Q. Who in the RSHA, witness, who gave you and your superior that assurance?
A. That was a Gruppenfuehrer Mueller, Gruppenfuehrer Nebe and Gruppenfuehrer Streckenbach. Those were the three gruppenfuehrers with whom my department chief and I had spoken at that time.
Q. Could you tell the Tribunal, witness, what were the positions of the three gruppenfuehrers whom you have mentioned.
A. Gruppenfuehrer Mueller was in charge of the supervision of the Gestapo. Gruppenfuehrer Nebe was in charge of the Reich Criminal Police office and Streckenbach was in charge, if I remember correctly, of the personnel office in the RSHA.
Q. Those, therefore, were the three offices who would have been entitled to give information about the plans of the secret state police of Gestapo?
A. Yes.
Q. How can you explain then that knowledge of such plans was only reserved to some gentlemen in the Reich Ministry of Justice whereas from others it was kept strictly secret?
A. That was an application of a general principle, that all matters knowledge of which was not immediately necessary, were not to be divulged to subordinate offices. To carry out the transfer of prisoners it was sufficient that we be informed that the police just wanted to have the prisoners as laborers and I do not know whether and to what extent that was not the intention, that is, to use these prisoners just to work. At any rate about any conferences among the Chiefs of the individual offices, such as the conference between the Minister and the Reich Fuehrer SS, about these conferences, we were never informed, so that about the background and the underlying reasons and intentions for these directives we were not informed.
Q. Witness, then I should like to discuss another document With you. It is document NG 598, Exhibit 266. It is in the document book 4-A on page 63 in the German book and 68 in the English book. May I describe the document briefly to you. It is a letter with the heading, Chief Reich Prosecutor at the Peoples' Court of March 1943, and it is directed to the Commander of the camp Eich, camp Rothaug in Rhine-Hesse.
THE PRESIDENT: It was signed by Barnickel, was it? Was it signed by Barnickel?
DR. TIPP: Yes, Your Honor.
Q. May I ask you, witness, to look at this document and then to answer the following question, This document mentions a number of directives, among others, a directive by the Reich Minister of Justice, and I want to ask you, therefore, whether this decision on the part of the department for the Execution binding of Punishment was a decision made by the Reich Minister or was there any possibility for any initiative on the part of the department for the execution of punishment?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: At this time, I object, your Honor, for the reason that the answer as given to the question will produce evidence which is purely irrelevant and immaterial because whether or not he was bound is not pertinent as a defense. If it is offered as mitigation, I shall withdraw the objection.
DR. TIPP: May I briefly reply, I have put two questions and asked the witness -- I mentioned two possibilities and asked the witness to decide to answer in one or the other sense. It is no leading question. That it is important I believe I do not have to emphasize. The letter incriminated the defendant Dr. Barnickel and there is a great difference whether the man who signs the letter ever makes a decision he has to make because the law provides he does do so or whether he makes a decision on the basis of his own initiative because he considers it the thing to do.
THE PRESIDENT: Doesn't the law speak for itself as to whether it is mandatory or not?
DR. TIPP: If the Tribunal is of the opinion that that document speaks for itself, then I can only answer, I understand the question to mean that the Court agrees with me that it was mandatory; if I understand you correctly, Mr. President, then, of course, the question is unnecessary.
THE PRESIDENT: The suggestion was that the document speaks for itself. There was no suggestion as to what it says when it speaks. If you want to go into the matter of mitigation, the witness may answer.
A This shows that the institution, penal institution, in various cases asked for decisions as to whether the time during the war should be counted. The Chief Reich prosecutor said that that decision which was mandatory as such would not serve the purpose in the case of Poles because these Poles, if they had sentences over three years, had to be transferred. Therefore, he suggests not to make a decision of that kind, and to postpone that decision until a later date because for the time being an interruption of the serving of the sentence and a transfer had to be carried out.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q Witness, you mention an interruption of the term. May I ask you still, can you see from this document whether the authority for the execution of punishment anticipated that the sentenced Poles later would be brought back into the Administration of Justice?
A Well, this letter by the Chief Reich Prosecutor states: "In the case of Poles who will have to undergo more than three years, it seems to me appropriate to postpone the considering of the term of punishment, which is also stated in a circular decree issued by the Reich Ministry of Justice. That shows that the Chief Reich Prosecutor believed that at a later date such a reconsidering of the term was necessary but that could only be done if after the war, the Poles were actually brought back to the Administration of Justice.
Q Thank you witness. Then I have no further questions, Mr. Hecker.
A May it please the court, may I make just one more remark concerning one statement made by the defense counsel? He said that I was the Chief of the Department for Execution of Punishment. That is not correct in this form. I was in that department. I was one referant in the Department of Penal Administration and had to deal with cases concerning Polish prisoners but I was not the chief of the department or the sub-department.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Interpreter, there has been reference to an official by a name which we find it difficult to understand. It sounds like "Rechtspfleser." What was that title?
A Your Honor, it was a Rechtspfleger. That was an inspector, or a senior inspector, who is in charge of the office and has certain functions concerning the execution of punishment.
THE PRESIDENT: You explained that. I want to ask you, who was his immediate superior?
A The immediate superior of the Rechtspfleger was the prosecutor but the Rechtspfleger in this capacity had the right to act independently within his sphere.
THE PRESIDENT: Who desires to "cross examine" this witness next -to conduct a direct examination next? Dr. Marx.
BY DR. MARX (Counsel for defendant Engert):
Q Witness, what can you tell us about the organization of Department V of the Reich Ministry of Justice? Did you understand my question?
A Yes, Division V, Penal Administration, was subdivided......
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Just a moment. Your Honors, please, I am advised that this witness has already testified completely as to the organization of Department V and that also there is a chart which shows the organization of that department. For that reason, I think it is purely cumulative and objective.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be necessary. It may be necessary to have reference to tho transcript but my recollection is that this witness who has been on the stand now for the third time has already testified concerning the organization of that department. Am I in error, gentlemen? This is the third time he has been examined.
DR. MARX: Excuse me, Mr. President. I have a definite purpose with that introduction because the connections between Department V and Department XV are to be explained and also the connection with Department IV. That is why I chose this introductory question.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, at the risk of unnecessary repetition, you may proceed. I think that has also been covered, however, so do it briefly, please.
A Division V was subdivided into various general referats, operations, penal administration regulations, budget, payroll and the local referats dealing with matters of the various districts of the Courts of Appeal.
Q What can you tell us about the delimitation of Division V, Penal Execution, and Division IV, Penal Administration?
A In Division IV execution of punishment was dealt with as against penal administration; that is to say, supervision and the carrying out of all measures during imprisonment, which were dealt with in Department V.
Q Thank you. At what time Mr. President, was Department Division XV established?
A Division XV was established in the Fall of 1942.
Q Are you not in a position to give us the exact date?
A It was established on the occasion of the circular decree concerning it's establishment. At what time it was -- it may nave been in October or the beginning of November 1942.
Q The decree was issued on the 22nd, October, wasn't it, Doctor, and when was it distributed?
A It was signed finally on the 22nd of October.
Q Yes, it was signed and when did it come into force?
A It was in force immediately.
Q Now, what were, briefly stated, the tasks of Department XV?
A Department or Division XV had to select those individual prisoners who had to be transferred and where that transfer could not be established on general lines but the cases had to be dealt with individually.
Q To what extent was the decree of the 22nd of October 1942 carried out, in Department XV and to what extent in Department V?
A Department V had to handle the transfer of those in safety custody, security detainees, unless individual cases had to be investigated; in addition the transfer of Poles, Jews, Russians and Gypsies; whereas Division XV had to deal with the security detainees, where doubt existed as to whether they should be considered as a-socials, in addition to cases of prisoners who had terms over eight years and had been designated as a-socials by the people in charge of the penal institution.
Q Mr. Senate President, what do you know about an agreement between Himmler and Thierack on the basis of which Thierack agreed with the point of view of the police and ordered the transfer of all asocials to the police. When was that arrangement made, and was the defendant Engert at that time already in the Reich Ministry of Justice?
AArrangements between Minister Thierack and Himmler must have been made before that circular decree of 22 October 1942 was drafted. That circular decree was submitted to us by the Department IV which had first worked on it, to supplement it regarding those provisions which were of importance for the department of penal administration, our department. Ministerialdirector Engert came into the Ministry when that decree was drafted, whether he had taken over Department XV before the decree was finally signed, I could not tell. At any rate he participated in the preliminary conferences, as can be seen from the decree itself where reference is made to discussions concerning the transfer of prisoners.
Q What is the specific point upon which you base these conclusions, Mr. President?
A In the circular decree itself it is stated, concerning prisoners with terms of over eight years, we referred to discussions we have had. Therefrom I conclude that discussions had been held in which he participated; whether he himself co-signed the decree I could not tell you; I no longer remember that.
Q Department V and XV, which were under Engert, did they deal with Night and Fog prisoners, if so, to what extent?
A Only Department V had to do with that. Department V dealt with Nacht und Nebel cases already in the year 1941; and XV had nothing to do with them.
Q Can you still recall the meeting in the fall of 1945 in the armed forces legal office of the OKW?
A In 1944.
Q Yes, 1944.
A In 1944, a confenrence took place to discuss the transfer of cases which were pending before a civilian court concerning NN matters. Hitler had ordered at that time that the cases then pending concerning NN prisoners should no longer be handled by the armed forces or the Administration of Justice, but that in the future the police, the Gestapo, had to handle them.
Q Was it also discussed as to how evacuation of penal institutions should take place?
AAt the same time it was provided that the prisoners were to be transferred, after the cases had been transferred, since they were no longer prisoners of the Administration of Justice; they became prisoners in protective custody; it was no longer a regular court procedure. Therefore, in the same manner as the cases were transferred from the Administration of Justice, they became police cases of some form, and so had to be handled by some office of the police.
Q May I ask you, witness, who attended that meeting, on the part of the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A That meeting was attended by von Ammon and myself.
Q For that department were you there?
A I was there for department V.
Q Had you been sent there just as an observer, or did you have any right to take part in the decisions?
A Both of us had gone first to find out what it was all about. We could not see from the invitation we had received what it was about. We could not make any decisions; only the minister could do that later, but as far as the basic question was concerned, Department IV was the one that was supposed to act.
Q Do you have any knowledge about the evacuation of penal institutions in case of danger from the enemy?
A For the transfer of institutions, for the purpose of evacuation, the general principle was to be applied that prisoners, just as free people, foreigners or others, that any person that should not fall into the hands of the enemy, should be evacuated in time before occupation by the enemy would occur.
That was a general principle, which, in the form of a directive, had been brought to the attention of all ministries.
Q Towards the end of the war, was a specific decisions reached in that question?
A No, such questions were discussed if and when in individual cases the threat of the enemy became imminent, but in general the evacuation took place before, as for instance, in the east when a general withdrawel took place, the institutions were evacuated, and the prisoners were transported either by rail or by foot marches and were brought into the interior. In the same manner it was done in the western territories, and for that purpose the districts which were under imminent threat received appropriate instructions.
Q On the part of the Prosecution it has been asserted that a directive was sent out that under certain circumstances such prisoners were to be shot or liquidated if it was no longer possible to evacuate them in time. Do you happen to know anything about that?
A The Prosecution showed me -- actually showed me a directive of that kind which was sent to the general public prosecutor in Linz. Before that I had not known about it.
A It was also unknown to you that Engert may have been connected with it?
A Yes. I did not know about any such directive. I did not know any such directive had been sent to the general public prosecutor.
DR. MARX: I have no further questions to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other counsel for a defendant desire to examine upon direct examination? It appears that the direct examination is closed you may cross-examine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q Witness, will you tell the court when you left the Nuernberg prison and went over to the witness house?
A On the 13th of May.
Q Will you test the English channel.
A That was on the 13th of May.
Q 1947?
A Yes.
Q Thank you. This prosecutor Hansen in Berlin about whom you said you had a conversation with the defendant Klemm. Do you know how long he had known the defendant Klemm -- do you know anything about that?
A Both of them had worked in the Party Chancery together; I could not tell you for how long they were there together.
Q Yes, that is the same man that worked at Munich in the Party Chancery during part of the time that Klemm was there; is that your understanding? Is that right?
A Yes. He was in charge of a department there at the same time when Klemm was in charge of the Justice Department of the Party Chancery.
Q Now, I think you said that the difference between the ordinary prisons and the camps which were provided for Poles, was a difference in name only. Then, you also, in discussing Exhibit 267, I believe stated that had to do with the case of transfer of three Poles and that it was a compulsory transfer. Can you tell me why, then it was necessary to make a compulsory transfer and to send a special order though in the case of the Poles, if there was no difference between the prison sentences or the treatment which Poles received in prison and that which Germans received in prison?
A That change from penitentiary and prison to penal camps did not only have a technical importance, but was also important concerning the further consequences of a sentence--the additional consequence of the verdict; it was the type of the punishment that was pronounced by the verdict. Therefore, Figure 7 of the penal administration regulations concerning Poles provides that all prisoners who heretofore had been in prisons or penitentiaries should be called penal camp prisoners from now on.
The institutions themselves did not change. Therefore, the people actually remained in the same institutions which now simple had the designation Stammlager, and no longer were called prisons. Concerning the technical side, that transfer into the penal administration of a camp had no significance, but as far as the records were concerned, it said there now no longer sentenced to prison term but to a penal camp.
Q. Yes; and you interpreted Exhibit 266 which Dr. Tipp handed you, NG-598, which was a letter of the 8th of March 1943, addressed to-
Am I right, Dr. Tipp? Listen to this please-- addressed to the defendant Barnickel from a commander of a camp in Eich/Hesse Is that correct?
Q. (Continuing) You stated that that effected a transfer of the control of the Pole and that there was a very technical legal question involved as to whether the Pole would be returned to the Ministry of Justice after the war.
What would happen if the Pole died in the camp and never got back to the Ministry of Justice after the war?
A. Well, it was this way.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I object to this question as to what world have happened if a man died. That is no question the witness has to answer. Mr. Prosecutor knows that just as well as the Court and all of us in this room.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained.
The letter, according to our notes, Mr. La Follette, was signed by the defendant Barnickel and not written to him. Perhaps we are in error, but our notes indicate that.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I am glad to note that. My notes indicated that it was addressed to him by a man in Hesse, but I apparently wrote mine hurriedly. Was it to Barnickel or from Barnickel?
(Dr. Tipp and Mr. La Fottette conferred)
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I am mistaken.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. The Ministry of Justice could exercise no control over this Pole until after he was sent back from the camp; that is correct, isn't it?
A. Yes; it was this way. The moment the prisoner was transferred, he was outside of the control of the Ministry of Justice.
Then the Chief Reich Prosecutor said; "On the question as to how the term has to be counted, I should like to postpone that until he comes back under the control of the Administration of Justice, because as long as he is not under the control of the Administration of Justice, that would have no purpose." However, if he says, in the letter to Camp Eich, "I should like to reconsider the question later", then that, in my opinion, reveals that he believes that later the prisoner mighty be re-transferred to continue serving his term in that institution under the Administration of Justice, that is, after the war.
Q. Yes. Now, if a Pole were sentenced to death by the People's Court, who was officially responsible for executing the sentence?
A. For the execution of the sentence? Well, the execution of death sentences was handled in Department IV of the Ministry of Justice and in Department V; and clemency matters in the case of Poles or sentences against Poles were in part handled by the Gauleiters as far as I know, not having had anything to do with that subject in particular.
Q. And the order of execution under the statute which Dr. Tipp read to you came from the prosecutor's office attached to the particular court; in this case it would be the Reich Prosecutor in charge of prosecutions at the People's Court, would it not?
A. Yes, in that case it was ordered that the person should no longer serve his term in a penitentiary but in a severe penal camp. Then the institution gave the information that an interruption of the term had to take place upon a directive from the Ministry. That was the second document.
Q. Apparently I did not make myself clear. In the case of a death sentence by the People's Court, who ordered the execu tion, the defendant Lautz?
A. Yes, yes, That was the Reich prosecution.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is all.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Mr. Witness, you referred to a distinction between punishment and severe punishment in various institutions. What was the difference in the character of severe punishment from the character of punishment?
A. For severe punishment, severe penalty camps, it was intended that the prisoners should be used for difficult work. It was intended that those prisoners who had to serve severe punishment should do especially hard work, possibly under worse health conditions, for instance, work in humid areas in the fields, and so on. That was the practical difference, that the more severe punishment should be undergone by way of more difficult work. In practice, however, that distinction was hardly ever applied. In fact, sometimes both types of prisoners were kept in the same institutions, that is, those who had been sentenced to penal camps and those who had been sentenced to severe penal camps. It was intended to make a difference, but in practice these differences hardly ever arose.
Q. What were the camps which were intended for the severe punishment? What were the names of them?
A. These camps all had the same designation. According to the decree concerning the Poles they were called Stammlager, basic camps. There was one branch of a large institution where this hard work had to be done and where prisoners were used who had sentences for hard punishment. That was the intention, but in practice this could not be carried out to any large extent because the allocation of prisoners had to be made on the basis of their capability to work and their qualifications and therefore that other question, as to whether they were sentenced to normal punishment or severe punishment, could not be taken into account to the fullest extent.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it that the examination is closed.
Do you desire to conduct a re-direct examination?
DR. GRUBE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You will limit it to the scope of the questions that were asked on cross-examination?
DR. GRUBE: Yes. I should like to follow up the last question put by the prosecutor as to who was competent to order the execution of death sentences.
BY DR. GRUBE:
Q. Witness, is it correct that in the case of every death sentence the transcript of the sessions had to be sent to the Ministry of Justice?
A. Yes, is ixplicitly stated in the code of criminal procedure that an execution was only possible after a decision had been reached on the clemency question. First one had to decide whether one should execute or not, and that question, of course, was decided by the Ministry of Justice.
Q. Witness, you just referred to a provision. I will read to you paragraph 453 of Code of Criminal Procedure: "Death sentences do not need any confirmation for their execution. The execution, however, can only take place after the decision of the competent authorities has been made that they do not want to make use of the right for clemency."
That provision is number 453. Is that the one you referred to?
A. Yes, that is the one I mean.
Q. One other question, witness. Would you explain to the Tribunal who, in the case of death sentence, was competent to decide whether the right for clemency applied or not?
A. That was, in principle, the supreme office in the State the head of the State, and during the war that was delegated to the Minister of Justice. Before the war the head of the State had to decide whether the death sentence was to be executed or not.
Q. But under no circumstances was the Chief Reich Prosecutor that competent authority?
A. No.
Q. Consequently, according to Paragraph 453, the death sentence could only be executed if Hitler, that is to say, the Ministry of Justice, had explicitly stated that they did not want to make use of the right for clemency?
A. Yes; there had to be a decision on the part of the Ministry of Justice, and the instruction that the death sentence had to be executed.
Q. Witness, do you happen to know that together with that decision on the part of Hitler or the Ministry of Justice, according to which no use would be made of the right for clemency, at the same time or immediately thereafter the order for execution from the Ministry of Justice came to the various prosecutions, that is to say, to the Chief Reich Prosecutions?
A. Yes; he was charged by the Ministry of Justice with the execution.
Q. That is to say, the Ministry of Justice gave the order for the execution?
A. Yes, it gave the order for the execution and sent that order to the Chief Reich Prosecutor for execution.
Q. The activity of the Chief Reich Prosecutor or Chief Prosecutor then consisted soley in executing the order which was sent to him by the Ministry, is that correct, witness?
A. Well, this is the way it happened. The Chief Reich Prosecutor for carrying out the execution did not have any right to decision on his part.
Q. Do you happen to know of one case, Witness, where the chief Reich Prosecutor on his own ordered the execution of a death sentence?
A. He could not do that, according to the provision.
DR. GRUBE: Thank you. I have no further questions.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I would like to ask one question now if I may.
THE PRESIDENT: We will hear your question and then rule on it.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Witness, I would like to know definitely whether the Ministry of Justice, the Chief Public Prosecutor at the People's Court or this man that you describe as a Rechtspfleger made the final decision. I have heard you say three different things and I want to know which it is.
A. In case of the death sentence, the Rechtspfleger could not make any decision. Only in case of other sentences. In the case of the death sentence he could not make any decisions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any redirect examination? It will be limited to matters covered by the previous cross examination.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, it was just pointed out to me that concerning a document which I put to the witness there was an error when Mr. LaFollette discussed it. Maybe it was just a misunderstanding. It is document NG 614, Exhibit 267. From that volume I put to the witness a letter from 15 January 1943. It has the heading Office "Stammlager Schiratz" and is addressed to the Chief Reich Prosecutor with the People's Court. The text of that letter is "Upon directive by the Reichsminister of Justice the execution of sentence on the above mentioned prisoner is to be interrupted.
He was handed over today to the Gestapo Litzmannstadt for the purpose of transfer to the concentration camp Auschwitz. I understood from the statements made by Mr. LaFollette that he assumed that Dr. Barnickel with this letter had ordered the transfer of the sentenced Pole through the Gestapo to the concentration camp. May I clarify that question with the assistance of the witness? I have discussed the document already with the witness.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Dr. Hecker, is it correct that according to the contents of this letter the transfer to the Gestapo was carried out by the camp without Dr. Barnickel having had anything to do with it before it actually took place?
A. Barnickel had ordered the transfer into a severe penal camp, but not the interruption. The interruption, about that he was informed.
DR. TIPP: Thank you. Thank you, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I think we can finish the witness Miethsam in ten minutes if the Court will hear him.
THE PRESIDENT: You have ten minutes. You may call him.
WILHEIM MIETHSAM, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BLAIR: Hold up your right hand and be sworn.
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 BLAIR: You may be seated.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Dr. Miethsam, in your affidavit, which is Schlegelberger Exhibit No. 74 before this Tribunal, you stated that from 1938 until the end of the war you were a personnel officer in the Ministry of Justice in Berlin for judges and prosecutors of the Bavarian Court of Appeals districts and you also stated that such personnel matters as those in the Bavarian area were under the over-all control of the defendant Schlegelberger as to matters of personnel.
Now in connection with your personnel work concerning the Bavarian area and judges and prosecutors in that area do you know what year Oswald Rothaug was appointed president of the Nuremberg Special Court?
A. I know that Roghaug in the soring of 1937 came to Nuremberg as director of the district court. When he was appointed president of the Special Court I do not know. That was the responsibility of the president of the district Court Of Appeals. I assume, however, that that happened immediately after he was appointed director of the District Court in Nuremberg.
Q. Well, now, Dr. Miethsam, any time after this occurred, namely, the appointment of Rothaug as president of the Special Court, at any time thereafter if Roghaug's work as a judge had not been acceptable to Schlegelberger, what could Schlegelberger have done about it?
A. Well, Undersecretary Schlegelberger either could have initiated disciplinary proceedings if there was a cause for that, or he could have charged the president of the District Court of Appeals not to appoint him on the next occasion as presiding judge of the Special Court. As long as the minister was still in office he would have needed for that purpose the approval of the minister, of course.
Q. Dr. Miethsam, at any time after the occurrence in 1939 which you mentioned in your affidavit, at any time after that did you in your capacity as personnel officer for judges learn of any action taken against Oswald Rothaug by Undersecretary Schlegelberger?
A. Nothing is known to me on that point?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is all, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it there is no redirect examination? I am treating the affidavit as the direct examination. The witness then is excused.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I had intended -- Mr. President, I had intended to get from Dr. Miethsam an affidavit for my client, Dr. Barnickel. Maybe it would serve the purpose much better if I would put the questions now. I do not know whether the code of procedure permits that.
THE PRESIDENT: This witness is here. We don't want any affidavits introduced by him after he has been an the witness stand. You can ask him the questions now if you desire. If any one should present an affidavit from this witness again and if it should be received, that would require bringing him back again for cross-examination, and that is not a procedure to be approved. You may examine him.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Dr. Miethsam, since when have you known Dr. Barnickel?
A. I couldn't tell you the date exactly, but his name has been known to me since I worked at Munich. That is since about 1929. I met him personally much later.
Q. From the time when you were personnel referent, do you remember anything about the career of Dr. Barnickel, the official career?
A. I followed it from time to time when he became Senior Prosecutor at the District Court in Munich II.
Q. Could you please tell me when that was?
A. No, I can't tell you whether it was before 1933 or after 1933.
Q. It was on 1 August, 1934, witness. You do not happen to know his career before that in detail?
A. I do not know details, but it probably was the usual career, in Bavaria, being prosecutor and judge alternately.
Q. You mean to say that that was the custom in Bavaria at that time to be alternately judge and prosecutor?
A. Yes, certainly. For those legal officials who had a good mark on their examination, the so-called Prosecutor's mark.