Q. Did you frequently take part in cases against Poles-in serious cases I mean?
A. I participated in a few cases against Poles.
Q. Were those serious cases?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Counsel, the re-direct examination should be limited strictly to the covering of such matters as came up in the cross-examination. These general questions exceed the proper scope of re-direct examination. You will limit yourself to the clearing up of any matters which were dealt with in the cross-examination.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. I shall now come to the problem of Winter and Eckstein. Can you recall, witness, who were the defendants and of what nationality they were? Will you please give us the details?
A. There were four defendants, including Eckstein who was not a gypsy, and another three gypsies. As I remember it, the prosecution suggested death penalty for all four of them. The death penalty was pronounced against Winter and Eckstein, whereas the other two gypsies were given terms in a penitentiary as far as I remember.
Q. Do you know anything about the fact that the population, particular the "Oberland" was highly indignant as to what these people had done and why?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I object.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection sustained.
If the attitude of the population influenced the judgment, it would be a matter which would not be favorable to your client.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. I shall now like to ask you about the reopening plea for Winter. Was it legally admissible for Cuhorst to make a decision about the plea for reopening, the one which he had reached?
A. I think so, yes.
DR. LAFOLLETTE: I object. I don't see what that has to do with it.
He was only asked about the language that was in the plea.
DR. BRIEGER: The case of Winter and Eckstein has been discussed here down to the most minute details by Mr. Wolleyhan. I can see no reason why I cannot be allowed to ask this question, Mr. Lafollette. I should be grateful--
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your question again, please?
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. In the case of Winter and Eckstein, which has been discussed in such detail by Mr. Wolleyhan, I should like to ask the witness with particular reference to the fact that this point was raised also by the prosecution -- was it legally admissible for Cuhorst to reach a decision concerning the reopening plea in the case of Winter? You have already answered that question. You need merely repeat your answer.
A. My opinion is yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Your objection is overruled.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. With reference to the case which I have discussed with you on direct, the negotiations on Saturday, did you ever meet Cuhorst in Stuttgart?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: To which I object, your Honor. It was not touched on in cross-examination. It is a repetition of direct examination.
DR. BRIEGER: There is no r petition. I would like to venture however, to just touch on the thing which were touched on before, only I want to clarify this point in order to avoid a misunderstand. I do not ha e another object at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Your question seems to be a preliminary one as to whether he ever saw Cuhorst in Stuttgart.
DR. BRIEGER: No, no, your Honor. The question is whether at any time the witness took part in the Saturday negotiations in Stuttgart with Cuhorst.
THE PRESIDENT: This matter was adequately covered. The witness said Cuhorst couldn't have been in Stuttgart on the Saturday concerning which you are interested.
The answer has been given end it was a clear answer. You needn't repeat it.
DR. BRIEGER: I have no further questions with this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
DR. LAFOLLETTE: May I have one further question in re-cross examination?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, what is your question? It is a little cut of -
MR. LA FOLLETTE: just a moment.
DR. BRIEGER: Pardon me a moment. I am not a narrow-minded man and on occasion I bid not make objections when Mr. La Follette did, but he has made such a habit now of that, that I want to make an objection before Mr. La Follette puts his question lest there is any suspicion that I am afraid of any special answers to any special questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The matter of asking the further question on cross examination after the re-direct examination is purely one in the discretion of the Tribunal. Your objection is premature and we will hear your question. If it seems to be material, we may permit it to be answered but it is out of order and it is dependent solely on the discretion of the Tribunal.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:Q.- The witness testified on redirect that the defendant Cuhorst was only spoke for too long a time.
I would like to ask him to what these -- how long these defense counsels spoke before the defendant Cuhorst considered it to be too long a time?
DR. BRIEGER: I have no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: There being no objection, the witness may answer.
A.- Of course that varied. That depended -- It depended -
THE PRESIDENT: ... on the circumstances.
DR. BRIEGER: I think I have just one question. (Laughter)
THE PRESIDENT: I think we will call the examination closed and the witness may be excused.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: No further questions.
DR. BRIEGER: Your honor, if the Tribunal please, may I now continue with submitting my documents? May I be excused for five minutes so that I can have than fetched?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. La Follette, I think we stopped just after inhibit 14 was offered and before it had been received. Did you have any objection to Exhibit 14?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I think that is right. I would like to look at Exhibit 14 for a minute.
THE PRESIDENT: It is the verdict in the case.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor. I will wait until Dr. Brieger returns. I just want to make an observation about this exhibit. I will wait until Dr. Brieger returns.
If Your Honors please, on Document No. 7, which is Exhibit 14, we find handwritten marginal notes in German which apparently were not translated. I would like to have those read and considered as a part of the exhibit. They are a part of the exhibit now.
DR. BRIEGER: I should like to make a statement about this. On several verdicts which I have submitted or shall submit, they are probably only those which come from a certain collection, namely by the assistant judge Dinkelacker whose name appears on the first page of the verdict -there are some handwritten notes in a few cases. These handwritten notes I have not had copied because in no way can it be found cut on what occasion they .ere written down and by whom. In my opinion, they cannot be part of the document because a verdict such as it is signed by a judge in German usage-and I am sure it is the same in the United States -- is always typewritten. So therefore, nobody can find out, and I am sure it is quite impossible that these notes were on it when the judges signed it.
I think these notes are completely uninteresting.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel has no discretion to eliminate from a document, from a page of a document which is set forth as an exhibit, the handwritten notes. They may be read, rather than recopying your document, and you may give any explanation which you can produce through evidence as to the nature of those handwritten notes but counsel is entirely within his rights in asking that we be informed as to what actually appears, on the original, which is the German original.
DR. BRIEGER: It appears on the original and I would not have considered myself justified in eradicating them, but I did not make it a part of the mimeographed copy. I think Mr. La Follette asked me about the details of the notes. May I just tell him about this?
THE PRESIDENT: The answer is this. The exhibit will not be received unless the handwritten notes are either read or produced on the copies. Counsel for the prosecution has indicated that he will be satisfied to have them read.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I will be satisfied to have them read by the interpreter into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be done. It may be read by Dr. Brieger and interpreted as well.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Very well.
DR. BRIEGER: Again -
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Read it in German.
DR. BRIEGER: Again -
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Excuse me, Dr. Brieger, it isn't that I don't object but I think it would be more orderly if you read it in German and the official translator translate it.
(Dr. Brieger read the passage in German and it was translated as follows:)
THE INTERPRETER: But in reply to the prosecution, Cuhorst is of a different opinion. Nullity Plea unsuccessful inasmuch as the defendant has died a natural death in consequence of the incident.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: may I just find out whether on this document there are other notes? No, there are not. I shall now submit Cuhorst Exhibit No. 15, which is document No. 16 in Document Bock 1-A. This is Cuhorst case 46.
This is the much discussed verdict against Christian Oosterle of 21 December 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: May I just find out whether there are any notes on this? I shell new offer Cuhorst Exhibit No. 16 which is Cuhorst Document Ho. 20 in Document Book 1-B. This is Cuhorst case 47 and this has also been frequently discussed. It is the verdict against Hepting and others of 25 November 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you be so kind as to also give us the page when you give the other material? We understand Exhibit 16 to be your Document 20 in Book 1-B at page 41?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. BRIDGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 17 is Document No. 21 in Book 1-B on page 67, which is Cuhorst case 46. This is the much discussed verdict in the case of the driver Herzer of 28 of August 1943. He was indicted for a renewal offense.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 18 is document No. 17 in Document Book 1-B on page 1. Verdict against Charlotte and Alfred Grassmann cf 11 may 1944. This is Cuhorst case 50. This was a woman living under false pretenses and the defendant had made detailed statements on it.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 19 is Document No. 41 in Document Book 2, page 45, and it is an affidavit by Christine Frey of 12 June 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: That is your Document 41?
DR. BRIEGER: Page 47, Document No. 41.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
DR. BRIEGER: This is Cuhorst case No. 52. The case of the arson.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 20 is Document No. 45 in Document Look II on Page 5, an affidavit by Dr. Karl Hartmann of 28 February 1947. It concerns Cuhorst Case 56.
We think that this is a particularly important affidavit because it originates from the defendant and it explains that Cuhorst would not consent to strangling political opponents, particularly not in a case when personal documents were involved.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 21 is Document NO. 59 in Document Book II on Page 106. This is Case 62.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I have an objection to this document for the reason that the signature is taken by the husband of the affiant, although sub-paragraph 3 of Rule 21 says that the witness shall Lave signed the statement before a Buergermeister, the Buergermeister having certified thereto in case neither the defense counsel nor a notary is readily available without great inconvenience.
It is obvious that that rule was made for small towns where there was no notary. I think the Court will take judicial notice that the City of Ulm is large enough for this woman to have subscribed this affidavit before someone other than her husband.
DR. BRIEGER: We such restriction is provided for in the rules and I do not see why such a restriction should be applied. I have on several occasions had affidavits to submit which have been taken down by Buergermeisters and in very isolated cases I would be deeply embarrassed if, from that point of view, one or the other of the affidavits should be disallowed.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The Tribunal, of course, made its ruling, but Dr. Brieger, of course, is in error. Subparagraph 3 of Rule 21 says: "The witness shall have signed the statement before a notary and the notary shall have certified thereto." Then it says that if no notary is available some showing is made that it may be signed before a Buergermeister. My contention is that Ulm is big enough so that there could have been a notary found.
DR. BRIEGER: The officials have hold themselves for the purpose to identify the signature. I would think nobody would be more suitable to identify the signature of his own wife than the husband. He is hardly likely to make a mistake about his own wife's signature.
THE PRESIDENT: Possibly counsel doesn't apprehend the real nature of the objection to the family transaction.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We will examine the document and the certification and pass upon it after the recess. May we see the document, please? Well, we can examine the copy. It is not necessary to give it to the secretary. Dr. Brieger, do you challenge the assertion of the Prosecution that there is a notary in the city where this statement was made?
DR. BRIEGER: I never was there in Ulm. Accordingly I am not familiary with the locality.
THE PRESIDENT: And you don't know whether there is a notary there?
DR. BRIEGER: No, I don't know.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: It is a city of 80,000 to 100,000 inhabitants, your Honor.
DR. BRIEGER: May I have for a moment the affidavit of Mrs. Scholl? I didn't give the date to the bench. Do you have it, sir? I don't know when it was that Mr. LaFollette interrupted me and, therefore, in the case of this particularly important affidavit I'd like to repeat the passages.
I shall nor submit to the Court Exhibit No. 21, which is Cuhorst Document Ho. 59 in Document Book II on Page 106. This is an affidavit by Magdalene Scholl of 3 May 1947. This is Cuhorst case 62. I regard this document as the most important among all my documents referring to political cases.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has reserved its ruling until we can examine it more carefully. Let it be marked for identification Exhibit No. 21.
DR. BRIEGER: Complying with the Tribunal's wish I shall not submit Cuhorst Exhibit No. 22 which would have boon Document No. 33 from Document Book X on Page 5, which is the affidavit by Cuhorst about his activity in the Alpine Club. I do not submit it. I simply mention it now, lost there be a misunderstanding about one exhibit number being left out.
I shall now submit Cuhorst Exhibit No. 23, which is Document No. 1 in Document Book I-A on Page 1. This is the original of the verdict in the case against Petrus Brok of 15 December 1944. Lost I be reproached with anything later on, there is again another handwritten note.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If you Honor please, there is a note on that which we would like to have the Court hear.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be read. The Tribunal does not approve of the omission of handwritten notes from pages which arc introduced in evidence.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it should have been obvious that we would not approve.
DR. BRIEGER: I could not anticipate this, if your Honors please.
THE PRESIDENT: We just expressed the opinion that you should be able to anticipate it and we will pass on and have the exhibit read.
DR. BRIEGER: "That penalty appeared as certain. It was asked for and wished by Kuestner. This mas the only possibility to save the defendant who, after the verdict, said that he'd be willing to face twelve years in prison. Attorney Diessem mas suggested by me to submit evidence."
From the manner of these notes it becomes clear that they could never come from the Court and that is the reason why I left them out. I assume that these notes come from this or that official who were called in to make investigations. Therefore, they did not come from the time under review at all; but I shall be only too glad to make investigations.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 23 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: I shall now submit Cuhorst Exhibit No. 24, which is Document No. 3 in Document Book I-A on Page 36, verdict against Courod Banholzer and others of 18 January 1944. There is another handwritten note-
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 24 is received.
MR LAFOLLETTE: If your Honors, please, in Exhibit it has just been called to my attention that -- and it is apparently important -- the handwritten note has not been correctly read.
DR. BRIEGER: I am quite sure that I have read it, but I will be glad to repeat it: "Death penalty appeared as good as certain and had been asked for and desired by Kuestner."
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 24 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 25, which is document No. 9 in Document Book I-A on Page 44, verdict against Eugen Bauer and Konrad. Eberle of 25 January 1943. I see therin on Page 3 this handwritten note. I shall read the text first so that one knows where the note comes in: "It mas, therefore, a loss serious case etc. In accordance with accepted," " and it says there on the right: "Prison or penitentiary."
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 25 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: I shall now submit to the Tribunal Cuhorst Exhibit No. 26, which is Document No. 10 in Document Bock I-A on page 47, verdict against Albert Baumeister of 17 January 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 27 is Document No. 11 in Document Book I-A on page 53, verdict against Georg Blessing of 31 May 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 28 will be Document No. 12 in Document Book I-A on page 56, verdict against Josef Bloching.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: I shall now offer Exhibit No. 29 which is in Document Book I-A. It is Document No. 13 on Page 59, indictment against Adolf Boehler of 23 December 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: I have discovered yet another handwritten note. May I just ask you to --it says there -- perhaps I may read it. On the fourth page where the letter heading says, "Secret State Police, Stuttgart, 29 June 1944, "There is a hand written note on the left: "13 Nay police arrest; 15 July detention pending trial; released on second October; warrant for arrest withdrawn by prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 29 is received.
DR. BRIEEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 30 is Document No. 14 in Document Book I-A on Page 66, verdict in the case of Di Centa and others of the 28 November 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 30 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No 31, which is document No. 15 in Document Book I-A on page 74 is the verdict against George Edel -and others of 3 June 1943.
Complying with a special wish by the Prosecution I shall read the note: "Severe sentence against an old Party member; against the wife please be lenient."
Cuhorst Exhibit No. 32 is Document No. 18 in Document Book I-A on Page 34, a verdict against Josef Gaugel on 1 December 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment.
DR. BRIEGER: I have to make a correction. It is in document book I-B on Page 34. I have now concluded Document Book 1*A and I have already started to submit Document Book I-B, Cuhorst Exhibit No. 33 is Document No. 19 in Document Book I-B on Page 37, verdict against Emil Haller and Jacob Stroh of 18 January 1944. No marginal notes here.
Cuhorst Exhibit No. 34 is Document No. 22 in Document Book I-B on Page 79, verdict against Karl Koehnein of 18 November 1944. There are several marginal not s on the first page which I shall now read.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 31 to 34 inclusive are received.
DR. BRIEGER: "Official defense attorney Dicssem."-entirely different marginal note on the first page --"wanted to apply for death penalty but could be talked out of it."
THE PRESIDENT: That is from Exhibit 34?
DR. BRIEGER: That is part of Exhibit 34, yes, your Honor. Behind the word "prosecution" where it give the names on the first page it says: I fortified him somewhat and ho only asked for five years in a penitentiary."
Cuhorst Exhibit 35, which is Document No. 23 in Document Book I-B on page 85, verdict against Erna Koerner of ,9 January 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit. 35 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: No marginal notes. The Prosecution have just asked mo to do this: Behind the first two names, Cuhorst and Azesdorfer, it says: "Wanted to ask for death penalty but could be talked out of it."
Cuhorst Exhibit 36 is Document No. 24 in Document Book I-B on Page 88, verdict against Rosa and Emil Luell of 31 May 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 35 and 36 are received.
DR. BRIEGER: There is a marginal note here, I am afraid, on Page 2. It says: "Defendant Emil Luell received a sentence of six months in prison," and it says also: "Not served."
Cuhorst Exhibit No. 37 is Document No. 25 in Document Book I-B on Page 94. It is tho verdict against Jacob Scheifele of 29 November 1943. No marginal notes.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 37 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit 38 is Document No. 26 in Document Book I-B on Page 97, verdict against Alfred Schweikhardt of 21 January 1944. No marginal notes.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 39 is Document No. 27 in Document Book I-B on Page 100, verdict against Viktor Staebler of 31 Nay 1944. A marginal note on tho first page. In the lefthand corner at tho bottom there the penalty is referred to. It says, "There is ovary danger of commuting by Berlin the People's Court inflicted in the cases of such remarks high sentences in penitentiary or death penalty."
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 39 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Document No. 28 is Exhibit 40 in Document Book 1-B on Page 104, verdict against Anna Wiedemann of 4 December 1943. On tho first page next to the names of the judges it says this: "Particularly lenient sentence although Wehrmacht insisted on a severe one."
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 40 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 41 is Document No. 29 on Page 108 of Document Book I-B. This is a verdict against Wal Case III, Court III purga Zeiler of 30 November 1943.
There is a marginal note on the first page.
"Lenient sentence; no obligation of reporting to Berlin."
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 41 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit 12 is Document No. 30, in Document Book II-A, on page 1; an affidavit by Hermann Baeucklen of 5th April 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: ill you give us the references for that again, please.
DR. BRIEGER: Surely. Document Book II-A, Exhibit 42, and it is Document No. 30, on page 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Document 30, Document Book marked 11-A-B, page 1.
DR. BRIEGER: Both in the same volume.
THE PRESIDENT: Document 30 is received as Exhibit 42.
DR. BRIEGER 42. Cuhorst Exhibit No. 43 is Document No. 31 in Document Book II-A-B, on page 2, an affidavit by Hermann Baeucklen of 7th July, 1947. I beg you to accept the second affidavit which was given by a person of the same name, and it should not be confused with the first affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 43 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit 11 is Document No. 34, on page 9, an affidavit by Carl Dieterlen of 23 June, 1947. Just a minute please. It says there -- perhaps I might read four lines therefrom. It must be recognized that the presiding judge Cuhorst followed attentively to what defense counsel had to say. That observation was made also by other colleagues -- as they told me.
Cuhorst Exhibit 45 is Document No. 35, in Document Book II-A-B, on page 13, an affidavit by Helmut Dinkelracker.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I have a very serious objection to state -- if you please. The prosecution objects to this exhibit, to the submission of this exhibit in evidence for the reason that a study cf the exhibit indicates that intermingled throughout a large part cf the exhibit are continued statements having to go to the circumstances under which an affidavit was obtained from this affiant by the Prosecution.
Had this affidavit, to which these remarks in this exhibit refer, been introduced into evidence by the Prosecution, I would still object on the ground that the matters covered should have been raised by cross examination, the affidavit to which the statements are made in this exhibit, which in any event would have been cross examination, was never introduced into evidence by the Prosecution and is net part of the evidence in this case. Under those circumstances all of this material is irrelevant and immaterial and bee use it is completely interspersed with the whole affidavit, I must object to, the introduction of the whole affidavit in that it cannot be separated from the whole exhibit.
DR. BRIEGER: In any case, I should like to reserve the right to submit this affidavit later on.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained.
DR. BRINGER: Cuhorst exhibit No. 46 is Document No. 36, on page 19 of the Document Book II-A-B, and is an affidavit by Eerwin Eckert of 26th May, 1947. This affidavit, I think is a particularly important one. I have considered having this witness on the witness stand just as much as the witness Dr. Azesdorfer because they were both colleagues of Cuhorst and he participated in great many cases. As far as I remember, particularly in cases against foreigners.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 46 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: I would like to read from this exhibit. On page 10, an SS officer from Saar area, I believe, who had enriched himself considerably from Jewish property, was sentenced, as far as I know, to eight years penal servitude. Then, on page 13, without reading reference made there, are five cases which have been debated and discussed frequently and assessed there. In the matter of the war economy, Cuhorst in the five years of the war arrived at five death penalties in the case cf Esterle, brothers Wolf, Stiegler and Soell. In the case of Esterle and Wolf I took part myself.
On page 14 at the bottom is says: The Kappler case is an example cf a violent crime. This man who had been previously convicted and given there severe sentences and was being hunted had shot a member of the constabulary who was searching for him. Kappler fully confessed during the trial, but was rather silent so that Guhorst and his own defense counsel had to ask him several times to talk.
Without reading any mere from this, may I just say that on page 15 the important cases discussed arc the Wirbel case; and on page 16 is the very important case of Michael Schmidt, and, finally -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. What case are you discussing --Exhibit 46?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, your Honor, 46. This is an affidavit -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment; and y u arc referring to page 16 just now. Our records show that the exhibit commences on page 19.
DR. BRIEGER: That is right your Honor. I will straighten it your right away. I have here a handwritten note from my secretary. It should like to come back to the last part; I should like to talk about the last page again. I said that on page 13 the important case of Oesterle, Wolf and Stiegler is being discussed and on page 16 the important case of Michael Schmidt, the nan who pilgered field parcels from the mail; on page 18 of the two important cases are referred to, the case of the arsonist in Gerstetten of when I have just submitted an affidavit and the case of two Poles in Haying on regarding which I have submitted an affidavit, or shall do so. This is on page 36 cf the German text where it says, particularly courteous he was towards young foreigners, and he always seemed to show great sympathy for young people. From this connection it becomes clear that reference is made to the defendant Cuhorst. On page 20, it is only from these affidavits that I am reading these passages because, I did consider to have this witness on the witness stand actually. On page 25 also worth mentioning in a case against a man whose name I no longer remember, a pole, who because he was indicted fur having liberated French prisoners of war, a death sentence was to be pronounced against him at the direction of Berlin.
Cuhorst sentenced this pole to five years in the penitentiary, in the opinion, in order to justify his sentence, he spoke of the mental deficiencies of the defendant in a very strong manner.
Further down on this page it says in the case against a Czech, who was on trial in Rottweil, I think because of various thefts, Cuhorst ordered special investigations in Czechoslovakia in order to find cut whether the defendant was actually not younger than he stated, as he made very young impression and something seemed to be wrong to his papers. The investigations really showed that the Czech was still a juvenile at the time f the commitment of the crime and therefore a slighter punishment could be imposed on him; and, therefore the sentence was lenient. This is the case on which the defendant has made detailed statements on the witness stand.
On page 38 we have the case of Zwlauer Scholl and others, and this was a trial where Cuhorst's human side become apparent particularly.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours, 9 September 1947.)