief Birk was of the opinion that Englbauer, after committing the crime, took the robbed pocketbook and threw it into the Ludwig-Donau-Main Canal, near Neumarkt. If he did so, then he must have made a big detour, gone in circles, and he then came to some part of the City of Neumarkt, or the Town of Neumarkt, possibly. It was not very obvious, or would not arouse any attention, so that it would not have made the hiding of the robbed article any easier.
The court was convinced that Englbauer went to Nuernberger Tor, which was nearest to the place where the crime was committed. If that is supposed, taking into consideration the question of the blackout regulation, it was in no case doubtful.
Q. During the crime, did Englbauer draw any advantages because of the blackout?
A. I don't understand you.
Q. Was the crime made easier or facilitated through the blackout?
A. Well, in legal theory and practice they are separate.
Q. That is not important here.
A. You mean only the place of the crime?
Q. During or immediately after the action.
A. The place where the crime was committed itself was, under normal conditions, in darkness.
Q. You do not have to explain all that, only to what extent was this -
A. (Interposing) Only as one supposes that he returning through the gate and through the Nuernberger Tor, and if one further supposes that the windows from the front entrance of the hospital were kept closed or were being kept closed by the people who lived there, because if they were opened there would have been some light from the windows falling on the outside.
Q. Now, I want to go onto the question: What contacts between the judges of the Special Courts and the Public Prosecutors existed? You maintained that the relationship between the prosecutors and Rothaug took on a different form because the Oberstaatsanwalt Schroeder, Chief Public Prosecutor and the defendant Rothaug were friends.
A. Yes.
Q. What actual measures can you now show or mention which as a result of their friendship, was caused by the result of their friendship, and which meant unusual treatment of these cases concerned?
A. The most obvious cases was that the Public Prosecutors got their directives for the conduct of a case, which had already been opened, they did not go to get these directives from the Oberstaatsanwalt Dorfmueller, but especially from Markel and Hoffman whom I remember very vividly. Even on official trips to outlying territories, they took with them such primary investigations, and reported them to Mr. Rothaug. Thus, at my time, when Herr Denzler was Chief Public Prosecutor -- Herr Denzler jealously guarded his position, that it should not be under-minded, that already with him, as the chief Oberstaatsanwalt Prosecutor who had to be responsible for this to the higher authorities, that contact had to be maintained with him.
At the time of Herr Groben on the other hand, this changed considerably, and I will be glad to admit or to grant that it has something of a good test nature. If the public prosecutors, themselves, investigated on their own initiative, and that their relationship to Herr Rothaug, that he was like the Kaiser of Manchuria, and he the tenor.
Q. Were there any illegal acts contrary to the law -
A. (Interposing) Counsel, you will know that especially in the circumstances else - where of the defense counsel- when mentioning the presiding judge of the Special Court and the Prosecution would be regarded very much with misgivings and criticized. I do not want to speak about myself, but my attorneys, not those who are enemies of Rothaug, but even those who were in good agreement and good standing with him, they also said the attitude of the Prosecution according to proceedings of the trial were as follows: To find out everything which could be said in favor as well as against the defendant, and they thought through this influence the defendant in his defense positions, that he would be getting the short end of the thing.
Q. You spoke about discussions between the Prosecutors and the defendant Rothaug or the Judge and the defendant Rothaug, Rothaug did not admit any other altitude, and in such a discussion once he answered Amtsgerichtsrat or Landsgerichtsrat Groben, Judge of the local court or district court - can you remember whether this occurred at the court trial session or outside of one?
A. This occurred in his office, outside of any trial session - just merely a discussion.
Q. Do you still remember whether this conversation between Rothaug and Groben was about a legal question which had already been solved by the highest legal authority or was it an entirely now question which had to be discussed?
A. This question of Groben's was not now -
Q. That is enough . I believe - did you, in contact between the judges and prosecutors which is well known - had been ordered from the top, by higher authorities -lid you find something extraordinary, unusual in Nurnberg with this contact? Was this contact different in Nurnberg than in other courts as far as you would knew about it? From your experience?
A. Yes, at the meeting in Jena, that was in 1939, in Strassburg in 1942, one met always with other colleagues sufficiently - in one case I was prosecutor and in the other I was the judge, and the difference consisted in this. Otherwise the change of opinion between the prosecution and the court had been guided into the form by higher authorities; that the Landgerichtspresidcnt or Oberpresident had to order a meeting, a discussion with the experts of the prosecution, the department head of the prosecution, including the department head at the general public prosecutor's office. They were supposed to explain their opinion to the Ministry and the opinion which the Ministry handed down or announced -- then, it had been provided that the court had to take judicial notice of this, and to consider objections which could have brought about that the date set for the trial would be changed and a new report made or to make a suggestion to refer the matter -- a case not to a special court, but to a penal chamber and such things. That was a desire to buy the administration - in the administration of justice in guidance and in this way, after 1933, until the end of the war, that is how I experienced it here in Nurnberg.
The opposite to this state of affairs was Herr Rothaug who about 1940, had such guidance and discussions with the Oberlandesgerichtspresident Doebig - he reported them as unsuitable, that he did not consider them necessary and he declined them with the words, "If any one dies, I do it." and, thus the guidance of the penal procedure, penal law, was from the Ministry from the top, was not at all of the extent that it was elsewhere because Rothaug just asked the prosecutor what did you report? What is the opinion up there. And, in connection with the preparation of a trial, and, if then it did not please him, the prosecutor submitted to Rothaug a statement, an opinion, and he acted contrary to the guidance of the Ministry. That went to such an extent in the case Grasser, that the department head, the experts in the Ministry stated, if Rothaug insisted on pronouncing the death sentence, obviously then the prosecution will have to ask for the death penalty.
Q. But, Witness, did you ever, in your life, hear an order or regulation of the Reich Ministry which was in the form -- if a judge at any district court has any different opinion, whatsoever, then not the opinion of the Reich Ministry of Justice but the opinion of the judge. Does that sound so unbelievable, Witness, that I have to tell this to you?
A. Counsel, I admit, I grant you, that for somebody on tho outside, for tho naive, that is something new.
Q. But, the telephone conversations, did you hear them, yourself?
A. Immediately after the meeting, the trial, Staatsanwalt Engert told me that already at this time, and said the department head stated:
Well, the Gauleiter is in the meeting. Yes, Herr Rothaug makes it a point that he wants the death sentence. Yes, and that was the second telephone conversation, and the public prosecutor Engert was around because the general public prosecutor Benz was on an official trip and he wanted the application of the public prosecutor in the session to be accepted. The department head said later that I do not want any difference between the sentence and the application, and that the opinion of Rothaug is decisive. The rest would come about alright. That is the case Grasser.
Q. Is it correct that this Grasser, of whom you were just speaking, a brother-in-law of a very big shot in the party in Nurnberg?
A. That I do not know. I didn't hear anything about that.