THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. Document 55, isn't it?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, it's Document 55, if Your Honors please. The affiant was once a Public Prosecutor and he makes important statements about the case of Guter which the witness has discussed on the witness stand as Case No. 54.
My next document -- I am sorry -- I see this document goes a little further. The case of Gutman is also being dealt with here, the case Kettlitz, Soell, Stiegler, Hepting, and I would like to read this: "From a conversation which I and Cuhorst had on the threshhold of the chambers it was, on the contrary, my impression that he only with a heavy heart would touch the death sentence." Then the case of Hepting is also dealt with.
My next document will be Cuhorst Exhibit No. 63, which is Document No. 56, in Volume II on page 69.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 62 and 63 are received.
DR. BRIEGER: The next document will be exhibit No. 64, Document No. 57 in Volume II on page 91.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: I should like to read from page 99, and it's page 3 of the original. "The Special Court in Stuttgart fought a continuous battle with the Reich Ministry of Justice." On the next page it says, "The President of the District Court of Appeal was ordered to report to Berlin, both before and during the war, in order to be rapped over the knuckles very considerably because of the jurisdiction of the Special Court."
I shall now come to the next document, which is Cuhorst Exhibit No. 65 in volume II on page 104.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: This document, I think, deserves attention in connection with the other document -- the affidavit given by Hafenbraedl.
I shall now offer Cuhorst Exhibit No. 66, which is Document No. 61 in Volume II on page 108.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I wish to state an objection. It appears on Page 108 of the Document and 108-A that much of the document, which is more than two-thirds of it, is addressed exclusively to the matters of taking an affidavit from this affiant, which affidavit was not in fact used in evidence, and the balance of this affidavit is devoted to circumstances under which Prosecution's Exhibit 183, Document NG-572, Book III-G, page 66, was obtained; all of which matters should have been addressed to the document when it was submitted or made the subject of cross examination.
DR. BRIEGER: May I say this? be, ourselves, did not make any object ion to the way the affidavit is being taken down; moreover, as far as I can remember, at that time under the chairmanship of Judge Marshall, these things were being debated as far as they concerned the witness Steinle, and the Tribunal expressly left it up to us to submit an affidavit. I shall substantiate my statements further.
THE PRESIDENT: This is the same question we have had before, and the objection is sustained.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 67 is Document No. 62 on page 110 in Book II. I have nothing to read from there.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I must object to the introduction of this exhibit, Your Honor, for the reason that it does not contain a preamble in the form provided by rule No. I, which is clearly ascertained from the face of the document.
DR. BRIEGER: I reserve myself to submit the document again in the proper manner in compliance with the rules.
THE PRESIDENT: We will reserve that number for you: 67.
DR. BRIEGER: The next exhibit is No. 68, which is Document No. 64 in Book II on page 114.
THE PRESIDENT: What document number is that?
DR. BRIEGER: 64.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 68 is document what?
DR. BRIEGER: 64.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received. The exhibit 68 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: I shall now offer Cuhorst Exhibit No. 69, which is Document No. 65 in volume II on page 115.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I'd like to state an objection to it. The Prosecution objects to the introduction of this exhibit for the reason that it consists of a statement by an affiant Frey, who had previously given an affidavit for the prosecution, and interwoven throughout this affidavit are facts related to the taking of the original affidavit which should have been covered by cross examination. They are so interrelated that they can not be separated.
THE PRESIDENT: Was any objection made to the receipt of this document when it was offered?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: None.
THE PRESIDENT: The same ruling.
DR. BRIEGER: This will happen again because I remember a ruling by Judge Marshall where it was left to us to submit an affidavit later and to examine the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: You had the opportunity to cross examine the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: You had the opportunity to cross examine the witness, didn't you?
DR. BRIEGER: I shall venture to submit this part of the record. Cuhorst Exhibit No. 70 is Document No. 66 in Volume II on page 117. This affidavit seems to me to be of importance because we are concerned here with a journalist -- a court reporter, who as a complete outsider, watched a large number of trials under Cuhorst's chairmanship -- Could I be excused for a moment? I just want to see -- oh, yes, on page 117, to 118, yes, here it is. I should therefore like to read one passage.
"From 1942 to 1944, I was a court reporter for the 'Stuttgarter Neue Tagblatt" and a substitute court reporter for the 'N.S. Kurier' In this capacity, I often attended the so-called 'Crimes against War Economy Trials.' "And further down on the same page, it says:
"It was my impression, from the way Cuhorst conducted the trials, that he was a fanatic lover of truth. I can also remember a case where he did not conduct the case based on pre-trial evidence alone, as we read to-day in the newspaper reports, but where he even traveled to Austria to make inquiries on the spot."
This brings me to the end of Document Book II, and I shall now start with Book No. III.
I shall submit Cuhorst Exhibit No. 71, which is document No. 70. I assume that here again I need not state what we are concerned with in particular, but I shall be only glad to do so if the Court wishes me to.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received: 70 and 71 are received.
DR. BRIEGER: The next exhibit is No. 72, which is Document No. 71 in Book III on page 6.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 73, which is Document No. 72 in Book III is an extract from a bock by Professor Kern. Professor Kern from now on will be frequently quoted as giving his expert opinion. It is of special importance to draw the Court's attention in this connection to check on my opinions as to whether his present view coincides with the one which he had taken up in his books earlier on, or whether there are any striking deviations.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 73 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Another excerpt from a book by the same author, which will become Exhibit No. 74, is Document No. 73 in Book III on page 8.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 75 is Document No. 74 is Book III on page 9. This extract from a document makes it clear what distinction Cuhorst received when he made his State examination. I submit this because several prosecution witnesses have stated that his legal training was only average or perhaps even below the average.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: From the point of view of Count IV of the Indictment, I shall offer Exhibit No. 76, which is Document No. 75 in Book III on Page 10.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Because of Cuhorst's sentences against people who had violated the war economy regulations and had committed black market operations, I am offering Exhibit No. 77, which is Document No. 77 in Volume III on page 12.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. Exhibit No. 77 is received, there being no objection.
DR. BRIEGER: On page 13 we have an excerpt from the well-known American paper "The Readers Digest".
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The Prosecution objects to the receipt of this exhibit for the reason that it contains purely an excerpt from the Readers Digest, dated March 1947, having to do with facts existing in 1947, which can be made in no way relevant or material to the proof of any issue in this Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained. The Court saw no reason for its relevance.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 79 is Document No. 79 in Volume III on page 14.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you about 78, Doctor? Exhibit 78 is what?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That was Document No. 78, Your Honor.
DR. BRIEGER: Pardon me, Your Honor. That referred to the excerpt from the Readers Digest -- Cuhorst's Exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you pardon me while I inquire?
DR. BRIEGER: Surely.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 77, I thought, was the one to which counsel objected.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: No, I objected to Exhibit 78, Your Honor, which is Document 78 on Page 13, which is an excerpt from the Readers Digest.
THE PRESIDENT: And you did not object to 77? Then it will be received.
JUDGE BLAIR: Bad you objected to 77?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I objected only to 78, Your Honor.
JUDGE BLAIR: Very well.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst's exhibit -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. Exhibit 78 is rejected and 77 is received. You may proceed with Exhibit 79.
DR. BRIEGER: May I continue, Your Honor? Exhibit No. 79 is Document Mo. 79 in Volume III on Page 14.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: This exhibit contains a few important decisions by the Reich Supreme Court which had a decisive influence on Cuhorst's own decisions, or where at least he had to take them into consideration. The same applies to the following exhibit which I shall offer -- all of them contain decisions of the Reich Supreme Court. I shall, therefore, offer Exhibit No. 81, which is Document 81 on page 18 of Volume III.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst's Exhibit 82 is Document 82 in Volume III on Page 20.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: This document is cf special importance because it deals with the looting of Army postal packages which are being dealt with as crimes against the public enemy decree.
Cuhorst's Exhibit 83 is Document 83 on Page 22. This concerns the nullity plea and it's restrictions.
THE PRESIDENT: It's received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst's Exhibit Document 84 in Volume III is on Page 24.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst's Exhibit No. 85 is Document 85 in Volume III on Page 30.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR BRIEGER: Cuhorst's Exhibit No. 86 is Document 86 in Book III on page 72.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: This deals, among other things, with the case wherein in the opinion of the Reich Supreme Court defense counsel was a necessity.
Under Defense counsel, one should understand that defense counsel must be appointed by the Court.
Cuhorst's Exhibit No. 87 is Document 87 in Volume III on Page 36.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst's Exhibit No. 88 is Document 88 in Volume III on page 39.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
This is a decision which deals with the evidence of a "continuous offense." This is a legal concept which was of importance repeatedly here. Cuhorst Exhibit No. 89 is Document No. 89, Volume III on Page 43.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Exhibit No. 90 is Document No. 90 in Book III on Page 48. This deals with the recognition of capital punishment as a legal matter.
THE PRESIDENT: The index shows what is there just as you have stated it. The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit 91, Document 91 in Volume III on Page 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst exhibit No. 92 is Document No. 92, Volume III on Page 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 93 is Document No. 93 in Volume III on Page 55.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 94 is Document 94 in Volume III on Page 57.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit 95 is Document No. 95 in Volume III on Page 62.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 96 is Document 96 on Page 65 of Volume III.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: It concerns the dissertation of the witness, Dr. Klett who was present here yesterday.
Cuhorst Exhibit 97 is Document 97 in Volume III on Page 66.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: The notes should be of interest from the point of view of what the Prosecution witness Schwarz said at the time about his own examination and which was repeated by Leszinski.
Cuhorst Exhibit No. 93 is Document 93 in Volume III on Page 67. This affidavit is of special importance because of what was said yesterday by the witness Dr. Klett, namely, that in the case of the trial in Untermarchtal the trial was held in what is known as the "Exercizien-saal."
I shall now come to Document Book No. IV. That document book I am not only submitting on behalf of Cuhorst but also on behalf of all defense counsel. I should, therefore, like it to be perused not only on behalf of Cuhorst, but also on behalf of defendants Rothaug and Oeschey. It deals with matters of general importance concerning the Special Court. I shall, therefore, submit Cuhorst Exhibit No. 99, Document No. 99 in Book IV, Page 1.
Cuhorst No. 100 is Document 100 in Book IV on Page 14.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 99 and 100 are received.
DR. BRIEGER: This Exhibit contains professor Kern's expert opinion a a legal expert, which, at my express wish, has been drawn up.
It is the same author of whim I have submitted other things this afternoon from his books. Professor Kern is Professor of Law in Tuebingen, formerly Freiburg, and there he was for a long time the president of the university or, as it is called in German, the "Rektor of the University."
Cuhorst Exhibit No. 101 is Document 101 in Volume IV on Page 23. Hera again we have the same author whom the witness Janreis has quoted so often when he was on the witness stand. He is an authority in the field of constitutional law for the Weimar Republic.
Cuhorst Exhibit 102 is Document No. 102 in Volume IV, Page 25
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 101 and 102 are received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 103 is Document No. 103 in Volume TV, on Page 27. Cuhorst Exhibit 104 is Document No. 104 in Volume IV on Page 30.
THE PRESIDENT: They are received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit 105 is Document 105 in Volume IV on Page 32.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit 106 is Document 106 in Volume IV on Page 36. Cuhorst Exhibit 107 is Document 107 in Volume IV on Page 38. Cuhorst Exhibit 108 is Document 108 in Volume IV on Page 38-A.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 106, 107 and 108 are received.
DR. BRIEGER: These last quotations of law under the Weimar Republic I should like to be taken into consideration together with the legal opinion just submitted by Professor Kern, particularly as he himself, in his own affidavit, refers to a number of these laws and regulations.
Cuhorst Exhibit 109 is Document 109 in Book IV on Page 42.
Cuhorst Exhibit 110 is Document 110 in Book IV on Page -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. We are having a little difficulty. Your exhibits 107, 108 and 109 are received.
DR. BRIEGER: May I please be told when I can continue submitting documents?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; you may continue.
DR. BRIEGER: To repeat my last statement, Cuhorst Exhibit 110 is Document 110 in Volume IV on Page 43. This contains the particularly important "Decree for the Protection of the Republic."
Cuhorst Exhibit 111 is Document 111 in Book IV on Page 46. This contains the "Law for the protection of the Republic" of the same year. They were issued very shortly one after the other and should not be confused.
Cuhorst Exhibit 112 is Document 112 in Book IV on Page 50.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 109, 110 and 111 are received.
DR. BRIEGER: Of special interest should be here the signature of Reich President Hindenburg. as well as the signature of Bruening, but in particular the signature of Wirth. This seems to me to be of special importance. This is the same Wirth whose reputation as a protagonist of democracy is international.
Cuhorst Exhibit 113 is Document 113 in Volume IV on Page 52.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 112 and 113 are received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit 114 is Document 114 in Book IV on Page 63.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: These things which are being dealt with in this document should deserve attention in connection with the cross examination of the Prosecution witness Behl in the Spring of this year.
Cuhorst Exhibit 115 is Document 115 in Book IV, Page 69.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit No. 116 is Document 116 in Volume IV on Page 71.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit 117 is Document No. 117 in Volume IV on Page 73.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit 118 is document No. 118 in Volume IV on Page 75.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: Cuhorst Exhibit 119 is Document 119 on Page 79 in Volume IV.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: This again is a decision by the Reich Supreme Court. I regret that I could not include this in Volume III but I did not receive it until a later date.
Cuhorst Exhibit No. 120 is Document 120 in Volume IV on Page 81; again a decision of the Reich Supreme Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: It says that the judge was committed and bound by certain regulations concerning the penalty.
Cuhorst Exhibit No. 121 in Document 121. I am afraid I meant Exhibit No. 121. This is in Book IV on Page 82.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: Another decision by the Reich Supreme Court concerning the necessity of defense counsel.
Cuhorst Exhibit 122 is Document No. 122 in Volume IV on Page 84. This document deserves attention in connection with Exhibit 120. There again we are concerned with the penalties as laid down by law.
Cuhorst Exhibit 123 is Document No. 123 in Volume IV on Page 85.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. BRIEGER: If the Tribunal please, I have now concluded the presentation of my evidence by documents.
THE PRESIDENT: We have a supplement document: Volume II Cuhorst Supplement. Did you overlook that or do you want to put it in?
DR. BRIEGER: May I see it a moment, your Honor?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I think that is the affidavit of Schoeck and Schoeck appeared as a witness; isn't that correct?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, Of course, I don't need that affidavit any longer.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. BRIEGER: As a separate document the Prosecution have in their hands a Cuhorst Document headed: "Second law to effect the preparation for National??? injustice committed under the administration of Criminal Law of 19 November 1945". As the Prosecution already have this in their hands I shall now offer it to the Court. It will become Exhibit 124. It seems to me to be of great importance because it becomes clear from this that today in the American Zone of Occupation, and one might say at the direction of the American Military Government, suite far from all sentences by special court being suspended, only to some extent the taking up of sentences then arrived at, is carried out, this is a point which will become of importance in my final plea. Should I have to submit further documents later on I have already given the relevant statements and I have nothing to add thereto.
THE PRESIDENT: You are not prepared to present Exhibit 124 at this time?
DR. BRIEGER: Just a moment, your Honor. May I have reserved that number and I shall put it in tomorrow?
THE PRESIDENT: You may reserve Number 124. Exhibit 123 is received.
DR. BRIEGER: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: 107 to 123 inclusive have all been received.
DR. SCHUBERT: If the Tribunal please, may I now begin and ask witness Oeschey to take the witness stand?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. You may interrogate him.
RUDOLF OESCHEY, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE BLAIR:
Q. Will you repeat this oath after me:
I swear my God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE BLAIR: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q. Witness, will you please give a brief description of your personal and professional career and also give an answer to the question why you became a legal man?
A. I was born on 29 May 1930 in Angsburg, grew up at home. I went to the Secondary School and to High School in Augsburg. In 1922 I graduated from High School. The wish which I felt at that time to study law I could not realize at first because I did not have the money. I therefore went into a commercial career. At first, for two years, I was an apprentice at a bank and then for a few years I was employed by a number of commercial enterprises.
In 1926 I started studying law at the University of Munich. I studied for eight terms and in 1930 I made my first state examination, the examination of what we call a Referendar.
From 1930 to 1933 I undertook the preparatory service of a lawyer in Augsburg and in 1933 I took my second legal state examination, what we call the assessor examination.
By virtue of the results of the examination I applied for a job with the Bavarian Administration of Justice. On first September 1933 I was given my first position as an assessor with prosecution of the District Court of Augsburg. In March, 1934, I was transferred to the Public Prosecutor's office with the District Court in Hof and I was appointed second public prosecutor.
On first November 1935 I was transferred to Aschaffenburg as a local court counsellor and from there, on first September, 1939, I was transferred to the District Court in Nurnberg as District Court Counsellor.
On the 1st April 1941 I was appointed Director of District Court at tho Nurnberg district court. This was my first promotion after eight years' service.
Q Will you please give us details of your professional activity up to the time when you were appointed to the Nurnberg position.
A When I was with tho public prosecutor in Augsburg and Hof I exclusively dealt with the business of a public prosecutor in general criminal cases. Any political offenses did not touch upon my sphere of work. With the Aschaffenburg court I at first for about six months worked on tho land register and property matters. I then received the order to form c committee of referendars and presided over it, and, as an additional task, I was given a position in civil matters.
Q If I followed you correctly, witness, up to the time of your transfer to Nurnberg, you had nothing to do with political affairs or political offenses?
A No.
Q How did your superiors in Aschaffenburg judge you?
A The best information about that can be obtained by the president of the Aschaffenburg District Court which was submitted to here as a document.
Q If tho Tribunal please, may I make reference here to Prosecution Exhibit 408, in Volume IX, on Page 57. I should like to point out here that if during the examination of this witness, I take reference to certain documents or passages of the transcript, I shall always quote the page of the English translation or tho English version. Now, will you please describe how it was that you were transferred from Aschaffenburg to Nurnberg.
Was this a case of a promotion; and, will you please give us your comment on the assertion by the witness Doebig that at the suggestion of Rothaug, and at the instigation of the Gauleitung of Franconia you were transferred to Nurnberg. May I take reference here to a Prosecution affidavit, which is Exhibit 236, in Volume III-B, on Page 74, and the page in the transcript is 1771, where Doebig in his examination had to modify his statements somewhat. Will you now please give me an answer?
A: What the witness Doebig has asserted is incorrect. I did not like the atmosphere in Aschaffenburg -- which was the reason why I took my doctor's advice and as early as spring 1938 I constantly looked for a transfer from Aschaffenburg to some other place. There wore positions of district court and local court counsellors in a number of various Bavarian places which had advertised in the journal "Deutsche Justic". Among these positions there was also a position of a district court counsellor in Nurnberg. Up to 1940 I nowhere had any contact with political circles, and particularly I had no relations with the Gauleitung in Franconia; nobody knew me there; even my name was quite unknown. I am quite sure that the people in charge of the Franconia Gau were not informed about the fact that I had applied for this position because this was only a transfer and in the cases of transfer, political agencies are not being consulted. It is also completely out of the question that Rothaug had anything to do with this transfer. I know Rothaug at that time neither by name nor by what he looked like; nor did I know Herr Denzler who at that time was the most influential political man in all personnel matters of the administration; nor would it be correct to say my transfer to Nurnberg was done for the reason that I should be used at the Special Court.
On 1st January, 1939 I was transferred to Nurnberg. At that very moment with the Fourth Penal Chamber to which the Special Court was incorporated, a change in personnel was effected. Therefore, had the order existed to use me for the Special Court, it would have been possible to do this by the 1st of January 1939, but in effect, I was not being attached to the Fourth Penal Chamber and the Special Court, but the Third Penal Chamber. The real reason for my transfer was purely this: As I was told later by Dr. Emmert who was later on the president of the district court. I had been suggested for this position and this suggestion was done bearing in mind the fact that my boss at the time, the president of the district court in Bamberg, had recommended me particularly because of my work for the referendars. As stressed before, this was not a promotion, but purely a transfer for the local court counsellors and the district court counsellors received the same pay.
Q What the witness Oeschey has just said now is confirmed by what was said by the witness Donzler, on page 7121 of the record. Witness, will you please tell us what you did as a judge in Nurnberg?
A With the district court of Nurnberg I was first of all used as a judge in the Third Penal Chamber. This had to decide on criminal offenses of a general nature. As from 15th April 1939, I was transferred to the Fourth Penal Chamber, the president of which was Rothaug.
At the same time I was appointed associate judge with the Special Court. This transfer to the Fourth Penal Chamber was a complete surprise to me. Herr Rothaug, who up to that moment was a stranger to me, called on me one morning in my office and he said that he needed somebody else for his work, that is a judge, and that people in charge had recommended me and that he would, therefore, like me to take over this job and j in his chamber. I saw no reason why I should say no to transfer from one chamber to another. In any case, any political considerations were of no importance for that change in my sphere of work.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you excuse me a moment. I wanted to make a note of the date of the transfer. Will you tell me the date of the transfer to the Fourth Penal Chamber?
A On the 15th of April, 1939.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, very much.
AAny political considerations were of no importance here because the focal point of the work done by the Fourth Penal Chamber was with the penal cases; these were known as the jury cases. About four-fifths of all cases heard were those cases; whereas, the cases the Special Court at that time in Nurnberg dealt with both as far as number and their significance was concerned were negligible.
Q Now, what did you do until you were promoted Director of District Court?
A Up to 1st April, 1941 I exclusively worked as an associate judge and author of opinions and sentences in the penal chamber and the Special Court cases under the chairmanship of Rothaug and Engert.