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.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears that through an eversight on the part of the Presiding Judge, quite inexcusable, I neglected to inquire of the marshal this morning if all the defendants were present. He may now report as to the condition this morning.
THE MARSHAL; May it please Your Honors, all of the defendants have been present in the courtroom today with the exception of the defendant Petersen, who is absent dule to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: We understand the defendant Petersen is absent at his own request on account of temporary illness, and he is excused You may proceed.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Hen rs, may I please continue to introduce my documents on behalf of my client Herr Cuhorst. I have just been told that I shall be able to introduce all my document volumes today. That means that I shall also be able to introduce Volumes III and IV. Therefore, I must new make the following remarks: Today I shall have to ask you to allow me to reserve the introduction of a few more documents until later because I am not able to introduce them today; among those which I should like to introduce later are the text of the Wiedergutmachungs Gesetz reconstitution law, and an article from the French paper LeMono about the relations between the prosecutors and judges. Further more a number cf newspaper cuttings; also the Diesler affidavit; the Kies affidavit; the Baumann affidavit, and the affidavit by Dinkelacker. Some cf those documents I intended to introduce earlier, but the Prosecution objected to them being introduced in their present form.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will not rule upon any belated offers of affidavits or exhibits at this time, but it should be noted that the time is rapidly approaching when we will not receive additional affidavits if they have not been promptly and with due diligence processes in time for their reception as a part of the defendant's case.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That applies to every defendant.
DR. BRIEGER: And also there is the affidavit by Dieterlen -- I shall have to introduce t at later in a new version. And yesterday, as Exhibit No. 8, I introduced the Cuhorst Document No, 2, Document Book II-A.
THE PRESIDENT: I-A, wasn't it?
DR. BRIEGER: I-A, page 2. That is the indictment against Wladislaus Farygetewicz, dated oho 18th of July, 1942. Mr. Lafollette asked me where we get that indictment which we said was an original.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready to offer it now?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I have no objection.
DR. BRIEGER: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be receive in evidence as Exhibit 8. The number was reserved.
DR. BRIEGER: I had gotten to the Eckert affidavit, Document Book II-A, Document No. 36, Exhibit No. 46.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit has been received.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes. May I just quote two or three passages, and afterwards with my other document I shall be brief. On page 38 of the case against Zwiauer Scholl and others, and I should like to read cut that passage concerning proceedings where Cuhorst especially showed his humane attitude. I should like to mention the criminal case against Zwiauer School and others who were charged with the continuance of a Buendische Jugend which had been prohibited. Although Berlin sent a special. Public Prosecutor as representative in this session, who demanded a severe penalty, and although Cuhorst did not sympathize with these organizations, Cuhorst handled this case with great understanding for young people and as a final result of this trial, only one older defendant was sentenced according to Article 175 of the Penal Code, etc.
This is Case 62 on the Cuhorst list.
I am now continuing with my presentation. I should like to direct your attention to the Guter case, also on page 38. I also would like to mention a case against a certain Guter who stole at his firm seven army mail packages which he had supposed to mail and who had taken several objects from his bedfellow. A special court presided by Cuhorst, sentenced Guter to one year and six months imprisonment. In consequence of a nullity plea the sentence- was quashed and according to directives of the Reich Ministry of Justice, a penitentiary term of two or three years was to be demanded by the prosecuting authority. At the now trial Cuhorst insited in sustaining under all circumstances the verdict with regard to the youth of the perpetrator and also in order to stress on principle the independence of the courts towards the Reich Ministry of Justice.
The associate judges, however, were of a different opinion because the defendant did not make a very good impression and they were afraid, in particular, that in case of a second nullity plea another Special Court would convict the defendant to a much higher penitentiary term. Cuhorst was then outvoted, and Guter was sentenced to a penitentiary term of one year and one month, from which time the one year of detention pending trial which he had already served was deducted; so that Guter, in effect, was bettor off and, at least partly, they met the demand of the Reich Ministry of Justice which, in case of thefts of army mail parcels, insisted on principle on a penitentiary term.
This is Cuhorst case 55.
I now continue with my presentation of documents.
Cuhorst Exhibit No. 47, document 37 document book II, page 42 affidavit by Wolfgang Engelhern, of the 5th of July 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not really necessary for you to describe these exhibit.
Exhibit 47 will be received.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes. So as to avoid any misunderstanding, I imagine that you will allow me to say who the affiant is. I only want to avoid any misunderstanding.
THE PRESIDENT: The document shows it. You are just telling us what appears right here.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes. Cuhorst Exhibit 48, document No. 38 Book II, page 42.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit 49, document No. 39 Book II, page 43.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: This document is of particular importance because it deals with the Pietra case.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit 50, document No. 40, Book II, page 45.
This document is of particular importance because it details with the Margitai case.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No.51, document No. 42 Book II, page 54.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: This document refers to the events of the HarpprechtHaus case and it of particular importance because of the Renz incident. It refers to Prosecution Affidavit NG-197.
Exhibit No. 53, document No. 44, Book II page 56.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: I should like to quote a short passage from this document--it is quite short passage. This is an affidavit by Cuhorst's former driver. He is the man who drove Cuhorst when he went on official trips and when he went to the courts outside Stuttgart. It says:
"President Cuhorst as not dislike concerning the tone of his conversations in public. He expressed himself very clearly without ever being Malicious."
Cuhorst Exhibit 54, document No. 46, Book II, page 59. This document makes a special reference to the Eckstein-Winter case, which has been discussed here at great length.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BIEGER: Exhibit No. 55, document 47, Book II, page 61.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I have an objection, Your Honor, to the introduction of this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The prosecution objects to the introduction of Exhibit 54, document 47.
THE PRESIDENT: It is Exhibit 55.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I beg your pardon, 55. It appeals to the affidavit of one Otto Kleinknecht. An examination of the affidavit discloses that a material part of it is devoted to matters concerned with the affi davit which the affiant gave to the prosecution.
All of these matters should properly have been raised upon cross-examination, and are so intermixed with the material matters in the affidavit that they cannot be separated. For that reason the prosecution objects.
THE PRESIDENT: This is an affidavit which relates to the manner of the taking of a prosecution affidavit which was offered and received in evidence?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is correct.
DR. BRIEGER: That is correct, but only a portion of it and I have stressed those portions which reger to the previous affidavit. I can see no reason why I should not be allowed to introduce this affidavit for me to separate that. I made inquiries as to what the rules Were with the IMT, and I was told that such separation had not been insisted upon there. In the rules which apply for this Tribunal, I cannot find a rule which is contrary to the ruling of the IMT.
THE PRESIDENT: The proper time to have objection to the admissibility of an affidavit offered by the prosecution was at the time when the affidavit was offered. The exhibit was received without objection, and this kind of an attack comes to late. We have also seen the very insignificant and unimportant portion of this document and do not think that it merits any further attention.
The objection will be sustained.
DR. BRIEGER: I should like be make the following brief statement.
THE PRESIDENT: On what subject?
DR. BRIEGER: Concerning the matter of which the Tribunal has just passed a ruling.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it comes to late; we have ruled.
DR. BRIEGER: But I assume that I have not been prevented from submitting a defense affidavit which does not refer to the prosecution affidavit, and I reserve that right to introduce such a.s affidavit later.
THE PRESIDENT: You may do so. The time to object to an affidavit of the prosecution was when it was made.
It is a very paltry objection anyhow.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 56 document No. 49, Book II, page 67, in the English text it is also on page 67. This affidavit is considered particularly important by the defense because the much talked of Esterle case is discussed here in great detail.
Cuhorst Exhibit No 57, document No.50, Book II, page 69 in the German text and the same page in the English text. In this affidavit matters are discussed in great detail which were discussed in prosecution document NG-759.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 56 and 57 are received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No.58, document No. 51 Book II, page 72. This affidavit was deposed by an associate judge from the Special Court who had a great deal to do with Cuhorst.
THE PRESIDENT: The electrical system seems to be out of order.
DR. BRIEGER: For that reason, I shall repeat my last statement.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. The machinery is out of order. It is suggested that it is necessary for us to recess for a few moments while it is repaired, and we will do so.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. BRIEGER: May I continue with the submission of my documents concerning my client Cuhorst? As the sound system was out of order just now, I would like to repeat my statements about the last exhibit which was Exhibit No. 58 or Document 51 in Document Book 2 on page 72 of the German and English versions.
THE PRESIDENT: No. 58 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: The affiant Payer was an associate judge with Cuhorst, and he gives his comments on a number of important cases, included among which are Fussen, the Reverand Herzer, Guter, and the Untermarchtal monastery trial, and the case of Hepting. I should like to say about this, the monitor has drawn my attention to the fact that Fussen in the English version is frequently spelled "Russen" which has nothing to do with the Russian, of course. This is simply a misprint to which I would like to draw attention.
The next document is exhibit 39 which is document 52 in Book II on page 75. To make a brief remark, inasmuch as the German and English pages arc identical, I shall give one page number which in this case is 75. Peter was a clerk for many years with the Special Court under Cuhorst and I think from that point of view his testimony is of interest. I shall quote only these instances about the case of Skowron, "I shall recall a young Pole who on the basis of the law against Poles had to be sentenced to death in Ehing. His mane was Skowron.
He was a young man who made a good impression and Cuhorst had every sympathy for him and advocated a plea for clemency."
The next Document is Cuhorst Exhibit No. 60. It is Document 53 in Volume Book II, and it is on Page 78. This document deserves attention because it originates from the presiding judge of the District Court who as such was the immediate superior of Cuhorst, as the witness Dr. Kuestner has testified, in Cuhorst's capacity as the President of the Special Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 59 and 60 are received.
DR. BRIEGER: I would like to quote four lines from this: "On the 27 April 1942, he paid me a visit"-- He means Cuhorst in this case -"What he told me at that time, I made a note of at once. This is what I wrote down." -- I am sorry. There is some confusion here. He is not talking about Cuhorst but about Wagner. "Under President Cuhorst, I liked my work. There was a free and easy tone among us which allowed contradiction, and he could take into consideration a deviating opinion. That is all about that document.
The next document is Exhibit No. 61, Document No. 54, in Volume II, on page 83. The affiant here is Dr. Roessler, and he and Cuhorst were colleagues on the bench. Of particular interest are his statements about the Mannheim Communist Trial, which has played a part in the record here It's been discussed here recently under the designation, "Neuschwanduer, Hewig Wagner, Jatzchk and so forth. The affiant also testifies as to the case of Schaefer, about which the defendant has spoken on the witness stand. At the end it says, "Cuhorst said to me that he would soon chuck the whole thing; the many death sentences would get on his nerves to such an extent that he could only sleep one or two hours each night."
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 61 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: The next document which I beg to offer is Exhibit No. 62. It's Document No. 52 in Volume II.