AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 28 March 1947)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
TEE PRESIDENT: It was stated that the Tribunal would make an announcement at this time but I guess the matter was sufficiently covered after that premise but for the further assurance of defense counsel we will merely say that you will not be preculded from making your cross examination until after you have had submitted to you the German translation of the direct examination.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Tribunal, prosecution now turns for a moment to Document Book 3-G. The first document in that book; which is NG-677. This document is a sworn affidavit bearing at the top the letterhead "Dr. Ernst Escher, attorney, *urth, December 7, 1946, Rudolf Breitscheidstrasse No. 8", which reads as follows:
"As a result of the interrogation by the American prosecutiors in the Nuernberg court house, I have the following declaration to make in connection with the questions set before me concerning the procedure of the so-called "Petition for Nullification" by the Senior Reich Prosecutor:
(1) Previous legal situation.
"It is true that the legal principle that a man cannot be tried twice for the same offense (ne bis in idem) is not clearly stated in the German Criminal Code, and since subjected to frequent editorial changes; this maxim, however, was repeatedly acknowledged in the so-called "Motives" of that law. In all of the German legal terminology and literature ** doubt had ever occurred that an individual.
once legally tried, could not be resummoned before a court for the sane criminal act, without the introduction of additional evidence of proof. New proceedings against an accused who had been legally acquitted, could only be initiated in accordance with to rules concerning such a reconsideration of a once legally concluded trial (Paragraphs 359 ff., in particular Paragraph 362 of the Criminal Code.)
"The accused was therefore assured that, once he had been legally acquitted, he would not be summoned a second time before the court on the same charge.
"These principles were never repealed in the Code of Criminal Procedure itself; they remained unaltered until the present, and the criminal code of 1946 , issued by the Contraol Council , also incorporated them, "2) During the war, Hitler's government, in a decree pertaining to the competence of the criminal and special courts and covering other regulations of criminal procedure, dated the 21 February 1940 (RGB1 1940, 1, page 405, in art.
5, paragraphs 34 to 37)",
MR. WOOLEYHAN; At this moment may we interpolate, perhaps unnecessarily, to invite the Courts attention to the fact that statute appears and was read from Document Book 2.
"created the procedure of the so-called "Petition for Nullification, by the Senior Reich-Prosecutor and thereby annulled and destroyed this fundamental legal maxim. Within a year after a verdict became valid, according to this decree, the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Reich Supreme Court was empowered to use the Petition for Nullification against tho final sentences of the local courts of the Criminal Divisional Courts and of the Special Courts if, due to an error in the application of the law to clearly established facts, the sentence could be regarded as unjust.
"In a later decree, dated the 13 August 1942, allowance was made for a further extension in the use of the Petition for Nullification. Published in the Reich Law Journal in in 1942, Reichsgesetz Blatt, page 508 ff, this decree in Article 7, paragraph 2, established the right of the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Reich Supreme Court to employ the Petition for Nullification , if the decision, due to an error in the application of the law, was unjust, or if there were serious objections to the validity of the evidence on which the decision was based or to the sentence itself.
"By this decree , it became practically possible to employ the Petition for Nullification against every final judgment and of summoning an accused tho second time before a criminal court despite the fact that his case had already been legally decided.
"As is evident in the literature and especially in the published decisions of the Reich Supreme Court, the Petition for Nullification was not infrequently employed."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Skipping to the last page of this document we find that it is signed by Dr. Ernest Escher, Attorney, undersigned and sworn by Henry Einstein, Office of Chief of Counsel.
DR. GRUBE: Dr. Grube for the defendant Lautz. May it please the Tribunal , I want to raise an objection to the introduction of this document. After all, my objection is based on tho fact that this document refers to none of the defendants and that not one of the defendants is mentioned in this docment. It is true it does speak of the nullity plea by the Oberreichsanwalt as was established when the expert Behl was examined. Now, the Oberreichsanwalt of the Reich Supreme Court was competent to submit a nullity plea. The Oberreichsanwalt of the Peoples Court had nothing whatsoever to do with with the nullity plea.
The second point on which I base my objection is this; this document is simply a letter which was written after tho collapse, that is, on the 13 September 1946 and it isn't in the prescribed for of an affidavit.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Tho prosecution contends that pointing to only one of a number of examples in the Bartel case, that this was introduced in evidence this morning and involved a plea of nullity in operation, in actual operation. We think that with respect to that case as well as in a number of others, that have been or will be introduced in evidence or offered as us ch, that general factually material by an expert affiant is of great relevance to the legal background and present statutes throughout the War years. As a matter of fact, of the plea of nullity as against - legal provisions against double jeopardy, with regard to the second point, it is true that the document signed by Dr. Eschar is on a business letterhead but it is also true that the document in the original, as it will appear, was undersigned and sworn in the manner in which affidavits are many times undersigned and sworn.
THE PRESIDENT: it isn't stated at the end. There's no jurat attached, in other words.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That's an error in the mimeographed copies. It's an omission, your Honor. It does so appear in the original.
THE PRESIDENT: If your statement was, Dr. Grube, that it had not been sworn - but evidently you are mistaken about that so your objection will be overruled.
MR. WOOLEYHAN Prosecution offers Exhibit 188, Document NG-677.
TEE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Turning now to Document Book 3-E, Document NG-75P, which is found on page 8 of the English book and is distributed separately in English to the Tribunal.
I believe the German book is complete. This is to be inserted in the English book at page 8. Will the interpreters please ask the defense counsel if they have an extra copy of Document 750?
(interpreter inquires of defense counsel)
MR. WOOLEYHAN: You might borrow one from defense counsel if they have an extra.
THE INTERPRETER: Thank you.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Document NG-750 is a case dossier concerning one Margarete Sponsel. The first page appears to be an official cover sheet bearing certain routine data. It's stamped 16 June 1944 and entitled: Prosecution in the District Court, Nurnberg-Furth, criminal case in the Special Court, Nurnberg-Furth against Margarete Sponsel, Post-Office Clerk in Furth. Defense Counsel; Escher, charged with crimes against Art. 4 of the law against public enemies, etc. Attached to this cover sheet and dated sometimes previously namely, Nurnberg 3 April 1944, this is found , by the way, on page two of the document and is a medical report bearing the letterhead, Dr. J. Schnellen, Court Physician at the District Court, Nurnberg-Furth, addressed to the Thief Public Prosecutor at the Special Court in Nurnberg concerning Margarete Sponsel, charged with the crimes against Paragraph 4 of the law against public enemies.
Expert's Opinion.
Today, I examined Margarete SPONSEL, single, post-office clerk, in the Court Prison at Fuerth. She states that she was born at Egloffstei on 23 July 1904, therefore now aged 39.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Skipping two sentences.
"She does not know of any mental diseases in her family. She learned to speak and to walk at the normal time. She attended school at Nuremberg-Fuerth. She was backward at school because she had fallen into the yard from the first floor, when she was a pupil in the first grade. She fainted, but she does not remember how long she remained unconscious. She was confined to bed for 3/4 years after this fall, therefore she had to attend the first grade again. After the accident, she had difficulties in keeping up with her classes, she had to repeat the second and third grade. Then she was sent to a school for backward children. She does not remember what grades she got there. After school, she had several jobs as a servant. In 1932 she gave birth to an illegitimate child".
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Skipping to the next page.
"She never had fits. She had never drunk much. After the accident, she suffered from enuresis fur a while. She stole the contents of the packages because she had been hungry. Other things she bartered for food."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Skip another paragraph.
"SPONSEL's behaviour is according to the circumstances. Her mood is depressed. She answers questions and carries out orders properly. She is aware of time, place and of her surroundings. No schizoid or paranoid tendencies.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Skipping another paragraph.
"According to the result offense of the examination, SPON SEL was able, at the tine of the offense to understand that her deed was illicit, and was punishable accordingly.
Signed: J. Schneller
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Turning to page 5 of this document we find a sentence:
"In the name of the German Peopled The Special Court for the district of the Court of Appeals Nuremberg, attached to the district court Nuremberg-Fuerth, in the criminal proceedings against:
SPONSEL Margarete, charged with a crime under article 4 of the Law against Public Enemies etc.
at a public session of 16 June 1944 in presence of:
District Court Judge OESCHEY, as presiding justice."
"Passes sentence as follows:
THe defendant appropriated numberous postal consignments, Rest of them addressed to soldiers. She is sentenced to Death and to the permanent loss of Civic rights, as a public enemy for embezzlement destruction of documents, both in her official position and violating postal secrecy.
Reasons The defendant was born as the daughter of a labour in Egleffstein."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Skipping to the next paragraph:
"In 1943 she lost her job because the florist shop was moved. After having been ill for some weeks, she applied to the Reich Post for a job as a female letter carrier in August 1943.
On 21 August 1943 she was engaged by Post Office in Fuerth. Her official duties were explained to her and she was sworn in on the Fuehrer by a handshake. She was also told that in the case of an offense she would be treated as an official under the Penal Code and she was expressly told about the severe penalties which the courts impose for thefts of soldiers' mail."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Skipping several lines:
"At the beginning of November 1943 about three weeks after she had started to work on her own, she stole the first package which had been handed to her for delivery; she tore it open, threw the wrappings away and kept the contents. Subsequently, until her arrest on 14 March 1944, she constantly stole, - about two or three times a week - one or several packages on her delivery rounds. She either got rid of the wrappings in the street, or she burnt then in the stove at home. She stole at least a total of 50 packages, most of which were soldiers packages. She used the food she found for herself. She traded the tobacco against foodstuffs or sold it. Other usuable objects, a skein of grey weel, 6 tins of shoe polish, 4 films, spices and one cake of soap were still found in her apartment.
The accused has fully confessed.
Her excuse that she acted, because she was hungry does not exonerate her in any way"
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Skipping to the bottom of the next page:
"The defendant was fully responsible for her crime under the penal law. From the personal impression she made and from the medical export's opinion, the Court judges that though being somewhat feeble-minded, she was quite capable of recognizing the unlawfulness of her deed and of behaving accordingly.
"By the scope of her actions, the defenadnt has assumed an exceedingly grave guilt. For months, she regularly at short intervals robbed field post consignments. Not so much the number of the packages is decisive as the fact that the defendant by the continuous and obstinate disregard of her duties became a dangerous saboteur. The safety of the soldiers' mail must be maintained by all means. The soldier must not get the feeling that he is to risk his life for a corrupt homeland. Nor can the slight mental deficiency of the defendant be a reason for a milder judgment.
The defendant is therefore sentenced to death."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: This verdict bears the signature of Oeschey, Baeumler and Hoffmann. The German book in the mimeographed copies only state the signatures but from the original it appears that Oeschey, Baeumler and Hoffmann signed this form. We submit the rest of this document for the Court's consideration without reading it except to note in passing that the final pages of the document concern a plea for clemency entered by the defense counsel which was denied and the final page notes that the death sentence on Margarete Sponsel was executed on 3 August 1944. The execution took 58 seconds, 7 seconds passed from the transfer to the executioner until the drop of the axe.
DR. SCHUBERT: Dr. Schubert for the defendant Geschcy. May it please the Tribunal, will you forgive me once again. I refer to the thing which played some part this morning, but I will do so now from a different point of view. With the presentation of this document, we are concerned again with individual documents which have been removed from a large file. As events are concerned which occurred at the prosecution Nurnberg-Furth and at the Special Court here, it can be assumed for certain that the entire file is available here and that as far as the documents presented here are concerned, there are only a selection which was made by the prosecution. I would ask the Tribunal to make a ruling on an announcement to the effect that I as the defense counsel am entitled in demanding the presentation of the entire file, and that first of all, only for my personal scrutiny, so that I can establish whether the file contains further documents which in certain circumstances could serve in favor of the defendant.
I would like to emphasize expressly that I am not making a motion to the effect that I wish the entire document to be mimeographed and to be introduced in the trial here, but I am merely asking to give me the right, that I myself as a defense counsel may be entitled to see the whole file so that I can scrutinize the entire file.
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, may I inquire whether there are other parts of this document in the possession of the prosecution and therefore available to defense counsel at this time?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In the preparation of this and many other case records that were captured, the prosecution would find that a case dossier would be as voluminous and crammed with the usual chit-chat of paper work that accomplishes nothing administrative, that the prosecution did excerpt from any given case dossier as uniformly as possible. the indictment, the verdict, all findings of the court, the execution order in each case. There are, in some instances, whether in this particular instance I can't say at the moment, other pieces of paper in some of these case files which have not been processed as documents. Where they are at the moment, I am not prepared to state. They could be searched for.
THE PRESIDENT: What I had in mind in making the inquiry, are there other papers in that Margarete Sponsel case in your possession?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Not in the prosecution's possession; no, Your Honor. We obtained this document from research investigators after they had found the original case dossier and had extracted in the original German for our use what they thought was relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are any other papers, they are not in Nurnberg, I take it?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In this particular case, if there are any extra papers, they are still in existence in Nurnberg because this was a Nurnberg case, or else they have been destroyed as being of no longer use. I am not prepared to say which is the situation because I have never soon him.
One further word for the Tribunal's edification, if I may. With regard to every other case record that is not the result of a Nurnberg court action, no other papers, other than what we offer in evidence, are available in Nurnberg.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be true in the future?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That will be true now and in the future. With regard to the Nurnberg case, since the documents were I assume found and captured here, other parts of these voluminous files are either scattered around somewhere or destroyed, but in any event, the prosecution never saw them. We only get what our investigators and analysts furnished us as excerpts from whatever original material they discovered.
THE PRESIDENT: We assume that there would be no objection to defense counsel searching the whole files to see if they can find anything additional?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No objection whatever, Your Honor; as a matter of fact, the prosecution insofar as it is able, will turn over to the defense any unprocessed material on case records that we may happen to have if we can find it in our office.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems as though that is as far that prosecution counsel should be required to go.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The prosecution offers as Exhibit 189, Document NG-750.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Turning now to the succeeding document in Book 3-E, which is NG-620, which begins on Page 9 of the English book. NG-620 is a stamped certified copy of an indictment to the Special Court for the District of the Nurnberg Court of Appeals.
On the first page of this indictment, it lists seven defendants: Barth, Benachaud, Brabec, Hrbek, Krcupa, Langfritz, Schwarz. We will not read the individual descriptions of those defendants except to note that all of them are stated to be without previous convictions.
On the second page of this indictment, it begins:
I Charge:
1) Benachaud and Langfritz for stealing whilest taking advantage of war conditions.
2) Barth and Schwarz for continually stealing whilst taking advantage of war conditions and sometimes under aggravating circumstances, Schwarz for also selling stolen property at excess prices in the black market out of sheer greed.
3) Kroupa for continually and knowingly receiving stolen goods and partly for selling at excess prices in the black market.
4) Brabec for continually, Hybeck in one case, knowingly buying stolon goods at excess prices.
The defendants Barth, Langfritz, Benachaud, Kroupa and Schwarz up to tho time of their arrest were employed as workers in the shunting yards by the German Reichsbahn. The defendants Barth, Langfritz, Schwarz and Benachaud made use of this activity to steal from the railway goods waggons, which had been run into the Nurnberg shunting yard. As a rule they looked for booty in the trucks which contained International Red Cross booty in the trucks which contained International Red Cross free gifts for the English and American prisoners of war."
Skipping to Page 4 of this document, which is page 12 of the Document Book:
"Essential outcome of the investigation:
"The defendants have confessed in part. When they are lying, they are convicted by the evidence.
"These actions fulfill the conditions of punishable deeds as follows:"-
We will omit reading in detail the statutory offenses on which the prosecution indicts these men except to note that the first four: Barth, Benachaud, Langfritz and Schwarz, are indicted as having violated the public enemy statute.
Skipping to the last page of this indictment:
"The conduct of the trial fills under the competence of the Special Court for the district of the Nurnberg Court of Appeals.
"Therefore I accuse publicly and demand:
"a) Setting of a date for the trial.
"As evidence I produce:"-
And then the prosecutor enumerates a number of witnesses. No verdicts are offered. Conviction records arc offered as documents. And no other evidence. This indictment is signed: Nurnberg, 21 September 1944. The Chief Public Prosecutor of counsel with tho Special Court. Signed: Dr. Schroeder.
At this time, the prosecution calls as witness, Dr. Hugo Goeringer.
DR. HUGO GOERINGER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BRAND: Hold up your right hand and be sworn. Repeat after me the following:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:Q. witness, would you please tell the Court your full name?
A. Dr. Hugo Goeringer.
Q. Would you please describe, for the Court, your profession, your education, and your background briefly, please.
A. Since 1930. I have been an attorney-at-law at the Landgericht and Oberlandgericht at Nurnberg.
Q. Did you ever appear before the Nurnberg Special Court?
A. I have, in particular before the Nurnberg Special Court, defended foreigners from the western countries in particular.
Q. Do you remember a case before the Nurnberg Special Court some time in 1944 involving seven railway workers that were charged with stealing from railway trucks packages intended by the International Red Cross for English and American prisoners of war? Do you remember such a case?
A. Yes, I do. There can only be the Barth case, Benachaud and a certain Schwarz. The other names of the defendants in that case I have since forgotten.
Q. you state, Dr. Goeringer, then that case which I have just described, in your memory, could be only the Barth case? Is that correct?
A. In my opinion, yes.
Q. Dr. Goeringer, did you have anything to do with the Barth case?
A. The service officers franscais in Munich had asked me to defend the French nationals who had boon indicted by the Nurnberg Court, and therefore I knew that I defended the French citizen Benachaud in that case.
Q. I now show to the witness, to refresh his recollection, a certified photostatic copy of Document NG-620.
(Witness is offered Document NG-620)
A. That is my sentence -- I have to correct myself --- that is my indictment.
Q. Dr. Goeringer, you state that you recognize that document, do you not?
A. That is a photostat of the original which seen after the end of the war was in my office, for among the individual names, there is written in my hand, the result or the sentence which at that time was passed. Furthermore, I find in the case of Schwarz, entered in Gabelsberg shorthand, the note saying that the sentence, after the motion of the prosecutor cutting off five months spent in prison before the trial; that, in fact, the sentence was passed as the prosecutor had demanded.
Q. Dr. Goeringer, you have just said that on that original indictment, the photostat of which you now hold in your hand, you wrote as defense counsel, in your own handwriting, certain words on that indictment.
Having examined the photostatic copy myself, I have noticed that certain handwriting occurs on the left-hand margin of the first page underneath each name of each defendant. Is that the writing to which you refer as being your own handwriting?
A Yes.
Q Dr. Georinger, when did you write these words under the names of each defendant on that indictment?
A When the sentence was passed, that is during the trial, at the end of the trial rather. I am convinced that this is the sentence which the Special Court passed at that time.
Q Dr. Goeringer, you stated that you wrote those words on that indictment after sentence was passed on the defendants; is that correct?
A Yes. In German penal law this is what happens. First of all, the time of the sentence is announced, and then the reason is given why the defendant has been sentenced to this particular term; and, therefore, I noted these points.
Q Dr. Goeringer, would you please tell the Court, with regard to each of the defendant's names on that indictment, what sentences you wrote under each name. What were the sentences that you wrote down?
A In the case of Barth, that is to say under the name of Barth, I wrote down five years imprisonment, that is that Barth was sentenced to five years in the penitentiary at Zuchthaus. In the same way the notes under the name of the other defendants must be interpreted in the same way, that is to say, Benachaud was sentenced to a year and a half in the penitentiary; Brabeck was sentenced to one year ordinary imprisonment; Hrbeck sentenced to three months imprisonment; Kroupa two and a half years; Langfritz a year and a half; and Schwarz five years penitentiary.
Q Dr. Goeringer, when aid the trial at the Nurnberg Special Court take place at which the sentences which you have just read occurred; what date did it occur?
AAccording to my notes in my diary of the year 1944, the trial took place on the 20th of October, in the morning, at 8:30, Court Room 600.
Q Dr. Goeringer, did you, as defense counsel, attend that trial?
A Yes, I did, but as far as I remember, I was not the sole defense counsel, but one or two colleagues from Nurnberg also acted as defense counsel.
Q At that trial that you have just stated that you attended, namely the trial of Barth and six others, on the date you mentioned, at the Nurnberg Special Court, who was the presiding judge at that trial?
A Well, I must say I cannot say exactly at the moment, but on account of information that has reached me, I must assume that at the time Director Oeschey was the presiding judge.
Q Would you please repeat again, for reference, the date on which that trial took place?
A Friday, the 20th of October 1944.
Q You have stated, Dr. Goeringer, that at the trial of the seven defendants, including Barth, you were defense counsel for at least one of the defendants; isn't that so?
A I believe I acted as defense counsel for more than one; not only one, but at this moment I cannot give you the names exactly, but I do Know for certain that I defended at least Benachaud and Hrbeck.
Q In your defense of that case, if your client or clients instead of having stolen international Red Cross packages which, as the indictment states, was intended for Americans and English prisoners of war, but rather had been accused of stealing packages intended for German soldiers, in your opinion would the sentences have been any different?
A. I believe that I may assume that before the war and that because the Special Court usually took the viewpoint that the field mail constituted the only contact between the soldier at the front and the homeland. If somebody interrupted that contact then he would certainly have had a more severe punishment than happened in this case. So, the Nurnberg Courts, in particular the Special Court took the viewpoint that this or that parcel or letter might perhaps be the last message from the homeland to the front or from the front to the homeland.
Q. Dr. Goeringer, do you then consider that theft of soldier's packages intended for German soldiers is a crime warranting a death sentence.
A. I, generally speaking, take the view that the death sentence should only be pronounced if the criminal himself had shed blood.
Q. Dr. Goeringer, I assume that from what you have just said that you do not consider the theft of packages intended for German soldiers to be deserving of a death sentence. Is that true? Is that your opinion?
A. No. No.
Q. Dr. Goeringer, please restate then what your opinion was and whether or not stealing of post packages intended for German soldiers does or does not, in your opinion, deserve or warrant a death sentence?
A. I take the view that the death sentence is irreparable and that therefore the death sentence should only be passed if all other means have failed. If -- in summarizing I would like to say that every death sentence, even if the contact between front and homeland is interrupted, such an offense should not be punished with the death sentence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Court please, I should not like to be interrupted until I finish my cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: If defense counsel desires to object to that particular question when should he make his objection?
DR. GRUBE: Dr. Grube. May it please the Court, I hold the view that the question, what opinion the witness holds as to when and whether the death sentence is justified, is not justified -- is not admissible. We are concerned here with a purely personal opinion -- not with an observation or an export opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: I should like to hear the question propounded again.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask you whether or not you inquiry direct to the witness was as to whether this witness believed that the death sentence should be involved in this type of larceny case? Wasn't that the question?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: My question, Your Honor, was -
JUDGE BRAND: Wasn't that it.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, sir, an opinion -
JUDGE BRAND: Wasn't that it.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What I would like to know is whether you are asking the witness's opinion as to the proper interpretation of a law or whether you are asking his personal opinion about that matter.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I am not asking the witness as to his opinion on the interpretation of the law.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Dr. Goeringer, in your opinion do you consider a death sentence inflicted upon a person for stealing packages intended for a German soldier at the front legally justifiable under the law against public enemies?
A Such a sentence, as I have already stated, in my view is too severe.
Q Dr. Goeringer, do you consider the crime of stealing international Red Cross packages intended for American or English prisoners-of-war a crime more serious or less serious than the same offense where German soldiers are the losers?
DR. GRUBE: Dr. Grube. May it please the Tribunal, 1 consider this question to inadmissible. This question, too, in the end turns to this witness's personal opinion. This is not a case of personal opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: That question is subject to the same objection.
Q Dr. Goeringer, in your professional opinion as a lawyer do you think that the offense of stealing packages intended for American and English prisoner-of-war to be legally justified as more serious or less serious than the some offense wherein German soldiers are the losers?
DR. GRUBE: May it please the court, again the same question has been put. The Tribunal has said that such questions are inadmissible. The entire examination is built up purely on a personal opinion and not on an expert opinion as a witness.
JUDGE BRAND: Does counsel to ask whether there is a statute which authorizes a distinction in the punishment or do you have some other purpose? *
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Evidently my purpose was not very clear, your Honor. Nor whatever the intentions that your Honor mentioned. For instance, that's clear from the statutes on their face which were introduced.
THE PRESIDENT: That question is subject to the same objection and therefore the objection will be sustained.