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.
Q Herr Doebig, I think that will conclude our direct examination. If there are no further questions from the bench, that concludes the direct examination.
BY JUDGE BRAND:
Q I have one other question I should like to ask the witness. You testified concerning a few cases in which a nullity plea was proposed and in which the Reich Supreme Court suggested in its opinion that the Special Court should give consideration to the matter of a more severe penalty. But you said that that was not a command but only a suggestion. Will you tell me as to whether you know of any case in which the Special Court failed to impose a more severe penalty after the Reich Supreme Court had suggested the consideration of a more severe penalty?
A I have already stated that it happened repeatedly that special courts at the second trial which had been ordered by the Reich Supreme Court, did adhere to the sentence which had been passed at the first trial, although the Reich Supreme Court in its decision which had squashed the first sentence concerning the new trial had advised the court to examine certain points of view and in particular had asked the special court to examine the fact as to whether a more severe penalty was not advisable.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Referring to the decree commanding the taking of all property of the Jews on a ten per- cent of the valuation of the property, I would like to inquire whether that was a decree commanding all Jewish property to be taken from the Jewish people on a basis of ten per cent of its value? I emphasize the word "all."
A I do not know that, I only know that the real estate was valued and transferred at ten per cent; whether the other property was affected by the same regulations, I do not know, I don't think it was, for the other property had been largely confiscated during that fight in November -- or it had been destroyed*
Q Assuming that that decree had applied only to the real estate owned by the jewish people did you understand that that was a company open the court to enforce that transfer on that basis?
A No; this was an entirely now thing for the courts; they were confronted with an entirely now situation; tho judges did not know what sort of attitude they are supposed to take towards this situation; and, therefore they turned to no for advice via tho president of the district court. As far as I know tho Ministry of Justice had not boon previously informed about this action was purely a party matter; the entire action was purely a party matter; and as far as I am informed, it was not carried through in the sane manner in all Gaus, in all districts; in tho Group of Freuconia it was carried out particularly ruthlessly.
Q I understood you to say that Schlogelberger to id you that each judge night decide each case on its own Merit did I so understand you?
A That is correct. Schlegelberger said to me that I was to leave the decision in the individual case to the discretion of the judge. As far as I remember, I then said to him what can a judge do if he receives this document; hew can tho judge resist as a little individual because he is under duress and he has to deliberate from such duress.
Q My inquiry was directed to the question as be whether that was really a command or whether each judge could refuse to confiscate tho property if ho wished.
A The judge could have resisted to make entry in the documents if ho assumed that such an action would be against good faith, although such a judge only has to examine a document from the former point of veiw and does not have to examine tho actual facts on a legal basis.
BY JUDGE BRAND:
Q May I pursue that a little further? Were these transfers of Jewish real property made formally by the execution of an instrument by the Jew who owned the property? in other words, was the Jew compelled to sign the transfer by those seller methods that you spoke of?
A No. It did not mean dispossession, but those documents which had been made out by blackmail methods were to cause the Jews voluntarily to transfer his real estate at a price far below the ordinary price. The thing was dressed up to make it appear that the jews had given a voluntary declaration that he was ready to transfer his real estate at ton percent of its value.
Q Then the transfer was brought about by duress upon the Jew, and the question for the judges was merely what they should do with reference to evidences of a transfer which they knew was obtained by duress; is that correct?
A Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: do will take the usual recess of fifteen minutes at this time.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: All persons in the courtroom will please take their seats. The Tribunal is again in session,
DR. SCHUBERT (For the defendant Oeschey): May it please the Tribunal, may I begin with my examination?
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
DR. SCHUBERT: I should like to say that I shall conduct the crossexamination concerning the statements made by the witness today as well as anything the witness has stated in his affidavit in order to cover the entire field of questions.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q. Witness, in your affidavit and also today you have stated that the defendant Oeschey, upon suggestion by Rothaug, and upon the suggestion by the Gau leadership of Franconia, was transferred from Aschaffenburg to Nuernberg. Is it not true that the defendant Oeschey wrote in the magazine Deutsche Justiz (German Justice) - I correct that - in that magazine he had read that a position of a Landgerichtsrat in Nuernberg was vacant and that on the basis of this information he applied for that position? Do you know anything about that?
A. That may well be. The positions of judges and prosecutors were filled after such information had been published in the magazine "German Justice". It is quite possible that Oeschey was one of those who applied for it, and the reports were to be sent to the Ministry on the basis of the applications. It did not always hold that the person who was suggested mas appointed. Frequently there were forces in the background which saw to it that a certain man came into a certain position. It occurred frequently that the appointment came out quite different than it had been suggested.
Q. Witness, what makes you think that the defendant Oeschey at that time knew Rothaug at all, and that he was known at the Gau Executive Office in Franconia?
A. That Oeschey was sent to Nuernberg on the basis of the efforts of the political office was told to me by the personnel office at the Ministry.
Whether Oeschey was known to Rothaug or whether he was not, that I cannot say and I have not said that.
Q. You do not know then Oeschey knew Rothaug?
A. I do not know that.
Q. Neither can you say that Oeschey was brought to Nuernberg on count of Rothaug?
A. That I cannot say for certain. I have assumed, however, that Oeschey and Rothaug were known to each other.
Q. Is it correct, witness, that when the defendant Oeschey reported to you, as his superior and President of the District Court, that you told him at that time you, witness, you, yourself, had suggested that he be appointed - recommended his appointment on the basis of his previous record; that you knew hin to be a particularly capable man?
A. That Oeschey brought with him a good record from Aschaffenburg, that I know. I cannot remember any statement made by me at the time when he reported that I considered it desirable that he come here. It is possible that I said I need a man in charge of the associate judges and that, therefore, I thought he might take over that job because it was not easy to find a man for that position. It is quite possible on the basis of the good record - official record - he brought from Aschaffenburg that I may have made that statement to him.
Q. Therefore, I can assume from your statement that he brought that Oeschey brought from Aschaffenburg a good record?
A. Yes, you can do more than assume that.
Q. Can you tell us the exact date when Oeschey started to work in Nuernberg?
A. I do not know the precise date but I believe it was in the year 1938, but I could not say that for sure.
Q. Today, witness, you have told us that the defendant Oeschey became the leader of the Gau Legal Office in 1938. I believe that is a mistake because in your affidavit you have stated that it was the summer of 1940 when that happened.
A. That nay be an error or it nay be that it was 1939 when he became leader of the Gau Legal Office. If I mentioned the year 1940 in my affidavit, the I may have mixed that up. I cannot say that for certain because after all what happened since.
Q. Yes, I can understand that, but maybe you can remember whether it was before or after the outbreak of the war.
A. I am sure it was before the outbreak of the war when he was nut in charge of the Gau Legal Office.
Q. You cannot say the exact date?
A. No, I cannot say the exact date. It nay be that it was in the spring of 1940; that is quite possible. I believe it was at the tine when Kreisleiter Zimmerman was put in charge of the Gau and most likely that was in the winter of 1939 and 1940, if I remember correctly.
Q. Witness, you have stated the defendant Oeschey became leader of the Gau Legal Office and of the National Socialist Lawyers' League in the Gau. Is it correct that the defendant Oeschey has never finally taken office in these positions?
A. I know that I was put in there as a commissar. When he took over this office I cannot say.
Q. You have further told us that the defendant Oeschey, after his arrival in Bamberg, was used at the Special Court, first as associate judge and then as presiding judge. As his superior, do you happen to remember that the defendant Oeschey at first was not active at the Special Court in Nurnberg, but at a different court in Nurnberg? Do you remember that?
A. That I cannot remember. I was of the opinion up until now that immediately after he had come to Nuernberg ho was used at the Special Court. However, I may be mistaken. At any rate, it did not take very long until he was used at the Special Court because, as far as I an informed, tho personnel officer of the Ministry info mod no that Oeschey was sent to Numb erg for tho purpose of being used at the Special Court.
Q. Witness, in your affidavit you made a qualifying statement concerning the defendant Oeschey. You say, among other things, that he did not study the evidence as carefully as Rothaug, that his opinions were incomplete, and that transgressions occurred during the proceedings. May I ask you, first, how frequently did you attend proceedings under Oeschey's presidency?
A. That is a question, I believe, which cannot be easily answered. I can't give you a figure.
Q. Could you toll us whether it was frequently Or rarely?
A. I believe it was frequently. I frequently attended tho Special Court Sessions, and particularly Rothaug's sessions, because, on the basis of my own observations, I wanted to ascertain whether tho complaints which had reached me about his manner of conducting the trial were correct.
Q. Excuse me; you are speaking of Rothaug now?
A. Yes, Rothaug. I also frequently attended sessions under Oeschey, sessions of the Special Court over which he presided. I remember that for certain, but I cannot five you a figure.
Q. No, I didn't want to know a definite figure. Concerning the defendant Rothaug, you have told us that you had.
taken measures against Rothaug; and since you are believed to have had reasons for complaint against the defendant Oeschey as well. I ask you, what were the measures you took in the case of Oeschey?
A. Oeschey was active as the President of the Special Court only during the last period of my activity in Nurnberg. Mostly, he was the Acting president of the Special Court. He became the real President of the Special Court, if I remember correctly, only after I was transferred to Leipzig. Therefore, there was no cause for me to remove Oeschey as President, or have Oeschey removed as president of the Special Court. At the time he was only an associate judge, or Acting President.
Q. Didn't you make any remarks in his records, or did you over call him to you and talk to hin about it?
A. For another reason -
Q. He received a remark in his record, that is correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. We will come to that later. However, that had nothing to do with the manner in which he conducted trials?
A. No; but not ever remark was put into the records.
Q. And personally you have never talked to him about these matters?
A. No, I cannot remember that. That I do not remember.
Q. Witness, can you tell no whether Oeschey, as Leader of the Gau Legal Office, or Acting Loader of the Gau Legal Office, was ever seen by you in uniform?
A. As far as I know, he were no uniform during the time when he was active in Nurnberg. I cannot remember that ho had a leading role in the Lawyer's League, because the head of that Lawyer's League, in my conviction, was Rothaug.
Q. In what position was Rothaug there?
A. As I have already said, he was the Gaugruppenwalter for judges and prosecutors of the National socialist Lawyer's League. Rothaug, of course, stood above Oeschey as far as his capacity was concerned, and, according to my observations, he had the loading role.
I do not remember any lecture by Oeschey. He always left it to Rothaug or the leader of the organization. That was Engert.
Q. Do you happen to remember whether tho defendant Oeschey had any publications?
A. No, I cannot remember that.
Q. Witness, in your affidavit you have stated that tho defendant Oeschey, at times, gave a political meaning to penal cases, in cases where it was not called for. Is that correct? Can you give us examples for that, or was that a mix-up with Rothaug?
A. No, I didn't confuse that with Rothaug; I have also observed that in the case of Oeschey. I cannot quote any individual cases any more. However, I have studied tho indictments and the judgments of the Special Court, kept myself informed, and I often had tho impression that it was not necessary to put these cases in tho political field in tho way in which it had been done.
Q. Witness, in one passage you mention tho particular severity of the judgments of tho defendant Oeschey.
A. Yes. I have also explained that I had. the impression that Oeschey wanted to copy, or attempted to copy, his predecessor Rothaug.
Q. Would you like to let me put this question now?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it also known to you, witness, that in various instances judgments by Oeschey were revised or were squashed by the nullification plea?
A. It nay very well be that judgments were annulled, but not becuase they were not sever enough; it was because they were not founded wall enough legally, on the basis of Rothaug's lack of knowledge of legal foundations. Rothaug, of course, gave loss cause to tho Reich Supreme Court to annul a judgment than the sentences by Oeschey, as far as Oeschey himself had written opinions or reasons for his sentences.
Q. Would you say, therefore, or do you mean to say, that in all cases where tho Reich Supreme Court annulled sentence by Oeschey, the reason for that could be found only in the legal opinion and not in the measure of punishment?