Q: I understand. Now Louisa Togni was a young Italian girl who had not been long in Germany, and this was her only offense so far as the court knew. On those facts did you find, and the defendant Cuhorst, that she had the essential characteristics of a public enemy? "Yes" or "No"?
A: The act as such had to be regarded as the act of a public enemy, as plunder. She had looted and the defendant, in spite of her youth, having committed that offense, had thereby, according to the legal practice of the time -- there was nothing else left for us to do; but that we considered the sentence too severe and that we wanted to spare her all that is proved by the fact that afterwards we tried to have clemency granted. If we had been of a different view -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess at this time.
(A recess was taken).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE (CONTINUED):
Q I wish you would read slowly to the Tribunal the case which we have been discussing on page 660, from "Deutsches Recht," "Opinion of a Judgment by the Reich Supreme Court of 23 May 1944," beginning with Roman numeral II. And will you read slowly so that the interpreter can accurately interpret?
A "The facts as established by the judgment are not sufficient for the decision whether the defendant is guilty of a crime according to Section I of the Decree Against Public Enemies. Buildings after their destruction by an air attack...."
Q Excuse me, Witness. Isn't there a small "a" just before what you're reading?
A Yes.
Q This is point "a" now which you're reading?
A Yes, I'm reading point "a".
Q All right, proceed again; I'm sorry.
A "'a' If buildings after their destruction by an air attack are evacuated by their inhabitants, they are equal to 'the evacuated area' or the 'voluntary evacuated buildings or rooms' in the meaning of Section 1 of the Decree Against Public Enemies, provided that the evacuation results in the loss of protection of the articles left in the buildings. If the owners have not ceased to supervise their belongings or if other inhabitants of the house or the public order agencies, particularly the police have taken over the protection of the articles left in the evacuated building, the crime of looting is out of the question. The fact that the protective measures taken by the owner or other inhabitants of the house or of the public order agencies were not fully effective in an individual case, does not render applicable the provision of Section 1, Decree Against Public Enemies. It is just the purpose of this statute to constitute the missing safety protection by an extraordinary penalty." And. then shall I read the decision as well?
Q Would you read the second sentence, I think is all, "For the subjective side it is essential...."?
A "For the subjective side it is essential that the offender recognize or at least assume and take into account the possibility that a building evacuated by the inhabitants after enemy activity and the articles left in it are not longer 'protected' in the meaning of the above arguments."
Q Now, would you read after little "b"?
A "For the conviction of a looter under Section 1 of the Decree Against Public Enemies it is necessary that the offender has the characteristics of a public enemy, with similar reasons under 8 May 1944 "Deutsches Recht," 44-447, Section 20."
Q Thank you. Now, do I understand that it's your contention that under that section of the Reich Supreme Court that the mere finding of looting was enough to show that the particular defendant had the characteristics of a public enemy?
A I said before that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the question of characteristics, or at least the view taken by publications, always was that the type of a public enemy is given in the case already of an individual which, according to this type and the characteristics in which it was carried out is sufficiently grave for the perpetrator, who by the way of committing that act stamps himself to the type of a public enemy.
Q That is your answer?
A Please?
Q That's your answer?
A Yes, providing I've understood your question.
Q Now, but you still had the right to find, notwithstanding the indictment, that this was a simple theft, if you found that the defendant did not have the characteristics of a public enemy?
A If the defendant, having committed this act....well, it's difficult for me to answer this. As the act was one committed during an air-raid and by taking advantage of the confusion, therefore, this illegal act, this theft under the conviction of the Court fell under this category and amounted to loot.
And this was so great that the act itself stamped the perpetrator to the type of a public enemy. That was the conviction of the Court at that time, and I can't say anything else.
Q Yes, all right. Now.....
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, may I a ask you, did you receive the judges' letters?
A Yes, I received the judges' letters.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you remember the statement in the judges' letters to the effect that the term "looting" had intentionally been left a very indefinite one so that the judges might exercise some discretion in determining whether the case should be deemed to be one of looting or not?
A Yes, that was so.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
A May I ask you, can you remember in the trial of Louisa Togni, did not her counsel cite to the Defendant Cuhorst and you and the other presiding judge this case from the "Deutsches Recht" which you've just read?
A Of course I cannot remember that any more. It's entirely possible that the defense counsel pointed to this situation. All I can say is that in the case of Togni, as well as in all other cases, when the death sentence was involved I scrutinized everything in the law to find out how I could evade the application of this law and do without the death penalty in the Togni case. But, as reporting judge, I saw no possibility to deviate from this severe penalty because the defendant pleaded guilty; and according to the evidence another judgment was not possible. She would not leave been sentenced to death.....
Q All I asked you was whether you remember whether the defense counsel had cited this case, and I believe you said you're not sure.
That's all I want to know.
A I cannot remember. It's quite impossible for me to remember everything what the defense counsel said.
Q All right, all right, Now, you testified that the Defendant Cuhorst was in favor of clemency in this case. Will you describe to the Court the manner in which the Defendant Cuhorst, during the conference of the judges, acted on most suggestions of clemency? Do you remember the Kreutle-App Case? Now did he act on that case when the suggestion of clemency came up?
A Well, under Cuhorst's presidency in the Penalty Senate I was defense counsel only in a few cases. I couldn't say that.
Q I'm asking you just about the Kreutle and App Case. You said, now, that he was in favor of the clemency plea in that case.
A In this case he was ready to do so immediately; in the case of Togni he was immediately prepared.
DR. BRIEGER: The question has been asked of the Witness once before. I question that the Witness need not answer this question for a second time. That's been answered before.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I haven't got an answer yet, Your Honor; I'm sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q Now, listen to me, please. What was Cuhorst's attitude with reference to clemency in the Kreutle-App Case?
A Well, in the case of App and Kreutle I don't know how the clemency plea came about. I had nothing to do with the expression of the clemency plea; as far as I can recall.
Q Now, let me ask you something. All right, let me ask you another question. You said that in this case that the death penalty was given. Is that correct?
A In the case of App and Kreutle, yes. I was one of the associate judges.
Q All right. Now, didn't you, at that time when you pronounced the death sentence, further pass on the question of whether there would be a recommendation of clemency right at the time you decided on the death sentence?
A Well, there we have the question again -- whether this was part of the secrecy of the deliberations or whether I as German judge am still obliged to.....
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I ask that the Witness be advised, Your Honors, that he is not bound by any official secrecy which prohibits him from answering this question.
THE PRESIDENT: The Witness is so advised, and he is admonished to answer the question.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q You will answer this question.
A I do not recall that during the consultations after the App and Kreutle Case, that the question of clemency was discussed at all. I heard nothing after it about the attitude taken by Cuhorst, the presiding judge.
Q Was Cuhorst, the presiding judge, in favor of clemency?
A I just don't know it. I think, however, that presumably he did not favor clemency in this case, but I do not know it.
Q Now, let me ask you just once more -- Isn't it true, and didn't you testify that it was the practice of the Special Court at Stuttgart and the Penal Senate Stuttgart as an accepted practice that when a death sentence was passed the members of the Court simultaneously decided the position upon a clemency plea? Isn't that light?
A Yes, that was usual. At least at that time it was a usual thing. We have experienced it sometimes. Sometimes it also happened that only afterwards we talked about clemency questions.
But to remember details is very difficult.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That's all.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q I have only a very few questions. Witness, may I open my redirect examination? As far as the method of processing clemency appeals was concerned, inasmuch as they were concerned with the findings of the court, were there any changes effected during the war?
A Well, all I can recall at this point is that formally under the clemency regulations the court would express its opinion about the clemency appeal which was usually done in the form of a ruling-"Present were such and such"--and that was decided upon. Later on that right of expressing comments on the clemency appeals were handed over to the Presiding judge, as I remember today. The presiding judge was obliged to hear the Court. That was partly the case; partly it was not.
Q Until the end of the war was it expected that the Presiding judge should give a clemency comment?
A Well, in cases where the death penalty was pronounced, of course, the Court had to express its opinion about clemency--certainly.
Q Did it happen that at the end of the war the Presiding judge had only the possibility to give its opinion on clemency, but not the duty?
A I cannot recall at this moment. There was so many clemency regulations, and repeated changes were given, executive orders, etc. I don't know.
Q Now, Mr. Lafollette has put to you a verdict by the Reich Supreme Court. Was the position underlying the case such that in differentiation to the Cuhorst case there we were concerned with matters which were not meant to be within the law, or do you know of any other differences between the case of the Reich Supreme Court, just put to you, and the Cuhorst case?
A Well, I cannot comment on the decision which Mr. Lafollette has put to me because the background was something completely different from the matters which we had to decide in the case of the Togni, and, therefore, it is not possible, in my opinion, to quote that in this connection.
Each case was a different one and we had to decide according to the evidence and truth after our own conviction whether that or the other law was to be applied or not. Nothing was ever done. At least nothing else was possible while I was present.
Q On the basis of the experience with this case do tou wish to say, Witness, that the verdict of the Reich Supreme Court was binding only in such cases where the evidence was exactly the same, or in a wider sense of this matter, where the evidence was more or less similar?
A The court as Special Courts were not bound by the decisions of the Reich Supreme Court. The decisions could only apply to cases which were of a similar nature and would give a general direction. The Court to decide others on opinion and conviction, and if it were necessary, I could deviate from the opinions of the Reich Supreme Court if the Reich Supreme Court seemed to have ruled not in the right way.
Q My final question: I believe that I have misunderstood the Tribunal just now. I asked the Witness! "Do you know that Cuhorst should have incriminated other judges?" Thereupon the presiding judge said, "What has that to do with the affidavit"? May I ask now whether this question was put to Mr. Lafollette or to me?
THE PRESIDENT: We have ruled on that matter, and we don't care to have it opened again.
DR. BRIEGER: I have finished my re-direct examination. Thank you very much, Mr. Witness. May I now ask for my next witness, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Call your next witness. This witness is excused.
DR. BRIEGER: If the Tribunal please, in order to clarify one point now as to whether the witness Azes dorfer has arrived or not. So far as I have found out that he has not arrived here yet. I told him Thursday evening that the Tribunal would probably not mind giving him leave until Monday morning, and Dr. Stuber told me that Azesdorfer had intended to return Sunday evening.
I have asked somebody to go to my office. I think that he'll be back in five minutes, and then I'll be able to make a definite statement. I assume that Mr. Azesdorfer is not yet present. He will be available only tomorrow. I ask the Court to wait five minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this your last witness?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court feels greatly relieved. Dr. Briger, you have finished with your documents have you now?
DR. BRIEGER: I have not yet started putting in my documents. I have returned this morning and have pushed matters so far that I hope to be able to submit them soon. I do not know how things stand at the moment, but I think I can tell the Court tomorrow morning. I would be very grateful if the Court permit me to delay putting in documents this afternoon in consideration of the special circumstances.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the special circumstances have been duly considered.
(To the Secretary General): Have you documents of Dr, Brieger there?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed with the introduction of documents.
DR. BRIEGER: I shall immediately fetch my documents.
DR. BRIEGER: May I offer to the Court the following Cuhorst documents, Cuhorst Exhibit 23, which is NG No. 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. No Cuhorst exhibits have been offered as yet, have they?
DR. BRIEGER: No, I have only offered them for identification so far.
THE PRESIDENT: And they have not been transmitted to the Secretary General for identification yet?
DR. BRIEGER: That is how I understood it. Nothing has been submitted yet, but I have announced some and have given them exhibit numbers too.
THE PRESIDENT: But we will have to start with Exhibit No. 1.
DR. BRIEGER: Could it be taken into consideration, please, that I keep the exhibit numbers which I have announced, because otherwise it will make more difficult for the Court to study these documents if I use different exhibit numbers. I should say technically speaking it would be more difficult for the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say you would offer the exhibit by the number, 1?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you offer that now?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We have been advised by the archives department that they find it necessary --
(Interruption by counsel in German)
Just a moment please. If you will wait until I finish my statement. I was about to say, when interrupted, we have been advised by the Archives Department that they find it necessary that exhibits be introduced in chronological order, beginning with Exhibit No. 1
DR. BRIEGER: Then may I have a moment to have my secretary get the documents, the exhibit numbers of which I have announced.
THE PRESIDENT: We assume Dr. Brieger, that your introduction of evidence will be completed tomorrow?
DR. BRIEGER: I am quite sure, Your Honor, that it will be.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we will expect the next defendant to be prepared to proceed with the case of the defendant Oeschey when you finish.
DR. BRIEFER; Your Honor please, may I also examine the witness Azesdorfer tomorrow. may assume fT certain that the witness Azesdorfer will be here tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: You have no index in these books?
DR. BRIEGER: All my documents books have an index. Should one be missing this must be a mistake for which I am not responsible, but I shall do my very best to have it put in the right shape.
Mr. lafollette informed me just now that he has Document Book 3.
THE INTERPRETER: Will you repeat in German?
DR. BRIEGER: For the next time I shall certainly do so.
DR. BRIEGER: I think since we loose so much time I shall endeavor myself to find these things.
(leaves room for few minutes.)
May I now venture first to submit such documents as I used when I examined my client, defendant Cuhorst. I therefore begin with Exhibit No. 1, which is Document 76 from Book 111. This is a photostat copy of the identification papers of a sponsoring member of the SS. Cuhorst Exhibit 2 is Document 32.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment - alittle slower.
JUDGE HARDING: There is no 76 in that book.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, your exhibit 2 is where?
DR. BRIEGER: Exhibit No. 2 is Document No. 32 in book II. This is an affidavit by Helmut Baumert of 26 June 1947. This affidavit is concerned with his activities as Gau Speaker. Cuhorst exhibit 3 is document 63.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. Is it in part A or B of your document book: in which is exhibit 2 to be found?
DR. BRIEGER: Pardon me just a moment. This is in my document book 2, which consists of parts of A and B; both parts consist only of affidavits.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The prosecution objects to the introduction of exhibit Nr. 2 because there is no proper sworn statement that the witness has been advised of the effects of making the affidavit as required by the rules.
DR. BRIEGER: I am quite aware of what the prosecution said just now. I would merely like to reserve the right to submit the affidavit later on in the proper manner.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit No. 1 is received and exhibit No. 2 will be reserved for future use.
DR. BRIEGER: Document No. 63 will be Cuhorst exhibit 3. This is in volume II. This is an affidavit by Karl Waldmann of 23 July 1947. This affidavit again speaks of Cuhorst's political activities.
THE PRESIDENT: That is document No. What?
DR. BRIEGER: Pardon me, your Honor, Document 63 - 63.
THE PRESIDENT: Now your books are described as 2 A and B?
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, this is due to technical difficulties. Your Honor please, the defense counsel were told quite generally by the administration that each document book must consist of only one Hundred pages. If you go beyond this you must sub-divide your document book.
THE PRESIDENT: But when you introduce a document if it is in document book 2 A or B please describe it in that manner, so that we may be sure we have the book correctly described?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes.
TRE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 3 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst exhibit 4 is document 67, which is in document book III. This is an affidavit which concerns the official justice statistics concerning the courts of appeal in Karlsruhe, Stuttgart and Zweibruecken.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 4 is document 67 in book III, page 1, is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst exhibit No. 5 is document 68 in document book III. This is an affidavit by Fraeulein von der Trenk concerning the population of the Protectorate in 1940. In other words she confirms in her affidavit the correctness of a copy from a document.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 5 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst exhibit No. 6 is document 48 in document book 2-A, this is an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: 2 A or B?
DR. BRIEGER: 2-A.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that a different book.
DR. BRIEGER: No, the book 2 as I have said before has been subdivided into 2-A and 2-B. My secretary just tells me that book 2-A consists of all documents on pages below the figure of 100. Here we have the affidavit by Dr. Arnold Klett of 26 May 1947. I offer this document.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I object, Dr. Klett is in the court room and can be examined.
DR. BRIEGER: I think this objection is irrelevant because it cannot change a ruling which the court has arrived at before.
I shall now come to document Cuhorst exhibit 7.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait for the ruling of the Court. The mechanical difficulties of jumping from book to book is rather large.
Will you mention what your document 6 is and in what book it is to be found?
DR. BRIEGER: Document exhibit 6 is in 2-A. This jumping will last only for a short time. It concerns only the documents which I announced the other day when I examined Cuhorst, so it will then be very simple.
THE PRESIDENT: And what is the number of the document which is to be exhibit 6; 48?
DR. BRIEGER: 48, Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is to be found on page 65. Now the objection is that Dr. Klett is present in the court room and may be examined as cross-examination, which is tho character of the affidavit and any witness who is in the court room will be examined orally.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: He is available for examination now.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for either side of this case must know that we have repeatedly said we should prefer to have the witness present if possible. An affidavit is only a poor substitute for the presence of the witness. That is the general rule.
DR. BRIEGER: In my opinion, an exception was made before by Judge Marshall in the case of Klett and I see no reason to change my mind here. I took the liberty the other day to refer to the transcript.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I find myself in disagreement with the position of Dr. Brieger. I don't find that Judge Marshall said anymore than that he would pass on the matter when the affidavit was presented. I think I am correct in stating that,
THE PRESIDENT: No further argument on it. The witness being in the courtroom at the present time, he will be presented verbally or not at all.
DR. BRIEGER: You mean by that I have to examine the witness orally? Of course I shall avail myself of the opportunity and I shall only ask him about the questions concerned in the affidavit. May I postpone this until tomorrow morning or do I have to do so at once?
THE PRESIDENT: You may do so in the morning.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst exhibit 7, which is document 69 is in book 3 and it is an excerpt from the German book "Criminal Procedure" (Deutsches Strafverfahren) by Heinrich Henkel. This extract is a discussion of the problem of "Nobis in Idem" which has been discussed here so often in the case of Cuhorst.
THE PRESIDENT: Document No. 69 in book 3 indexed as being on page 3 is received as exhibit No. 7.
DR. BRIEGER: That is right Your Honor. Thank You.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May it please Your Honors, Dr. Klett who is the Buergermeister of Stuttgart, is here in the room. I do not anticipate much questioning; he would like to be questioned today as he may have to return to his duties in Stuttgart tomorrow. I realize the consideration of the court comes first. I sincerely ask the indulgence of the court.
THE PRESIDENT: We have no interest in the matter at all. If counsel can examine him now and if it will greatly convenience the witness.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: It ill greatly convenience the witness, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We shall be glad to do so.
DR. BRIEGER: I am aware that Dr. Klett is a very busy man. I should like to take this into consideration and therefore I will be glad to ask the witness to be called to the witness stand today. I only have a very few questions to ask him.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the doctor take the witness stand at this time.
DR. ARNOLF KLETT, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE HARDING: You will hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE HARDING: You may be seated.
DR. BRIEGER: May I examine the witness, please?
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Witness, will you please tell us your personal date?
A. Dr. Arnulf Klett, born on 8 April 1905 in Stuttgart. I am at present Mayor of the city of Stuttgart.
Q. I therefore assume that I need not ask you for your address. I am sure your official address is sufficient. Witness, I want to put a very few questions to you only, all of which are concerned exclusively with the incriminating affidavit of yours which you gave twice in a in asomewhat different version each time, and which was introduced on the 7th of April, 1947, NG number 494 -- I shall immediately give the Court the exhibit number -
THE PRESIDENT: Just proceed and ask him the questions that you have in mind.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. It is Exhibit No. 418. Witness, did you see that Cuhorst was present when the people were executed?
A. No.
Q. Witness, were you present or were you in a position to observe the Cuhorst in the court case Untermarchtal himself selected the hall where the case was tried?
A. As I said before, the participants in this trial had no doubt as to the fact that the trial should be heard in the Exerzizien Hall of the Monastary Unter-Marchtal.
Such was my view also.
Q. Witness may I repeat my question, because your answer does not fit my question. Can you from your own observation tell us whether Cuhorst selected the "Exerzizien" Hall as the Court, or at least was instrumental in having it selected?
A. Cuhorst was the presiding judge at this trial. I myself was defense counsel and present as much. The trial took place in the building of the monastery of Untermarchtal, and the hall where the trial took place was to me, as to the other participants of the trial, described as the Exerzizien Hall of the Monastery. I can't say anything else about that.
Q. Is it true, therefore, that you cannot answer my question in the form I put it?
A. I cannot say any more than what I have said before, because I was not present when within the Special Court the decision was made to select a special hall. I was only there when the trial started.
Q. Witness, how often did you defend foreigners before Cuhorst and in what cases? Name the cases.
A. I can't tell you any more today, nor can I say with certainty whether it was under Cuhorst's chairmanship that I defended a foreigner.
DR. BRIEGER: As I have this witness in front of me so unexpectedly, may I just take the opportunity to read very quickly through the prosecution affidavit in order to make up my mind as to whether I should ask him yet another question.
THE WITNESS: I am sorry. May I ask the question whether I could be given a copy of that document?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Witness, did Cuhorst have a stop watch?
A. I don't know. All I know is his remark about a stop watch.
DR. BEIEGER: I assume that this is not interesting. I see that I need not ask the witness any more questions.
Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there cross-examination?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: No further cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
DR. BRIEGER: Thank you very much, witness.
I now withdraw Cuhorst Exhibit No. 6, which was document 8, and I base myself on the rulling of the Tribunal that if a witness has appeared before the Court, no affidavit must be submitted.
Cuhorst Exh. No. 8 is document No. 2, Document Book I-A, Page 2, indictment against Pioter Dobosz and Wladislaus Faryjewicz. I am afraid my Polish is extremely dificient.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exh. No. 9, Document No. 60 from Document book No. II on Page 207 in Document II-b. This is an affidavit by Bartholomaeus Schultes of 19 March 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: Apparently Document No. 60 by Bartholomaeus Schultes is in the book which you have marked Book II-a.
DR. BRIEGER: Pardon me. That is II-b, because the page refers to more than 100. That is Page 107.
THE PRESIDENT: I still don't understand what the marking of these books is. Here is a book which says II-b.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Come and show me this, please.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes. Any page that bears a number above 100 appears in book II-b, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, just a minute. Now here is exhibit -- what is the number you spoke of last?
DR. BRIEGER: I think 166. Pardon me.
THE PRESIDENT: Bartholemaeus. Document 60. 60 is in this book. Here it is.
DR. BRIEGER: May I see, Your Honor? It is in II-a. May I see, Your Honor?
May I have it a moment?
THE PRESIDENT: It is indexed in here. We want to know where to find it.
DR. BRIEGER: Surely. That is very important.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Excuse me, Your Honor. May I address the Tribunal? Things went too fact for me, apparently. Exhibit No. 8, which is Document No. 2, is an indictment in no way certified or identified. I had agreed that defense counsel might certify where these things came from and I would accept it, but this contains nothing whatsoever, as far as I can tell.
DR. BRIEGER: I quite understand why Mr. LaFollette made this objection. This indictment originates, if I remember rightly, with the attorney who took part in the defense of these two Poles. I shall be able to give the Court more information about this tomorrow. May I therefore at this point hold back Cuhorst Exh. No. 8.
THE PRESIDENT: We will revoke the order receiving it in evidence and reserve the number. Now your Exh. 9.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exh. No. 10. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. Exh. 9 is Document No. 60 in your book marked II-a,b, at Page 107 and is found on that page.
DR. BRIEGER: In other words, Your Honor found it.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, thank you very much. May I go on the the next document. Cuhorst Ex. No. 10 is Document No. 3 in Book 1, and I should like to ask Your Honor whether I has been subdivided as it is before your Honors or not? Is it I-a and b in Your Honors' copy, or not?
THE PRESIDENT: Document No. 3 Book I-A, Page 5, is received as Exh. 10.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, verdict against Nicaise of 6 July 1944. This was a case against a foreigner, which was discussed by Cuhorst on the witness stand as case No. 30. Cuhorst Exh. No. 12 -