THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received as Exhibit 559.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: While the Court is looking, may I use the microphone to inquire of defense counsel: Is any defense counsel present authorized to act for Dr. Aschenauer in his absence? If not, I would withhold it. May I proceed?
The Prosecution offers in evidence, as Prosecution Exhibit 579, document NG-2332 which is a declaration in lieu of oath of Karl Friederich von Oppenheim. This was discussed during the cross examination of the Defendant Rothaug. At that time, as I was advised, its sufficiency as an affidavit had not been established. Mr. Wooleyhan advised the Tribunal that he would later offer it. I think maybe Dr. Koessl has an objection.
DR. KOESSL: Koessl for the Defendant Rothaug. I object to the introduction of this affidavit because the form of it is not in accordance with the regulations. Neither the introduction is in accordance with the rules nor is the end. Therefore, I object to the submission of this affidavit.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your honors please, if the Court will look at the first paragraph, the Tribunal will determine that the opening paragraph is not in the express language of the rule. However, the rule covers a declaration in lieu of oath. This declaration was taken before Heinrich Decker, a notary public. Also the sense of the substance of the obligation of the oath is set out in the first paragraph. I am aware of the fact that because from time to time the prosecution has waived strict compliance, that is not a precedent but I ask the court to permit this to be introduced into evidence, first, because it is duly sworn to; second, because even if it were not under oath, the substance of the rule is stated in the first paragraph.
If Your Honor please, there isn't any question about translation. The translation is correct. I understand the German says "Certified."
THE PRESIDENT: It appears that the exhibit is not in the form required by the rules, not sworn to.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May it be given a number and shown as rejected, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I didn't quite understand. Dr. Doetzer, do you feel you are authorized to act for Dr. Aschenauer or do you feel you are authorized to act for Dr. Aschenauer or do you feel I should wait until he appears?
DA. DOETZER: Your Honor, I am not in a position to speak for Dr. Aschenauer in a general way, but I am authorized this morning to ask the Tribunal to excuse Defendant Petersen from further attendance at this session because he is suffering from Furunculosis.
THE PRESIDENT: At the defendant's request, through his authorized attorney, the defendant may be excused from the session today. We have been informed as to his position.
DR. DOETZER: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: In view of the fact also that the defendant Petersen is not represented by counsel I shall not offer the next document.
THE PRESIDENT: We are informed by the Secretary-General that he is in possession of Book IV and Supplement Book V, Exhibits of the Defendant Oeschey. Could those be presented at this time?
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the court, Friday afternoon we discussed this question. I had pointed out that my document Book IV belongs together with Document Books III and V because of the context. I had pointed out that for that reason I would prefer to introduce my document Book III together with the other two books. The Tribunal was kind enough to grant my request.
I hear that my Document Books III and V have now been completed. They should reach the SecretaryGeneral any moment now. As soon as he has them I shall be able to introduce all my document books together.
THE PRESIDENT: This may be an appropriate time to call to the attention of counsel for the defense and also the prosecution that the indications are that we are approaching the time when the testimony will be completed. We call attention to the fact that some of counsel have suggested that they had a few isolated exhibits to offer. We do not expect and we admonish counsel that they should not wait until the last day before the testimony is closed and then ask far leave to procure or submit additional documents. We trust that you will gather up the odds and ends of your documentary evidence and have at the earliest possible time.
I assume than counsel for both sides will desire that some time be allowed by way of recess after the conclusion of the testimony on both sides and before the arguments. The Tribunal would be glad to hear your ideas on that matter if you are prepared to present them at this time.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honors please, as to time, I am not prepared to present my ideas but first I would like to present to the Tribunal the Prosecution's desires with reference to the closing arguments. We would prefer to present briefs in this case to the Tribunal during the recess, these briefs to be presented directly to the Tribunal; the same thing to be done by the defense counsel if they chose to do so. In other words, they would not have to submit briefs to the Prosecution.
Then, at the closing statement, rather than the occupy on behalf of the Prosecution a day, as has been done in most cases, the Prosecution would prefer to make an oral argument not exceeding, in any event two hours and possibly an hour and a half.
The exact time I have not arrived at that would be necessary, but I can within a few days, Defense counsel could, in that event --whatever the Tribunal ordered -- could either make their arguments orally under such time as the Tribunal allotted and subject to the questioning by the Tribunal, or could submit their final statements, if they consider that they were in the form of briefs.
That is a little different from what has been the process in other Tribunals. The Prosecution's feeling is that in this case, to a large extent, each of the defendants needs a special treatment and that it cannot adequately be done in a so-called final argument which would be read to the Tribunal over the good part of the day. We would prefer to reduce our arguments as to individual defendants to writing during the time given for recess and then to make a relatively short oral argument at the close. That is the Prosecution's thinking at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has some comments to make but we will hear any suggestions from the defense before making them. Do you desire to be heard, Dr. Kubuschok?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Of course, it goes without saying that whatever the ruling of the Tribunal is we will abide by.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I have to admit that the defense counsel have not yet come to an agreement as to the suggestions they wish to put to the Tribunal, but one point seems to be clear today. The translating difficulties are so great that for that technical reason alone the pleas by the defense must one put together if possible in one action.
I believe, therefore, that the solution that the Prosecution has suggested, that is, to introduce written briefs, as well as to make oral statements, I believe that that suggestion will fail for technical difficulties alone. I would ask the Tribunal to take into consideration the fact that we who were trained in the customs of German criminal procedure, are very much inclined to concentrate our defense in our final pleas.
That is our custom in which we are versed and which we have been trained. It is a matter of course, that we shall not extend our final brief's beyond all limit, but we believe that in those final pleas we can say all those things which, have to be said, whereas, in the written statements such as the Prosecution plans them, they could only be indicated, whereas in oral statements they can be elaborated upon.
I believe that all I can say for the moment is that we would ask you to give us an opportunity to make our final pleas, making oral statements, and I am sure the defense counsel will have the wish to work out their statements in writing beforehand and to submit them so that when it comes to the statements being made to the Tribunal there will he no translating difficulties.
As regards our wishes about the duration of the recess, I am afraid I cannot say anything now before I have spoken to my colleagues and I think that the duration of that recess will also have to depend on the time which we take now for the last cases because that will effect the time which is left to the defense to prepare its final briefs.
THE PRESIDENT: As I understand your tentative suggestion, it is that although you world prepare in writing your final pleas, you would not submit to the Tribunal an English translation of it but would present it orally in open court and that we would then receive it through the translation in court and thereafter in the transcript. Is that your idea?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: That is quite correct, Your Honor. I believe, however, that we shall be forced to do that for technical reasons. Naturally it would be better if the translation would make it possible for us to submit our final pleas in German and have those translated and to submit those pleas before we read them out here to the Tribunal such as was done with the IMT because that would afford the Tribunal an opportunity both to listen and to read.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal would have the opportunity both to listen and to read in any event. The only difference would be that we would listen first and read afterwards from the transcript instead of reading first and listening afterwards.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Well, Your Honor, but, of course, it would be somewhat easier if the translation had been made beforehand because naturally a translation made beforehand would be better than a translation made here on the spot.
THE PRESIDENT: We appreciate that. Mr. LaFollette, the difficulty which at the moment seems very serious is this: I doubt whether the Tribunal after considering the matter will be willing to grant a recess long enough for fourteen written briefs to be submitted to the translation department and processed and presented in English to the Court. I see your suggestion that the Prosecution should submit an English brief to the Court, but as to the fourteen written briefs which you suggest from the Defense, I think it would take so long a time for them to be processed that that appears to be out of the question.
It seems to me that Dr. Kubuschok's remarks are very much in point. Knowing the difficulties with the translation department, it seems to me that it would be a month at least before fourteen such documents could be presented to us in advance of oral argument.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Then Your Honors would prefer that all arguments without briefs apply? Are we driven to that?
THE PRESIDENT: No. I think we had better say this: that whatever written arguments in English can be conveniently presented by either side during the period of the recess will, of course, be welcomed, but to suggest that the entire case of the Defense should be presented in advance and translated into English will involve too great a delay. We will set the time for the recess and any briefs which can be conveniently presented to us, we will, of course, welcome, but I think we will have to depend so far as the Defense Counsel at least are concerned upon their oral argument as suggested by Dr. Kubuschok. Now that is not the determination of the Tribunal, but we will give that consideration.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes. As I recall -- Your honors will have to help me, if I may ask. Does the rule provide any specific time now as to the extent of closing argument as it does in opening statement or is that open for the Tribunal?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't recall that there is any rule unless about the closing argument.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes. that being true--
THE PRESIDENT: There may be. I will ascertain.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: -- I would say this, that the more extensively the Prosecution can brief in writing, then the less time we would ask in the closing argument so that more time could be taken by the Defense of whatever total time the Court had in mind for the presentation of their closing statements and the less translation would be necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will give consideration to this matter and we will take it up again shortly. We should be glad if defense Counsel would confer at a very early date so that we may know your collective conclusions as to what you deem to be desirable.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I am sorry, Your Honor. Did Your Honor ---
THE PRESIDENT: I make it that the next order of business is the continuation of the case Cuhorst, is it not?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor. May I even in Dr. Brieger's absence, and he may make his argument later -- I would like to present a matter which concerns the calling of witnesses which a rose when I presented the affidavit of Dr. Hans Gramm which was marked for identification. I am sorry, I can't give Your Honors the exhibit number. The NG numberwas 1884. It was during the cross examination of the defendant, Cuhorst. I will proceed with the factual statement.
Dr. Gramm came and testified as a witness for the defendant, Schlegelberger. He came to Nurnberg. At the time he was here, the Prosecution could not under any circumstances have presented him as a witness, but he was in Nurnberg. We took two affidavits from him. The one which was offered, Your Honors will recall, dealt with the Hitler information sheet number 66. At that time there was an objection, and I merely asked it to be marked for identification. He made another affidavit with reference to the position bearing upon the manner in which the defendant, Cuhorst, was regarded in the Ministry of Justice, which I think is a proper rebuttal document.
I feel that I am entitled to offer those affidavits without the witness for the reason that when he gave the affidavit, although in Nurnberg, he could not be out on the witness stand because it was the time that the Defense was putting on witnesses. The rulings which the Court made in the Klett case, I think that is open, and in the Witzigmann case had this factual difference. Those people were affiants of the Prosecution. They were called to Nurnberg for the purpose of being cross examined, and they appeared in Nurnberg during a time in this proceedings when they could have been examined. There were certain personal matters which prevented Dr. Klett from remaining apparently, but the time and the presentation of evidence at which they were here was such that they could be put on.
Now I will attempt to get the witness, Gramm, back here if it is necessary, but there are one or two other affiants who came here during the process of the Defense and gave the Prosecution affidavits. It. will expedite my judgment and action on ordering witnesses in for rebuttal if the Court sometime today or early tomorrow can make a ruling upon this issue which I believe I have adequately presented.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you still have the references to the transcript which you furnished the tribunal some week or so ago?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor, I think I can give them to you now. 3662 was the ruling in the case of Witzigmann and I believe that 3684 was the discussion in the case of Klett in which there was at chat time no ruling. I will try to check on that during the morning recess or noon hour. If there are any differences, I will advise the Court, but I think I am accurate on those references.
THE PRESIDENT: Are where any other matters that should be presented while we wait for the presentation on behalf of Cuhorst?
The Tribunal will necessarily take a recess until the Counsel is ready to proceed.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Court will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. MANDRY: May it please the Tribunal, the defendant Cuhorst has asked me in the place of Dr. Brieger to examine the witnesses. If the Court approves I would like to begin with the examination of the witness Hegele.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Mayor Klett of Stuttgart is here. He was to have been examined under cross examination and then there was discussion about an affidavit. His Honor the Mayor, would like to permitted to attend the hearing for the balance of the day. I would like to request the Court that he be examined first, because under the rules he cannot remain in the court room, or that the defendant Cuhorst's counsel be requested to waive any objection to, his being in the court room. He is here available to testify. That he be examined is all that I ask or that he be permitted to sit in the court room.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to call him as your witness at this time?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: No, Your Honor, I want the defense to call him, for cross examination. He has given an affidavit and then gave a counter affidavit and then was forced to go back but he is available for cross examination by the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Can counsel conduct that cross examination? Do you feel authorized to conduct that cross examination?
DR. MANDRY: Of the witness Klett, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. MANDRY: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is counsel willing that the witness Klett should be seated in the court room as a spectator?
DR. MANDRY: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be no objection, he may do so. Then go ahead with your witness.
DR. MANDRY: I would like to call the witness Max Hegele.
JUDGE BLAIR: 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 whole truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(Witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION.
OF MAX HEGELE.
BY DR. MANDRY:
Q Please give your first and last name?
A Max Hegele.
Q Where were you born?
A Schwenningen on Neckar, Wuerttemberg.
Q And the date of your birth?
A The 2nd of January 1885.
Q And your profession?
AAt the time I was director of the District Court at Stuttgart.
DR. MANDRY: May it please the Tribunal, Dr. Brieger has just come into the court room, and I assume that he is in a position to carry out the examination himself.
DR. BRIEGER: May it please the Court. I based my conduct on the assumption that there was a misunderstanding. I had asked for leave until eleven o'clock this morning, and I am sorry there was a delay of several minutes and I apologize. May I continue?
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q Witness, you have already been asked about your personal data?
A Yes.
Q May I know from where you a member of the NSDAP? And when?
A Since the first of May 1933.
Q Did you hold any rank in the NSDAP, in the party or in any one of its formations?
A I was in the SA reserve from December. May I ask in what direction may I speak? I only want to know - I have asked in what direction do you wish me to speak, to you or the Tribunal?
Q To the Tribunal and please turn around when you have answered the question so that I may know when I can put the next question to you.
A I was in the SA reserve from December 1933 on until August 1938. Subsequently, I was block helper in the local group, Sinnenbuch, until August 1941.
Q Has your de-nazification trial been concluded?
A No, I am under arrest and I don't know anything about it.
Q Since when were you a member of the special court at Stuttgart?
A Since the 1st of February 1942.
Q Were you a member of the penal senate?
A Three-fourths of my time I worked at the special court and one quarter with the penal chamber. I was with the Special Court until the 30th of November. 1944, and from the 1st of December 1944 on up to the Easter Tuesday, I was only a member of the Penal Senate.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I have heard two translations. May I ask which is right, was the witness at the penal senate or the penal chamber?
THE PRESIDENT: Which do you call the penal senate or penal chamber?
DR. BRIEGER: The penal senate.
Q May I ask you once more, when were you with the penal senate?
A I was with the penal senate one-fourth of my activities from 1st Feb. until 30 of November 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: The penal senate of what court?
WITNESS:
A The penal senate of the District Court at Stuutgart, and from the 1st of December, 1944, until March I was only with the penal senate.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q And with the special court to make that very clear?
A I was from the 1st of February 1942 until November 30, 1944 with it, three-fourths of my time.
Q How many years' experience as a Judge, especially as a criminal judge, did you have when you were called to the Special Court as a Judge?
A In 1913 for half a year I was an attorney in Ulm and then on the 1st of November 1913 I entered the civil service of Wuerttemberg and from then on I was an auxiliary, that is to say, a deputy local Court Judge.
Q Excuse me if I interrupt. Will you please be very brief concerning that point. We do not want the details of your work.
A Since the 1st of November 1913 I was a Judge and intermittently until 1919 I was employed with the Wuerttemberg Grain Office. That was also in the civil service buth then again I returned to the judiciary service. At any rate I was a Judge in Stuttgart since the 1st of December 1914.
Q For how long were you a judge in criminal cases, that is the important point?
A That may have been during the first period, from 1913 until 1914. I was both judges for penal cases and civil cases with the local courts, and when on the 1st of December 1914 I came to the local court at Stuttgart, for the first fear or years I only handled penal cases, that is the time of the first world war, and after the war I had served with the Land Grain Office I was penal judge there, until the end of 1925, 1926 and 1927 I was judge for civil cases with the local courtsat Stuutgart and from the end of 1927 until 1929 I was with the third civil chamber of the District Court at Stuttgart.
Q Excuse me, witness, if I interrupt again. I believe the Court is only interested to hear quite generally as to how many years you were a penal judge?
A Primarily I was a penal judge. At any rate from 1930 on I was only a judge for penal cases.
Q That is all. Thank you, witness. During what years did you work at the special court Stuttgart?
A From the 1st of February 1942 until 30 of November 1944, when Cuhorst joined the Army.
Q Approximately on how many cases were you an associate judge and how many cases were you reporting judge while Cuhorst was the presiding judge?
A I should say first that in Stuttgart I did hot participate in any sessions under Cuhorst, only outside on duty trip. It was in 1942 perhaps on two or three trips, each one about a half a week to a week. In 1943 two or three trips and in 1944 only two trips. I estimate that per week we had at the most fifteen cases. That would amount to about 100 cases all together where I participate with Cuhorst as presiding judge and of these 100 cases a small number were cases of the penal senate and in about one half of these cases I was reporting judge and the other half associate judge. Cuhorst himself in cases of minor importance might also have taken that job of reporting judge, and, therefore, I can say in fifty cases at most I was reporting judge and the ether fifty cases at most associate judge.
Q Were you also reporting judge with the special Court?
A Yes, essentially in Stuttgart and also several times outside Stuttgart.
Q Thank you, that is sufficient. Who were the others apart from Cuhorst and yourself were presiding judges?
A First of all the director of the District Court, Bohn, who from 1933 on was Deputy Chairman of the Special Court. He was the other one and then the third one Stuber, and then I was the fourth one in the order, and after me there were Peier, Eckert, also Azesdorfer and then Freyt, as far as I know.
Q. Now to speak about the defense. Did Cuhorst interrupt the parties, the defense counsel at times, and if so, under what circumstances?
A. Whether Cuhorst interrupted the Party?
Q. The defense counsel. The defense counsel. You misunderstood me.
A. That Cuhorst on and off interrupted the defense counsel was well known. Whether in cases where I participated under Cuhorst's presiding he interrupted defense counsel I tried to remember now for months, but I don't know it any longer.
Q. Did Cuhorst prohibit the defense counsel from making further statements?
A. I never experienced such a prohibition of further statements, and I don't believe it b cause I would have heard about it.
Q. According to your knowledge, did defense counsel ever complain with the competent offices, that is to say, the President of the District Court of Appeals, or maybe the President of the Bar Association, about the fact that Cuhorst restricted their defense?
A. Only afterwards, that is, since I am in prison, I heard that after Cuhorst had left, defense counsel complained to the personnel official, Herr Schlecht. Whether they also complained to Chief President Kuestner himself, that I could not say. Whether they complained to the bar association I do not know, because I had no connection with the bar association.
Q. At the Special Court Stuttgart were there ever any Germans or foreigners sentenced to death for political Crimes?
A. As long as I was with the Special Court that did not happen, and as far as I know it Ad not occur before, either. That could only have been a sentence for undermining of military morale or for broadcasting crimes. I believe that I can answer that question with "no."
Q. Were Jews sentenced?
A. That I have to answer in the same way. I believe also that I can say no, they were not.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean sentenced to death, or sentenced? Your first ---
THE WITNESS: As far as I know, at any rate during the time when I worked with the Special Court, there was not a single case where a Jew stood as a defendant before the Special. Court, and before that, as far as I know, that was not the case, either.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. In addition to the gypsy case, Winter-Eckstein, were there any other cases where gypsies were sentenced to death?
A. That is not known to me. I don't believe so. As for the case Winter-Eckstein, I heard very little about it. I do not know any details, and of other gypsy cases nothing is known to me.
C. At the Special Court Stuttgart when Cuhorst was presiding, or in other proceedings, were there any cases against Poles where special rules of procedure were applied?
A. No. The German rules of criminal procedure were applied.
Q. You were a member and deputy presiding judge of the Juvenile Penal Chamber. Therefore I ask you, what was the protected age for seducing girls?
A. For seducing girls? That was 16 years. That is, after the end of the 16th year the girl was no longer in the protected age.
Q. Witness, now I come to your affidavit for the prosecution, Document book 3K, Ng 488, Exhibit 216, which on 23 November 1946 Mr. Einstein took from you. In that affidavit what did you mean to say by the passage Cuhorst was an authoritative person?
A. In order to answer that question I first have to state that for about 20 years I worked with Cuhorst for the Section Swabia of the German and Austrian Alpine Club and that only the last two years and ten months I had professional contacts with him. I ask to be excused if I have to go to a little greater length here.
Q. May I interrupt you? Did that passage refer to Cuhorst's work as a judge, or his work as a section chief in the Alpine Club?
A. That is why I wanted to mention that the greater part of the years I know Cuhorst privately, that is to say, in the Alpine Club, and that my knowledge of the manner and behavior of Cuhorst is mainly based on these contents. Therefore I would like to say that in 1924 I was made a secretary with the Board of the Section Swabia of the German and Austrian Alpine Club. As far as I know in 1925 or 1926, I am not quite sure about the year, Cuhorst also became a member of the Board and first did not have a special sphere of work. Later he became Care Taker of the Stuttgart Lodge on the Arlberg --
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask a Question? Dr. Brieger, do you understand that the Prosecution or that you yourself contend that the activity of Cuhorst in an Alpine club has anything to do with this case? Just answer me briefly. We have no evidence about that at all, except that he was a member of the Alpine Club.
DR. BRIEGER: And that is why I wanted to cause the witness to be as brief as possible in dealing with that point. These matters are only important as far as the background is necessary to the two affidavits of Bieger and Renz. In those cases his work in the Alpine Club is very essential Only if one understands that can one also understand both these affidavits. But that doesn't change -
THE PRESIDENT: Tell me briefly what connection you think Cuhorst's work in the Alpine Club has to do with this case, in general terms.
DR. BRIEGER: His work there h s no connection, only the surroundings.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we don't want to hear anything more about it. I gathered that the witness is merely attempting to say that his estimate of the character of Cuhorst was derived from his experience with him in the Alpine Club, chiefly, He can say that in one sentence and then we are through with the Alpine Club.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Taking into consideration what the presiding judge has just told you, Witness, may I assume that that passage which you used at that time has nothing to do with Cuhorst's characterization as a judge?
A. It has something to do with his entire personality. Cuhorst was a very definite person. He didn't ask much in the section what he was to do. Also, later he was very precise in stating his opinion and was convinced that his opinion was correct, and presented his opinion with great definiteness when there was some question of an argument or debate.
Q. Witness, in order to comply with the request of the Tribunal I want to ask you in this manner, in what way could his authoritative personality such as you have explained it affect his work as presiding judge for the Special Court?
A. In the way that if he had a certain opinion of a case or a man he was very definite e about it and was convinced that his opinion was correct. I believe that still today I can use the term "selbstherrlich" (authoritative).
Q. I assume, however, that you do not mean to say by that that he did not tolerate that any other opinion was even put under discussion especially in deliberation?
A. No, of course not.
Q. I assume that that didn't man that there couldn't be a vote in the deliberation in case of a difference of opinion?
A. Shall I speak about deliberations now already?
Q. No, no. Thank you. I am satisfied with the answer that far.
A. No, of course a vote was taken, and everybody could state his opinion and argue it, and one deliberated, and voted in the end.
Q. Witness, in the affidavit which I have just mentioned, you stated among other things the following: Cuhorst was first of all responsible for the bad reputation of the Special Court at Stuttgart. How did you mean that and what brought you to that point of view?
A. From the fall of 1945 on, I was in Camp 74, Ludwigsburg, and I came to think about these things after the first newspaper articles against Cuhorst appeared in the Stuttgart newspaper.
It was called the Special Court Cuhorst, and then in the newspapers frequently one could find, until the war, that is, a report about a trial before the Special Court, and it was said there with Senate President Cuhorst a Presiding Judge, that and that trial took place. Cuhorst was Gau Speaker. Therefore he was known all over the land. The Special Court, and that was also known throughout the land Wuerttemberg, as it was competent for the entire land Wuerttemberg, had gotten on the whole all serious cases which up to that time had been tried before seven or eight in the land; in addition to that, the serious cases of about 14 penal chambers of Wuerttemberg; major crimes were tried and severe sentences were pronounced. The political offenses were tried, especially malicious acts. And thus while I was at the camp I came to the opinion that the name of Cuhorst had influenced the reputation of the Special Court at Stuttgart, for these and other reasons, which I could not recall at the moment. I also want to add that of course it was not pleasant for any defendant to come before the Special Court. The Special Court had the reputation of being something like a court martial. And I also believed that Cuhorst is somewhat incriminated by the fact that he had a brother who was also Gau Speaker, even Reich Speaker, who was also known throughout, the country; in addition to that, and unfortunately I have to mention that also, his father was Senior Prosecutor with the Prosecution Stuttgart. He was there for many years and handled political cases which were frequently discussed in the press, and in addition to that his father, during the first World War, was in charge of a reserve battalion in Stuttgart, so that he was also known throughout the country, and not liked everywhere. And thus the defendant Cuhorst was probably the first judge who was known throughout the entire land of Wuerttemberg. All that, taken together, in my opinion, let to it that --- well, that Cuhorst and the Special Court were identified.
Q. Just an intermediate question, witness. Is it correct that Cuhorst in his opinion was frequently confused with his father and his brother, especially as far as political activity is concerned?
A. Especially in camps 74 and 72 Ludwigsburg when I talked to any colleague about Cuhorst I found out frequently that they mixed up the brothers, and then I had to say it wasn't the shorter fellow, it was the tall fellow; it wasn't the Studienrat, but it was the President of the Court.
Q. Do you happen to remember when Cuhorst's father died, or how long was he in office?
A. He may have died in '37 or '38. He was almost 70 at that time. At any rate he was in Stuttgart for a very long time, much longer than I was in Stuttgart.
Q. You said Cuhorst's father had had some political activity. I assume that you did not mean in the sense of National Socialism, but on the basis of the trials which he had to--
THE PRESIDENT: We are not concerned with the activities of the father.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Witness, you also stated in your affidavit that Cuhorst was presiding in all sensational and show trials. By sensational and show trials do you mean to say that Cuhorst wanted to have a great audience, that prominent Party leaders were invited to the sessions, and that he selected also the courtroom for important trials from this point of view?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Just a minute. I object, Your Honor, for two reasons. First I object, and shall continue to object against counsel cross examining this witness upon statements which he has previously made. This is a direct examination and it is not proper to direct cross examination against affidavits in the record. He didn't call this witness at any time for cross examination and had the opportunity. Secondly, I object to this question for the reason that it was leading in form and calls for a statement of the witness with reference to something that he made in his previous affidavit and in a form which indicates its answer.