Wolfgang Mettgenberg. Are you represented by counsel before this Tribunal?
DEFENDANT WOLFGANG METTGENBERG: Yes, I am represented by counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: How do you plead to the charges and specifications and each therof set forth in the Indictment against you, guilty or not guilty?
DEFENDANT WOLFGANG METTGENBERG: I took notice of the accusations against me, and I consider myself not guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
Guenther Nebelung. Are you represented by counsel before this Tribunal?
DEFENDANT GUENTHER NEBELUNG: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: How do you plead to the charges and specifications and each thereof set forth in the Indictment against you, guilty or not guilty?
DEFENDANT GUENTHER NEBELUNG: On all counts, not guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
Rudolf Oeschey. Are you represented by counsel before this Tribunal?
DEFENDANT RUDOLF OESCHEY: I am represented by counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: How do you plead to the charges and specifications and each thereof set forth in the Indictment against you, guilty or not guilty?
DEFENDANT RUDOLF OESCHEY: Not guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: Hans Petersen. Are you represented by counsel before this Tribunal?
DEFENDANT HANS PETERSEN: I am represented by counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: How do you plead to the charges and specifications and each thereof set forth in the Indictment against you, guilty or not guilty?
DEFENDANT HANS PETERSEN: I consider myself not guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
Oswald Rothaug. Are you represented by counsel before this Tribunal?
DEFENDANT OSWALD ROTHAUG: I am represented by counsel.
TRE PRESIDENT: How do you plead to the charges and specifications and each thereof set forth in the Indictment against you, guilty or not guilty?
DEFENDANT OSWALD ROTHAUG: Not guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
Kurt Rothenberger: Are you represented by counsel before this Tribunal?
DEFENDANT KURT ROTHENBERGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: How do you plead to the charges and specifications and each thereof set forth in the Indictment against you, guilty or not guilty?
DEFENDANT KURT ROTHENDERGER: Not guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
Franz Schlegelberger: Are you represented by counsel before the Tribunal?
DEFENDANT FRANZ SCHLEGELBERGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: How do you plead to the charges and specifications and each thereof set forth in the Indictment against you, guilty or not guilty?
DEFENDANT FRANZ SCHLEGELBERGER: Not guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
The pleas of the defendants will be entered by the Secretary General in the records of the Tribunal.
Military Tribunal III will be at recess until Wednesday, March 5, 1947, at 9:30 o'clock a.m. at room 295, at which time the trial of Case No. 3 will begin.
THE MARSHAL: Military Tribunal 3 will be at recess until Wednesday, 5 March 1947, a,t 09:30 o'clock, at room 395.
ER. ALFRED SCHILF (counsel for defendants Mettgenberge and Klemm): I wish to make a request. I wish to ask the Prosecution, in due tine before the opening of the trial, to make the document books available to the defendants and to their counsel.
We make the following objections against the Indictment:
Ordinance No. 7, by the Military Government, for Germany says, under paragraph (a), that the Indictment is to set forth the counts simply, distinctly, and with sufficient details, and that the defendants should be instructed on the details of the charges made against them.
The defendants, or the two clients whom I represent, do miss certain details in the Indictment. With the exception of possibly the charge in regard to the Night and Fog decree, no legal decree is referred to which could possibly be considered illegal.
In that manner the preparation by the defendants is frustrated because the Indictment, according to our opinion, is conceived much too generally, and the requirements of Article 4 of Ordinance 7 just referred to by me are missing. This could be remedied in that the prosecution, in due time, before the opening of the trial, makes the document books available to the defense counsel.
That is what I should like to ask for my two clients.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the prosecution desire to make any comment at this time upon the point raised?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Unfortunately, and it 'is no' fault of the defendants' counsel for awhile I didn't hear what was coming through the phones. As I understand I am advised that two points were raised -- the fact that no documents were filed with defendants' counsel in their room. Those will be furnished your Honor. Secondly, with reference to the objection raised to the indictment, I believe that the rules require that the objections should be reduced to writing. In any event I think it would serve to the process, if the objection to the indictment was reduced to writing and then your Honors may see fit to pick such time as to dispose of the motion, and we can argue it at that time more intelligently than we could at this moment. I do not desire to take advantage of technicalities, but the record may note that defense counsel may be considered as having duly raised the objection, and at such time as it is to be disposed of it should be reduced to writing. I think it only reasonable that it be reduced to writing.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendants' counsel will be required to reduce certain matters to writing, as requested by the Prosecution and it is possible that we will want to dispose of that matter between now and March 5th, if it is agreeable to counsel on both sides.
DR. KOESSL: Counsel for defendant Rothaug. I have already submitted the same objection in writing.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If that has been submitted in writing I think your Honors have indicated we may within a reasonable time after you have seen it, wish to dispose of that prior to March 5, or on March 5, whichever your Honors shall see fit. That will be satisfactory to us.
THE PRESIDENT: I suggest in that connection after you have seen the written matter that you advise the Tribunal when we are not in session as to your wishes.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I shall be glad to do that, Judge. I assume I will wait and take not only the objections on behalf of the defendant Rothaug.
but also any objections which have been filed by counsel on behalf of any other defendants. After they have been submitted and I have had an opportunity to sec them, I will confer with defense counsel, and perhaps after that we will have time to confer with the Court as to the time of disposition.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other counsel representing defendants who desire to present any matters at this time? If not the order for recess will stand.
(The Tribunal adjourned until O93O hours, 3 March 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 Nurnberg, Germany, on 3 March 1947, 1000 hours, Justice Carrington T. Marshall, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 3.Military Tribunal 3 is now in session.
God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Military Tribunal 3 will come to order.
Mr. Secretary-General, ascertain if all the defendants are present.
MR. CHARLES E. SANDS: Josef Altstoetter?
DEFENDANT ALTSTOETTER: Here
MR. SANDS: Wilhelm von Ammon?
DEFENDANT VON AMMON: Here.
MR. SANDS: Paul Barnickel?
DEFENDANT BARNICKEL: Here.
MR. SANDS: Karl Engert? (No response) Guenther Joel?
DEFENDANT JOEL: Here.
MR. SANDS: Herbert Klemm?
DEFENDANT KLEMM: Here.
MR. SANDS: Hermann Cuhorst?
DEFENDANT CUHORST: Here.
MR. SANDS: Ernst Lautz?
DEFENDANT LAUTZ: Here.
MR. SANDS: Wolfgang Mettgenberg?
DEFENDANT METTGENBERG: Here.
MR. SANDS: Guenther Nebelung?
DEFENDANT NEBELUNG: Here.
MR. SANDS: Rudolf Oeschey?
DEFENDANT OESCHEY: Here.
MR. SANDS: Hans Petersen?
DEFENDANT PETERSEN: Here.
MR. SANDS: Oswald Rothaug? (No Response) Curt Rothenberger?
DEFENDANT ROTHENBERGER: Here.
MR. SANDS: Franz Schlegelberger?
DEFENDANT SCHLEGELBERGER: Here.
MR. SANDS: May it please this honorable Tribunal, I have letters here from the prison physicians which explain the absence of the defendants Karl Engert and Oswald Rothaug. If the Tribunal please, I will read these.
THE PRESIDENT: You may do so.
MR. SANDS: "Headquarters, Justice Prison, Nurnberg, Germany, APO 696-A, U. S. Army, 3 March 1947.
"Subject: Physical Condition of defendant Oswald Rothaug.
"To: The Secretary General.
"The defendant Rothaug was admitted to the Furth-Oberschule Hospital for treatment and observation on 22 February 1947.
"In February 1946 he suffered a perforation of the stomach as a result of a peptic ulcer, and since that time has had periodic exacerbations of his ulcer symptoms.
"Roenthoenologic examination now shows a severe gastritis with scarring of the original ulcer. Adhesions have caused the stomach to become adherent to the abdominal wall.
"The defendant at present is under-weight and has abdominal pain at frequent intervals. Therefore, because of his generally debilitated state, it is advisable that he be excused from standing trial for a period of one month."
Signed, "Charles J. Reska, Captain, Medical Corps, Prison Medical Officer."
THE PRESIDENT: You may make the same statement, or whatever statement you have, concerning the other absent defendant at this time.
MR. SANDS: Yes, your Honor. I have a similar letter here with regard to Karl Engert.
"Headquarters, Justice Prison, Nurnberg, Germany, APO 696-A, U.S. Army, 3 March 1947.
"Subject: Physical Condition of defendant Karl Engert.
"To: The Secretary General.
"The defendant Engert was transferred from the Nurnberg Prison to the Furth-Oberschule Hospital on 15 February 1947 because of serious gall-bladder disease.
"The medical diagnoses are: Cholelithiasis with cholecystitis; severe gastritis.
"At present he is a bed patient with fever and is deeply jaundiced.
"It is expected that his illness will necessitate his being in the hospital for at least six weeks.
"Because of the nature of his illness he cannot be expected to appear in court for at least six weeks." Signed, "Charles J. Roska, Captain, Medical Corps, Prison Medical Officer."
THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel for the defendant Rothaug any request to make at this time relative to his temporary absence?
DR. JOSEF KOESSL (Counsel for the defendant Oswald Rothaug): If it please the Tribunal, I ask that the defendant Rothaug be allowed to obtain permission for absence for one month, as requested. During this phase of the proceedings I do not consider it necessary that the defendant be present here.
THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel for the defendant Karl Engert a request to make at this time?
DR. HANS MARX (Counsel for the defendant Karl Engert): Mr. President, it was requested that the defendant Engert be excused for a period of at least six weeks, because he is not in a position to attend the sessions of this trial. I myself visited the defendant Engert in the hospital of the interned in Furth, and I convinced myself as to what his condition is as far as can be judged. I have concluded that his health is in a very bad condition. I am not in a position to say whether, after a lapse of approximated six weeks, he will be able to appear here.
Therefore, this question presents itself: To consider whether the trial against Engert could be segregated and whether the trial against Engert could be referred to another court, bill you permit me to make this suggestion? Because I am of the opinion that the defendant Engert will not be able to attend a session for a period longer than six weeks.
THE PRESIDENT: Permission will be given at this time for each of these defendants -- both of them -- to be temporarily absent during the trial, but the trial will be continued in their absence.
The matter of segregation is something that will have to be considered latter, and no announcement will be made at this time.
Mr. Secretary General, note for the record the presence of the defendants who have answered affirmatively, and make a proper notation as to the absence of those who are absent.
Is the prosecution ready to proceed at this time?
GENERAL TAYLOR: The prosecution is ready, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Are the defendants ready to proceed?
(No response)
We cannot very well have each of them come to the microphone, but I hope they all understood my inquiry, and silence gives consent to proceeding, I take it.
I have a statement which I desire to make for the benefit of the prosecution, the defendants, and all concerned.
Before opening the trial of Case No. 3, the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter and others, there are certain matters which the Tribunal desires to call to the attention of counsel for the prosecution and counsel for the defendants.
A set of uniform rules of procedure have been established by the joint acti n of Tribunals 1, 2, and 3. These rules, though not as important as substantive law, are nevertheless important and should be reasonable observed. Other rules laid down in the laws and ordinances which have established these tribunals are imperative. I desire at this time to call attention to only a few of the most important ones and especially those which apply to the day to day work of the Tribunal.
The prosecution may be allowed, for the purpose of making the opening statement in this case, time not to exceed one trial day. This time may be allocated by the Chief Prosecutor between himself and any of his assistants as he desires.
When the prosecution has rested its case, defense counsel will be allowed two trial days in which to make their opening statements, which will comprehend the entire theory of their respective defenses. The time allocated will be divided between the different defense counsel as they may themselves agree upon. In the event defense counsel cannot agree, the Tribunal will allocate the time, not to exceed thirty minutes to each defendant.
The prosecution shall, not less than 24 hours before it desires to offer any record or document or writing in evidence as part of its case in chief, file with the Defense Information Center not less than one copy of such record, document, or writing for each of the counsel for defendants, such copy to be in the German language. The prosecution shall also deliver to the Defense Information Center not less than four copies thereof in the English language.
When the prosecution or any defendant offers a record, document, or any other writing or copy thereof in evidence, there shall be delivered to the Secretary General, in addition to the original document or other instrument in writing so offered for admission in evidence, six copies of the document. If the document is written or printed in a language other than English, there shall also be filed with the copies of the document above referred to, six copies of an English translation of the document.
If such document is offered by any defendant, suitable facilities for procuring English translations of that document shall be made available.
At least 24 hours before a witness is called to the stand, either by the prosecution or by any defendant, the party who desires to interrogate the witness shall deliver to the Secretary General an original and six copies of a memorandum which shall disclose: I, the name of the witness; 2, his nationality; 3, his residence or station; 4, his official rank or position; 5, whether he is called as an expert witness or as a witness to testify to facts, and if the letter, a prepared statement of the subject natter on which the witness will be interrogated.
When the prosecution prepares such a statement connection with a witness whom it desires to call, at the time of the filing of thee statement two additional copies thereof shall be delivered to the Defense Information Center. When a defendant prepares such a statement concerning a witness whom it desires to call, the defendant shall, at the time the copies are filed with the Secretary General, deliver one additional copy to the prosecution.
I particularly call attention to the rule requiring all motions addressed to this Tribunal to be in writing end filed with the Defense Information Center and copies to be served upon opposing counsel at least 24 hours before being presented to the Tribunal. Each motion should be supported by a statement of the reasons therefor.
The charter of the Tribunal commands expeditious trial. It is therefore desired that the attendance of witnesses be provided for well in advance in order that there be no unreasonable delays. This applies more particularly to witnesses to be procured from other zones or jurisdictions.
For the information of all concerned, this Tribunal will, as a rule subject to exceptions, convene at 9:30 a.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays of each week, with short recesses. Adjournment each day, suchect to exceptions, will be at 1530 hours.
On arraignment day there were certain motions orally made before this Tribunal, and I understand that one of those motions has never been reduced to writing and that the other has been reduced to writing.
I think it is well to take those letters up at this time, more especially that motion which was a challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, I received a copy of a declaration from the prosecution, according to which my motion which I filed on the 17th in an open meeting and which I submitted in writing on the same day was not received by the prosecution. In view of this, another request reached me yesterday to repeat the motion. Unfortunately, I was not in a position to determine in opportune time whether my written motion of 17 February 1947 has reached the Tribunal. This motion in itself merely presented the request to discuss the question whether the indictment which was submitted to the defendants on January 4 called for a supplement because the regulation, according to Regulation 4, Article 4, Paragraph A, has been disregarded inasmuch as the necessary details were lacking. If I may be permitted to cite one example from the indictment, under Count 2 the continued enumeration is No. 11. There, as an example, it is stated, Count 2, continuing No. 11, a series of supplementary statements and distortions ...
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire whether the matters you are now citing have been incorporated in a written Action?
DR. SCHILF: On 17 February I submitted my written motion. However, I doubt whether my application reached the Tribunal because the Prosecution advised me yesterday that the prosecution has had no knowledge of my motion.
THE PRESIDENT: I think at this time we should not further discuss this matter until these matters have been brought to the attention of the Tribunal. And inasmuch as this entire day will probably be occupied with the opening statement, that matter can be brought to the attention of the Tribunal from the reading desk after the Tribunal has had an opportunity to see the text of the motions and the reasons in support of them.
DR. SCHILF: Then I shell repeat my notion in writing and I shall ascertain in the office of the Secretary General that my notion is being received.
THE PRESIDENT: What I have said applies to both motions, but of course the one that relates to the furnishing of the interrogation is not emergent. That motion which challenges the sufficiency of the indictment is emergent and must be disposed of finally before we begin to take evidence, and I trust that counsel for the prosecution and the defense will take action accordingly.
DR. SCHILF: I understand that perfectly. Yes.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May it Please Your Honors, I think some of this confusion has arisen necessarily out of the starting of the new Tribunal. Dr. Schilf has stated, I think quite correctly, the situation. Certainly he has stated it as far as the prosecution is concerned, and I have no reason to doubt that he did not file his written motion. However, as this record stands this morning on the two motions attacking the sufficiency of the indictment, up until now I had never know that Dr, Schilf had reduced his motion to writing. It had never reached me. Dr. Koessl's motion for the defendant Rothaug had reached me.
But we had a conference in my office after the 17th, I think probably on the 19th or 20th, and after that conference I, the next day, reduced to writing my general understanding of what we had discussed, and I asked, that by the following Monday at eleven o' clock I be advised as to whether counsel chose to insist on their motions or their attacks on the indictment or would abandon them.
THE PRESIDENT: What day of the month was that?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: We met on the 19th of February, and my written statement was made on the 20th of February. I do not know whether Dr, Koessl chose to abandon or not. In a sense, I did not require an affirmative statement but I did not receive it, so I do not know at this time whether we have two motions pending which can be disposed of later or not. It occurs to me by simply attempting to show that there has been good.
faith on both sides that after we have completed the opening statement we nay well discuss what disposition can be made thereafter, if it suits the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be agreeable to take this matter up at the conclusion of the opening statements. But after the emergent matter of disposing of the challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment, I think there should be a conference between counsel on each side so that matter may be presented to this Tribunal as soon as possible.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I will be available for that conference with defense counsel immediately after the close of court today.
Dr. KUBOSCHOK: The translation from English into German can hardly be understood. Possibly, it might be considered to appoint a new interpreter. It is not possible to follow the proceeding in German except with great effort and sometimes not at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Does that refer to the proceedings here and now?
DR. KUBOSCH0K: Now.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Are there any other matters either the Prosecution or the Defense that should be called to the attention of the Tribunal before the statement is made?
The prosecution will therefore, at this time, proceed with the opening statement.
BRIGADIER GENERAL TELFORD TAYLOR:
This case is unusual in that the defendants are charged with crimes committed in the name of the law Those men, together with their deceased or fugitive colleagues, were the Embodiment of what passed for justice in the Third Reich.
Most of the defendants have served, at various times, as judges, as state prosecutors, and as official of the Reich Ministry of Justice. All but one are professional jurist; they are well-accustomed to courts and court-rooms, though their present role may be new to them.
But a court is far more than court-room; it is a process and a spirit. It is the House of law. This the defendants know, or must have known in times past. I doubt that they ever forgot it. Indeed, the root of the accusation here is that those men, loaders of the German judicial system, consciously and deliberately suppressed the law, engaged in on unholy masquerade of brutish tyranny disguised as justice, and converted the German judicial system to an engine of despotism, conquest, pillage, and slaughter.
The methods by which these crimes were committed nay be novel in some respects, but the crimes themselves are not. They are as old as mankind, and their names arc murder, torture, blunder, and others equally f familiar. The victims of those crimes are countless, and include nationals of practically every country in Europe.
But because these crimes were committed in the guise of legal process, it is important at the outset to set forth certain things that are not, here and now, charged as crimes.
The defendants and their colleagues distorted, preverted, and finally accomplished the complete overthrow of justice and law in Germany. They made the system of courts an integral part of dictatorship. They established and operated special tribunals, obedient only to the political dictates of the Hitler regine. They abolished all semblance of judicial independence. They brow-beat, bullied, and denied fundamental rights to those who came before the courts. The "trials" they conducted became horrible farces, with vestigial remnants of legal procedure which only served to mock the hapless victims.
This conduct was dishonor to their profession. Many of these misdeeds may well be crimes. But, in and of themselves, they are not charged as crimes in this indictment. The evidence which proves this course of conduct will, indeed, be laid before the court, as it constitutes an important part of the proof of the crimes which are charged. But the defendants are not now called to account for violating constitutional guaranties or with holding due process of law.
Ont the contrary, the defendants arc accused of participation in and responsibility for the killings, tortures, and other atrocities which resulted from, and which the defendants know were an invovitable consequence of, the conduct of their offices as judges, prosecutors, and ministry officials. Those men share with all the loaders of the Their Reich---- diplomats, generals, perty officials, industrialists and others --- responsibility for the holocaust of death and misery which the Third Reich visited on the world and on Germany herself. In this responsibility, the share of the German men of law is not the least. They can no more escape that responsibility by virtue of their judicial robes than the general by his uniform.
One other word of clarification. Some of the evidence in this case will relate to acts which occurred before the outbreak of war in 1939- These acts will be proved in order to show that the defendants were part of a conspiracy and plan to commit the crimes charged to have been committed after the outbreak of war, and to show that the defendants fully understood and intended the criminal consequences of their acts during the war. But none of these acts is charged as an independent offense in this particular indictment.
The charges in the indictment have been so limited for purpose of clarity and simplicity. There is no need to test in this case delicate questions concerning tho criminality per se of judicial misconduct, since the accusation and the evidence cut much deeper. The defendants arc charged with using their offices and exercising their powers with the knowledge and intent that their official acts would result in the killing, torture, and imprisonment of thousands of person in violation of international law as declared in Control Council law No. 10. Nor is there any need to inquire here into what acts committed before the war are cognizable as crimes against humanity under law No. 10, since the bulk of the proof relates to acts which Occurred during the war.
In summary, tho defendants are charged with judicial murder and other atrocities which they committed by destroying law and justice in Germany, and by then utilizing the emptied forms of legal process for persecution, enslavement, and extermination on a vast scale. It is the purpose of this proceeding to he r these charges and to render judgment according to the evidence under law.
The true purpose of this proceeding, therefore, are broader that the mere visiting of retribution on a few men for the death and suffering of many thousands. I have said that the defendants know, you should know, that a court is the House of Law. But it is, I fear, many years since any of the defendants have dwelt therein. Great as was their crime against Germany was even more shameful. They defiled the German temple of justice, and delivered Germany into the dictatorship of the Third Reich, "with all its methods of terror, and its cynical and omen denial of the rule of law.
" The temple must be reconsecrated.
This cannot be done in the twinkling of on eye or by any mere ritual. It cannot be done in any single proceeding or at any one place. It certainly cannot be done at Nurnberg alone. But we have here, I think, a special opportunity and grave responsibility to help achieve this goal. He have here the men who delayed a leading part in the destruction of law in Germany. They are about to be judged in accordance with the law. It is more than fitting that those men be judged under that which they, as jurists, denied to others. Judgment under law is the only just fate for the defendants; the prosecution asks no other.
There are fifteen defendants in the box, all of whom held high judicial office, and all but one of whom are trained lowers. To understand this case, it is necessary to understand the general structure of the German judicial system. and the places occupied by the several defendants within that system.
To assist the Court in this regard, the Prosecution has prepared a short expository brief which is already in the hands of the Court and which has been made available to defense counsel in German and English. The brief inclosed a glossary of the more frequent German words or expressions which will occur during the Trial---most of them from the vocabulary of governmental and judicial affairs. It includes a table of equivalent ranks between the American Army and the German Army and SS, and a table of the civilian ranks used in the German judicial system It also includes two charts, showing respectively the structure of the Reich Ministry of Justice, and the Hierarchy of German courts. Finally, it includes a copy of the composite chart now displayed on the wall of the courtroom, which shows the positions occupied by the defendants in the General scheme of things. This chart has been certified by the defendant Schlegelger, and will be introduced as an exhibit in this case when Mr. Lafollette commerce the presentation of evidence.
It is being displayed at this time as a convenient guide to the court and to defense counsel, to enable them more easily to follow the opening statement.
Because Germany was divided into a multitude of states and provinces until modern times, German law is not the product of a continuous or uniform development. However, while some elements of old Germanic low have survived, German law has for many centuries been based primarily on the principles of Roman law. As is the case in most continental motions, German law today is enacted to substantial degree in the form of codes.
Even t the present time, the principle source of German criminal law is the Criminal Code of 1871. Amendments have been frequent, but it has never been completely overhauled. For our present purpose, it is sufficient to note the Code's three-fold division of criminal offenses. Serious crimes, punishable with death or imprisonment for more than five years, are called "crimes" (vorbrechon); lesser offenses punishable with imprisonment or substantial fines are called "delicts" (Vergehen), and minor offenses are called "contraventions" (Ucbertretungon).
Questions of criminal procedure are regulated by the Code of Criminal procedure of February, 1877; hatters of jurisdiction and of court organization are prescribed in the General Judicature Act of January, 1877.
Under both the German Empire and the Weimar Republic, the authority to appoint judges and prosecutors and the mower to execute sentences were jealously guarded prerogatives of the individual German states. The Reich Ministry of Justice, therefore, remained predominately a Ministry of federal legislation. The anomaly of a highly unified federal law, as contrasted With a court system administered by the individual states, endured, until after the advent of Hitler.