Q Whether it was one month or two months, do you regard that as a long prison sentence?
AAs far as the crime that he was being charged with, it should at least be considered as a serious penalty. As far as I know it was fraud.
Q But the sentence that he received was only a matter of one or two or four months. Isn't that correct?
A No, that is not correct. He was the son-in-law of Pamsteck. He was a flight officer. He repeatedly came to my office and wanted to have the release brought about by pardon. We put Ramsteck into prison. I don't believe that I am confusing him with another one. It must be apparent from the documents. Please show me the files. Then I can make exact statements. Ramsteck, in spite of medical testimony that he could not appear at the trial, was arrested on my orders, he was put into the Landsberg Prison and there he was kept and, as far as I know, Ramsteck until the end -
Q Mr. Schroeder, I only asked you how long the sentence was. I didn't ask for a review of the case. Do you remember how long the sentence was?
A I believe that I recall that the sentence lasted for one year and three months or one year and two months. I emphasize expressly that I have not definite knowledge.
Q All right. O.K. Fine. Now, with regard to the Katzenberger Case, Mr. Schroeder, you state that if Rothaug had regarded the Katzenberger Case as at all political he would never have taken the case into the special court at all. Now, in view of that statement, I show you a letter that the defendant Rothaug wrote and I am going to ask you if that is in any way corroborative of what you have stated.
As you will note there, this letter is dated 28 November 1939 and it is addressed to the Presiding Judge of the District Court NurnbergFuerth and it is signed by Rothaug, and throughout this letter, as you Court No. III, Case No. 3.will note, Rothaug complains -
A May I read this letter now?
Q Certainly.
A I don't know this letter. I can't make any statements about it.
Q You may read it.
A (Witness reads document.)
Q Have you read it, Mr. Schroeder?
A I just read it very briefly, looked through it.
Q I call your attention, Mr. Schroeder, to only one sentence near the bottom of Page 2 of the sheet you have there. It says, Rothaug speaking: "For nearly three years I have been handling all political penal cases here, together with my division which the local administration of justice has been lucky in composing of especially qualified judges, in such a way that we believe to be in a position to appear before the Fuehrer."
Now, how does that flat statement of the defendant Rothaug that he handled all political criminal cases in the special court square with your statement that if he had known or felt that the Katzenberger case was political at all he would never have touched it?
A I can only tell you that this is an occurrence which happened during the time when I was not in Nurnberg at all, and, therefore, I cannot say what cause there was in detail for Rothaug to express himself in this manner. I see this document for the first time today. It is dated 28 November and it is obvious that my statements about the individual cases, about the incidents about which I had testified or believed I could testify about, I could refer only to what time during which I personally was senior public prosecutor in Nurnberg during which I worked together with Rothaug; but it is impossible for me to be informed about things that happened before and what cases he dealt with before. I know the Simon Case only by name.
Q Mr. Schroeder, the individual case has nothing whatever to do Court No. III, Case No. 3.with it.
Do you think that the fundamental division of labor between the penal chamber and the special court in Numberg fundamentally changed as to political cases between the date of this letter and when you came to Numberg?
A I don't know.
Q That is all. Now, Mr. Schroeder, I hand you a very familiar book. It is the German Criminal Code of Procedure. You stated here that in the Katzenberger Case the oath that was finally applied to Frau Seiler to take testimony before the trial was a routine, ordinary thing which they only did - the prosecution, that is - to find out what she was going to testify about. I ask you to read aloud Article 65 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure, please.
A "In the preliminary proceedings it is permitted to take a person under oath only when the oath is used to bring about a truthful testimony for an important point which seems to be necessary for the proceeding . . . ."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: For an accurate translation I shall had that book to the interpreter ans she will read it in English.
THE INTERPRETER: "In preliminary priceedings a person may be taken under oath only when there is danger involved in the further course or if the oath is used as a means to bring about a truthful testimony about as essential point that is important for the further course of the priceedings. In the preliminary proceedings, because of a transgression, the taking under oath is not permissible."
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Mr. Sxhroeder, in view of Article 65, it does not appear that the putting of a witness or a fefendant before trial under oath is a very routine or ordinary matter, does it? It appears to the contrary; rather, it appears as an exception. What have you to say about that?
A. As far as Public Prosecutor Markl is concerned, what he did --he was the public prosecutor dealing with us in that case -- what causes he had for taking this oath, I don't know because I did not discuss the matter with him personally. O personally at least was of the opinion that the taking under oath did not serve any purpose because the testimony of -the witness Seiler would have been suspicious anyway and for that reason the taking under oath in accordance -- I beg your pardon? The administration of an oath under the general points of view would not have been admissible.
Q. But it does appear, doesn't it, Mr. Schroeder, quite simply that in the Katzenberger Case, according to the rules of German Criminal Procedure, namely Rule 65, the putting of Frau Seiler under oath before the trial was an unusual, exceptional procedure. Does that appear?
A. I can't tell you that because I did not deal with that case but Prosecutor Markl dealt with that case and I did not discuss this matter with him ever. I only know this, that in any case before I signed the indictment I told Markl that it was not good that he took the witness under oath in view of the fact that there was a somewhat involved and dangerous situstion and the witness Seiler admitted somewhat incriminatin situation.
In order to state my opinion in detail I would have to read all these different paragraphs and ask you for -- I can only make a general statement. I did not give cause for it. Later in I neither caused the witness to be taken under oath not did I cause the witness not to be taken under oath.
Q. All right, Mr. Schroeder. That is all on that.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, I omitted to offer a moment ago, as Prosecution Exhibit No. 553 the document NG-1682 copies of which have already been distributed.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Thank you, your Honor.
BY MR, WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Mr. Schroeder, one moment before we leave the Katzcnberger Case. I am interested in your remark that the joinder of the criminal proceedings against Frau Seiler and Matzenberger wer perfectly normal and routine because, as you stated, they were on the same legal foundation.
A. That is not-
Q. Have I misstated you statement?
A. Yes, you did.
Q. Well, what did you day?
A. That only on the same favtual basis they had to be decided not on the legal basis, that is to say, the way the question was just put to me, but on the same factual basis.
Q. That takes care of that. Nov, Mr. Schroeder, with regard to Rothaug's alleged connections with Deputy Gauleiter Holz, you say that Rothaug, except with regard to the Ramsteck case, never had any connections with Holz at all in any important respect. You further more stated the the Gauleitung --
A. As far as I know.
Q. Yes, I realize that. And you further stated that Gauleitung, namely, the Office of Gauleiter Holz, complained frequently on all kinds of charges against Rothaug to the Ministry of Justice.
A. I did not testify that he complained, that the Gau complained about judges of Rothaug. That wan't even discussed at all. I want to make that statement.
Q. You didn't say that?
A. I never asserted that and I don't even know it, see?
Q. And you didn't assert on direct examination then that the Gauleiter Holz stated that Rothaug had defeated the law?
A. I stated --
Q. Did you or didn't you?
A. No. I merely stated that complaint was submitted to the Reich Ministry of Justice in which Rothaug was charged with all kinds of things, among others the distortion of the law in the Ramsteck case. That is what I testified to. In another connection the expression "Distortion of the law" was not used by me.
Q. But in that connection it was used?
A. I believe I said the same way or you can find out just about the way I put it now again.
Q. Yes. And that report to the Ministry of Justice bringing these charges against Rothaug was filed, as you said, by the Gauleitung, namely, Gauleiter Holz, in his office; is that correct?
A. I never read this complaint. I never saw it.
Q. I didn't say, Mr. Schroeder, that you did. I merely said that you testified that that report came from the Gauleiter's office.
A. As far as I knew the Gauleitung complained about Rothaug and the Ramsteck Case. Herr Engert should be able to establish this fact, because he dealt with this matter upstairs in the general public prosecutor's office. Enger never told me any details whatsoever.
Q. Then it appears that the entire testimony that you gave this morning with regard to the Gauleiter's complaints with regard to Rothaug, centered only on the Ramsteck case. Is that correct?
A. That only I believe I expressed myself clearly and If not I want to repeat it, that I spoke only about the Ramsteck case and in that con nection I was thinking of that complaint.
Q. Now, do you regard Gauleiter Holz' displeasure with Rothaug's conduct of the Ramsteck case as having significantly or importantly injured or impaired his relations with, or opinion of, Rothaug?
A. I can not state when Holz took over the Gauleitung at all. He was au that time -- Streicher was idspleased from office, if I may express it so, and Zimmerman became Gauleiter. I don't know when it happened.
Q. One moment, please. I am not asking you about any time. I merely asked you if you thought that the only trouble between Rothaug and Holz that you knew of, namely, the Ramsteck Case, was enough to significantly alter or impair the relations between Holz and Rothaug? Do you think it was or do you think it wasn't
A. In regard to that point I can say only that I do not know that between Rothaug and Holz any more intimate relationships of any kind existed and, tharefore, I cannot state either in what manner this Ramsteck Case entered into this relationship that is supposed to have existed. I can only say, well, I could only say probably that if Rothaug had anything to do with Holz, I probably, that is, as far as I can judge, would have found out about it. I have no knowledge about any closer relationship between Rothaug and Holz. In my opinion there must be other witnesses who have insight into their relationship. I don't know. I can't say it because I don't know it.
Q. Then with regard to the relations between Gauleiter Holz and Rothaug, with the exception of the fact that some difficulty was caused about the Ramsteck decision, you just don't know what happened between those two men at any time, do you?
A. I don't know any details that anything is supposed to have happened. I heard for the first time today. If not what I mentioned already today, merely that mentioned Rothaug's opinion, that he believed that the tratment of the Ramsteck Case played a role on his transfer to Berlin, but I know that only from Rothaug too, see?
Q. Yes, I see, Unless I am mistaken you testified this morning, Mr. Schroeder, that from the professional groups of judges, prosecutors etc.
, in Nurnberg, you never heard any criticism of how the Nurnberg special court was conducted under Rothaug. Now, if that is a fair statement of what you said I am going to ask you to support it in view of the following fact: On the 11 January 1934 Gauleiter Holz wrote the irack recommending that Rothaug be promoted to the presidency of the court of appeals in Nurnberg. In order for you to check on what I am saying I show you the original letter.
A. May I read it?
Q: No, I'm just going to ask you one or two questions about it. On the second page of that letter, Mr. Schroeder, do you see a postcript personally signed by Gauleiter Holz to Dear Party Member Thierack", dated 11 January 1943, in which Holz tells Thierack the following, and I quote:
"It is impossible to carry out the National Socialist reform in the justice administration so long as Doebig is in charge. The best proof of that is the judges' attitude towards the special court under the presidency of Rothaug. While the population understands and approves the proceedings and judgments of this special court, the judges have risen in an unheard of manner against this court. May I pointout that judges who were assigned to this special court have already stated to the President of the District Court of Appeals that it would be against their conscience to work at this special court? This situation is simply impossible and has to be attributed to the demerits of the President of the District Court of Appeals Doebig. Eighty per cent of the judges hold this attitude towards the special court which nearly amounts to hostility against the state, but the President of the District Court of Appeals, who should describe the special court as execplary in its proceedings and judgment, has so far done nothing for this special court. He is not in a position to be in charge of the justice administration in the District Court of Appeals, let alone of the carrying out of the basic changes demanded by the Fuehrer." Signed: Gauleiter Holz.
Is that a fair reading of that letter?
A: Yes, in the main points.
Q: Alright. Fine. Was anything in that letter in agreement with your statement that you never heard anything in Nurnberg, from professional quarters, critizing the special court?
Were you asleep?
A: To what occurrences this refers - this letter of 11 January - I don't know because, from the beginning of November, I was in the hospital in Nurnberg and was seriously ill. I was lying in a hospital and I didn't concern myself with any occurrences. Also, I don't know from whom Holz obtained this information. In any case, I must maintain my former testimony, that this was not discussed with me. It maybe that this may have been due to the fact that these people would not have told me that, if they had been of the opinion, in consideration of my friendship with Rothaug. I don't know what occurrences, who informed him, and what occurrences are referred to there.
Q: Mr. Schroeder, excuse me a moment. It does appear to you, as you followed my reading of that original letter, that during the time you were in office as chief public prosecutor at Nurnberg, the Gauleiter of this area wrote the Minister of Justice the fact that this court was so bad that eighty per cent of the judges regarded serving on it as against their conscience, and yet you never knew it?
A: I can only say about that that I don't know at all to what extent, in this letter, politics is contained. Gauleiter Holz obviously had the endeavour, and I have seen this now, under all circumstances he wanted to remove the President of the District Court of Appeals Doebig. I would be surprised if he did not describe this in the loudest colors and would have looked for a reason for it in order to make this desire palatable to the Minister of Justice. I could attach to this letter only a special importance if it was told to me on what basis Holz came to this conclusion and this result. I don't know. I can only emphasize ...
Q: (Interrupting): Just a moment, Mr. Schroeder. Are you testifying now about anything you know about or what you are guessing about?
I infer that it's nothing that you know about.
A: Now I'm testifying something that I know and we are concerned with this, that outside of Rothaug I had no relationships outside of the office with any other colleague. If I was together with judges or prosecutors, the reason of our being together was always that either there was a general meeting or that, as in Weiden, at the conclusion of a trial, we met. But, beyond that, I did not have any contact and friendly relationship with any judge in Nurnberg not with any prosecutor either. I did not know the family of any of them. Those are the facts. That is the truth.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the court, the prosecution offers the letter, portions of which we have just read, in its entirety into evidence as Exhibit 554.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it further please Your Honors, it appears on the face of this letter, which we will subsequently offer, that the ...
Well, I'll withdraw that. It speaks for itself.
That's all.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you the Exhibit to offer at this time?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, Your Honor, all I have is the original which will have to be processed and handed to you at a later date. I have the original and one English translation. I would like to reserve the number, though.
THE PRESIDENT: We'll reserve No. 554, and is there an NG number to it?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give it to me?
MR. WOOLEYHAN:NG 2125.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you identify the letter a little further for our notes? The date of the letter?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It is a letter dated Nurnberg, 11 January 1943, on the embossed letterhead of the Nazi Party Gau Franconia, Office of the Gauleiter.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you completed the cross examination?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You may redirect, if you desire.
DR. KOESSL: I would like to. I request that I may. First, I would like to request the prosecution to allow me to look at the documents which they have submitted because, without looking at them, I cannot conduct a redirect examination on those points.
(Documents were given to Defense Counsel).
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you, Mr. Wooleyhan, do you propose to offer the case files concerning which you cross examined the witness?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, Your Honor, we don't, since, in our opinion, enough of it went into the record, identified by the witness, to obviate the necessity for doing that.
THE PRESIDENT: I referred to the Eisenberger Case.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We're perfectly willing to abide by the Court's wish on that.
THE PRESIDENT: I simply wished to inquire.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q: Witness, first, the representative of the prosecution referred to your membership in the Party in the year 1923. Please tell the Tribunal with whom Hitler, in 1923, was connected? Whom he was allied with when, in Munich, he undertook the famous March on the Feldherrnhalle in Berlin?
A: Hitler undertook the march side by side with Ludendorff and passed the Feldherrnhalle.
Q: Can you remember Karr?
A: Yes.
Q: The then Minister President?
A: Yes.
Q: Please state to what political direction he belonged?
A: Karr... Since I am not prepared and couldn't think this over, it's difficult, in brief sentences, to state that. At least, Karr was a monarchist and he was against National Socialism and against Ludendorff.
Q: Can you tell how Karr ended? What end he met? After 1933, was he still a friend of Hitler's?
A: Karr, and I can only tell you this from hearsay, after the Roehm Putsch, he was liquidated. Whether that is correct, I don't know. I had been told so. I don't know any facts about this. I only know that he was supposed to have been shot at Dachau in 1934.
Q: Thus, the friends of Hitler from 1923 were they, after 1933, absolute opponents of Hitler. Is that correct?
A: That can be answered affirmatively in a general way, and will be generally recognized, I believe.
Q: Now, the prosecution, in order to refute your testimony that every case was handled absolutely within the scope of the legal regulations and within the scope of the official regulations, submitted the case Eisenberger to you. Who originated the instruction to transfer Eisenberger to the Gestapo?
A: The instuction originated from...
Q: (Interrupting): I show the Eissenberger file to you here. Please read what it says?
A: When I was examined I already mentioned that did not carry on the telephone conversation of the 2nd of July with the Reich Ministry of Justice.
Q: Please answer my question only.
A: Therefore, I am eliminated from this proceeding. The issue is that within the scope of official instructions which the Minister of Justice ...
Q: (Interrupting): That is not my question, Herr Schroeder. Just a moment. Please state merely, on page 60 of the files you have a letter. Who issued the instruction to transfer Eisenberger to the Gestapo?
A: From the Ministry of Justice.
Q: In this Eisenberger case was the rule obeyed that the proceeding depended upon instructions which the Ministry of Justice had issued to you via the general public prosecutor?
A: That is how I made my testimony and that is how I meant it to be understood that I never had a private undertaking with Rothaug tut that we, at least as far as my own person was concerned, I never acted behind the back of my superiors and that, in every individual case which I indicted before the special court, I received instructions and the proceedings were approved.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 15 August 1947)
Official Transcript of Americas Military Tribunal III in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoatter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 15 August 1947, 0930-1630, The Honorable James T. Brand, Presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III. Military Tribunal III is now in sassion. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the court room with the exception of the defendant Engert, who is absent due to illness, and the defendant Rothaug, who has been excused by the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, you desire permission for the defendant Rothaug to be absent today, do you?
DR. KOESSL: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Your request is allowed. At the request of the defendant, he may be absent from the court room during the course of the trial this day.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Engert has been excused. The proper notation will be made.
DR. KOESSL (Defense Counsel for defendant Rothaug(: May I continue the redirect examination of the witness Schroeder?
THE PRESIDENT: You will limit yourself to redirect examination.
DR. KOESSL: Yes, Your Honor.
DR. KARL SCHROEDER - Resumed REDIRECT EXAMINATION- Continued BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Witness, in order to reinforce your testimony that you did not treat any case irregularly, the prosecution pointed out the Eisenberger and Klein cases.
Yesterday, it was determined that your office, in the Eisenberger case, acted according to instructions by the Reich Ministry of Justice. Krohne signed the instructions. I now submit to you the Klein file. Please turn to page 3 of the working files of the prosecution. There you find a suggestion that you made, which the prosecution quoted during your cross examination. Please read the suggestion that you made, from the beginning. Please read that suggestion you made. Page 3.
A. Am I supposed to read the whole thing from the very beginning?
Q. Yes, from the very beginning. The date and everything.
A. "23 September." There is no year given. It's supposed to be 1941. "I intend to file the indictment, the draft of which is inclosed, in case the prosecution is ordered. The defendant was, nineteen times, previously convicted because of theft, bodily injury, resistance, relieving of stolen goods; to five years and three months in a penitentiary for insults, etc. Since the 2nd of March, 1934, until the 9th of March, 1936, he was in protective custody in the concentration camp Dachau. The defendant is described as shirking work. Due to his inclination to commit offenses, the population is afraid of him. Until 1933, he was a follower of the KPD, the Communist Party of Germany. He is still considered an opponent of the NSDAP, the Nazi Party. The Gestapo Office, Nurnberg-Furth, intends to issue a warrant for arrest into protective custody of the defendant and to request that he be transferred to a concentration camp. In view of the defendant's personality, I consider that the prosecution should be ordered, since one can take into account the sojourn of the defendant in the Dachau concentration camp; the time limitation of paragraph 20A, Section 2, Section 3, of the Reich Penal Code is maintained; and as the defendant is a dangerous habitual criminal, I intend, by applying Article 20A, Reich Penal Code, and Article I of the Law for the Amendment of the Reich Penal Code of 4 September 1941, to ask for the death penalty.
This application seems justified in view of the Eisenberger case in which there was a similar situation (Subsidiary Act, 66-41). Eisenberger, who, by sentence of the special court of Nurnberg of the 10th of April 1941, because of offenses against the Malicious Acts Law, was sentenced to a penalty of altogether four years in a penitentiary, five years of loss of civil rights, and protective custody, was shot because of resistance. I report this in view of Article II, Section 3 of the Law of the 20th of December 1934, in order to bring about a decision as whether the treatment of the case is intended by me will be approved." Signed: Schroeder.
Q. Witness, you stated that by means of the death penalty you wanted to effect pardon. I am asking you, who had the right to pardon a person who was sentenced to death?
A. The right to pardon was, for the duration of the war, as far as I know, transferred to the Reich Minister of Justice.
Q. Did he have the positive right to give a pardon?
A. Only he had the positive right to issue a pardon.
Q. Could the death penalty have been commuted by the Reich Minister of Justice?
A. The Reich Minister of Justice could pardon in the case of a death penalty. The commutation of the death penalty into a prison term was, in many cases, ordered.
Q. Can you remember who ordered this computation of a death penalty into a prison term? Was this commutation ordered by the Reich Minister of Justice or by the Fuehrer?
A. Or by whom?
Q. Or by the Fuehrer?
A. I believe that, during the war, there was a change, the exact time I no longer remember, when the rights, which, according to the regulation, had been reserved to the Fuehrer were transferred to the
Q Now, look at the file again, and look at the working file, page 4. What did the general public prosecutor answer to your suggestion?
AAm I supposed to read that?
Q Yes, please. It's not very long.
A No, it isn't.
"Decree of the 30th of September 1941. I request that further investigations be carried out regarding the personality of the respondent, the situation of the place where the crime was committed, and the possibility to have witnesses as to the statements he made. The investigations are, above all, supposed to show what activities the defendant conducted after he was released from the Dachau concentration camp; why he did not take up the work that was assigned to him (page 1, back of the page). After the investigations have been carried out, I would like to have the files resubmitted to me and have the files on his previous sentences included."
That's the end.
Signed: Dr. Bens.
Q Did you carry out the investigations? On page 9 and page 8 you find your activity. I only want to hear "yes" and "no".
A Yes.
Q We'll dispense with your report.
Now, what did the Reich Ministry of Justice order? Read page 9 of the working file.
A "Decree of the Reich Minister of Justice of 16 December 1941. The decision is suspended. Please inform me about the details surrounding the offense and the excerpt from the attached files. Inform me about the details about the offenses mentioned under numbers 4,13,15,17, 20 and 22 of the enclosed file, so that I can form a picture in my own mind of the personality of the defendant. On authority of, signed: Dr. Mitschke."
Q This was probably reported on too, and now read page 13.
A "Decree of the Reich Minister of Justice of 7 February 1942, via the general public prosecutor in Nurnberg to the senior public prosecutor in Nurnberg."
Q The senior public prosecutor in Nurnberg, that was you?
A Yes, that was I.
Q Now, what was the order of the Reich Ministry of Justice which was finally given?
A "Your suggestion to ask for the death penalty against the defendant I cannot approve of. In view of the amount of guilt involved in the offense and the numerous previous convictions and the malicious character and work shirking of the defendant, the asking for a lenthy term in a penitentiary and ordering SICHERUNGSVERWAHRUNG (protective custody) seems to me sufficient. In the enclosed decree, which is for the files of the court, I have ordered prosecution under article 2 of the law of the 20th of December, 1934. By authority of, signed: Dr. Krohne."
Q Now, I am asking you what application did your representative of the prosecution make, during the trial? Can you tell that from the record?
A I can answer that only if I can see the record.
Q Please answer it.
AAccording to the record the prosecutor asked for, having described the defendant as a dangerous habitual criminal and sentenced because of a dangerous crime under article 2, section 1 of the Malicious Acts Law, to a penitentiary sentence of three years, that he is to pay the costs of the trial, be deprived of civil rights for the duration of three years, and placed in protective detention.
Q All right.
Now, I want to ask you, was this course that the treatment of the Klein case took, in any point, different from the treatment of all other criminal cases?
A The handling of the Klein case, as can be seen from the documents which I have read, was absolutely in accordance, and fully in accordance, with the regulations for the execution of cases before the special court and not in a single point did it deviate from the general rule.
Q What sentence was pronounced in this case? Please read on page 25.
THE PRESIDENT: No, we don't need to have it read. What was the sentence? Death? Penitentiary? Name it. Just name it and have it over with.
DR. KOESSL: Just state it briefly.
THE WITNESS: Yes. Penitentiary sentence of three years, as well as loss of civil rights for ...
DR. KOESSL: All right.
Who were the judges who signed the sentence?
THE WITNESS: Oschey, Dr. Hoffman, and Groben who was the judge who reported on the case.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you. I have no further questions to the witness Schroeder.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
Call your next witness.
DR. KOESSL: May I call, as the next witness, the witness Denzler.
LEONHARD DENZLER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE HARDING: You will hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
JUDGE HARDING: You may be seated.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, please tell the Tribunal your name and your profession?
A Leonhard Denzler, last, director of the district court of Regensburg.