A. A 20-year old man by the name of Rupp in September 1939 for two attempts to commit rape while exploiting the blackout was sentenced to a penitentiary term of three years. As at that time the police was interfering with the administration of penal justice, I sent the defendant Rupp to the prison, which was in our town, so that the police would be unable to interfere. On 21 October 1939 with Reichminister of Justice Dr. Guertner presiding, a conference, of all the presiding, judges of the Special Courts in the German Reich was held in Berlin. At that conference minister Guertner gave an address and stated that from his golden book he intended to read a few judgments. The first judgment which the Minister of Justice read out, without however giving the names of the Court or the judges, was the judgment passed on Rupp, of which he said that the sentence had been completely inadequate, and he mentioned it to all presidents of the Special Courts as a bad example. The people from Stuttgart who attended the conference were very much depressed by this criticism meted out to them by the Minister himself.
Q. Witness, I am inclined to assume -- I am now coming to Case 61 -that the Schaefer case for a special reason is still fresh in your memory. In November, 1942, at Heilbronn on the Neckar that case was tried by you. This case seems important to me because it contributes to explain your whole attitude as judge. Please comment on the case.
A. A young man by the name of Schaeffer, who was barely over 18, had escaped from the youth training school at Moorungen. While he was escaping he came to southern Germany. There he committed a large number of serious burglaries at night. The Prosecution intended to ask for the death sentence, and the Court had to appoint defense counsel for the defendant. On the day of the trial I talked to the head of the juvenile prison at Heilbronn, Oberregierungsrat Dr. Schmidthaeuser. He was an expert on the subject of juveniles criminal law. Schmidthaeuser told me that he had got to know Schaefer at his prison. He was a young man who could still be saved. I came to an agreement with him to the effect that Prof.
Dr. Gregor, the chief physician at the juvenile prison, was to attend the trial as an expert. The physician at the trial testified to the effect that the defendant Schaeffer had simplylacked strict upbringing and such training he could receive at the juvenile prison at Heilbronn. From his decades of experience he believed he could say that the defendant could be put on the right path. Although the Court tried to influence the prosecutor in regard to the sentence for which he would ask, the Prosecutor all the same asked for the death sentence. The Court sentenced Schaeffer to only five wears imprisonment and handed him over to the juvenile prison. 362 days later the judgment in the Schaeffer case was revoked, by way of the nullity plea. I still remember that the decision by the Reich Supreme Court said that the Special Court to which the Schaeffer case had been assigned was completely tied by the decision. All the factors that could be found to speak in favor of the defendant Schaeffer had already been established in the first judgment. Schaeffer, in accordance with the decision by the Reich Supreme Court, was sentenced to death by another Special Court.
Q. I am now passing on to Case 62. Before I begin to discuss that case I shall put to you Cuhorst Exhibit 21, NG 59, the affidavit by Frau Magdalene Scholl, of 3 May, 1947. May I draw your attention to this points I have just been in touch with Mr. LaFollette and unfortunately I have heard that the volume in which the affidavit is contained, has not yet been produced and therefore I would ask you not to read from the affidavit.
A. These are two Arials -
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Excuse me, just a minute, your Honor, I think I will permit this affidavit being used. We are trying to move along. If there is anything wrong about it, the Court can disregard it. I am not going to be technical on those matters.
DR. BRIEGER: Thank you very much, Mr. LaFollette.
THE WITNESS: This deals with two -
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Just a moment. Not quite so fast, witness. For the information of the Tribunal and for your information. Witness, I should like to make a few introductory remarks. The Prosecutor, Miss Arbuthnot, a few days ago while cross examining Dr. Barnickel, referred to a Scholl case, and my first Question to you is, is that Scholl family identical? That is to say, is that the same Scholl family whom we discussed here the other day?
A. That is the same family.
Q. That is sufficient, thank you. Witness, will you please discuss this case in detail, because of all cases where you tried Germans this case, in my view, is of the most paramount importance. This is definitely a political case, the case of the brothers and sisters Scholl. My first question to you is whether the Scholl brothers and sisters are identical with those brothers and sisters who later on were sentenced to death in Munich when Freisler was the presiding judge?
A. The defendant Hans Scholl is the same, yes.
Q. For the information of the Tribunal and for your own information we would now like to point out that the Scholls are known to everybody in Germany nowadays who reads the papers, because, in my view, they were the champions of democracy, and they are, in my view, quite rightly considered as martyrs of the Hitler regime, and I believe their memory will live among the youth of our universities for generations. Witness, please tell us something about this case.
A. I had twice tried cases where members of the Scholl family were involved. In April 1938 I tried the brothers Hans end Werner Scholl and a large number of other defendants. At that time they had continued the activity of the prohibited Buendische Jugend at Stuttgart. The charges brought up at the trial were connected with a large number of the charges. The Prosecutor from some other town acted as prosecutor at that trial.
As I heard indirectly the intention was to ask for fairly heavy sentences on these young people. The defendants Scholl, themselves, at that time were still juveniles within the meaning of the law. At the trial, the matter which had been somewhat exaggerated by the prosecution was reduced to its proper proportions and the defendants were sentenced to such insignificant penalties that the proceedings against them, as a result of an amnesty, were stopped.
After the trial, which had lasted several days, the mother of the defendants, Frau Magdalene Scholl, wrote to me at my private address to thank me for my kind treatment of her sons. I was rather embarrassed by that letter because I never expected to get letters of gratitude, not in my profession.
In the meantime, the defendant Hans Scholl, and one of his sisters, had been sentenced to death by the People's Court at Munich. Sometime later, the husband, Mr. Scholl, his wife, Magdalene Scholl, and the surviving daughter, came before the Special Court at Stuttgart, when I was presiding judge. They had committed extensive offenses against the Malicious Acts Law. Mrs. Magdalene Scholl and her daughter were acquitted, and the father of the family, Herr Scholl, who now is mayor of Ulm, was sentenced to a short term of imprisonment-- I believe it was a sentence of eight or ten months. At the trial, it was found that the extent of the punishable acts of the defendant Scholl, the father of the family, was probably bigger than the prosecution assumed. The court for its part, however, saw no cause to make the case any graves than it was; for otherwise, under certain circumstances, the proceedings would have had to be discontinued so as to submit the case to the Chief Reich Prosecutor with the People's Court for his examination.
Q. Wintess, in this correction, one more question seems of particular significance to me. Can you remember for certain whether during the second proceedings against the Scholl family you tried the case after close relatives of these people had already been sentenced to death in Munich with Freisler as the presiding judge; because if that were so, that would seem characteristic to me of your courage.
A. I remember it for certain because in correction with the sentence for the defendant Scholl, the father of the family, I said something like this: in passing sentence on this man, one must bear in mind that the Scholl family has already suffered a great deal of bad luck. By that I referred to the Munich sentence, for I, personally, was sorry for the defendant Hans Scholl, whom I had known in 1938, and the offenses he had committed at that time were acts such as are committed by many young people.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Witness, I suppose we may assume from what counsel said that the Scholl's were German nationals, were they not?
THE WITNESS: Yes, they were German nationals.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. In view of the fact that Frau Scholl's affidavit is very short and that Mr. La Follette has been good enough to let us use it today, assuming that the Tribunal agrees, may I ask you to read this affidavit into the record because it is of particular importance.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to offer it into evidence?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you don't need to read it. As there is no objection, it will be received. Counsel said he had no objection. Would you tell us what was the nature of the political party or organization that these people were attempting to form? You gave the name it but I didn't quite understand.
THE WITNESS: That was the so-called Buendische Jugend. That was a youth movement which vacillated between the Communist Youth and the Hitler Youth. Some of the former members of that organization before 1933, went over to the Communist camp; another part joined the Hitler Youth.
The Scholl group represented the remains of that group which kept flashing the old flag of the Buendische Jugend. After the Hitler Youth had been formed, naturally all other youth movements were forbidden, and to continue as a member of any such organization was punishable. That is why the Scholls came before a court.
THE PRESIDENT: Then was the law which we have seen in Document Book II, which prohibited the political parties except the NSDAP, involved in this prosecution?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I believe that that was so, but I cannot tell you for certain.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you think of any other law that could have applied except that one?
THE WITNESS: Well, there were a number of topical laws at that time, and maybe the unlawful whole organizing of collections might have been connected with this case. Anyhow, the matter is now more than ten years old, and I am afraid I cannot give you a precise answer.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Your Honor, I shall try to explain that case further by my other witnesses. One more question to you, witness, in this connection. If I understood you correctly, the work of the Scholl family, in connection with Buendische Jugend, was connected with the prevailing traditions of the days before National Socialism?
A. Well, the heyday of the Buendische Jugend was in the years approximately from 1925 to 1930. At that time, the movement consisted of several groups, among which there was dissension.
Q. Am I right when I say that the Buendische Jugend in its tendencies as a whole were not Communistic but Democratic?
A. The principles of the Buendische Jugend cannot be brought under one heading, politically speaking. In my view, the Buendische Jugend were individualists, nationalists; but in its heyday it had no inclinations whatsoever to join with any political system. Only approximately in 1930, the various groups of the Buendische Jugend merged with political camps. The most important leader of the Buendische Jugend, of the so-called German Jungvolk of the first of November-yes, the first of November--was a man called Koebel, who was very active as a writer. He joined the Communist camp and later emigrated to England.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we would be interested to know under what statute or decree the type of activity which the witness has described was made criminal. You understand the point that we are interested in?
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, I am inclined to assume that Your Honor's assumption is correct when you say that you think that these people came into conflict with the law which forbade the formation of new political organizations and parties. I shall examine the matter, Your Honor.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Summarizing, I would like to ask you one more question. Witness from what you have said so far, I am inclined to assume that without regard of the party to which the Scholl's belonged, if I understood you correctly, the Scholls were young people who worked for the ideals of democracy-- at any rate, for the ideals of liberty--and thereby get into conflict with Hitler's principles of dictatorship. Am I right in saying that? Can one bring it under that general heading?
A. Yes, one can, but one needn't. The Buendische Jugend was very complicated, and to describe the nature of the Buendische Jugend in a few words is impossible, for the members of the Buendische Jugend themselves could not do so, and the political slogans of today were quite unknown to them at the time.
THE PRESIDENT: It is this very factor of uncertainty as to what the organization stood for or how many different principles it stood for that makes up inquire how membership in it could have been criminal. Go ahead with your evidence on it. We will be glad to hear it.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, I didn't quite understand that question.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take our recess now.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. BRIEGER: May it please the Tribunal, may I continue the direct examination of my client Cuhorst. I have almost reached the end. First, I would like to say the following: During the intermission it was pointed out to me that the brothers Scholl probably were indicted on the basis of the emergency decree for the maintenance of the domestic peace of the 19th of December 1932, in the Reich Law Gazette, (Reichsgesetzblatt) Volume I, in contrast to Volume II where always the international treaties are quoted. On page 548 of Volume I, probably under Article 2 which says: Any one who publicly makes malicious statements, or statements showing an antagonism against leading persons of the state or the National Socialist party, about their directives or institutions established by them, which are designed to undermine the confidence of the people in the political leadership, will be punished by imprisonment. But I notice here that this decree is supposed to be of 1932. I don't assume that is so, because National Socialism came into power only on the 30th of January 1933. Therefore, it may be a misprint, and I shall check it later. Now, I have almost reached the conclusion of my direct examination; the cases have been discussed in detail. May be I can put two or three concluding questions to the witness.
Q.- Witness, yesterday we discussed in detail the judgment against Wirbel, particularly the sentence from the point of view of double jeopardy, nebis in idem. Do you have any desire to make any additional statements in that connection?
A.- About that question of that principle nebis in idem, double jeopardy, a lot has been said here. In the case of Wirbel, this is the way it looked: Wirbel had committed a number of thefts, and the Special Court in the first proceedings sentenced Wirbel for so-called repeated thefts to a prison term. Later, however, it was found that the defendant Wirbel had not committed twelve thefts, but forty-one of them, and of a considerably more severe nature.
Now, there was one legal point of view a school of thought which held that the continuous and repeated offenses on account of which Wirbel had been sentenced also comprised the many thefts which became known later -- the more numerous and larger thefts. Jurisdiction developed at that time according to the influence of decisions from high courts, and according to various text books such as the one by Henkel, in the direction that in the case of facts such as I have described, it was thought that there existed a different offense and that these offenses which had become known later were not covered by the original combination of repeated thefts. If the defendant Wirbel by the first sentence had not been sentenced for repeated interconnected thefts, but for twelve individual thefts which he had committed, then the punishment for the remaining twenty-nine serious thefts would never have presented any legal difficulties. The question concerning the principle of double jeopardy in the case of Wirbel only arose because the Special Court in the first sentence had assumed continuous and repeated acts instead of several individual acts. The rest can be seen from the legal opinion which is in the judgment itself.
Q.- In this connection, and due to the fact that I had no longer any possibility today to discuss cases against Poles, I should like to put an important question to you, witness, concerning the question which the Tribunal put to you yesterday, and where in my opinion your answer was not clear enough. I ask you, therefore, do you remember any cases while you were presiding judge where Poles were sentenced, or even sentenced to death, solely by applying the penal decree against Poles; or wasn't it so that always, without exception, the facts of the case, had to be examined by applying the standards of the German penal code which was valid for every one, regardless of nationality.
Q.- Whatever material I could look at, and whatever material was submitted by the Prosecution, I have examined, and I could not find one single case where a polish defendant was sentenced to death in a case, where a German defendant would have incurred a different sentence.
Q.- As far as you can remember that precisely, please tell me the following: Is it true that when you were presiding judge the decree against Poles was mainly applied only in order to find the answer to the question concerning the execution of the sentence, that is to say, whether it should be penal camp, or prison or penitentiary.
A.- In a number of cases I have already explained that on the basis of the decree against Poles, Polish defendants instead of being sentenced to prison terms or penitentiary terms, were sentenced to simple or aggrevated penal camps; for instance in the Pitra case and certainly also in the Worzinak case. I do not remember any other case at this time.
Q.- Witness, tell me the following: You have stated yourself that if a death sentence was to be expected, that is to say one counted on the possibility of a death sentence, a defense counsel had to be appointed by the court. Was that prevision also applied --when you were presiding and upon your initiative--in the case of foreigners and Poles, or, was that only of benefit for the Germans?
A.- That legal benefit served all defendants for the appointment of defense counsel; and the calling of Dr. Pfeifel in the cases of Skoflack and Josef has already been discussed here; and it will be submitted in documentary form. Before the Special Court at no time did any defendant appear without a defense counsel, that is in a case where a death sentence could possibly be expected. Before the Penal Senate of the District Court of Appeals, according to the legal provisions, all the defendants were represented by appointed defense counsel, that is to say, also the foreign defendants.
Q.- Since you just mentioned Dr. Pfeifel and Dr. Witzigmann who was another defense counsel in this particular case, I ask you first was there any possibility, and that means also before the Special Court, to use referendars, that is jurists who had not yet passed the second state examination as defense counsel appointed by the court; did that possibility exist and was it ever made use of?
A.- That possibility existed under certain conditions and the Special Court, particularly before my term in office and until the beginning of the war, did appoint referendars, because at that time in every single case, even the smallest and least important, appointed defense counsel was mandatory. From the beginning of the war on, we no longer appointed referendars. Many referendars, that is legal clerks, proved to be not quite suitable for the defense of difficult bases. In serious cases, that is cases where a long term penitentiary sentence or the death sentence was to be expected only experienced criminal lawyers were appointed. That explains why in the case of the defense before the Special Court, time and again the names of the same defense counsel appear.
Q.- With the exception of complicated offenses against the national economy, where I could imagine that specialists were appointed as defense counsel, I should like to assume that the selection of appointed defense counsel was made on the basis of the roster, that is to say that one went down the roster. Was any distinction made there as to whether the defendant were German or foreigners, or were the same principles applied in both cases?
A.- The same principles were applied in both cases. Defense counsel were appointed on the basis of the roster of attorneys. However from that list, we excepted those attorneys who were predominantly concerned with civil law and had asked that they should not be appointed for criminal cases.
Q.- Witness, I should therefore like to put the final question to you. Is my assumption correct that the selection of defense counsel in the case of foreigners and also of Poles was made with the same care as in the case of German defendants?
A.- Yes, there was no difference at all.
DR. BRIEGER: Thus, I have concluded my direct examination and in conclusion I would like to say the following: Yesterday I submitted to the witness the indictment in the Untermarchtal case. If the Tribunal attaches any importance whatsoever to having this indictment submitted in evidence, then I welcome that greatly, and I am grateful for it. I hesitated to enter it in may document book, because that indictment comprises more than two hundred pages; and, therefore, I thought that I had to take into consideration the difficulties for the translation department. As a last point, I wish to say the following: The Defense for Schlegelberger, which also submitted an affidavit by the defendant has made it possible for me to take the liberty to submit an affidavit by the defendant Cuhorst, that is an affidavit which was made out and signed by him. It deals with his activity in the Alpenverein, Alpine Organization; those are matters which have been mentioned repeatedly, but are not of such great importance that I want to waste the time of the Tribunal here by mentioning it in the direct examination. With the approval of the Tribunal, that would become Exhibit No. 22, Cuhorst Document No. 33, the affidavit by Hermann Cuhorst of the 11th of July, 1947.
I have arrived at the end of my direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't understand the necessity for offering an affidavit by this witness. He is here on the witness stand now.
DR. BRIEGER: If the Tribunal prefers then that I put the questions directly to the witness, of course I should like very much to do that. I only intended to save time, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed. We were not indicating any opinion as to the relevancy of the Alpine Club matter.
DR. BRIEGER: May I briefly explain that the Prosecution in several cases referred to these matters; once it was a matter of the affidavit of Renz; and then, more particularly, it was the question of the Bieger affidavit where these matters are dealt with in great detail, so that we thought it was necessary to refer to these matters also. Otherwise, they are not clarified and the essential background is not supplied. May I, therefore, be permitted to ask the witness to make a brief statement concerning this matter.
Q Witness, will you please give us very briefly the contents of your affidavit, that is to say, what functions you had in the Alpine Club, etc.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you claim anything against this defendant by reason of his connection with an Alpine Club?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: No, Your Honor. There is an exhibit, vary late in the hearing, in which we have offered evidence that this defendant reported a man, a friend to the Gestapo, for allegedly listening to British broadcasts.
We have offered that as evidence of his general approach to the issues here, but they happened to both be members of the Alpine Club; but I don't claim that because he was an officer of the Alpine Club that he is guilty of anything.
THE PRESIDENT: The fact that he is a member of the Alpine Club, or, his activities as such, you make no claim?
MR. LaFollette: I make no claim.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we don't want to hear about it. Of course if you want to explain something about the complaint made by the witness against some other individual, you may do so; but if it has anything to do with the Alpine Club, that is an immaterial, accidental, incidental matter. He are not barring you from showing what he may have done in complaining about some other person who happened to be a member of the Alpine Club; you may do that if you desire, but as for going into the whole question of what his relationship to the Alpine Club was, the Prosecution makes no claim, and we are not interested.
DR. BRIEGER: I am not particularly interested in it either. I just want to comply with the wishes of my client.
THE PRESIDENT: Use your own judgment; use your own judgment.
DR. BRIEGER: The witness Hegele, by the way, is going to discuss these matters.
THE PRESIDENT: Arc there any other Defense Counsel who desire to examine this witness?
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. KUBUSCHQK: (Attorney for the defendant Schlegelberger)
Q One question. Witness, yesterday there was a discussion about the taking over of Jewish property by non-Jews. In this connection you stated that in part that taking over of Jewish properties was carried out in an absolutely correct manner, that is to say, that the true value was paid to the Jews, and that in some cases the true value was not repaid to the Jew. The essential thing in this connection seems to me also in connection with a question put by the Presiding Judge, whether in cases where criminal acts were committed, for instance, where blackmail was applied against a Jew, these matters were prosecuted or not; that was one thing which remained open after your answer, or, at least not clear and I would like you to make a statement in this connection.
A These matters were prosecuted, and I myself experienced a case of that kind. It was the case of an SS leader, who came from the Palatinate, and who in addition to offenses against the national economy, also had committed several dishonest acts in connection with taking over Jewish properties. As far as I can remember that SS leader was sentenced to a penitentiary term of five years; that was in 1939 or 1940; I cannot be quite precise about it.
Q Was there any directive to the effect that such punishable acts committed in connection with Aryanization should not be prosecuted?
AA directive of that nature is not known to me, but I should like to add that I had no insight into the internal directives of the prosecution.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other examination of this witness by other Defense Counsel? It appears that there is not.
You may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION By Mr. LaFollette:
Q Witness, so that I will not intentionally address you incorrectly, would you tell me do you hold a doctor's degree; or, should you be addressed as doctor, or as judge; I don't know.
A No, Mr. Prosecutor. I don't have the doctor's degree.
Q I am going to hand you first a copy of a judgment which was handed down in the Special Court in 1940, I think, involving the case of Julius von Jan; that is only a copy, but I will ask you if you recognize some of the language in it.
A The case is of the 15th of November, 1939 -- not of the year 1940. It is the case of the protestant clergyman Julius von Jan from Oberlenningen Kreis Noerdingen. The case is known to me. What do you want mo to quote from the judgment?
Q. Well, I wanted to ask you - I think there is a paragraph which begins in the translation: "The defendant has made the measures which were taken against the Jews living in the Reich because of the murder of the Legation Counsel von Rath by the Jew Gruenspan the main topic of his sermon." Do you find that in there.
A. I haven't found it yet. What page is that?
Q. I think probably it is on Page 6 of that, if there are six pages. That is what I get from the translation here. It starts a new paragraph after the "Consideration of the Facts."
A. Yes, I found it.
Q. May I read it slowly to you and then if the translation is practically what you find will you answer me if that was your statement in this judgment? I have read you the first sentence.
"Obviously, without any understanding the necessity for drastic methods against the alien Jewish race, he was not satisfied with feeling sorry about possible excesses on the occasion of the 9th November 1938 but with his remarks took stand in inciting in a debasing manner against the Jewish and racial policy of the Fuehrer and of the Third Reich. Not only did he speak from his pulpit for the Jews in the person of Dr. Baehr, whom he called a true servant of the German people, but he also declared it unlawful and contrary to the sound sentiment of the people that the government ordered the Jews in Germany to be taken into protective custody as a counter-measure to the murder committed in Paris; even though the defendant must have been aware that the Third Reich was engaged in the severest fight against world Jewry which looked for any means to hit at the German Reich."
Do you find that that has been translated practically correctly?
A. No, Mr. Prosecutor. At any rate, the German translation didn't keep up with it. I believe, though, that it will suffice if that passage is translated by the Interpreter. In case that sentence Jan is to be submitted as a document, then those matters can be cleared up.
Q. Yes. Well now, let me ask you this: Has it come to you in substance as you find it in the judgment? I was reading from the judgment. Is that substantially correct?
A. Essentially it is correct but not in detail.
Q. Well now, let's go to Point VI which is on Page 7.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you first who is the defendant in this case?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The defendant is Julius von Jan.
THE PRESIDENT: Is he the preacher?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: How is his name spelled, the last part of it?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Von: V-O-N; then another name: Jan: J-A-N:
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Do you find Point No. VI? It should be on Page 7.
A. Yes.
Q. Suppose you read that slowly in German down to the first sentence on the top of Page 8 beginning with Roman Numeral VI. It should begin: "The defendant's statement must be considered as dangerous." Will you begin reading the German there slowly?
A. I read this copy which I have before me, Page 7, Roman Numeral VI. It reads as follows; according to this copy: "The statements of the defendant were statements of dangerous incitement at a time when the German nation is in a severe struggle with its adversaries, in order to fight for its freedom and its basic living rights. It would have been the duty of the defendant to take the stand for peace. Instead of that he made statements from the pulpit which could only be designed to cause confusion and unrest and to deepen existing antagonisms.
"All warnings which he received from private and official parts could not keep him from doing so. All that had to be considered in his disfavor in considering his punishment. It had to be considered particularly aggravating that he showed a lack of understanding during the trial.
He stated that it was not for him to ask what he was permitted to do as a citizen. For him the only guiding principle was what he, according to the word of God (such as he interprets it), had to do."
Q. Were you the presiding at that case, do you remember?
A. In this case, yes, I was the presiding judge, shortly after the outbreak of war, the 15th November 1939.
Q. And the sentence was one year and four months?
A. One year and four months minus four months in detention pending trial.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes. That is all. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you propose to offer the document?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: No. I am satisfied, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't quite understand what the preacher said.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I am sorry. The defendant has just read what he said.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what the judge said.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: He is the judge and he is fixing the determination of what the preacher said, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: And what did the preacher say by reason of which the judge found him guilty and sentenced him to a year and four months, according to the judgment?
MY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Herr Cuhorst, will you go to Page 3 of the original and read the two excerpts from the sermon which was made by the preacher on the 16th of November, 1938, beginning, "He, Jeremia, opposes the deceitful servants of those who, in national exuberance, proclaim salvation and victory." Do you find that?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, do you want me to read that entire sermon which is here over two pages, that is, the passage of the sermon of the 16 November 1938, held in the church of Oberlenmingen?