DR. GRUBE: The next document is an affidavit by the wife of Dr. Sack; whose name was mentioned frequently here. He was the chief of the legal department of the army. He was a close friend of the defendant Lautz. He played a part in the events of 20 July 1944 and was later murdered. Frau Dr. Sack describes the close relations which connected Dr. Lautz with Dr. Sack. She says that the defendant Lautz after Sack had been arrested did not interrupt his relationship with the family of Dr. Sack.
I offer this document as exhibit No. 188.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 94 is an affidavit by under secretary Koerner. In this affidavit Koerner describes how the defendant Lautz made efforts on behalf of Professor Woermann. Professor Woermann was also involved in connection with the events of 20 July. I offer this document as exhibit No. 189.
MR. KING: All the information indicates that this affiant is in Nurnberg jail. I would like to have the Court withhold on that until we can have another check made.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. GRUBE: May I say that I refrained from calling Koerner as a witness as he was only to testify on a small matter and I wanted to avoid; in the interest of speeding up this trial; so call him here as a witness. It is known to me from the IMT trial that in such cases we had to be content with an affidavit. That was prescribed at the time.
THE PRESIDENT: If you can persuade the prosecution not to object, we may consider the matter. An objection has been made. If he is in the jail our rule requires that you call him.
DR. GRUBE: If this objection is to be sustained, may I be permitted to call Koerner as a witness?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. GRUBE: In the case of the next document, I assume the same thing will happen. This is an affidavit by Reinecke, he describes in this affidavit the attitude of the defendant Lautz in the proceedings against the members of the conspiracy of 20 July 1944. If the prosecution docs not make any objections, I will offer it as Exhibit No. 189.
MR. KING: We would like to have this affiant here as a witness, because there are some questions we ourselves would like to ask him.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. GRUBE: In that case, may I call Reinecke as a witness?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you may.
DR. GRUBE: Document 182 on page 66 is an affidavit by Dr. Hugo Suchomel. I offer this document as Exhibit 189.
MR. KING: I am under the impression that Dr. Suchomel is going to be recalled here as a witness. Several counsel for defendants have indicated that.
DR. GRUBE: I don't know whether it will be possible to bring Suchomel to Nurnberg. May I just ask the Prosecution before being permitted to introduce the document for the moment, because it is not an established fact whether Suchomel will come or not.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is he?
DR. GRUBE: He is in Vienna.
THE PRESIDENT: How many times has he teen here now?
DR. GRUBE: As far as I know he has been here once.
THE PRESIDENT: And who called him at that time, did the prosecution call him?
DR. GRUBE: At that time I wanted to have Suchomel as my own witness, but at that time the Tribunal made a ruling that that was inadmissible. Document 133 ....
THE PRESIDENT: Please, just a moment, Counsel has been striving to get rid of Exhibit 189, so we will assign this number to it. It will be received and disregarded if the witness is brought back, otherwise we will consider it Exhibit 189.
DR. GRUBE: Thank you. The next document contains an affidavit by Count Stuergkh, whose name has been mentioned several times in this trial. Stuergkh and his sister, Countess Stuergkh, inform here that Stuergkh owes his life to the defendant Lautz. It is noteworthy that Stuergkh, as is evident from his letter of 24 February 1947, is at present on the Board of the Association of Political Prisoners at Vienna. I offer this document as exhibit No. 190.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 196 is an excerpt from the wartime regulations for penal procedure and deals with the question to what extent penal proceedings can be transferred from the military courts to the ordinary courts. I offer this document as exhibit No. 191.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 164 is an excerpt from the commentary by Count Gleispach on criminal law in war time. It also deals with the question as to That extent the competency can be transferred from a military court to a civil court. Article 3 is important, that states an opinion on the extent to which foreigners are subjected to wartime procedure. I offer this document as exhibit No. 192.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 171 is a commentary by Ebermayer, concerning the Reich Criminal Law. I am introducing this document because it shows, according to the opinion of German legal minds as to what territory the provisions of high treason apply and territories were considered part of the Reich, In the vies of German legal minds. I might point out that the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the incorporated eastern territory were regarded as Reich territories within the German provisions concerning high treason and that view was held by German legal experts. May I offer this document as exhibit No. 193?
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 135 is an excerpt from the decision by the Reich Military court. The court states its opinion regarding the question an to what is German Reich territory and as to what the legal situation is concerning the occupied territory. I offer this document as exhibit 194.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not understand. Did you say the court expressed the opinion?
DR. GRUBE: The Reich Military court. This sentence was passed by the 3rd senate of the Reich Military court.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 181?
DR. GRUBE: On 6 May 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
DR. GRUBE: Document 137 is also a decision by the Reich Supreme Military court and the opinions of the court are stated concerning jurisdiction in espionage cases. It especially gives an opinion concerning the question what has to be considered as sphere of espionage operations. I offer this as exhibit 195.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 141 states an opinion on the same question. It also concerns decisions from the Reich Supreme Military Court in the years of 1940 to 1942. I offer this document as exhibit No. 196.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, just a moment. That is 141 on the document.
DR. GRUBE: Document 141 and I suggest that 196 be given as the exhibit number.
THE PRESIDENT: On page 88?
JUDGE BLAIR: Page 86.
DR. GRUBE: On the German book on page 86.
THE PRESIDENT: My book ms from pages 85 to 88 without pages 86 or 87 being present, page 88 appears to be page 3 of the original. Pages 1 and 2 are not here.
DR. GRUBE: Your honor ...
THE PRESIDENT: In my document book it appears after page 88, and I have now discovered it, and I will mark it properly. The page is transposed improperly.
MR. KING: Your Honor, in my book No, 141 seems to run over and include page 91. According to the indications at the top of the page -
THE PRESIDENT: That is right. There are several pages duplicated in my book. Page 88 appears twice.
DR. GRUBE: Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is page 91 intended to be a part of your document 141?
DR. GRUBE: No. With me on page 91 Document 136 starts.
THE PRESIDENT: I guess the book had better be corrected so that we may have it in proper form.
DR. GRUBE: I shall see to it that that is done, Your Honor. The next document could be Document 136. In my copy it begins at page 89. It is also an excerpt from a decision by the Supreme Reich Military Court.
THE PRESIDENT: I suggest you withdraw these English documents books and correct them.
DR. GRUBE: Yes, I will. May I ask whether Document 139 is contained? It should start on page 91.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 91 is marked Document 141.
DR. GRUBE: Apparently the translation department has given that the wrong number too. May I refrain them from submitting any documents that are contained in this volume so that I can sec to it that this document book is put into proper order.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 195 is received. You can correct from that point on.
MR. KING: We have just checked with the prison and we learn that our information is incorrect; that the prisoner Bems has been transferred and is not at the present time in Nurnberg.
THE PRESIDENT: To what exhibit does this refer to?
MR. KING: 172.
THE PRESIDENT: You withdraw your objection to 172.
MR. KING: It is my understanding that he will be called, but so far as our objections, based upon his being here in prison , are concerned, we do withdraw that.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 172 -
MR. KING: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is received in evidence.
DR. GRUBE: May I now submit the documents from Volume IV-C.
MR. KING: We have not received Volume IV-C, Your Honor. It may have been a mistake in the messenger service, but it has not come into our hands yet.
DR. GRUBE: Mr. LaFollette said this morning here at the stand that Volume IV-C had reached him.
THE PRESIDENT: IV-C has been delivered according to our notes.
DR. GRUBE: The first document from Volume IV-C which I offer is Document 70, as Exhibit 196. It deals with the Polish illegal behavior toward the German population. The next document -
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 196 is received.
DR. GRUBE: The next document which I offer is Document No. 80, as Exhibit 197. This document contains references to the attitude of the Reich Supreme Court concerning jurisdiction over poles. I offer this document as exhibit number 197.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. It is document No.80.
DR. GRUBE: Document 80, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 79 is an excerpt from an article by Ministerialrat Grau about doubtful questions of the penal code concerning Poles. He deals with the well known difficulties which arose because it was doubtful whether the law concerning Poles could be applied by the German courts inside the Reich only as to its formal provisions or also as to the substance. I offer this document as Exhibit 198.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 292 is a supplement to exhibit 129 submitted by the prosecution. This document originates from the working files of the Reich Public Prosecution, which the Prosecution here has allowed me to have in my possession. This document, from various points of view, must be regarded as having probative relevancy. First of all, I would like to point out that the Prosecution in the session of 24th March, 1947, German transcript page 868 following, stated that the indictment concerning Prosecution Exhibit 129 did not exist. For that reason the Prosecutor read from Exhibit 126, that is to say the affidavit by the defendant Lautz, a passage in which the defendant Lautz had stated that in general he had signed the indictments, and in referring to the Lautz' affidavit the prosecution here drew the conclusion that in this case, too the indictment had been signed by Lautz. I have established since, by looking through the files which the Prosecution has handed to me, these contain an indictment and it is signed by Patisius. That can be seen on page 21 of the document book. Furthermore, this document appears to me to have a relevancy as evidence material because on page 15 of this book, under numeral II, there is a note by the expert of the Reich Prosecution.
He says that concerning the question of the Polish Legion, there is an inquiry pending with the Public Prosecution at Stuttgart -
THE PRESIDENT: The Polish Legion in Switzerland,
DR. GRUBE: The Polish Legion in Switzerland, yes. That the result of that inquiry has to be awaited. The document shows that the case was dealt with further when evidently a reply had been received.
Generally speaking this document is also an example for the manner in which the Reich Minister of Justice in all proceedings from the very beginning to the end had to be kept informed by the Prosecutor. May I refer you to page 9 of the document book here where the indictment had to be sent to the Reich Minister of Justice and was sent to the Reich Minister of Justice. On page 10 you will see that the sentences had to be sent to the Reich Minister of Justice also. On page 13 one sees that the investigating Judge too had to send a copy of his reports to the Chief Reich Prosecutor, to the Reich Minister of Justice as well, and more relevant material of this kind is contained in this document. I offer this document as Exhibit 199.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 290 on page 23 and following is also a supplement to an exhibit by the Prosecution. It is Prosecution Exhibit 132. This document too originates from files which the Prosecution has passed on to me. It seems important to me to refer to page 25, that is the transcript taken down by the investigating Judge, where the defendant Stefanowicz told the investigating Judge he had reported voluntarily for work in Germany and the other defendant Lenczewski stated the same before the investigating judge, on page 26 of this document book. I offer this document as Exhibit 200.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: The next document 78, I am leaving out as it is contained in the document book of my colleague, Dr. Schilf.
Document 77 on page 29 is an affidavit by Frind. I do not wish to read any long passages from this affidavit. I would merely like to point out that Frind on page 30 and 31 states that he had ascertained that the defendant Lautz was evidently under Gestapo supervision. I do not want here to go into other statements contained in this affidavit. I offer this document as Exhibit -
THE PRESIDENT: 201.
DR. GRUBE: 201.
The next document is an affidavit by Dr. Wolfgang Zarnack and describes the person of the defendant Lautz. He also given an opinion on Freisler. He says that Lautz frequently supported clemency pleas made by Zarnack and then gives a general judgment of the character of the defendant Lautz. What may be of interest is his statement that the defendant Lautz prior to 1933 had filed indictments against National Socialists and therefore had difficulties at a later date. I offer this document as Exhibit 202.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 200, 201 and 202 are received.
DR. GRUBE: The next document 61 is an affidavit of Kall who was an assistant of the defendant Lautz when Lautz was in Karlsruhe as General Public Prosecutor. Kall in this affidavit states cases which the defendant Lautz mentioned himself when he was testifying here concerning the police in Karlsruhe and so forth. I think it is also of interest that Kall states here he knows that Lautz frequently sent a protest to the Reich Public Prosecutor to relieve him of his duties, as senior Reich Prosecutor. I offer this as Exhibit 203.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: The next document is document 56. It is another affidavit. The affiant is Dr. Rudolf Lucas. Ho describes the person of Lautz in a general direction and he also describes the attitude which Lautz had. I offer this document as Exhibit 204.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: The next document is No. 53 and is a very comprehensive affidavit by the Public Prosecutor Vollmar of Mannheim. May I direct the attention of the Tribunal in particular to the description of the Ihde case which Vollmar gives on page 48 to 50 of his affidavit. Ihde was indicted by Vollmar at the advise of the defendant Lautz not before the People's Court but before the Reich Supreme Military Court, because it was to be geared that otherwise Freitag would be the judge.
I offer this document as Exhibit 204.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: I beg your pardon, I believe it is 205.
THE PRESIDENT: 205, yes.
DR. GRUBE: The next document is an affidavit by Spahr, who worked at the Reich Public Prosecution. What is important is a reference to the description by Spahr of Lautz in respect to the standards which Lautz had concerning his own work. On page 53 there is a description of the attitude of the defendant Lautz concerning punishment and in particular there is a description of Lautz' attitude to the little people, the man on the street. May I direct the attention of the Tribunal to page 54, where Spahr describes a case where a Polish captain was to be indicted for espionage but Lautz was against that since the facts of the case in the view of Lautz did not comply with the espionage provisions of the law. Spahr stated that Lautz held a different view from that of the Foreign Office and that of the Reich Ministry of Justice and he had to give way to their views, yet Lautz with all means at his disposal tried to protect him against the death sentence. Of further interest I think will be Spahr's statement on pages 55-56 where he states that Lautz was free of narroz-minded hatred against other nationalities and that he himself welcomed that very much since he had had difficulties because he was married to a Swedish woman and because some of his close relatives were American citizens.
I offer this document as Exhibit 206.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: May I refer now to document 294; one of my last two documents, This is a transcript of the French Republic and the French Government has made it available to me. It is on page 60 and following pages.
This transcript contains interrogation results of three French nationals concerning the attitude of the defendant Lautz when 23 members of the Alsatian resistance movement were sentenced to death. All 23 had been condemned to death and although it was not within the competency of the defendant Lautz he tried to break the resistance of the civil administration chief Wagner, who was trying by all means to prevent clemency. It will probably be of interest that clemency was exercised in the case of all 23 Alsatians, comprising a certain Dr. Weninger, to whom I will refer in the following document.
May I direct the attention of the Tribunal to page 26 where Wiederkehr during his interrogation before some French Police Commissar stated Lautz never used malicious or derogatory words about the Allies. Of further interest is the statement in the transcript on page 65 which shows that Lautz purely for reasons of humanity also worked to the end that the convicted people were told that clemency had been exercised on them although such notification was not yet to be passed on. On page 65 he says that the defendant Lautz although that was not within his competency, tried to see to it that the convicted persons were allowed privileges.
I offer this document as Exhibit 207.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 207 is received.
MR. KING: As to this last document, Your Honors, I am afraid I did not quite understand the process by which it was compiled. It seems to be a series of affidavits which ware taken to be introduced in evidence at this proceeding, yet they do not, so far as I can see, meet any of the requirements of rule 21.
THE PRESIDENT: You may present your objection in the morning at nine thirty. The Tribunal will recess until that hour.
(The Tribunal adjourned at 1630 hours to meet again on 8 August 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of American Military Tribunal III in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetten, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 8 August 1947, 0930-1630. The Honorable James T. Brand, Presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III. Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant Engert who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Engert has been excused. That notation will be made.
DR. GRUBE: May it please the court, may I continue the submission of my documents?
To begin with, I would like to state my position again to Document 294 which was the last exhibit I introduced yesterday, Exhibit 207. That document contains the three records about the interrogation of three French nationals, an interrogation which was carried out at the request of the French Ministry of Justice, and it refers to the Lautz case. May I remind you that those records show that twenty-three French nationals, thanks to the intervention of the defendant Lautz, were pardoned. At the end of yesterday's session, Mr. King objected to those documents, but he has just told me that he has withdrawn his objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 207 will be received.
MR. GRUBE: The next document which I offer id Document 286 on pages 57 to 59 of my Document Book 4-C. Yesterday, when submitting Exhibit 207, I had already pointed out that one of the Frenchmen who had been sentenced to death, and who had been pardoned at the instigation of the defendant Lautz, was a Mr. Weninger.
That is evident from Exhibit 207. Concerning my Document 286, page 1, one can see that the sister of that man Weninger, Frau Magirus, has given an affidavit. In that affidavit she confirms that approximately twenty-three Frenchmen and women were concerned and that clemency was exercised, thanks to the intervention of the Defendant Lautz. Weninger's letter, dated the 24th of May, 1947, on page 59 of my document book, shows that Weninger too confirms that, by Lawyer Wiederkehr who is mentioned as having been interrogated in Exhibit 207, he was told that Lautz had undertaken steps to have clemency exercised. That letter by Weninger, on page 59, also shows that Weninger - that is to say, one of the people on whom clemency had been exercised - is now the director of the office in charge of the supervision of the administration of justice in the French Zone of Occupation.
I offer this document as Exhibit 208.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, which exhibit are you offering as Exhibit 208?
DR. GRUBE: Document 286 on pages 57 to 59 of my document book.
THE PRESIDENT: It's received.
That completes your document book, doesn't it?
DR. GRUBE: Yes, Your Honor.
Yesterday, when I submitted Document Book 4-B there were some difficulties because the Translation Department evidently, in referring to the various documents or portions of documents, had made mistakes. I have now compared the English text of this document with the German text. There are merely four typing errors and, in the interest of expediting the proceedings in the case of that document, I would ask you not to make me return the whole of the book to the Translation Department as it would take some time before it gets back to me. Perhaps you will be good enough to make those corrections in handwriting. It's only a case of four corrections.
The first correction is this. In the English document book, after page 85, there follows a page with the number 88. That page should be taken out and cancelled.
On page 89 in the English document book, at the top, it says: Lautz Document 141". What it should say is "136".
The same applies to page 90. There, instead of "141" it should again say "136".
On page 91, "141" should be crossed out and be replaced by "l39".
The last correction is on page 93. The figure "133" must be replaced by the figure "73".
May I now submit the remaining documents from 4-B?
Document 141 on pages k6 to 88 contains excepts from a decision by the Reich Supreme Military Court concerning the jurisdiction in the field of espionage. It seems important to me to consider this decision because of the definition of the term "military territory" such as the Reich Military Court finds it. May I direct the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the Reich Supreme Military Court, in this decision, takes the view that military territory, in a total war means, in fact, the whole of the Reich territory.
I offer this document as Exhibit 209.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: The next document is Document No. 136 on pages 89 and 90. This document, too, contains a decision by the Reich Supreme Military Court and states its position on the concept of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. It should be of interest that the Reich Supreme Military Court, in this decision, takes the view that giving aid and comfort to the enemy, within the meaning of Article 91 B, exists as soon as a person helps or tries to help even one single man able to bear arms and subject to the draft or an expert who possesses special technical knowledge, to go over into enemy territory.
I offer this document as Exhibit 210.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 129 on pages 91 and 92 of the document book also contains a decision by the Reich Supreme Military Court and this too comments on the question of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
The facts of the case were as follows: French civilians had helped two British soldiers escape. The Reich Supreme Military Court again states that, even if only one single soldier is helped to return to his unit, a case of giving aid and comfort to the enemy exists.
I offer this document as Exhibit 311.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: The following documents comment on the question as to whether the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia is to be regarded as a foreign country. To begin with, Document 73 on pages 93 and 94. This is a decision by the District Court of Appeals at Brealau of 2 February 1940. It states that the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, from the point of view of constitutional law, must be regarded as part of greater Germany and that offenses committed there must be regarded as offenses committed inside the Reich.
I offer this document as Exhibit 212.
TEE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 85 on page 95 is an extract from the official compilation called "Survey of the Most Important Laws and Ordinances since 1 January 1940" in the official journal of the Reich Ministry of Justice, "Deutsche Justiz". This compilation points out that the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia has no independent status under international law, as the Protectorate is part of greater Germany.
I offer this document as Exhibit 213.
TEE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 178 on pages 96 and 97 is an excerpt from a decision by the Reich Supreme Court in penal matters. Again it is pointed out that the Protectorate is part of greater Germany and that every competent local German Court is competent for passing judgment.
I offer this document as Exhibit 214.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. GRUBE: The last document in this volume is another decision by the Reich Supreme Court on penal matters. I am referring to Document 177 on pages 98 and 99. The Reich Supreme Court states that the inhabitants of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia cannot under any circumstances be regarded as foreigners, foreign nationals, that is. Again it is pointed out that the Protectorate, from the point of view of constitutional law, is part of greater Germany.
I offer this document as Exhibit 215.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. GRUBE: For the moment I have concluded the submission of documents, but there are another three volumes coming which haven't been returned to me yet by the Translation Department. Will you kindly allow me to introduce those volumes when I receive them?
THE PRESIDENT: You may present them later. We'll rule on them when they're presented.
Are there any other defense document books ready for presentation?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER (Defense Counsel for defendant Rothenberger):
Your Honor, unfortunately, compared with my explanation to the Tribunal, yesterday nothing has changed in the situation concerning my documents. I have only received two of my English copies, that is, Document Books 3 and 4, and I haven't received an German copies and, therefore, naturally, I am not in a position to present document books if I have no German text at all. I cannot even tell the pagination because I don't even know how the pages will run in my German book, I cannot quote from the English books because it's too difficult for me, and I regret very much that unfortunately I am not able to present my document books today.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other document books available?
Are there any other matters to be presented to the Tribunal today?
We have assured the defendant Rothaug that his case need not proceed until Monday morning. I assume there's nothing further to he done today.
The Tribunal will adjourn until Monday morning at 9:30.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 11 August 1947)
Official Transcript of American Military Tribunal 111 in the Matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 11 August, 1947-0930-1630. The Honorable Janes T. Prand, Presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judge of Military Tribunal 111. Military Tribunal 111 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you as certain if the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant Engert and Schlegelburger, who are absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Counsel for the defendant Schlegelberger be temporarily excused on account of illness?
DR. DOESSL: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: He will be excused.
DR. DOESSL: May it please the Court, with the permission of the Tribunal, I call the defendant Rothaug into the witness stand on his own behalf.
THE PRESIDENT: You may call him.
OSWALD ROTHAUG, a defendant, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE HARDING:
Will you hold up your right hand and repeat after me. 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 HARDING: You maybe seated.
THE PRESIDENT: Proper notation will be made of the fact that the defendant Schlegelberger and the defendant Engert are excused. You may proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL: (Attorney for the Defendant Rothaug)