A. I could not tell you any details of that kind. I can only say that the Chief Prosecutor at times asked him.
Q. Of assistant prosecutors you could not speak?
A. No.
Q. Then you mentioned the limitation of the right to ask questions.
A. Yes, it was Rothaug's tendency, generally speaking, to keep the reins in his hand of all proceedings and to see to it that the defense counsel as well as the prosecutors would not put any unpleasant questions which could disturb his intentions. In the case of defense counsel I experienced that frequently. It was the usual picture of a trial that defense counsel, during the entire proceedings, sat there silently without saying a word, and only at the end made their plea, and that frequently in a very mild form, because anything, any formula, that would sound suspicious would arouse the displeasure of Rothaug. He did not like to admit questions. I remember, since you ask me about it, I remember one case where defense counsel, I think he was from Dachau, was pleading for a defendant during a trial at Weiden and wanted to put questions to the defendant. According to the rules of procedure, the questioning of the defendant was the right of the presiding judge and Rothaug refused that counsel to put direct questions to the defendant.
Q. One moment, witness; this denial was justified by the code of legal procedure?
A. Yes, in the case of the defendant, not in the case of a witness. The defendant is to be questioned by the presiding judge. Witnesses can be questioned by counsel, as far as I am informed.
Q. Then if the right to put questions was limited, the counsel in question could ask for a decision from the Tribunal.
A. He did that, too. He asked for the permission to put several questions to the defendant, but it appeared that the presiding judge did not like these questions and he rejected it. Counsel asked for a decision by the bench and the judges recessed to consider it.
In the pause during the intermission while I remained at the bench counsel came to see me and he was very much disturbed about it. He was a young fellow, who said, "Prosecutor, I do not understand those conditions. I am Ortsgruppenleiter. I have frequently been a defense counsel in Munich, but such sharp rejections and such manner of treatment I have never experienced before. Is it always like that here?" Then, of course, considering my position, I could only say, "Counsel, you see how things are here. I can only shrug my shoulders and regret it. I have no influence." Then the judges returned, and rejected the questions by stating as usual that this complex of questions had already been dealt with exhaustively.
Q. But counsel still had a legal remedy, didn't he?
A. I do not know.
Q. Didn't he have a legal remedy to ask for a retrial? Didn't he do that?
A. The sentence by the Special Court was in force, and there was, of course a possibility of requesting the resumption of proceedings, but I do not remember a single case where an application for resumption of trial would have been successful. As a matter of routine, applications for resumption were rejected.
Q. Were such applications for resumption made frequently at all?
A. Yes, indeed. Especially in cases of defendants who had been sentenced to death.
Q. You said a witness was asked about his Ortsgruppenleiter and his SA leader. What was the name of the witness? Can you tell me that?
A. No, of course not.
Q. Could you tell me the local community from which he came?
A. No, that is quite impossible; I don't remember it.
Q. Could you tell me the case during which that happened?
A. Counsel, I believe you understand that you ask me to do something impossible. These matters happened six or seven years ago. It was some normal penal proceeding. I don't even remember the name of the defendant. I only know about this episode, but that episode I remember very clearly.
Q. Was there any actual reason for that question about the Ortsgruppenleiter? Were there any actual reasons?
A. No, no, that was not only the question about the Ortsgruppenleiter, it was also about the SA leader.
Q. But there may have been a reason for that question that it was necessary to ask about these two people?
A. No, there was no possibility of any misunderstanding of that kind. It was just an attempt to impress the witness by threatening him that he would have disadvantages from political instances.
Q. Did the witness do anything about it?
A. The witness probably didn't; at least I don't know anything about it. Whether Rothaug did anything about it, that is to say, whether that report to the Ortsgruppenleiter was actually made, I could not tell. Rothaug threatened lawyers frequently that he would make reports to the Bar Association, but as far as I know, these reports were usually not made, but threats were offered.
Q. Was the president of the District Court of Appeals at that session or did he hear about it?
Did you report to him?
A. No.
Q. You mentioned the relation to the Chief Prosecutor Schroeder and you also mentioned the nickname, "Emperor of Manchukuo."?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was that nickname used? Who invented it?
A. It was used in our offices and I believe also among the members of the Special Court. It did not enjoy as much publicity as the nickname, "Tenno". I, personally, never mentioned it, but it was used. It was possibly coined as a pun, "Tenno", and the supplement then was "Emperor of Manchukuo", but the basis for that comparison was of course the dependency.
Q. Was that nickname used among colleagues for the fun of it, or seriously?
A. As every nickname, it was a name just for fun, but therefore it was no less characteristic.
Q. You mentioned proceedings against Frenchmen?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know of any case where a Frenchman was brought before Rothaug?
A. No. I haven't said the treatment of Frenchmen, but the opinion regarding Frenchmen. I was quite aware that I could be asked whether Frenchmen appeared as defendants, but as much as I know, that was not the case. I believe that only in one case a Frenchman was called as witness; in a case concerning relations with prisoners of war -- it was an unusual and unique case. But as defendants, I have never seen Frenchmen.
Q. As far as the treatment of Poles is concerned, don't you know of cases where Rothaug found a place of work for a Pole even while he was in the courtroom?
A. No.
Q. Now we come to the case Lopata. You mentioned that you for warded the Lopata files to the Special Court without raising charges.
Did you forget at that time to file charges?
A. I don't recall what the reasons were. But at any rate, from the point of view of procedure, it was necessary to file charges, and then when that was pointed out to me by the presiding judge, I did so. Originally, I must have been of the opinion that since an indictment existed already, although before the Local Court, and since the Reich Supreme Court had transferred the case formally before the Special Court, the case could be tried before the Special Court without another indictment. That must have been my original opinion.
Q. Now you mentioned that there was a remark on the indictment, "Penalty intended: six years severe penal camp". I can prove to you that the indictment which was filed with the presiding judge of the Special Court does not have that remark, but it is only on the copy. (Dr. Koessl shows the file to the witness, Dr. Dorfmueller.)
A. Yes. That was the copy which was with the rest of the file for use in the office. The presiding judge got no knowledge about the intended motion concerning the penalty.
Q. Now it says here, "Two copies submitted." Submitted to whom?
A. The General Prosecutor.
Q. Are those the reports which were sent to the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A. I believe one of them went to the Reich Ministry of Justice?
Q. Is that your handwriting?
A. Yes.
Q. There is a remark, "Six years severe penal camp". That remark is crossed out and it is replaced by another, "Death sentence."
A. Yes.
Q. That remark, "Death Sentence", was that a decision by the Ministry of Justice?
A. I consider that quite impossible.
Q. Why?
A. Because in the meantime, the files, that is to say a copy of the indictment could hardly have come to the attention of the Ministry of Justice. There are reasons to believe that I have put down that remark very soon after the indictment had been written; that is to say, probably during the same month. If you compare the files, you will see the indictment was filed on the 18th of August and signed by the Chief Prosecutor. I, personally, did not have the right to sign these things. On the 24th of August, as the stamp shows, it was received by the Special Court. On the 27th of August, Rothaug made a decision and shortly thereafter the file was returned to my office. On the first of September, I made a decision to ask for three photographs. Photographs were only demanded when a death sentence was expected, because the photographs had to be attached to the clemency plea sent to the Reich Ministry of Justice. Therefore, we can see the following: when the indictment was written on the 18th of August, it was my intention and the intention of the Chief Prosecutor Schroeder to ask only for a term of six years. Schroeder signed the indictment. Before, that is to say, between the 24th of August and the first of September, that intention was changed, because on the first of September the photographs were requested. I do not consider it possible that in the meantime a directive had come down from the Ministry of Justice.
Q. But you admitted, yourself, that upon your intervention, photographs were asked for; that you also requested a defense counsel be appointed; and you also admitted that the prosecution, on its part, made all preparations which were to be made if it was intended to ask for a death sentence. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that was done on the part of the prosecution. Since you want to hear more details about that matter, I want to add that it is quite impossible to think that on my own initiative I brought about that change of viewpoint. My intentions, as could be seen, and also that of the Chief Public Prosecutor, were for six years. If, therefore in the meantime, when the presiding judge Rothaug received the files, that was suddenly changed to the death penalty, then there must have been some influence from third parties.
It certainly wasn't my doing.
Q. That third party, however, may very well and very probably have been the superiors of the prosecution, if one starts from the work done on the file.
A. Had that been the case, then probably a notation or a remark or some written directive must have been made by the general Public Prosecutor, which would have to be joined to files of the prosecutor in charge of the case. Then the change made by me from "six years" to "death penalty" would hardly have been necessary because the purpose of that change was only to inform the prosecutor present during the session. If there would have been a directive from the general prosecutor, then that would most probably have been made known in a different manner, in writing, or by notation; and this notation would have been sufficient to inform the prosecutor during the session so that a change made in my handwriting would not have been necessary. We must add to that, counsel, that the sequence of decisions shows that the influence came from Rothaug. He makes his decision on the 27th; the file returns to the Prosecution on the first of September, photographs and the appointment of a counsel are asked for. The presiding judge had knowledge that the prosecution did not intend to ask for a death sentence. You have just pointed out that these words, "Six years penal camp" are not to be found on the copy of the files of the court, but since we had not asked for the appointment of defense counsel the presiding judge could assume that we would not ask for death sentence because that request for a defense counsel was first crossed out by the office in the indictment and then later added by me, after the change of the viewpoint.
He knew, therefore, that we did not intend to ask for the death sentence, and then I assume that on the basis of my knowledge of his mentality he brought about the change of the sentence to be demanded.
Q But I have here before me a decision of the then presiding judge Rothaug of the 27th August.
A Yes.
Q The indictment, of the 18th August, which already contains your request for the appointment of Defense Counsel.
A But I just said that the words "appointment of defense counsel" are crossed out in ink, with a ruler that is by the office and with these lines crossed out and without the request for defense counsel, it was sent to the courts. Later, with the same pencil as you can see, at the same time when I put on the words "death penalty," I also put in a request for defense counsel, that is to say, originally when the indictment was sent to the court the request for the defense counsel was expressly not made.
Q You can see here the letters "DO", are those yours?
A Yes.
Q How can you maintain that you entered the request for defense counsel later than the time you put your initials down?
A Because these indictments were written clear by the office, and then sent to the court. In this clear copy it was crossed out in ink there was no reason, because on our part wanted to ask for six years. Therefore, appointment of defense counsel was not necessary at all. It would have been wrong indeed if at the time of the filing of the indictment I would have asked for appointment of defense counsel.
Q That is also my opinion. But just the same, upon directives from above you finally had to ask for appointment of defense counsel.
A Beyond a doubt I received a directive and instructions to that effect. I said already on my own initiative I did not do it.
Q However, you have nothing to prove that the instruction was caused by Rothaug.
A Counsel, there are several conclusions which make it appear absolutely sure that it came from Rothaug. As I said, in consideration of his entire mentality it is entirely reasonable to assume that in a case of that kind Rothaug was for the death sentence.
Q However, if that request to appoint defense counsel had been made later, after the 18th of August, according to usual office custom, you had to put down the date at least from which it could be seen that this entry on that document was not later that the signature under the indictment; isn't that correct?
A No, that addition of the date was not my personal habit, neither do you see it on the copy with handwritten change. I could not anticipate that the question of the date would be of any importance at this trial; otherwise it is quite unimportant.
Q Now, I want to put to you the decision which Rothaug made as President of the Special Court after he received the indictment. Here it says, first, scheduling of a date for the main trial is postponed because the register containing previous convictions was not in the files; second, the files to the chief prosecutor, I request in the future to file the indictment only after all the evidence necessary to schedule the main trial is available; to schedule trials any sooner is useless, and always leads to unnecessary and excessive work. That was signed on the 27th August. How can you say that Rothaug desired a different sentence motion if it is shown here in writing that he did not touch the legal qualifications of the case, and did not refer with a single word to the intended sentence motion?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Just a minute. I didn't hear the answer to that question, Your Honor, but even if I didn't, I object to the question on the ground that it calls for a personal opinion of the witness to a matter that he has already testified to the extent of his knowledge beforehand.
THE PRESIDENT: The interrogation refers to the record; we will let him answer that question.
A Counsel asked the following; The presiding judge did not object against the legal qualifications; that was not to be objected to because it was correct. The legal qualification of the indictment was article 4 of the Public Enemy Decree. That was alright. We could, therefore, be confronted only with an objection against the penalty. Nobody forced Rothaug to put his opinion concerning the necessity of death penalty in writing in the files. Similar cases occurred, an I have heard by rumors or as I have gathered from conversations, and in some instances may have been put down in writing, but it certainly was partially more correct and clear on the part of Rothaug if he made such suggestions not in writing but orally, particularly since he had an opportunity to give such suggestions -- his office was only two hundred meters distance from the office of the chief prosecutor, and he had a telephone on his desk, so that a formulation in writing was definitely not a requisite. It would have been wrong, speaking from the tactical point of view, to make such an interference on the part of the presiding judge into matters of the prosecution in writing.
Q Would it be illisit, if he would have made known his opinion about sentences to expected?
A That is hard to say. It would have been illicit if he would put it in writing to the prosecution that he considered the death penalty adcenate. He could have stated that in a different manner, by appointing the defense counsel, on his own, instant being requested, but to suggest a certain penalty motion to the prosecution would have been illicit.
Q According to what regulations?
AAccording to Article 150 51 of the Judicature Act, which says that the Prosecution in its official actions, is independent of the Courts.
Q If this independent position of the prosecution forward the Courts existed you could yourself ask for that penalty which you considered adequate.
A It would have been very nice if it had been like that. Counsel during my activities at the Special Court I never had the impression that I could utter freely my convictions. Once I told Rothaug about that.
Q But the prosecution at least had the possibility to take a point of view concerning the clemency question differing from that of the Court, isn't that so?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell me whether the Court and the presiding judge regularly found out about the points of view of the prosecution concerning the clemancy please?
A Rothaug himself was of the opinion it would be quite inconsistent if a court sentenced a defendant to death and then asked for or supported a clemency plea. Once a death sentence had been pronounced, also the execution was supported; that point of view together with the point of view of the prison authority came to the prosecution and the the prosecution of course had the opportunity to make a dissenting statement, this statement was in the hands of the chief prosecutor who alone had the authority to sign the clemency plea; the prosecutors as experts only had to make drafts which were then modified by the chief prosecutor as he wanted it. The chief prosecutor had the full responsibility Due to the high degree of dependance or rather spiritual submission of Schroeder to Rothaug, it is not know to me at least in my department that at any time the point of view of the prosecution was any different from that of the Court. I personally tried once to persuade the chief prosecutor to intervene in the clemency plea - I frequently made suggestions which were not approved - but my draft was modified by the chief prosecutor in his own handwriting that just the opposite was suggested from what I originally wanted to suggest.
Q Was also the General Prosecutor influenced by Rothaug in that manner?
A I don't know, counsel, whether you can expect me to answer that question, because the General Prosecutor was a rather high superior whose mentality and manner of conducting his office I rarely know. I very rarely had an opportunity to speak to him.
Q Did you make any observations that maybe the General Prosecutor also was under the influence of Rothaug?
A I believe that the assistants of the General Prosecutor were somewhat touched by the influence of Rothaug. These were as far as I know and Engert, and I believe that nobody in the Nurnberg Palace of Justice Building was quite free from that radiation. I see a smile on your face, and that may sound peculiar to you, but it was just a spiritual power connected with a purely political sphere, exerted in a very dictatorial manner, and nobody quite remained free of that influence.
Q I only put that question to you, witness, because I have before me a copy of the opinion of the General Prosecutor, where the General Prosecutor rejects a clemency plea; that is, does not support a pardon, can you admit that the General Prosecutor would have had the opportunity, indeed, to recommend a pardon if in his opinion, the sentence had been too severe?
A Yes, that possibility existed.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, will this examination run very much longer?
DR. KOESSL: No, it will not last much longer; only a few more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The only reason I asked the question is that I have an errand that I would go on at this time, but if this examination is almost complete I would rather wait and have this witness disposed of. That is the reason I am asking you how long it probably will last. If the Counsel would indicate about how much longer it will take, I would be glad.
DR. KOESSL: Only a few more minutes, at most, ten minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, proceed.
However, at this time, I would like to know if any other Defense Counsel desires to cross-examine this witness?
(One of the Defense Counsel indicated his desire to crossexamine the witness.)
In that event we will adjourn at this time until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal then adjourned until 0930 hours, 13 May 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 13 May 1947, Justice Carrington T. Marshall presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom 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 courtroom with the exception of the defendant Engert who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Engert is absent temporarily at his own request. Let proper notation be made.
DR. KOESSL: Koessl for the defendant Rothaug. I ask permission to continue the cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
MARTIN DQRFMUELLER - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Witness, did you think that you were justified in making an addition to a public document after this document had already gone to the office to which it was supposed to go, without signifying that your addition was an addition?
A. At that time we did not think about formalities of that kind. You obviously mean the indictment in the case Lopata. The addition to the indictment consisted in the addition of the words: "I am asking for an appointment for a Pflichtverteidiger (duty defense counsel) appointed by the court." Of course, this application could have been made in a separate document; however, I did not have any misgivings in putting this application also into the indictment itself, or then to change it, respectively.
Q. Witness, I am pointing out to you that you actually did make a separate application. Here there is a special application for the appointment of a defense counsel.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, I object to this line of questioning as being completely irrelevant to the direct examination; unless defense counsel can link it up, I object to a further continuance along this line.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, if this line of questioning is intended to challenge the witness and to test his veracity and his character as a witness, that is one thing; but surely this witness isn't on trial and the question being now asked would seem to indicate that counsel thinks that this witness is on trial. That objection will be sustained.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Witness, does the crossing out of the words "Six years of penal servitude" and your replacement of these words by the words "Death penalty", does that not mean that this change will stand also in the report to the General Public Prosecutor and the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A. No, according to the contents of the files which I have before me I have to assume that only in the copy of the prosecution which was in the working file that in that one the original application for penalty was changed. I have no knowledge as to whether in the other two copies too, which went to the General Public Prosecution, the words "Death Penalty" were left, but I don't believe so.
Q. But you don't know it for sure?
A. On the basis of the entire contents of the file it is my impression that the indictment was sent up to the General Public Prosecutor in its original form with the note, "Six years penal servitude", and that the change was made only afterwards. Of course, I cannot reconstruct the exact state of affairs from memory now.
Q. All right. Which court, witness, had to decide about the reopening of a case until 1934?
A. The Penal Chamber was the one that had to decide about the reopening of a case, if a Special Court had passed a sentence. I believe it was the Fourth Penal Chamber.
Q. Was there any recourse if the reopening was refused?
A. Yes, the Penal Chamber of the District Court of Appeals decided on the complaints.
Q. For what reasons could the reopening be requested?
A. The reasons were laid down in the Legal Code of Procedure for Trials, especially if new facts and evidence appeared after the sentence had been pronounced which would allow a different judgment of the facts or would make it necessary to judge the facts differently.
Q. Witness, can you not remember that for the reopening of a case in a Special Court, the reopening of a case where a Special Court had pronounced a sentence about which you have just said, there could always be a reopening if any circumstance existed which would make the sentence appear incorrect?
A. I do not remember that a reason for reopening in this general form existed, especially for Special Court sentences. I would also not know where this reason for the reopening of a case had been put down in law. If this regulation of the law is shown to me, I could possibly answer this question.
Q. I am going to show you here the Competence Regulation, Article 26, Paragraph 2.
(Dr. Koessl offers book to witness.)
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, that is a new edition, from 1930.
A. I am now making sure in finding out that the decree of 21 February 1940 exists, as Article 26, Paragraph 2, contains such a regulation.
Q. This is the edition which was in effect during your time.
(Dr. Koessl offers second book to witness.)
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One moment, witness. May it please the Court, I again object on the grounds of irrelevency. This is not a course in legal procedure. The reopening of trials was not touched upon in the direct examination. Testing this witness's knowledge of the law at this point is immaterial to the issues raised in the direct examination and I object to further dilatory tactics on this particular ground.
THE PRESIDENT: I would like to inquire whether the questions that are now being asked pertain to the case of Lopata. Is that what's in your mind?
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Court, I am not only interested in the case Lopata. I was not thinking only of the case Lopata but all cases in which the defendant Rothaug allegedly did not keep within the legal regulations of the Legal Code of Procedure, or in which in any way the defendant Rothaug is reproached with any violations in the conduct of the trial.
THE PRESIDENT: These questions seem to pertain to matters of procedure, all of which are apparently covered by the Code. Whatever this witness may think about them wouldn't be final. This Court is able to read and we can judge of the interpretation of those provisions of the Code as well as the witness, and more than that, counsel can make an argument on that point, but to argue it with the witness doesn't seem to advance the defense. Objection sustained BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Witness, how often did you see Rothaug in Oberstaatsanwalt Schroeder's office and how often did you see the Chief Public Prosecutor Schroeder in Rothaug's office?
A. I never saw that.
Q. Witness, can you remember that a Pole was indicted once for having destroyed a flock of sheep?
A. No.
Q. Can you remember that a Pole was once indicted for having injured the supporting works of a central shaft in a mine, and that Rothaug, inspite of the suspicion of many witnesses that the Pole had committed the crime, did not follow this supposition, but started from the supposition that the Pole was innocent?
A. I am asking you to repeat where the supporting beam was supposed to have been damaged?
Q. It was the supporting beam in a mine, in the shaft of a mine; some how he had hit against it and brought it into danger of collapsing.
A. I recall now very vaguely this case; some time on an official trip this case was discussed once; I remember that in order to clarify the facts of the case it was discussed that it would be necessary to look at the mine itself; and though I did not participate any further on this case, I believe to remember that this local investigation did take place at the mine. What the result of the trial later on was, I don't know.
Q. Witness, what objections were made against the legislation, as such; did you and your colleagues altogether object to the legislation as such?
A. Do you mean the legislation of the Reich Laws?
Q. Yes.
A. Thus you mean my conception of Reich legislation -- what was my opinion?
Q. No, I am only asking you as to whether at all any fundamental objections were made against the Reich legislation.
A. On the part of the organs of the administration, as far as I know, no such objections were made; we were practitioners; we had nothing at all to do with legislation; we had to take the laws as they came, as they had been issued, and we had to apply them whether we liked to or not, and that was irrelevant whether we liked them or not. We had no influence on legislation.
Q. Witness, are you informed about the fact who gave the final political evaluation about civil servants?
A. In the qualifications which were made by the superior in office about civil servants, in addition remarks about the political behavior of this official had to be made in the report on him too. Usually in the qualifications there were some clauses of this type: for example, he is close to the new State; or also, according to the person, there may have been stronger remarks.
Q. I only mean who gave the final decisive decision in the final analysis of the political evaluation; do you know that?
A. As far as I know, political offices also did that, and that is by party organizations in connection with the National Lawyers' League.
Q. You don't seem to know any details about it now?
A. No.
Q. Witness, can you confirm that the Gau Legal Office of the NSDAP and the Gau Administration of the affiliated Lawyers' League were two different things?
A. I was already asked about the question yesterday, and I stated that I don't know about that; I am not informed about it.
Q. Perhaps you d know about the following: As to whether the office holders of the affiliated organizations, for example, the Lawyers' League, belonged to the corps of political leadership corps.
A. As I understand the question, you asked me as to whether the office holders of the Lawyers' League were political leaders; that is a question which I ask to take out of the code of the organization of the NSDAP. You can read it there. I don't believe myself that they were political leaders.
Q. Witness, I have one final question only. What was your personal relationship with Rothaug, especially, also outside of the office.
A. I maintained the forms of politeness and of social decency; I never violated them toward Rothaug, although he violated them toward me; and even though at times I had to exercise a great deal of self-control, selfrestraint, in order to not become excited. I also took part in official trips, together with Rothaug, and on these occasions there were also personal meetings, and in a way, after the sessions were finished, we ate together, and we went to restaurants in order to pass the hours away -- pass the time away there. On such evenings I took part with a great deal of dislike; I did not like to take part in such evenings at all; often it was a torture for me; often I also withdrew early because Rothaug on such evenings led the discussion and propagated ideas which were not only boring for me, but also I disliked them intensely. Through all such things my relationship with Rothaug was not very good; it was disturbed. In addition, I seldom agreed with his method of conducting a trial and with his jurisdiction, so that I was frequently excited, especially since he also treated me in a brusk manner personally; since according to my nature and in my capacity of acting I am a concilatory person, I did not let a break come about, even though Rothaug on the occasion of a meeting once in a brusk manner attacked me and threatened me.