I am sure you understand the difficulties involved.
DR. DOETZER: May it please the Court, Dr. Doetzer for the defendant Nebelung. I have one document book; the second document book only contains a few document books and that I shall only be able to present later. I do not intend to read anything from my document books. I am of the opinion that each document speaks for itself. Only in the case of two documents I wish to make a brief explanation from the technical point of view. I am referring to page five of the English book where it says that the signature was not affixed in the presence of a notary, but in the presence of the President of the District Court of Appeal at Brunswick. I have had a change made, though. This document has been signed an affidavit before a notary public. I have the original with me. The same applies to page 28 of the English book.
There too, it applies that the affidavit was afterwards given in the presence of a notary public.
THE PRESIDENT: May we wait until we get the document book, please?
DR. DOETZER; Yes, your Honor.
Your Honor, may I just repeat what I have said? On page five, would you note please that the affidavit was given before a notary public? The same applies to page 28. My documents one to twenty-five are contained in this document book. These documents are to bear the Exhibit Numbers 1 to 25. All exhibits have been examined by the Prosecution and the Prosecution tells me that they have no objections. Before I offer these exhibits, I should like to remark on them briefly. All Documents do not refer to the work of my client as President of the Senate with the People's Court.
In so far, I take the same view as the prosecution. The evidence presented by the prosecution has resulted in my having formed a picture which I do not intend to refute.
In the other evidence presented here by the prosecution, the prosecution deals with the work of my client as attorney and notary, as President of a District Court of Appeal, as Ortsgruppenleiter, leader of a local group of a party, and as soldier.
The documents which I am about to present show clearly what was the attitude of the defendant Nebelung when he held these various functions. My documents also show the length of time which the defendant spent at each of these posts. In view of those facts, I believe that there is no need for my client to testify in the witness stand as that will also help to expedite these proceedings. I therefore offer Nebelung exhibits 1 through 25 to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 1 to 25 inclusive are received in evidence, They will receive the same Exhibit numbers which they now bear as document numbers.
DR. DOETZER: As I said, Your Honor, my document book 2 is not yet completed. It will be a very small volume and it contain only a few documents which I took from the personnel file of the defendant. As soon as I receive the volume, I shall introduce it. I have concluded the presentation of my evidence.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: The Prosecution has two additional documents in the case Nebelung which we would like to present at this time. The first document which is NG-2133 is a situation report from President Nebelung of the Court of Appeals in Brunswig, addressed to the Minister of Justice and dated November, 30, 1943. This document is introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 566.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: The next document which is NG-1904 is a file containing the indictment, the verdict, and other papers in connection with the trial and execution of a Czech national Nohavicka, tried before the Fourth Senate of the People's Court over which the defendant Nebelung presided. The verdict in this case is signed by the defendant Nebelung. That document is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 567.
THE PRESIDENT: We appreciate that you had expected the opportunity to cross-examine.
MIS ARBUTHNOT: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: But in view of the offering of these exhibits at this time, the defense must have opportunity to meet them if they desire to do so.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: I understand that, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibits are received.
Are there more document books to be presented this morning?
DR. KOESSL: May it please the court, I wish to present document book 2, 3 and 4 for the defendant Rothaug. Document Book 5; I intended to present together with a supplementary volume, with which it is connected.
THE PRESIDENT: Which book will you introduce first?
DR. KOESSL: Document Book II for Rothaug.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the last exhibit number of Rothaug documents?
DR. KOESSL: The last exhibit number was 53 in Book VI. In Book II, the first exhibit number will be No. 54, May it please the Court, I shall now start with my Document Book II.
The first document I wish to offer is Rothaug document number 79, and the Exhibit number is 54. This document deals with the legal position of the investigating judge is also dealt with in document number 80, and I offer document 80 as Exhibit 55.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 54 and 55 are received.
DR. KOESSL: In Exhibit No. 55 the legal basis for the competency of the investigating judge in connection with the interrogation of Katzenberger and Seiler is explained, and also in connection with the arrest warrant which was issued for Katzenberger.
Document No. 81, which I offer as Exhibit No. 56, deals with the legal basis for the code of procedure to which Groben referred when he issued the warrant for Katzenberger's arrest. I should merely like to point out that Article 123 of the Code of Procedure, which plays an important part, is especially declared applicable if the warrant, as here, was issued before the indictment was filled.
I offer document No. 81 as Exhibit 56.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit received.
DR. KOESSL: Document 82 feals with Article 124 of the Penal Code of Procedure, and that is expressly declared not to be applicable here. It deals with the Untersuchungsrichter, and one must not get mixed up between the concept of Untersuchunssrichter and. Ermittlungsrichter, Examining Judge and Investigating Judge. I offer document No. 82 as Exhibit No. 57.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
Document No. 83 contains Article 112 of the Penal Code of Procedure which lays down what the prerequisites are for issuing a warrant for arrest. I offer document No. 83 as Exhibit No. 58.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 84 refers to the contents and the purpose of the interrogation of a defendant. I offer document No. 84 as Exhibit 59.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 85 deals with the so-called instruction concerning and it was Groben who occupied himself with that a great deal. I offer Document No. 85 as Exhibit No. 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 86 contains the basic provisions for the right to appeal under Article 304 of the Penal Code of Procedure. I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that exphasis is laid on the decisions and rulings by the local court judge, and that includes the issuance of a warrant for arrest by the investigating judge. I offer document No. 86 as Exhibit No. 61.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 87 contains Article 306 of the Penal Code of Procedure, which lays down quite clearly what the attitude of the judge is to be in his decisions are contested by appeal. I would draw your attention to the principle of expedition which is laid down in this article, further to the fact that the complaint-procedure is dealt with exhaustively and forms a self-contained whole, and I would also point out that special emphasis is placed on the importance of the decisions made by a local court judge during preliminary proceedings. I offer document No. 87 as Exhibit 62.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 88 shows the possibilities of development, and the duties of the investigating judge in arrest proceedings. I offer document No. 88 as Exhibit No. 63.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 89 solves the problem as to what the immediate steps are which the investigating judge in his independent position concerning warrants for arrest, as soon as he is convinced that the warrant is not, so is no longer justified. In Section 2 of this Article 306 it is laid down that the investigating judge himself must revoke the warrant if there has been an appeal and if he, the judge, thinks that the appeal is justified. I offer document No. 89 as Exhibit 64.
Document No. 90 deals with the general situation of the judge in connection with his functions regarding issuing warrants for arrest. I offer document No. 90 as Exhibit 65.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibits are received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 91, which I shall offer as Exhibit 66, deals with the concept and the importance of the witness under German law.
Document 92 explains the procedural basis on which the witness Seiler was interrogated, and it quite clearly solves the question as to what the position of the investigating judge is when an application is made that a witness should be interrogated under oath. I offer document No. 92 as Exhibit 67.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 93 deals with Article 65 of the Penal Code of Procedure, which gives accurate provisions concerning the conditions under which a witness may, by way of an exception, be taken under oath before the trial, and those conditions have to be examined by the judge. I offer document No. 93 as Exhibit 68.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 94 deals with cases where a witness on no account may be examined under oath. I offer document No. 94 as Exhibit 69.
Document No. 95 contains the substantive provisions concerning the facts of aiding and abetting, under the Reich Penal Code. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 70/
Document No. 96 contains the prevailing opinion -
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 69 and 70 are received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 96 deals with the prevailing opinion on the question when there is a suspicion of aiding and abetting within the meaning of the Penal Code. I offer document No. 96 as Exhibit 71.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 97 deals with an appeal, such as was made in the Katzenberger case, with reference to the arrest warrant. Articles 304 and following are intended to show as self-contained the regulations when and under what conditions and by whom in the appeal procedure the prosecution may be heard. Those cases are particularly emphasized in the law. Articles 308 and 309 show that only the court which deals with the appeal may hear the prosecution, but is not obliged to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, in hopes that the Tribunal will not construe my suggestion as prejudicial in any way to the defense -- which I certainly don't intend -- I would suggest that in putting the Rothaug documents in evidence a more expeditious manner or method be adopted, in view of the fact that I have no objection to any of these documents, with the exception of eight. If the court would permit me, I could very briefly state my objections to those eight documents and the rest could go in numbered serially without any further mention.
THE PRESIDENT: We would be glad to know what exhibits you object to.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In document Book II, I object to the last five documents in that book, dealing with the Kraeutlein case, as immaterial and irrelevant to any issue raised against the defendant Rothaug in that, as Dr. Koessel assures me and from my own reading, it seems they are in there to illustrate a case that was handled impeccably.
IN book III, I object to Rothaug documents 169, 172, and 26, which are found on the second page of the index.
JUDGE BRAND: 169, 172 and what is the other one?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: 26, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: In what book?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In book III. These 3 documents deal with Nazi propaganda concerning alleged Polish atrocities in the beginning of the Polish campaign in August and September 1939. Because it is Nazi propaganda of the vilest sort I object to this Tribunal being made a sounding board for that propaganda, and I object to it as being incompetent. With those exceptions I have no further objections to any Rothaug document in Books II, III, IV, and V-A which are all the English books that have been distributed to me.
DR. DOESSEL: May it please the Tribunal, I think that in the case of Book No. II, a short connecting text is necessary, because it deals almost exclusively with articles from laws, and these legal provisions have to be submitted in some context, in order to explain why they are submitted. I shall be as brief as possible, Your Honor. I had come to Document No. 97 -
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Court please, I had an objection that has not been ruled on. I would ask counsel to wait, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Your objection is to eight of the documents. Is that the objection you refer to?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor, that plus my suggestion as to the method of introducing the rest.
THE PRESIDENT: Your suggestion isn't an objection.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, I realize that.
THE PRESIDENT: We would very much welcome the acceptance of that suggestion, but we will not compel the defense counsel to accept it. If we are able to ascertain what the relevancy of a document is, Dr. Koessel -
DR. KOESSEL: First the Prosecution objected to the submission of the documents in the Kraeutlein case. The case Kraeutlein -
THE PRESIDENT: I think we will shorten this up in this respect. You are going to offer all of these documents in Books 2 and 3?
DR. KOESSEL: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: There are objections only to eight of them.
DR. KOESSEL:: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We will -- Just amoment. We will number your exhibits in chronological order, beginning with your document 97 in Document Book 2, which will be marked and received as Exhibit 72.
DR. KOESSEL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Thereafter all of the exhibits in Book II, will be numbered with exhibit numbers consecutively in the order in which they appear in the index with chronological numbering, of exhibits. All of those exhibits are received in evidence with the exception of Documents 151, 152, 153, 190, and 154.
DR. KOESSEL: The exhibits --.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, now. We have received all of the other exhibits now, and it is unnecessary for us to make separate rulings. We will permit you to make a brief statement concerning each of these documents if you insist on doing so, beginning with Document 98.
DR. KOESSEL: Document No. 98, Exhibit 73, demonstrates why Groben submitted the files to the Prosecution, because it is stated here that the arrest warrant has to be annulled by the investigating magistrate if the Prosecution gives that order. Thus the responsibility is transferred to the Prosecution, and that is what Groben wanted to achieve.
Document 99 contains article 33 of the Penal Code of Procedure, the one that Groben referred to when he explained why he approached the Prosecution for its opinion. Groben was not supposed to have referred to that article 33, because it only applies to the court but not to the investigating magistrate. From the text of that article one can see that it is only the court and not the investigating magistrate who can base himself upon it.
In Document 100 the legal foundation is explained why the Prosecution submitted the complaint against the arrest to that penal chamber where the indictment was originally filed.
Document 101 regulates the parallel competency between Special Courts and regular courts.
Document 102 establishes the competence of the Special Courts.
Document 103 shows the requisites which are necessary for the Prosecutor to file an indictment or to close a case.
Document 104 shows what was the final action which ended the competency of the investigating magistrat in arrest proceedings. I have to point out that the indictment was filed with the penal chamber at the end of July 1941, and immediately after it was filed it was withdrawn and that the indictment with the Special Court was filed only many months later. The control ever the arrest in the hands of the investigating magistrate exceeds by far the time when Groben became a judge at the Special Court.
Document No. 105 reveals who was authorized to sign and who, in the Katzenberger case caused the case being brought before the Special Court. The question is whether one can assume that the Prosecution acted on its own initiative and whether the mea sure which it wook upon its own initiative was later reversed by it, the Prosecution.
Document 106 shows who had to examine the competency immediately when the indictment was received by the penal chamber, and it proves that the presiding judge of the penal chamber, Ferber, had the legal duty to examine immediately, whether it was he who was competent in this case, or whether a different court was competent.
Document 107 shows the legal basis upon which the indictment could be withdrawn.
Document 108 describes the duty of the Prosecution to report in Special Court cases, to superior agencies all the way up to the Reich Ministry of Justice of Bavaria. In this connection I refer to the statement by the witness markl, English transcript Page 3653 and following pages.
Document 109 explains the competency of the presiding judge of the Special Court. I point out that according to Article 20, Section3, Sentence 2 of the regulation concerning competency the Special Court had to decide on the complaint against the arrest. That is to say, all three of the judges and net the presiding judge a lone.
In document 110 it is established to what extent the general code of criminal procedure are applicable in trials before the Special Court.
Document 111 contains a provision of the Code of Civil Procedure referring to the case where in a civil procedure a question of penal law arises. That is what Ferber had pointed out in his comparison to a divorce proceedings. I emphasize that this Article 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure is an optional provision.
In document 112 the parallel case is shown from the Code of Criminal Procedure. Here again it is an optional provision. It explains what the Court has to do if in a penal case a question of civil law arises. As for the perjury case of Seiler and its handlings, neither the requirements of Article 149 of the Civil Code of Procedure nor the requirements of Article 262 of the Penal Code of Procedure were there, but the case was much simpler: namely, in a criminal trial, a question of criminal law was to be solved. That reveals that the comparison which Ferber offered was absolutely irrelevant.
In Document 113, Articles 2 and 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are required, and the general principles about connecting of penal cases.
Document 114 describes the sphere of work of the presiding judge cf the Special Court and his duties after the indictment has been filed.
Document 115 contains a further possibility of connecting criminal cases. This document, particularly, explains the concept of connection.
Document 116 also contains principles concerning the connection of criminal cases. The legal basis for joining the cases Katzenberger and Seiler is explained in Document 117. On account of this Article 15 Section 2 of the decree on jurisdiction the cases Katzenberger and Seiler were connected.
Document 118 presents the possibility that a codefendant can be used as a witness for another codefendant, and that for the purpose of testimony the case may temporarily be severed.
Document No. 1, which will be Exhibit No. 94, contains princi ples which were explained in the official organ of the University of justice, the gazette "Deutsche Justiz" about the scope of the penalty in cases of pollution.
Document 12 presents a decision of a Reich Supreme Court concerning the concept of sexual intercourse in connection with racial legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: What document is that? I didn't get that.
MR. KOESSEL: That was Document No. 12 which will be Exhibit No. 95. That decision by the Reich Supreme Court contains the concept of subsidiary actions in the sense of racial legislation.
Document No 49 contains the pertinent parts of the law for the protection of German blood, by which race pollution was made punishable.
Documents 171 and 173 also contain decisions by the Reich Supreme Court concerning the question of race pollution.
That concludes the submission of Document Book No. II, and I offer the documents which I have just discussed to be received as Exhibits 54 to 101.
THE PRESIDENT: All of those exhibits have already been received except as indicated. The Court did not exclude the last five documents as yet until we hear your statement as to what they are. Objection has been made to them. If counsel for the Prosecution has accurately stated the fact that these merely represent cases as to which there is no claim that there was any impropriety or irregularity, then we think that the documents are immaterial and should be excluded. What is you position as to that?
DR. KOESSEL: By the Kraeutlein case I only wanted to submit a case which was quite similar to the Katzenberger case. Rothaug was not charged with the Kraeutlein case, but by submitting it I wanted, to show, how here also it was a question of circumstantial evidence and how in this case also the indictment was filed first with the regular penal chamber as well as the fact that the penal chamber transferred the case into the sphere of the Special Court.
That was the same thing as in the case of Katzenberg. In addition, I wanted to show that also in this case it was the Prosecution who first had the idea to apply the Public Enemy Decree and not the Special Court, that is to say, Rothaug.
THE PRESIDENT: Was Rothaug the judge in this case?
DR. KOESSEL: He was the judge in this case.
TEE PRESIDENT: He was?
DR. KOESSEL: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It was a case of race pollution?
DR. KOESSEL: No, Your Honor, it is a case of arson.
THE PRESIDENT: The objections are sustained.
DR. KOESSEL: In Document Book III the Lopata case is dealt with. As Document No. 195 I offer a collection of photostatic copies which, primarily are designed to show what the attitude of the Prosecution and of the witness Dorfmueller was in the Lopata case. I refer the Tribunal to all the pages of that document where the name Dorfmueller appears and where the initials Do, the abbreviation Do, the first two letters of the name Dorfmueller, can be found. That document reveals that the idea of pronouncing the death sentence did not emanate from Rothaug but that it can be found for the first time in the indictment filed by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment -- The exhibits which were offered in evidence and rejected, being the last five in Document Book II may be marked Exhibits 102, 103, 104, 105 and 106 offered and rejected, but they will retain their numbers for the record. We now turn to Document Book III, and there being no objection, we understand that you are offering all of these exhibits in Document Book III?
DR. KOESSL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We will receive in evidence all of the documents in Document Book III with the exception of Document 169, 172, and 26, as to which three exhibits we will hear counsel before ruling upon them. The first exhibit in Document Book III, Document 195, will be Exhibit 107. Thereafter, all of the exhibits in that book, in the order in which they appear in the index, will be marked by exhibit numbers which will chronologically follow Exhibit No. 107.
DR. KOESSL: That makes Document No. 30, Exhibit 112, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute. Document 30 is Exhibit 112?
DR. KOESSL: Yes, 112; and Document No, 169, No. 172 and Document No. 26, I did not offer to prove the atrocities mentioned there but only to show what was told to the German people in this field in order to make understandable the attitude and the opinion of the German people.
THE PRESIDENT: We are ready to rule on those exhibits, We understand that they are not offered to prove the truth of the allegations therein, but to prove the nature of the propaganda to which the German people were exposed. For that purpose, we will receive them in evidence. No. 169 will be exhibit -
DR. KOESSL: 113. No. 172 would be 114, and No. 26 would be 115, Your Honor. As for the documents 121, 122, 37, 28, and 30, which will be exhibits 108 to 112, I briefly want to recapitulate that in Document 121, it is shown what the significance was of the fact that in the case before the Special Court, a now group of facts were produced which incriminated Lopata. It can be seen from the clemency report that the fact that the farm was threatened with the pitchfork played an important part in the question of determining the penalty for Lopata.
This circumstance, however, had not been submitted to the local court in Newmarkt nor to the Reich Supreme Court when they made their decisions. In Document 122, it is shown what was the legal basis for appointing defense counsel and the necessity that defense counsel be appointed if the death penalty might arise. Document No. 37, contains a judgment by the Reich Supreme Court which describes the necessity of protection for women and children as especially urgent. That judgment by the Reich Supreme Court and the reasons for it were of decisive importance in the Lopata case. Document No. 28 shows that when the requirements for the Public Enemy Decree prevailed, one was confronted with a new type of offense. Document No. 30 also contains a decision by the Reich Supreme Court which also emphasizes the necessity of considering, particularly during time of war, protection for women.
Exhibits 113 to 115 afford an insight in to the propaganda against the Poles. Documents No. 27 and No. 41 speak for themselves. Both these documents explain the position of the then competent Under-Secretary Freisler concerning the question of the law against Poles. Document No. 7 and Document No. 34 contain the points of view of the Reich Supreme Court concerning penal jurisdiction during war. Document No. 52 is an excerpt from the opinion against Milch. Here Military Tribunal No. 2 states that the Poles who worked in the Reich were forcibly brought into the Reich only since the beginning of the year 1943. That is in agreement with the statements made by the defendant Rothaug; to wit, that during the entire time that he worked at the Special Court, only voluntary Poles were sentenced by the Special Court. From that document No. 52, it can be seen that the first Poles who were displaced against their will could come only after the time when Rothaug worked at the Special Court.
That concludes the submission of Document Book No. III.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will show, Mr. Secretary, that all exhibits in Rothaug Book III are received in evidence, being Exhibits 107 to 120, both inclusive.
DR. KOESSL: Concerning Exhibit 107, may I submit to the Tribunal the photostats, because the photostatic copies show the handwriting of Dorfmueller and the handwritten initials of Dorfmueller; whereas, the, copies of the documents, and the translations of the documents submitted do not show them as clearly. Therefore, I ask to accept the photostatic copies of this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Those photostatic copies are copies of the exhibits of the documents in Exhibit 107?
DR. KOESSL: Yes, Your Honor. In Document Book No. IV, the Grasser case is dealt with. First, document No. 120, which I offer as Exhibit No. 121 contains Article 2 of the Malicious Acts Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. We haven't received the books yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel examined these exhibits?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please Your Honors, I believe I stated before that I have no objection to anything in Books IV and V-A.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. We will dispose of these in the same manner as before.
DR. KOESSL: I think I can be more brief in my statements here. Document 120, which is going to be Exhibit 121, contains Article 2 of the Malicious Acts Law Document 188 contains an interrogation of the accused Grasser by the investigating magistrate. I consider it significant in this case that already the investigating magistrate considered the offense by Grasser as a crime, and classified it as a case of high treason according to Article 83 of the Reich Penal Code. Document 119 concerns that article 83 of the Reich Penal Code. Document 178 contains Article 5 and 6 of the Decree concerning jurisdiction which reveals that that offense came under the competency of the People's Court.
Document 165 contains the basic legal position of the Public Prosecutors, here, special attention is called to Article 147 of the Judicature Act which shows that the general public prosecutor's office in Munich had no right to give any directives to the Senior Public Prosecutor in Nurnberg regarding the Grasser case. It shows that the transferring of the Grasser case to the Senior Public Prosecutor in Numberg took place for reasons of competency. Document No. 179 proves that it was possible for the Public Prosecution in Nurnberg to prosecute Grasser to the same extent as originally charged, although the Senior Public Prosecutor in Munich had stricken some of the charges. By the appeal against the arrest made by Grasser, which is contained in Document 180, Rothaug got in contact with the Grasser case for the first time. Here we see again that the investigating magistrate, as is shown in Document 181, also had rejected Grasser's appeal; the Senior Public Prosecutor also objected against the appeal made by Grasser, to be found in Document 182. Finally, there is the ruling of the presiding judge in Document No. 183. This document also contains a ruling by the Senior Public Prosecutor wherein he terms Grasser's offenses as continuous offenses against the Malicious Acts Law.