The impression that I received and of the others who participated in the Case Hoeffner was that in the background behind the correction of the sentence the Oberstaatsanwalt's office must have been behind it.
Q Dr. Ferber, do you know Karl Schroeder?
A When you mention this name you mean the President of the Oberstaatsanwalt, Chief Public Prosecutor Schroeder, whose last office was the Public Prosecutor in Nurnberg?
A That's the one I mean. When did he come to Nurnberg? What year? Do you remember?
A Herr Schroeder came during the war. Herr Rothaug spoke of a terrible time, ironically, of course, that was the time when the Gau -- the Gaulieter Streicher had lost -- when the prosecution had lost its Chief Gaulieter Denzler, when he was with Haberkern and Zimmerman, even though not legally but in fact. Not de jure by de facto. They were in charge of the Gau, led the Gau in this connection in place of Denzler. Schroeder came to Nurnberg. It was in the year 1941.
Q He was brought here, you say, in 1941?
A Yes.
Q Do you know who was primarily responsible for having him brought here? For having Schroeder brought to Nurnberg as Public Prosecutor?
A Yes. While the personal connection of Rothaug for Schroeder -- they are rather extensive. They go back to the time when both gentlemen about 1933, 1934 were here in Nurnberg and working at the local court. Both of them belonged to the Tannenberbund, Tannenberg association. Their friendship extended even when they were far apart at Nurnberg and Wurzburg and Scheinfurt and when the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office was vacant Herr Rothaug by the Gau Nurnberg asked for the appointment of the the then Chief Public Prosecutor of Wurzburg Schroeder -- as Chief Public Prosecutor to Nurnberg.
I may add that Schroeder was a fraternity brother of Public Prosecutor Bems. They belonged to the same fraternity and also General Public Prosecutor Bems was not opposed to the appointment of Schroeder.
Q Schroeder then, you mentioned as having been brought here as Chief Public Prosecutor. By that is meant what? In other words, what court or courts was Schroeder responsible for the prosecution?
A The prosecution in the Langericht Nurnberg-Furth. The District Court. It had five divisions, partly public prosecutors here in charge of the division. In addition to the over-all guidance which Schroeder was in charge so he was also in charge of the Special Courts. Then Division I and addition at the end of the war he was in charge of the prosecution at the City Court.
Q Dr. Ferber, what did you observe about the relationship, both personally and officially, between Rothaug and Schroeder from 1941 until whatever date you care to name?
A It was an open secret that the public prosecutors with the agreement of their chiefs of office received counsel in the prosecution of their cases directly from Mr. Rothaug. In this manner Rothaug could already in the early beginnings of a criminal case -- he could exercise already a certain guidance and a certain direction and if Herr Schroeder believe that the treatment of a case which he had to sign was in any way political -- could in any way give remark for political doubts politically he never omitted -- he never failed to appear with all these files at Mr. Rothaug's, and to get Rothaug's opinion. It happened to me personally that as deputy of Rothaug in a clemency plea -- submission of a clemency plea, in connection with the remarks of the man in charge of the prison, the guard;I was in favor of granting a clemency plea with certain conditions but because Schroeder was afraid that the clemency plea for which he was competent was somehow political -could have some political effect, he went to Herr Rothaug and he told him these political scruples, misgivings, and also in my position which I had stated was rejected.
It was my a question of administrative matters and in this connection Rothaug told me a punishment which have been handed out will also be served. From this individual case which I mentioned here -
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Pardon me, Dr. Feber. Would you repeat once again that last statement which you said Rothaug made just now?
A Rothaug thus agreed with the objection by Schroeder He did not approve that I as deputy of Rothaug's granted a clemency plea and that the reproach he expressed to me as follows: that he said sentences which have been passed will be served. In so saying he wanted to say that sentences are -
Q May I interrupt? By that did he mean -- I don't know whether it's the earphones or what -- by that statement in your opinion, did he mean that sentence once passed had to be executed?
A Yes, had to be executed. That is correct.
Q Thank you, Dr. Ferber, you have stated previously that Rothaug on occasions shrieked at witnesses and was abusive; is that correct?
A Witnesses and defendants.
Q Witnesses and defendants?
A Yes, witnesses and defendants.
Q Dr. Ferber, did you ever witness Roland Freisler as Presiding Judge of the Peoples Court in Berlin?
A Yes, I remember a session of the Peoples Court, Berlin, and that is here in this chamber; 581 in 1942, at the end of the year or toward the turn of the year 1942-1943.
Q Did you attend that trial at which Freisler presided here?
AAt that time it was as follows: about two weeks the Peoples Court, Berlin, held sessions here for about two weeks in Room 150 in this Building. Herr Crohne and here in 581 Herr Freisler. The administration of justice in Nurnberg used this opportunity -- availed itself of the opportunity in order to show the criminal judges and all of the judges in Nurnberg to give them the opportunity to see the Peoples Court and to hear it. There was a memorandum sent to the judges and prosecutors and they were advised to make use of this opportunity.
Q Pardon me. You say a memorandum was circulated among others to you suggesting that you attend this session of the Peoples Court?
A Yes, it was a circular.
Q Dr. Ferber, from whom did this circular original? Who sent it?
A This circular came from the president -- Office of the President of the District Court of Appeals and for that very reason alone that the Peoples Court had to report to the President of the District Courts of Appeals that it intended to meet here during a designated time and that it would meet in some room.
Q Dr. Ferber, why was it -- could you explain that a little more clearly, please? In this circular that reached among the others you, and suggested you attend this Peoples Court of Dr. Freisler's. Why was it suggested that you attend?
A The motive which was supposed to induce the individual to attend the session was implied in such a way that it was said one had an opportunity to see a political criminal matter which was important enough to be brought before the People's Court, to see that task made right here. Obviously they also wanted to give us an opportunity to observe the manner of holding court in which important judges, who also had an important place at one time in the administration of justice, because Freisler had formally been State Under-Secretary in the Ministry of Justice, and he had had another position in the Ministry of Justice.
Q Dr. Ferber, you stated that you attended this session, and you saw Freisler in action? Did you say you saw Freisler in action?
A Yes, in action, here in this room, this very room.
Q In this room?
A In this room, 581.
Q Dr. Ferber, when you went to that session, in this room, and you saw the presiding judge here in action, did you learn anything new from seeing him?
AAt that time, I left the room with a rather mixed feeling. For years I had seen a man like Rothaug in action. Freisler, to be sure, had a more powerful conviction, even his gestures, with which he accompanied the session were extraordinary significant. However, I immediately noticed that during the letter -- finding out of the background of such a political criminal act, which was discussed at the time, Rothaug, that these political backgrounds were submitted much more extensively by Rothaug, Freisler give the impression of making big gestures. Rothaug, however, one always felt and was convinced that here, it was an actual example of actual fanaticism, which was often increased to brutality. So, if I should have to give a valid judgment, I would like to say that I -
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Court, I believe we have here valued judgment long enough, but I was waiting until the witness, himself, would express quite clearly that he is giving exclusive valued judgment. I therefore ask the high Tribunal to have the both phrases stricken from the record, especially to extract all questions which ask for valued judgment, which gives rise to valued judgment on the part of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion of the Defense Counsel will be overruled.
Q Dr. Ferber, in 1942, when you were an associate judge on the Nurnberg Special Court, do you remember a case in which Rothaug was the presiding judge in which the defendant was named was Friedrich Grasser?
A Yes, I remember.
Q Did you have any official relationship to that case? Did you appear on the bench on that case?
A Yes, the case Grasser. I experienced it as an associate judge, and later after the session, I had to execute the sentence, to write it up because the person who was supposed to do that originally, was -- it was a sentence to which Dr. Rothaug did not agree. He thought it was not good enough.
Q Dr. Ferber, what was the verdict against Grasser?
AAs far as I remember in July 1942, Grasser, because of a political statement, which was the basic characteristic, was regarded as a malicious act and he was sentenced to death.
Q You say that Grasser was sentenced to death?
A That is correct.
Q Was a death sentence legally possible under the statute for violation of which Grasser had been indicted?
A The question, Mr. Prosecutor, can be answered in the following way: Possible or to make possible -- yes, it could be made possible in the manner in which Rothaug had ordered, according to paragraph 4 of the Public Enemy Decree, and also according to the Special Penal Code for Wartime -
Q Dr. may I interrupt one moment. What was the statute for violation of which Grasser was indicted?
A That was the Malicious Acts Law, and a crime according to paragraph 2 of the Malicious Acts Law.
Q Now, Dr. Ferber, under that statute was a death penalty possible?
A Impossible.
Q Impossible?
A Yes, it was impossible, not possible.
Q And, yet, Grasser was sentenced to death, you say?
A It is an unusual circumstance which I would like to explain in its proper context.
Q Witness, we are trying to clear up how it could happen that the statute under which Grasser was indicted did not make a death penalty possible, and, yet, Grasser was sentenced to death. How was that possible? How did that happen?
A Yes, I would like to say first, that the Oberlandergericht, district court of appeals in Munich had sentenced Grasser to two years imprisonment in advance, before he came here because of treasonable activities. Grasser was a member of the Communist party. The penalty -he had received the sentence about 1935, and immediately following this he had to be in a concentration camp for three years. In 1939 he was discharged from the concentration camp and came to Nurnberg to a defense industry. It is important to know this, that in the defense industry there were also foreign civilian workers in the year 1940, who were committed for work there. In his place -
Q Witness, you may cut the facts of Grasser's case which you are now recalling. You may omit those. We are merely asking how Rothaug as presiding judge, achieved the death sentence under a statute, indicting this defendant, in which no death sentence was possible. We are merely asking you on that point, how legally a death sentence occurred?
A It was possible in the following way because Rothaug returned the document, the file to the Prosecution only because the indictment had been served because of violation of the Malicious Acts Law. He appointed a defense counsel and informed the prosecution that paragraph 4 of the Public Enemy Decree made this malicious -- transformed this malicious act into a special criminal act. So, by way of including paragraph 4 of the Public Enemy Decree, Rothaug brought about that sentence, that it could be pronounced.
Q What penalty was demanded for Grasser by the prosecution?
A The demand of the prosecution for a penalty in the case Grasser, was up until ten minutes before the plea of the prosecutor, in no way thought the death penalty.
Q Up until ten minutes before the prosecution's plea, what was the attitude -- was it a death penalty or not. I do not understand you.
A No, the prosecution obviously wanted a term of imprisonment and in no way, under no circumstances a death penalty. Even the Ministry had been informed about the intentions of Rothaug, and the Ministry told the general public prosecutor that the public prosecutor, in this session, should not be instructed to ask for the death sentence.
Q. Did the Public Prosecutor later ask for capital punishment?
A. The demand of the Public Prosecutor in the plea was for a death penalty, and that was so for a special reason, for a very special reason.
Q. Witness, what caused the Prosecution to change their minds ten minutes before trial as to whether or not to demand the death penalty?
A. The reasons for this were as follows: In the session on the initiation of Rothaug, or on the request of Rothaug, Deputy Hoez was present, who actually was acting Gauleiter at the time and was in charge of executing the affairs. In addition to Hoez a number of important Party members were present. The SD was also represented -
Q. Witness, excuse my interruption. Where was this meeting to which you refer?
A. It was one floor above us, in Room 600.
A. It is not clear what sort of a meeting that was. Was it an initiation or a court session?
A. That was a court session, in a large extent. The case had been announced in the press and the arrival of the Gualeiter for this court session had also been observed. It was a meeting with a big public announcement.
Q. You say that in addition to the Gauleiters, numerous other party officials and SD members were present; that is true, is it?
A. Yes, they were present. That is correct. Also the office chiefs of the Nurnberg legal authorities.
Q. Well, witness, are you inferring that the presence of these officials and Party members had something to do with the change of the Prosecution's plea to a death sentence?
A. Yes. This presence was told to the Ministry by telephone during the course of the session -- it was reported to the Ministry, and this was done in such a way that Rothaug, during the entire conduct of the session, expressed in very short terms that Grasser will be sentenced to death. Thus the sentencing had been announced and the General Public Prosecutor wanted to be told by the Ministry whether it should be accepted that the Prosecutor in charge of this session should, in spite of this, only ask for a term of imprisonment.
Thereupon the Ministry answered, in order to avoid a divergence between the application or the demand and the sentence in the presence of such high Party functionaries, the Prosecutor should, in the final analysis, and in the name of God, ask for the death penalty, if -- and this is very important -- the Oberpraesident Herr Doebig should not succeed in the last moment to avoid that Rothaug carries out his intention.
Q. Witness, at what stage in Grasser's trial did this direction from the Ministry of Justice in Berlin reach Nuremberg concerning the necessity of asking for a death penalty to avoid a divergence? At what point in the trial did that arrive? Before the sentence?
A. Yes, before the sentence was pronounced, even before the plea of the Prosecutor, because only in that way was the Prosecutor empowered to ask for the death penalty.
Q. Witness would you please explain to us how it would be possible for the Ministry in Berlin to know that there would be any divergence before the verdict was pronounced if a death penalty was not asked for? Isn't that assuming the very point to be tried? How do you account for that?
A. The competent referent of the man in charge of the Prosecutor's office, Oberstaatsanwalt Engert, Chief Public Prosecutor Engert, told me already at that time and repeatedly later on, the connection, the circumstances of the case, so that I can explain the accompanying circumstances to you. Herr Engert, a member of the Special Court for many, many years, until August 1941, knew from his own experience that Rothaug could not be prevented from carrying out the intention which he had already told in this session and in the telephone conversation the competent department chiefs in Berlin. He pointed out that he himself was present as an observer at the session of Grasser's case, that he was observing the trial, the session, and that the presiding judge, Rothaug, as I have already stated here, in the sharpest terms expressed to Grasser that at the end of the session, as he said literally, his head would line in front of his feet.
Q. Witness, you have just said that during the course of Grasser's trial Rothaug told Grasser that his head would soon lie at his feet; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. At what point, witness, at what point in time during the trial did Rothaug tell Grasser that? Was it before the sentence, before the verdict?
A. That was already during the examination of the defendant at the very beginning of the session Rothaug -
Q. Witness, just to get it clear in my own mind. Rothaug told the defendant Grasser that at the very beginning of the trial?
A. Yes, yes, yes. When he was examined as a defendant.
Q. Dr. Ferber, you have said that Grasser was sentenced to death. Was he, in fact, executed?
A. Yes, contrary to all expectations, the Ministry did not pardon Grasser.
Q. Who among you, Rothaug, yourself, or the other associate judges on your court, was responsible for preparing the written judgment and verdict in the Grasser case?
A. The written copy of the -- the writing of the sentence in the case Grasser was as follows: The third judge was, in addition to Rothaug and myself, Herr Gross. Herr Gross had been in sessions of the Special Court only very infrequently, very seldom. Above all, he was not sufficiently familiar with the fact that Rothaug was interested in having in the written sentence to read again those things which had been said as the reasoning of the opinion during the session in regard to philosophical matters and -
Q. Witness, may I interrupt just one moment, please? If you can answer me very briefly just with one word or so on this particular question, I would appreciate it. Which judge on the bench of the Nuremberg Special Court wrote the verdict?
A. The first draft was written by Mr. Gross. Rothaug gave Gross tho draft as being essentially not usable. Ho returned it to him and ordered him to let me personally know that I would have to rewrite tho sentence of Gross by using the corrections made by Rothaug.
Q. Witness -- witness, excuse me. You say that when Rothaug returned the draft of tho opinion that it had corrections made by him on it?
Q. Yes. Yes, Herr Gross wrote a draft of the opinion and submitted it to Rothaug, and that caused Rothaug to rewrite or write anew important parts of the Gross decision.
Q. Witness, you have just said that Rothaug in the Grasser case rewrote a considerable portion of the opinion; is that true?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Was it customary with Rothaug to correct and rewrite opinions written by other members on the bench? Did he do that frequently or not?
A. Well, Rothaug did that already at a time when I myself was not yet a judge at the Special Court. A judge by the name of Seiffert once, with tears in his eyes, complained to the President of the District Court that Rothaug had corrected an opinion that he had written in such a manner that he was ashamed in front of the personnel of the chancellery. And this habit Rothaug maintained until the very end.
Q. Witness, can you very briefly describe the manner or the approach used by Rothaug to correct and rewrite opinions? What did he find wrong with them in most cases?
A From the description of the opposite, you will see more easily. What corrections were considered important by him will became more clear. The statement of the facts of the case were relatively easy to write down for Rothaug. When it came to legal reasons, legal foundations, there was more difficulty. When the application of a certain law to the facts was concerned, it was difficult, as in the Grasser case.
According to the Public Enemy decree; essentially, the field office correction had to do with the extent of the penalty, the opinion on which the penalty was based. I am thinking especially of the law against habitual criminals and sexual criminals.
Q Witness -
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Wooleyhan, we will take the recess at this time for 15 minutes.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess for 15 minutes.
(A short recess was taken).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Dr. Feber, returning for a moment to refresh my recollection to the scene in the court room during the Grasser trial - you have stated that the courtroom where Grasser was tried was filled. You also stated that in the audience there was a number of high Party officials and SD members. Is that so?
A. Yes, all that is correct.
Q. Then, witness, do you remember whether or not, during the course of that trial, did the presiding judge Rothaug address himself at any time to that audience?
A. Rothaug during the session did not directly address the audience but his words to the defendant Grasser were of such a political nature and had such political motives that they represented manifestations for the Party.
Q. Did he make such statements that you have just described frequently or infrequently during the course of the trial?
A. In the course of the trial of Grasser many such addresses, such as I would like to mention so that you can understand the trial better, and so you can also understand the verdict, were in fact made. First of all, Rothaug told the defendant Grasser that he had unheard-of luck because the penal chamber of the Munich Oberlandesgericht a few years ago had only pronounced a prison sentence. In that connection Rothaug Quoted to Grasser that at that time things were omitted which "we can make up for now with you". With that he expressed the fact that in connection with his resistance to the principles of the NSDAP - that was that. He had merited the death sentence, for in connection with that statement that Munich had definitely pronounced a merciful sentence, Rothaug said to Grasser, "Whether you live or do not live, that doesn't matter to the German nation. But what is important is that the German nation lives." And he had used this other sentence for the Untermaurung in saying, "You realize, Grasser, when we talk that over today." Grasser looked a little bit surprised.
He had to be surprised because shortly before he had been told to go to a different courtroom and he had also received the appointment of his counsel. Rothaug then put the lid on it all by saying to Grasser, "At the end of this session your head will be at your feet." That is literally what he said.
Q. Tell us, witness, did the defense counsel which you have just mentioned having been appointed for Grasser - did this defense counsel intervene on Grasser's behalf at any time during the trial?
A. The defense counsel who was at that tire appointed - I think it was Justizrat Kuehn. He was sitting at his seat at the Defense Counsel. He himself had the Honorable Insignia of the NSDAP. In his immediate neighborhood sat the Gauleiter. What could the defense counsel in this circumstance say to Rothaug? He accepted it in the same manner in which other people in the courtroom accepted it. And at the end he pleaded his defense, and during the course of it pointed out that Grasser's behavior did perhaps *** merit the death sentence after all.
Q. After the trial was finished, did you attend the discussion of the verdict in judicial chambers with the other judges before sentence was pronounced?
A. As I have described it, the application by the public prosecutor was achieved with great effort, and above that I was partly informed. We did know that chief public prosecutor Engert by the public was in telephone contact with the public prosecutor's office.
Q. Witness, I don't believe you understand my question. I will try to make it more clear. After the prosecution and defense were finished with their respective parts of the case, did you and the other judges, including Rothaug, retire to chambers to discuss what verdict you would impose?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, witness, would you please describe for us what occurred in chambers during the discussions between you and the other judges concerning the verdict to be passed in the Grasser case? What happened?
A. When we had retired for consultation, something happened which I believe until then must have been unique. That is, the Oberlandesgerichtspraesident, who was present himself, actually went to the chamber in which we were holding our discussions. We were taken quite aback by this.
Q. Witness, may I interrupt? You have said that the Oberlandesgerichtspraesident went into the chambers while you and Rothaug and the other judge were discussing the verdict. Was that men that you have just mentioned - was he by any chance Rothaug's superior, Oberlandesgerichtspraesident Doebig?
A. It was the chief of the Oberlandesgericht at the time, and the supreme chief of the justice authorities in Nuernberg.
Q. Continue, please.
A. This Oberpresident entered the room and began to speak --
DR. DOETZER (Counsel for the defendant Nebelung): May it please the Tribunal. At this moment it seems necessary and fair to me to point out that the witness is breaking the secrecy of consultation which is an obligation to him. I do not know whether the witness realizes that he is under an obligation to make a statement on this discussion which he is obliged to secrecy --
THE PRESIDENT: Objection will be overruled.
Q You may continue please.
A Oberpresident Doebig said that as far as the ministry was concerned it was considered important that the extreme consequence for Grasser should not be drawn. In particular it was -
Q May I interrupt you please? As I understood that through the phone, you said that Doebig told Rothaug as his superior, that the extreme penalty for Grasser should not be imposed, or something to that effect. I am wondering if you would care to restate that a little more clearly. Do you mean by that statement that Rothaug was told by Doebig that the death sentence for Grasser should not be imposed; is that what you mean?
A No, no, I can not say that and I can not say that because Doebig in this connection did not stand in the relation of a superior to Rothaug. As Oberpresident he could not interfere with the final result of our discussions, but he fulfilled a commission of the ministry to exercise his whole influence personally so that Rothaug above all should desist from applying the people's enemy order in its extreme consequence to this case.
Q May I interrupt? That, I believe, was not people's enemy order but the law against public enemies; isn't that correct?
A The law against public enemies.
Q Dr. Ferber, one further thing before you proceed with the description of what happened in chambers. Quite apart from the fact of whether or not Doebig was or was not Rothaug's superior, you just said that he was not - quite apart from that did you not just say a moment ago that Doebig came into the chamber and said to Rothaug that the death penalty should not be imposed on Grasser? Is that true?
A Yes, yes.
Q Continue.
A This discussion made it necessary to refer for writings. This literature was referred to, but all objections which we discussed in a rather more academic way, ended up with Rothaug saying to Doebig quite suddenly and abruptly, "Well then, Herr Oberpresident, the political responsibility for this verdict, that is my responsibility in the last resort", and with that Doebig gave up his attempt to intervene and left the room.
Q Witness, one moment please, before you go any further. In your presence at that time that you are now talking about, did Doebig give Rothaug any reasons why he thought the death sentence should not be imposed on Grasser? Did Doebig give any reasons for that? If so, what were they?
A Well, the Oberpresident during these talks, in fa.ct, supported the same thing which Gross was supposed to write in the verdict and by me and previously by the prosecution itself had been used as an argument. That was that really it was only a case of a malicious act and that to apply the public enemies decree under paragraph 4 to make possible the death sentence, was meant to do violence to the law, and Herr Doebig pointed out that the Oberreichsanwalt himself who had dealt with the case, to whom the case had been submitted, that he had sent it back as not falling within his competency.
Q Do you remember any further details of the negotiations and argument which must have taken place between you and Rothaug and the other judge before you arrived at a verdict in the Grasser case?
A When Herr Doebig had left the room, as usual first of all, a cannonade of abuse on the part of Rothaug against Doebig was launched. Partly this was personal abuse, for the two men didn't care very much for each other, and partly it was a factual abuse because Herr Rothaug as far as Doebig's arguments were concerned, did not agree.
He did not like them. In this connection it must be mentioned that during the same year, 1942, the Oldenburg justice scandal had taken place. The Reichstag of greater Germany had issued a law in 1942 and supported by those events it was definitely water under Herr Rothaug's mill to say to what we came if we look at this administration for an example and where we get to if sound political instincts are followed, and that was meant to mean that the state exigencies in such a case demanded the extreme consequence for the offender, and phrases which I will outline briefly, such as we must see to it that 1916 is not repeated.
Q. One moment, witness. Will you make it clear to me -- I am a little dubious -- who said these statements that you are now describing?
A. Rothaug. Rothaug.
Q. Continue.
A. Rothaug said it is a state exigency, as far as a Communist is concerned, to see to it that he who is obviously not a Communist all by himself has an opportunity to show himself as showpiece, and a word by Adolf Hitler was, after all I feel, miscalled by providence to give the weak a portion of that at fault, and Rothaug did that in this case and in similar cases by demanding that it was necessary in the interest of the people that such a political enemy who comes forward and shows his claws, that he be made harmless.
Finally, Rothaug's question to the others present at the discussion was, "There is only one question here. How would the Fuehrer decide?" Now, you must just imagine what a newcomer (Neuling) was to say after that, and the verdict which Gross did write after that was, according to Rothaug, the work of a political ignoramus.
Q. Dr. Ferber, after the verdict in the Grasser case was pronounced, at that time or at any time since, have you ever thought in your own mind that you approved of it?
A. I did not approve the Grasser verdict, and on the basis of the telephone conversation between Oberstaatsanwalt and the ministry we were entitled to expect that the ministry by a pardon would at least make good what here by brutal political fanaticism had happened.