That is by way of description as to what the Reichs Gestz Blatt is.
The Prosecution at this time offers into evidence, as Exhibit No. 112, Document NG-715, which is Document Book II in its entirety.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the bench and the defense would please turn to Document Book III-A.
THE PRESIDENT: That has not been distributed to the bench.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We have a receipt to the effect that it was received by the German Information Center and the Secretary General on Saturday.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: I only received Book II this morning.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We have a receipt signed by the Defense Information Cent and the Secretary General that on 1700, 14 March, Book III-A and III-B were delivered in the requisite number of copies.
THE PRESIDENT: It is possible that those books were distributed to our rooms instead of the bench.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Court please, until those books are delivered, the Prosecution is unable to proceed further.
MR. WANDSCHNEIDER: (Attorney for Defendant Rothenberger) I ask you to excuse me if I again mention technical questions in regard to the material and the difficulties for the defense, if these documents are discussed and referred to in Document Book II.
The German Reichs Gesetz Blatt is at your disposal every day in this case; however, it is the case that most of the Defense Counsel do not have all the legal literature, including the Reichs Gesetz Blaetter because we lost them, and the Defense Counsel throughout will have to use a library which is very insufficient for our purpose Therefore, it would not be possible for us, if the fifteen or so of us have to use one copy cf the text of the legal code in order to follow the proceedings.
Therefore, from the point of view of the Defense, it is necessary in our opinion that at least the extent of the text which will be read should be known to use at least a few days before so that we can master the material, which in view of the conditions which I have just described would otherwise not be possible. I believe that it would not be difficult for the Prosecution to give us, tell us, all of the laws which they will read in advance -tell us in advance what they will read. I would like to ask the Prosecution for this.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Court please, we realize the shortness of library facilities, and the Prosecution will undertake to file with Defense Counsel through appropriate channels, in writing, a list of citations of every section and of every paragraph of each of the laws cited in the Table of Contents which are already in their possession. They should have that in the next day or so, so that they will have adequate preparation in view of the restricted number of books. The Prosecution will undertake to furnish that. Has Document III-A been delivered yet?
THE PRESIDENT: Not to the bench. Mr. Wooleyhan, may I suggest that you be given the recess time to look these up. We will take a 15 minute recess at this time.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Thank you.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: Military Tribunal 3 is again in session.
DR. BRIEGER: I would like, in the name of my colleagues, to make the following declaration. The gentlemen of the prosecution cannot overlook the fact that there are technical difficulties at hand for us--that is to say, for the defending counsel--when the way is taken which is proposed by the prosecution. We of the defending counsel have definitely agreed about this fact, which is of great significance to us for the entire running of the process, and which is probably decisive for the sentences. Those German laws which are admissible for use here in the proceedings, which are being discussed by the prosecution--if this way is taken which had been proposed by the prosecution, then it would be necessary for every one of us, the defending counsel, on the particular day of the proceedings, to take along our secretaries in order to write this down, as we must immediately check the material. This would probably not be permissible, because of lack of space.
For that reason, we would like to propose that the prosecution tell us, several days before-hand, which laws are going to be discussed here, so that these laws will be duplicated by us and that--which is very important--the German text will always be compared with the English text which has been worked out by the English interpreters.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, the request by the defense is apparently a continuation of a similar request made before the recess, that first request being a list of the paragraph and section numbers of the various statutes which the prosecution intends to quote. That we agreed to furnish. In addition, we will also comply with the most recent request of defense counsel, which is notice, at least a day in advance or as far in advance as the pro secution can make it, beyond a day, as to what statutes and portions thereof we intend to introduce in the future.
That we will also undertake to furnish, and we think that without doubt we can let defense Know the paragraph number and section number of each statute we intend to refer to two or three days in advance, each time, of the time when it will be introduced in Court. Is that sufficient?
DR. BRIEGER: I recognize perfectly the good will on the part of the gentlemen of the public prosecution, but the representatives of the defense counsel are of the opinion that two or three days are often not quite sufficient, because you have got to take into consideration that we are occupied by other work as well, and this is a task for us which every one of us must deal with very conscientiously. We would much prefer it if we could have five or ten days' notice, if we could be informed of the necessary material, and if, every time, we could be told of the series of documents before-hand. That is to say, it is of special significance for us that this material be submitted, every time, in the form of documents.
THE PRESIDENT: In the first place, referring to the remark made by counsel who has just spoken, we cannot permit this trial to drag along because counsel may have other business to take care of, if that is what he meant. This trial must be expeditious; it must go forward, and each defense counsel must give this first place in his work. If I correctly understood defense counsel's last remark, that is our answer to that.
Now concerning this document, every part of this document is introduced in evidence, as we understand it, and therefore it seems to the Tribunal that defense counsel can immediately begin to examine these sections and assume that, from time to time, different ones will be introduced, and that possibly eventually all of then may be introduced.
They must make their study of that without delaying these proceedings.
I used the word "introduced", perhaps, when I should have said they would be read from time to time.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I think that probably there is a little misunderstanding. We have felt that book II, which is an English translation of the German law which we have introduced and which we intend to refer to in connection with documents which we will introduce, was not translated as a document or a text into the German. The index of all the German statutes which we translated was furnished. We did not furnish a German verbatim text of each statute, after furnishing the index, for the reason that we were of the opinion that, in a sense, this German law was capable of being proved in the same manner as judicial notice. However, we made up a document and we furnished an index of the sections of the German law to which we refer.
I don't want to mislead the Court, or to take advantage of defense counsel by letting the Court not understand that we have furnished, in German, an index of all the statutes.
Now, we have further agreed that not less than one and, to the best of our ability, two or three days in advance of reading cases from Book III which are related back to the statutes found in Book II, we will lay on the desk of defense counsel not the translations, but the section and article numbers of the Reichsgesetzblatt from which we will read, which I hope and feel is an adequate thing to do.
Now as to today's proceedings, I would like to know this. Were four English translations of Book II delivered to the Defense Center? Did defense counsel get four English translations of Book II?
(Negative nodding of heads by defense counsel)
None at all? They were ordered sent down from the document room on Friday.
Now, as to Book III, have German copies of Books III A and B been received?
(Affirmative nodding of heads by defense counsel)
That is correct; sixteen of those.
Have any English copies of Books III A and B been received?
(Negative nodding of heads)
They have not? I assume they have not, because we had to get four of them and deliver them to the Tribunal.
That, Your Honors, arose out of--it happened, anyhow. We felt that we had directed the document room to deliver Book A in its present condition, notwithstanding the fact that the last document in it mas terribly messed up. We did not want to delay, they could not get the document ready, so we instructed them, in writing, to deliver Books A and B as they were, with the statement that we would later introduce the one document in Book III-A as a separate document so that we could proceed this morning, as we stated we intended to do. We found at noon, or when we started this afternoon, that none of that instruction had been followed out by the document room. Naturally, defense counsel have no English translation of Books III A and B, and I now find no English copies of Book II.
I don't know what to say to the Court, except an accurate explanation of what we did and what we asked to have done. I question whether it is fair to ask defense counsel to proceed without English copies of Book II at least, and without English copies of Books III A and B, under the rules requiring 24 hours. We tried to comply with the rules and in this instance--also for the protection of Mr. Nesbit-there has been no slip up in the Secretary General's office.
I did refer, before noon, to the fact that we do have receipts for certain documents in English which we delivered to the Defense Center, which apparently were not distributed to the Defense Center. I don't know what the situation is with reference to Book II.
There were delivered in English to the Defense Center four copies of Book 2 at 1400 hours on 11 March. Now, my point is that I don't question the statement of defense counsel. I only say that your Defense Center has not distributed that which we put there, and of course to that extent our responsibility ends when we deliver them to the Defense Center. So Book 2 was sent to the Defense Center. Books 3-A and B, apparently the English copy never got any place, despite our request. Now if counsel want us to proceed,--we are in violation of the rules, but we will try to proceed. And if they feel they have to defend themselves and their clients, we will leave it to the Tribunal. I am overwhelmed with embarrassment, but here I am, and I don't think it is my fault.
DR. BRIEGER: I would like to add to what I said. I should like to make a supplement to my statement as regards the field of penal laws. In the last year of the Nazi rule the laws were changed so often that also when all the material was collected, that is to say, in every text of laws which has been submitted here it is of very significant importance that every time it is stated through absolutely correct data the time at which the text of this law was valid, and therefore I request that the possibility is given to us, the defending counsel, to point to it every time changes or alterations, especially these of particular significance, were undertaken during the course of time.
DR. SCHILF (Counsel for Defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg): I would like to add to what my colleague has just stated. In Document Book 2, in the second place, a law of March 1933 is stated. This law has been changed several times, that is to say, through new laws and later on through a completely new edition. It is a particular example that this list of laws is not complete and that it needs to be supplemented.
The question now arises whether we can ask the Prosecutors, in the sense that Dr. Brieger has just suggested it, to give us the particular period of time or whether that is the task of the defense counsel. I myself am of the opinion that the Prosecution is to state the effective time, but I do recognize the extreme difficulties which have arisen as regards the Prosecution, as it is already very difficult for the German lawyers to establish the laws which are changed so much, that we can imagine how difficult it is, and that it is every much more difficult for the Prosecution. I would like to mention it, because as far as we can see, if the Prosecution is going to quote laws, is going to make a discussion about these every time it quotes them, about the question of an alteration and about the question of the effectiveness of time, then I would like to make a personal remark. My colleague Dr. Brieger has previously stated that he requests that the offices of the law which are to be represented should be given five, six, or even eight days' notice and that they should be submitted at so many days' notice, and he has stated that he is of otherwise also very busy. A misunderstanding has occurred in that respect. The President has obviously got the impression that Dr. Brieger is dealing with other things. That is actually not the Case. We are all only employed with the cases which we are here representing. But we have regularly, immediately after the sittings, to confer with our mandates, and that our time is therefore particularly taken into -- it is used in that respect. I would like very much to clarify this misunderstanding.
DR. BRIEGER: My colleague Dr. Schilf has definitely understood me correctly and has expressed my thoughts correctly. I would like now to allow myself to make the following pro position in order that the high court will not be too much burdened with discussions and disputes which arise between.
the Prosecution and the defense counsel as regards the text of the present laws, that the Prosecution declares themselves willing to cooperate with a small commission which is formed on the part of the Prosecution in order that the gentlemen of the Prosecution and also the gentlemen of the defense counsel will always agree about the text which is submitted here to the high court so that discussions and disputes concerning the text at the moment valid can be only submitted to the judges only in those cases where an agreement between the defense counsel and the Prosecution cannot be reached.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I think that can be done, certainly on the question of an agreement as to the comparison of the texts and the translations which we will try to work out, as we told the Court earlier on other translations. With reference to the dates that these acts are effective, when we furnish the information which we will furnish, we will also furnish the date that we rely on that the act became effective. If we are in error, end if subsequently we cite a case and defense counsel believe that there had been an amendment to the law between the time that we rely on the law and the time the case was decided that, of course, again is a matter of evidence, I believe, and goes to the weight of it. When they put in their case in chief I assume that they will say that the case involved in Document No. X relied on by the Prosecution as coming under Law No. 10 is not in point because Law No. 10 was amended before Case No. X was cited. So that we meet that when the defense puts in their proof. If we are wrong on our law dates, that is the burden we will have to assume. On the otherhand, I do not think, and I am perfectly willing that we shall furnish to defense counsel at least a day or two or three days ahead of time the article and section of the act from the Gesetzblatt of the year upon which we rely and the date that we say it became effective.
Yes, Your Honor?
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask a question?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes.
JUDGE BRAND: With reference exclusively to Book 2.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes.
JUDGE BRAND: I understand your difficulties about Book 3.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes.
JUDGE BRAND: Now as to Book 2, is there a German translation of the matter which we have in the English as Book 2, and has that German translation gone to the defense counsel?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: My answer is that there is a German translation of the index of what you have.
JUDGE BRAND: Of Book 2?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Of Book 2. There is not a German translation of the matter which appears after Book 2, and we did not furnish one because we felt that it was a matter, in a sense, of judicial notice that counsel knew what the laws were when we referred to them in the index. Since we may have been wrong, or if that works a hardship, we are now saying as to Book 2 that we will furnish one or two days in advance of the time that we read cases from Book 3, which we believe have been decided under certain laws in Book 2, that we will furnish the year of the Gesetzblatt, the article, the section number, and the date that we think they become effective at least 24 hours before we read them.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you then not offering Book 2?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: At this time? Yes, we are offering Book 2 on the theory that the reasons that normally prevail for complete translation are not present here, but we also cer tainly do not want to work a disadvantage, and the precide statement which I have made with reference to Book 2 as it relates to cases in Book 3 I again reiterate.
Do I understand that there has been a formal objection to the introduction of Book 2 as an exhibit, or has there just been conversations to the way we would proceed?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't understand there has been a formal objection made, but I do understand that the Prosecution has stated that wasn't given to defense counsel under the 24-hour rule.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is correct as far as Book 2 is concerned. No, the English of Book 2 did get to the Defense Center, which is all that the Prosecution is required to do. But the Defense Center didn't distribute them.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Defense Center and defense counsel are, of course, entirely different institutions.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Exactly. I am not blaming defense counsel. I am only saying that under the rule, as I understand it, if we deliver the necessary copies to the Defense Center, then technically we could proceed. If there was actually no distribution in this case, and since Books A and B of 3 have not been distributed, maybe nothing is lost by not proceeding. I don't want to establish the president of putting the burden upon the Prosecution of the activities or failures of activities of the Defense Center, once we deliver the documents to the Defense Center. No do I blame defense counsel if they are not getting properly treated, but our obligation ends when we get them down there.
MR. SHILF: May I add something to that? I should like to take this opportunity to express this in open session. The document department of the Prosecution now gives the document books as Mr. LaFollette just stated to the Information Center of the Defense Counsel. We receive only the German copies there. Up to now, none of us has received an English copy.
Perhaps a solution would be if the Secretary General would be instructed to give us English copies when we get our German copies. Why we have not received them, I cannot say. Obviously, they have been kept back. I have previously asked whether I could have an English copy of the record. That request was refused. If the Secretary General would ask the gentlemen cf the Information Center to give us English copies, our problem might be solved.
The Prosecutor stated that there were only four English copies submitted to Defense Counsel. I could talk to my colleagues and come to an agreement with them about the use of these copies. We could exchange them between ourselves. The person who has the English copies should see that the others are informed of t is. I believe a suggestion or instruction from the Secretary General would be sufficient.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: As I understood the last part cf the request, it was that English copies of the daily transcript be sent to the Defendants' Information Center. While that is not a matter within the range cf the Prosecution, if I may comment, I think it is a fair request. Whatever copies they request should be sent down. The Tribunal has within its power to direct the Secretary General to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal sees no objection to defense counsel having a copy of the daily record of these sessions. We have no objection to it if it can be arranged. We will be glad to accommodate defense counsel.
DR. SCHUBERT: (Counsel for the Defendant Oeschey) May it please the Tribunal, I believe it has not yet been disclosed what difficulties defending counsel are being confronted with.
The German text of Document Book 2 has not been submitted. In the library which has been put at the disposal of defense counsel, there is in every case, if at all, at the most, one copy of the laws which are to be discussed.
Therefore, if we receive a report 24 hours before the discussion what law is to be discussed, then 16 defense counsel would be after the one copy which would have to be taken from the library. It would fall up n us to copy the contents of the law or read the same.
Under normal conditions the laws which are officially announced are correct, but the conditions are such that none of defending counsel present have at their disposal the text of all the laws. We have to rely completely on the library.
Through this objection I would not like to make the situation more difficult. I can see the delays and difficulties which would arise if the Prosecution were asked to copy all the texts into the German language for us. I would therefore like to suggest something which would probably simplify these matters. There are English translations of the text of the Document Book 2. This has been mentioned. If English documents were given to each defense counsel, it would give us the opportunity to follow the text of the law.
DR. BRIEGER: My colleague has just now made a statement which has not been translated correctly. He has declared that we are dependant on the inadequate library. The translation said we had to rely on the library. It is very important that we establish that this library is very inadequate for us.
THE PRESIDENT: The rule requires four copies. If we are to depart from the rules, I do not know when we could get back on the track again. It is a bad precedent to waive any rule. The Tribunal can do no less than to stick by the rule and enforce it. Whatever inconvenience may be suffered as a result of that ruling, we regret, but we are unable to correct it.
Of course the rule has technically been complied with as to Exhibit 112. However much defense counsel has been inconvenienced, we regret, but we must try this case according to rules. We must make this trial expeditious. We do not anticipate there will be any great difficulty about it. Defense counsel are presumed to be tolerably familiar with the German laws.
If they have a day's notice of what is still to come, maybe several days' notice, it may work out to their satisfaction. We hope it will. After all these statutes will only come into play upon presentation of these cases. Those cases will be pursuant to statute. If they have a day's notice, possibly two or three days' notice, we hope that will not cause any detriment to defense counsel.
DR. BRIEGER: I would like to ask the Tribunal not to make too high demands on us as to knowledge of German laws. I have already pointed out the fact that these texts very often change, especially those cases which were being debated during war time. Many of us during a large part of the war were not employed, but were serving as soldiers.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: As I understand, the Tribunal has admitted into evidence Exhibit Number 112 which is Document NG-715, also known as Document Book 2.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think there has been any ruling on that point.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: We now offer that as an exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: We will, however, rule at this time that Document NG 715 is admissable in evidence.
MR. LA FOLETTE: Now then, very frankly, when we come to Books 3-A and B, there has not been a compliance with the rule. We could make some progress by reading the provisions of the Weimar Constitution, Articles 102, 103, 104, and 103. By reading the decree of the Reich President of 23 February 1933 from this book which is already in evidence, Document Book 2, Page 83.
THE PRESIDENT: What page are you referring to?
MH. LA FOLETTE: I beg Your Honor's pardon, it was Page 1 of the English Book 2. Page 2 and 3 down through the material on Page 4 and Exhibits NG-514, 515, 516, 519, and 478 out of Book 3-A. That is as far as we would be able to go during the rest of the afternoon or care to go. Again, as to the exhibits which are in Book 3-A, we are not in strict compliance with rules and we can proceed and make that much progress if defense counsel would be kind enough to let us proceed that far. I certainly don't, in any way, hold them liable to do so. May we proceed now? I want to express my appreciation for that waiver of the rule and that is as far as we will go today. The last document to be read will be No. NG-478. That is five documents. That is in Book 3-A. MR. WOOLEYHAN: Reading from Page 1, Document Book 2:
"The Constitution of the German Reich.
"Weimar Constitution of 11 ,u.ust 1919 Rcichsgcsctzblatt Page 1383.
"Article 102: The judges are independent and only subject to the Law.
"Article 103: The ordinary judiciary consists of the Reich Supreme Court" -
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. If you see nothing is to be gained by reading that, if it is introduced into evidence, we can all ready it. And defense counsel are entirely familiar with this Constitution, and we are too as a matter of fact.
DR. SCHILF: Dr. Schilf for the defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg.
Mr. President. After we have discussed this for so long that the knowledge of the laws and the possibility of checking then can be described as inadequate, I should like to say for myself and also for my co-defense counsels, that as far as we know, the prosecution wants to send this Document Book 3 and the documents which were contained therein-- it wants to compare then with passages of the law.
It has begun that with the reading of Article 13 of the Constitution, and on the other hand, from Book 3 -- in order to check that, we are dealing with offenses against these laws. For that reason, it is of course necessary for us, as we have not these laws in front of us, at least to hear the translation in order that we nay be reminded of those laws, of what the consequences which can then be drawn by the prosecution, and as we only have the index before us, it would be a good thing if when they are being read, if they were read as the prosecution has decided it should be.
THE PRESIDENT: If it's a matter of accuracy of translation, of course, the defense counsel are entitled to have them read, and if that is the wish of the defense counsel, then they may be read.
DR. SCHILF: Thank you.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Dr. Wandschneider for the defendant Rothenberger. Mr. President, just briefly I should like to say a few words about the reading. The reading, as far as I am concerned, is not so important. I am, therefore, of the opinion --- I do not want to contradict the opinion of Dr. Schilf -that the suggestions were made that I as a defense counsel attach value to the fact that we ought to be informed of the passages of the laws previously by writing, but not at the meeting here, being suddenly confronted with them for the first time -- with the 60 laws -- and that we have to deal with these 60 laws which we, however, have forgotten under the present conditions, and which we cannot have at our fingertips. I believe that also, generally speaking, we have a far-reaching agreement about this point with the representative of the prosecution, Mr. La Folette, because if I have understood correctly, Mr. La Folette has previously been kind enough to explain to us, at least I understood it to be that way, that in the first place we should state in due time the only laws which have been explained to us as defense counsel, and how far we have taken also the laws and passages in the German and English translation of which we have been informed previously. That, I consider, as completely necessary for the expert dealing with these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: The prosecution may continue the reading.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The prosecution has no desire to engage in superflous verbiage here and we are perfectly willing to merely call the attention of the defense to page and verses of these statutes, whichever is the most expeditious, although am I to understand, that the Court has ruled that we shall read if the defense so desires?
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, the ruling which was made a moment ago relates only to the Constitution. There couldn't be any question about any changes of that, as I understand it. When it comes to laws, that is a little different matter. She suggestion was made from the bench about not reading the Constitution, which would be rather pertinent suggestion. It doesn't seem to me that the defense counsel are aided by having it read when they have the translation before them. If you desire, you can go ahead and read it.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: With Dr. Schilf's permission, we will omit the reading, unless he insists on it. We have not desire to read the Constitution necessarily. We will merely call the defense counsels' attention to the fact that Articles 102, 103, 104, and 105 are reproduced here. Under the sections which the prosecution is interest in: On Page 2 of the English Document Book:
"1933 Reichgesetzblatt, Part 1, Page 83.
"Decree of the Reich President for the protection of the people and State of 28 February 1933.
"In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of violence, endangering the state."
ARTICLE I "Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice.
Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
ARTICLE II "If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority."
We skip now to Article 5 on page 3 of the English Book:
"The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e. in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 307 (arson), 311 (use of explosives), 312 (flooding), 315 (damaging of railroad stock), and 324 (dangerous poisoning).
"Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:"
There follows several enumerations of several additional crimes which we will not read, but which under this article are thereafter to be punishable with death.
Skipping now to page 4 of Document Book II, "1933, Reichsgesetzblatt Part I, Page 136; Decree of the Reich Government on the Formation of Special Courts of 21 March, 1933.
Section 1 "(1) A Special Court will be created for the district of each Court of Appeal," which is the decree we just read.
"(2) The Special Courts are courts of the State.
"(3) The Legal Administration of the respective States determines the seats of the Special Courts.
Section 2 The Special Courts have jurisdiction over crimes and felonies enumerated in the Decree of the Reichs president for the defense of People and State of 28 February 1933 (Reichsgesetzblatt Part I Page 83) and in the Decree relating to the defense against insidious attacks against the Government of the National Revolution of 21 March 1933 (Reichsgesetzblatt Part I Page 135), provided that such offenses are not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or the Courts of Appeal.
Section 3 (1) The Special Courts shall also be competent if a crime within their jurisdiction represents also another punishable deed.
(2) If another punishable act is factually connected with a crime within the jurisdiction of the Special Courts, the proceedings on that other punishable deed against delinquents and participants may be referred to the Special Court by way of connection.
Section 4 (1) The Special Courts are composed of a president and two associates.
A deputy has to be appointed for each member in case of his absence.
(2) The members and their deputies must be permanently appointed judges of the district for which the Special Court is installed.
(3) The members will be appointed and the distribution of their tasks undertaken by the Presidency of the District Court in the district of which the Special Court is located.