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.
THE PRESIDENT: It is obvious that counsel has been unduly leading his witness by asking questions which suggest the answer. You may restate your question and we will rule on it.
DR. BRIEGER: In this connection I want to say the following: I was told that if I have before me an incriminating witness who has given an affidavit for the Prosecution and I have called him as my own witness, that then I am afforded the opportunity to ask the witness for the purpose of correction and clarification. I am told that this was the practice, the permanent practice, before the International Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: We need no argument about it. The Court has merely suggested to you that you ask a question without leading tho witness. When you ask it we will rule upon it.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. In your affidavit of 23 November 1946 you have stated that Cuhorst in all sensational and show trials presided over the session himself. By "sensational and show trials" do you mean'to say that Cuhorst wanted to have a large audience, that he invited prominent Party leaders to the sessions, and that he selected under these points of view a large court room for an important trial?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I object, Your Honor, for the reason that the question is still leading in form, but primarily I object for the reason that there is contained in this question a direct quotation from the affidavit of this witness, which is certainly cross examination. If this witness wants to give testimony contrary to that which he gave before, he may give it, but not with reference to the specific statements he made in that affidavit. This, again, also calls for the answer.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will ask the witness a question. Without reference to your affidavit you may state now whether or not Cuhorst conducted what counsel referred to as "Schauprozess" in his Court, and whether he invited dignitaries to attend the trials.
THE WITNESS: Nothing is known to me about the fact that Cuhorst had invited important personalities, dignitaries, especially high officials of the Party. I only know of two cases where one could speak of show trials, Schauprozosse. That is the one case in Ulm. I was not there, but I happen to know about it. At that time thefts were committed on the railways by employees of the railway, and because that was so desired by the Reichministry of Justice, they were tried where they had occurred, that was on the railroad station in the marshalling yards and the warehouse of the railroad station of Ulm. And second case was near Siegmaringen. At that time, as far as I am informed, a man had stolen large amounts of food from the mess and used it for himself, and in order to demonstrate to the workers that man was not protected by the Special Court, the trial was actually conducted in the plant. Those are the two cases of which I know that they were called , Schauprozosse, show trials.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. In your affidavit where you mention --
THE PRESIDENT: You can ask him any questions with reference to the facts in which you are interested,
DR. BRIEGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: --- but you needn't refer to the affidavit, in view of counsel's objection.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, Your Honor.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. In your affidavit -
THE PRESIDENT: Objection sustained.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. In your affidavit --
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I object, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection sustained.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Please describe the case Stiegler.
A. The case Stiegler --- Stiegler was a German soldier who, by the military court of his division, was transferred to the Civilian Administration of Justice for trial and sentence. He was indicted for largescale racketeering. I do not know the details because I was not the reporting judge. Stiegler was a ruthless racketeer whom one could call a black marketeer today. His wife was a co-defendant. The trial took place in Ulm. Whether Stiegler had a criminal record I don't know any more. He was a clerk in this company and the impression was made that his racketeer activities had exerted a very bad influence on his comrades. The charges, as far as I still remember, were for fraud committed as a public enemy. It was a very serious case, and after an extensive trial and deliberation the death sentence was pronounced according to the demand made by the Public Prosecutor.
Q. And did Cuhorst in the Habrechthaus, wherein the case Bieger took place, have any function which authorized him to issue directives?
A. Cuhorst, from 1933, was chairman of the section Swabia which, in the end, had 6,000 members. In 1935 the Habrechthaus was built, and in the Habrechthaus an honorary care taker was appointed who was a member of the committee of the section. First of all, Cuhorst, of course, as chairman of the section, was authorized supervisor. He had the main responsibility for the entire club. The Fuehrer principle was in the statute, and he not only had the right but also the duty to see to it that everything was going in order, at the Habrecht lodge.
Q. Was Cuhorst responsible from the point of view of penal law to see that in the houses of the club no criminal acts were committed, according to the Law then existing?
A. Well, during the war one could think only of offenses against the war economy decrees, that is to say, to distribute food without getting ration points or, for instance that no tax offenses or evasions should take place.
In other words, one could say that Cuhorst in the final analysis was also responsible under criminal law, in case he would have neglected his duty to supervise.
Q. Were broadcast offenses also among the delicts where he as the landlord would have had a responsibility before the law?
A. A responsibility under criminal law according to the broadcast decree would have existed if he happened to be present at the time. Of course, while he was in Stuttgart and not at the Habrechthaus and in his absence, anything like that happened, then in my opinion he could not be reproached for it, but while he was present, of course, it was his duty.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you tell us very briefly what this house was? We don't understand it. What club or house are you talking about?
THE WITNESS: The section Snabia owned in the mountains of the Bavarian or Austrian Alps six so-called mountain lodges, which had the total value of more than one million Reichsmarks. In 1934, the border between Austria and Germany was closed because of the Delfuss affair and now the Stuttgart members of the section Snabia decided at the nearest ski region to establish a mountain lodge.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we back at the Alpine Club again?
TIE WITNESS: Yes.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q Witness, the President doesn't want you to speak about that. The Court is not interested in the Alpine Club; only the two cases Bieger and Renz.
A The Habrecht Haus belonged to the German and Austrian Alpine Club, Wurttemberg section; it was one hour and a half from Stuttgart.
Q Therefore I'd like to speak directly about the case Bieger. Do you happen to know about the affidavit that Bieger made out? What can you say about it?
A Bieger, as far as I heard, at that time with his wife and child went to the Habrecht Haus because in Stuttgart his apartment was bombed out. Bieger, from about September 1944 until January or February of the following year was at the Habrecht Haus. I, myself, during that time was not up there. At the end. of November, Cuhorst bade farewell to the members of the Special Court in Stuttgart because on the first of December he became a soldier in Tuebingen. At the end of November allegedly Bieger had listened to the broadcasting station at London in the big room. Whether Cuhorst told me about that when he left, I no longer remember. It is possible. I saw Cuhorst twice after that: on the 13 January and on the 20 January when he actually left. I should like to assume that it is possible since during those days one also discussed the case Bieger.
I do not remember any details because at that time the case didn't seem important enough to me.
Q I am interested in a few details. Was Bieger a friend of Cuhorst?
A I do not happen to know that Cuhorst knew Bieger before. I did not know Bieger before and Cuhorst lived also in the Habrecht House during that time with his life and child. But I don't think they became friends during that time.
Q Could Cuhorst expect that on the basis of bis denouncement to the Gestapo, the Gestapo chief Muskei, himself, would handle the case?
A For that, today I cannot find any reason because I did not know whether Cuhorst and Muskei had any personal relations.
Q For the purpose of explanation to the Tribunal, in the case of the Bieger affidavit -- we have an affidavit from Document book III-B with the NG No. 80S, and the Exhibit No. 511. Now I shall revert to the affidavit by Frau Renz, the affidavit for the Prosecution Exhibit No. 241, NG No, 795. Witness, what position did Frau Renz have in the Haus, but don't give us any details about the Alpine Club.
A Frau Renz was hired as the innkeeper for the Haus lodge and her husband was also employed there as an assistant to his wife.
Q It is alleged that there wore differences of opinion between Cuhorst and Frau Renz. What can you say in that connection?
A These differences of opinion developed mainly in the fall of 1943 because the Haus was partly confiscated for a school and several rooms had remained for members of the section of the Alpine Club. If I may say so, there were two different parties that lived in the Haus. There was the school on one side, the teacher, the teacher's wife; also Mr. Cuhorst and her daughter lived up there. There were also sources of friction and differences for various reasons.
Q One moment, witness. Are you informed about a misunderstanding which arose between Cuhorst and Frau Renz? Do you happen to know any details about it?
A Well, misunderstandings occurred probably very frequently during the time they lived up there together and altogether during the time when Frau Renz worked there. It wasn't simple to run that Haus.
Q Cuhorst on a very definite occasion drank a bottle of wine in the Habrecht Haus together with friends, and that resulted in the misunderstanding. According to your own statement, will you tell me something about that misunderstanding.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the charge against Cuhorst that you are now attempting to answer?
DR. BRIEGER: From the affidavit by Frau Renz, it can be seen that Frau Renz is very embittered against Cuhorst. I have good reason to clarify that.
THE PRESIDENT: What does she charge him with? What does she accuse him of? We don't have that affidavit before us at the moment.
DR. BRIEGER: Frau Renz states here that Cuhorst frequently, and in great detail, talked to her about his work as presiding judge of the Special Court. Do you have any impressions about that?
THE WITNESS: Well, as the alternate chairman of the section Snabia, I frequently came to the Habrecht Haus and happened to know very well about various occurrences up there.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q Frau Renz charges Cuhorst, and that in my opinion is the most important charge which she mentions, with having incited school boys to mistreat enemy parachutists and even to kill them.
A No. I don't know anything about that.
Q I have reached the end of my examination, and I thank you, witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other direct examination of this witness? There appears to be none. You may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q Witness, did you sit with the defendant Cuhorst in the Schmidt case, in which lawyer Diesem was the defending attorney?
A No. That case was tried in Stuttgart and in Stuttgart itself I never was an associate judge with Cuhorst presiding.
Q Do you know anything about the conduct of that case? Do you know whether Diesem was stopped in his argument?
AAt that time, I attended the case for a while as a listener and I also listened to Diesem's plea. Diesem stated that that was just a series of minor food thefts. But whether Cuhorst, on the basis of that statement or for any other reason ever interrupted attorney Diesem, I do not know. It is possible, but I cannot remember it.
Q You a re not as positive now as you were on direct examination that Cuhorst never interrupted defense counsel and prevented them from making their defense, are you?
A You ask whether Cuhorst interrupted?
Q I am saying now, do you want to be as positive as you were on direct examination when you said Cuhorst never interrupted?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't understand that the witness said that, Mr. La Follette.
THE WITNESS: I have said before it is known that Cuhorst interrupted defense counsel, but I personally cannot remember a case where it happened. Above all, I no longer know whether or not in the trials which I attended he interrupted. As for other trials, I did not participate in those, and in the case Schmidt, I was -
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q I understand. I am sorry. Did you know of Louise Togni who was sentenced to death?
A Louise Togni? No, I don't know that case.
Q The case was in the summer of 1942 for plundering. Do you remember that case?
A I do not recall the name. What was it about, please?
Q Well, if you don't remember it, you don't know.
A Maybe I can recall the case, but I do not remember the name.
Q She was an Italian who worked at Ludwigshafen.
A Quite unknown.
Q Do you remember the case of a man named Pitra who was sentenced for having intercourse with a German woman?
A The name is not known to me either.
Q Do you remember a defendant named Kupra who was sentenced to death?
A No, I do not remember that name either. It may be that I know the case, but I do not happen to know the name.
Q Do you know a defendant named Lescinski?
A No, I do hot know that name either.
Q Do you know a defendant named Milch?
DR. BRIEGER: One moment. I see cause and third it is my, duty to protect against these questions by Mr. La Follette because they were not a subject of the direct examination. These cases were not mentioned by me.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is overruled. I think we understand what he is getting at. We will recess now until one-thirty.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 Hours, 8 September 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: In the matter which was presented by the prosecution this morning with reference to the affidavit Gramm, the Tribunal finds it unnecessary to decide the exact question presented. This witness, if called, would not be called for cross examination but for direct examination in rebutted.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Correct.
THE RESIDENT: And if his affidavit were presented, it also would be in the nature of a direct examination used in rebuttal or direct evidence in rebuttal. That being the case, it follows that if the affidavit were received instead of oral testimony, under our practice it would be obligatory upon us, so far as we could, to secure the presence of the affiant for cross examination by the defense. Since we anticipate that at some time it would be necessary for the affiant or the witness to be present personally, we think it is advisable that he should be called by the prosecution in the first instance personally so that both sides may examine him in open Court rather than to receive the affidavit and then be burdened with the obligation of seeking to present him later for cross examination. I think that disposes of the question.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: May I proceed, Your Honor?
DR. MAX HEGELE - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q Did you ever hear of the case Kadaday or Taladay?
A No, I know nothing of that case.
Q Did you ever hear of the case Funek: F-U-N-E-K?
A I do not remember that name, nor do I know anything about it.
Q Did you ever hear of the case Koudelka?