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 -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, wait a minute. What was Exhibit 11?
DR. BRIGER: Cuhorst Exh. 11, document No. 5 is Book 1-A, verdict in the case of Riehnowski and others of 19 January 1944, discussed by Cuhorst on the witness stand as Case No. 31.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 11 is received, being Document 5. Book 1-A.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exh. No. 12 is document No. 6 in Book I-a. This concerns the appointment of counsel for the defense in the Skowron case of 31 May 1943. The case against Skowron was mentioned by Cuhorst on the witness stand in great detail as Case 32.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 12 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exh. No. 13 is Document No. 4 in Document Book 1-A, verdict in the case of Arnold Pohilski of 1 December 1943, again a case against a foreigner, described by Cuhorst as Case No. 33 on the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 13 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 14 is document No. 7 in Book I-a, verdict in the case of Edward Georg Souechre of 7 March 1943, again a case against a foreigner, discussed by Cuhorst as case 34 on the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 9 September 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Alstoetter, et al, Defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 9 September 1947 - 0930-1630, Justice James T. Brand, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III.
Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you will please ascertain if the defendants are all present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant Engert who is absent due to illness
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Engert is excused. The notation may be made. You may proceed.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honors, may it please the Tribunal, I ask for permission to call my next witness for Cuhorst, Dr. Azesdorfer. May I repeat, I ask for permission to call my next witness, Dr. Azesdorfer.
THE PRESIDENT: You may do so.
JUDGE HARDING: 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.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION DR. HERMAN AZESDORFER
BY DR. BRIEGER:
I ask for permission to begin the direct examination of the witness.
Q. Witness, first please give us your personal data.
A. My name is Dr. Herman Azesdorfer, born on the 24th of November 1898 in Heilbronn-Sontheim. I studied law. After finishing my studies and the preparatory service, for some time I was an attorney and then in 1926 I entered the judiciary service in Wuerttemberg. Primarily I belonged to the Stuttgart courts until 1941, first as a local Court judge, and then as a District Court counsellor and finally as a counsellor at the District Court of Appeals. One moment -- after the outbreak of the war I was appointed Deputy Associate Judge of the Special Court.
Q. May I ask you the following? How much experience did you have in the field of penal law before you came to the special court?
A. During my entire service I worked as a Civil Judge, as well as a Penal Judge with the local courts as well as with the other Courts. For sometime I was a member of the penal chamber. I was also a judge with the local court in penal cases and with the jury court.
Q. How long were you a member of the Special Court at Stuttgart, from what date to what date?
A. As I said, in September or October, 1939, I came to the Special Court and I belonged to that Court until the end of the war.
Q. Did that afford you the opportunity to gain an insight into the practices of the special court?
A. Certainly.
Q. Was the special court primarily a political court? Please give reasons for your answer.
A. If the Special Court had any important political functions, then according to my background and according to my political career, I certainly wouldn't have been made a member of a special court. The Special Court originally in 1933, when it was established, certainly was intended to become a purely political court. At that time the problem was primarily the prosecution and sentencing of insults made against statesmen, partly on the basis of the well known malicious acts law.
That practice, however, with the beginning of the war incurred a fundamental change, a change in the direction that purely criminal acts were treated as offenses against penal laws of war time, and the prosecution of racketeers and black marketeers constituted the majority of the cases handled by the special court. Somewhat more serious political cases, high treason, undermining of military morale, as is well known, were handled by the People's Court, the penal senate of the District Court of Appeals, and also much important political acts as crimes against the Nurnberg laws were not handled by the special court, but were dealt with by the ordinary penal chambers. As I have explained, primarily, it was a case of prosecuting general criminal acts and crimes against the war economy.
Q. Witness, will you please tell the Tribunal something about the sphere of the Special Court, that is to say, if those courts handled these matters before?
A. These serious non-political cases mainly were dealt with before the courts of assises and the penal chambers. At the beginning of the war the courts of assises were dissolved and the Special Court had to handle the more serious cases, among those which had hitherto been handled by the courts of assises, of the districts of eight jury courts. Likewise, the special court on the basis of the simplification decree, to a great extent, had to handle the serious cases which hitherto had been handled by the penal chambers with the District Courts. I suppose there were about 15 penal chambers from which these cases had to be taken over.
Q. Was there a distinction between the special courts and the other chambers of the District Courts primarily because the local competence was extended?
A. Certainly, I believe I have answered that question already.
Q. Witness, you mentioned, orhinted at, your political attitude be fore 1933.
Now were you a member or adherent of a different political party?
A. Until the year 1940 I did not belong to any political party but as long as there existed in Germany a free expression of opinion, I was considered a Democrat. At any rate at all times I voted as a Democrat and that is why in 1933 I refused to join the NSDAP. Only much later, that is, at the end of 1939, or the beginning of 1940, I made up my mind and then in 1940, I joined the Party.
Q. Since when did you work with Cuhorst at the Special Court in Stuttgart?
A. As I have already said, since 1939, at a time when I was not yet a party member, I was called to the Special Court.
Q. Did Cuhorst have any misgivings about approving your appointment because you were not a Party member?
A. No, I did not have that impression. According to my knowledge Cuhorst must have known what my attitude was. As far back as 1933 on the occasion of a conversation, I believe it was a telephone conversation with him, I had stated that I had remained aloof from the party until then and at that time already I hinted that I had no intention of changing my attitude. I never had the impression that Cuhorst found any reason to object against this attitude of mine.
Q. Did you try to hide the fact of your attitude toward Cuhorst? That is to say, that you didn't hide altogether that certainly can be seen.
A. I did not conduct any definitely political conversations with Cuhorst but from our daily work together and from the conferences and occasionally being together on duty trips there resulted, of course, the possibility to discuss questions to a certain extent which touched upon the political.
Q. Did he criticise any abuses and if so, which?
A.Cuhorst, that is true, with his characteristic severity, frequently critized abuses. I remember in particular an unfriendly remark, and justifiably so, which he made about the institution of protective custody.
I also remember his opinions against the so-called euthanasia. I also remember criticism on his part against transgressions on the part of party officials and also by the Police such s become known to the Court occasionally.
Q.Concerning the subject of euthanasia, will you please give us some more details?
A. Well, I can't say anything essential in that connection. That question of euthanasia was never brought to the knowledge of the courts officially, the Judges only heard of it.
THE PRESIDENT: May I interrupt a moment. I do not recollect it. Is there any charge against Cuhorst on the euthanasia basis?
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, documents have been submitted which contain correspondence with Bishop Worm here. These matters are touched upon and in one case at least reference was made to euthanasia in the case of Cuhorst.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Q. Perhaps you can remember one bold statement by Cuhorst.
A. At any rate I can say this much. I can say that he rejected the idea of euthanasia and at least once he made a very clear statement about that.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Summarizing now, was Cuhorst a confirmed National Socialist?
A. That is what I considered him, yes.
Q. Well can you say that inspite of that, when confronted with different political opinions, can you say he was a tolerant, particularly amiable judge, or one whom you had to fear?
A. The answer to that is that I never had to fear anything from him and never did.
Q. Did you expect any disadvantages?
A. No.
Q. Did the Special Court at Stuttgart pass any political sentences, any sentences based on a political point of view whatsoever?
A. No, not according to my knowledge.
Q. Did the Special Court sentence foreigners who had been interned or were prisoners of war?
A. Prisoners of war were subject only to the Courts of the Army and could not be brought before the Special Courts, and foreign internees were not indicted before the Special Courts as such, but there were cases where foreign intern es on the basis of criminal offenses were arrested by the police or taken into protective custody, and that subsequently such individuals for the offenses with which they were charged were turned over to the Prosecution and then were tried by the ordinary courts and indicted before ordinary courts or the special courts.
Q. How did one distinguish internees from concentration camp inmates?
A. I am not quite clear about that distinction you are making. By internees I mean individuals who were under arrest by the police, as well as individuals in concentration camps. According to what standard the Gestapo or police distinguished these inmates is not known to me.
Q. Did Cuhorst ever handle a case against full Jews as presiding Judge?
A. During the time when I was a member of the Special Court I did not know of any case where a Jew was brought before a Special Court.
Q. How was the practice and the decisions of the Special Courts against racketeers?
A. With the increasing scarcity of food stuff in Germany, which started soon after the beginning of the war, and with the increasing scarcity of consumer goods, the courts considered it necessary to proceed with more energy against racketeers and usurers, and in this case, at least, that is the way I looked at it, we were confronted with the absolute necessity in order to safeguard the food for the little man, against individuals who were only concerned with their own ad vantage and their own profit, to take energetic steps.
Q. How did public opinion re-act against severe sentences against these individuals?
A. That, of course, I can only judge from my own personal impression. I was of the impression that, of course, those concerned, that is, people who were themselves active in the black markets, considered this practice too severe, but on the other hand, again on the basis of my personal impression, it was my experience that the broad masses did consider the sentences of the special courts severe, but in consideration of the extreme shortages they had an understanding for that severity.
Q. Did Cuhorst base himself on the assumption that the little man himself had to be protected against the loss of vital food stuffs by the machinations of the racketeers?
A. Certainly, that was the most important issue which was mentioned time and again in connection with the practices and decisions of the special courts.
Q. What is the attitude in Wuerttemberg today concerning these offenses?
A. Just recently, as is well known, the political parties in particular have demanded more energetic steps against racketeers and black marketeers. I remember a meeting of a trade union in Stuttgart not so long ago, where according to the newspaper reports, the application of a more severe penalty and even where necessary, the death penalty, was demanded.
Q. Of what nature was the influence of the Reich Ministry of Justice upon the practice and sentences?
A. As concerns that, I can only say what I heard from superior officers. From the beginning of my work on, it was always a very unsatisfactory state of affairs for the judges that the practices and decisions of the Special Court at Stuttgart were criticized as being too lenient. I remember the first objection against a sentence which I had imposed myself and where the Ministry of Justice under Dr. Guertner, considered the three years penitentiary sentence against an individual who had committed attempted rape, were exploiting the blackout, much too low, and was supposed to have said that the man should have had a sentence of at least eight years or even death.
There was particularly severe objection by the Under-Secretary Freisler, concerning the treatment of defendants in malicious acts cases. Furthermore, I remember that on the occasion of a penal case concerning black slaughtering, the Special Court one day received from the Reich Ministry of Justice three sentences pronounced by the Special Court at Dresden as an example. These sentences pronounced very severe penalties, penalties which would never have been pronounced by the Special Court at Stuttgart, and which as I said were put to us as examples, however, not with the result that our court followed these examples, Since the nullity plea was introduced as is well known, that remedy was applied also, and of course to the disadvantage of the defendant always and never to the advantage of the defendant.
Q. Did it mean a disapproval of a sentence when clemency was granted?
A. No.
Q. Why Not?
A. No, of course not, never. The court itself, or rather the presiding judge, frequently saw cause to support clemency pleas, and, Cuhorst, in a great many cases did support clemency pleas.
Q. Did Cuhorst support clemency pleas in political cases or was he against that?
A. No, in political cases, so far as they were within the competency of his Court, Cuhorst, supported clemency pleas.
Q. Did Cuhorst in the spring and summer of 1943 have to go on leave for about a quarter of a year for nervous exhaustion and what was the cause of it?
A. That Cuhorst was sick for a time, that I remember. I do not know the precise dates but I assume it must have been after the Unter-Marchtal case because during that trial already Cuhorst began to suffer and there was danger during the trial that it might have to be interrupted.