I think it would be a good thing if the two parties would give their views here before the Tribunal, and I think that our written motion, after our discussion with Mr. Leslie, should be available to the Prosecution before we have our joint discussion here. I therefore suggest that we should wait until the prosecution will have it in their hands, and I hope that will be tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: We certainly agree with that. We do not think it should be discussed at this time, because that seems to be a very necessary procedure. Now coming to the translation matter, in order that the Tribunal may have an opportunity to have something to talk over themselves, have you any suggestion to make as to what can be worked out on that, since you have discussed it?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I am not sure that I have. Dr. Schilf is here. Dr. Brieger is not. I had anticipated something that apparently is too elaborate for the mechanical facilities of OCC. I wanted to be completely fair to the defendants and to furnish them with the necessary copies of the document book and the daily transcripts. We might be able to furnish three extra copies of the transcripts, but it is utterly impossible for me to get for this Tribunal or for the use of the defense counsel and this Tribunal three additional copies of the Document Book. I had hoped that we might reduce our various objections to writing, submit them to ourselves, attempt to resolve them, and then submit those that couldn't be resolved to a commissioner. That cannot be worked out. The only solution I know is that as we proceed, defense counsel or the Prosecution in cases where we object to the translation, may come to the microphone and state their objection. Then it will go into the transcript. Perhaps then later on the Tribunal may see fit to appoint, say at the end of the Procecution's case, some one to sit and attempt to work those out as they appear. In that way at least defense counsel will be permitted to state their objections as they occur. As to any objections which defense counsel have had to translations which they have not stated, pending their reliance upon, not my statement that we could work something out, but my desire to work something out, I am sure that Dr. Schilf doesn't feel that I have misled him or been unfair in any way.
As to those, it seems to me that if defense counsel had noted them, the Tribunal might permit them to reduce those to writing and submit them to the Tribunal. I mean, any they had not made pending our hope that we could work them all out together. That is the only solution I can now see.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless there is something further, we will take the recess at this time. Have you any further comment to make, Dr. Schilf?
DR. SCHILF: I should like to say one more word. We have the possibility to examine the translations in a way which had been suggested by the Prosecution if we have one single copy of the English document books and of the English transcripts. During the Easter days we went through several document books and can show the results in a way which has been suggested by the Prosecution. If we have one copy each of the English document books and of the English transcript it would facilitate our work if we could continue. But I will not detain the Court on this point. I will discuss this matter in a friendly way with Mr. LaFollette and then we will made the results known.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We will take a recess until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 9 April 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 9 April 1947; 0930-1630, Justice Carrington T. Marshall presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III. Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you will please ascertain if the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all the defendants are present in the court room with the exception of defendants Rothaug and Engert who are absent through illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The proper notation will be made.
The Prosecution will proceed.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, the Prosecution calls as its witness one Friedrich Doebig.
(The Marshal summoned the Witness.)
BY JUDGE BLAIR:
Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE BLAIR: You may sit down.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Witness, will you please describe briefly for the Court your name, your education, and your professional positions up to 1945?
A My name is Friedrich Doebig. I am 60 years of age. I am a widower. Up until 1945 I was president of the Senate of the Supreme Court at Leipzig. I live in Nuernberg, Jarkstrasse 10, March 1887 in Noerdlingen. I first attended elementary school and then went to the grammar school at Noerdlingen.
I completed my studies at the Augsburg grade school, where in 1906 I graduated. I studied law at the University Erlangen. There I belonged to a Christian Students Union. I passed my final examination in law in June 1911. And, next, I spent my training period as a lawyer with the authorities at Augsburg. I passed my state examination -- I should have taken my state examination in the autumn of 1914, but the outbreak of the World War prevented me from doing so. In the autumn of 1914, I was called up for service with the armed forces. I took part in the first World War on the Western front. In 1918 I was seriously wounded and until October 1919 I had hospital treatment. In February 1920, I passed my state examination in law -passed it, and made 46, and that means 1. I was appointed to the Public Prosecutor with the District Court at Augsburg, and two years later, during the summer of 1922, I was called to the Bavarian Ministry at Munich. At the Ministry of Justice I made a fast career. On 15 May 1927, following a custom of the Bavarian Ministry of Justice, I became Oberamtsrichter at Sonthofen in the Allgaeu.
On the 1st of December 1930, I was recalled to the Bavarian Ministry of Justice. I have to correct myself, as far as I remember it was already on the 1st of December 1929. On the 1st of June 1930, I was promoted to Oberregierungsrat in the Bavarian Ministry of Justice, and was placed in charge of the Department for Penal Law. On 1 January 1933, I was appointed Ministerialrat in the Bavarian Ministry of Justice. In the course of the centralization of Justice, on 1 April 1935 I was appointed Oberlandesgerichtsrat because I had asked not to be appointed to the Reich Ministry of Justice in Berlin. On 1 July 1945, I was appointed to be Generalstaatsanwalt in the office of Oberlandesgericht, Nurnberg, a position which had fallen vacant at that time. On the 1st of October 1937 I was appointed Oberlandesgerichtspresident in Nurnberg. In the autumn of 1942 the defendant Rothaug and Oeschey started serious intrigues against me. A Visit by the* Under-Secretary, at the time Rothenberger, was the cause for the discussion with the Gauleiter Holz.
That discussion, as Rothenberger told me, took place with a very sharp exchange of words. And, in the course of it Holz politely and repeatedly demanded my recall from Nurnberg. In the summer of 1943 because of the political unreliability, I was duly recalled from my office in Nurnberg, and by being demoted I was transferred to be President of the Senate at the Supreme Reich Court. There I worked until April 1945.
Q Herr Doebig, between 1935 and 1943, when, as you say, you were President of the Provincial Court of Appeals here in Nurnberg, during that time, can you explain what the professional relationship was between you and the judges of the Special Court in Nurnberg?
A When I took over the office of the President of the District Court of Appeals in Nurnberg, the Landesgerichtsdirector, Rothaug, at that time, was already the presiding judge at the Special Court in Nurnberg. Rothaug in the National Socialist Lawyer's League held the office of Gaugruppenwalter for the judges and public prosecutors. The leader of it had administrative authority; that is to say, the Oberlandesgerichtspresident and Generalstaatsanwaelte of the District Court of Appeals of the senior public prosecutors were instructed to keep in close contact with the National Socialist Lawyer's League. That took particular effect in the field of policy toward personnel. Rothaug, for the Gauleiter -- if the Ministry asked for political assessments of judges and public prosecutors, had to give political assessments of judges and public prosecutors.
Q One moment, please; one moment, please, Herr Doebig. Would you please explain who had the appointive power over judges of the special court, and what your relation was to the appointment and control or discipline of special court judges?
A The appointment of the members of the special courts was made by the president of the district court of appeals. As I have stated before, Rothaug, at the time when I assumed office, was already the presiding judge of the special court. The associate judges changed frequently. In the course of the year it became more and more difficult to find associate judges for the Nurnberg special court. Voluntary applications were very rare. I only remember two judges who, with the aim in view of finding work at the special court, were called to the district court at Nurnberg. They were Landgerichtsrat Maier, who was a member of the SS, and Landgerichtsrat Oeschey, who was an old member of the Party.
Q One moment, please, Herr Doebig. In an affidavit which you executed some time age -- which, by the way, if the Court please, has already been introduced into evidence as Exhibit 237 -- in that affidavit, Herr Doebig, you stated that in 1942 you began to attempt the removal of Oswald Rothaug from the special court in Nurnberg. Why did you attempt to do that?
A That is a mistake, in so far as it was not in 1942 that I began to try to achieve Rothaug's removal from the special court. In that I am wrong. I began, in 1938, to make serious efforts to remove Rothaug from the special court at Nurnberg and to achieve his transfer. What appointment Rothaug was to be given I did not mind at all. In particular, I made no efforts to get Rothaug transferred to the East, but I considered Rothaug's continued activity with the Nurnberg special court to be untenable. I could not combine it with my conscience that Rothaug whose uncontrolled behavior while presiding over court was generally known, and whose too severe sentences were frequently not compatible with the sound sentiments of the law -- should continue to be active at the special court at Nurnberg.
I can remember clearly that I used a discussion with the Minister of Justice at the time, Dr. Guertner, as my first opportunity to work for a transfer of Rothaug, At that time I pointed out to Dr. Guertner how indignant one felt about the fact that Rothaug, as the presiding judge of the special court in the well-known trial of the two clergymen, Schmitt and Fasel, said to the defendant Fasel, when after the examination of a witness he again asked to be allowed to speak -- Rothaug barked at the defendant in the most objectionable manner and said, "You disgusting Priest, keep your mouth shut." At that time I myself was present in the courtroom and was able to observe that the audience was filled with indignation.
Q Herr Doebig, we know that in 1943 Oswald Rothaug was transferred to the Reich prosecution at the People's Court in Berlin. Did you, at that time, learn from any official sources why Rothaug was so promoted to Berlin?
A In January of 1943 the Reich Minister of Justice, Thierack, made a visit to the Nurnberg Administration of Justice. In the evening he gave an address at the Cultural League in Nurnberg, and afterwards a party took place at the Deutscher Hof. As I knew that my position in Nurnberg was shaky and that I had lost the confidence of the Gau leaders, I had asked Thierack to excuse me from taking part in the party. Thierack refused and said, "You must do your duty to the last as Oberlandesgerichtepresident in Nurnberg." Therefore, I had to go to the party at the Deutscher Hof, and there I witnessed most disgusting scenes.
First of all, I may say that it was very striking to see the favorite treatment which Rothaug enjoyed that evening. He was seated at the side of Thierack, and during the evening engaged in lively conversations with Thierack.
This meeting developed into a drinking bout. I am convinced that that evening the promotion of Rothaug to be Reich Prosecutor at the People's Court was discussed.
Rothaug, next morning, at about five or six, completely drunk, had collapsed and had to be carried off.
Minister Thierack had fixed a reception for nine o'clock that morning for the authorities in the Palace of Justice, in the course of which the heads of the Oberlandesgericht Nurnberg were to be introduced to him. Thierack, on account of the drunkenness from which he suffered in the morning, was more than an hour late when he finally arrived at the Palace of Justice. He told me that when he took his bath at the Deutscher Hof he had nearly drowned himself. He never gave any indication to me that Rothaug was to be promoted to Reich Public Prosecutor, but it soon became known that that evening Rothaug's promotion had been decided.
Q Herr Doebig, in so far as you observed them, before you left Nurnberg for Leipzig, what were the professional and personal relations between Rothaug and Rudolf Oeschey?
AAs far as I was able to observe, the relations between Rothaug and Oeschey until 1943 -- that is to say, until I left Nurnberg -- were very good. Later on I heard, but I could not make observations of my own, that these relations were worsened later on. At any rate, I know that Oeschey became Gaurechtsamtsleiter, the legal head of the Gau. I believe that was in 1938.
Q Herr Doebig, may I interrupt a moment, please? We are familiar with most of the professional background of Oeschey and Rothaug. The question was, in so far as you observed it, how they got on together, both on the bench and personally. And you have just stated that up until 1943, at least, so far as you observed it, it was good. Then you said that some time after that this relationship worsened. I am wondering how you know that, and if you know the reason.
Q I mentioned that during my appointment in Nurnberg I myself had the impression that Rothaug and Oeschey worked in close cooperation. In my own mind I was always convinced that Rothaug was the moving spirit in the intrigue against me, and Oeschey merely carried out what Rothaug wanted him to do.
The person in charge of personnel matters in my office, Schmitt, and Ministerialrat Dr. Miethsam, at the Reich Ministry of Justice, informed me that Rothaug first wanted to obtain the position of Oberlandesgerichtspraesident in Nurnberg, and, on the other hand, Oeschey "wanted to become the Senatspraesident of the Oberlandesgericht at the District Court of Appeal. Why those two, Rothaug and Oeschey, in the subsequent period, no longer got on with each other as well as before, I do not know. I suppose
Q. Herr Deebig, one moment please. No further questions on that, I believe. Turning now to the time when you went to Leipzig as a president of the senate at the Reich Supreme Court, I believe that was in 1943 or thereabouts, can you tell us from your experience at the Reich Supreme Court who it was in any given case coming up to the Supreme Court from a Special Court by way of a plea of nullity, --can you tell us who it was who instituted that plea of nullity in the first place?
A. The institution of annullity was the Supreme Reich Court. For that the Senior Reich Prosecutor was competent. The suggestion for making annullity plea through the Senior Reich Prosecutor was made by the Reich Ministry of Justice.
Q. Herr Doebig, you say that a plea of nullity was instituted by the Prosecution, the Reich Prosecution. Now suppose the defendant in a case, after he had been sentenced, through his counsel desired to institute a plea of nullity against his sentence. How then would a plea of nullity be filed?
A. The defense counsel could forward that suggestion to the Reich Ministry of Justice, and it lay with the Reich Ministry of Justice as to whether would pass on the suggestion or not. I believe that a defense counsel concerning a nullity plea could suggest that himself to the Senior Reich prosecutor.
Q. Herr Doebig, then you say that if a defendant wanted to institute a plea of nullity, it nevertheless eventually was passed on by the Prosecution; is that correct?
A. It was the Senior Reich Prosecutor who instituted the nullity plea.
Q. How, Herr Doebig, while you were presiding at your Senate in the Reich Supreme Court can you tell us whether or not the opinions and directives which you and your colleagues prepared pursuant to pleas of nullity, when you sent these directives and opinions on indi vidual cases back to the Special Court concerned to be tried over again, did those opinion and directives of the Reich Supreme Court constitute a command for the Special Court to arrive at any particular sentence?
A. A German judge feels this question to be rather peculiar. I believe that the youngest assistant judge knows that a Supreme Reich Court never issued directives as to what decision should be arrived at at a new trial. If after a nullity plea a sentence by the Special Court is quashed and if a new trial is to held and that trial is to be held by the Special Court, in those cases the Supreme Reich Court in giving its reasons used to lay down certain directives which, in the new trial were to be observed. In particular, it referred to the points of view which, in the first sentence of the Special Court, had not been appreciated properly or adequately. For example, it said it must be investigated in particular why a particularly grave case was not assumed, or the extent of crime, of the offense or the personality of the offender must be investigated further. In no case were these points of view which the Supreme Court in its decision pursued -- in no case did they constitute directives to the Special Court as to how it was to decide in the new trial. The version which the Supreme Reich Court chose for its decision alone made that evident to every responsible judge. Usually it was Said it has to be examined, or investigations are advisable or something to that affect. It happened quite frequently, after all, as far as I could observe it, that a Special Court, even in the second trial, adhered to the punishment, which was pronounced at the first trial. And if that second sentence.
of the specila court also found itself contested by a nullity, it was not a rare thing that the supreme Reich Court that time upheld the sentense of the Special Court and rejected the nullity plea. That alone reveals that the Supreme Riech Court did not issue directives in its judgment, but merely advised that certain points of view should investigated.
Q Herr Roebig, if that is so, I am wondering if in your professional capacity you remember the criminal proceedings against a woman named Therese Mueller some time in 1943, I think. Do you remember such a case?
A I can still remember the case of Therese Mueller . Unless I am-
Q One moment Herr Doebig. If you do remember that case, can you tell us very briefly what the Reich supreme Court's advice or directive to the Nuernberg Special Court, preparatory to the second trial of that case, was?
A I remember that the case of Therese Mueller at the first trial before the Nuernberg Special Court under Paragraph 3, section 1, Number 2, of the War time extraordinary Order -- that she had been indicted under that paragraph and that nobody thought of considering the case as particularly grave, for the presiding judge -- I believe it was Rothaug -- did not appoint a defense counsel, and it could be assumed, therefore, that a less grave case was to be assumed by the court and that the proceedings would not end with the death sentence. For under paragraph 5. Section 1, Number 2, the death sentence was threatened unless a less grave case within the meaning of Section 2 of the War time Penal Order, Paragraph5, would be assumed, no defense counsel was appointed, and therefore the death sentence was obviously not expected, During the first trial a penitentiary sentence of several years was passed. In has this -
Q. Herr Doebig, may I interrupt, please? It is already known in some detail to the Court just what happened in the first trial of this case against Therese Mueller, and it is also known to the Court what happened in the second trial against Therese Mueller. The question that we want you to answer at the moment is whether or not you know what the opinion of the Reich Supreme Court was on that case before it was tried the second time.
A. I remember thoroughly accurately the decision by the Supreme Reich Court. That decision criticises the fact that in the sentence by the Special Court there were no adequate reasons why a less grave case had been assumed, and it states that Therese Mueller's anxiety for her son alone was no sufficient for the assumption of a less grave case. The aim of the decision by the Supreme Reich Court therefore was that the Special Court in the second trial should re-examine the fa.ct as to whether a less grave case was constituted by her offense; in other words, as to whether a prison sentence was adequate or as to whether if a less grave case could not be assumed, the death sentence was mandatory under the law. That was the aim of the decision by the Supreme Reich Court.
At any rate, as I said earlier, on this decision of the Supreme Reich Court that in one constituted an obstruction of the Special Court at the second trial, could certainly have passed a prison sentence if as before it had assumed a less grave case. The only thing needed was that the reasons had to be given as to why a less grave case was assumed. The Supreme Reich Court in its decision also criticized what was probably was a mistake in the first case of the Special Court, that while it was a matter of contradiction, of course, on the one hand, this Special Court had assumed a less grave case, and on the other hand spoke of a very severe case.
Q Herr Goebig, there was another case I had in mind involving likewise a plea of nullity, which went to the Reich Supreme Court. This case involved a Polish Farm hand named Jan Lopata, who had been indicted and tried by the Nurnberg Special Court for assaulting the wife of his former employer. Do you remember any details of the disposition of this Lopata case when it came to the Reich Supreme Court on the plea of nullity?
A I also remember the Lopata case. So far as I remember the Supreme Reich Court criticized the plan as to why a particularly grave case within the meaning of the law concerning her had not been assumed. As far as I remember on the first sentence, at the first trial the sentence had been passed for committing the defendant to a labor camp, and the second trial Lopata as a public enemy was sentenced to death according to the previsions of the law concerning the previous offense which Lopata had committed. He was purely a young man who so far as I know had offended the farmer's wife. I was convinced that he was not the faulty person.
Q Herr Doebig, let me -- may I interrupt again please. In this Lopata case, as it was with the Mueller case, the court is quite well informed of the details of the first trial at the local court in Neumarkt, and is likewise familiar with the second trial at the Special Court in Nurnberg. Here a.s in the Mueller case, we want to know what, so far as you knew it, was the opinion of the Reich Supreme Court on the Lopata case pursuant to its being sent back to the Nurnberg Special.
Court to be tried over. What was the legal opinion of the Reich Supreme Court in that case?
A The Reich Supreme Court, as is evident from the reason, I believe it was the reason which constituted the resolution the Reich Supreme Court criticized above all the point that no investigation had been made as to whether the law against public enemies was to be applied. The decision of the Reich Supreme Court showed quite clearly that the Reich Supreme Court only suggested that that question should be investigated, and that it also had been said at the end of their decision that the new trial is to go into the matter of whether a more severe sentence is not advisable. That is quite obvious from the decision of the Reich Supreme Court that this decision did not contain any instruction. It was entirely for the Special Court to decide as to how it would decide after it had received a new evidence.
Q Let's pass on now, Herr Doebig, to another matter. Did you ever have a personal audience in Berlin at the Reich Ministry of Justice with the Unter-Secretary Franz Schlogelberger?
A Yes. Naturally in my capacity as the head of all High Reich Justice Authority I did have contact with the Unter-Secretary at that time, Franz Schlegelberger. No relations with Unter-Secretary Schlegelberger were comparatively loose, but I do remember one case which is firmly stamped in my memory, which had been after the Jewish program in 1938 -
Q One moment please. May I inquire about the word that came through my earphones was "program". I am sure that was not meant so.
A The "pogram" against the Jews in 1938.
Q You mean "pogram".
A Yes. Soon after the middle of November, 1938, the Deputy for Landgericht, President of the District Court at Nurnberg told me that in the heart of German labor front in Nurnberg a campaign had been started to take away from the Jews their whole estates, and only pay them ten percent.
The judges, they were upset about this because they would become frantic with the idea of the plan as to whether such property achieved by blackmail could be carried out legally, that was got from the Deputy president of the District Court at Nurnberg. It was meant only for me -- it had such an effect on me that I decided to go to Berlin on the very next day to protest there against such unheard of methods, and to achieve interference by the Reich Ministry of Justice. The Minister of Justice Dr. Guertner, whom I intended to sec, first, was not available, and went to Dr. Schlegelberger who saw me instead. I gave him the detail report of the matter, and in particular referred to the difficult position of the judges regarding their own conscience, if such a. transfer would have to be carried out by them through the documentary channels, and I referred to them in particular to the difficult position of the judges dealing with probate if they would have to make a decision under such contracts. I asked that administrative order should be made, or that interference in legal affairs should be instituted. It was my aim to stop this campaign before the disaster, that is, to say, the documentary execution of such transfer had come about. Unter-Secretary Schlegelberger told me that a legal settlement of all these questions could be expected at an early date. That for the moment he saw no possibility to fulfill my wish. He advised me to leave the decision in their case to the discretion of the judge, and I told him clearly that such a solution was altogether unsatisfactory, for the Nurnberg judges were waiting for me to return from Berlin with a solution that would have lead them cut of this difficulty, but as a result I was told that I was not to interfere further with this matter, and as I said before I was told to leave the decision to the individual judge. Firmly I told Dr. Schlegelberger that I had never been so dissatisfied with any visit of mine to the Reich Ministry of Justice as I was this time. I was excited, and I wanted to see the head of the department to present later on the details, Ministerialrat Dr. Miethsam, and I unpacked my troubles to him.
When I returned to Nurnberg from Berlin at the week-end, I was told by the Board of the District Court that the Deputy Gauleiter Holz was trying to get moved on with this campaign he had in order that the judges could deal with the transfer of property to him, and he had told of them without any regard for the time of day and carried cut the legal transfer through the documents. I was also told that during - -
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May I interrupt a moment, please? I think we have run over a little on that question. The question was only concerned with your audience, with Dr. Schlegelberger, and I think we can go no further on that.
Witness, I have one final question to ask you.
BY JUDGE BRAND:
Q May I interrupt to inquire of the witness, Mr. Prosecutor? When you went to Berlin and saw Dr. Schlegelberger, was this merely a proposal to take the property of the Jews and pay ten per cent for it, or had it actually been determined before you went that that should be done? I didn't quite understand your testimony on that.
A The deputy landgerichtspresident told me that the Jews at the house of the German labor front had been forced to sell their real estate for ten per cent of its actual value -- had to hand it over to Germans -- or rather to the Gauleiter. I was also told that Jews who resisted were ill-treated in the cellars until they agreed. That unheard of method caused me, concerning this campaign which according to my legal feelings was quite incorrect, to therefore go to try and get the Ministry of Justice to intervene.
Q Did I also understand you to say that on your return, you found that this proposal was to be carried out against the property of the Jews?
A That this proposal had to be carried out.
Q Or was to be carried out? Were you so informed on your return from Berlin?
AAt the Reich Ministry of Justice, I was not told that this proposal was to be carried out, but I was told that I was to keep my fingers out of this, and that I was not to interfere. I was admonished to be careful.
Q And did I understand that after you returned to Nurnberg, you were then informed that the project would be carried out? Did I understand you correctly that way?
A It is correct that when I returned from Berlin, the transfer at the land registry office had already taken place and the judge of the land registry office, at the instructions from above, had to carry out this transfer on Sunday; which means to say, that I was confronted with accomplished facts. Gauleiter Holz had smelled a rat in that a legal settlement was imminent, and he wanted to forestall that legal, settlement. That was my impression.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Herr Doebig, I am going to ask you a hypothetical question. Assuming that at some time between 1939 and 1945, a judicial colleague of yours on the bench belonged to the S. D. and you did not. If that were the situation, would you personally, in the conduct of your judicial functions, have been intimidated by the fact of his membership alone?
A If I had known of a judge that worked inside the S. D., I would certainly have taken care not to have close contact with that judge, for anybody who was not himself a fanatical national socialist was an uncanny affair. The S. D. was an organization of spies. It was a secret organization, such as was revealed in the International trial here. It was much later, after I had left Nurnberg, that I learned, and I heard it for certain, that Rothaug did work inside the S. D. In the course of the years, during the last years of my appointment in Nurnberg, I became suspicious about him having contacts with the S. D. It struck me that a certain Elka who worked in the S. D. came to see Rothaug frequently. Only afterwards I heard who among the leader officials in Nurnberg was actually working for the S. D., and retrospectively, I must say that I was very careless, for I spoke many a word in the presence of officials who, as I have heard recently, did work for the S. D. It was only afterwards that I heard that the Gauleaders, in a letter to the Reich Ministry of Justice, made it clear that telephone conversations with the head of the personnel department of the Reich Minister of Justice, Ministerialrat Dr. Miethsam, were tapped.