A: Well, that probably was the duty of the court.
DR. KOESSL: Just a moment, I object to that question because the witness is in no way able to give legal expert opinions on who issues warrants of arrest. I also did not examine him on that question, and he has no legal qualifications at all on the basis of which he can answer that question.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained.
BY MR. WOLLEYHAN:
Q: You have stated, Mr. Zimmermann, that to your knowledge Rothaug did not participate in Party matters, that he was too much the legal professional for that. Now, in your opinion, having been on the scene, was what happened here in Nurnberg against Jewish life and property on the 8th or 9th of November 1938, an occurrence sponsored by or sanctioned by the Nazi Party?
A: This can only be a question of a person. In my circle in Nurnberg I forbade all my political leaders, all my local group leaders to participate even in the least, in the Aryanization, not even a single one of them bought himself a house or a car. I directly forbade them to do so.
Q: What was your rank in the SA, Mr. Zimmermann?
A: I was SA-Oberfuehrer and I held it as an honorary rank.
Q: Does that correspond roughly to the army rank of colonel?
A: Probably.
Q: I then read to you from page 16962 of the Findings of the International Military Tribunal concerning the activities of the SA:
"SA units were used to blow up synagogues in the Jewish Program of the 10th and 11th of November 1938". I ask you, Mr. Zimmermann, if in your capacity as an SA-Colonel, and further in your capacity as a public speaker as quoted in the official Nazi paper in Nurnberg of which we have just read, did you or did you not have an active part in the Jewish Pogroms of the 8th an 9th November 1938?
A: I have already stated that not only did I not partipate, but I even opposed them.
THE PRESIDENT: He has answered that question.
Q: In evidence before this court is a document which states on its face, Mr. Zimmermann, that the defendant Rothaug was responsible for all political criminal cases coming before the Nurnberg Penal Chamber, Special Court. That is found in Exhibit 553. I ask you a hypothetical question, Mr. Zimmermann. If you assume that a judge was responsible for all political criminal cases arising in Nurnberg, would you think that these excesses of the 8th and 9th of November, 1938 which you state you tried to prevent should have been tried by such a judge?
DR. KOESSL: I object to that question for the following reason, because the witness -
THE PRESIDENT: You need not state your reason. The objection is sustained.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any redirect examination?
DR. KOESSL: Yes, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q: Witness, outside of the occurrences of the night from the 9th to the 10th of November, did further excess take place later which would have been of that nature?
I mean, did these excesses during the following days - during that night end or did further destruction take place?
A: Nothing further happened in Nurnberg later on; at least, I don't know now about anything.
Q: Did you obtain knowledge as to who initiated these Pogroms during the night at that time?
A: I can only state again that I, as the competent Kreisleiter of Nurnberg, was not informed. That should be evidence for the Tribunal for the fact that apparently I was not the competent man. It was only at 3:30 in the morning that my friend Georg Emmert informed me about it. Thereupon, I went to the city in order to try to lessen it. In my own trial I shall bring evidence to that effect.
Q: That is enough, witness. The prosecutor read the passage from the sentence of the IMT where the participation of the SA was pointed out. I am asking you therefore, did you at that time lead a unit of the SA?
A: When I made the statement that I was an SA-Oberfuehrer, I said I had an honorary rank. In order to correct it: at that time I perhaps had the official rank of a Truppfuehrer. Only later on my SA rank was assimilated to my official rank.
Q: At that time you were not in the highest rank?
A: No.
Q: And you did not lead a unit either?
A No. I had the courage to describe myself as an SA-Oberfuehrer. In my life I have never worn an SA uniform.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
DR. KOESSL: May I call as the next witness Paul Ohler.
PAUL OHLER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE BLAIR:
Raise your right hand and be sworn. Repeat after me the following oath: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
DR. KOESSL: May I begin the examination?
THE PRESIDENT: We don't have his name on our list. Will you give us his name?
DR. KOESSL: The witness' name is Paul Ohler. The Tribunal permitted me to call him.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. KOESSL (Attorney for the defendant Rothaug):
Q Witness, please tell your name and your profession.
A My name is Paul Ohler, and my last profession was criminal commissar.
Q In what branch of the police were you employed?
A I dealt, as a policeman, with cases of preparation for high treason and formation of new parties; later my field was enlarged to include also the police handling of offenses against the Malicious Acts Law, listening to foreign broadcasts, undermining of military morale, and anti-sabotage intelligence.
Q Do you know the judges of the former Special Court Nurnberg and whom?
A Yes. I know Dr. Rothaug, Dr. Ferber and Groben.
Q Whom of these judges do you know especially well?
A I know Dr. Ferber better.
Q For how long have you known Dr. Ferber and for what reason did you become more closely acquainted with him?
A I became acquainted with Dr. Ferber while he was public prosecutor: and at that time we found out that we were from the same part of the country.
Q Did Dr. Ferber discuss with you at that time the then presiding judge of the Special Court Nurnberg, Rothaug?
A Dr. Ferber and I spoke only very seldom with each other.
Q Did Ferber make remarks to you to the effect, for example, that Rothaug was a tyrant in his surroundings or that he put them under pressure?
A No.
Q He didn't have any other complaints either?
A No.
Q What did Dr. Ferber say about the activities of the Special Court?
A Dr. Ferber never made any derogatory remarks about the activities of the Special Court.
Q Witness, do you know that the Gestapo in Nurnberg at times monitored the broadcasts of enemy stations?
A Yes, I know that.
Q Were the contents of these broadcasts written down anywhere or summarized?
AAt the time when monitoring of foreign broadcasts by an office was permitted, these broadcasts were summarized in writing; they were not in the form of reports, but they were just summarized in writing.
Q Do you know these reports?
A Yes, I read a part of those reports.
Q What was the contents of these reports?
A These reports, or these broadcasts of foreign stations brought political news and other news reports from the fronts, and appeals to foreign workers who were working in the Reich to commit acts of sabotage in agriculture by burning farmhouses, and rendering draught animals unusable by injuring them by mixing poison, nails and glass splinters in the fodder, and thus killing the animals or, at least, to make it necessary to slaughter them in emergency slaughterings. Furthermore, appeals were made to burn armament factories; to put sand and other friction material into the geers of the machines in order to make them no longer usable; and also to destroy railroads and railroad equipment. Frequently it was pointed out what power the millions of workers, foreign workers, who were working in Germany represented in order to weaken the war potential of Germany.
Q Did you forward such reports?
A Only in very exceptional cases. I forwarded one or two; it may also have been three reports.
Q Outside of these monitoring reports, were there other reports in the field of your activity?
A Yes. There was also the daily report of the RSHA.
Q Were those reports secret?
A Yes.
Q What was contained in those reports?
A These reports contained, among other things, descriptions of the facts that had happened regarding sabotage cases, undermining of military morale, defeatist remarks. These were brief, bare descriptions - without any conclusions or instructions of any kind.
Q Were such reports forwarded by you?
A In order to promote the jurisdiction of the Special Court and the prosecution at the Special Court, and the judges of the Special Court, to make it easier for, to distinguish between serious and less serious offenses, my office chief decided to have excerpts from these reports compiled and, submitted to the prosecution at the Special Court and to the judges.
Q To whom were these excerpts sent?
AAs a rule they were brought to the District Court Director Ferber. In part, I brought then there myself, or I had messengers take them over there. If several copies of files existed, I had one given to Dr. Ferber, one to the senior public prosecutor, and one to the presiding judge of the Special Court. If only one copy was in existence, we asked Dr. Ferber, after he had read this copy, to give it to the senior public prosecutor, and to ask the latter, after he had read it, to forward it to the presiding judge of the Special Court.
Q Witness, for how long were you altogether in the service of the police?
A I belong to the police since 1911.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you. I have no further questions to ask of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other defendant's counsel desire to interrogate the witness? Apparently not. Is there any cross examination?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Only one question, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q It wasn't clear to me, from the description of the job that you held, witness, whether or not all this police work that you did was in and for the Gestapo. Are you a Gestapo man?
A Yes.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
DR. KOESSL: With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall first introduce Document Book I-A. I assume that the Tribunal has already received the English translations, and I also assume that the Prosecution has received copies of this document book.
The first document which I want to introduce as Exhibit No. 1 is an article from the German Jurists newspaper of the 1st of January, 1928. It is entitled "The Bankruptcy of the Criminal Administration of Justice of the State." The Prosecution in its opening statement pointed out what high level the German Administration of Justice had reached already before 1933 from the point of view of culture. It contrasts sharply with the development of law after 1933 as mistaken development. It emphasizes especially the severity of the jurisdiction in order to characterize this development. The prosecution also pointed out the high level of legal literature in German legal life before 1933. The German Juristenzeitung, jurists newspaper, was an excellent publication in the field of German legal literature.
I now submit this article, "The Bankruptcy of Criminal Administration of Justice," and first would like to direct the attention of the Tribunal to the prominent of the men who are listed on page one as editors of this legal journal. I would like to point especially out the senior public prosecutor in retirement, Dr. Ebermayer; Dr. Hachenburg, Dr. Haymann, Dr. Kahl; and the former Social Democratic Minister of Justice, Dr. Schiffer. All of these men had nothing to do with the later developments of law and with National Socialism.
The article by Dr. Baumbach, who was also a prominent man of that time, begins with the sentence - "It can, I think, be said that public security among us is in a bad way". In the article he investigates the reasons for this decline, and on page 2 he reaches the conclusion at the top of page 2, where he says: "The state plays a tragiccomic role; the role of the blustering old man, the man who threatens and scolds while somebody snaps his fingers at him unmolested. That is the comic side.
The tragedy lies in the fact that the state forbids the possession of weapons, it denies self-protection; in the draft of the new Penal Code it even encroaches on the most fundamental right of every living creature, self-defense - all with the lie that it is strong enough to protect us. It removes our shoes and says to us: March!"
THE PRESIDENT: We will read your exhibits. A very brief statement of what they purport to cover is sufficient.
DR. KOESSL: Yes, Your Honor. Altogether I wanted to perhaps point out to the Tribunal what the central problem is. I wanted to prove with this document that the cry for a more severe administration of justice is much older than the so-called political change of 1933, and that this cry is due to general constitutional considerations.
I offer this document as Rothaug Exhibit No. 1.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: As Exhibit No. 2 I offer Rothaug Document No. 76, on page 11 of my document book. It is a report about the inauguration of the President of the District Court of Appeals, Dr. Duering at Bamberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. Page 11?
DR. KOESSL: Page 11, at the top of the page, in the German.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Page 13.
THE PRESIDENT: page 13.
DR. KOESSL: It is page 13 in the English; it is supposed to be page 13 in the English document book.
Duerig is characterized by the witness Miethsam as a man who reached that high position even though he was an opponent of National Socialism. Heuwieser, Duerig's predecessor, was the President of the District Court of Appeal who criticized Rothaug's bruque manner and his lack of suitability for a position in the administration of justice. I would like to read the following passages quite briefly.
On page two of the document book - "Whoever has the nerve to utilize wartime conditions for his own ends or even in order to satisfy his criminal instincts, would thus obviously exclude himself from the common task of the German people, and his offense could be punishable only by the most severe punishment. This task was to be shared by the courts martial and the courts of the civil administration of justice. The task would be the same for both, and we may be convinced that the sound sense of justice of the people would welcome nothing so much as a right and fair, as the severe blow struck at criminals of that type. This task would be superior to any task otherwise accomplished among the people by the administration of justice; all other tasks would recede into the background compared to this for the time being."
Those are the words which the then Reich Minister Thierack said at the inauguration. President of the District Court of Appeal Duerig pointed out the need for the good understanding between Party and State. This also seems to be necessary to mention in this document.
Excuse me, I just said Reich Minister Thierack here. It was Guertner.
THE PRESIDENT: Guertner.
DR. KOESSL: I offer Rothaug Document No. 76 as Rothaug Exhibit No. 2.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: The next document, Rothaug Document No, 77, is an article from the journal "Deutsche Justiz". It concerns a report about a conference of Presidents of the Special Courts and referents for cases before the Special Courts, and general public prosecutors on the 24th of October 1939 at the Reich Ministry of Justice. The meeting concerned the work of the Special Courts during war. The then Under Secretary Freisler makes the following request regarding the administration of criminal justice during war. He says - this is at the end of page two of the document - "First, the punishable facts of the case as judged by the legislator should not be lost track of by too much talking and thinking.
In order to use an often used catch word which is not a catch word here, however - I would say no disunion of thought. The legislator threatens him who plunders, that is the plunderer with a good reason with the death penalty. He does not try to dissect the type of the plunderer, to divide it up into characteristics of the facts of the case, each one of which would contain in itself the danger of letting the plunderer escape his just punishment; characteristics which in their entirety depict the plunderer just as little as the assembled parts of a corpse depict a live human being. One should not view the mighty hewn stones of war time penal law with instruments designed for viewing precisely chiselled miniature work. One should first of all not disregard the National Socialist conception of life.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought that counsel was going to introduce the documents without extensive reading of them. The Tribunal - as I have said many times before - gets a great deal more benefit out of its own reading of the documents than we do out of hearing it read in the courtroom.
DR. KOESSL: I, therefore, offer Rothaug Document No. 77 as Exhibit No. 3
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: The next document I want to introduce is Rothaug Document No. 175, and will become Exhibit No. 4. This exhibit is an appeal by Reich Minister Dr. Guertner for the new year 1940. I only want to quote one sentence from it: "The Administration of Justice has to contribute its part to the fortification of the German will to resist and to the merciless extermination of those who try to weaken this will."
I offer this document as Rothaug Exhibit No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
Court No. III, Case No. III.
DR. KOESSL: As Exhibit No. 5, I offer Rothaug document No. 39. This is an article about criminality in the German Reich during the first year of the war in 1939. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 5.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment; we haven't found that yet.
DR. KOESSL: I beg your pardon. The document was Rothaug document No. 39, on page 25 in the English document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 5 is received.
DR. KOESSL: The next document I wish to offer is an article from the journal "Deutsche Justiz" of the 15th of December 1939. This article is entitled, "Thoughts about Penal War Law and the Decree regarding Dangerous Criminals." It is by the then Undersecretary in the Ministry of Justice, Dr. Freisler. I offer this document No. 78 as Exhibit No. 6.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received.
DR. KOESSL: The next document I offer is Rothaug document No. 16, and I offer it as Exhibit No. 7. This document seems to me to be especially important. I announced, in my opening statement, that from the jurisdiction of the Reich Supreme Court and from the literature of the time before and after 1933, I would take out and emphasize principles which demonstrate the substantive legal situation, and that I would read them in a brief form. This exhibit is supposed to demonstrate simultaneously the legal position of the German Judge under the law, and it is also supposed to show what possibilities were available to the judge if he acted in accordance with his oath of office.
This summarized compilation is taken out of the standard work on German criminal law, the so-called Leipzig commentary on the Reich Penal Code. The compilation begins with the beginning of the political change in 1935, and covers the entire criminal law thinking as it was developed in Reich jurisdiction.
I request the Tribunal to pay particular attention to this article; in accordance with the request of the Tribunal I shall not read any excerpts from the document.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will give it careful examination and consideration in accordance with your request.
DR. KOESSL: I offer Rothaug document No. 16 as Exhibit No. 7.
The Next document which I offer is Rothaug document No. 5, which I offer as Exhibit No. 8. It is an article from "Das Deutsche Recht", and it is entitled, "Importance of the Reich Supreme Court in the field of jurisdiction in criminal cases." The article concerns itself with the significance of the Reich Supreme Court and also speaks about the nullity plea and the extraordinary objection. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 8.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: The next document which I offer is Rothaug document No. 46, and I offer it as Exhibit No. 9. This document is a treatise about the Decree against Public Enemies of 5 September. The document as such speaks for itself and therefore I shall not go into any details now.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
Dr. Koessl, may I ask you a question which has been in my mind for some time? Some of the exhibits refer to the Law for the Protection of the People. Can you tell me which of the laws that was by date, do you recall? The document refers to it only by that description. If you don't remember now, I shall be glad to be advised later.
DR. KOESSL: Yes, I shall look into that immediately.
There are several laws for the protection of the German people, for example, for the protection of German Bolld and honor. I just wanted to find out which particular one you were referring to, and I shall inform you about it.
THE PRESIDENT: It is referred to in that manner in document book III-A Supplement, I believe, in the reports, and I was unable to tell what law was meant.
DR. KOESSL: I shall immediately find out about it and let you know.
THE PRESIDENT: No Hurry.
DR. KOESSL: As Rothaug Exhibit No. 10, I offer Rothaug document No. 32. This document is a judgment by the Reich Supreme Court, and it concerns the application of Paragraph 2 of the Decree Against Public Enemies. From this document I would like to briefly read the following findings of the Reich Supreme Court. Only one sentence is concerned;
Referring to the judging of this case by the Special Court, the Reich Supreme Court says:
"The Special Court in so doing is overlooking the fact that the nullity plea, correctly, states that the issue is not whether the robbery which the defendant committed is an especially serious robbery but whether an especially serious case of a crime committed during air attacks, under Article 2 of the Decree Against public Enemies, exists."
This finding of the Reich Supreme Court is important in connection with some cases which are of importance in the case of the defendant Rothaug. When I deal with these cases I shall refer back to this document.
I offer this document, Rothaug No. 32, as Exhibit No. 10.
TEE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: The next exhibit I offer is Rothaug document No. 44 as Exhibit 11. This document also is a decision by the Reich Supreme Court, regarding Article 4 of the Decree Against Public Enemies, and it comments on the concept of exploiting war-time conditions.
I offer this document Rothaug No. 44 as Rothaug Exhibit No. 11.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: Rothaug document No. 33 also is concerned with Article 4 of the Decree Against Public Enemies, and I offer it as Exhibit 12.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: This document too also speaks for itself.
The next document, Rothaug No. 25, I offer as Exhibit No. 13. Here too we have a decision of the Reich Supreme Court, and this decision is concerned with Articles 2 and 4 of the Decree Against Public Enemies. I offer it as Exhibit No. 13.
THE PRESIDENT: That was document 25?
DR. KOESSL: This is Rothaug document No. 25, and I offer it as Exhibit 13.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be necessary for us to take our recess at this time for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KOESSL: May I continue to present my documents? The next document which I wish to introduce is Rothaug Document No. 23. The Exhibit No. is 14. This Exhibit also contains a decision by the Supreme Reich Court. It discusses the significance of the offenders person in violation of Paragraph 2 of the Public Enemy Law. The page in the English Book is 96.
The next document which I wish to offer is Rothaug Document No. 7. The Exhibit Number is No. 15. This document also contains a decision by the Supreme Reich Court. It deals with the facts of the case covered by Article 92 of the Reich Penal Code 132 and it gives the opinion of the Supreme Reich Court about offenders of the Public Enemy Law. I am offering Rothaug Document No. 17 as Rothaug Exhibit No. 15.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 13, 14 and 15 are received.
DR. KOESSL: As my next document I offer Rothaug Document No. 177. The Exhibit Number is No. 16.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. We have not been able to find that yet.
DR. KOESSL: I wanted to find out what page it is. In the German text it is 67 and in the English -
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is not in the book.
DR. KOESSL: In the English copy which I have here the document appears on Page 101.
THE PRESIDENT: No, it is not in our book; I am sorry. We have found it on Page - - the number at the top of the page -- 94.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you, your Honor. I offer Rothaug Document 177 as Exhibit No. 16. This decision by the Supreme Reich Court deals with the aim of the law against violent criminals . I would like to read a brief extract because it is of importance for a great many decisions. It says:
"In interpreting the law one must bear in mind that the Ministerial Counsel for Reich defense issued it and that evidently when it was promulgated the intention was, at the time when many men who normally see to the maintenance of order inside Germany on account of the fact that they have been drafted to the army or for other purposes of armed defense, are no longer able to fulfill that duty. The homeland must, therefore, be particularly protected against violent criminals endangering the home front."
That idea is mentioned in many sentences passed by Rothaug.
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry. We have not yet got your document located. We are looking for Document No. 177.
DR. KOESSL: No. 177 is, according to the copy which I have before me, on Page 97.
THE PRESIDENT: The document which is on Page 97 is listed as Document 17. Should that be corrected?
DR. KOESSL: In my document it is designated as 177. It is Document 177. There may be a printing error, your Honor, as the preceding document bears the number 17. Then the next document which I have just presented and which I offered as Exhibit 16 is No. 177.
THE PRESIDENT: We will change the numbering from 17 to 177.
DR. KOESSL: Yes, 177.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked Exhibit 16.
DR. KOESSL: Yes, your Honor. The next document which I offer is Rothaug Document No. 47. Exhibit Number is 17. This document contains a decision on the law against violent criminals of 5 December 1939. I offer Document 47 as Exhibit No. 17.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: Rothaug Document No. 38 I am offering as Exhibit No. 18. This document deals with the so-called type of the offender which was of importance for the applicability of the law against public enemies. It is an article from the Official Journal of the German Administration of Justice -- "Deutsche Justiz". I offer Rothaug Document No. 38 as Exhibit No. 18.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibits are received. We have received all of these exhibits.
DR. KOESSL: The next document book is my Document Book I-B. The first document from Document Book I-B which I wish to offer is Rothaug Document No. 36. The Exhibit number is 19. This document contains a decision by the Supreme Reich Court about the type of the violent criminal and of the dangerous habitual criminal. I offer Document No. 36 as Exhibit No. 19.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
DR. KOESSL: Rothaug Document No. 42 I am offering as Exhibit No. 20. This document also deals with the concept of the dangerous habitual criminal. I offer Document 42 as Exhibit No. 20.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: Rothaug Document No. 18, which I offer as Exhibit No. 21, deals with a decision by the Supreme Reich Court which stated its opinion on the following questions: First of all, who is a dangerous habitual criminal within the meaning of Article I of the amended law of 4 September 1941, and, secondly, under what points of view is the question to be decided in a case when the death sentence is to be passed on a dangerous, habitual criminal under the law of September 1941 instead of the ordinary penal provisions such as protective custody which could be applied?
May I direct the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the decisions by the so-called regular courts, that is to say, by a penal chamber, that these decisions were made by a regular court and by the Supreme Reich Court. A special court did not participate in these decisions. This might serve to illustrate the uniformity of German administration of penal law. I offer Rothaug Document No. 18 as Exhibit 21.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KOESSL: Rothaug Document No. 10, which I offer as Exhibit No. 22, also is concerned with a decision by the Supreme Reich Court which deals with the dangerous habitual criminal. I offer Rothaug Document No. 10 as Exhibit No. 22.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: The next document which I wish to offer is Rothaug Document No. 3. The Exhibit number is No. 23. This document deals with the question as to under what conditions, the death sentence is to be pronounced in the case of a dangerous habitual criminal. I offer Rothaug Document No. 3 as Exhibit No. 23.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.