THE PRESIDENT: You may answer it.
WITNESS:
A. The connection of the trial against Seiler and with the trial against Katzenberger was something out of the ordinary, for according to the existing directors of the ministry, the German girls were not supposed to be tried simultaneously with the Jews who had been indicted because of racial defilement.
Q. Witness, you did not answer my question precisely, in a precise manner, what you touched upon just now concerns only the question of the punishment of the woman because of racial defilement. That is not what I am referring to. I mean only was the trial because of perjury in an unusual manner combined with the trial because of racial defilement, was it unusual that two trials which concerned the same historical occurrence, that these were combined?
A. Counsel, you seem to be mistaken. As far as a German girl because of racial defilement could not be accused at all because of racial defilement. Therefore, a combination of the two cases, Katzenber-ger and the Seiler case because of racial defilement, could not come about. I said that it was something out of the ordinary that the case Katzenberger because of racial defilement, and the case Seiler, because of perjury, were combined with each other.
Q. Was it possible for the General Public Prosecutor to prevent the combination, and did the General Public Prosecutor for that reason discuss the matter with you, or did you turn to the General Public Prosecutor yourself when you heard about this combination?
A. The question as to whether the two defendants should be tried separately or together or should be accused or indicted separately or together, was a matter of general concern to the Public Prosecutor, and I did not interfere with it.
Q Did you make the observation that the relationship between Oberstaatsanwalt Schroeder and the Defendant Rothaug acquired such a form that the position of the Prosecution was violated?
A The relationship between Rothaug and the Chief Public Prosecuter Schroeder was in as far as I observed, a very close relationship. Both of them came from the same political camp. Beth of them were Luddendorff followers. They were fanatical followers of Luddendorff.
Q Witness, will you please limit yourself as to whether this personal relationship had some inadmissible consequences as regards their official duties?
A I wanted to find out whether this relationship had any disadvantages in regard to the Prosecution.
Q For that reason, I am asking you whether you observed that Rothaug exceeded his competence in regard to the Prosecution.
A Rothaug excerted a very great influence upon the Prosecution. That I know. Frequently, as I found out only later, he had the prosecutor come to him during the recess and he would tell him how to act and what pleas to make.
Q You said you found that out only afterwards?
A Yes. Yes. I found out about it afterwards.
Q Were the directives of the Reich Ministry of Justice in this regard known to you?
A It was known to me that the Ministry of Justice was anxious to have a close collaboration between the Court and Prosecution. In my experience, a direction by the judge, was something that was not usually done.
Q Witness, was it known to you the pleas of the prosecution, after the submission of evidence, should not be a great contrast from the sentence which is finally pronounced?
A That is correct.
Q Witness, what then do you consider the extraordinary behavior of Rothaug? Where does it lie?
A The unusual behavior of Rothaug consisted in my opinion in the following: On his own initiative, he gave directive to the Prosecuter instead of speaking to the chief of the prosecution or the Generalstaatsanwalt who had already given directives to the Prosecutor in the trial.
Q Witness, did associate judges of Rothaug approach you with the report that they had had clashes with Rothaug, and that for that reason, they wanted to be transferred from the Special Court?
A Claims by associate judges at the Special Court about the behavior of the presiding judge, Rothaug, were filed all the time, time and time again. I remember several cases especially. I read that the associate judge, Maier, of the Special Court repeatedly asked to be relieved from the Special Court because the way Rothaug acted toward him had been unbearable, actually unbearable.
Q Do you know what caused Rothaug's behavior in this particular case?
A. As Rothaug, himself told me, he was very much interested in having Maier removed from the Special Court. Maier was not able to write a sentence in the manner which Rothaug desired. He showed me drafts of sentences made by Maier which he had changed completely. He told me that due to the amount of work he had, he did not have time to sit up all night and change the sentences written by Maier.
Q Do you remember that in addition to the two judges which you named in the affidavit, Maier and Oeschey, there were still others who wanted to be transferred into Rothaug's Court?
A The judges wanted to be transferred particularly to Rothaug? I do not remember that, outside of the cases I mentioned. It could be that in the early time, judges were interested in working at the Special Court. Inasfar as I remember, and as far as I have experienced it, however, especially during the last years of my activity in Nuernberg, it was actually difficult to get judges for the Special Court in Nuernberg. As a rule, I chose judges who seemed to be able to meet the demands, the special demands of the Special Court.
Can you remember that the Amtsgerichtsrat Groben, the local judge, wanted to be transferred to the Special and that at that time, Amtsgerichtsdirector Gruber objected to that appointment?
A It could be that the Amtsgerichtdirector did not want to give up a judge because he was already suffering from a lack of personnel. I do not remember this case, however.
Q Can you remember that the Landgerichtsdirector Ferber came to the Special Court at his own request?
A Landgerichtsdirector Ferber had, as far as I know, already in earlier years been with the Special Court. A recall of Forber from the Special Court was during my term of service; as far as I remember he was never discussed at all because Rothaug was satisfied with the opinions which Ferber wrote.
Q However, Ferber was temporarily active in the Administration of the Prisons and only came back into the Special Court as a judge after this interim of about four months. Can you remember that?
A That Ferber was temporarily in accordance with his own wish active in the prison service, I remember. After his return as a judge he was again appointed to his old position. That seems to be the thing that should be done.
Q Now in your affidavit you mentioned that Rothaug had even boasted about the name "bloody judge"; therefore, I am asking you, can you still remember Rothaug objected to you against the use of that name by a special small group and that you even issued a circular because of this matter?
A Rothaug once complained to me that a group of judges were in the building who in private conversations worked against his interests and objected to him, and he asked me therefore for protection. I never issued a circular in the meaning in which the defense counsel mentioned, but had a discussion with the Landesgerichtspresident - the president of the district court. In a discussion with him, I pointed out that judges who have complained about their colleagues in the court building should have the courage to come to me and to tell me these complaints and should stop carrying on secret whispering campaigns against one of their colleagues. I think that is only a decent thing for a judge to do. That Rothaug was designated as "bloody judge" and as "executor" and that he even boasted about it, I heard by a witness who had heard it at the Reich Supreme Court, who participated in a meeting during which Rothaug acted as a speaker for the National Socialist Lawyers' League, and at this opportunity, Rothaug boasted that he had the name of "bloody judge" or "hangman of Nurnberg."
Q You mentioned he did not show sufficient respect toward the Reich Ministry of Justice. Therefore I am asking you, did Rothaug discuss with you why he was in opposition toward the justice administration and in particular why he was in opposition toward the top men in the justice administration?
A Rothaug never denied that in his opinion the top men in the administration of justice of the Reich and the responsible men in the justice administration were no National Socialists in the sense which he considered it to be necessary for them.
It was again and again the result of the discussions with him, that he was the man who had been selected to make National Socialist law and to act as a precursor of National Socialist conception of law. Others did not understand that he was the man to do this. I can not remember the nicknames he used, but beginning with Minister Dr. Guertner down to the smallest clerk in the Ministry, he again and again had to make derogatory remarks about them. He spoke about calufication and such; anyhow he made it clearly recognizable that he was the man whose avocation it was to recognize the will of the Fuehrer.
Q Can you remember that with preference to the Ministry of Justice in particular, Rothaug had a low opinion of the Ministry of Justice because the Reich Ministry of Justice did not protect the judges enough against the political authorities?
A Whether that was the reason for Rothaug's criticism of the responsible men of the justice administration, I am not in a position to decide, After the decision of the Reichstag of the 26th of April 1942, which for the most part was like a blow on the head towards the judges, Rothaug expressed once in a conversation with me that we judges -- it had been our own fault if this action, which he considered a liberating action in a certain sense -- that this had come about because the judges did not fulfill their duties in the sense that Hitler wanted them to.
Q Did you at any time, witness, agree with the defendant Rothaug?
A I consider that impossible.
Q Just a moment. Did you agree with him when he said: "This decision does not apply to us because we did not sabotage it"?
A. It could very well be that I probably said of the special court in Nurnberg: "Nobody will object in accordance with the decision made by the Reichstag because a stronger National Socialist attitude could hardly be found." There were special courts which distinguished themselves by special strictness and which in contrast with the Nurnberg special court in discussions of the Staatsanwaelte were favorably mentioned by Freisler. I remember that the Special Court in Stuttgart, for example, was held in higher esteem than the Special Court in Nurnberg. I wasn't very happy about that at all. I was only surprised that there were courts which were obviously still stricter in their sentences than the Nurnberg Special Court.
Q After such discussions which you just mentioned, did you repeatedly express your admiration of the defendant Rothaug to him and based this on the fact that the Nurnberg Special Court had not aroused any attention?
A It could be that in the discussions which I had about these meetings of the chiefs, which I then had in Nurnberg, that he regarded my remarks as a praise; what I said about the Nurnberg Special Court not being the subject of any special criticism or that the Special Court in Nurnberg had not aroused any attention and not been mentioned in any way, that could be so. Whether that should be regarded as a praise, that obviously only Rothaug felt it to be such.
Q Now I want to go over to another thing. You mentioned the connection of Rothaug with the S.D. Can you remember, witness, that the former legal espert at one of your courts, by name of Elkar, who was a S.D. leader and once practiced under Rothaug, that at the beginning of the war, he visited you together with a Standartenfuehrer of the SS and that these three also went to the Generalstaatsanwalt - the general public prosecutor - and that on this occasion the cooperation of the justice department with the lower offices of the S.D. was being discussed.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honors, I object to this question. All the personalities involved are outside the scope of any affidavit or direct examination; furthermore, the question is so leading that the answer has practically been supplied.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel has suggested that he is leading up to relations of Rothaug with the S.D. If your questions are really leading to that, we want to hear them; but it's on that theory only that we permit the witness to answer.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q I am asking you again, witness, did the gentlemen whom I named -- did they try to establish an absolutely legal normal cooperation of the S.D. with the justice authorities in Nurnberg?
A. Elkar whom I know, when he was an assessor, or an assistant judge and his former activity; and an SS leader; it might have been; Friedrich visited me, made a formal cell at my office that I remember, but whet was the subject of this formal visit I don't remember any more. In any case, approval in the direction that the Justice Administration wanted to cooperate closely with the SD, I never gave that.
Q. I did not say so; I did not say that either. Was the subject of that discussion the following question: How it could be possible to prevent that in all kinds of relatively small matters the highest party authorities interference, and whether it would not be possible to give the opportunity in time to the Justice authorities to take steps against unjustified objections or attacks.
A. There was a constant effort being made; these interferences of the party authorities into the administration of justice to prevent in some way or the other I already stated yesterday; it is possible, but I don't remember any more, but after this discussion on this formal visit of Elkar and these SS leaders, this was being discussed too.
JUDGE BRAND: I thought counsel's questions were to relate to the relationship between Rothaug and the SD. Your questions haven't touched upon that at all.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. The question referred, to whether Rothaug was making efforts to meet unjustified attacks on the Administration of Justice by establishing an open cooperation with the Oberlendesgerichtspresident who had been chosen for that purpose.
A. May I answer this question.
JUDGE BRAND: I did not hear any question.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. May I repeat the question. Witness, you mentioned the incident of the visit of the Reich Minister Thierack to Nuernberg. Do you still remember why Rothaug at that time was ordered to appear before the Minister of Justice?
A. I first would like to clarify on what occasion Rothaug was ordered to appear before the Minister.
Q. After the speech in the Kultur-Verein, the culture club, Rothaug was ordered to appear one evening in the Deutscher Hof Hotel.
A. This request to appear for supper at the Deutscher Hof Hotel, Rothaug had been invited. I was so far of the opinion that his participation had been invited from the very beginning, for there was a seating order at the table, and according to this Rothaug had been reserved the place at the right of Thierack - at the left of Thierack, and, therefore, the invitation to invite Rothaug must have been intended from the very beginning.
that
Q. Can you remember, witness,/at that time a complaint was pending against Holz. That a complaint by Holz was pending which Holz, Gauleiter Holz, had registered against Rothaug at the Ministry of Justice?
A. A complaint against Rothaug? That I never heard about, but in the Ramstack case the Gauleitung, the Gau leadership was not satisfied; that I did hear about. In detail, however, I remember only that here there was a certain difference of opinion between Rothaug on the one hand and the office in the Gau leadership on the other side; that this existed, of what kind they were, I don't remember any more; I did not attach such significance to this matter.
Q. Do you remember, did you receive the complaint of Holz against Rothaug via official channels?
A. That may be; I can't remember it any more.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, the preceding answer by the witness was that he was unaware of any such complaint by Gauleiter Holz. Why then supply the answer by the next question; that is a question entirely too leading.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no objection to the question on cross examination being leading. It does seem to me that this follow-up by the next question was out of order as he didn't recall anything of that kind.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. I have one final question. Do you know that at the turn of the year 1942-1943 on order of the highest party authorities all of the top officials of all of the offices were examined in regard to their political reliability?
A. That around the turn of the year 1942 to 1942 such an examination was carried on did not become known to me and I don't believe it either that such an order existed.
Q. Do you know, witness, whether at the same time when you were relieved of your duties as president of the Oberlandesgericht, the District Court of Appeal, a number of office chiefs were also removed from office; as, for example, the commanding general, the finance minister, the ober finance minister.
A. If you are referring to the Ober Finance President, that is not correct; he was not removed from office, tut in the course of 1943, as far as I remember, according to his own urgent wish, he was transferred to the Ober Finance Presidency Koenigsberg where he had been in office before. As far as the commanding general is concerned, what this has got to do with him, I don't know. As far as I remember, already in the spring of 1942 my transfer was, my removal was already begun, and that was when Rothenberger visited here; that was in the beginning of 1942.
DR. KOESSL: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the prosecution have some additional redirect examination?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Herr Doebig, if in German criminal procedure the theoretical function of the prosecution is to collect and present facts not only against but in favor of the defendant in order to aid the court in arriving at a fair verdict, why, then, were defense counsel used?
A. The activities of the Prosecutor, if a suspicion against the defendant showed it, the activities of the prosecutor brought about an indictment against the defendant because of a certain fact which called for a penalty.
The task of the prosecutor was in the trial to justify this indictment and absolutely opposite task is the task of the defense counsel in the trial. He has to present to the court and to collect all those conditions and facts which would relieve the defendant of the charges brought against him, or to let his guilt appear in a more lenient light. Therefore, the task of the prosecutor and of the defense counsel in a trial are essentially quite different.
In spite of the regulation that the prosecutor in order to ascertain the truth has to consider also or to bring forth also the extenuating circumstances.
Q Then the fact that German Criminal procedure requires the prosecution to consider also mitigating factors does not guarantee the defendant a fair trial; is that true?
A Without doubt there can be conditions which the prosecutor does not regard as mitigating while the defense counsel or the defendant, himself, regards as mitigating circumstances, and that from their part, they have to be presented to the court, on their part.
Q Herr Doebig, if a party formation, for example, the Gestapo, the SS, or the SD, uncovered what they considered to be a crime against the State or party, how would the culprit who was charged with having committed that crime br brought to trial?
A If a defendant, in the opinion of the Gestapo, had become guilty of a political crime which would justify his being prosecuted, the Gestapo made a report to the prosecution if it was necessary to arrest the culprit, the defendant was handed over to the prison, and according to the German court of legal procedure, the investigating judge had to interrogate the defendant and to decide the question as to whether an order of arrest against the defendant was to be issued or not.
Q In these pre-trial investigations by an investigating judge, to your knowledge, did the investigating judge ever make use of the investigations and reports prepared by the Gestapo, SS and SD, in the field of political crimes?
A The investigating judge who had to decide about the continuance of the arrest had the report made so far, before him when he interrogated the defendant, that is the report of the Gestapo, that was for the investigating judge, the basis for the first interrogation by a judge of the defendant.
Q Was the purpose of the Justice Ministry's policy that there should be the smallest possible divergency between a prosecutor's plea and the sentence finally rendered; was the purpose of that policy ever officially explained to you?
A It was the intention of the Ministry to outward appearance not to let too large of a divergence of the plea of the prosecutor and the sentence of the judge appear. Therefore, it was suggested that in the guidance and discussions which had been introduced by Thierack, the plea which the prosecutor wanted to make should be made known to the judge. If the judge did not agree with that or if he thought, on the basis of his knowledge of the fact of the case, that he would have to differ from it considerably, then he expressed this and then it was subjected to either further discussion between the court and the prosecutor or it was an occasion for the prosecution to inform the Ministry to what extent influence was used in the plea in penal matters; then, the prosecutor discussed with the Ministry whether they should not make a different plea.
Q Then, to comply with the Ministry's policy that there should be as little divergence as possible, conferences and discussions between the prosecution and the judge were necessary before the verdict; were they not?
A. Before the main trial, yes.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I believe that concludes the redirect examination, your Honor.
JUDGE BRAND: I should like to ask one question.
BY JUDGE BRAND:
Q Reference was made to the Gestapo; is that what is called the Geheinestaats Polizei in political cases?
A Yes, that is the Geheimestaats Polizei.
Q Was not that an official branch of the German police?
A The Geheimestaats Polizei was a division, a department of the police; the same as the Schutzpolizei, but which had as its task other functions, that is, in political matters.
Q Was the Gestapo a party organization at all?
AAs far as I know the Geheimestaats Polizei was an office of the state, even though the members of the Geheinestaats Polizei were, for the most part, also members of formations of the party and SS.
THE PRESIDENT: I want to ask the Witness a question or two.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Witness, in the affidavit that you formally made and which is in evidence, at times you stated that Rothaug took vigorous attitudes toward foreign workers and especially against Poles. I want to inquire whether those crimes were committed by the foreign workers who were within Germany or were they in the Eastern Protectorate Provinces?
A When I made this affidavit I was thinking of those cases in which foreign workers, especially Polish workers, in the territory of the old Reich, the Reich proper; especially on farms and in order to replace the drafted sons, and who had committed punishable crimes. The activities of Rothaug were here applied only to crimes or criminal acts of the foreign workers who were employed, who had been involved in crimes which had been committed in the district of Nurnberg.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, in connection with the question which you have just asked, may I ask one further question?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have another question, but you can ask the question.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Herr. Doebig, with regard to these Polish workers, which you just mentioned to the Court, do you know, so far as the defendants in the cases of which you have knowledge, whether or not those foreign workers were within the area of the so-called Reich voluntarily?
A The justice administration never had to concern itself with that, whether they were working voluntarily or not. So far as I am informed the compliment of foreign workers, employed in the German offices -- the employment was done by the Labor Office Arbeitsaemter, and whether they went there voluntarily or not, I do not know. From criminal cases I do know that very many workers were not satisfied with their employment at the place where they were working and that they tried to get away from there.
However, the Labor Office did not release them because of the lack of workers.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Perhaps you can tell us whether some of those foreign workers, who were tried in the courts with which you were connected, were sentenced to death?
A During my time with the Special Court in Nurnberg, and which I knew particularly well, that happened very frequently, particularly towards Poles very strict penal measures were applied. Standards which did not frequently agree with my own feeling of justice. In cases where we were concerned with merely one act which had been committed in a moment of excitement which, for example, a Polish workers because the farmers had beaten him or incited him -- if the Pole raised his fist or his rake, which he was carrying in his hand, if he raised it as a defense, that was sufficient according to the sentence pronounced by the Special Court in many districts to regard him as violently criminal and to sentence him accordingly.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions to be asked this Witness?
(Apparently none.)
THE PRESIDENT: Then the Witness may be excused.
We will recess at this time until 1:30.
(The Court then recessed until 1330 hours.)
Court No. 3 (also take 14)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May it please your Honor, the prosecution wants to take a minute or two to state to the Court that I have received now from defense counsel a written translation of their written objection stating their position on our motion I have previously filed with reference to the methods of interrogation witnesses. It will be necessary for me to be gone tomorrow afternoon. I rather anticipate that we will not have time before the Tribunal before sometime Monday so that if it's agreeable and counsel -- assuming cross examination will end of the witness on Monday -- if it's agreeable to the Tribunal that before putting on a further witness, I thought we might then dispose of that matter on Monday.
THE PRESIDENT: It certainly will be agreeable to the Tribunal and I know of no damage to be done by the delay.
MR. KING: Prosecution at this time asks that the witness Robert Havemann be called. The witness Havemann will testify in his own language.
ROBERT HAVEMANN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BRAND: The witness will raise his right hand and repeat after me:
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)
JUDGE BRAND: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:
Q. Witness, please state your name?
A. Robert Havemann.
Q. What is your present profession and where are you engaged?
A. My present occupation is a University Professor in Berlin and Chief of the Administration of the Kaiser Wilhilm Institute in BerlinDahlem.
Q. What is your particular field of endeavor with the University?
A. My official field of endeavor is physical chemistry. I am Court No. 3 (also take 14) lecturing on that subject.
Q. How long have you been a physical chemist?
A. Since 1931. At that time I was already at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physical Chemistry and Electro-chemistry as a scientific assistant.
Q. You were, were you not, a physio-chemist during the war?
A. Yes, during the war also I was a physio-chemist.
Q. Witness, do you know of an organization called European Union which was active in Europe during the war?
A. Yes, I belonged to the founders. I was one of the founders of that organization.
Q. What do you know of the activities of this organization? How did it function and what were its objectives?
A. The activities of that organization consisted in the following: to make preparations for the period after the war for which we had great concern about the future of Germany. We tried to get a number of Germans who were specialists in various field and who at no time and in no way had become servants of National Socialism. We tried to get these people together and at the same time to get into contact with various other groups of foreigners in Germany because we knew that among the foreign workers in various fields there were many men who were definite adversaries of the Hitler dictatorship, and were able to contact the resistance movement, the liberty movements in their native countries and it was their aim to get accurate knowledge of the course of the war and political events in Europe. The activities of our group consisted in furnishing all information to the foreign workers which could be of any value to them so that after the war on a basis of friendly relationship, it would be possible to create together with the foreign workers in Germany the foundation for a better Germany and a better European future.
Q. In other words, your activities were mainly directed to the establishing a foundation for post-war rather than in anti-war periods?
A. Naturally we were never in a position to manifest openly in view Court No. 3 (also take 14) of the fact our group was always in danger and consisted of a few.
We could never openly do anything against resistance of the Nazi regime and we did not think it was within our power to fight the power of the Nazi State and for that reason alone we had to restrict ourselves to prepatations which were concerned only with the period after the war. We regretted that fact deeply and we regretted that within the German people a basis for an insurrection against the Nazi regime would no more exist and we hoped that perhaps at the last moment a change in the attitude of the German people toward the Hitler Regime would occur. We did not believe at any time that it was within our power to bring about that change. For that reason we refrained from extensive experiences but the groups of the German resistance movement had gained in the past and we refrained from and propagandist activities throughout the measures of the people.
Q. You said there a moment ago, witness, that you were one of the leaders or organizers of the organization known as European Union. Can you tell us in round numbers approximately how many numbers you counted in your organization?
A. The group comprised about 50 or 60 Germans; apart from those a large number of foreign workers who, which I don't know accurately, according to information received from the delegates of the foreign workers groups, the total number of Frenchmen, Belgians, Czechs and Russians, Finns and others and every member of their group amount to perhaps twenty to fifty thousand.
Q. You are, were you not, arrested by the Gestapo for your activities in connection with the Organization European Union?
A. On the 5 September 1943 together with most of the remaining members of the European Union, I was arrested in Berlin and was brought to the prison of the secret police, the Gestapo, at the Prinz Alrecht Strasse.
Q. Evidently you were tried by the Peoples Court, were you not?
A. Yes, on the 15 December the trial against meand three other leading members of the European Union started before the Peoples Court in Berlin.
Q. You say you were arrested by the Gestapo on September 5, 1943 and Court No. 3 (also take 14) your trial before the Peoples Court began on December 15.
Can you tell us in general what happened in the meantime?
A. From the 5 September 1943 on until the 15 November 1943 I was in the prison Prinz Albrecht Strasse. There the interrogations of the secret state police took place. After the 15 of November we were transferred in a large group to the Penitentiary Brandenburg. It may have been on the second or third of December 1943 that I received in my cell the arrest warrant from the Chief Reich Prosecutor. In the period following and also before -- as long as we had been in the penitentiary at Brandenburn we had had no opportunity whatsoever to contact anybody on the outside. I could not have any visits of relative or of a counsel. I had no possibility to do anything for my defense or in my interest. On the 14 December together with the three other defendants of our trial I was brought to Berlin Moabit into the prison there. As I entered the prison the defense counsel who had been appointed for me turned to me and Dr. Kunz in the evening and that for the first time I had an opportunity to look in the charges of the indictment which was described against myself and the three other defendants.
Q. You say when you were transferred to the penitentiary on the afternoon of December 14 which was the day before your trial, you first saw the indictment by virtue of the fact that your defense counsel showed it to you. What time was that?
A. That was -- it may have been between 8 and 9 o'clock in the evening when for the first time and the only time I received the indictment which only the morning when the trial had started had been taken away from me again.
Q. Can you tell us a little more about the manner in which your defense counsel was selected? Especially was your defense counsel one of those approved or shall we say on the approved list of the Peoples Court?
A. I personally had no opportunity to take any interference in the selection of my defense counsel but independently of any interference on my part and the talking to was done by my parents. I know that the Court No. 3 (also take 14) three other defendants had not selected any defense counsel for themselves but that on the part of the Peoples Court defense counsel had been appointed for them.