It only says he was a half Jew and the Judge who knew the files he could realize that immediately.
Q You have no doubt, do you, Dr. Lautz, that a statement of this kind in an indictment filed before the People's Court in Germany any time after 1939 would definitely prejudice the defendant quite apart from the objective facts as you call them?
A: I am not convinced that a prejudice was created by that.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q: Do you think any effect came from that statement in the indictment, any effect, whether prejudicial or not?
A: I don't believe so.
Q: You don't know why the requirement was made, then?
A: That was based on the general regulations of the law for the protection of German blood. In every case it had to be pointed out in the indictment whether the person concerned, if he was a Jew or whether he was only of mixed race.
Q: Was that the regular practice before the People's Court, to state the fact that the defendant was a Jew when that was true?
A: Before all German criminal courts, not only before the People's Court.
BY JUDGE HARDING:
Q: Who required it? Under what Minister of Justice, or what division chief, or who was the person who required that to be done?
A: That was a decree from the time before 1939, I believe. Your Honor, without my knowing who signed that decree.
BY MR. KING:
Q: Several questions have already been asked you concerning the Bonnes case, but I am in doubt as to one or two facts in that ease. The first trial before the People's Court in that case resulted in the death sentence. Then you testified that you prevailed to nave an extraordinary objection filed. That extraordinary objection was filed, and the second case, when it dame up, also resulted in the death sentence on your recommendation.
Now I have just one question to ask you on that, Dr. Lautz -
A: Yes?
Q: --to straighten the matter out in my own mind.
What was the difference, in the Bonnes case, between the death sentence as a result of the first trial, which you asked for, and the death sentence in the second case which you asked for?
A: You do not remember my statements. I said the following: After the first sentence was pronounced, which was a death penalty, and where I assume that you did not submit any evidence that I approved of that application, the sentence was pronounced in a form which I considered impossible.
Q: You mean because of the language of the opinion?
A: Yes, yes. And because that wording seemed so impossible, I believed that in that way Minister Thierack would perhaps be able to be moved to file and extraordinary objection. However, before this point was reached, the reopening of the case was decided upon and this, without doubt, had been asked for by the defense counsel, and also without doubt, I spoke in favor of it, because otherwise it would hardly have come about.
As to the application for the second trial, in which again the death sentence was pronounced, this application -- and I know this for certain -- was made after a report was made to my deputy. Whether I would have approved it myself, I don't know. After this second sentence, I was immediately informed by the Ministry that clemency would be granted. Therefore, I filed an extraordinary objection by way of a clemency plea to the Minister.
I don't see any contradiction involved.
Q: No; I think you have straightened it out now, Dr. Lautz. I wanted to get one or two facts straight, and I think you have contributed to that.
A: I can suggest clemency after I myself, previously, had asked for a death sentence. That happened too.
Q: I am quite satisfied with your answer, Dr. Lautz If you have any more to say on that you arc entirely welcome to say it.
A: No, I am satisfied too.
MR. KING: Dr. Grube has indicated that a good many of the documents which he will introduce are still in the state of processing, and they of course will be introduced at a later time. There have been indications throughout the direct examination of Dr. Lautz that certain statements he has made will be referred to or will be fortified by documents to be introduced. I would like to reserve the right to recall Dr. Lautz when those documents have been introduced. At the moment, we have no further questions to put to Dr. Lautz at this time.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q: I have a few questions I should like to ask you, Dr. Lautz. As a preliminary statement, I was a little confused with reference to the meaning which was given to the word "abroad". I want to clear that up in my own mind. Did you not refer to the Altreich as being that part of Germany which existed, according to its boundaries, before the war?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Yes. Then I will use that term.
Were there cases tried in the People's Court in which the crimes had been committed outside of the Altreich?
A: Your Honor, you mean before the war?
Q: No, after the war.
A: After the war, trials were conducted before the People's Court where the crimes had been committed outside of the borders of the Altreich.
Q: And was it necessary that the prosecution office should have the authority of the Reich Ministry of Justice before it prosecuted such cases?
A: The Reich Minister of Justice, Your Honor had to decide if it really was an offense committed in a foreign country, that is, if a foreigner had committed a punishable act abroad, in a foreign country. But during the war, the Protectorate, for example, and the Incorporated Eastern Territories were, according to the German conception, within the country, so that in such cases no order had to be issued.
Q: That is what I am trying to find out.
A: Yes; yes.
Q: Then, as to crimes committed in the occupied territories or in the Protectorate after the war, it was not necessary to secure the authority of the Minister of Justice to prosecute;
A: No, but in effect this authorization was, in each case, given by having- each Indictment submitted to the Minister of Justice, and if he did not object, it was considered to be approved by him. However, it was not necessary to have an authorization.
Q: In practice, the matter was submitted to him and he had the right to prohibit such a prosecution?
A: Yes, in each individual case.
Q: During what period was that true?
A: That was true during the entire course of the war.
Q: You referred to the work of the investigating judges, who, I understood, operated under the Ministry of Justice and in the occupied territories?
A: The investigating judges, Your Honor, were appointed by the Minister of Justice. However, they were in effect detailed to work for the President of the People's Court.
Q: And they worked in the occupied territories?
A: Yes, they worked in the occupied territories too, if you, Your Honor, call Alsatia and the Eastern Territories occupied territories -- if you call them that -- then they worked in the occupied territories. However, they did not work in occupied France, in occupied Belgium, and also, they did not work in occupied Russia.
Q: You found those investigations very valuable, did you not?
A: The investigating judges were extraordinarily valuable, especially in the occupied territories, Your Honor. Because of the use of interpreters -- and we also have the experience here -- very frequently misunderstandings appeared in the police records, which the defendant then clarified in front of the investigating judge, and explained.
Q: Is it not true that the use of these investigating judges was abandoned at a later period of the war?
A: No.
Q: In some territory, was it not?
A: No, no, it was not. It only had to be restricted because the Administration of Justice had less and less personnel available everywhere.
For example, in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, first about 30 investigating judges were working, and toward the end of the war only seven of them. All the others had become soldiers.
Q I seem to remember a decree which limited or reduced the duties of the investigating judges. Am I wrong about that?
A Yes, a correspondence about which I reported during my examination which assured that the duties and the work of the investigating judge, whose number had decreased, now would be concentrated on important cases.
Q Then that applied in the Protectorate and in the occupied territory?
A Yes, that applied to the Protectorate, too.
Q Can you refresh my memory as to when the Malicious Acts Law was passed?
A The Malicious Acts Law dates from 21 March 1933, that is that was the predecessor. It was a decree for the protection of the state and the party and this was transformed into the so-called Malicious Acts Law of 30 September 1934.
Q Thank you. Concerning the NN cases the People's Court became competent for the trial on 14 October, 1942?
A Yes, Your honor.
Q I think you stated in your testimony that the Reich Ministryof Justice had been involved in those cases for some months prior to 14 October 1942?
A Yes, certainly.
Q In what way were they involved in those cases before that decree?
A Before that decree, Your Honor, all cases, even the most serious cases, were tried by the Special Courts of Cologne, Essen, and. Kiel. They were indicted and sentenced before these three Special Courts, In other words, also cases for which my competence would as such have applied already at that time. And Thierack's decree of October 1942 removed this condition by now having those cases for which my competence existed referred to me, while the majority of the cases remained with the Special Courts.
Q The NN prisoners before trial were transferred to various prisons in Germany, were they not?
A The course was, to stab it exactly, the following Your Honor. The Security Police, Sicherheits Polizei, in France transferred the NN prisoners from France to the west of Germany to two reception camps. I believe they were called Natzweiler and Hitzert, in the vicinity of Trier. From there they were taken over by the prisons of the Administration of Justice.
Q And weren't they distributed, because of the congestion, to various places?
A No, not because of congestion, Your Honor, They were then transferred to the prisons which were near the courts where the indictment was filed. For example, to Cologne or to Essen, and only when the air war made this more difficult they were also transferred to smaller prisons inside the country, but I believe that the defendant von Ammon knows more about this than I do, because I had very little to do with these technical matters.
Q Then the trials of the NN prisoners were held at the courts, Special Courts, near the prisons were they were confined?
A That is quite correct.
Q And that would be done under the supervision of the Ministry of Justice?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q And that occurred before October, 1942?
A Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank is all. Is there any redirect examination?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. GRUBE:
Q The gentleman of the Prosecution a the beginning of his crossexamination referred to the oath of allegiance which every party member had to swear. Witness, in regard to this I wanted to ask you, wax this oath which every party member had to take, in accordance in the main, with the oath that civil servants took which, for instance, the witness Behl also took?
A I really do not remember how this oath was worded. Dr. Grube. I personally did not take such an oath, either, but only gave an assurance by shaking the hand of my local group leader. That was not an oath. But what the exact wording of that assurance was I don't remember any more today.
Q But you did take an oath?
AAn oath like the oath of a civil servant, no. But under certain circumstances such an oath was taken.
Q The representative of the Prosecution put to you why you did not, by doing without your activity as Chief Reich Public Prosecutor, choose the profession of a practicing lawyer. May I ask you whether in accordance with the legal situation of the time in regard to the licensing of lawyers that would have been impossible at all at that time?
A That would, to a very large extent, have depended on the form and the conditions under which I would have resigned from state office. If I would have only suffered small damage I could have become a lawyer, but I would not have succeeded in becoming a lawyer if I would have had a disagreement with the state on political matters.
Q In other words you say an approval had to be granted?
A Yes a lawyer had to be licensed, had to be admitted to practice.
Q I now come again to Exhibit 437 that was submitted by the Prosecution. This is the Kurras case. In this document or in explanation of this document, as is known, the Prosecution first occupied the position as if the Jews who were also participating in this matter were hanged by the Security Police on the initiative of the Administration of Justice. May I ask you, witness, how at that time in the year 1944 the competence was divided in regard to Jews who had rendered themselves punishable? At that time were the general courts still competent at all?
A No, that is just what I said, counsel. That is just what I said. I also said that these Jews were not at the disposal of the Police Administration of Justice at all while they were under arrest. They were purely police prisoners who did not concern the Administration of Justice at all, as such had nothing to do with the case, but who upon the occasion of the raid of the bunker had apparently been arrested.
Q The prosecution also stated its opinion on the cases of undermining of fighting morale and alleged that to the extent that you decided that a case should be tried before the People's Court, some sort of a preliminary decision on your part existed. May I again ask you to comment on this?
A No. I understood the prosecutor differently than you did. I understood him to say that he wanted to say since it was obviously known that the Reich Public Prosecutor made the selection, this decision of his might under certain circumstances impress the court and influence it. That is how I understood the prosecutor, and that as such doesn't make much sense, because I would have had the right also to appear during the trial and there to explain my position. The thought never would have occurred to me that by doing that I would have exerted an illegal influence on the court. That was my official duty after all.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until Wednesday morning at nine-thirty, the day after tomorrow. Ag previously announced, we will hear the matter concerning Dr. Marx tomorrow morning at nine-thirty, I am sure that the reporters and interpreters and other officials of the Tribunal understand that they should be present tomorrow in connection with the Marx matter.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 30 July 1947 at 0930 hours)
Official Transcript of American Military Tribunal III in the matter of the United States of America, against Dr. Hans Marx and Mrs. Karin Nuppertz, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 29 July 1947, The Honorable James T. Brand, presiding.
A P P E A R A N C E S Mr. Charles M. LaFollette, Mr. Alfred Wooleyhan, and Mr. Robert D. King, for the Prosecution Dr. Agnes Nath-Schreiber, for the respondent Mrs.
Karin Huppertz Dr. Hermann Orth, for the respondent Dr. Hans Marx
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the judges of Military Tribunal III. Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal observes that Dr. Marx is present.
Is the respondent Huppertz also present? She appears to be present.
The order of procedure will be for the prosecution to present its evidence, after which the respondents may present their evidence. Before the testimony is presented, the Tribunal desires to make completely clear the limitations which will be imposed both parties and upon the witnesses in connection with the presentation of the case. This is a summary procedure. The Tribunal is not interested in and will not hear extended historical, philosophical, or personal discussions by the witnesses as to their personal feelings. This case is limited to the determination as to whether the specific charges made in the petitions and affidavits filed by the prosecution are or are not true. Both sides will limit their testimony to the specific charges contained in the prosecution's petition and supplemental petition and the affidavits in support thereof.
I hope that we have made this matter clear. This case must be concluded today. The Tribunal has made a brief summary of the actual charges, which, after separating them from irrelevant matter, are exceedingly brief.
The prosecution may direct its evidence to those charges.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The prosecution now offers to introduce into evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 1, the prosecution's petition filed with the Court on 21 July 1947. The petition is in the possession of the Court, or of the Secretary General, and is sworn to.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the petition signed by yourself?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Signed by myself, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The petition has been delivered by the Secretary General to the Tribunal. Are the respondents in possession of a copy of the petition? They have been served with it?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: They have been served with it, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The original petition will he marked Exhibit 1, and is received in evidence.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The prosecution now offers to introduce into evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 2 the supplemental petition signed by Mr. Wooleyhan on the 21 day of July 1947; and heretofore delivered to the Secretary General and filed with the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: That petition also has been served, is received in evidence, and marked Exhibit 2.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The prosecution offers to introduce into evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 3, the report of Dr. Kraetzer in answer to the three questions submitted by the Tribunal to all of the doctors heretofore appointed on the 1st day of July 1947 This report is in two pages and is dated July 7, 1947.
The prosecution is advised that this report is in the possession of the Tribunal. That is the original signed report, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you approach the Bench?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: You referred to the report in the German language, signed by Dr. Kraetzer?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor, as Prosecution Exhibit 3.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence and marked Exhibit 3.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The prosecution offers to introduce into evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 4 the answer and report in the German language, signed by Dr. Gerstaecker, in two pages, and which is dated July 7, 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: Received in evidence and marked Exhibit 4.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The prosecution calls as its first witness Major Schaefer.
MAJOR ROBERT SCHAEFER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Will you raise your right hand and be sworn?
Do you solemnly swear that your testimony in the issue now pending shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WETNESS: I do.
THE PRESIDENT: Be seated, please.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Major, will you state your full name, and your official position to the Tribunal?
A. Robert G. Schaefer, Major, FA, Defense Center Administrator.
Q. Is there a record kept in your office of the accredited assistant counsel and secretaries of attorneys practicing before the Tribunal?
A. Yes, sir, there is.
Q. Do you have with you the records showing the listed secretaries of Dr. Hans Marx on April 18, 1947?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. Will you tell the Court the names of those secretaries as shown by that record?
A. The names are Gunda Wiedman and Rose Pleigler.
Q. Now, do you have another record of July 17, 1947?
A Yes, sir, I do.
Q And what are the names listed as secretaries on that date?
A Rose Pleigler and Ruth Weber.
Q Thank you, Major. Do you know Frau Karin Huppertz by sight?
A Yes, sir, I do.
Q Have you seen her in your office or in that part of the court house which is given over for the defense and their defense attorneys and their secretaries and assistants?
A Yes, sir, I have.
Q Would you tell the Tribunal where you have seen her and upon what occasions you have seen her?
A I have seen the lady about the halls and I have seen her in my office on, I believe, two occasions.
Q What were the occasions of her visit to your office on those two occasions? What were the reasons? Do you remember?
A Periodically I check the records of the witness procurement. At that time I noticed that this witness was here an undue long time.
Q About what time was it you are speaking of? Can you fix the date?
A I cannot fix the date accurately, but I believe it was in April.
Q Thank you. Go ahead.
AAt that time the lady came in and I inquired from her and Dr. Marx why she was still here. I was told that time that although she came here as a witness, due to the fact that she conversant in medical matters and also due to the fact that she had a knowledge of English, that Dr. Marx wanted to keep her here.
Q Did Dr. Marx tell you that, or Karin Huppertz or both of them? Who made that statement?
A Dr. Marx made that statement at that time. The other occasion was when Miss Huppertz came in the office and stated that she had to find new quarters. It seems that she was told to vacate her present quarters.
Q Was this her living quarters or her place in the building?
A I understood it to mean living quarters, and at that time I told her that due to the fact that she has no official status we could not furnish her quarters.
Q Were those the two occasions upon which you saw her and talked to either Karin Huppertz or Dr. Marx about which you have just referred? Those were the occasions?
A Yes, sir.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is all You may be cross-examined.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there cross-examination of this witness? There is no cross examination. The witness is excused. Call your next witness.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: CAl Capt. Rice.
CAPT. L. O. RICE, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BLAIR: Hold up your right hand and be sworn.
Do you solemnly swear that your testimony in this case shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WITNESS: I do.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q You will state your name to the Tribunal and your position.
A L. O. Rice, Captain, Infantry, administrative officer, Defense Administrative Section.
Q As such officer, Captain, do you handle the requests of defendants or their counsel for witnesses?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you keep records of the occasions upon which those requests are made, or that the witnesses come in.
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you have those records with you in the matter of Karin Huppertz?
A Yes, sir.
Q Referring to your records will you tell the Tribunal what was the first occasion that there was a request for the witness Huppertz and who requested her?
A The record dated 21 February 1947 by Dr. Marx shows that he intended to call Frau Karin Huppertz, a German civilian, chief sister of the professional committee for sisterhood whose residence is at Berlin to testify on the testimony that witness knows defendant Prof. Schroeder's religious attitude, principally his cure for --
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is unimportant, Capt. Rice. It was in the medical case?
THE WITNESS: Yes sir.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q Did she come?
A The records further show that on 8 March she was authorized billets and messing facilities in the witness house for the defense.
Q Do you know, did she take up her billets in the witness house?
A I have been informed by the mess officer and billeting officer that she did not receive billets furnished by the army but did receive a mess card.
Q Did you have any record of when she left after being called as a witness in that case?
A No, sir, I do not.
Q Was there a subsequent occasion in which she was requested as a witness by Dr. Marx, and if so about what time?
A Yes sir. She was in the building for several weeks and I with Maj, Schaefer contacted Dr. Marx to see why she was remaining here as a witness, was she still needed. We were informed that he desired her as an assistant.
Q Dr. Marx told you that?
A Yes, sir, that he desired to keep her as an assistant. A record was made that she would be paid for only two weeks as a voluntary witness.
Q What date was that, Captain? Can you fix the date?
A No, sir I cannot fix the date.
Q When you say a record was made, that was by agreement with Dr. Marx?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now I ask you, did you some time in June again have any request for this woman, either as a witness or otherwise, from Dr. Marx?
A Yes, sir. It was shortly after this occasion that we talked with Dr. Marx. I was informed by the Berlin authorities that Frau Huppertz was in Berlin and wanted to return to Nurnberg and they wished know if we desired her presence in Nurnberg.
Q What did you do after you got that request?
A I informed the Berlin authorities that she had been requested as an assistant and they requested I send a TWX verifying this telephone conversation. This TWX was dated 11 June and was registered in the Office of Chief of Counsel message center June 12.
Q Was that TWX sent at the request of Dr. Marx or because Dr. Marx had previously asked for her as an assistant? Is that the reason you sent it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is the copy of the TWX the only one which you have in your records there, or do you have an extra copy?
A I have an extra copy, one, the confirmation copy and my file copy.
Q May we have the confirmation copy? Would that leave you with a file copy, Captain?
A Yes, sir.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The Prosecution offers the confirmation copy of the TWX registered June 12 just identified by Capt. Rice as Prosecution Exh. No. 5. It offers to introduce it in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: These exhibits will later be marked by the Secretary General. For the time being the Tribunal is marking them. The exhibit is received as Exh. No. 5.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q Have you seen Frau Huppertz subsequent to that date in June in or around the court house, Capt. Rice?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where have you seen her and upon what occasions have you seen her?
A I have seen her in the hall numerous times in the building in the past two weeks.
Q Have you ever seen her with Dr. Marx?
A Yes.
Q I beg your pardon?
A Yes sir.
Q Can you identify Frau Hupperts? Is she in the room now?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is she the woman which of the two women is she sitting in front?
A There.
Q At the end?
A Yes, sir.
Q You say you have seen her with Dr. Marx?
A Yes, sir, I have.
Q Do you know where Dr. Marx' offices are in the defense part of the building?
A Yes, sir.
Q Have you seen her in there?
A I can't say that, sir.
Q Did she ever make any request to you for any quarters or any place to be located in the building or living quarters in Nurnberg?
A Since June 11, Sir?