AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvend at 1400 hours, 27 May, 1947.)
DR. BRIEGER: May I be permitted to make a brief statement. The Marshal of the Court has urged me to make a statement to the Tribunal concerning the witness Dr. Klett; I also waive the cross examination of Dr. Klett because I already have received a counteraffidavit from him. But I have to add, after I finished my interview I brought him down to the office of Mr. Einstein, after I had called his office in the course of the morning, and I was told that in all probability he would be back in his office in the afternoon. May I therefore assume, until I have been informed of the opposite, that he had an opportunity to see Mr. Einstein, and, if there were any misgivings on the part of the Prosecution as to the excuse of this witness, that Mr. Einstein had the opportunity to tell that to the witness; that all the more, as Mr. Einstein in this he made the preliminary investigations and took the first affidavit from Dr. Klett. Dr. Klett is the Lord Mayor of Stuttgart, and when he arrived yesterday morning he was very shocked about the fact that he could not be heard in court on the same day, in consideration of his responsibility -- he had very urgent business to attend to, and he was grateful to me, indeed, that I agreed to take that into consideration.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May it please the Tribunal, the original affidavit of Dr. Klett was NG-491, introduced into exhibit 418, evidence on May 1st, as disclosed by page 2963 of the transcript. It is quite true that Mr. Einstein is associated with the Prosecution, but he is not of counsel, and, as much as I regret it -unless Dr. Klett is returned in some way, I shall again object to any counter-affidavit in this case. I am advised that Mr. Auerbach had seen Dr. Klett, and that Dr. Klett had said he couldn't stay any longer. But I don't think that these matters can be determined by the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Can't that come up when Counsel offers his affidavit?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I simply feel justified in notifying Dr. Brieger now that I will object to it. Perhaps he should return him; I don't want to take advantage of him, and it seems that this is the proper opportunity to address the Tribunal on the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
JUDGE BRAND: What exhibit was that?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Exhibit 418, Your Honor, Document NG-491.
DR. BRIEGER: May it please the Tribunal, I have based my entire attitude on the fact that Your Honor, as presiding judge, a short time ago had stated here in Court that the Defense had the possibility, instead of calling the witness for the Prosecution for cross examination, to take from him an affidavit and submit that. That in my opinion is the meaning of the cross examination affidavit, at least that is the information I gained at the time.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Of Course, if Your Honors please, some true -
DR. BRIEGER: Mr. Einstein has just returned to the courtroom. I should like to ask the Tribunal to ask him whether yesterday afternoon he had an opportunity to see Dr. Klett, and whether Dr. Klett told him that he was about to leave. That fact seems essential in my opinion.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I don't know that has anything to do the matter of fact that Mr. Einstein is here. Mr. Einstein is not counsel of record. I am simply notifying the fact that this witness was brought up here and he certainly should have remained and used for cross examination. Nor do I recall any definite ruling of the court whereby counter-affidavits were to be used.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask you a question.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes.
JUDGE BRAND: Would you have any objection to the employment of a counter-affidavit, limited in its scope to the matter of the Prosecution's affidavit, in cases in which the witness was not here?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: No, I think in cases where the witness cannot be brought here and counsel must go to them, of necessity that is the best thing that is available, but where the witness has been brought here -
JUDGE BRAND: You made the distinction that where the witness was here and was available -
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes -- for cross examination.
JUDGE BRAND: For cross examination that then the taking of a cross examining affidavit would be improper, -
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Exactly.
JUDGE BRAND: But you do not object to the suggestion which may here come either directly or indirectly from the Court here that when the witness couldn't be produced, an affidavit might be taken?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Exactly, your Honor. As I understood the ruling of the Court, these witnesses were to be called in. If they came, they should be subject to cross examination. If it developed that we couldn't get them in here, then Defense Counsel should have some other method of meeting them. But I am objecting to the fact where, after the Court made its ruling that these witnesses should be called, that they are called up here, not required to remain; a counter-affidavit is taken and the witness shipped back. I do not think that is consistent with what the Tribunal wanted to do and I am sure the Tribunal didn't want that to happen.
DR. BRIEGER: May I say just a few words at this point. In the case of the affidavit which I had the witness make out for me, I kept strictly to the few points of discussion which were contained clearly in the affidavit of the Prosecution. I did that because in all matters which would go beyond that, I would risk to have to make the witness my witness, and I did not see any cause to do that. Apart from that the following has to be considered. We cannot be concerned here with the problem as to whether the witness could be present yesterday because there was no Court session, but only whether the witness today is still at the disposal of the Court, and considering everything that Dr. Klett told me yesterday about his official duties, I can state frankly here that would not have been possible for him to stay here today.
He told me that it would be imperative for him to return to Stuttgart immediately, that is to say yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Dr. Klett still here?
DR. BRIEGER: To my knowledge Your Honor he isn't. He returned already yesterday to Stuttgart.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, there is nothing before this Tribunal at this time that I can see. When that affidavit is offered, we will be prepared to rule on it. He is gone as I understand it. Now, I don't see any occasion to rule on it at this time. Nothing is being offered; nothing is before the house.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Your Honors, I have one or two questions. Mr. Markl, during your cross examination you mentioned a case involving two inmates of the Flossenbuerg concentration camp, and, as I remember, you stated that one of these inmates of the Flossenbuerg concentration camp was tried for murder, but I do not remember where you said that case was tried and when. Can you describe it?
A I did not state that; the case was tried at Weiden at the Oberpfalz, that is the district court closest to Flossenbuerg. The trial took place -- I can't remember the year very well, but Rothaug was here then, and the act was committed in November; I remember that; but whether it was 1940 or 1941 that I could not say.
Q.- Yes, now you say that Rothaug was here then. Was he a judge at the trial of that case?
A.- Rothaug was the presiding judge in that trial.
Q.- And, the defendant was an inmate of Flossenbuerg Concentration Camp; is that correct?
A.- Yes, yes.
Q.- Now, one more question, Mr Markl, of all the facts and conclusions which you made in your affidavit which is in evidence before this Court, do you now affirm those facts and conclusions again?
A.- I affirm them with the one reservation which I have stated this morning before the Court under oath.
Q.- What was that reservation, Mr. Markl?
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Tribunal, I object against that question because the cross examination of the witness, of course, dealt with a large number of differentiations and reservations, so the witness would really be compelled now to repeat the entire contents of the cross examination. Therefore, I ask to restrict that question.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us hear the reservation.
Q.- Please tell the Court, Mr. Markl, what that reservation was?
A.- The reservation -- may I answer the question as general as possible?
Q.- Yes, and briefly, please.
A.- The reservation refer to the judgement, the qualifications, the evaluation of Rothaug, which I had formed. I believe that here I have moderated the impression, which is really my conviction -- it refers primarily to the case of Durka and Strus, the two Polish women, where above and beyond the affidavit, I gave a description of all the facts as I remember them today.
Q.- That is about the Durka case?
A.- The Durka, yes. The two Polish women who were charged with sabotaging defense means.
Q.- Mr. Markl, this reservation that you just--
A.- (Interposing) I do not want to say that this is all, but I believe that from my cross examination it could be seen that I, as a conscientious witness, believed that I had to make corrections and to supplement in order to give a complete picture and a correct picture, which is the only way to give the Court the opportunity of making a just decision.
Q.- You wrote the indictment in the case of Durka and Strus, did you not?
A.- In this case, Durka, yes.
Q.- Now, Mr. Markl, tell us how long was it after the act occurred in Bayreuth for which these two defendants were charged until you wrote the indictment, how long was it?
A.- I could not state this precisely any more, when the act was committed. It is quite possible that the arrest occured at the last phrase, I believe there were three phrases, this is my recollection.
Q.- Mr. Markl, I am merely asking you how many hours or days it was agter the act was committed that you wrote the indictment?
A.- That is difficult to answer, there were only a few days certainly. It may have been the act was committed the previous day, in fact; at any rate, there was enough time.
Q.- You say it is possible that the act could have been committed the day before you wrote the indictment, is that possible?
A.- May be two days. I wrote the indictment on a Saturday morning or noon or early in the afternoon. And, in the course of the morning I was informed that this case was coming up and I should get prepared so that the trial could be carried out expeditiously. It is quite possible that is was two days before -- may be it was only one day previously that they were arrested and questioned by the police.
Q.- Now, Mr. Markl, how long was it after you wrote the indictment that these two Poles were tried by the Special Court, how long was that?
A.- It was certainly merely hours because the indictment, as I said, already was written by me or started in the morning -- at any rate, after I had the file before me, the latest in the early afternoon, it was haded to the defendants and the trial probably took place at about four o'clock -- I could not say that with certainty, but the interval was very short, just a few hours.
Q.- Did you recommend that these two Poles have defense counsel?
A.- Of course, I have requested that defense counsel be appointed. I do not know in detail today, but that is a matter of course, so there cannot be any doubt in my mind.
Q.- How long was it after you recommended that the defense counsel be appointed that the trial occurred?
A.- I believe that my request for appointment of defense counsel was filed with the affidavit of the indictment with the court because on our forms, the forms we used for indictments there is also a form which contains the motion for appointment of defense counsel, and that is probably where I put it.
Q.- Mr. Markl, are we to conclude then that the indictment that you wrote, and the defense counsel that you had appointed, all occurred a matter of a few hours on that day?
A.- Yes, during a few hours.
Q.- Now, how long did this trial last?
A.- I do not know that precisely any more, but it may have taken a good hour; at most, I think not longer than up to the moment when I caused the calling for the witness, because if I remember the case correctly, there were only the two defendants to be heard. Then, the document which was mentioned today with the confession, had to be read and put to them; for that an interpreter was present.
Q.- In any event, Mr. Markl, they finished the trial that afternoon, did they not?
A.- Yes.
Q.- And, what was the sentence that those two Poles received.
A.- The two Poles were sentenced to death.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is all, Your Honor.
BY JUDGE BRAND: Witness, I have a question to ask with reference to your previous testimony, which I wish to understand better than I now understand it.
Q.- In discussing the Law for the Protesction of German Blood and Honor, you referred to decisions of the Reich Supreme Court, did you not?
A.- Yes.
Q.- And, as I understood youm you said that is was not necessary to prove the act of sexual intercourse, but only acts which case close to it?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Did you refer to the necessary allegations of the indictment or did you mean to say, as I understood you, that it was not necessary at the main trial to prove sexual intercourse under these decisions of the Reich Supreme Court?
A.- If I understood the question correctly-- I wanted to explain principally in my examination this morning, that I filed the indictment against Katwenberger in spite of the fact that it was hard to prove such an intercourse, and the indictment, at first, would have to be based on actions close to it. Then, the question was put by the defense counsel why the indictment was filed at all.
Q.- I understood that. And, to this, I want to say: In the main trial under these decisions to which you referred after the indictment had been filed, was it possible to convict the defendant for acts which did not go to the extent of sexual intercourse under that law, or misconduct of a lesser nature?
A.- On the basis of that decision, that was not only one decision, if I remember correctly, several decisions because that was permanent jurisdiction of the Reich Supreme Court, such as I remember it today, and on the basis of this decision any individual could be sentenced for race pollution if there were only acts close to sexual intercourse, and they were the only ones which were approved.
JUDGE BRAND: That is what I wanted to know. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
(Thereupon the witness was excused and withdrew from the courtroom).
DR. SCHUBERT: (for the defendant Oeschey): May it please the Tribunal, I wanted to take the liberty to make a suggestion. I have just spoken to Mr. Lafollette about the fact that two affiants, who have given affidavits which are in document book 3, supplement book, and whom I could only call for cross examination after these document books had Court.
No. 3 been submitted; that, the names of these witnesses have not yet been referred to the General Secretary to have them called.
They are the witnesses Dr. Baeumler, and Huemmer spelled B-a-e-u-m-l-e-r, Baeumler, and H-u-e-m-m-e-r, Huemmer Mr. LaFollette informed me that he had no objections, and, therefore, I should like to inform the General Secretary to make it possible that these witnesses can also be called so there should be no interruption in the hearing of the witnesses.
DR. KOESSL (for defendant Rothaug): For my client the same applies, as far as the witness Wilhelm Hoffhmann, Document No. 644 Exhibit 476 is concerned, also Bernhard Kassing, NG 663, Exhibit 477, and Wilhelm Miethsam, NG-72 Exhibit 482...all of these affidavits are in the Document Supplement Book 3A, and were submitted to the Tribunal only on the 14th or 15th of May. I ask that also these witnesses be approved.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no question about them being approved. They have a perfect right of being approved. That is, the names first given to us, but not including those contained in later affidavits.
MR. LAFOLETTE: I don't know what happened, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The switch seems to be off again....
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If they came across our desk we sent them down as quickly as we could. We have no objection. It is one of those things we don't get through in time. We have no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Those names came through before these other witnesses had given their affidavits. That part is entirely clear.
THEODOR ENGERT, a witness took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BRANDT: You will raise your right hand and repeat after me the following oath?
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
JUDGE BRAND: You may be seated.
DR. KOESSL: (for defendant Rothaug): The witness Engert has given an affidavit which will be found in Document Book 3C, and has the number NG-649, Exhibit 156. I ask to be permitted to begin my cross examination.
EXAMINATION.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, will you please give the Court your full name and your profession?
A Dr. Theodor Engert, born 10 May 1903. Married. Jurist by profession.
Q Witness, from 1 April, 1939 until 1 August 1941, you were associate judge at the Special Court, Nuernberg, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Furthermore, from 1 August 1944 until the end of the war you were assistant and Deputy of the General Public Prosecutor at Nuernberg?
A Yes.
Q What types of case were dealt with in your department with the General Public Prosecutor?
A My field included about twenty different types - criminal cases also among them. First, criminal cases of a general nature from various districts, then juvenile cases; political cases; criminal cases which had to do with questions of religion or the church, and criminal cases which had to do with race matters.
Q What kind of cases were considered political cases?
A The term "political" cases was mostly applied to cases of malicious attacks - that is, offenses against the so-called Heimtueckgesetz - the law against malicious attacks. As political cases one considered also cases where political individuals were indicted.
Q Was the case Katzenberg a political case in this sense?
A No, in this sense Katzenberger..in the sense cf distribution of the work, the case Katzenberger was not a political case.
Q How many death sentences were pronounced in political cases during the four years of your activity with the General Public Prosecutor?
AAccording to my recollection in political penal cases three death sentences were pronounced.
Q Could you tell me in how many cases of this kind the defendant Rothaug was the presiding Judge at the Special Court?
A In two of the three cases named here.
Q Can you remember the names of these cases?
A Yes. In one case was that of a lawyer from Regensburg. The name was Pfaffenberger. The other case was that of a worker from the Siemens Works plant in Nuernberg, if I remember correctly, by the name of Grasser.
Q Were both death sentences executed?
A The case against Grosser was. The case against Paffenberger was not.
Q The Prosecution, as part of Document NG-337, Exhibit 168 in Book 3-E, submitted an opinion of the General Public Prosecutor concerning the clemency plea which is signed by Dr. Engert. Are you the representative of the General Public Prosecutor who signed that opinion?
A Yes.
Q How many cases against Jews were pending according to your recollection at that time?
AAs I remember it, during the period from 1 August 1941 until the end of the war there were three cases against Jews.
Q Apart from the cases Katzenberger was there any death sentence?
A No.
Q In your affidavit you have the sentence, "these were the cases of Grasser, and Katzenberger, where he was intend on extermination as he used to term it. Did you mean to say that Rothaug was driven by the motive of extermination?
A I referred in my statement to the punishable acts which were committed here, and should also be meant, and understood, in connection with these punishable acts.
Q In the case of Katzenberger you personally were ordered to go to Berlin?
A Yes.
Q Did such a case presenting the case to the Reich Minister of Justice, occur in other cases too?
A In very few cases. I remember, including the case Katzenberger, three cases.
Q One may say then, that this way of dealing with the case was extraordinary?
A Yes.
Q You were also an associate judge at the Special Court?
A Yes.
Q Did Rothaug, in the manner of conducting the trial, and in the sentence, deal thoroughly with the defendant?
A. Yes, very thoroughly. He used to say - one of his expressions was, that he would say the defendant was the most important piece of evidence, as far as he was concerned.
Q Did you come to know about cases, witness, where the nullity plea raised in favor of the defendant?
A Yes, in one case a death sentence had been passed in the case of a habitual criminal, but the investigation of the General Public Prosecutor proved that the requirements were not there to sentence him as a habitual criminal. Thereupon the files were forwarded to the Chief Reich Prosecutor through the Ministry, and the nullity plea was filed, and the sentence was revoked.
Q. Could you tell me the name of the defendant in this case?
A. I don't remember the name.
DR. KOESSL: I have no further questions to put to this witness.
BY DR. BEHLING (Counsel for the defendant Dr. Schlegelberger);
Q. Witness, you have reported that in connection with the case Katzenberger you traveled to Berlin in order to present the case right there to the Ministry of Justice.
A. Yes.
Q. Would you please tell the Tribunal when that occurred and to whom you talked on that occasion?
A. I can no longer tell the date or the month; it must have occurred in the year 1942. I can only remember an approximate connection of time because on the same day the Chief Public Prosecutor from Oldenburg was present in Berlin concerning the case which later played a part in the Reichstag speech by Adolf Hitler. That is the only connection I can remember with regard to time, and that put my report into the background because Under-secretary Freisler dealt primarily with that other matter. He asked me briefly about the facts in the case, but he asked that I put it only in a few sentences. Just at that moment a telephone call came through--I believe it was at the request of Secretary Freisler. The call came from the Chief Reich Prosecutor at Leipzig, concerning the nullity plea in the Oldenourg case. And as far as I remember, while I was in that office a telephone conversation took place with Undersecretary Schlegelberger. According to my recollection, however, that conversation with Undersecretary Schlegelberger only referred to the Oldenburg case; and not the case itself was discussed, but Undersecretary Freisler stated that he intended to speak to Undersecretary Schlegelberger about that case. Then secretary Freisler himself asked me what my opinion was about the sentence in the case Katzenberger, whereupon I said that one could have legal misgivings against the application of the Decree against Public Enemies. Thereupon he made a statement to the same effect, perhaps something like he did not understand the sentence, or the meaning of the sentence.
That was how it happened. Then, since it had been announced before that a messenger had to go to Leipzig by train, a man from the Ministry, in order to bring the Oldenburg file to Leipzig so that the nullity plea could be filed, I was told to leave and did so.
Q. If I have understood you correctly, therefore, you only discussed this case with Undersecretary Freisler, who was in charge of the Penal Department?
A. Yes.
Q. While you dealt with that case, did you ever come across the name of the former Undersecretary Schlegelberger in writing or in the files?
A. I have no recollection that the name Schlegelberger appeared in any connection with that.
Q. In connection with your personal report to the Ministry, I should like to ask you whether, on the part of the General Public Prosecutor, a report was made about the death sentence, that is, the pronouncement of the death sentence.
A. A report was made to the Ministry in any case--in some cases in writing, in other cases by telephone--about the intention to demand a death sentence in a case. There existed a directive from the Ministry to the effect that the Ministry should be informed of the intention of demanding the death sentence in sufficient time to state an opinion concerning that application. In general, that report was made in writing; however, if there were any doubts as to whether that report would get to the Ministry in time, then a telephone connection was made with the Ministry.
Q. In the cases of Katzenberger and Grasser, is it known to yon what steps were taken by the Ministry in connection with the clemency plea request?
A. No.
DR. BEHLING: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defense counsel desire to crossexamine this witness?
(No response)
Any re-direct examination?
EXAMINATION BY DR. KING:
Q. Witness, you have been cross-examined on an affidavit which you signed on 18 January 1947, which bears the identifying number and letter NG-649. You do not wish to change in any way the statements which you made and signed at that time; is that correct?
A. Yes; I do not wish to change anything.
DR. KOESSL: I object to that question.
MR. KING: We have the answer, Your Honor.
DR. KOESSL: And I ask that the answer be stricken from the record, because, in my opinion, a question in re-examination cannot be put in this general form or in this general manner. That general form of question, in my opinion, would only be admissible if I had in fact dealt with all questions in my cross-examination. Moreover, the same thing applies that I said earlier in the day about such a general form, namely, that not all questions of the cross-examination can be done away with by a single question in re-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: If the witness is able to answer the question, we see no reason why he can't answer it. He has answered it, and the answer may stand.
BY MR. KING:
Q. While you were associated with the Special Court in Nurnberg over a period of about four years, how many cases would you say passed through your department; roughly, the total?
A. What kind of cases?
Q. Criminal cases particularly. Let's take that category first.
A. Penal cases? Well, then, I have to say at first in explanation that as to general penal cases, of those we only had to deal with the appeals. Outside of that, there were very few cases; I cannot give you an exact figure.
Q. Dr. Koessl asked you, a few moments ago, how many political cases you knew of during--one moment please, I haven't completed my question--during the four years in which you were associated with the court. Now, you defined political cases as those concerned with treason and high treason, and I believe your answer to Dr. Koessl was that during that four-year time only three political cases were heard, as I understood it, Now, do you mean to say by that in four years' time, before the Special Court in Nurnberg, only three cases were heard which involved treason and high treason?
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Tribunal, the question raised by the prosecutor was not a correct repetition of the answers given by the witness earlier in the day. The witness did not speak about high treason.
THE PRESIDENT: My recollection is that he included malicious acts, among others. I have it written down here in my notes.
BY MR. KING:
Q. May I then ask the witness to tell us again what he means when he refers to political cases, how he would define a political case? What categories of crime do you include in that term?
A. In most cases, political penal cases were connected with malicious attacks. Cases of high treason, of treason, did not belong within the competence of the People's Court. If I stated before, or if I have spoken before of three sentences, then I meant to say that in three cases where the basic crime was a political matter, that is to say, malicious attacks, that in three cases of that kind a death sentence was pronounced. The actual number of cases of malicious attacks was, of course, much larger, but the number was not quite as large so that cases of malicious attacks would have amounted to a particular burden in my department.
They were only a small part in my work.
Q. It is entirely possible that I misunderstood your earlier definition. Then, to clarify the matter, may I summarize it as I understand it now? When you said political cases before, and mentioned that there were three, that three included cases for which the death sentence was given, and those three further were limited to cases in which the charge was a malicious attack and did not include treason and high treason? Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct. May I add to that, that on account of a malicious attack alone, an offense against the law concerning malicious attacks, the death sentence as punishment was not possible. Those who offended against the Law Concerning Malicious Attacks, according to German law, committed an offense, and the maximum penalty in the case of such an offense was five years in prison. Therefore, in the case of a malicious attack one could only pronounce a penitentiary sentence, or a hard labor sentence. In the three cases where the death penalty was pronounced, there were other additional facts or other additional requirements which made the death sentence possible, or rather, which required that a death sentence be passed.
Q. Even though these other requirements were brought in, you still say that they come within the classification of political cases, is that right?
A. Yes, that too, because the basic facts were an offense against the law concerning political acts, a political statement or a criminal act which had a political character.
Q. Now in any one of these three cases, if you recall the facts, were the charges of either treason or high treason included in order to make it possible to pronounce the death sentence?
A. No. High treason or treason could not be tried before the Special Court because the Special Court was not competent to handle these cases.
Q. Just one more question, witness. You said in the four years' time in which you were affiliated with the Nuremberg Special Court that there were, so far as you recalled, cases tried against three persons of the Jewish faith or Jewish origin. The three cases that you mentioned, were they all the Jewish cases, or Jewish cases only in a special category?
A. No, those were all Jewish cases that were dealt with at all.
Q. So far as you remember.
A. As far as I remember.
MR KING: We have no further questions, Your Honor.
JUDGE BRAND: Witness, do you mean by "Jewish cases" that they were the only cases in which a Jew was the defendant, or do you mean that they were only three cases brought under the law against Poles and Jews?
THE WITNESS: No. Cases where, according to my knowledge, persons of Jewish faith were brought to trial. I remember only three cases, and I am in a position to give the names of these three cases if that is desirable.
JUDGE BRAND: And does that apply to the entire work of the Special Court in Nurnberg, or merely to the part of it in which you were concerned?