Q. If I understand you correctly, you regularly only heard the examination of the defendant, and then you were examined, yourself?
A. That is how it was during the last few years.
Q. What years are you speaking of?
A. Mainly it concerns the years when Oeschey was the presiding judge.
Q. You say here that the presiding judges made long statements of a general nature which had no connection whatsoever with the trial; that is to say, political statements?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you remember, exactly, that the defendant Oeschey, too, made statements of a political nature, that went on for hours?
A. Perhaps that was more obvious with the defendant Rothaug, but Oeschey, too, worked in the same manner. I remember perfectly well a case which began at half past 8 or a quarter to 9, and when by 12 o'clock the defendant had not yet been examined; so, it really means statements went on for hours, literally for hours--statements during which matters were discussed which had nothing to do with the trial.
Q. Can you say who, in the case you mentioned just now, was the presiding judge?
A. No, I cannot; I do not remember for certain.
Q. Did you hear the defendant Oeschey use expressions with reference to the defendant saying something like: "We will put your head at your feet"?
A. Oh, yes, I heard those expressions fairly often.
Q. By Oeschey?
A. That I do not know.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: What was this, "Yes I do not know"? I thought the witness said, yes.
THY PRESIDENT: Let us hear what the reporter has to say about that. Will the reporter please read the question and answer.
(The reporter, Mr. Beard, read the last question and answer to the Tribunal.)
THE PRESIDENT: Let us have this question asked and answered again, please.
A. I did not say, yes to the question as to which of the two gentleman used these expressions. It might have been one case or the other, I no longer remember whether it was Oeschey or Rothaug. For the reason, in one case, I remember for certain, because the defendant in the case repeated it to me a little while ago; that, that remark was made: "I will put your head at your feet." Although, in that particular case it was obvious to the judge that the death sentence could never be passed for my expert opinion was to the effect that the man had to be exculpated to a far reaching extent, and in fact, he was not sentenced to death, but to one year in a penitentiary. All the same, although the judge did know what the results of the trial probably would be, he pronounced that threat. And I still remember that, that naturally gave such a shock to the defendant that since, in any case, he was an unsteady person, and as he had also experienced a prison psychosis, therefore, the danger arose that he would no longer be fit to stand trial. At that time, I dared, I may say, I dared to draw the attention of the judge to this and to tell him, "If you proceed in this manner, all you will achieve is that you will not be able to continue the trial." And, he did listen to my request after that. The treatment changed, and the trial was conducted orderly with the result which I have already mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is the judge? You said the judge, thusand so-, what judge are you talking about, which of the two?
THE WITNESS:DR. KUNZ: That was Rothaug.
DR. SCHUBERT: May I continue?
Q. Dr. Kunz, in your affidavit, you state that you had a feeling that the work of an expert was merely a matter of form. Do you know of cases where a decision was made which was contrary to your opinion?
A. The defense counsel of Rothaug put some questions to me on this, and am I to answer it again?
Q. I do not remember that you answered that question before.
A. No, I personally do not know of any case as concerns my own activities nor as concerns the other court physicians. That an expert opinion of "not responsible" was not considered, according to Article 51-1, not even in the case of Oeschey.
Q. Dr. Kunz, you criticize that Rothaug and Oeschey had no understanding for border cases of psychiatry. If you submitted exppert opinions on such cases, and as you said earlier on, usually before the evidence you left the courtroom; that is to say, that you did not hear the verdict pronounced. Have you any knowledge as to how your expert opinions on such border cases of psychiatry, as to how and when they were utilized in the verdict?
A. Naturally, I often had an opportunity to speak to the defendants who had been sentenced, after their sentence had been announced and I also discussed the border cases of the session with other persons who had attended it, but I have already said that the attitude of the presiding judge, to my, or I can really say our function, as court physicians and as experts, that attitude showed that there was no inclination to listen to the expert in the matter that went beyond the scope of paragraph 51-1. I would like to repeat again; we were all, again and again, put before the question does paragraph 51-1 pertain or does it not. That means, of course, a limitation of our work, that is our work from the outset did not intend to restrict itself to paragraph 51-1 or 51-2 but to go beyond it and made statements concerning psychiatry and psychology.
Q. If I understand you correctly, witness, you only arrived at the judgement by that part of the trial which you attended and from what you were told by other people, but not from the actual text of the verdicts which were passed.
A. The text of the verdict never gave such a precise attitude concerning the medical opinion, not in as far as these presiding judges are concerned; that has always been the same in all my experience; that as a result, it made no use of the detail of our work.
Q. You did not answer my question, witness. I did not ask you what it said in the verdict.
A. That is what I understood.
Q. But, I asked you whether in the verdict, you followed up as to whether and how your opinion, your expert opinion, was taken into consideration, and, I would ask you to answer only that question?
A. Well, I only know the verdict from the text of the verdict. I do not know--I cannot say where the difference lies. I do not understand you.
Q. The text of the verdicts you never read, did you?
A. Sometimes, at any rate the text of the verdict contained much more than what the expert said. They said much more than the brief mentioning of the sentence--that is much shorter.
Q. Witness, you have already been asked on the point, that apparently it was intended to push you out of the Special Court. You say here that other judges told you something about it. Who told you about it.
AA person who is not a defendant here, another presiding judge of the Nurnberg Special Court.
Q What was his name?
A Ferber, Dr. Ferber.
Q Witness, a last question.
A this was how we proceeded. Instructions to give an expert opinion were sent to the court physician without mentioning a name. My office then distributed the work according to a schedule which I had worked out, and distribution was made to four court physicians. I was told that in recent years instructions had no longer been issued anonymously to the court physician, but that the names of the court physicians had been mentioned and that those names had been chosen from whom it could be supposed, or it was even known, that they would have a different political attitude. That is what I was told.
Q Witness, you mentioned cases where a direct influence was exerted upon your work, as the author of expert opinions. Do you have any complaints about the defendant Oeschey in that respect?
A No, no. I do not remember a case where Oeschey exerted any influence of that kind.
DR. SCHUBERT: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any re-direct examination?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, Your Honor, except to briefly note that the answer to the question that Your Honor asked the witness is already in evidence. If you would care to have me ask him again I will, but I don't see that there is any necessity for it.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is not necessary.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
(Witness excused)
ARKIN BAUR, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BRAND: Will you 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 and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Tribunal, we are concerned now with Document Volume III-I, Document NG-562, Exhibit No. 157. The witness is Dr. Baur.
THE PRESIDENT: You said it was in Book III-I? I think you are in error. It is III-C, is it not?
DR. SCHUBERT: No.
THE PRESIDENT: It is III-C in my book, I am sure.
DR. SCHUBERT: Hay it please the Court, I remember that in Book III-C there is a reference to this document, but in the German edition it was certainly submitted in III-I, as part of III-I.
THE PRESIDENT: It doesn't matter, we all have it now. You may proceed.
DR. SCHUBERT: We are dealing with the affidavit of 3 January 1947.
EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q Witness, please tell the Court your name and occupation.
A Landesgerichtsarzt at the Landesgericht, Nurnberg. My name is Baur.
Q Dr. Baur, how long were you a District Court Physician in Nurnberg?
A Since 1937.
Q 1937?
A Yes.
Q During that time, was Dr. Kurz the court physician in charge?
A Yes.
Q In your affidavit you say that the position of the author of the expert opinions was very difficult because it happened that judges clearly expressed their wishes concerning such expert opinions.
May I ask you at what time the expert opinions of the court physicians were demanded?
A Usually they were asked for at the stage when the prosecution was making its investigations.
Q Doctor, did you observe a case where the defendant Oeschey tried to exert influence on you as a court physician?
A No. I had very little to do with Dr. Eoschey. Usually I only got my first view of Dr. Oeschey at the session.
Q Did Oeschey at the trial - that is to say, when you were submitting your verbal opinion - restrict you in any form?
A No, I can not remember any case.
Q Did you have the opportunity to cause the Special Court, under Oeschey's presidency, in certain cases, to follow your opinion in your expert testimony which went in favor of the defendant?
A I remember at least one case, which was concerned with an old woman. I stated that she was not insane but that probably she had made her statements because of old age. Oeschey accepted that opinion. As to whether he took my expert opinion into consideration in his verdict, I can not say, because as a rule I did not remain in the courtroom until the sentence was pronounced.
Q You then say in your affidavit it was known that Oeschey and Rothaug had close contact with the Gauleiter, and that it was very dangerous not to follow their will. Do you know for certain what connection Oeschey had with the Gauleiter?
A I was never interested in that, but I realized from the beginning that a man who obtained the important position of presiding judge at the Special Court naturally must have close ties with the Gauleitung.
Q Did you think that Oeschey's office in the Gau Amt was an influential position?
A I had no idea what office he held, but I did realize that the opinion of Oeschey very likely was also the opinion of the Gauleiter.
Q Witness, you then give your opinion on a case while Oeschey was the presiding judge. I am now concerned with the Pirner case. In that case you submitted a written expert opinion and, if I understand your affidavit correctly, you criticized the fact that in the verdict something was mentioned that differed from your expert opinion. Can you give a brief account of that case?
A I must go a little further back. During my many years as a doctor I have, in principle, dealt with questions from the point of view that I have stated that a person of 17 can be evaluated in the same way as a person of 18. From the medical point of view, there are no differences between a person of 17 and 18, and therefore I think it is impossible for a doctor to be able to say "This person has the maturity of a person of 18." For that reason, in the case in hand, all I could have said was in fact what I did say in my expert opinion. I consider it impossible that I might have changed my view during the trial, because it would have been completely paracoxical, on an expert opinion which I had written during many hours of work, if I had suddenly just thrown that overboard.
Furthermore, in my experience of court practice, it is customary that whenever the author of an expert opinion does in fact change his view, that is noted in the reasons for the verdict. The usual words used were, "The expert has changed his point of view on such and such points." Such a change can not have occurred in this case, otherwise it would have been mentioned.
Furthermore, I remember the case clearly, and there was no reason whatsoever why I should have abandoned my first opinion.
Q Dr. Baur, do you remember who the judge was who wrote out the verdict in that case?
A I do not remember that.
Q The former Landesgerichtsrat Gross, who came here as a witness, said, when he was examined, that he took down your oral expert opinion in shorthand. Do you think a misunderstanding is possible?
A I do not consider a misunderstanding possible because as a rule when somebody says, "Yes," one would not understand "No." Furthermore, I believe that if there be any suspicion of such a misunderstanding, another question would have been asked, as this case after all was of considerable importance.
Q Dr. Baur, can you state that the defendant Oeschey rendered your opinion wrongly?
A I didn't understand your question.
Q I asked you whether you can or whether you wish to assert that the defendant Oeschey misquoted your expert opinion in the verdict.
A Who misquoted it, I don't know, but what was shown here is not in accordance with what I actually put down as my expert opinion.
Q You cannot hold any definite individual responsible?
A No, I cannot, because I was not interested in the legal aspects of the proceedings.
Q You then say that one had always been under the impression that the verdict had been a foregone conclusion anyhow. Did you ever experience a case where the defendant Oeschey made it clear to a defendant from the very beginning as to what decision he would make?
A Certainly not to a defendant.
Q Did you ever appear at other special courts?
A Yes, at Munich and at Bamberg. Munich and Bamberg were the only other special courts where I worked.
Q Did you make observations to the effect that the jurisdiction of those special courts regarding Article 51, II, were different from the jurisdiction in Nurnberg?
A The matter of Article 51 was not restricted to the special courts alone, but apparently it was a directive which was issued by a higher authority. I remember that I was sent to a training course in 1937 at the Clinic for Psychiatry, and Professor Nicolai, who was lecturing there, stressed that Article 51, II, should be avoided as much as possible. It would seem, therefore, that there was a general effort to eliminate Article 51, II.
Q Dr. Baur, you then mentioned a case from the year 1944, according to what you say you were called to the telephone and were told that it was the presiding judge of the special court who was ringing you up. It was about a Pole who had serious burns and the gentleman on the other side of the telephone is supposed to have told you, "Don't make so much fuss because we will put his head at his feet." Can you say for certain that the person you spoke to over the telephone was the defendant Oeschey?
A I can for certain that I was called to speak to the presiding judge of the special court. I believed that I was talking to Oeschey, and that jocular manner of speaking made me assume that I was talking to him. At that moment, the terrible state in which my patient was, had excited me so much that I cannot say for certain whether it was Oeschey's voice or whether it was another voice, but I know for certain that it cannot have been Mr. Pfaff or Ferber because I would have recognized them, because with them I always began a telephone conversation by exchanging personal remarks.
Q Is it possible that it was a prosecutor who rang you up?
A I cannot decide that.
Q I have concluded my cross examination.
DR. KOESSL: Koessl for the defendant Rothaug.
EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, did Katzenberger or his defense counsel in any way express to you the opinion that Katzenberger was not fully responsible for his actions, or in any case, was only partly responsible?
A No, on the contrary, in the case of Katzenberger it was quite superfluous to examine him from the psychiatric point of view.
Q Unfortunately, I did not understand you properly. He was of the opinion that it was not necessary?
A No, it was superfluous because he himself felt that he was in a normal mental state, in fact, he was almost offended.
Q Witness, did you ever see it happen in the case of a defendant including foreigners, that you thought that Article 51, -- I, did pertain, and that Rothaug ignored your expert opinion and treated the defendant as if he were a person fully responsible for his actions?
A I cannot remember mainly for the reason that as I said earlier on, I never remained in the courtroom until the verdict was announced, but always left after I had been examined. Therefore, it is impossible for me to know what affect my expert opinion had on the verdict.
Q During your work, did you ever hear or did it come to you through some channel, perhaps did you hear it through letters, through files, as to whether Rothaug, concerning the application of Article 51, whether he had simply ignored it without taking into consideration the expert opinion in his verdict?
A No, I don't know of such a case. The only things I heard, through rumors were that in conversations he had voiced his criticism of the application of Article 51, but I have no authentic information on that point nor do I know of anything that exists in writing.
Q I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have any redirect examination?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I do have one question, Your Honor.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Dr, Baur, in the Pirner case mentioned a moment ago, was Pirner sentenced to death?
A I do not know whether he was sentenced to death, but when I was interrogated by the American prosecution, I was told that such a sentence was passed.
Q If your medical opinion on the mental condition of Pirner had appeared in its form the way you wrote it, could Pirner have been sentenced to death?
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Court, I object to this question. The witness is being asked to give a legal expert opinion. He is not able to do so.
I believe too that that question is not connected with the cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If I may briefly state an argument, taking Dr. Schubert's remarks up in the order in which I remember them. First of all, in cross examination, he devoted considerable time to the written medical opinion of the doctor.
THE PRESIDENT: Does that refer to the Pirner case?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It did, Your Honor. And secondly, I think there is sufficient foundation in the affidavit to qualify this man, not only as an expert on psychiatry by also as being fully aware of the legal consequences of his medical opinions.
THE PRESIDENT: Let him answer the question.
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Tribunal, may I say something on this point, Your Honor? I understood that the objection was to be sustained.
THE PRESIDENT: That is true, that was the first ruling; then on further consideration we have decided to let him answer the question, Dr. Schubert.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Doctor, would you please answer the question. Do you remember what the question was?
A I should be glad if you would kindly repeat it to me.
Q In the Pirner case in which you have stated that your medical opinion on Pirner as it was later shown to you was not in the form in which you wrote it, let me ask you, Doctor, if your medical opinion had remained the way you wrote it, could Pirner have been sentenced to death?
A To that, I have to reply that I cannot judge it from the legal point of view, but according to my court experience which extends over a great deal of time, I do not think that a death verdict would have been passed.
Q That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused. We will recess at this time until one-thirty.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 23 May 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
KARL SCHROEDER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BLAIR: Hold up 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 and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE BLAIR: You may be seated.
DR. KOESSL (Counsel for Defendant Rothaug): May it please the Court, The witness is to be examined about his affidavit in Document Book 9-B, Document No. NG-507, Exhibit 425, in the German document book on Page 157, almost at the end of the book. May I begin with the cross examination?
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, in your affidavit you stated that Rothaug was very severe. I would like to ask you whether Rothaug already before 1933, as far as you know, represented a very strict and severe conception, when he was active in penal procedures. Please answer.
A In 1927 I met Rothaug in the town of Hof where I was Amtsgerichter, Local Court Judge, and he as Prosecutor was transferred to Hof. Rothaug was already as prosecutor extraordinarily severe. Among the judges of the local District Courts of Hof it was generally known that he applied considerably more strict severe standards than any prosecutor before him had ever shown. Rothaug was, in 1929, I believe, on the first of October as Amtsgerichtsrat, local court counsellor, summoned to Nuremberg. First he worked as an investigating judge and later on he became a single judge, a presiding judge of the jury court. I myself came to Nuremberg on 1 July 1931 as first public prosecutor.
Q Witness, I believe these extensive representations are not necessary.
A In my activity as first Public Prosecutor I also had to deal with Rothaug officially. Among us prosecutors -- there were about 30 of us here -- it was generally known among us that Rothaug had the most severe standard of penalty and he had issued the most severe sentences. Later I found out the same, namely that when he was Landgerichtsrat in penal matters in Schweinfurt that the defense counsel considered it not agreeable, as well in Schweinfurt as in Nuremberg when Rothaug was acting as judge.
Q Did Rothaug represent this severe strict conception, without considering whether they wore penal matters of a general criminal nature, whether they were penal cases with political points of view?
A Until 1933 he probably hardly concerned himself with political matters, but even then the penalties which he issued were far beyond the general standard applied by the judges and prosecutors. For Rothaug it was the same, in my opinion, whether the facts had a political character or whether the facts did not have a political character in the same way as, in my opinion, it was the same whether the defendant had relationships to the Party or whether he was opposed to the Party.
Q Can you remember cases where the Party criticized him because he applied equally harsh standards against cases of the Party?
AAt the moment I remember one case especially. This was a penal proceedings against a former -- I believe he was Ortsgruppenleiter, local group leader, in Nuremberg. I can't remember his name at the moment.
Q Do you mean the case Ramsbeck?
A Yes, I mean the case Ramsbeck. In this case the Party offices, as far as I am informed about it, and as partly after my appointment in Nuremberg on 1 July, 1941, I found out the Party offices took the part of Ramsbeck, especially, who wore the honorary insignia.
Q A little more slowly. Did Rothaug now let the party influence him to treat this Ortsgruppenleiter more leniently than a man who was not with the Party?
A I could find the opposite repeatedly. For Rothaug, whatever he had been told by Party offices at any time, was absolutely unimportant for him. In the case Ramsbeck it was like this. I remember exactly -
Q More slowly, please.
A In the case Ramsbeck I still remember the facts of the case very well, Ramsbeck would probably with any other judge hardly have received a more severe prison sentence, a longer prison sentence, than four to five months, but Rothaug gave him, if I remember correctly, nine months' jail, prison, a penalty which in my personal opinion was too high.
The party offices as far as I found out on the side made every effort in view of the services of Ramsbeck, on behalf on the NSDAP, the Nazi Party to achieve a more lenient sentence, or quashing of the of the penalty. Rothaug devoted himself with a fanatism which he applied to every penal case against any leniency and he probably did that at that time, too, and therefore, did not get the special sympathy of Gauleiter Holz who was for pardoning of Ramsbeck and he spoke for it with a special feeling.
Q Thank you. Did any prosecutor who was working in a session put in a nullity plea or plea for reopening of a case on extra-ordinary objections because the conduct of the trial was not in accordance with the legal code of procedure, and in criminal cases, or because the determination of the facts during the main trial had been wrong?
A We public prosecutors, since we know Rothaug, we pointed out again and again and we also noticed that especially the sentences, the written opinions, in which Rothaug had participated proved to be extra-ordinarily extensive and thorough. I never got to know a case or heard any complaint to the effect that on the part of the defendant or even of the prosecutor, the assertion was made that Rothaug had distorted the facts or changed the facts. During my interrogation here, such reproaches were never made to me, and I heard it far the first time that defendants or prosecutors are supposed to have stated that there were irregularities that might have taken place in this field.
Q Thank you, Witnwss, you wrote here that the personal legal conceptions were perhaps identical with those of party circles-
A If during -
Q Just a moment, please. Now, I wont to ask you whether the legal conceptions which Rothaug shewed was in accordance with the then jurisdiction.
A If during my interrogation, I mean during my affidavit I spoke about the identity of the conception of Rothaug and party circles, then I meant it only in the following sense: Namely, that Rothaug applied a known severe standard in individual cases, and that certain party circles may have liked this standard insofar as political enemies were concerned.
The legal conceptions regarding the amount of penalty were in my opinion at that time the usual thing. At that time we had to decide many clemancy pleas which belonged to the competence of the general public prosecutor, as well as the ministry of Justice, and disregarding some individual cases, perhaps the office of the administration of justice the conceptions where Rothaug was active were always approved and this is demonstrated by the fact that the clemency pleas in favor of the defendant were extra-ordinarily seldom, as I believe that I remember with certainty.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you. I have no further questions to put to the witness in the case in chief of the Defense as my own witness.
THE PRESIDENT: You may did that, of course.
EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHUBERT: (Attorney for the Defendant Oeschey) May it please the Court, the witness, Dr. Schroeder, in Document Book 111-C, made an affidavit, NG-35-, Exhibit No. 148.
The affidavit concerns the case Count Montgelas. The case Count Montgelas is a part of the activity of the defendant Oeschcy during the so-called civilian courts martials. The Witness, Dr. Schroeder, was the representative of the prosecution before the civilian courts martials, and as far as I know he was the prosecutor in every case before the Civilian Courts Martials. Therefore, I must within the framework of the case of the defense, I have to represent the entire case of the civilian courts martials with the witness. For that reason, I believe, that I would not serve the purpose today to take a small case out of this entire framework, but I ask for permission, in the case of the witness. Dr. Schroeder, to discuss the case, civilian courts martials, as a whole, inclusive of the case COUNT Montgelas at a given time when I enter the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: We are wondering on the bench as to whether you would have any objections, while the witness is here, if you are prepared for the cross examination?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Court please, I am prepared for any cross examination on any of the affidavits that the witness has given.
THE PRESIDENT: They want to go beyond that.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: They want to go beyond that and I certainly object to it. That is a defensive matter for their case in chief.
THE PRESIDENT: That would be true of the examination that Dr. Koessl was proposing, I take it; wouldn't it?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I have no objection to his recalling the witness as his own, during his case, I have no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course he could do that without any permission. It is only suggested as to while the witness is here, whether we could possibly dispose of this. If you are not prepared for cross examination then it wouldn't be possible.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I am prepared for cross examination on any affidavit that this witness has given.
THE PRESIDENT: They want to go beyond that. Very well then the witness may be excused. May be you have some re-direct?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, your Honor. Doesn't Dr. Schubert wish to conduct any cross examination at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: Not at this time -- may be I am wrong. May be be there is a misunderstanding. Will you make your wishes clear so we will understand it?
DR. SCHUBRT:(ATTORNEY for Defendant Oeschey) May it please the Tribunal -
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask you a question in that connection. May I ask you is that correct: That you wish to call the witness as your own later?
DR. SCHUBERT: Yes.
JUDGE. BRAND: AS your own witness, at that time you also wish to crossexamine him concerning the affidavit?
DR. SCHUBERT : Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you, Dr. Schubert, at that time when you call this man as your own witness, in your Defense, will you then want to ask him questions about these affidavits, or do you want to waive that altogether?
DR. SCHUBERT: At this time I want to examine the witness also--about this affidavit -- in. he context, and the full context later on.
THE PRESIDENT: If you do it at that time, the Prosecutor will insist upon you making the witness your own witness. I warn you you about that.
DR. SCHUBERT: I have no misgivings about that, Your Honor.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I am sure that Dr. Schubert realizes that is strictly routine; I am not attempting to prejudice him in any way. He can cross examine the witness now if he likes.
JUDGE BRAND: The Prosecution is not objecting. Mr. Wooleyhan, the Prosecution is not objecting to the suggestion by Dr. Schubert?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, indeed, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Then this witness may be excused.