Q. Witness, do you remember, did any case occur in your practice where a case had been transferred from the Oberreichsanwalt, via the Prosecutor General -- to the Oberstaatsanwalt at the Special Court in Berlin from the Oberreichsanwalt to the Oberstaatsanwalt directly, for trial before the Special Court?
A. I cannot answer that question with certainty. In one case I believe I can remember correctly that the case, first of all, had been heard by another prosecution authority, but I no longer remember whether it was with the Prosecutor General at the Kammergericht or with the Oberreichsanwalt. The case was then transferred to the prosecution at the Special Court.
Q. Witness, in your affidavit, as well as today, you have made statements about the opportunities of defense before the People's Court, and, if I understood you correctly, it was essentially concerning the motions and the motions for evidence; you restricted yourself to those two points.
Now, I would like to ask you whether you had the possibility to make sufficient pleas before the People's Court, that is to say, to make your final plea, in accordance with your duty and your personal inclination as an attorney.
A. I personally, and other colleagues too, made very extensive pleas before the People's Court.
Q. A witness was heard before this Tribunal -- it was Professor Dr. Havemann; perhaps you know that name?
A. I know him personally.
Q. Herr Havemann complained at great length here that at his trial before the People's Court he was defended by an attorney who, during the whole of the trial, only spoke two sentences, one sentence during questioning by the presiding judge, and a second sentence was supposed to have represented the plea of that colleague. I am asking you, witness, was such procedure on the part of a defense counsel at the People's Court an extraordinary occurrence, was it something that was outside the scope of the customary defense?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One moment, please.
Your Honor, unless that question is phrased a s a hypothetical question, I object to it on the ground that it is not an accurate statement of what the witness Havemann said, and I object to it on the ground that it is a misrepresentation, not theoretically I would have no objection, but otherwise in this form I do object.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the witness may answer as to whether it was or was not an extraordinary circumstance for a defense counsel to be limited in the manner described in Dr. Schilf's question. That in effect makes it a hypothetical question, Mr. Wooleyhan.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, sir.
THE WITNESS: It was possible, before the People's Court, to plead and to plead extensively. We know it was a regrettable event that a number of defense counsel, concerning their offices as defense counsel before the People's Court and before other political courts, did not carry out their function with that intensity which is the duty of defense counsel. That is how it happened that in effect cases did occur where, after lengthy hearings, following the demand for the death sentence, pleas consisting of one of a few sentences were made. However, I am bound to add that even though that method of handling the duties of a defense counsel must be criticized most severely, one must realize that in all those cases where an actual attempt manifested itself to take effective action against the regime, or where really verbal criticism of one cf the leading personages of the Nazi regime was voiced--and that concept was very wide-the result could not, in effect, be changed.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q: Colleague Wergin, I have a. last question to put to you on that point. Concerning the habit of some colleagues of making insufficient pleas, do you know that the Reich Ministry of Justice criticized that expressly?
A. No.
Q. Do you know that in October 1944 the Reich Ministry of Justice issued the so-called Lawyer's Letters in which such a case, where defense counsel had made their pleas too short, was expressly mentioned and was criticized?
A. I don't know about that.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I request, Your Honors, that that question just asked be stricken from the record on the ground that it is a repetition of something that the witness just previously stated that he knew nothing about.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood him to answer that he didn't know the answer to this question; therefore, it is unnecessary to strike the question.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. A last question.
In your affidavit, on page 12 of the German document book and page 6 of the original version, you mention two cases where you acted as defense counsel, the Detlef von Winterfeld case, and the Bernstorff case. You mention that both, shortly before the end of the war, were in the Lehrter Strasse prison. You go on to say that Count Bernstorff was murdered by the Gestapo shortly before the arrival of the Russian troops.
I am asking you, Dr. Wergin, under what administration the prison in Lehrter Strasse was. Was it administered by the Justice authorities or by the Gestapo?
A. The indictment was made against Herr von Winterfeld and against Count Bernstorff, but I only defended Herr von Winterfeld and not Count Bernstorff. The direction of the prison at 3 Lehrter Strasse--at any rate, as far as the period from a but the beginning of 1944 is concerned-was under the direction of the Gestapo. Whether the administrative side was also in the hands of the Gestapo I do not know. At any rate, when Curt (Commission) III one called on a defendant at Lehrter Strasse prison, first of all one had to contact an office of the Gestapo where SS men were sitting; one had to pass that office before one could talk to the defendant.
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other cross examination on the basis of the affidavit?
(No response)
May I ask you a question?
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. I merely wish to be sure that I understood your answer. In discussing the matter of the very brief pleas which were sometimes made by defense counsel, was your explanation in substance this, that defense counsel frequently know that where political considerations were involve against the defendant an extended plea would be unavailing, or would be useless? Was that the substance of your answer?
A. Yes, yes, alt h. ugh I did not, thereby, approve the brief version of the pleas.
Q. And one other question. I understand you to say that you were rejected as a defense counsel in the 20 July 1944 case, Is that correct?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Any redirect?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One question.
EXAMINATION BY DR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Dr. Wergin, perhaps it is a translating error, but I arm not sure. However, when you were speaking about pre-trial investigations I understood you to say the these pre-trial investigations were conducted almost exclusively by the State Police and that was a critical point in the preparation of a case.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, by tho State Police I assume you meant the Gestapo; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the results of these investigations of tho Gestapo, to your knowledge were they used in the preparation of the indictment by the prosecution?
A. The transcripts which were made by members or officials, of the Gestapo were used for tho preparation of the indictment.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
(Witness excused.)
Commission III - Case III
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Wooleyhan, I assume that you are now ready for the proceeding witness to return?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I am of the impression that some other members of the defense staff desired to cross examine further before you begin your redirect.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: You mean direct examine or cross examine?
THE PRESIDENT: Only cross. Is that correct?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: His most recent status, I believe, was as a defense witness, was it not?
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes. And do I understand that further defense counsel wish to make him their witness or to finish cross examination on the affidavit?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Am I wrong about that? Did Some defense counsel desire to further cross examine upon the affidavit?
DR. SCHILF: I myself did not wish direct examination to take place, and that because it still has to be clarified whether the other defense counsel will submit an affidavit; and if affidavits are submitted for the defense we still will not know whether the prosecution will submit counter-affidavits, nor will we know whether the witness will have to return here.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you misunderstood my question. This witness made an affidavit which was introduced by the prosecution, did he not? My only question was whether some other one of the defense counsel desired to cross examine this witness upon the matters contained in the affidavit, which the prosecution introduced. Apparently Commission III - Case III I was in error and there is no such desire at this time.
DR. SCHILF! But I would like to put one question concerning the affidavit.
HUGO SUCHOMEL,
a witness, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Witness, I may address you directly. My colleague, Dr. Kuboschok, had already asked you about the conference when a lecture was given on the euthanasia question. You had made a correction concerning the persons who were supposed to have attended that conference.
I am defense counsel for defendant Dr. Mettgenberg, and if I understood you correctly, you stated that you could no longer remember whether Dr. Mettgenberg attended or not.
A. I made a statement that Dr. Mettgenberg may have been present but is not bound to have been present. It is possible that he, as subdivision head of Division IV had been invited; and I have already said that today I can no longer say under oath as a witness whether he actually did appear or not. He may have been away on an official trip. He may have been away on leave at that time. He may have been ill and it is impossible for me now, when more than five years have passed, to say with certainty who actually was present.
I would ask you to consider that my chief interest was directed to the lecture and not to the persons who were present. I still remember exactly where I sat. I still remember the long table at which about thirty persons could sit had all the seats occupied and I still remember what Commission III - Case III photographs were handed over across the table.
I know that those photographs did not reach me at the end, but I can no longer say with absolute certainty under oath as a witness what persons attended the conference.
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions but I would like to reserve the right to myself to examine Dr. Suchomel -- to call Dr. Suchomel as a witness for the defense, either as an affidavit witness or for examination.
EXAMINATION BY DR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. DR. Suchomel, at the time you gave the affidavit, which we are now discussing, was it the prosecution in this case here that secured that affidavit from you? By prosecution here I mean was it any prosecutor involved in the prosecution of this case here in this room?
A. I have not understood that question altogether. I was interrogated by Mr. Meyer and by Mr. Hochwald and I was told at the time that the affidavit was intended for use at the doctors' trial and, as I stated at the time, it was difficult for me to say with absolute certainty who had been present.
I was told at the time that one was anxious to ascertain whether there were other witnesses for that lecture. Consequently, at the time I believed that if I should be wrong on one point or the other concerning the persons whom I mentioned and in that connection I expressed it -- and I expressed it again here this morning -- I stated that if I remember correctly certain persons did attend. At the time I was convinced that one was anxious to establish witnesses and, therefore, I believed that if I made a mistake with one person or the. other the end result would be Commission III - Case III that that man would then not be available as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: He has answered your question.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, he has answered my question.
BY DR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Dr. Suchomel, at the time time affidavit was secured from you, as you say by the prosecution for the doctors' case, were any names suggested to you or did you think these up yourself?
A. No, not at all; not in the least.
Q. Not in the least what? Do you mean no names were suggested to you?
A. No, no. I myself made those statements. The entire interrogation was held in an absolutely blameless manner and again I pointed out I could only give -
Q. We understand that, Doctor. Thank you. Now, your affidavit states, Doctor, that you received orders to attend that conference, whereas today you used the word invited. Now, wore you ordered or were you invited to that conference?
A. Well, an invitation to a conference was naturally an official order, for if one was invited to attend a conference that meant for the official that one had to appear at the conference unless one had good reasons to stay away from such a conference.
Q. Now, can you tell us further, very briefly, the reason why, at the time you gave this affidavit, the names Mettgenberg, Joel and Von Ammon occurred to you?
A. Well, yes, I can tell you that. At the time I made the statement that I could not give the exact date when that lecture was held. I said it must have been after August, 1940, because I only took over individual penal matters in Commission III - Case III August, 1940.
At the time I also mentioned that the latest date could have been the Autumn of 1942, because the conference was held when Crohne was still the head of the division.
I gave some further hint in an effort to determine the date more precisely. At that time the name Brandt was already familiar to me. I could only have learned that name either from Deutsche Justiz or from the Reichs Gazette.
Q. Excuse me. Doctor, excuse me I am only interested at the moment in having you tell the Court why the names Mettgenberg, Joel and Von Ammon occurred to you in your memory in connection with this conference. If no one suggested them to you why did you think of them? What made you think of them?
A. Yes. I mentioned those names because those gentlemen, during the whole period from 1939 until the end, belonged to the penal law division: Mettgenberg, because he was subdivision head in penal legislation; and I was convinced, therefore, that probably he would have been asked to attend the conference.
The names Joel and Von Ammon are also only mentioned because I knew for certain that those gentlemen, during the whole period, belonged to Division IV. Therefore, for example, I mentioned Dr. Hans Heuer, an Austrian, who also, during the period from about 1940, was a member of my subdivision.
At all account, I wished to avoid mentioning as witnesses gentlemen who, during that period, did not belong to Division IV. In doing so, I made the error of mentioning Mr. Grau and Hr. Rietzsch who did at that time belong to the Ministry of Justice.
Commission III - Case III
Q. Excuse me, Dr. Suchomel. I believe you said before your were in error on those two gentlemen and since they are not concerned here I think we need not repeat it.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honors, that is all the redirect examination I have on the affidavit and if there is no objection I would like to proceed to a brief cross examination of Dr. Suchomel now as a witness for the defense Court No. 3, Commission III CROSS ELIMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Dr. Suchomel, this morning you stated that you had always considered the defendant Schlegelberger both as Under-Secretary and later as Acting Minister as being concerned with civil affairs as distinguished from criminal, is that correct?
A. I am sorry, I do not get that. That in many cases I cooperated with him, I do not say in a few matters.
Q. In a few matters you said what? Please repeat that for us.
A. In a few matters only did I have anything to do with Dr. Schlegelberger.
Q. I realize that, doctor, but this morning under direct examination by some of the defense counsel, you stated that defendant Schlegelberger was officially responsible for civil matters in the Ministry as distinguished from criminal which wore handled by Freisler. Is that what you said or not?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q., That being the case, doctor, I am going to show you a book, and when I show it to you, I would like for you to describe what it is to the court.
(Witness is given a book)
A. That is the Reich Law Gazette, Reichsgesetzblatt, from the year 1941.
Q. Now, Dr. Suchomel, is that the official organ which published the laws and decrees of the Reich Nazi Government of that year?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Now, doctor, please turn to Page 164.
A. Yes.
Q. What is the title of the decree of 20 March 1941 that you see on that page?
A. Decree Concerning the Competency cf the Criminal Courts in the Reichsgaus of the Ostmark cf 20 March 1941, page 164.
Q. Now who signed that decree?
Court No. 3, Commission III.
A. The Reich Minister for Justice, entrusted with the conduct of affairs, Dr. Schlegelberger.
Q. Would you say that was a civil matter or a criminal matter?
A. That is a criminal matter. That is a matter concerning criminal law.
Q. Now, doctor, please turn to page 248.
A. Yes. Second Decree for Supplementing the Decree Concerning the Exercise cf Criminal Jurisdiction in the Protectorate cf Bohemia and Moravia of 5 May 1941. Signed Reich Minister cf Justice entrusted with the conduct of affairs, Dr. Schlegelberger.
Q. Now, Dr. Suchomel, what do you find on Page 552?
A. 552. Third Executive Decree Concerning the Decree about the Competency of the Criminal Courts and Special Courts and other Regulations of Criminal Procedure of 1st September 1941. Signed entrusted with the conduct of affairs, Dr. Schlegelberger.
Q. Now, what do you find on Page 576, doctor?
A. What page? 576, Police Decree on Opening Licenses for Public Houses of 22 October 1941. The Reich Minister of Economy.
Q. No doctor. Just a moment, please. On Page 576, there is a decree signed the 19th of September 1941.
A. Yes. Executive Decree Concerning the Decree Introducing the Law About Cancellations in the Criminal Reports and the Decree about Criminal Records in the Reichgaus of the Ostmark of 19 September 1941. Signed entrusted with the conduct of affairs.
Q. What was that again? Who was it signed by?
A. All that has boon signed by Dr. Schlegelberger; but I must say that we only discussed these decrees with Under-Secretary Freisler; that Under-Secretary Freisler then submitted them to the head f the Reich Ministry cf Justice. The reports were not held before Under-Secretary Schlegelberger. I do not make my reports to Schlegelberger, but always to Under-Secretary Dr. Freisler. The rest then was a matter for the Under-Secretary Freisler who evidently, concerning all matters which had to be signed by the Reich Minister of Justice, at the time reported Court No. 3, Commission III to Under-Secretary Schlegelberger.
I never reported on these decrees to Under-Secretary Schlegelberger.
Q. Dr. Suchomel, we are not at the moment concerned with to whom you reported. We are concerned with whether or not in your opinion the statutes which you just read from the official legislation organ before you were concerned with criminal matters or civil matters. Which were they?
A. Well, those matters, no doubt, dealt with penal legislation, I must point that out, dates from that period when Under-Secretary Schlegelberger had the direction. This morning I only said that I, as a member of the penal division, only dealt with Under-Secretary Freisler.
Q. Yes, doctor, I believe we understand that now. Thank you. Now will you hand this to the witness.
(Witness is given document)
Now, Dr. Suchomel, will you please describe that paper which you hold in your hand. Tell the court what it is.
A. To the Reich Minister and Chief -- The Reich Minister of Justice, entrusted with the conduct of affairs, Berlin 29 October 1941. To the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Berlin, W-8, Voss strasse 6. Re: Penal Matters against the Jew Luftglas. Luftglas not Luftgas. SC-12, GS 304041, Senior Public Prosecutor in Kattowitz.
Q. One moment, Dr. Suchomel, does that appear to be a letter with the letterhead which you have just read?
A. Yes, that is a letter with a letterheading.
Q. Now who signed the letter?
A. It is Schlegelberger's signature.
Q. What is the subject of the letter?
A. The Case Against the Jew Luftglas.
Q. Would you say that was a criminal matter or a civil matter, doctor?
A. That is a criminal case, but from the District Kattowitz.
Q. Your Honors, for your information, the document from which the witness just read was Exhibit 88, which is already before the Court Court No. 3, Commission III.
in evidence.
Now, Dr. Suchomel, this morning you similarly stated with regard to the defendant Rothenberger that while ho was Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Justice, he was concerned with civil matters as distinguished from criminal. Did you not?
A. Under-Secretary Rothenberger on principle only dealt with civil matters. With every Under-Secretary, it was possible that reports had to be made about penal matters too, in particular when death sentences were concerned, and when the Minister could not be reached. For a while, Under-Secretary Rothenberger was the only Under-Secretary, if I remember correctly, and minister Thierack ordered that penal matters on principle were to be submitted to him. But it is altogether possible and even probable that when the Minister could not be reached individual cases were reported on to Dr. Schlegelberger, in particular death sentences. I, myself, believe that I can testify that I never reported on such penal cases to him. But I must say that it is altogether possible and even probable that in the absence of the Minister, urgent cases were reported on to Under-Secretary Rothenberger. But I cannot say anything in virtue of my own observations. And I took good care, as a witness, not to testify to anything which I do not know from my own observations. That fact that --
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Witness, may I ask you one question. Pardon the interruption. In so far as the testimony may show that Dr. Schlegelberger and Dr. Rothenberger dealt with criminal matters, you would not say that they had exceeded their legal authority, would you; that is, that they had violated their duty in dealing with criminal matters?
COMMISSION III CASE III
A No, I did not mean to say that; certainly it is not an infringement of duty; that was entirely a distribution work inside the Ministry, but the government position of Under Secretary properly placed the duty on him to deal with matters were concerned, he was tied by the instructions of the Minister, and I know from my own observation that Minister Thierack when he took over office, when Rothenberger appeared, that he reserved penal matters to himself. I can only repeat that when the Minister was not available, no doubt the Under Secretary did decide on urgent penal matters.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is all, Your Honors.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
BRUNO GRUENWALD; a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE HARDING:
Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
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.)
You may be seated.
EXAMINATION BY DR. ASCHENAUER: (Attorney for Defendant Petersen)
Q Witness, please give your name.
A My name is Bruno Gruenwald; I was born on 18 December, 1879 in Berlin; I am an attorney at law, at Wilmersdorf, Laubenheimerstrasse 24.
Q When were you admitted as a defense counsel for the People's Court?
A From 1934 until the beginning of 1945.
Q The cross examination refers to an affidavit in Document Book Volume VII-A, NG-535, Exhibit 283. Witness, were you an officially appointed or freely chosen defense counsel?
COMMISSION III CASE III
A In most cases I was appointed official defense counsel. I had some, but only a few cases where I was chosen defense counsel.
Q Do you know the conditions for admission as defense counsel before the People's Court?
A No, I am not acquainted with them personally. I was entered in the list of defense counsel at the suggestion of the Lawyers Chamber, without having made an application myself.
Q Were all officially appointed defense counsel party members?
A No, I myself was not a party member either; and I know of several other colleagues who were not party members and did not belong to any formation of the party.
Q For what reasons were free defense counsel rejected?
A I do not know any details; the fact that free defense counsel were rejected has to be admitted; whether political reliability or other reasons were decisive never became known to me in detail.
Q How many lawyers' letters did you receive?
A I only received one lawyers' letter.
Q Can you remember whether in that letter there were instructions and orders?
A No; as I convinced myself yesterday when I looked at a copy, only clemancy pleas were discussed which probably had not found the approval of Minister of Justice, Thierack; further more, I remember since yesterday I saw the copy that I was somewhat shocked by a remark at the end of the lawyers' letter to the effect that the Ministry of Justice was about to make a statement, and as I said in my affidavit I apparently drew the conclusion that certain restrictions of the clemancy pleas were about to be made.
Q For the purpose of clarifying this case, I would ask you to look at and read out the text under figure 7 in the Lawyer's Letter which deals with that case.
AA basket maker who was defended by an attorney was, because COMMISSION III CASE III of resistance to the authority of the State, and because of offensive behavior sentenced to three weeks in prison; he had tried, when he was drunk, at a prohibited spot, to pass across a railway track, and when railroad officials tried to stop him, he had become offensive; at the same place he had behaved in an offensive manner to people who passed the prison sentence because the defendant had four previous convictions for physical attacks on his superiors, and because formerly he had been sentenced to a prison sentence because he had been away from his army unit without leave.
His defense counsel, in a clemancy plea, asked that the prison sentence should be changed to a fine, and pointed out that the person sentenced was at the time a driver with his own horses, and would suffer severe economic damage if he had to go to prison. He also pleaded that he had been dismissed from the army because he was feebleminded, and that the offense, therefore, was not of such a great nature. When the appeal was refused by the prosecution, he complained and stated as a reason for his complaint that this was a tragic case and that it was due to the conditions of the time; that an offense of this character in times of peace are punishable by a small fine; and that today such crimes are frequently considered a capital crime; that that is due to the general nervousness of which the courts are not free either; which, however, just as the many private law suits show the sense of humor is lacking which reduces things of that kind to their proper proportion.
Q Further criticism you find here;
AA sense of humor certainly is not to be suppressed in difficult times, but only where it is in its proper place; if a defense counsel in a court or a prosecution would be charged with lack of humor because of a defendant who shocked him in his statement of intoxication and becomes offensive to other people, and resists the police and then receives his proper punishment, that is incomprehensible. The defense counsel should have remembered that in the fifth year of COMMISSION III CASE III war judges and prosecutors should not be bothered with inappropriate clemancy pleas about which a great deal more has to be said.
The lawyer would have done better if he had explained to his client who has repeatedly made himself offensive how to behave nowadays rather than by his erronious statements to back him up.
Q You can confirm expressly, therefore, that no instructions were contained in that letter?
A I have not seen an instruction in this, but I suppose that an attempt was to be made in some way to issue instructions in that direction to the defense counsel.
Q You never received another lawyer's letter, did you?
A No.
Q But that lawyer's letter from which you have read, did it express criticism that the appointed defense counsel before the People's Court, did not exhaust all possibilities for defending their clients?
A No, I did not come across that; I did not see that in the lawyer's letter.
Q Did the lawyers have to follow instructions?
A No, and I would have refused to do that, because I have always considered the principle of free advocacy decisive.
Q Therefore, the provisions of the Lawyers regulations still applied?
A Yes.
Q. Do you know whether the lay judges at the People's Court received the judges letters?
A. I do not know about that, but I assume so because all judges are said to have received these letters from the Ministry of Justice.
Q. From what do you deduce that?
A. From the general designation, 'judge's letters', and from the fact that I was told that such letters were sent to the judges.
Q. You have no personal knowledge on that point?
A. No.
Q. Did a proceeding before the People's Court follow the Code of Penal Procedure?
A. Yes, they did, and they followed procedures which had been laid down especially for the People's Court. Generally speaking, it was an abbreviated trial. It was even possible to come to an immediate decision on t he case at the trial.
Q. Were provisions of the Penal Code, apart from some special cases, in general applied?
A. Yes, I can say that. Generally speaking the defendant and the defense counsel were heard in full.
Q. Did Freisler, in principal, show disrespect to the law of the defendants or did he only do so in special cases?
A. I should like to split up my answer. When Freisler, assumed his office, it was his custom to lot the defendant have their full say, but as time went on he had his definite moments when he interrupted the defendant occasionally so that that must be regarded as a curtailment of the defense. In particular concerning the cases which since 1947 became more and more frequently, the cases of undermining the defensive strength.
Q. Did Freisler allow the defendants to ask the witnesses questions, and the defendants in the People's Court could speak freely and heard freely there?