I didn't know there was any killings going on at the concentration camps; I certainly knew nothing about mass killings.
Q. What did you know about the slave worker's program?
A. From my work for the party I heard nothing about that. In my work as a judge I did come in contact with foreign workers, however; but such a worker never asserted that any illicit means had been used to bring him to Germany to work there. The majority of workers, particularly skilled workers, on the contrary emphasized that they were caring decent pay and that they liked it here.
Q. What did you know about the Germanization of non-German territories?
A. I knew nothing about that.
Q. What did you know about the killing of enemy fliers?
A. I knew nothing about that.
Q. I refer to the affidavit by Daenzl, my Exhibit 10. I am now passing on to your work as a judge with the Special Court and with the courts martial. Did you work as an independent judge; or, were you a civil servant who was bound by instructions.
A. I always attached great importance to my independence as a judge. That independence which found its natural restriction in the fact that we were bound by the law and also by the fact that we had to observe decisions made by higher courts; all that I viewed from the point of view that it was the task of the judge to serve the entire nation; and that he must not place himself outside the historical and political development; that in other words when making decisions as a judge, he must not remove himself from the ground on which he is placed, but that on the other hand, whenever he decided in an individual case, no official superior--not even the Reich Ministry of Justice nor any Party Agency either--must be allowed to interfere with him.
Q. Concerning Hitler's well known speech made on the 26th of April, 1942, did that speech eliminate your independence as a judge?
A. I cannot answer that question with yes in view of the way you have put the question. Every judge was very much affected by that speech, not only because it was insulting in its form, but mainly because of the far reaching effects of this speech--by which that means the decision of the Reichstag--, not the independence of the judge was eliminated, but its guraantee. From now on it was possible for Hitler to remove any judge on behalf of his jurisdiction, at his own discretion, and without previous proceedings.
Q. I refer to my Exhibit 9. Were you ever subjected to any criticism on account of the sentences you passed?
A. The word criticism is a little too strong. Twich during the period when I was the permanent president of the Special Court, I was called to Dr. Emmert, who was then the president of the district court of appeal, and on the basis of reports he had received from the SD, he complained to me about a few verdicts which had been passed when I was presiding judge. The charge was that my sentences had been too mild, too lenient. In the case of two verdicts, they concerned proceedings where the defendants had been convicted by us for an offense against the Malicious Acts Law. The criticism was directed against the fact that we had not assumed that the offense had been committed against the law concerning the undermining of military morale. The nullity plea was made in connection with both those sentences, and in connection with the nullity plea the two sentences were quashed and the matter was referred to the People's Court. In the other case the criticism was that the sentence which had been passed in the case of an offence against the Malicious Acts Law was far below the Reich average. In this case, however, the nullity plea was not made.
Q. Those statements made by the witness are in the two affidavits, my Exhibits 3 and 8, and which led to the report being made in which the witness mentioned all those matters are contained in my Exhibit 16, and they appear on page 65. Witness, you have testified that as a judge in deciding an individual case you felt yourself to be independent. Does that not contradict the fact that in the so-called guidance discussions individual cases were actually discussed?
A. The system of guidance which was introduced by Minister Thierack, in my view, did not eliminate the independence of the judge. To start with, Thierack maintained the severe guidance of the prosecution and matters which have been mentioned repeatedly at this trial here, but later he also referred this principle of guidance to the judges. In these guidance discussions which he introduced, no instructions were to be issued to the judges; their independence was to remain unaffected, but all of us considered those guidance discussions as a very doubtful and unfortunate measure, for the danger that in spite of all freedom of decision, the free and independant opinion of a judge might perhaps not be prevented but affected that danger existed; and it was now more or less left to the discretion and the skill, and the wisdom of the president of the district court of appeal how the matter was handled. When Emmert, who was then president of the district court of appeal, asked me to attend those guidance meetings, I voiced my misgivings to him quite openly. He approved of these misgivings of mine, but he told me that he had to hold these meetings; and that he would avoid the exertion of any influence. He was mainly interested then to discuss all the more important penal cases that occurred in his district and that ho should be informed about them; and at the same time he was interested in familiarizing himself with the war penal laws and war jurisdiction.
THE PRESIDENT: Special circumstances, over which we have little control, require that we recess half an hour early. We will recess this time until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours, 10 September 1947).
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 10 Sept.
1947)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: First while you wait for your witness to arrive it has occurred to us that the summer season is very rapidly approaching an end that some of the defendants are sitting with their backs to open windows. If that should appear to imperil your health at any time, gentlemen, let your counsel know and we will see to it that something is done about it.
BY JUDGE HARDING:
You may hold up your right hard 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 OF GEORG DECHANT BY DR. ASCHENAUER:
Q. Witness, will you please give us your full name?
A. Georg Dechant.
Q. Will you please give us your personal data?
A. I was born on the 7th of April 1893 in Solenhofen in Franconia.
Q. Were you an SA official?
A. I was with the SA group Francania in Nurnberg.
Q. What was your last rank?
A. My last rank with the SA was SA gruppenfuehrer.
Q. Were you ever an official Judge with the Peoples Court?
A. Yes, between June 1944, when I was appointed to the People's Court as the Honorary Associate Lay Judge I took part in two sessions and then I was ousted from that position.
Q. Were you for your activities as a lay judge ever particularly trained or prepared?
A. I was in no sense of the word prepared or trained for that position. I did not take part in any meetings of the judges nor did I take part in any training courses nor anything else, nor did I ever receive any judges' information or official directives, nor was I introduced into the tasks of a Lay Judge. All that happened was that before the first session opened I was sworn in. My first knowledge of a case under review I obtained by my copy of the indictment prior to the trial.
Q. witness, as a Lay Judge were you ever influenced by members of the Gestapo or SD or were you in a position while you were a Lay Judge to observe any such influence on the course of the trial?
A. No, never. Nobody of the Gestapo even approached me during during the trial. I never noticed any such influence. I never did see any Gestapo officials present in the court room but simply the usual Court officials. I did not know what was in the files.
Q. Witness, can you tell us something about the fundamental attitude taken by the highest SA leadership toward the SD?
A. Certainly, there was an order issued by the Chief of Staff according to which the SA was never collaborate or to take over offices in the SD at any time.
Q. Witness, did you know anything about the attitude taken by the Chief of Staff concerning the use to be made by SA officers as Lay Judges with the Peoples' Court?
A. Yes, Peterson told me in his capacity as a main office chief with the Chief of Staff that the SA achieved a decision on the part of the SA Chief of Staff, according to which after about July 1944, no full the SA officer was to be transferred as a Lay Judge to the Peoples' Court. Relieved from their positions The Chief of Staff also promised at that time to have those who were Lay Judges at the time and also full time SA officers. By consulting with the Reich Ministry of Justice the full time SA officers were to be removed from all outside tasks in favor of their own work as SA officers.
Q. Witness, can you tell us anything about the influence taken by the Lay Judge on proceedings before the Peoples' Court?
A. Yes, the first knowledge of the facts as the basis of the trial a lay judge received by his copy of the indictment prior to the the trial. As far as all preliminary proceedings were concerned, starting with the denouncement, investigations and up to the serving of the indictment, the Lay Judge took no part in those things at all nor did he know the file stat all. As far as the lay judge was concerned he only took a very small part in the proceedings. He had the right to act by occasional questions when the verdict was considered but the reporting judge had the first word and he summed up the result of the proof, pointed to the legal regulations and made the first suggestion for the sentence and then opinions were exchanged about that. That was the first opportunity also for the lay judge to voice his own opinion about the case. Personal considerations were limited by the legal regulations, the knowledge about which and the application of which was up to the legal participants. If there was no unanimity a vote was taken. After the sentence was pronounced, the work of the lay judge had terminated. As far as serving the sentence and the execution of the sentence, elemency pleas and so forth were concerned, the lay judge could have no influence whatsoever.
Q. Witness, were you in this position of a lay judge with the Peoples' Court, did you ever meet the President Laemmle?
A. Yes, it happened as follows: I met him during the second session in which I took part, Laemmle was the presiding judge.
Q. Can you give us your impression which you gathered of Laemle now during that trial?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, I object to that question. Laemmle is not in issue here.
DR. ASCHENAUER: May I say it has been said here that Laemmle frequently was a reporting judge in the sessions in which Petersen participated.
I have frequently and repeatedly in other sessions asked questions about Laemmle for that very reason. Peterson was temporarily an associate judge in Freisler's Senate. For that reason it is of importance to know all about the persons who surrounded Freisler because therefrom the Tribunal will be able to form an opinion as to how Freisler and his associates behaved as it were. On behalf of Peterson, it is important to find out all about Laemmle.
THE PRESIDENT: How many cases did this witness try, two cases was it?
DR. ASCHENAUER: He took part in two sessions of the Peoples' Court.
THE PRESIDENT: And you want him to characterize Laemmle?
Court No. III, Case No. III.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I want him to give us his impression of Laemmle on the basis of the way Laemmle conducted the second session, of which he was the Chairman, and in which Dechant was the honorary associate judge.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you are asking with reference to the conduct of Laemmle in a case in which the defendant Peterson was associate judge; is that right?
DR. ASCHENAUER: No; Dechant was the associate judge.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, in what respect does that affect the defendant Petersen?
DR. ASCHENAUER: In other cases I asked questions about Laemmle in order to arrive at an opinion about the opposition to Freislar.
THE PRESIDENT: Did Laemmle sit with Petersen?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes, certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he can tell, if he knows, what his conduct was--what Laemmle's conduct was--in connection with the cases in which Petersen sat as a judge. You are at liberty to do that.
THE WITNESS: No, I never took part in any session where Petersen was present. I can only speak about the impression which Laemmle made in the session, as a judge and as a man, where I was the honorary associate judge.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't see that this affects Petersen.
DR. ASCHENAUER: The prosecution have attempted to describe the People's Court, as a collective entity, as an instrument o destroy political opponents. For that reason it seems to me to be important to form a picture of the personalities who took part in the meetings of the People's Court. It is important to destroy the impression which the prosecution have attempted to paint in this court.
THE PRESIDENT: We are only interested in the action of the People's Court insofar as it discloses tee conduct of any of the defendants in this case.
Now this man was not a defendant. If you want to have him characterize the action of this other judge in a few brief sentences, we will permit you to do it, but it seems to be completely remote from any issue in the case.
BY DR. ASCHENAUER:
Q. Then perhaps, witness, you could give us a very brief opinion about Laemmle in this respect.
A. The impression Laemmle made on me as a judge and as a man was a very good one. The way he conducted a session was calm, free of all sharpness, and he never curtailed the rights of the defendant. His conduct with witnesses was entirely correct. The way he looked into the proof was conscientious and scrupulous. I never doubted his sense of responsibility at all.
THE PRESIDENT: That is sufficient.
BY DR. ASCHENAUER:
Q. Thank you very much.
Witness, since when so you know Petersen?
A. I had met Petersen, roughly, by the end of 1934 when he was active at the Reich Leaders School at Munich, After the death of Chief of Staff Roehm, Victor Lutze, his successor, went into the whole of the SA Leaders Corps and eliminated all those who no longer seemed suitable, including those whose knowledge and abilities were insufficient. As a Standartenfuehrer I took part in one of these investigations, which was held at the Reich Leaders School in Munich, and Petersen was among the teaching end investigating staff of that school.
Q. What was his reputation at the time?
A. He enjoyed a very good reputation with the SA. He was well liked and popular because he was not one of those ambitious SA opportunists. He had started at the bottom of the latter and had achieved his position or his rank honestly.
He was regarded as a typical idealist. His kindness and willingness to help was known throughout the SA, by both officers and men. Whenever he could help, he did. There is, however, one point where his views were extreme. Whenever the question of honor and integrity was concerned, he became very extreme. He observed these principles himself and he expected others to do so as well. This was the principle with which he led the SA school. Whenever these principles were violated, he became ruthless in fighting it. This is how he acted; and also, the terms "ruthlessness" and "brutality" were hated by him.
Q. Witness, when, where, and how did you see Petersen again after the collapse?
A. After the collapse I ran into Petersen for the first time in June 1946, here in Nurnberg in the prison. He was here, as I was, as a witness for the defense of the SA. At that time he seemed to me to be in a very bad physical state, One could see the consequences of his internment. His physical state had deteriorated. He complained about a heart disease.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think that the Tribunal should inquire into matters subsequent to the time covered by the indictment, as to the matter of the defendant's health.
DR. ASCHENAUER: If the Tribunal please, in this connection I shall come to the affidavit which Petersen has given us. This is my last question anyway.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
BY DR. ASCHENAUER:
Q. Please continue.
A. A few weeks later, when I met Betersen again in Langwasser Camp, I saw that he was ill. He would lie down on his bed for days, in the barracks, he could hardly hold his food, and was most unhappy about his ill health. By August of 1946, when he was transferred from Langwasser to Regensburg, Petersen could no longer march.
He was taken to Regensburg in an ambulance.
THE PRESIDENT: just a moment. Is counsel attempting to show that the defendant Petersen is not physically able to be tried by this Tribunal?
DR. ASCHENAUER: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you attempting to show that he didn't know what he was doing when he signed an affidavit?
DR. ASCHENAUER: I shell submit another affidavit about that for the following time, by the doctor here.
THE PRESIDENT: I asked you a direct question. Are you attempting to show that this witness did not know what he was doing when he signed some affidavit; that is, that Petersen did not know what he was doing?
DR. ASCHENAUER: I would not put it quite as strongly as you did, Your Honor, but I shall attempt to show the influences under which Petersen gave and signed the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: The affidavit has been offered in evidence, it has been received without objection. Now, the Tribunal does not want to express a harsh attitude toward any physical misfortunes that this defendant may have had since he was indicted, but his health is a matter which is entirely irrelevant to this case.
Did you object to Petersen's affidavit at the time it was introduced?
DR. ASCHENAUER: If your Honor please, I objected at that time, and the then presiding judge left it to me to clear these questions when Petersen's case would be heard, which I am doing today. In this connection I shall submit another affidavit by the prison doctor. This is the means whereby I follow the order by Judge Marshall.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, proceed with the evidence briefly concerning the health of the defendant, if you must.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I have no other questions now.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other direct examination?
DR. ASCHENAUER: I have terminated my direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any cross-examination?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Mr. Dechant, you have said that you were not prepared or trained in any way for your job at the People's Court as a judge. I take by that that you never attended law school; is that correct?
A. Yes, quite; I was never trained.
Q. What professional training have you had?
A. I was trained as a teacher, and I then became a teacher at a high school. At the end I was a teacher at the training school for teachers in Schwabach.
Q. Is it true that you have been a full-time officer in the SA since 1933?
A. Yes, I left my school in 1922, became an officer in the Stahlhelm, and in 1933 I was, together with the Stahlhelm, transferred into the SA, when Seldte, the leader of the Stahlhelm became a member of the Hitler Government, I became a full-time officer in the SA in 1934.
Q. And what was the highest rank in the SA that you achieved?
A. My highest rank was Gruppenfuehrer.
Q. Does that roughly correspond to Major-General?
A. In the SA we never made comparisons between military and SA ranks. I mean, shall we say, it would be equivalent to the rank of a commanding general, or lieutenant-general. However there was never any use made of this fact at any time by an SA leader because while the development was a purely military one in the SS, that was not so in the SA.
Q. Were you staff leader of the SA group in Franconia?
A. Yes.
Q. Which includes Nurnberg?
A. Yes.
Q. In November 1939, or 1938, ratner?
A. In November 1938, yes.
Q. And you were staff leader of the SA in Nurnberg during the entire month of November 1938?
A. Yes, I had been in this position for years before and since.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is all.
DR. ASCHENAUER: May I take this witness into re-direct examination?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. ASCHENAUER:
Q. Witness, were you in Nurnberg on the 9th of November, 1938?
A. On the 9th of November 1938, I went to Berlin--a week before, actually--and as far as the incidents of November 1938 are concerned, I had no official or personal contact with them, and I can therefore say nothing about them under oath.
Q. Witness, was Gauleiter Streicher your enemy?
A. I wouldn't put it quite so strongly. As a former member of the Stahlhelm I was not too well liked by the Party at first, which is quite plausible. However, the work I did in the training and organization departments made my reputation, but Streicher ignored me by and large.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Thank you very much. No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
(Witness excused)
RUDOLF OESCHEY (Resumed) DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q. Witness, the last thing you told us about was the guidance discussions and your arrangement and agreement concerning these things with President of the District Court of Appeal Emmert. Please tell us how these conversations were really held.
A. The guidance discussions with Emmert were based on his assurance to avoid all influencing of judges. Roughly, these discussions took this form. At first, in the presence of the President of the District Court of Appeal, the Public Prosecutor, the Chief Public prosecutor, the President of the District Court, and perhaps another few experts of the prosecutor's staff, I discussed the cases of the previous week. Thereupon those cases were discussed and opinions were exchanged concerning those which would be held in the coming week. No attempt was made on those occasions, on my part, to influence the prosecution, nor was the attempt made by President of the District Court of Appeal Emmert or the Senior Public Prosecutor to influence me. I may say that both Emmert and Herr Bems were most tactful in their conduct and observed and respected the independence of the judge.
Q. In this connection may I refer to my Exhibits 14, 14, and 16? The witness Mueller has testified--which testimony can be found on cage 3757 of the record--that he believed he found that your opinion in the guidance discussions was very frequently the decisive one, which would amount to the fact that you used these discussions in order to guide the others yourself. Please give us your comments about that.
A. What Mueller has expressed here is completely incorrect. Mueller himself never took part in any of the guidance conversations, and he therefore is in no position to pass judgment there.
All I can say, anyway, is that these discussions merely served to exchange opinions quite noncommittally, and any attempt to exercise influence was never made by me.
Q. According to Prosecution Exhibit 479, which is the affidavit of Baeumler--in document book III-B, at page 86-it is alleged that you attempted to have the directives which came from these guidance discussions carried out by your associates. I should like to ask you, were the results of the guidance discussions communicated to your associates?
A. Not in one single case. There was no obligation to do so, and I therefore did not do so, because, on the one hand, any special results were not to be reported from these discussions, and also because I wanted to avoid any influencing of the associates.
Q. In the same exhibit, 479, Baeumler says that you had been influenced by directives and points of view which had been passed on to you by the RSHA and the SD. Can you tell us anything about that? How does he make that statement?
A. I never contacted the RSHA nor the SD at any time nor in any manner. What Baeumler says here can only be concerned with the usual reports, which had been customary for a case, to the Reich Office of Criminal Police. Some of these reports were published; some of them were made accessible to the public prosecutor; and these reports were sometimes referr ed to in the guidance discussions. This is probably the reason why, on some occasion, I would drew the attention of one or the other of the associates to these reports to the Reich Criminal Police Office. The reports themselves showed what types of offenses were being committed frequently, what danger existed, what immoral methods were being used, and so forth. Any directives or points of view for jurisdiction did not originate with these reports, out they were not without interest for the judge because from them he could make conclusions about the frequency and violence of a certain type of crime.
Q. Some prosecution witnesses have stated that you had been overworked as an associate and complained that you did not have the time to look into the files before a trial opened. I am speaking here particularly about witnesses Gross, Lips, and Brehm. Please give us your comments about that.
A. It is quite true that occasionally we were badly overworked. As the presiding judge, all I could do was to ask to be given more assistance from other departments. This was done all the time both by Rothaug and myself. It was recognized that we were overworked, but there were not sufficient people to alleviate the situation. For that reason I went to the President of the District Court of Appeal, Emmert, and suggested a method as to how the Special Court could be relieved of certain of its duties. To describe this suggestion briefly, it was to the effect that only matters of some importance and significance--that is to say, matters where heavier sentences were to be expected--should be taken to the Special Courts, whereas other matters which had so far been heard by the Special Courts should be taken to the local courts and penal chambers. This idea could become a reality, and from that time onwards one could no longer say that the various associates were overworked.
The privilege of the associates to look into the files before the trial was never curtailed, as far as I was concerned. It was, of course, up to the associate to see the files. The files were accessible at the official seat of the office, as long as I was in charge, anyway, and they were at the disposal of any member of the court whether he was a judge, a public prosecutor, or a defense counsel.
Q. I shall now come to the way you conducted a trial. The prosecution have charged you with a number of matters in this respect. The witnesses Brehm, record page 3519, and others--and record page 3819, where Baeumler has testified-have given a certain amount of motivation for these charges. Please tell us about all this.
A. Quite generally speaking, I energetically concentrated the trial upon its most important issues. When a defendant was being interrogated I was guided by the experience that he was the best person to shed light on the matter, because, after all, he knew everything from direct experience. Now in order to make the defendant tell everything which was important, in order to find the truth, it was, necessary for the trial to adjust itself to the character of the defendant concerned. And, in order to come to reasonably useful results, it was not always possible to treat him kindly, especially in cases if and when he had no sense for kindness. This applies particularly to habitual criminals, a great many cases of which I dealt with, and who were full of forensic experiences, and, on the other hand, were completely numb as far as the finer instincts were concerned. However, the same also applies to all other demoralized criminals; and particularly, those persons represented the majority of defendants who had to answer for their actions before Special Courts.
When somebody was interrogated, I always showed a large measure of patience at first. This patience, I must admit, was exhausted when, despite all my efforts and despite kind and serious works, I was being lied to in the most clumsy and cheeky manner, or if I encountered complete obtuseness or was provoked with cheeky works. On those occasions I lost my temper and sometimes I would abuse these people orally. I would call them names. I do not wish to embellish or justify this, because it cannot be justified.
A A somewhat extreme temper,but above all, the bad state in which my nerves were, also caused by the deprivations and burdens of the war, caused also by overwork, which made me highly excitable and easily lose my temper is the explanation for this conduct to which the witnesses have taken exception. But the position was not that when I lost my temper that this was the rule. These were simply occasional symptoms and with my disposition it would be natural thing that this state of excitement would leave me as quickly as it came up and the trial went on quite calmly after that.
Q. In Document Book I there are a large number of affidavits which bear out what the witness has said just now. How were there any disciplinary complaints about the way you conducted the trial?
A. I do not recall one singe case, and that makes me assume that the people concerned did not take these things too seriously, nor did they bear me any malice afterward.
Q. In this connection I have reference to Exh. 16. When you lost your temper on these occasions was that at the expense of finding out the truth? Did the truth suffer from that fact?
A. The trial itself did not suffer from these things at all. It was only done in order to find out as much truth as extensively as possible. The defendant himself could say anything that he wanted to prose it for his case. All the elements of exoneration I investigated with all thoroughness, and I adjourned the trial on more than one occasion in order to get hold of more evidence. And this proves that nothing which was of importance was neglected or not investigated.
Q. This again is borne out by a large number of affidavits. Now how did you behave towards witnesses in the trial?
A. It was not my intention, just as it was in the case of defendant, to intimidate witnesses and therefore to cause them to make incomplete or incorrect statements.
Q. The Prosecution have submitted a number of affidavits where you are being charged with having a prejudiced attitude, and also that you showed that attitude quite openly.
Please give us your comments about that.
A. As the presiding judge in charge of the trial, and above all, of the evidence, I -- at least that was my view -- had to have a very precise knowledge of the subject matter. As one could glean from the files which the Prosecution had submitted, together with the inictment to the Court, I always studied the files most carefully and took everything, ail circumstances, whether they were connected with the act or the person of the defendant, whether they were incriminating or exoneration, and scrutinized them as to their probative value as to the question of guilt of innocence, how they should be put to the defendant in order to clear up any possible doubts, and so forth. I also went into the question of the legal aspects cf the case. Of course, that was not all. I also formed an opinion about the case, but this was an opinion which was certainly not final and it certainly did not form a prejudice within me, because on the basis cf frequent experience it was my firm view that only the case in chief in its happy immediacy and with its surprise endings could only furnish the final basis for the opinion which the judge would form. Nothing was loss firm in my mind than the final verdict before the trial started, not even in what we call clear cases, which sometimes only appeared to clear cases, but soon the picture changed in the main trial.
Q. The witness Brehm in Exhibit 485 has testified that before the trial you told the associate judges about your intention about the sentence in form of a rool call, as one might say . The witness has somewhat modified his testimony, which can be seen from the record on page 3522. Please give us your brief comments about that.
A. That is entirely incorrect in this form. It was present usage to have the judges who had participated in the session to foregather in the chambers of the presiding judge before the trial in order to go to the court together. I was only too natural thus to exchange a few words about the cases which we were about to try.