There I was dragged out of the car and forced, at the point of revolvers, to dig a grave. I was repeatedly beaten, but have no exact memory of the details. I know only that I was continually requested to give the specific names and addresses of persons who were only known to the Gestapo through pseudonyms heard in the course of other interrogations.
"Under such treatment, there are minutes and seconds during which one seeks for any means of escape whatsoever. In spite of all this, I was capable of just enough clarity of thought to realize that even the slightest utterance on my part would merely have served as an excuse for additional tortures. I was therefore silent. This persistent silence, apparently, must have convinced the Gestapo men that I actually knew nothing of these facts. After I had dug a hole of about 10 meters, 50 centimeters, by two meters, one centimeter--1 meter, 20 centimeters in depth--they pulled me out of it and took me once again to the car. On the return trip they tried to develop 'comradely' relations with me. They offered me cigarettes and we had a glass of Schnaps together at a bar in the Gruenau station. I played along to avoid exasperating them and this seemed to convince them even more that they could obtain no information from me.
"The subsequent interrogations were conducted in a more or less proper manner until the person in charge of the section tried to persuade me to commit suicide. I regarded it as a psychological test. This suggestion came about in the following manner. I was led into the room and made to sit at a desk. They informed me that my situation was very desperate, that the only course open to me was suicide, for I would be sentenced to death in any case.
In answer to my smiling question 'yes, but how?', he pulled out the desk drawer and laid a Browning upon it. I was tempted to grab it and shoot him. But it was only too clear to me that they had expected this reflex, which would then serve as an excuse to dispose of me. Without haste, I reached for the revolver, aimed at the floor, and pulled the trigger. It was empty. I put it back with a gesture of regret and said, 'One should at least give me a bullet.' For the rest of my life I will never forget the half-surprised, half-sadistic smile of the man opposite me.
"During the next two months, which I spent in the Gestapo prison on Prinz Albrecht Strasse, I was rarely called in again for interrogation. I was then transferred to the Police Presidency, brought before the examining magistrate, and my imprisonment on remand was ordered. During the fourteen days that I was at the Police Presidency of Alexanderplatz, I was frequently brought before the Gestapo (Foreign Department) where they tried to obtain all manner of statements concerning foreign connections. Most of these officials were untrained, and there were no particular developments to report from these sessions.
"After two weeks I was sent from the Police Presidency to Moabit, where I was put in solitary confinement. The treatment at Moabit was proper according to the regulations of the prison. Not until four months later did I receive permission to talk to my family. My indictment was served about the end of June or the beginning of July 1939. It was classified 'Secret', and I was only permitted to read it through once. It was then delivered to the head of the prison. My defense counsel, Dr. Eisentraege, was engaged by my family. I could hardly prepare a defense on my own account, since I had not received the indictment until the evening before I was due to appear in court.
After the conclusion of proceedings, it was again taken away from me and from my co-defendants.
"The trial was held on the 14th and 15th of September 1939 before the Second Senate of the People's Court in Berlin. The presiding judges were:
"Vice President of the People's Court Engert, presiding.
Judge, District Court Director, Schneidenbach.
SA-Brigadefuehrer Hauer.
Gauamtsleiter Fischer.
SA-Gruppenfuehrer, District Counsellor Spaeing, as representative of the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Reichsgericht; and Public Prosecutor Mittmann, as official registrar, and Secretary Christ.
"The special function of the People's Court was not to judge the defendants; rather, as a political tribunal, it had the mission and was instructed to condemn the defendants. The entire proceedings were sham. The public was excluded during the trial. The defense counsels had almost nothing to say before the People's Court. The charge of high treason and treason to the State was raised against me. The charge of treason to the State was dropped during the course of proceedings following a declaration of a witness from the OKW. On tharge of preparation for high treason, I was condemned to twelve years in a house of correction and ten years' loss of honor. My co-defendants, Erler and Kurschner, each received a ten-year sentence, and Unrath a five-year sentence in a house of correction.
"Engert, then President, conducted those proceedings before the People's Court in a particularly severe fashion and quite in accord with Nazi methods. Most of the associate jud ges, in so far as they were uniformed members of the NSDAP, made a stupid impression.
'Berlin, 31 October 1946, Kurt Schmidt."
DR. DOETZER: May it please the Tribunal, I object to the submission of this document. The Prosecutor has described the document as an affidavit taken under oath. From the entire document which has just been read it seems that this is not an affidavit; rather, it is a copy or something written down by a man called Schmidt, who is living in Berlin, and who has written down this statement in October 1946. To whom he addressed this statement in writing and before whom it was written down cannot be seen from the document. I also cannot imagine that this statement, written down only in October 1946, can be covered by the Coogan affidavit.
MR. KING: I can appreciate the reasons why defense counsel has objected. Obviously, he doesn't like what the affiant has said. However, I might put him at ease on one other point. The affidavit was given pursuant to an interrogation conducted by an interrogator from the staff of Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, and it therefore does not come under the paragraph of the Coogan affidavit, since we have the original here, or a copy of the original, and are about t o admit or present the same as the original exhibit.
It does not appear to us that this affidavit is in any wise different from other similar affidavits that have been offered and accepted in evidence by the Court. Of course, if defense counsel wishes to call Kurt Schmidt, that is his privilege and he may do so. But it seems t o us that the affidavit speaks for itself and as such should be admitted in evidence.
DR. DOETZER: May it please the Tribunal, only documents that have been captured are covered by the Coogan document, if I understand it correctly. It may possibly be correct that the Mr. Schmidt mentioned here has been interrogated by an American prosecutor. I don't know that. The document, in any case, does not say anything about that at all.
MR. KING: It seems to me that counsel has misunderstood what I previously said, we do not claim that it comes under the Coogan affi davit.
I did state quite clearly that the affidavit had been given pursuant to an interrogation by members of the staff of Office of Chief of Counsel, although it is clear that the document as such does not state that.
JUDGE BRAND: Does the original show that it was sworn to before one of the interrogating officers? I am wondering what you mean by "affidavit." We ordinarily understand that it is an instrument that has been sworn to.
MR. KING: No, Your Honor, the original does not show that that has been sworn to before a member of the staff of Office of Chief of Counsel. Perhaps in that sense I am technically incorrect to refer to it as an affidavit. It would be better parlance to refer to it as a signed statement. In any event, we offer as Exhibit 145 the document Ng 479.
THE PRESIDENT: We observe that Erna I'iueller certifies that it is a true and correct translation of the sworn affidavit of 31 October 1%6. That may not be conclusive, but in any event, our authority comes from Ordnance No. 73 and Article No. 7 of that ordnance clearly permits this to be introduced as probative evidence.
MR. KING: Your Honor, I cannot speak authoritatively to the point you have raised, whether or not this document which we are about to introduce is a translation of a sworn affidavit. I realize that the statement by the translator does state that, but I did not emphasize the fact for the reason that I, at least in the past few weeks, have not seen the original and I am not prepared to say at this moment that the original from which this translation was made is a sworn copy.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not a sworn copy. The question is, is the original a sworn statement.
MR. KING: That is what I meant to say, Your Honor. In view of the ruling by the Court we will now pass it up to the representative of the Secretary General with this possible condition attached. The Prosecution would like to clear the document, if possible, of any limiting factors -- a limiting factor being that it is not sworn to before a member of the Prosecution staff.
I will examine the original to determine whether or not it was a sworn statement, and if so, we would like to reserve the privilege of making it clear on the original exhibit that the original statement was sworn to by the individual Kurt Schmidt.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection made goes only to the weight, and if the Prosecution wants to increase the weight by further evidence, that may be done now or at any time.
MR. KING: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: That there may be no mistake about the ruling, the document is received in evidence.
MR. KING: Me ask the Court now to turn to Document NG 403, to be found on Page 10 of the English book, Page 7 of the German book, he introduce this as Exhibit 146. This is the affidavit -- and I say "affidavit" in full appreciation of the objections from the bench because this does appear to be sworn to before Hans P. Dreyer, then of the CCC staff. That appears at the end of this document.
"Affidavit. I, Dr, Kurt Weghin, swear, depose, and state:
"I have been defense counsel in a great many cases before the People's Court. I conducted the defenses as a so-called "defense counsel chosen by the accused" i.o. as defense counsel who was personally chosen and appointed for the defense by the defendant. In each individual case the defense had to be approved of at the People's Court by the president of the senate."
I might say parenthetically that this affidavit is based on the question and answer technique. That is, a question is asked and the affiant then gives the answers.
"According to what principles was the approval handled?
"In ay case the approval of the defense has also been applied for in cases connected with 20 July 1944, especially with regard to Klaus Bonhoeffer, attorney-at-law, who was later sentenced to death and killed by the State Police just before Berlin was occupied. Furthermore, in the case of Dr. Rudolf Pechel, whose wife I had defended already before the People's Court, in this case and in a number of others, the approval was not given. Apart from the defense counsel chased, by the accused, there were the so-called defense counsel appointed by the Court. There existed a certain group of lawyers whom the People's Court used to appoint as counsel for the defense, appointed by the Court continuously.
"Were all the counsel for the defense appointed by the Court members of the party?
"Those whom I know were members of the Party. The permanent group of the defense counsel appointed by the Court at the People's Court consisted of lawyers considered by the People's Court as being politically reliable in the National Socialistic sense of the term. As far as I can see, for the time being the members of this permanent group of the counsel for defense appointed by the court were members of the Party. Subsequently, they were employed for the proceedings of 20 July, too.
"Can you give me a number of cases, as an example, in which you acted as defense counsel?
"I was defense counsel in the high treason trial conducted against a great number of employees of various Berlin Plants in June 1944. These defendants, most of whom were in jail, during the period since 1933, for anti-nazi activities, had tried to form a political group in Berlin and also in other cities in Germany, with the purpose of overthrowing the Hitler government.
"Moreover, I have been defense counsel in cases which involve, as in the case of Mr. Pechel, so-called treasonable actions, as in cases in which the defendants are charged with the so-called undermining of the morale of the military forces by speeches and propaganda.
"Question: Herr Doktor, since when have you been criminal defense counsel?
"I have been an attorney-at-law since 1925. Before the Hitler regime I was, in my capacity as attorney-at-law, judiciary of the Berlin traffic operations. I was removed from this position because of my having declined to enter the Party despite repeated invitation. Afterwards, I conducted criminal defenses in cases involving the prosecution against people persecuted for political reasons or in which people concerned needed protection for special reasons.
"Moreover, I conducted the defense of the British prisoners of war before German military courts, in particular in the trials for sabotage and espionage before the Reich Supreme Military Court, that is to say, as defense counsel appointed by the Swiss Embassy as Protective Power on the basis of the Geneva Convention.
"Question: Could you describe, in a brief outline, the main difference as to the proceedings, that is to say, not theoretically, in trials before ordinary courts and the People's Court, and, if possible, also specify with regard to custody before or pending the trial, to the liberty in securing witnesses for the defense,to the liberty of defense as such before the tribunal, that is to say, during the proceedings proper and the general treatment of the defendants before the People's Court?
"In regard to the proceedings before the People's Court, the following may be stated.
"As to the outer form certain forms of proceedings were observed. This does not change anything in that the trial before this court with regard to the Practical handling, did in no way meet the requirements which are to be claimed from proceedings at law interested in real enlightenment and in the objective careful weighing of judgment. The serving of the indictment was generally done so short before the trial that a sufficient preparation was frequently made impossible. For instance, it happened that the summons for the trial were telegraphed to counsel on Saturday afternoon with the date set for Monday early in the morning.
"The defense before the People's Court was, to a large extent, only permitted nominally. Petitions for evidence, the object of which were, for instance, serious shortcomings in the system, or those as to what objective reasons the defendant had guided to fight the system, were practically excluded. I am of the opinion, however, that even before the People's Court representations on behalf of the defendants were possible to a considerable extent without leading to the immediate arrest of the defense counsel. As a matter of course, in order not to prejudice the defendant, we had to attempt in those cases either to deny the deed in a credible manner or not to reveal openly the anti-National Socialistic beliefs of the defendant. Such a form of defense would have meant immediate disaster for the defendant.
"Do you think that the proceedings before the People's Court became more severe in the course of time, particularly during the war as a result of the increasingly unfavorable development of the war?
"Having acted as defense counsel before the People's Court only during the war I can fairly evaluate only this period in regard to the severity of the judgments. I considered the severity to be pretty constant, but one must keep in mind that generally the judgments were, from the very beginning, so hard that increasing of severity hardly could have been possible. In this connection I particularly recall the statements undermining the army for where simple expressions which happened daily in all parts of the population, they were sufficient for a. death sentence, especially if some leading person of the Party was mentioned.
"Question. To pass to another point, do you think that the concept of high treason was extended substantially in the course of the years, or high treason and preparation of high treason respectively?
"The concept of high treason was extended to the largest degree and in this connection, it must be stated that this was a considerable extension on the basis of the term as used by the literature and the jurisdiction former "As to the proceedings, the following is to be stated:
"As far as I can judge from the cases conducted by me, they varied and were dependent to a large degree on the person of the presiding officer.
"In the cases in which Freisler presided, one could not speak of legal proceedings, but merely of demagogues' tirades. During the high treason proceedings of June 1944 the trial was in no way conducted as am ordinary legal trial , but as a proceeding in which the presiding officer, as far as I remember, it was President of the Senate, Albrecht, treated some of the defendants with invectives in the most horrible manner, he arbitrarily out the short and did not respect the fundamental rights of a defendant.
"Question: Do you know of any other names of judges, deputy judges, and public prosecutors at the People's Court?
A I also remember a trial under the presidency cf the President of the Senate, Hartmann, which I heard while I was waiting for a following proceeding. Then a man was sentenced to death who was said to have designated Hitler a tramp during a conversation. In my opinion the evidence was not convincing as far as I could establish. Among the judges I still remember the name of Fickeis who, as far as I know, came from Southern Germany. Compared with other presiding officers, I was pleasantly surprised by his conduct of the trial and verdict. As to prosecutors, I remember the name of Parrisius, Goerisch, also Lautz. In connection with Lautz, I should mention I have been told, that Lautz is said to have had contact with anti-National Socialist circles in connection with 20 July. I do not knew whether that is right."
We do not, at this time, care to read the remainder of this affidavit. We have already pointed cut that it was sworn to before Hams P. Dreyer, which jurat appears on Page 7 of the English text.
We, therefore, offer as Exhibit 146, the document NG--403.
DR. ASCHENAUER: (Dr. Aschenauer for the Defendant Petersen.) I have no objection to the affidavit. However, I would like to make application to cross-examine Dr. Wegrin.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no objection the admission of the affidavit as we understand it. Put if Dr. Aschenauer desires to call this witness in the regular way, of course we will hear him.
May be I should have added that in the event this witness is called by Dr. Aschenauer, he may examine him as upon cross-examination and not make the witness his own witness.
MR. KING: I assume, Your Honor, by that ruling, you did not imply that the Prosecution is required to call that witness?
THE PRESIDENT: I have not so stated.
MR. KING: Yes.
As Exhibit 147, we desire to introduce, at this time, the Document NG401 which is to be found on Page 17 of the English text of Book 3-C , and of Page 14 of the German text. We be in reading the bottom line of the document Page 17 of the English text and Pare 14 of the German text.
DR. DOETZER: May it please the Tribunal. I object to the submission of this document. It is apparent from the document that it is concerned with a statement based on heresy. The witness, Dr. Falck, stated that he never served as defense counsel before the People's Court. Furthermore, I have something else to add. I learned, meanwhile, that Dr. Falck had die The defense does not want to be forced to submit into evidence toward a deceased person, that his statements are obviously incorrect.
THE PRESIDENT: It cannot be determined how much of it is hearsay and how much is trial evidence, until read. We can't determine that and therefore we are in no position to determine that point at this time.
MR. KING: We will begin reading on the bottom of Page 17 of the English text, 14 in the German text. As in the previous affidavit, this one follows the question and answer technique.
Question: "Have you ever been active in your capacity of lawyer before a People's Court?
Answer: It follows that I met with constant difficulties and consequently never defended a case in a procedure before the People's Court. But I talked in Nazi times with many lawyers who defended cases before the People's Court, so I possess some insight into that matter insofar as it is possible to a person who hasnot been personally present there. I had repeatedly defense cases before Special Courts (Sondergericht) and before Central Courts of the Army.
Question: May I ask you to tell me something regarding the question, how much in your opinion the rights of the defendants have suffered under the development of the People's Courts?
Answer: The rights of the defendants were greatly curtailed in the first place by denying them the free choice of a defense counsel, who needed in each case a special permission and acceptance by the Court. That permission was granted only after a complicated procedure with a multitude of political and party investigations regarding the applicant lawyer. The People's Court later compiled a list of some 60 lawyers to whom the permission was granted without any red tape, and refused only on some particular personal or political grounds. It follows that the defendants in actual practice had no influence whatsoever on the basic principles guiding the speeches and the expressions of the defense. Under such circumstances a defendant had often to be happy indeed, if he could find anybody to defend him at all. Consequently ho could not in practice change his defense counsel at all.
Even when the defendant was sentenced to a penalty may even to death, he had no means to obtain a new counsel and appeal through him for mercy, for as a rule the question was asked, why should a second lawyer should be burdened with those matters. A change of counsels was not considered necessary or explained, that it was considered undesirable to have other person know of the matter.
On the other hand, it is true the examination of documents by the participating counsels was handled in the People's Courts in a considerate fashion. I might say that in this respect the People's Court proved more obliging than most of the other Criminal Courts. However, that attitude was chiefly based on the considerable dependence of the admitted lawyers on the People's Court, and this dependence was constantly increasing in the course of times. It was natural that those lawyers who defended cases before the People's Court had to concentrate on such matters getting thereby into considerable financial dependence from the People's Court, which could at any time stop their pleading of any further defense cases.
Furthermore the People's Court had the right to repeal a once granted permission, which in practice would result in the refund of all-accepted fees. i.e. frequently already spent fees. Practically there were no more professionally free lawyers but from the economic viewpoint only employees of the People's Court with the effect, however, that not having any fixed salaries, in case of a sudden termination they had to continue their current overhead of their office and also return considerable fees for not having brought to conclusion their defense.
Q May I ask you in this connection, Doctor, whether the defense counsels under those circumstances had to fear not only financial repressions for their conduct before the People's Court, but also other consequences for the construction of their defense?
A The accepted defense counsels were overwhelmingly -- not all -members of the party. Those counsels who got the permission to plead without being party members were strongly urged to join the party. Its purpose was not only to have the power to control them by ordinary means of supervision, i.e. (Criminal Code, Court of Honor's procedure etc.)
, but especially by subjecting them to party jurisdiction. That was indeed the reason that before the acceptance of a defense counsel, immediate investigations in his respect took place in diverse party offices. The defense counsel Dr. Sack, who was killed shortly before the end of the war in an air fight in Brandenburg once told me that more than 18 offices were consulted before a permission is granted. He was closely connected with Freisler and was commissioned by him to look after defense counsels.
Q Have you heard of any cases in which the defense counsels met with personal difficulties due to the nature of their defense?
A I heard repeatedly of such cases. The difficulties consisted in discontinuing to grant general permissions to plea a case. Other hardships came from annoyance of supervision, and last but not least the canceling of an individual permission to plead with a sharp public rebuke by the President of the People's Court, Dr. Freisler.
Q How much in your opinion is the development of the People's Court the result of the activity of Freisler and how far would things have gone in general?
A This question can hardly be answered with sufficient certainly by a person who never defended a case in People's Court. But even as an outsider I may assert that from its very start the development took on ever increasingly sharp tone. The first President of the People's Court, who was originally the president of the Special Court in Berlin and died since then, already used an increasing sharpness of tone. That was continued by Thierack. It must be mentioned however that the latter, in contrast to Freisler, is reported to have observed the proper legal formalities. Freisler however lost practically all sense of proportion in speeding up and coarsening the development. He often extensively infringed even upon the outward forms, shouted at the defendants, treated them sarcastically and interrupted the defense counsel oven when they were discussing purely factual matters, causing the latter to lose the trend of thoughts or to intimidate them against divulging further incriminating circumstances.
Q May I ask you something about the Special Courts before which you were pleading? Has their development been the similar to the one in the People's Court just described, particularly on ground of the war events?
A In practice, the rights of the defendant in the Special Courts were more and more limited, too. The acceptance of a defense counsel was subjected to limitation in three ways. In the Special Courts of the Eastern regions incorporated during the war, i.e. in the former Corridor Area, the defense counsels needed special permission when they had no offices in the same region. But the admitted counsels in that region were only temporarily admitted counsels, whose admission granted by the Corridor Court could cancelled by the Justice Administration without any Court of Honor's procedure being necessary. Consequently those counsels could not face the Court with necessary weight. Furthermore, a special admission was required when certain criminal actions or certain groups of persons were involved. Thus Poles and Jews could not freely choose a defense counsel and later on the jurisdiction of Criminal Courts over those persons was totally abolished and an administrative criminal procedure by the SS was introduced for them.
Q In connection with the latter point, is something known to you about an agreement between Thierack and Himmler, according to which cases involving Jews and Gypsies were generally transferred for sentencing to the SS?
A I would not be able to describe that regulation in detail, but I heard repeatedly that such a regulation existed. The above mentioned attorney Dr. Sack periodically was holding meetings with defense counsels, the purpose of which was not clear. On the other hand, the defense counsels were to be filled with National Socialist ideology, on the other hand, those discussions had, at least at times for purpose of free exchange of thoughts on the question, how the counsels could personally defend themselves against the ever increasing power of the presidents of the Criminal Court. At such an occasion, an officer of the Main Office of Reich Security made once a speech discussing the question, i.e. the punishment, outside of the ordinary criminal procedure. That speech was printed and should still be obtainable.
Q Was it ever usual in a German Court procedure that the judge before the opening of a case would have discussed it with his colleagues and in the presence of the public prosecutor and express his opinions a bout the case and the probable sentence?
A I cannot remember any such case from Imperial and Republican times. Also in Nazi times I have not learned about such a case. It was during the war (perhaps even earlier) that the practice was established by the Court to retire for consultation after hearing the evidence. The case was there discussed with the public prosecutor as well in the question of guilt as in regard to the sentence. It was based on the assumption that too much a digression of the Court from the demands of the prosecutor should be avoided before the public. Numerous defense counsels have objected to it in vain. In the Special Court in Graudenz I managed myself, together with another lawyer from Berlin, to be included in such a consultation. After the experience I made on that occasion, I afterwards abstained on principle from ranking such a request. Actually it was true, that the plea of the prosecutor was an anticipated Verdict, hardly to be shaken in any way by the defense counsel, the task of the defense counsel consisted rather in submitting during the trial everything he should have included in his final defense speech.
In that respect, however, formal legal foundations were lacking, particularly for legally explaining and for merely evaluating the actual circumstances. There was really nothing left for the defense counsel, but to indulge in a constant search for the slightest opportunity to point out emphatically some particular circumstances.
The defense (appeal for mercy and retrial) was handicapped above all by the fact that the counsel often received no copy of the penal sentence; in contradiction to Article 35 of the Criminal Code no copy of the sentence was delivered to the defendant either. It was particularly the People's Court which denied that. Therefore the defense counsel could rely only on his notes and his memory, when appealing for mercy. When the People's Court retired far consultation about the sentence, the defense counsel as well as the defendant had to hand in, in criminal cases, their previously received copies of the indictment in accordance with the directives of the People's Court to the defense counsels. There existed two different directives for cases of high treason and for treason."
That is all of this document which we care to read at this time, and we, therefore offer the document as Exhibit No. 147. I may say that I am not quite sure in my own mind as to the conditions under which this document is being admitted in evidence by the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not hear the first part of your statement.
MR. KING: I am not quite clear in my own mind under what conditions this document is being admitted incidence. There was an objection that it was hearsay on the first ground, and on the second that the affiant was dead. I have no way of ascertaining, although I certainly will accept counsel's word for it that the affiant is dead.
THE PRESIDENT: In receiving this document, which we do receive, we state that those portions of the document, which are stated to be a statement of others, and, therefore, hearsay, will not be considered by the Court; as to those portions which appear to be the experiences of the witness will be considered.
MR. KING: I have here now, for passing up to the representative of the Secretary General, the exhibit which contains the four documents that the witness Eitner identified as Dr. Rothenberger's initials earlier this morning. They were offered as Exhibit 142, subject to having an authoritative statement included with them by Miss Radcliff of the Document Section. That statement now, together with the four photostatic copies of the original, will be offered to the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDENT: Have Defense Counsel had an opportunity to see those exhibits?
MR. KING: They have not requested such an opportunity to see these exhibits?
MR. KING: They have not requested such an opportunity, but if they decide they want to look at them, I think we can recover them from the Secretary General. (Given to Defense Counsel) Your Honors, we have reached a point in presentation of material from Document Book III-C where we come to a different type of case, a different type of material; that will be continued this afternoon by Mr. Wooleyhan; and since there is only a matter of minutes left before the regular time of adjournment, I suggest that we do not proceed until after lunch.
THE PRESIDENT: We will, therefore, recess at this time until 1330 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours).
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 25 March 1947)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Court room will please take their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May the Court please, turning to page 11-A in Document Book 2, which is a statute found in the 1944 Reichsgazetteblatt, part 1, page 339, entitled:
"Decree for the further adaptation of Criminal Procedure to the Requirements of Total bar, 13 December 1944."
"Article I.
Paragraph 12 Limited admittance of defense counsel.
"(1) In anyone criminal case, several lawyers or professional representatives may not act side by side as chosen counsel for one defendant "(2) The rules about obligatory representation by defense counsel do not apply.
The presiding judge appoints a defense counsel for the whole or part of the proceedings if the difficulty of the material or legal probe require assistance by a defense counsel, or if the defendant, in due consider tion of his personality, is unable to defend himself personally.
"Berlin, 13th December 1944.
(signed) The Reichs Minister of Justice THIERACK"
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Turning now to page 11 of Document BoOk 2 which is another statute dated two months later, 15 February 1945. "Reichsgesetzblat Part 1, page 30. Decree on Court Martial Procedure as of 15 February 1945."
THE PRESIDENT: What page?
MR. WOOLEYRLBN: That's page 11, Document Book 2, Your Honor. If the Court please, prosecution dislikes to read lengthy portions of statutes but in this one instance it is felt that most or all of this relatively short statute ought to be read. It has a particular bearing on the evidence to be subsequently offered:
"Preamble "The seriousness of the fight for existence of the Reich demands of every German, determination to fight to the last, and devotion to the utmost Whoever tries to withdraw from his duties towards the common cause -especially if it is done through cowardice or for personal profit - must at once be called to account, with the necessary severity, so that the State will not suffer damage through the failing of one single person.