AFTERNOON SESSION
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears that through an eversight on the part of the Presiding Judge, quite inexcusable, I neglected to inquire of the marshal this morning if all the defendants were present. He may now report as to the condition this morning.
THE MARSHAL; May it please Your Honors, all of the defendants have been present in the courtroom today with the exception of the defendant Petersen, who is absent dule to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: We understand the defendant Petersen is absent at his own request on account of temporary illness, and he is excused You may proceed.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Hen rs, may I please continue to introduce my documents on behalf of my client Herr Cuhorst. I have just been told that I shall be able to introduce all my document volumes today. That means that I shall also be able to introduce Volumes III and IV. Therefore, I must new make the following remarks: Today I shall have to ask you to allow me to reserve the introduction of a few more documents until later because I am not able to introduce them today; among those which I should like to introduce later are the text of the Wiedergutmachungs Gesetz reconstitution law, and an article from the French paper LeMono about the relations between the prosecutors and judges. Further more a number cf newspaper cuttings; also the Diesler affidavit; the Kies affidavit; the Baumann affidavit, and the affidavit by Dinkelacker. Some cf those documents I intended to introduce earlier, but the Prosecution objected to them being introduced in their present form.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will not rule upon any belated offers of affidavits or exhibits at this time, but it should be noted that the time is rapidly approaching when we will not receive additional affidavits if they have not been promptly and with due diligence processes in time for their reception as a part of the defendant's case.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That applies to every defendant.
DR. BRIEGER: And also there is the affidavit by Dieterlen -- I shall have to introduce t at later in a new version. And yesterday, as Exhibit No. 8, I introduced the Cuhorst Document No, 2, Document Book II-A.
THE PRESIDENT: I-A, wasn't it?
DR. BRIEGER: I-A, page 2. That is the indictment against Wladislaus Farygetewicz, dated oho 18th of July, 1942. Mr. Lafollette asked me where we get that indictment which we said was an original.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready to offer it now?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I have no objection.
DR. BRIEGER: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be receive in evidence as Exhibit 8. The number was reserved.
DR. BRIEGER: I had gotten to the Eckert affidavit, Document Book II-A, Document No. 36, Exhibit No. 46.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit has been received.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes. May I just quote two or three passages, and afterwards with my other document I shall be brief. On page 38 of the case against Zwiauer Scholl and others, and I should like to read cut that passage concerning proceedings where Cuhorst especially showed his humane attitude. I should like to mention the criminal case against Zwiauer School and others who were charged with the continuance of a Buendische Jugend which had been prohibited. Although Berlin sent a special. Public Prosecutor as representative in this session, who demanded a severe penalty, and although Cuhorst did not sympathize with these organizations, Cuhorst handled this case with great understanding for young people and as a final result of this trial, only one older defendant was sentenced according to Article 175 of the Penal Code, etc.
This is Case 62 on the Cuhorst list.
I am now continuing with my presentation. I should like to direct your attention to the Guter case, also on page 38. I also would like to mention a case against a certain Guter who stole at his firm seven army mail packages which he had supposed to mail and who had taken several objects from his bedfellow. A special court presided by Cuhorst, sentenced Guter to one year and six months imprisonment. In consequence of a nullity plea the sentence- was quashed and according to directives of the Reich Ministry of Justice, a penitentiary term of two or three years was to be demanded by the prosecuting authority. At the now trial Cuhorst insited in sustaining under all circumstances the verdict with regard to the youth of the perpetrator and also in order to stress on principle the independence of the courts towards the Reich Ministry of Justice.
The associate judges, however, were of a different opinion because the defendant did not make a very good impression and they were afraid, in particular, that in case of a second nullity plea another Special Court would convict the defendant to a much higher penitentiary term. Cuhorst was then outvoted, and Guter was sentenced to a penitentiary term of one year and one month, from which time the one year of detention pending trial which he had already served was deducted; so that Guter, in effect, was bettor off and, at least partly, they met the demand of the Reich Ministry of Justice which, in case of thefts of army mail parcels, insisted on principle on a penitentiary term.
This is Cuhorst case 55.
I now continue with my presentation of documents.
Cuhorst Exhibit No. 47, document 37 document book II, page 42 affidavit by Wolfgang Engelhern, of the 5th of July 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not really necessary for you to describe these exhibit.
Exhibit 47 will be received.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes. So as to avoid any misunderstanding, I imagine that you will allow me to say who the affiant is. I only want to avoid any misunderstanding.
THE PRESIDENT: The document shows it. You are just telling us what appears right here.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes. Cuhorst Exhibit 48, document No. 38 Book II, page 42.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit 49, document No. 39 Book II, page 43.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: This document is of particular importance because it deals with the Pietra case.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit 50, document No. 40, Book II, page 45.
This document is of particular importance because it details with the Margitai case.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No.51, document No. 42 Book II, page 54.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: This document refers to the events of the HarpprechtHaus case and it of particular importance because of the Renz incident. It refers to Prosecution Affidavit NG-197.
Exhibit No. 53, document No. 44, Book II page 56.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: I should like to quote a short passage from this document--it is quite short passage. This is an affidavit by Cuhorst's former driver. He is the man who drove Cuhorst when he went on official trips and when he went to the courts outside Stuttgart. It says:
"President Cuhorst as not dislike concerning the tone of his conversations in public. He expressed himself very clearly without ever being Malicious."
Cuhorst Exhibit 54, document No. 46, Book II, page 59. This document makes a special reference to the Eckstein-Winter case, which has been discussed here at great length.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BIEGER: Exhibit No. 55, document 47, Book II, page 61.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I have an objection, Your Honor, to the introduction of this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The prosecution objects to the introduction of Exhibit 54, document 47.
THE PRESIDENT: It is Exhibit 55.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I beg your pardon, 55. It appeals to the affidavit of one Otto Kleinknecht. An examination of the affidavit discloses that a material part of it is devoted to matters concerned with the affi davit which the affiant gave to the prosecution.
All of these matters should properly have been raised upon cross-examination, and are so intermixed with the material matters in the affidavit that they cannot be separated. For that reason the prosecution objects.
THE PRESIDENT: This is an affidavit which relates to the manner of the taking of a prosecution affidavit which was offered and received in evidence?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is correct.
DR. BRIEGER: That is correct, but only a portion of it and I have stressed those portions which reger to the previous affidavit. I can see no reason why I should not be allowed to introduce this affidavit for me to separate that. I made inquiries as to what the rules Were with the IMT, and I was told that such separation had not been insisted upon there. In the rules which apply for this Tribunal, I cannot find a rule which is contrary to the ruling of the IMT.
THE PRESIDENT: The proper time to have objection to the admissibility of an affidavit offered by the prosecution was at the time when the affidavit was offered. The exhibit was received without objection, and this kind of an attack comes to late. We have also seen the very insignificant and unimportant portion of this document and do not think that it merits any further attention.
The objection will be sustained.
DR. BRIEGER: I should like be make the following brief statement.
THE PRESIDENT: On what subject?
DR. BRIEGER: Concerning the matter of which the Tribunal has just passed a ruling.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it comes to late; we have ruled.
DR. BRIEGER: But I assume that I have not been prevented from submitting a defense affidavit which does not refer to the prosecution affidavit, and I reserve that right to introduce such a.s affidavit later.
THE PRESIDENT: You may do so. The time to object to an affidavit of the prosecution was when it was made.
It is a very paltry objection anyhow.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 56 document No. 49, Book II, page 67, in the English text it is also on page 67. This affidavit is considered particularly important by the defense because the much talked of Esterle case is discussed here in great detail.
Cuhorst Exhibit No 57, document No.50, Book II, page 69 in the German text and the same page in the English text. In this affidavit matters are discussed in great detail which were discussed in prosecution document NG-759.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 56 and 57 are received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No.58, document No. 51 Book II, page 72. This affidavit was deposed by an associate judge from the Special Court who had a great deal to do with Cuhorst.
THE PRESIDENT: The electrical system seems to be out of order.
DR. BRIEGER: For that reason, I shall repeat my last statement.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. The machinery is out of order. It is suggested that it is necessary for us to recess for a few moments while it is repaired, and we will do so.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. BRIEGER: May I continue with the submission of my documents concerning my client Cuhorst? As the sound system was out of order just now, I would like to repeat my statements about the last exhibit which was Exhibit No. 58 or Document 51 in Document Book 2 on page 72 of the German and English versions.
THE PRESIDENT: No. 58 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: The affiant Payer was an associate judge with Cuhorst, and he gives his comments on a number of important cases, included among which are Fussen, the Reverand Herzer, Guter, and the Untermarchtal monastery trial, and the case of Hepting. I should like to say about this, the monitor has drawn my attention to the fact that Fussen in the English version is frequently spelled "Russen" which has nothing to do with the Russian, of course. This is simply a misprint to which I would like to draw attention.
The next document is exhibit 39 which is document 52 in Book II on page 75. To make a brief remark, inasmuch as the German and English pages arc identical, I shall give one page number which in this case is 75. Peter was a clerk for many years with the Special Court under Cuhorst and I think from that point of view his testimony is of interest. I shall quote only these instances about the case of Skowron, "I shall recall a young Pole who on the basis of the law against Poles had to be sentenced to death in Ehing. His mane was Skowron.
He was a young man who made a good impression and Cuhorst had every sympathy for him and advocated a plea for clemency."
The next Document is Cuhorst Exhibit No. 60. It is Document 53 in Volume Book II, and it is on Page 78. This document deserves attention because it originates from the presiding judge of the District Court who as such was the immediate superior of Cuhorst, as the witness Dr. Kuestner has testified, in Cuhorst's capacity as the President of the Special Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 59 and 60 are received.
DR. BRIEGER: I would like to quote four lines from this: "On the 27 April 1942, he paid me a visit"-- He means Cuhorst in this case -"What he told me at that time, I made a note of at once. This is what I wrote down." -- I am sorry. There is some confusion here. He is not talking about Cuhorst but about Wagner. "Under President Cuhorst, I liked my work. There was a free and easy tone among us which allowed contradiction, and he could take into consideration a deviating opinion. That is all about that document.
The next document is Exhibit No. 61, Document No. 54, in Volume II, on page 83. The affiant here is Dr. Roessler, and he and Cuhorst were colleagues on the bench. Of particular interest are his statements about the Mannheim Communist Trial, which has played a part in the record here It's been discussed here recently under the designation, "Neuschwanduer, Hewig Wagner, Jatzchk and so forth. The affiant also testifies as to the case of Schaefer, about which the defendant has spoken on the witness stand. At the end it says, "Cuhorst said to me that he would soon chuck the whole thing; the many death sentences would get on his nerves to such an extent that he could only sleep one or two hours each night."
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 61 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: The next document which I beg to offer is Exhibit No. 62. It's Document No. 52 in Volume II.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. Document 55, isn't it?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, it's Document 55, if Your Honors please. The affiant was once a Public Prosecutor and he makes important statements about the case of Guter which the witness has discussed on the witness stand as Case No. 54.
My next document -- I am sorry -- I see this document goes a little further. The case of Gutman is also being dealt with here, the case Kettlitz, Soell, Stiegler, Hepting, and I would like to read this: "From a conversation which I and Cuhorst had on the threshhold of the chambers it was, on the contrary, my impression that he only with a heavy heart would touch the death sentence." Then the case of Hepting is also dealt with.
My next document will be Cuhorst Exhibit No. 63, which is Document No. 56, in Volume II on page 69.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 62 and 63 are received.
DR. BRIEGER: The next document will be exhibit No. 64, Document No. 57 in Volume II on page 91.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: I should like to read from page 99, and it's page 3 of the original. "The Special Court in Stuttgart fought a continuous battle with the Reich Ministry of Justice." On the next page it says, "The President of the District Court of Appeal was ordered to report to Berlin, both before and during the war, in order to be rapped over the knuckles very considerably because of the jurisdiction of the Special Court."
I shall now come to the next document, which is Cuhorst Exhibit No. 65 in volume II on page 104.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: This document, I think, deserves attention in connection with the other document -- the affidavit given by Hafenbraedl.
I shall now offer Cuhorst Exhibit No. 66, which is Document No. 61 in Volume II on page 108.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I wish to state an objection. It appears on Page 108 of the Document and 108-A that much of the document, which is more than two-thirds of it, is addressed exclusively to the matters of taking an affidavit from this affiant, which affidavit was not in fact used in evidence, and the balance of this affidavit is devoted to circumstances under which Prosecution's Exhibit 183, Document NG-572, Book III-G, page 66, was obtained; all of which matters should have been addressed to the document when it was submitted or made the subject of cross examination.
DR. BRIEGER: May I say this? be, ourselves, did not make any object ion to the way the affidavit is being taken down; moreover, as far as I can remember, at that time under the chairmanship of Judge Marshall, these things were being debated as far as they concerned the witness Steinle, and the Tribunal expressly left it up to us to submit an affidavit. I shall substantiate my statements further.
THE PRESIDENT: This is the same question we have had before, and the objection is sustained.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 67 is Document No. 62 on page 110 in Book II. I have nothing to read from there.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I must object to the introduction of this exhibit, Your Honor, for the reason that it does not contain a preamble in the form provided by rule No. I, which is clearly ascertained from the face of the document.
DR. BRIEGER: I reserve myself to submit the document again in the proper manner in compliance with the rules.
THE PRESIDENT: We will reserve that number for you: 67.
DR. BRIEGER: The next exhibit is No. 68, which is Document No. 64 in Book II on page 114.
THE PRESIDENT: What document number is that?
DR. BRIEGER: 64.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 68 is document what?
DR. BRIEGER: 64.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received. The exhibit 68 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: I shall now offer Cuhorst Exhibit No. 69, which is Document No. 65 in volume II on page 115.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I'd like to state an objection to it. The Prosecution objects to the introduction of this exhibit for the reason that it consists of a statement by an affiant Frey, who had previously given an affidavit for the prosecution, and interwoven throughout this affidavit are facts related to the taking of the original affidavit which should have been covered by cross examination. They are so interrelated that they can not be separated.
THE PRESIDENT: Was any objection made to the receipt of this document when it was offered?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: None.
THE PRESIDENT: The same ruling.
DR. BRIEGER: This will happen again because I remember a ruling by Judge Marshall where it was left to us to submit an affidavit later and to examine the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: You had the opportunity to cross examine the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: You had the opportunity to cross examine the witness, didn't you?
DR. BRIEGER: I shall venture to submit this part of the record. Cuhorst Exhibit No. 70 is Document No. 66 in Volume II on page 117. This affidavit seems to me to be of importance because we are concerned here with a journalist -- a court reporter, who as a complete outsider, watched a large number of trials under Cuhorst's chairmanship -- Could I be excused for a moment? I just want to see -- oh, yes, on page 117, to 118, yes, here it is. I should therefore like to read one passage.
"From 1942 to 1944, I was a court reporter for the 'Stuttgarter Neue Tagblatt" and a substitute court reporter for the 'N.S. Kurier' In this capacity, I often attended the so-called 'Crimes against War Economy Trials.' "And further down on the same page, it says:
"It was my impression, from the way Cuhorst conducted the trials, that he was a fanatic lover of truth. I can also remember a case where he did not conduct the case based on pre-trial evidence alone, as we read to-day in the newspaper reports, but where he even traveled to Austria to make inquiries on the spot."
This brings me to the end of Document Book II, and I shall now start with Book No. III.
I shall submit Cuhorst Exhibit No. 71, which is document No. 70. I assume that here again I need not state what we are concerned with in particular, but I shall be only glad to do so if the Court wishes me to.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received: 70 and 71 are received.
DR. BRIEGER: The next exhibit is No. 72, which is Document No. 71 in Book III on page 6.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 73, which is Document No. 72 in Book III is an extract from a bock by Professor Kern. Professor Kern from now on will be frequently quoted as giving his expert opinion. It is of special importance to draw the Court's attention in this connection to check on my opinions as to whether his present view coincides with the one which he had taken up in his books earlier on, or whether there are any striking deviations.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 73 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Another excerpt from a book by the same author, which will become Exhibit No. 74, is Document No. 73 in Book III on page 8.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 75 is Document No. 74 is Book III on page 9. This extract from a document makes it clear what distinction Cuhorst received when he made his State examination. I submit this because several prosecution witnesses have stated that his legal training was only average or perhaps even below the average.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: From the point of view of Count IV of the Indictment, I shall offer Exhibit No. 76, which is Document No. 75 in Book III on Page 10.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Because of Cuhorst's sentences against people who had violated the war economy regulations and had committed black market operations, I am offering Exhibit No. 77, which is Document No. 77 in Volume III on page 12.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. Exhibit No. 77 is received, there being no objection.
DR. BRIEGER: On page 13 we have an excerpt from the well-known American paper "The Readers Digest".
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The Prosecution objects to the receipt of this exhibit for the reason that it contains purely an excerpt from the Readers Digest, dated March 1947, having to do with facts existing in 1947, which can be made in no way relevant or material to the proof of any issue in this Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained. The Court saw no reason for its relevance.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 79 is Document No. 79 in Volume III on page 14.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you about 78, Doctor? Exhibit 78 is what?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That was Document No. 78, Your Honor.
DR. BRIEGER: Pardon me, Your Honor. That referred to the excerpt from the Readers Digest -- Cuhorst's Exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you pardon me while I inquire?
DR. BRIEGER: Surely.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 77, I thought, was the one to which counsel objected.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: No, I objected to Exhibit 78, Your Honor, which is Document 78 on Page 13, which is an excerpt from the Readers Digest.
THE PRESIDENT: And you did not object to 77? Then it will be received.
JUDGE BLAIR: Bad you objected to 77?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I objected only to 78, Your Honor.
JUDGE BLAIR: Very well.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst's exhibit -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. Exhibit 78 is rejected and 77 is received. You may proceed with Exhibit 79.
DR. BRIEGER: May I continue, Your Honor? Exhibit No. 79 is Document Mo. 79 in Volume III on Page 14.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: This exhibit contains a few important decisions by the Reich Supreme Court which had a decisive influence on Cuhorst's own decisions, or where at least he had to take them into consideration. The same applies to the following exhibit which I shall offer -- all of them contain decisions of the Reich Supreme Court. I shall, therefore, offer Exhibit No. 81, which is Document 81 on page 18 of Volume III.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst's Exhibit 82 is Document 82 in Volume III on Page 20.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: This document is cf special importance because it deals with the looting of Army postal packages which are being dealt with as crimes against the public enemy decree.
Cuhorst's Exhibit 83 is Document 83 on Page 22. This concerns the nullity plea and it's restrictions.
THE PRESIDENT: It's received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst's Exhibit Document 84 in Volume III is on Page 24.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst's Exhibit No. 85 is Document 85 in Volume III on Page 30.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR BRIEGER: Cuhorst's Exhibit No. 86 is Document 86 in Book III on page 72.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: This deals, among other things, with the case wherein in the opinion of the Reich Supreme Court defense counsel was a necessity.
Under Defense counsel, one should understand that defense counsel must be appointed by the Court.
Cuhorst's Exhibit No. 87 is Document 87 in Volume III on Page 36.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst's Exhibit No. 88 is Document 88 in Volume III on page 39.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
This is a decision which deals with the evidence of a "continuous offense." This is a legal concept which was of importance repeatedly here. Cuhorst Exhibit No. 89 is Document No. 89, Volume III on Page 43.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Exhibit No. 90 is Document No. 90 in Book III on Page 48. This deals with the recognition of capital punishment as a legal matter.
THE PRESIDENT: The index shows what is there just as you have stated it. The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit 91, Document 91 in Volume III on Page 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst exhibit No. 92 is Document No. 92, Volume III on Page 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 93 is Document No. 93 in Volume III on Page 55.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 94 is Document 94 in Volume III on Page 57.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit 95 is Document No. 95 in Volume III on Page 62.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 96 is Document 96 on Page 65 of Volume III.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: It concerns the dissertation of the witness, Dr. Klett who was present here yesterday.
Cuhorst Exhibit 97 is Document 97 in Volume III on Page 66.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: The notes should be of interest from the point of view of what the Prosecution witness Schwarz said at the time about his own examination and which was repeated by Leszinski.
Cuhorst Exhibit No. 93 is Document 93 in Volume III on Page 67. This affidavit is of special importance because of what was said yesterday by the witness Dr. Klett, namely, that in the case of the trial in Untermarchtal the trial was held in what is known as the "Exercizien-saal."
I shall now come to Document Book No. IV. That document book I am not only submitting on behalf of Cuhorst but also on behalf of all defense counsel. I should, therefore, like it to be perused not only on behalf of Cuhorst, but also on behalf of defendants Rothaug and Oeschey. It deals with matters of general importance concerning the Special Court. I shall, therefore, submit Cuhorst Exhibit No. 99, Document No. 99 in Book IV, Page 1.
Cuhorst No. 100 is Document 100 in Book IV on Page 14.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 99 and 100 are received.
DR. BRIEGER: This Exhibit contains professor Kern's expert opinion a a legal expert, which, at my express wish, has been drawn up.