It went to the General Public Prosecutor who, on his part, as was customary, forwarded the reports to the Ministry. In the case Katzenberger I also reported continuously about the case as it proceeded. Also the fact that a new indictment was filed based on the decree against Public Enemies. Then the indictment against Seiler for perjury, the connection - the combination - of the proceedings, the intended demand for penalty on the part of the prosecution, I reported also about that.
Q If I understand you correctly, therefore, you reported to the General Public Prosecutor?
A Yes.
Q Not to the Ministry?
A Not immediately to the Ministry.
Q Do you know whether these reports were forwarded to the Ministry, and from what are you able to state it?
A I state it from tho fact that I have a recollection that before the main trial a decree came from the Ministry via the General Public Prosecutor by which tho way the case was handled was approved, or it wqs expressed that there would be no objections with the way in which this case was dealt with....it was in about that form, but I do n t have a precise recollection. I consider it, however, quite impossible that the case would have been dealt with in the intended manner unless there had been a decree of that kind.
Q Do you remember who may have signed that decree - that is to say, who would have been the man in the Ministry to deal with that?
A That I can no longer remember.
Q At any rate you did not have any direct negotiations with the Ministry?
A Not in this case I cannot remember -- occasionally there was a telephone call -- but I have no precise recollection of this opinion.
DR. BEHLING: I have no further questions.
BY DR. KOESSL (for defendant Rothaug):
Q Witness, in your affidavit you discuss the fact that Rothaug made use of his political connections.
Could you give us any facts, any concrete facts, to support that statement?
A Details are not known to me. It is rather a personal evaluation which formed itself in my mind in the course of the years working with Rothaug.
Q You mentioned, furthermore, that the associate judges were mere puppets, and also the public prosecutors were quite, in Rothaug's hands, under Rothaug's command. Do you mean to express that political reasons, or the dictatorial manner of Rothaug, were the basis for that?
A I believe that essentially responsible for that fact was that Rothaug's mental capacities and his superiority over most of his colleagues and of the prosecutors worked in the direction that one submitted to his will -- one was rather inclined to assume that his opinions were correct because generally one considered him the wiser, and that assumption was confirmed by the fact that occasionally the higher authorities of jurisdiction proved the points of view that Rothaug had assumed.
Q Did Rothaug permit criticism against his decisions?
A When facts were established during the sessions Rothaug was very conscientious, and if it was a case of discussing whether or not a certain fact had been established - then he accepted objections and corrections, but it was very difficult to refute his argument.
Q Do you recall any cases where Rothaug, in the evaluation of evidence, arrived at a result which was more favorable for the defendant than the opinion of his assistants in this particular case?
A Certainly, I can remember cases of that kind where he acquitted where I would have been of the opinion that the defendant should have been convicted. One case of this kind - I think it was Semlitzschka -- was the case of a concentration camp inmate at Flossenbuerg who had killed another inmate in the camp. I, from the investigation, gained the impression that there was sufficient suspicion of a violent crime against Semlitzschka. In the course of the trial this evidence was confirmed and accordingly I intended to demand that Semlitzschka be sentenced to death.
To my greatest surprise Rothaug - I believe the reporting judge was Oeschey in that case - at the end of the presentation of evidence convinced me that legitimate defense was not quite excluded and that therefore the nan had to be acquitted. Then I demanded acquittal and he was acquitted in fact.
Q. Was there any objection from a political point of view against that sentence?
A. It was not a question of a political sentence, but I know that the camp management expected the death sentence, just as I did, and was greatly surprised, if I may say so, about the result.
Q. Do you remember, in cases against Poles, whether the PoJe s stated that they had been forced to come into Germany.
I cannot remember that that objection had been made by any Polish defendant. The defendants were mostly released prisoners of war or, as has been explained, voluntary recruits.
Q. Did you see a directive wherein the Reich Ministry of Justice wrote, and I quote from your affidavit: "If Rothaug wants the death sentence, the prosecutor has to give in"?
A. In this particular form, no directive came either from the Ministry or from the General Public Prosecutor to us, but that was the essence in cases where the Court gave the understanding that a death sentence would be pronounced and that the prosecutor had to demand the death sentence. That occurred frequently.
Q. You say no if the court considered the death sentence appropriate." Then you don't refer to Rothaug as an individual, do you?
A. That is correct, but in the last analysis it amounted to the same because Rothaug was the most essential factor in the legal evaluation of the extent of punishment . That was quite accepted, and that the initiative was on his side was beyond doubts
Q. Did Rothaug restrict or limit the defense counsel when they made applications which were admissible and justifiable?
If admissible and justifiable applications were made, then Rothaug admitted them. I know from my experience that there were several defense counsel who had an attitude at the Special Court before Rothaug, which I greatly appreciated, because they knew how to put the applications in such a manner that they could not be attacked but had to be admitted. If , however, questions or applications or statements on the part of defense counsel gave the least cause for action against him, then Rothaug immediately interfered with great severity; he applied a very strict rule.
Whether he did that with the intention and conscious of the fact that he would shake the defense counsel, or whether he did it based on the principle of severity, on the awareness of his power and his legal knowledge, basing himself on the assumption that it is not important to have these things said, that I could not say.
Q. You have stated that Rothaug had a rather bad attitude against witnesses for the defense. Did you mean to say by that that Rothaug tried to falsify the facts and to bring out statements which were not in accordance with the truth?
A. That is not what I want to say. As I have already said, there were even acquittals under Rothaug where something could not be proven.
Q. New we want to refer to the case Katzenberger. Why did you file your indictment in the case Katzenberger in the Penal Chamber although Katzenberger, as well as Seiler, denied having had sexual intercourse as they were charged?
A. According to the jurisdiction of the Reich Supreme Court, suspicion of race defilement on the basis of the Law for the protection of German Blood was to be considered if there were actions which made it appear highly suspicious. It was not necessary to prove actual sexual intercourse; it was sufficient if the person had committed actions which came near to sexual intercourse.
Q. Who was the presiding judge of the Penal Chamber where the case Katzenberger was dealt with at first?
A. If I remember correctly, it was Dr. Ferber.
Q. Who informed Rothaug about the case Katzenberger?
A. As to how Rothaug was informed about the case Katzenberger I do not know; at any rate, I did not tell him about it. When the case was brought to the Special Court I was still wondering who it night have been who had put Rothaug on that trace.
Q. In your affidavit you mention the fact that you did not consider admissible the application of the Decree Against Public Enemies and the indictment for perjury. You mention both of these. What did you want to say by that?
A. I intended to say that there was a considerable amount of suspicion, but in consideration of the fact thatthere were no actual witnesses, the problem of their evidence was a very critical one and very difficult.
Q. Now I find here a sentence: "This fantastic distortion of the situation excluded an objective view of the case." Are these your words, the way you expressed yourself?
A. These are not my words.
A. Did the combination, as you say, or the connection of the perjury case with the case against Katzenberger, exclude any possibility to call Seiler as a witness?
A. That is hard to say. That is a question of procedure? according to the rules of the penal code of procedure, cases which have been connected can still be separated, with the result that the defendant in the other case, after the separation, can still be heard as a witness. A separation of that kind, however, did not occur in the case Katzenberger.
Q. Did the defense make the motion to separate the two cases in order to make it possible to call Seiler as a witness?
A. I do not have the faintest recollection of that. I think I would have had to know about that if it had occurred.
Q. Was the re any report made to the Reich Ministry of Justice even before the main trial. and what was the extent of that report?
A. I have already answered Dr. Behling concerning that question. Is it necessary for me to repeat my statement?
Q. Would you please briefly repeat the main points?
A. In the case of Katzenberger I made current reports, beginning with the indictment which was filed with the Penal Chamber. I reported about all essential facts and occurrences of the procedure.
That also included the indictment as it was filed with the Penal Chamber and returned from them, the fact that additional investigations were made to clarify the question as to whether the Decree Against Public Enemies could be applied, the fact that the indictment was filed with the Special Court, the fact that the indictment was filed against Seiler for perjury and a combination of this case with the case against Katzenberger, and also the sentence to be demanded by the prosecution. All that was done before the main trial. Unless it was done in several reports, I believe that one report was made when the second indictment was filed with the Special Court.
Q Did the directive by the Ministry specify that they would approve it if Rothaug desired it?
A I have also answered that question. In that form, at least in a written form, no directive was received by us from the Ministry or the general public prosecutor.
Q The explanations which you have made with regard to the previous question also apply to the case Katzenberger?
A Yes, I think I gave these explanations concerning the case Katzenberger.
Q In your affidavit you mentioned that during the session itself no evidence was produced which could have proved there was sexual intercourse between the two defendants. What, precisely, did you mean to say by that?
A I wanted to point out the difficulty of producing evidence, because as I have already stated, actual witnesses, were not at the disposal, and the sentencing had to be based on circumstantial evidence.
Q You mention a National Socialist witness for the Prosecution who made quite unimportant statements during the session. These quite unimportant statements, were they used in the opinion?
A No. That can be seen from the opinion as it is written out.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take the usual recess at this time.
(A recess was taken)
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, if I may interrupt this cross examination for just a minute. Two matters have arisen. One of them I understand: is that the affiant witness for cross-examination -this is only this is only what I have been advised, it may not be correct -and that he has given a counter-affidavit instead. If that is true, and Dr. Brieger can tell us in a minute, I very respectfully petition the Court now to make a ruling that if any witness is brought here for the purpose of cross-examination, that then he must be heard rather than to give a counter-affidavit upon which the prosecution in rebuttal perhaps may want to interrogate him. If a witness cannot be brought here, if we can't find him or get him down here because of transportation? then it may well develop that the Tribunal will, of necessity, in fairness to the defense authorize counter-affidavits. But it just occurs to me that if the witness actually, particularly from a distant place like Stuttgart, physically appears, that a counter affidavit should not be later used. If the defense wishes to dismiss the witness altogether and do not desire to cross-examine him, or course that is matter within their discretion.
However, again referring to the witness Wizigmann, in this particular instance, since the witness is here, I call the Tribunal's attention to Prosecution's Exhibit No. 465, and the -
THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell us what book that that may be in?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: It would be to Supplement IIIB, Your Honor, the last exhibit. I don't care to read from the affidavit, and I don't think for my purposes at present, the Tribunal need it. I only want to say this: that on the 13th of May, as appears on Page 3277 of the record, as Document 1253, the prosecution offered the affidavit of Wizigmann and also a copy of the indictment in the case of Skoran, a Pole, which the affiant discussed in his affidavit. Dr. Brieger objected on various grounds; one of them that it was not a captured document and that the indictment was not sufficiently identified in the affidavit. The following day, as appears on Page 3283 and 3303 of the transcript, the Court eventually ruled that the Prosecution had not sufficiently identified the indictment and for that reason that that part of the exhibit which consisted of the affidavit would be admitted and that the indictment would not be; but the Tribunal further stated that if the prosecution identified the indictment, it would reserve its ruling.
In any event, in this case, this man Wizigmann being here? I would like to have the Tribunal order him called so that I may attempt to identify this indictment -- that part of the exhibit which could not be admitted? but which the Tribunal said we might use if we could identify it.
There are two points then with reference to this man. One, that if he is here, I do not believe it is in the interest of any sort of an expeditious trial for the defense to take a counter-affidavit from him. I don't know that Dr. Brieger has done that; I just heard that. He should be called if he is here, and any other witness in the same condition. Second, as a special case, since this witness is here, I ask the Tribunal to order him held and called so that we may attempt to identify this indictment under the previous ruling of the Tribunal.
Now, there is one other general matter. In any event? these affiants are prosecution witnesses. All of the rulings of the Tribunal have been to that effect. They are being produced through the facilities of the Secretary-General. Be are advised that they are in the Defense Center? and that no representatives of the prosecution are being permitted to talk to them. Now, a week ago when the proceedings of this character were being contemplated, I stated to a committee of defense counsel that I had no objection whatsoever to their talking to these witnesses. They very fairly came to me and said, "Be won't talk to them unless you think it's fair and unless the Court rules so." And I stated? "Well? certainly, you may talk to them." I also stated that I would reserve the right to talk to them also since they were our affiants. On behalf of the prosecution, I respectfully petition this Tribunal to make an order that we may talk to affiants, who have given affidavits to the prosecution, while they are here, and that the Defense Center be so advised.
JUDGE BRAND: Who has purported to prevent you from talking to them?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I am advised by Mr. Einstein that he went to the Defense Center to talk to one of these witnesses and was told there that he could not talk to the witness. And they are our witnesses. That is my information.
THE PRESIDENT: If it's necessary to make any order to that effect, the order will be made. You do have the right, without an order, to talk to these witnesses. They are your witnesses. There is no question about that.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I appreciate Your Honor's stating that the order will be made. We may have the right, but in the absence of a statement from this Tribunal, it's a right that we can't exercise without unpleasantness; so if the Tribunal directs the Defense Center of our rights, it will be official.
DR. BRIEGER: May it please the Tribunal, may I ask the Court if I amy first of all be permitted to state my own opinion in regard to the application of Mr. La Follette before the Court makes its ruling. In view of my entire attitude toward Dr. Wizigmann, I had to take considerations of a professional nature. Dr. Wizigmann himself is a very busy defense counsel in criminal cases, and, as far as I remember, he has already tomorrow to be in a very extensive trial, either in Ulm or in the surrounding vicinity of Ulm; the day after tomorrow he has another trial. On the other hand, Dr. Wizigmann arrived here one day too early, for the defense counsel center had summoned him already for Monday, without knowing at the time that the Court would be kind enough not to hold a session on Monday. Dr. Wizigmann, therefore, is under very big pressure of time, so much so that hours are important to him. Therefore, I told him yesterday that if I could do him a favor in any say, I would like to spare him having to appear here today. Then, last night we worked until the late hours of the evening, we discussed his statement which he finally made, because it was his urgent wish to leave again early today. If it is at all possible, he must make the twelve o'clock train now, and it will mean great difficulties for him if he cannot leave at noon, especially since the train connections are very bad and the next train leaves only tonight. Apparently he still also has to make preparations for his extensive trial tomorrow.
Now, in order to clarify matters completely for the Court, I, on my part, state that I received an affidavit from Dr. Wizigmann, which at a given time I shall submit as a so-called cross examination to the Curt. I started from tho idea that in my entire behavior I kept absolutely within the rules as far as they were known so far to us Defense Counsel; especially since I discussed these matters with one or another of my colleagues, I may say that this is the general conception among the Defense Counsel of Tribunal No. III. If now the Tribunal should make a ruling, I would have to ask, and I would attach a great deal of importance to it, that such a ruling should refer merely to the future, but not the past. If, Mr. LaFollette states now, that the witness Dr. Wizigmann is still needed in order to identify the indictment, I have to say in respect to that -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Brieger, time is running on. This witness may stand aside and let that witness testify and make his train unless the examination would be unusually lengthy. Now, certainly the Prosecution has a right to produce that witness to qualify that particular Exhibit 1253.
DR. BRIEGER: In regard to this exhibit, Your Honors, I have in the meantime again looked at the affidavit, and since Dr. Wizigmann told me yesterday that he himself had given it to the Prosecution, in this regard, the circumstances have changed considerably; I no longer have any misgivings, and I do not want to object to having the indictment submitted to the Tribunal in its entirety.
THE PRESIDENT: You withdraw all objections for that indictment?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, everything, especially in view of the fact that I would like to have Dr. Wizigmann leave by train today, this noon. Now, another point I want to object basically and with decisiveness, that for the manner of carrying on this trial any financial considerations should be of importance; if they should play any role, even to a very small extent, I am immediately ready, even today, to hand to the Prosecution a check in which I shall pay them for all their expenses to the last sandwich that Dr. Wizigmann may eat at the voluntary guest house, because I do not wish that these matters should again and again play a role here.
JUDGE BRAND: I think Dr. Brieger is probably familiar with the works of Shakespeare in which he says, "He thinks he protesteth too much". The only argument which has been made seems to me to apply to a matter of the convenience of the witness.
DR. BRIEGER: That is right.
JUDGE BRAND: From that standpoint, it also seems to me that the convenience and the regularity of the trial here must be of the first consideration and importance.
DR. BRIDGER.: Yes.
JUDGE BRAND: I am sure that Counsel doesn't want to indicate by his almost tearful protestations that he is afraid to have this witness cross-examined?
DR. BRIEGER: No. That is really not the cause of my protest, Your Honor, but I have promised the witness already yesterday that I would try to persuade the Court that he shall be dismissed by noon. May it please the Court, if I could tell the witness immediately -- nowthat he can leave, I am convinced that he can still make his train.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, first I assume -
THE PRESIDENT: We have now consumed ten minutes of very valuable time, and I supp so that the train will pull out just the same as if we hadn't used up that time, but this witness is subject to crossexamination, surely. How long would it probably take for such crossexamination as you might desire?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Your Honor, it is of course impossible for me to answer that, because I do not know to what extent the witness has changed his story in his counter-affidavit; I, of course, have net seen it.
THE PRESIDENT: The affidavit has not been submitted to the Prosecution?
Mid. LaFOLLETTE: No, I have only been advised that he has made a counter-affidavit. I would offer an alternative, that if Dr. Brieger wants to call this witness as part of his defense later, and he may be cross examined then -- again I have no objection. I do object, fundamentally to bringing a witness here -- and I am not concerned about the expenses, and Dr. Brieger knows that -- and then using a counteraffidavit. It seems to me it is completely contrary to all understandings that we had, and I do not believe there is just grounds for the use of the counter-affidavit under those circumstances.
THE PRESIDENT: I suggest that this witness stand aside and we call this other witness to the stand. If we get through with him in time for him to make his train, that will be fine; if not, he will have to suffer that inconvenience. Do you desire to call him now?
If you do, we will order this witness to stand aside.
DR. BRIEGER: I don't want him now.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: But if he doesn't want him now, I shall object to the use of the counter-affidavit. I serve notice now.
The witness may be called during the defense and still be considered a Prosecution witness, if he wants to do that, I do not have any objection to that, but I shall object to the use of a counter-affidavit under these circumstances.
DR. BRIEGER: I believe that Mr. LaFollette is overlooking an essential point, a principle of procedure. It would be possible that at a later time I shall call the witness as my witness, but I ask Mr. La Follette to consider that at the same moment every word which he has stated in the Prosecution affidavit I thereby accept as true.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I didn't say that; I only said that during the presentation of Cuhorst's defense this witness could be called for crossexamination, and I would be willing to treat him as such, but I do object on the grounds that I have stated to the use of a counter-affidavit under any circumstances.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me we are taking time for argument which isn't promoting the matter at all, but this Tribunal desires to give everybody a fair trial, but it also desires to have an orderly trial. Now, this witness has given a counter-affidavit; the Prosecution is certainly entitled to cross-examine him upon that. You will remember -- I think you all remember -- how particular we were a few days ago to have these witnesses examined now before the Prosecution rests. They yielded to that, and the defense must also yield to e cross-examination of this witness. Now, if you can dispose of him within the next twenty minutes so that he can make his train, that will be fine; if not, he will have to remain hero until he has been cross-examined. If you are willing to waive the right of cross-examination and forego the affidavit that has been prepared, but not submitted, and concerning which the Tribunal knows nothing, and tho Prosecution knows nothing, and the Defense wants to waive cross-examination of this witness, and waive the right to introduce their counter-affidavit, then that will end the entire matter.
DR. BRIEGER: The counter-affidavit which I received from the witness of the Prosecution, I want to keep that; I see no reason to waive the right to introduce it.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: When over it is offered, I shall object, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: If you want to call this witness, we will let this witness stand aside. If you don't want to, then he will have to be hero this afternoon. He is hero, and he will have to remain.
DR. BRIEGER: I am ready, Your Honor, to call the witness, but I cannot guarantee that he is still outside. I can only hope that the Prosecution has asked him not to leave.
THE PRESIDENT: We have lost fifteen minutes unnecessarily here, and if he is gone, he will have to come back.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honors please, while we are waiting, technically may I now offer the balance of Exhibit 465.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, this affidavit will be received , include ing the indictment because no objection is now made to it.
What is the Exhibit number, so that the record may show.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: 465, Your Honor.
Lugen Wizigmann, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY 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.
EXAMINATION BY DR. BRIEGER:May it please the Court, may I begin my cross examination.
Q Witness, may I ask you to state your name?
A Eugen Wizigmann.
Q Witness, I am referring to the affidavit which you swore to on the 11th of April 1947, and which is known as document NG 1253, and wag introduced by the Prosecution here in Court. Witness, which one of the three defendants Skovron, Pdulic or Potschivalschek, did you defend?
A Potschivalschek.
Q Were you, as a defense counsel appointed by the court, or were you privately appointed by the defendant?
A I was privately appointed defense counsel.
Q Witness, in your affidavit, you pointed out that your client at the suggestion of the presiding judge, in other words, Cuhorst, was shackled, and furthermore, you pointed out that he was shackled because he tried to attack Skovron; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Were your assumptions regarding the sentence for your client influenced in any way by this?
A That did exercise a certain influence because I thought if my defendant is treated in such a way, that does not leave a favorable supposition for the result of the treatment.
Q In other words, do you mean to say that you could not count without any doubt upon an acquittal?
A I never did that in the Special Court cases.
Q May I moreover know what plea the Prosecution made in regard to your client, Potschivalschek?
A I do not know, one year or two years in the penitentiary.
Q May I know what the sentence which Cuhorst pronounced in regard to your client, was?
AAcquittal.
Q Taking advantage of the interest of you defendant, did you feel yourself limited by Cuhorst?
A No.
Q May I know in what way you acted in favor of your client?
A I pointed out that my defendant could only be charged by the statement of his co-defendant, and for that reason a conviction could hardly take place, since he, through his boss, where he worked, had received an absolutely favorable testimony, I stated that on the one hand one could not apply for the death sentence against a codefendant, and on the other hand consider him a creditable witness against co-defendant.
Q In other words, according to your own feeling too, Skovron was heavily charged, and, therefore, he was in no sense of the word creditable?
A I do not want to say, yes, without any qualifications in answer to this question. Of course, he was involved in the meaning of the indictment; and, as a defense counsel in this case, I had, in favor of my client, to state that he was not creditable.
Q This is a conception which the court followed?
A Yes.
Q And, they stated it in their opinion, too?
A Yes.
Q Witness, how many defendants were involved?
A Three.
Q That is Skovron, Potschivalschek, and Pdulic?
A Yes.
Q Of what nationality were the three?
A Skovron was a Pole, Potschivalschek was a Slovene, and Pdulic was a Serbian.
Q In other words, all three were foreigners?
A Yes.
Q During the trial did any question come up as to whether they were foreigners who had come to Germany voluntarily or by force?
A I do not remember that; I do not believe that came up.
Q Witness, I am speaking about Pdulic; what plea did the prosecution make in that case?
AAs far as I know the death sentence.
Q And, what was the sentence?
A Four years in the penitentiary, if I remember correctly.
Q Witness, since yesterday, you again had the opportunity to read the indictiment together with me, do you remember that Skovron, to a large extent committed a crime, by taking advantage of the blackout?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I ask the answer to this question be stricken for the reason the indictment speaks for itself.
THE PRESIDENT: He is cross examining the witness; it is cross examination.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: He said he examined the indictment, and he asked him what the indictment stated, your Honor, and I object to it.
Q After it appears from the indictment that the crime to a large extent was committed by taking advantage of the blackout -
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Same objection, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: In any event, that is an affirmative statement; it is not a question.
Q Then I would like to ask you this: Witness on the basis of the fact, which the defendant is charged in the indictment, and furthermore on the basis of the result of the oral examination, did you consider the death penalty possible against Skovron; that is, was it legally admissible?
A I cannot deny that. Of course, on the basis of the legal regulations, the laws.
Q To what legal regulation could they refer, in addition to the Criminal Code.
A To the decree of public enemies.
Q Under which point of view was it witness?
A That the crimes and derelict were committed under the protection of the blackout.
Q Witness, you were the decrees against public enemies, which had to he applied also in connection with concrete penal regulations, that is here with the Criminal Code was it here in regard to this regulation important whether somebody had been previously sentence already.
A I do not think so.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I object, your Honor, the indictment speaks for itself again.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not see that the answer hurts.
DR. BRIEGER: Shall I repeat my question?
THE PRESIDENT: No, the question has been answered.
Q Will you repeat your answer, witness?
A I said, "I do not think so."