Q The Prosecution introduced a number of affidavits which deal with the Freicorps Plaerrer Case, Exhibit 149, Exhibit 230, Exhibit 232. In all of those affidavits it is stated that that had been nothing but a bit of nonsense, and that the offenders had been nothing but young boys. Therefore, the death sentence had been unjustified.
Please tell me first whether you have been able to study that case by means of the court files?
A No. All I saw was the copy of the indictment.
Q And what do you remember of that case?
A The main defendant, Kurtz, a German, had gathered around him a number of juveniles who, almost every evening, gathered at the Plaerrer. That is one of the traffic centers of Nurnberg. It was about thirty or forty people who gathered there and they cabled themselves the Freicorps Plaerrer.
Kurtz was a person of bad reputation. He had been previously convicted for theft and he was a shirker. He was the ringleader. Under his influence the Freicorps Plaerrer admitted a number of punishable acts. The difficult problem in this case was to distinguish from those offenders those who were not really offenders but who were simply juveniles who were of an adventurous turn of mind. The Prosecution had already dealt with that problem by only indicting nine of the 30 or 40 members of the gang and by indicting them as the main defendants. And, furthermore, the indictment was restricted to three counts, that is to say, ill--treatment of pedestrians, assault on a Hitler youth hostel and blackmail and robbery of pedestrians. Kurtz was the ringleader in all of these offenses.
Concerning the first offense, the ill-treatment of pedestrians, that was not really a serious punishable offense. The second offense, too, that attack on the Hitler youth hostel, we did not take that very seriously.
Q Witness, the Prosecution witnesses say that that attack on the Hitler Youth Hostel had been considered by you as a political action and had caused you to speak of an underground resistance movement against the Hitler youth movement.
Is that true?
A Neither I nor the court did that. It was the Gestapo who did, because it was the Gestapo that had made the investigations. In its final retort in which it summed up the results of the investigations, the Gestapo describes the Freicorps Plaerrer, because of that attack on the Hitler youth hostel, as a political underground movement, a resistance movement against the Hitler youth, but the police investigation only showed very little reason to assume that and the trial itself did not produce any evidence of that kind. Therefore, the court fie not regard the Frei corps Plaerrer as a political group and did not consider either the assault on the pedestrians nor the attack on the Hitler youth hostel as a serious offense and certainly not as a political offense.
The focal point of that matter was the third offense, and it was clearly proved during the trial that the Plaerrer Frei corps as such had nothing to do with it. It was only connected with that third offense because the offenders in that case happened to be members of the Plaerrer Freicorps.
What had happened was this. In those days every evening a large number of foreign workers gathered on the Plaerrer. Most of them were people from the East. Among them there were quite a few who tried to barter their cigarettes against food or ration cards, and cigarettes at that time were the most important rate of exchange. Soon Kurtz took advantage of this situation for a systematic robbery. As Kurtz didn't understand the language of these foreigners he joined up with the Ukrainian Mantiuk. Mantiuk went about among the foreigners and asked who would like to barter cigarettes against bread or food coupons. If anybody wanted to barter he took him to some dark corner or to some narrow street where Kurtz was waiting. There the foreigner was induced to hand over his cigarettes.
THE PRESIDENT: I am wondering if you can't make this tale of bartering of cigarettes a little shorter. Certainly no one is very directly affected by it. After all, we are merely concerned with the conduct of the defendant in the trial of the case. You are at liberty to show whether his action was reasonable or arbitrary, but we are not trying to retry all of these cases on the facts. In other words, statements should be more brief.
A (Continuing) What Kurtz end Mantiuk did to these foreigners was nothing but plain robbery or robbery and blackmail. Therefore, Kurtz and Mantiuk were conflicted under Article II of the Public Enemies Law in connection with serious robbery and blackmail and they were sentenced to death in view of the gravity of their offense.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q, The witness Kern, in Exhibit 232, states that three death sentences had been passed, that is, on Kurtz, Mantiuk and a man called Malinowski; is that right?
A I am practically certain that only Kurtz and Mantiuk were sentenced to death.
Q Kern further states that Mantiuk had played the smallest part in this offense. What do you have to say about that?
A No. Mantiuk's share in this offense was hardly smaller than that of Kurtz. That was established beyond all doubt at the trial.
Q The witness Groher, in Exhibit 230, describes that gang as the Black Hand. Is that the same gang as the Plaerrer Freicorps?
A No. The Black Hand - Schwarze Hand - was a similar association as the Plaerrer Freicorps.
THE PRESIDENT: Was it involved in this case?
THE WITNESS: No, no, it was not.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q In the Groher affidavit your judgment in the Bachhuber case, the case of an habitual criminal, is criticized and Groher says that was purely a case of civil law pending between Bachhuber and Kohlbauer.
Is that right?
A No. Bachhuber was an habitual criminal who had been released from security custody on probation. He had made use of the fact that Kohlbauer had been called up for service with the armed forces to steal 1300 Reichsmarks from him.
Q What sort of offense did the Prosecution think it was? They indicted him under Article IV of the Public Enemies Law together with embezzlement. Furthermore, he was indicted as a dangerous, habitual criminal under Article I of the Amendment of 4 September 1941. What sentence did the prosecutor ask for?
A The prosecution from the beginning thought that the death sentence ought to be passed.
Q. The witness Groher, Exhibit 230, states that the court; had not considered the question whether the offender Bachhuber, the person who had committed the theft, had the right to retain the 1,300 marks and that the court had not admitted a motion for evidence by the defense counsel; is that correct?
A. That is not correct. The motion for evidence was made on the 26th of November, 1943 by Groher. This trial was set for the 28th of November, 1943. Therefore, it was not possible to admit that motion for evidence. Probably Groher was told about that over the telephones, for on the 28th of November, 1943, when the trial opened, he brought his witnesses along and I examined them.
Q. On the basis of what legal provision was Bachhuber sentenced to death?
A. The court took the view that this was an offense under Article IV of the public Enemy Law, in conjunction with fraud and embezzlement. The death sentence was mandatory under Article 1-IV, as Bachhuber was a habitual criminal who had been discharged from safety custody on probation and who had used his time out on probation to commit another base offense.
Q. The Prosecution has also mentioned the Becker case, B-e-c-k-e-r. The Exhibit Numbers 232, 149 and 489. You were the presiding judge at this trial and the death sentence was passed. Attorney Kern, who defended Becker says that the verdict by far exceeded the purpose of making the penalty an atonement. Please give us some brief comments.
A. Rasper Becker, too, was a habitual criminal. He was a professional swindler. The offenses for which he had again be indicted were definitely the offenses of a swindler. He had made three women give him a large amount of money by promising them marriage and making other fraudulent proposals, thereby gaining their confidence. Another offense was that to the Reich Damage Office at Munich, he pretended to be an air raid victim, whereupon he received received a thousand marks, which he used to live at one of the first class hotels in Munich.
Q. What view did the Prosecution take in that case?
A. From the very beginning the prosecution thought that the defendant deserved the death sentence, and that was already mentioned in the indictment.
Q. And on the basis of what provision was he convicted?
A. The defendant was convicted on the basis of Article IV of the Public Enemy Law in connection with fraud, and Article I of the amendment.
Q. The witness, lawyer Kern, Exhibit 232, mentioned similar cases and says that in such cases prison sentences had been passed, or should have been passed. What do you have to say to that?
A. Rechtsanwalt Kern is referring to that case of fraud concerning the Reich Damage Office. Such offenders were never sentenced to prison terms; these cases always considered crimes under the Public Enemy Law and penitentiary sentences were passed and in particularly serious cases, the death sentence was passed.
Q. The witness Kern finally refers to the fact that one of the women had said she didn't think she had been harmed, and, therefore, in her case no fraud had been committed. Please tell us what you have to say about this.
A. That isn't true either. You are referring to Frau Leidel, and the defendant had embezzled money from her. As a witness at the trial that woman said that she had given Becker two hundred marks, or rather lent him two hundred marks only because he had promised he would pay her back; and he also had given her an I.O.U.; Becker however never intended to pay her back; and, so, she had lost her two hundred marks, But the Leidel woman at the trial said that she didn't think that was embezzled. However, that simply meant that she didn't want him to be punished, and according to German legal doctrine that is quite insignificant.
THE PRESIDENT: That is sufficient.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q. And now a similar case. The case of Frieda Bayer, B-a-y-e-r, Prosecution Exhibit 226. The witness Meyer says that as a prosecutor he had only asked for a penitentiary sentence of three to five years. Did you see any files in connection with this case?
A. No, I can only tell you what I remember.
Q. Please tell us what you remember.
A. According to my memory, Frieda Bayer was a woman who had a large number of previous convictions for fraud; she was a definite type of the underworld. The War Damage Office at Nurnberg was told by her that she was an air raid victim and she got fifty thousand marks out of them, and the money she just spent for her own purposes.
Q. And what was the legal view that was taken of that offense?
A. The woman was convicted under Article IV of the Public Enemy Law in connection with forgery of documents, On account of ** fact that the Bayer woman was a criminal type it was considered a very serious case, and also because the sum of money was rather large.
Q. The witness Meyer also says that you had exterminated the Bayer woman because she had been a worthless gypsy type.
A. I don't remember properly what happened at the trial, but I know that the Bayer woman wasn't a gypsy; she wasn't a gypsy; she was a German woman.
Q. The Prosecution further introduced documents on the Bauer case, B-a-u-e-r, Exhibit 226. The witness Meyer says that the death sentence which was passed by you, being the presiding judge, was in no proportion to the offenses committed by Bauer. Please give us a brief account of that case.
A. Bauer according to his entire mentality and to the life he led was without any doubt a dangerous, habitual criminal. He shirked all honest work; he was nothing but a swindler. He had several previous convictions, and his last sentence had been a term in the penitentiary, but all that was in vain.
MISS HAHN: The film has run out.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will take its fifteen minutes recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q Witness, you were just telling about the case Bauer. Can you tell us more about it?
AAs I mentioned, the case of Bauer was that of a confidence man who was a swindler. He had a number of previous convictions, including a penitentiary sentence; he had swindled two women, including a servant and her father, and he had swindled them out of their entire savings. According to his case history and records, he was an incorrigible, a habitual criminal. Therefore, paragraph 1 of the amendment was applied.
Q Can you see from the files what sentence the prosecution asked for?
A The files of the prosecution showed that it intended to ask for the death sentence from the beginning.
Q Who caused this remark to be made in the files of the prosecution?
AAmtsgerichtsrat Meyer, who has given an affidavit.
Q Did you cause the affiant Meyer to make this remark on the indictment?
A I never made a public prosecutor enter such a remark on the files.
Q The witness Meyer also mentioned in this connection that the court doctor had given an expert opinion according to which Bauer was capable of improvement, wherefore the death would not or should not have been pronounced; is that true?
A What is true in this is that the doctor in his expert opinion about the question of responsibility in the criminal sense, not actually about the man's qualities or his capacity for improvement, remarked incidentally that in his opinion the security measures necessary for professional criminals would not have been essential in this case.
That remark on the part of the doctor was flatly contradicted by what he had said otherwise. He described in his opinion Bauer as a weakling and a psychopath who would go back to swindling and was a habitual criminal with unfavorable propects for his further career. It was that statement by the court doctor that one felt obliged to apply security measures, that is to say the supreme measures provided for by law. The remark in question is, therefore, not in agreement with the other statements, and it therefore did not deserve serious consideration.
Q I shall now discuss the case of Flurer, F-l-u-r-e-rProsecution Exhibit 223 479. The death sentence passed under your presidency is being taken exception to as being too harsh. Was he sentenced as a habitual criminal also?
A Flurer was sentenced as a habitual criminal. His case was that of a homosexual, for having seduced juveniles, who had served a long term in prison and had been under police surveillance and he had offended again a number of juveniles. The main case showed that his case was that of committing offenses which showed an irrevocable inclination in that direction.
Q The witness Escher testifies as to the great requisites of paragraph 20-A of the penal code concerning the habitual criminal did not apply in this case; that Flurer should not have been sentenced as a dangerous, habitual criminal; what is your opinion about that?
A The provisions of paragraph 20-A, Section I, did not apply to Flurer, but the provisions of paragraph 20-A, Section II.
Q And he was sentenced according to that?
A Yes. He was sentenced quite legally as a dangerous, habitual criminal on that basis.
Q Escher also quotes and asserts the words "as a dangerous, habitual criminal" had been added subsequently to the indictment; is that true?
A I have gone into Escher's statement on the basis of the files, and have found that what he says today is not correct. Added subsequently only were the words as a dangerous, habitual criminals; and when the legal analysis was given, the words "and in connection with paragraph 20-4, subsection II of the Reich Penal Code." On the other hand, the paragraph 1 of the law, 1st April, 1941, which becomes clear unequivocally from the copy of the indictment. There was in the original indictment, from this it becomes clear that the prosecution did not regard Flurer only as a dangerous habitual criminal and wanted to indict him as such because the amendment of 1st April, 1941, only refer to habitual criminals, but that it regarded the case as one deserving the supreme penalty. As that law only provides for the death penalty, the subsequently added words do not constitute an alteration, but merely a completion of the indictment.
Q The witness Baeumler says in Exhibit 479 that in this case protective custody would have been sufficient, or security custody would have been adequate as Flurer was preparing to be castrated voluntarily. Will you give your comment about that?
A The voluntary offer, on the part of the defendant, to be castrated was not made during the main trial as far as I know. Apart from that, this could not have been taken into consideration at all because German law in the case of homosexual criminal does not allow for a castration to be effected.
Q Was the case of Flurer added on the Ministerial list for clemency pleas?
A Yes, as a clear case.
Q This is Exhibit 252, on page 142. Now, as to the case of Irmgard Hofmann, H-o-f-m-a-n-n-. This death sentence was pronounced under your presidency. You described the defendant was dangerous, habitual criminal. The objections made here by the witnesses in Exhibits 149 and 235 refer to the fact that the resumed trial which was taken up was refused by you.
On what basis was this resumption of trial suggested?
A Hofmann's defense counsel made a motion to have the trial reopened, the reasons being that the Hofmann woman had suffered from mental disorders; that her criminal responsibility was doubtful. I admitted and allowed this motion, and by agreement with the defense counsel I had the woman Hofmann sent to a Psychiatric Clinic in Munich for observation and examination.
Q What was the result of that examination?
A The clinic gave me a very extensive certificate that although she had suffered from these disturbances, that however these disturbances had not interfered with her mental functions or had had any influence on her criminal acts. This expert opinion stated that in the case of the Hofmann woman, we had a criminal case of abnormal instincts; the opinion described her as a pathological liar, a woman dealing with false pretenses.
AAnd the doctor stated that these abnormalities of instinct were so intensified that in the case of the Hofmann woman one could assume deficient responsibility under Paragraph 51, Section 2.
Q What was the decision finally arrived at concerning the reopening of the trial?
A On behalf of that expert opinion the Courts turned down the motion to have the trial reopened. It could have only been allowed if the Court could have made up its mind to find extenuating circumstances under Paragraph 51, Section 2. The Court could not do that in this case in view of a decision the Reich Supreme Court had made in a similar case, and for that reason it turned down the motion to have the trial reopened.
Q Witness Mueller takes exception to the fact that there was only a decision in writing concerning the motion for reopening, and that not a new main trial was ordered. Will you please give your comments about that?
A In a case like this the main trial is not to be renewed because it would be senseless. After all, this could only lead to a confirmation of the former sentence -- rather, if the motion to have the trial reopened seems to be lacking justification, in other words, if it is quite clear that no other sentence could possibly be arrived at, it has the duty to make a decision to turn it down. This becomes unequivocably clear from Paragraph 368 and Paragraph 370 of the Penal Code procedure.
Q On what basis did the defense counsel base his information? fitness Pfaff says in Exhibit 235 that it was inadmissible for you not to have passed on this complaint through the District Court of Appeal. May I have your comments about that?
A Witness Pfaff has overlooked one important factor. According to Article 7, Paragraph 1 of the regulation for the further simplification of penal procedure of 13 August 1942 in Reich Legal Gazette, Page 508, complaints on the part of defendants and their counsel against the decision of a Court needed a special admission. On that admission the president of the Court whose decision had been attacked in the complaint was to decide.
The admissibility, according to that regulation, was to be granted if and when it would have been unfair to turn it down. I could, therefore, not allow for the complaint of the defense counsel to reach the Penal Senate of the District Court of Appeal without having made a decision about its admissibility first. And the decision to which Pfaff took exception, and on which I passed, included that. I did not allow the complaint because the decisions on the part of the Special Courts were undisputable. The complaint, therefore, was not admissible. It was, of course, not unreasonable to have an inadmissible complaint disallowed.
Q The regulation for the further simplification of Penal procedure which the witness has mentioned is in Document Book II of the Prosecution, No. 40. I shall now discuss the case of Koch. The Prosecution submitted three affidavits in this connection: Exhibits 149, 235, and 231. This is again the case of a habitual criminal. Will you please give us your comments briefly?
A Koch was a man with many previous convictions for fraud. Within nine years he served sentences for at least twenty-two cases of fraud. The last sentence he served lasted for over two years in prison, but he continued to commit more frauds, and in some cases he harmed people very cruelly. Because of these recurrent cases of fraud he had to answer for his actions as a dangerous habitual criminal before the Special Court. Legally his actions were considered as crimes under Paragraph 4 of the Public Enemies Act, in conjunction with fraud. Also, there is no doubt that it was proved on the basis of a criminal biological expert opinion that Koch was an incorrigible criminal who had fallen back to his old crimes. This is why the law of 4th of September 1941 had to be applied.
Q What were the views given by the Prosecution about this case?
A The Prosecution never left any doubt open in this case, the death sentence was to be applied and have, therefore, formulated the Indictment accordingly.
Q Was the case included in the ministerial list for clemency pleas?
A Yes, as what we call a clear case.
Q In Exhibit 252, on Page 76: I shall now discuss the case of Kollischan. In this connection the Prosecution have submitted the affidavit which is Exhibit 228. What about that case?
A Frieda Kollischan had twenty-two previous convictions for fraud and theft. Shortly after having served here latest sentence she swindled a soldier's widow out of her entire fortune. Moreover, she had swindled her out of a number of articles. Here again we had a crime under Paragraph 4 of the Public Enemies Act, in conjunction with fraud, and there could not be any doubt that the Kollischan woman was an incorrigible and dangerous habitual criminal. The death sentence was, therefore, based on Paragraph 1 of the Amendment, as well as on Paragraph 4 of the Public Enemies Act.
Q What were the intentions of the Prosecution?
A From the files of the Prosecution I have seen now that the Chief Reich Prosecutor had told the main public prosecutor to ask for the death sentence.
Q The witness Lipps in Exhibit 228 takes exception to the fact that you had changed a large part of the opinion in order to have the Kollischan woman in a particularly revolting light. Will you give us your comments about that?
A If I have changed the opinion I did so not because it was not severe enough, but because obviously it was deficient in the reasons it quoted. Lipps had been with the Special Court for only a very short time, and it is entirely possible that I did not concur. Anything unusual, of course, is not to be found in this, especially as I had to sign these opinions.
Q I shall now discuss the case of Wagner. The Prosecution has submitted Exhibit 228 which is the affidavit by Lipps. Why was the death sentence pronounced in this case?
A The Wagner woman again was a woman with a considerable criminal record, a completely inferior type of criminal. I believe she had about twenty previous convictions. The action for which she had to answer before the Special Court was a highly skilful and dangerous act against the food office of the town. She succeeded at that time in obtaining food ration cards for 275 people on false pretenses.
Q What were the intentions of the Prosecution in this case?
A The Prosecution suggested the death sentence, and they had received an order to that effect.
Q Witness Lipps mentioned in connection with this case as proof of a particular rudeness and toughness you had not allowed Wagner to have the defense counsel whom she had selected, but somebody else whom you had selected. Will you give us your comments about that?
A To speak quite generally about that, no defendant had any claim to have a certain defense counsel appointed, but within the bounds of possibility, of course, we took wishes into consideration. In the case of Wagner it was not up to me not to have her wish for a certain defense counsel fulfilled. What happened was that on 2 October 1943 I timed the trial to take place on the 20th of October, and I appointed Attorney Birkel as the attorney for Wagner. He was appointed on 8 October. And shortly afterwards he asked the Special Court to be given the files. The files were then turned over to him -- 15 October 1943. Meanwhile the Wagner woman had told an official of the local court Bamberg that she wanted a certain defense counsel, which was taken down on the record. Probably some mistake of the Court this application by Wagner was never shown to me. It would appear that the office overlooked to have this forwarded to me to Nurnberg. I might add here that the Wagner woman was entirely satisfied with the defense counsel I had appointed, and in the main trial she did not express any wish to have a different defense counsel take her case.
Q A number of Prosecution affidavits deal with the Case of Friedchen: Exhibits 226, 227, 229, 479, and one former one. Here there are objections made that Friedchen had been sentenced to death, although he was mentally deficient. Will you give us your comments briefly?
A Friedchen came from a family with a bad criminal record. His father had thirty-three previous convictions, a brother equally frequent convictions, and he himself had nineteen previous convictions. And the basis of most of these sentences were thirty thefts. For a brief period of time he served with the Wehrmacht. There he had been punished also. He took up some work left it again in order to appear suddenly under highly suspicious circumstances in Nurnberg, and here again committed a theft only too typical of him--to find his way into a house or a flat and to steal whatever he could lay his hands on. In this case he got hold of a few pieces of underwear and clothes. He was indicted for that act. The Prosecution described him as a habitual and incorrigible criminal under Paragraph 1 of the law of 1 September 1941. We had orders to ask for the death sentence in the case of Friedchen. Now, as for his mental deficiency, this ought to be said: It is true that in 1937 he was examined four times by different doctors. The first opinion was given when he was tried for theft. The doctor declared him, at that time, to be completely responsible under criminal law. The second opinion was given in a proceeding for absenting himself without leave from his unit. That doctor regarded him as having his responsibility very badly impaired. But he emphasized that he thought the defendant was deficient only in this particular case and in the particular offense, but not generally. In the case heard before the Special Court in Nurnberg Friedchen was examined and testified to by two doctors-Dr. Baer, and Dr. Kunz: both experts declared him to be fully responsible for the theft in the criminal sense. They explained that his mental deficiency was of a slight degree and that his inhibitions and his appreciation of the fact that he was stealing was not impaired.
Dr. Kunz, moreover, declared Friedchen to be a dangerous habitual criminal.
Q Witness, let us now proceed to the case of Riegelbauer. This is a similar case. Riegilbaur had also been sterilized for being mentally deficient. The Prosecution has submitted Exhibits 227, 229, and 149 in this connection. Will you please tell us why the death sentence was pronounced?
A He was indicted under Paragraph 4 in the Public Enemies Act, in conjunction with theft. In clearing works of a factory which had been damaged in an air-raid he availed himself of the opportunity of pilfering. He took lamps and pieces of furniture. In another case he went into a flat which had been evacuated because of an imminent air-raid, stole a man's suit and other articles of man's clothing which, as he knew, had been left by a soldier killed in battle.
Q Witness, as for the doctor's opinion about Riegelbauer, did he ask for extenuating circumstances?
A Reigelbauer made the point in the main trial that in 1937 he had been sterilized because he was mentally deficient. For that reason I interrupted the main trial and asked him to be medically examined. The examination of Riegelbauer gave a highly sinister picture of his character. Earlier opinions described him as a man who showed every indication of being a neurotic. He had also been frequently punished for rape. It typical of him that between 1934 and 1942, within eight years, that is, he served 6½ years in prisons and workhouses. The medical expert finally said that he was fully responsible under criminal law. He had matured mentally rather late. But he was no longer to be regarded as mentally obtuse. His deficiencies were purely those of character.
Q What were the intentions of the Prosecution in this case, as far as his acts were concerned?
A The Prosecution, from the word go, regarded Riegelbauer as an incorrigible habitual criminal and public enemy and indicted him as such.
Q The next case is a similar one, that Ruchsbauer. In this case the Prosecution has submitted affidavits: Exhibits 180 and 226. Here complaints are made that Fuchsbauer was mentally deficient and that had not been taken into consideration. What can you tell us about that?
A In the case of Fuchsbauer again we have the case of a dangerous habitual criminal who specialized in stealing motor cars. For that reason, he had previous convictions of a considerable number, but he started again with these thefts, and within five months he had stolen about twenty-four vehicles of all types. On one of his trips he also raped a ten-year old girl. He was indicted for being a dangerous habitual criminal under Paragraph 1 of the Amendment. And the Prosecution intended, from the beginning, to ask for the death sentence in the case of Fuchsbauer.
Q Did the medical expert say that his responsibility had lessened?
A Medical opinion hesitated in recognizing that Fuchsbauer's responsibility was lessened. He explained that Fuchsbauer psychologically was a very low and inferior type. Also, that a certain degree of mental deficiency was apparent, which, however, could not be clearly sketched in the medical sense of the word. Nevertheless, despite the somewhat dark sentences the expert said that it was his belief that it might be justified to declare a lesser responsibility under Paragraph 51, Section 2. Taking this somewhat vague expert opinion into consideration, and, on the other hand, in view of the other capabilities of Fuchsbauer, which had become clear in the main trial, the Court arrived at the decision that, mentally speaking Fuchsbauer was on the borderling of full responsibility. In view of those facts, and in view of Paragraph 51, Section 2, and in consideration of certain findings of the Reich Supreme Court, there was no possibility and no reason to give a lenient sentence to Fuchsbauer in this case.
