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.
Q. Before sessions under Cuhorst, did the judges assemble in the Judges' room?
A. No, the judges always assembled in the deliberation room, which was immediately behind the courtroom.
Q. Did Cuhorst ever make any statements in the corridor or in adjoining rooms about cases which were to be tried the same day, to groups or to individuals?
A. I do not happen to know of any such incident.
Q. Do you remember, or did you come to know of a murder case which was tried with Cuhorst presiding, and which allegedly was dealt with in one quarter of an hour?
A. No; the cases of murder which I attended were tried very carefully and thoroughly, and a trial of such short duration is not known to me.
Q. Do you happen to know of cases where the police in Wuerttemberg killed individuals that had been acquitted or had received a very lenient sentence; that is, killed them by shooting them or some other way?
A. No, It is only known to me that at the beginning of the war concern was voiced that the police could react in that manner when sentences appeared to them to be too lenient. Cuhorst was afraid that such a thing might happen, especially in the case which was objected to by Reich Minister Guertner. At that time preparations were to see to it that the defendant, after he had been sentenced, should not be transferred to the police for the purpose of bringing him to the penitentiarv as would have happened in other cases, but Cuhorst ordered that the defendant should be transferred to the penal institution by officials of the administration of Justice to assure that intervention on the police would not be possible.
Q. Yes.
A. In addition to that question I might also mention that many cases occurred where defendant were acquitted by the courts and set free, but were later transferred to a concentration camp or put into protective custody by the police.
Q. In the courthouse, did Cuhorst speak in a Swabian dialect?
A. Cuhorst always spoke in a Swabian dialect.
Q. In the Swabian dialect is the word "Schornstein" one only says "Kamin" used for chimeny?
A. One does not use the word "Schormstein" in Swabian one only says "Kamin".
Q. Did you remember any statement or any phrase by Cuhorst in that connection?
A. In what way?
Q. Something in connection with judges in Stuttgart making a statement about euthanasia.
A. You mean the expression about the chimney or smoke-stack?
Q. Yes, yes, will you tell that to the Court?
A. The remark that the people who were killed through euthanasia and cremated--well, in the public an expression arose that the police had made the man rise through the smokestack or through the chimney. I remember that expression was used once by Cuhorst on the occasion of a conversation about euthanasia. At that time the issue was discussed concerning the consequences of that unfortunate thing, and particularly the fate of those defendants who, on the basis of paragraph 51 of the Penal Code, had been acquitted for insanity. In that connection Cuhorst said that under the circumstances one had to fear that if we acquitted a defendant, afterwards, by the executive organs of the Administration, he would be made to go up through the chimney. That is about what he may have said; I can't be very precise about it any more.
Q. That is sufficient, witness.
Was a distinction made, in trials before the Special Court, between Germans and foreigners?
A. In those cases in which I worked, that was not so. In fact, I do not know of any single case where such a distinction was made. The foreigner had full right to be heard, could select a defense counsel, and also had the important privilege, based on German law, to put question to the witness himself. Basically, the general laws which were applicable to Germans were also applicable to them.
Q. If a defense counsel was selected by the Court, did the same principles apply?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that also apply to Poles?
A. Yes.
Q. Well you briefly comment on the case of the black-market slaughterer Soll? How did that sentence come about, although Soll was no longer active?
A. Soll was the most serious case of black market slaughtering, according to my knowledge, which ever occurred in Wuertemberg. Considerable amounts were involver; I believe it must have been at least 200 hundred weights, possibly more. Of course, in this case it was also taken into consideration that the criminal act had already been completed and that Soll had dissolved his butcher shop. On the other hand, of course, because of the large quantities involved, a great damage had been caused to the population, and the fact had to be added that Soll had a considerable criminal record of previous convictions, including convictions for similar offenses committed during the first World War.
Q. With Cuhorst presiding, were there frequently death sentences for black-market slaughters? Or, what were the sentences in such cases?
A. I have already mentioned that the Soll case was the only instance of a death sentence in a black-market case at the Special Court at Stuttgart. Otherwise, for black-market slaughtering in smaller amounts, prison terms, or, if the quantities were considerable amounts of meat, penitentiary terms were pronounced.
On this occasion may I also point out that according to my experience, other Special Courts in Germany, were smaller quantities were involved, pronounced penitentiary terms where, in similar cases, the Special Court at Stuttgart had only pronounced moderate prison terms.
Q. Witness, I now come to the Untermarchtal case, and I hand you the indictment. If you like, I can also hand you the opinion.
First of all, witness, did you participate in the deliberations for the sentence in the Untermarchtal case, and in what capacity?
A. I was the reporting judge of the court.
Q. Did Cuhorst, or the Court altogether, have anything to do with the initiation of the prosecution?
A. On principle the Court had no possibility of having any influence on the prosecution of a case, with a few exceptions which are based on the Penal Code. However, the institution of penal proceedings is always the job of the police and the prosecution.
Q. Was it the same in this case?
A. Of course. In this case, to my knowledge, a local office made a denouncement to the police or to the prosecution, and they dealt with the case further.
Q. When did Cuhorst find out for the first time about the pending case?
A. I could not say that with precision.
Q. When did you find out about it?
A. The latest when the indictment was served; but before that time, through the Referent of the Prosecution, it was learned that that case was under consideration and would soon be indicted before the Special Court.
Q. Could the Court have refused to try the case?
A. No, of course not.
Q. What would have been the consequences of any such refusal on the part of the judges: Can you answer that questions?
A. I don't understand that question. It goes without saying that it is quite impossible for any court to refuse to handle a penal case which has been brought before it in an orderly fashion.
Q. Did the Court or Cuhorst have anything to do with the requisitioning or the confiscation of the property of the cooper live or the convent?
A. No, as far as I know, not at all. If I may be permitted to describe that briefly: When the indictment was filed, the question was unofficially brought before the Court as to whether it wasn't possible to confiscate the property of the convent on the basis of that trial. Under certain circumstances, on the basis of the Penal Code, on the basis of the War Economy Decree, and various other decree, theoretically at least, confiscation was permitted. I wasnt to make that very clear, "theoretically". At that time, as the Reporting Judge, when I received the indictment I examined that point and soon arrived at the conclusion that the alleged guilt of a few members of the convent under no circumstances justified or could justify the confiscation. I informed the defendant Cuhorst of that point of view, and, as I remember quite certainly, he approved that opinion. I also reported that opinion to the Referent of the prosecution, and then something quite unusual happened. The Gestapo, on the basis of an administrative decree on its part, without further ado, confiscated the property on the basis of the so-called Law Against Organizations Inimical to the People and Hostile to the State. The title of that decree must have been that, or something similar to it.
The Special Court was faced with a faith accompli and, of course, had neither cause nor possibility to deal with that question of the confiscation. As I have explained, according to the point of view of the Court the confiscation would not have taken place.
Q. Were the sisters under indictment sentenced more severely or leniently than was demanded by the prosecution? Do you remember that, witness? 8450 A.- I remember that when the indictment was filed we were told that the Reich Ministry of Justice expected severe penitentiary sentences against the sisters.
That was the period when a certain nervous irritation prevailed in all official agencies in connection with the infamous Reichstag speech by Hitler, who, in the spring of 1942, in a public session of the Reichstag, criticized the German courts and the German judges and insulted them for having pronounced too lenient sentences. It was a most disagreeable situation.
At that time the defendant Cuhorst, who had been on a trip, requested me to approach the Senior Public Prosecutor, the chief of the local prosecution, explain the matter to him, and ask him to see to it that these demands for severe sentences should not be put, but that the demands for sentences made by the Prosecution should remain within a range which would be reasonable. Cuhorst also suggested that, considering the importance of the case, a representative from Berlin should be requested to attend the session to assure that afterwards, by a decision from above, objections should not be raised to the decision of the Special Court by way of a nullity plea.
I brought this suggestion before the Senior Public Prosecutor in Stuttgart, who promised to examine the matter; and, in fact, the demands for penalty made by the Prosecution were far below the scope originally intended. The Court, according to my knowledge, went even below the measure of the penalty demanded by the Prosecution.
Q.- Were the sisters sentenced on the basis of all the charges raised in the indictment? Will you please look at the indictment you have before you?
A.- That indictment is very extensive. It dealt with the -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Will you answer that question very briefly? We have had it answered two or three times before. Were they sentenced on all of the charges or on part of them? They were sentenced on part only, weren't they?
THE WITNESS: Yes, only on the basis of some of the charges, some groups of charges.
THE PRESIDENT: We have heard it before; that is sufficient.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q.- The Mother Superior was indicted for crimes against the war economy but was only sentenced to four months in prison for minor offenses; is that correct?
A.- Well, yes, I believe so. I do not happen to remember the details of the charges against the Mother Superior, but I remember that she was sentenced to a short term.
Q.- Did she serve her sentence? Do you happen to know anything about that?
A.- To my knowledge the sentence was commuted, not only the sentence of the Mother Superior, but also the sentences of others; and that was done with the support of the defendant Cuhorst.
Q.- Were all points of view taken into account which spoke in favor of the defendants?
A.- Certainly; it was particularly taken into account in favor of the sisters that these extensive transgressions were only possible because the competent agencies of the State and the Party had not fulfilled their duty, they had failed to supervise, to control, and to examine, and that therefore the sisters were more or mess pushed in that direction and the temptation had been very great.
THE PRESIDENT: This is also cumulative; it has been covered before.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q.- It has been asserted -- and also yesterday again by the witness Klette -- that Cuhorst had purposely selected a very large hall in the convent for the trial in the Untermarchtal Convent case. Did the trial take place in a part of the convent which was to serve religious purposes?
A.- Well, -
THE PRESIDENT.- You can answer that yes or no.
THE WITNESS: I did not have that impression.,It was just a large hall.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, listen please. The question was whether the trial was held in a part of the building which was used for religious services. Was it or wasn't it?
THE WITNESS: As I have said, I don't happen to know the locality.
The PRESIDENT: You don't know.
Next question.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q.- Was the case a case of persecution for religious reasons?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object, Your Honor. It calls for a conclusion from the witness.
I repeat: I object, Your Honor, it calls for a conclusion of the witness.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q.- Do you have any reasons to assume -- I will change that. On the part of the prosecution, and in the sentence, did religious points of view enter?
THE PRESIDENT: He may answer that question.
THE WITNESS: I did not have that impression; neither did I have the impression that these points of view were important for the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Make your answers brief, please.
Next question.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q.- Do you want to say anything more about the Untermarchtal case?
A.- I don't think so.
Q.- On Saturday, the 19th of September, 1942, you remember, with Cuhorst presiding, in Laupheim, Kreis Ulm, a murder case was tried against a certain Mueller.
A.- Yes.
Q.- On the same day, if you remember that also, there was a trial in Stuttgart against a Pole by the name of Krupa, who, in the area of Besigheim on the Neckar, had committed several cases of arson. Question: Did Cuhorst preside in those two cases?
A.- That is quite impossible; for the reason of different localities, it is quite impossible. I attended the Mueller-Laupheim case and I remember it very well. The case, quite exceptionally, was tried on a Saturday afternoon. Therefore, technically, it is quite impossible that Cuhorst could have been in Stuttgart at that time.
Q.- Was there a considerable distance from Stuttgart to Laupheim?
A.- Certainly.
Q.- Cuhorst has been charged by a witness of the prosecution with the fact that Gestapo officials were used primarily or exclusively as interpreters before the Special Court. Do you happen to have any experience with interpreters before the Special Courts?
A.- As interpreter for the French language, a Justice Secretary of the Administration of Justice was used, and for the Polish language another employee of the local court at Stuttgart was used.
Q.- What was her name?
A.- Gisella Fischer.
Q.- Was she used in most cases of Poles as interpreter?
A.- Almost always; that is, as far as I can judge that. Of course, I only attended a small number of these cases against Poles.
Q.- Did you yourself make any observations to the effect that Gestapo agents were used as interpreters?
A.- No. I only remember one case where apparently the interpreter Fischer was not available and an interpreter for the Polish language was put at the disposal of the Court by the Police, who were just available. Whether the man came from the Gestapo or from the Criminal Police I could not tell.
I neither saw him before nor after.
Q.- Why were the police approached?
A.- I don't happen to know that; probably there was no other interpreter available at that time, and the police always had a certain number of interpreters at their disposal.
Q.- One more question, witness. Do you r member any cases with Cuhorst presiding where he sentenced Poles to death exclusively on the basis of the Decree Against Poles?
A.- I do not know of any such case. I heard later that allegedly a case like that occurred. I was greatly surprised because it would have been quite an unusual case, and according to the normal course of events I would assume that I should have found out about that immediately after the session.
DR. BRIEGER: Thank you, that is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other direct examination?
DR. KOESSL (Counsel for the defendant Rothaug): I ask to be permitted to put a few questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, briefly.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q.- Witness, do you remember a meeting or a rally in Strasbourg in 1942?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Did Undersecretary Freisler speak on that occasion?
A.- Certainly -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Answer yes or no. The question was, did he speak?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q.- Did you speak to the then District Court of Appeals Director Ferber of Nurnberg at that meeting?