"The concept of high treason was extended to the largest degree and in this connection, it must be stated that this was a considerable extension on the basis of the term as used by the literature and the jurisdiction former "As to the proceedings, the following is to be stated:
"As far as I can judge from the cases conducted by me, they varied and were dependent to a large degree on the person of the presiding officer.
"In the cases in which Freisler presided, one could not speak of legal proceedings, but merely of demagogues' tirades. During the high treason proceedings of June 1944 the trial was in no way conducted as am ordinary legal trial , but as a proceeding in which the presiding officer, as far as I remember, it was President of the Senate, Albrecht, treated some of the defendants with invectives in the most horrible manner, he arbitrarily out the short and did not respect the fundamental rights of a defendant.
"Question: Do you know of any other names of judges, deputy judges, and public prosecutors at the People's Court?
A I also remember a trial under the presidency cf the President of the Senate, Hartmann, which I heard while I was waiting for a following proceeding. Then a man was sentenced to death who was said to have designated Hitler a tramp during a conversation. In my opinion the evidence was not convincing as far as I could establish. Among the judges I still remember the name of Fickeis who, as far as I know, came from Southern Germany. Compared with other presiding officers, I was pleasantly surprised by his conduct of the trial and verdict. As to prosecutors, I remember the name of Parrisius, Goerisch, also Lautz. In connection with Lautz, I should mention I have been told, that Lautz is said to have had contact with anti-National Socialist circles in connection with 20 July. I do not knew whether that is right."
We do not, at this time, care to read the remainder of this affidavit. We have already pointed cut that it was sworn to before Hams P. Dreyer, which jurat appears on Page 7 of the English text.
We, therefore, offer as Exhibit 146, the document NG--403.
DR. ASCHENAUER: (Dr. Aschenauer for the Defendant Petersen.) I have no objection to the affidavit. However, I would like to make application to cross-examine Dr. Wegrin.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no objection the admission of the affidavit as we understand it. Put if Dr. Aschenauer desires to call this witness in the regular way, of course we will hear him.
May be I should have added that in the event this witness is called by Dr. Aschenauer, he may examine him as upon cross-examination and not make the witness his own witness.
MR. KING: I assume, Your Honor, by that ruling, you did not imply that the Prosecution is required to call that witness?
THE PRESIDENT: I have not so stated.
MR. KING: Yes.
As Exhibit 147, we desire to introduce, at this time, the Document NG401 which is to be found on Page 17 of the English text of Book 3-C , and of Page 14 of the German text. We be in reading the bottom line of the document Page 17 of the English text and Pare 14 of the German text.
DR. DOETZER: May it please the Tribunal. I object to the submission of this document. It is apparent from the document that it is concerned with a statement based on heresy. The witness, Dr. Falck, stated that he never served as defense counsel before the People's Court. Furthermore, I have something else to add. I learned, meanwhile, that Dr. Falck had die The defense does not want to be forced to submit into evidence toward a deceased person, that his statements are obviously incorrect.
THE PRESIDENT: It cannot be determined how much of it is hearsay and how much is trial evidence, until read. We can't determine that and therefore we are in no position to determine that point at this time.
MR. KING: We will begin reading on the bottom of Page 17 of the English text, 14 in the German text. As in the previous affidavit, this one follows the question and answer technique.
Question: "Have you ever been active in your capacity of lawyer before a People's Court?
Answer: It follows that I met with constant difficulties and consequently never defended a case in a procedure before the People's Court. But I talked in Nazi times with many lawyers who defended cases before the People's Court, so I possess some insight into that matter insofar as it is possible to a person who hasnot been personally present there. I had repeatedly defense cases before Special Courts (Sondergericht) and before Central Courts of the Army.
Question: May I ask you to tell me something regarding the question, how much in your opinion the rights of the defendants have suffered under the development of the People's Courts?
Answer: The rights of the defendants were greatly curtailed in the first place by denying them the free choice of a defense counsel, who needed in each case a special permission and acceptance by the Court. That permission was granted only after a complicated procedure with a multitude of political and party investigations regarding the applicant lawyer. The People's Court later compiled a list of some 60 lawyers to whom the permission was granted without any red tape, and refused only on some particular personal or political grounds. It follows that the defendants in actual practice had no influence whatsoever on the basic principles guiding the speeches and the expressions of the defense. Under such circumstances a defendant had often to be happy indeed, if he could find anybody to defend him at all. Consequently ho could not in practice change his defense counsel at all.
Even when the defendant was sentenced to a penalty may even to death, he had no means to obtain a new counsel and appeal through him for mercy, for as a rule the question was asked, why should a second lawyer should be burdened with those matters. A change of counsels was not considered necessary or explained, that it was considered undesirable to have other person know of the matter.
On the other hand, it is true the examination of documents by the participating counsels was handled in the People's Courts in a considerate fashion. I might say that in this respect the People's Court proved more obliging than most of the other Criminal Courts. However, that attitude was chiefly based on the considerable dependence of the admitted lawyers on the People's Court, and this dependence was constantly increasing in the course of times. It was natural that those lawyers who defended cases before the People's Court had to concentrate on such matters getting thereby into considerable financial dependence from the People's Court, which could at any time stop their pleading of any further defense cases.
Furthermore the People's Court had the right to repeal a once granted permission, which in practice would result in the refund of all-accepted fees. i.e. frequently already spent fees. Practically there were no more professionally free lawyers but from the economic viewpoint only employees of the People's Court with the effect, however, that not having any fixed salaries, in case of a sudden termination they had to continue their current overhead of their office and also return considerable fees for not having brought to conclusion their defense.
Q May I ask you in this connection, Doctor, whether the defense counsels under those circumstances had to fear not only financial repressions for their conduct before the People's Court, but also other consequences for the construction of their defense?
A The accepted defense counsels were overwhelmingly -- not all -members of the party. Those counsels who got the permission to plead without being party members were strongly urged to join the party. Its purpose was not only to have the power to control them by ordinary means of supervision, i.e. (Criminal Code, Court of Honor's procedure etc.)
, but especially by subjecting them to party jurisdiction. That was indeed the reason that before the acceptance of a defense counsel, immediate investigations in his respect took place in diverse party offices. The defense counsel Dr. Sack, who was killed shortly before the end of the war in an air fight in Brandenburg once told me that more than 18 offices were consulted before a permission is granted. He was closely connected with Freisler and was commissioned by him to look after defense counsels.
Q Have you heard of any cases in which the defense counsels met with personal difficulties due to the nature of their defense?
A I heard repeatedly of such cases. The difficulties consisted in discontinuing to grant general permissions to plea a case. Other hardships came from annoyance of supervision, and last but not least the canceling of an individual permission to plead with a sharp public rebuke by the President of the People's Court, Dr. Freisler.
Q How much in your opinion is the development of the People's Court the result of the activity of Freisler and how far would things have gone in general?
A This question can hardly be answered with sufficient certainly by a person who never defended a case in People's Court. But even as an outsider I may assert that from its very start the development took on ever increasingly sharp tone. The first President of the People's Court, who was originally the president of the Special Court in Berlin and died since then, already used an increasing sharpness of tone. That was continued by Thierack. It must be mentioned however that the latter, in contrast to Freisler, is reported to have observed the proper legal formalities. Freisler however lost practically all sense of proportion in speeding up and coarsening the development. He often extensively infringed even upon the outward forms, shouted at the defendants, treated them sarcastically and interrupted the defense counsel oven when they were discussing purely factual matters, causing the latter to lose the trend of thoughts or to intimidate them against divulging further incriminating circumstances.
Q May I ask you something about the Special Courts before which you were pleading? Has their development been the similar to the one in the People's Court just described, particularly on ground of the war events?
A In practice, the rights of the defendant in the Special Courts were more and more limited, too. The acceptance of a defense counsel was subjected to limitation in three ways. In the Special Courts of the Eastern regions incorporated during the war, i.e. in the former Corridor Area, the defense counsels needed special permission when they had no offices in the same region. But the admitted counsels in that region were only temporarily admitted counsels, whose admission granted by the Corridor Court could cancelled by the Justice Administration without any Court of Honor's procedure being necessary. Consequently those counsels could not face the Court with necessary weight. Furthermore, a special admission was required when certain criminal actions or certain groups of persons were involved. Thus Poles and Jews could not freely choose a defense counsel and later on the jurisdiction of Criminal Courts over those persons was totally abolished and an administrative criminal procedure by the SS was introduced for them.
Q In connection with the latter point, is something known to you about an agreement between Thierack and Himmler, according to which cases involving Jews and Gypsies were generally transferred for sentencing to the SS?
A I would not be able to describe that regulation in detail, but I heard repeatedly that such a regulation existed. The above mentioned attorney Dr. Sack periodically was holding meetings with defense counsels, the purpose of which was not clear. On the other hand, the defense counsels were to be filled with National Socialist ideology, on the other hand, those discussions had, at least at times for purpose of free exchange of thoughts on the question, how the counsels could personally defend themselves against the ever increasing power of the presidents of the Criminal Court. At such an occasion, an officer of the Main Office of Reich Security made once a speech discussing the question, i.e. the punishment, outside of the ordinary criminal procedure. That speech was printed and should still be obtainable.
Q Was it ever usual in a German Court procedure that the judge before the opening of a case would have discussed it with his colleagues and in the presence of the public prosecutor and express his opinions a bout the case and the probable sentence?
A I cannot remember any such case from Imperial and Republican times. Also in Nazi times I have not learned about such a case. It was during the war (perhaps even earlier) that the practice was established by the Court to retire for consultation after hearing the evidence. The case was there discussed with the public prosecutor as well in the question of guilt as in regard to the sentence. It was based on the assumption that too much a digression of the Court from the demands of the prosecutor should be avoided before the public. Numerous defense counsels have objected to it in vain. In the Special Court in Graudenz I managed myself, together with another lawyer from Berlin, to be included in such a consultation. After the experience I made on that occasion, I afterwards abstained on principle from ranking such a request. Actually it was true, that the plea of the prosecutor was an anticipated Verdict, hardly to be shaken in any way by the defense counsel, the task of the defense counsel consisted rather in submitting during the trial everything he should have included in his final defense speech.
In that respect, however, formal legal foundations were lacking, particularly for legally explaining and for merely evaluating the actual circumstances. There was really nothing left for the defense counsel, but to indulge in a constant search for the slightest opportunity to point out emphatically some particular circumstances.
The defense (appeal for mercy and retrial) was handicapped above all by the fact that the counsel often received no copy of the penal sentence; in contradiction to Article 35 of the Criminal Code no copy of the sentence was delivered to the defendant either. It was particularly the People's Court which denied that. Therefore the defense counsel could rely only on his notes and his memory, when appealing for mercy. When the People's Court retired far consultation about the sentence, the defense counsel as well as the defendant had to hand in, in criminal cases, their previously received copies of the indictment in accordance with the directives of the People's Court to the defense counsels. There existed two different directives for cases of high treason and for treason."
That is all of this document which we care to read at this time, and we, therefore offer the document as Exhibit No. 147. I may say that I am not quite sure in my own mind as to the conditions under which this document is being admitted in evidence by the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not hear the first part of your statement.
MR. KING: I am not quite clear in my own mind under what conditions this document is being admitted incidence. There was an objection that it was hearsay on the first ground, and on the second that the affiant was dead. I have no way of ascertaining, although I certainly will accept counsel's word for it that the affiant is dead.
THE PRESIDENT: In receiving this document, which we do receive, we state that those portions of the document, which are stated to be a statement of others, and, therefore, hearsay, will not be considered by the Court; as to those portions which appear to be the experiences of the witness will be considered.
MR. KING: I have here now, for passing up to the representative of the Secretary General, the exhibit which contains the four documents that the witness Eitner identified as Dr. Rothenberger's initials earlier this morning. They were offered as Exhibit 142, subject to having an authoritative statement included with them by Miss Radcliff of the Document Section. That statement now, together with the four photostatic copies of the original, will be offered to the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDENT: Have Defense Counsel had an opportunity to see those exhibits?
MR. KING: They have not requested such an opportunity to see these exhibits?
MR. KING: They have not requested such an opportunity, but if they decide they want to look at them, I think we can recover them from the Secretary General. (Given to Defense Counsel) Your Honors, we have reached a point in presentation of material from Document Book III-C where we come to a different type of case, a different type of material; that will be continued this afternoon by Mr. Wooleyhan; and since there is only a matter of minutes left before the regular time of adjournment, I suggest that we do not proceed until after lunch.
THE PRESIDENT: We will, therefore, recess at this time until 1330 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours).
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 25 March 1947)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Court room will please take their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May the Court please, turning to page 11-A in Document Book 2, which is a statute found in the 1944 Reichsgazetteblatt, part 1, page 339, entitled:
"Decree for the further adaptation of Criminal Procedure to the Requirements of Total bar, 13 December 1944."
"Article I.
Paragraph 12 Limited admittance of defense counsel.
"(1) In anyone criminal case, several lawyers or professional representatives may not act side by side as chosen counsel for one defendant "(2) The rules about obligatory representation by defense counsel do not apply.
The presiding judge appoints a defense counsel for the whole or part of the proceedings if the difficulty of the material or legal probe require assistance by a defense counsel, or if the defendant, in due consider tion of his personality, is unable to defend himself personally.
"Berlin, 13th December 1944.
(signed) The Reichs Minister of Justice THIERACK"
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Turning now to page 11 of Document BoOk 2 which is another statute dated two months later, 15 February 1945. "Reichsgesetzblat Part 1, page 30. Decree on Court Martial Procedure as of 15 February 1945."
THE PRESIDENT: What page?
MR. WOOLEYRLBN: That's page 11, Document Book 2, Your Honor. If the Court please, prosecution dislikes to read lengthy portions of statutes but in this one instance it is felt that most or all of this relatively short statute ought to be read. It has a particular bearing on the evidence to be subsequently offered:
"Preamble "The seriousness of the fight for existence of the Reich demands of every German, determination to fight to the last, and devotion to the utmost Whoever tries to withdraw from his duties towards the common cause -especially if it is done through cowardice or for personal profit - must at once be called to account, with the necessary severity, so that the State will not suffer damage through the failing of one single person.
Therefore, the following orders have been given upon the order of the Fuehrer in agreement with the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellory, the Reich Minister of the Interior and the head of the party Chancellory:
I Court martinis are to be established in Reich defense Districts which are menaced by approaching enemy.
II The court martial consists of a judge of a criminal court as president and of a member of the political leader corps, or of a leader of another structural division of NSDKP and of an officer of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen SS or the police, as associate judges.
The Reich Defense Commissar appoints the members of the tribunal and designates a state attorney as public prosecutor.
III The court martials have jurisdiction for all kinds of crimes endangering the German fighting power or undermining the people's defensive strength For these proceedings, the regulations of the Criminal Procedure Law will be applied.
IV The sentence of the court martial will be either death, acquittal or commitment to the regular court.
The consent of the Reich Defense Commissar is required. He fives orders for the time, place and kind of execution.
If the Reich Defense Commissar is not available, but the immediate execution is indispensable, the public prosecutor is authorized to act in his place.
V The necessary regulations for amendment, changes and execution of these decrees are issued by the Reich Minister of Justice in agreement with the Reich Minister of the Interior and the Chief of the Party Chancellory.
VI The decree comes into force immediately upon its announcement on the radio.
(signed) Reich Minister of Justice THIERACK" Berlin , 16 February 1945.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Turning now to Document Book 3-C at page 50 which is page 49 of the German there appears to be a sworn affidavit reading as follow -- I neglected I believe, to state that this is Document NG-550:
"I, Dr. Karl SCHROEDER, Senior Public PROSECUTOR, retired, born 3 May 1893 in Holztrabach, give the following affidavit under oath:
"At the instigation of the Reich Minister Thierack there were installed in February, 1945; Drumhead Courts Martial in districts which were menaced by the approaching enemy. The Courts Martial were competent for every crime which had not yet been judged. The Nuremberg Court Martial was set up by Gauleiter Holz and consisted of the Director of the District Court OESCHEY as presiding judge, and of Gauinspektor HABER-KERN and a Major in the Wehrmacht - name unknown to me - as assistant judges, On 2 April, I was called to the Gau office there I was introduced to those men who made up the Court Martial for the Reich Defense District of Nuremberg. I was told that I was appointed as a prosecutor. Gauleiter Holz asked us to come to his office and gave us a short speech, explaining that the main point was to stop the American advance, one could count upon introduction of new weapons, and that he expected that the Court Martial would give the necessary support to the Army at the front by applying the severest measures. Then we were administered the oath acccrding to the decree of 16 February 1945; regarding the formation of the Courts Martial. HABERKERN told me then that Holz had mentioned that the first session would take place the next day. I explained to him that this was impossible for technical, reasons, as I would first have to examine the proceeding in order to see whether it was a case for a Court Martial trial. The case of Mongelas was to be tried as the first case.
The records, which originally had been transferred to the People's Court, were reported as having never been received there. This , which was the most difficult in my practice, had thus to be tried by the Court Martial because a decision by the People's Court could no longer be expected and because the Gauleitung pressed for a quick decision of this matter. The trial, which took place April 5, was conducted without defense. It was the duty of the president to summon the defense counsel. When I asked OESHCEY about it he told me that the defense counsel could not be summoned as the offices of the defense attorney EICHINGER had been destroyed, and he had not given his new address. Then he continued to say that he would conduct the trial even without defense counsel,because the loyal prerequisite for a trial without defense counsels did exist. I believe that I might note in this connection that a regulation was issued in 1944 or 1943 which decree that the appointment of a defense counsel was net necessary in cases where the circumstances were entirely clear.
If I may interpolate a moment, the regulation to which Schroeder refers at this juncture is the regulation just previously read from Document book 11 "I do not remember whether Mongelas had inquired about his defense counsel, but it could have been possible.
The witness, an SS Untersturmfuehrer, gave evidence that from an adjoining room he had heard a conversation between Mongelas and a lady which contained statements against the State and insults against the Fuehrer. Mongelas was sentenced to death and executed the following day. Mongelas, who no doubt would have been liberated by the Americans, was indicted on the orders of the leading Party member Holz and sentenced to death by Haberkern and Oeschey.
"I declare that it is the truth and it was made without coercion. I have read, signed, and sworn to it.
"Nurnberg, 20 December 1946, Dr. Karl Schroeder.
Signed and sworn the same date, "Henry Einstein, OCC."
DR. SCHUBERT (Counsel for the defendant Oeschcy): May it please the Tribunal, confronted with this document, I should only like to make this reservation, to ask to be permitted to cross-examine the witness when the time comes.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be given that right, of course.
You may proceed.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The prosecution offers into evidence as Exhibit No. 148. the document just read, NG-550.
THE PRESIDENT: What about number 715? That was 148, as I understood it
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Did we neglect to offer that, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: It was not offered.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Document 715 is in document book II, Your Honor, which was offered into evidence some days ago.
THE PRESIDENT: It is treated as part of the exhibit offered some days ago?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Turning now to page 53 of document book III-C, which is page 51 of the German, we find there NG-653; a sworn affidavit:
"I, Dr. Hermann MUELLER, retired prosecutor, Aschaffenburg, Lindenallee 14, declare herewith under oath:
"I was born on 4 May 1910 in Kirchheimbolanden. I passed the major state bar examination on 22 May 1936 in Munich. On 1 July 1936, I was first employed by the Justice; administration in Kulmbach. In my probational period, I served as assessor in Lamberg, Schweinfurt and Wuerzburg and on 1 September 1937, I was transferred as a court assessor to the Public Prosecutor's office in Nuernberg-Fuerth. There I was appointed as Prosecute on 1 July 1939. From 18 July 1939 until the end of March 1943 I performed 'defense service'. I was released from this due to a heart ailment. I resumed my work at the office of the Public Prosecutor on the first of April 1943 and worked in a department where the indictment was prepared for the Special Court. Neither I, nor the other prosecutors of the Special Court, had the right to ratify essential decisions. I was concerned with the preparation of the indictment and represented the prosecution at the trial during which I was bound strictly by the instructions signed by the Chief Dr. SCHROEDER, and reviewed by the Superior Court officials, General Public Prosecutor Dr. Bems and the Minister of Justice.
"I joined the party in 1937 and had been a member of the SA since 1933 (Rottenfuehror).
"I have to state the following concerning the former Chief justice of the District Court and president of the Special Court Dr. Rudolf OESCHEY:
"I know OESCHEY only through my professional relations with him. I felt that his methods fully conformed with the ideology of the Third Reich, and that he condoned and even welcomed wholeheartedly the increased severity which became a characteristic trend in the war-time criminal jurisdiction. Most shocking, however, was his brutal, cynical behavior toward the defendants in many sessions. He frequently insulted the defendants and presented the crimes to them as if these crimes were already a proven fact. His behavior was often so extreme that one might well believe he was a psychopathic case. The abusive insults which he inflicted upon the defendants were, to the highest degree, unworthy of a court trial.
He wielded such influence over the form of the administration of justice through his close party affiliations that the other officials of equal rank at the Nuernberg Administration of Criminal Justice were almost always forced to yield. Any opposition from his subordinate colleagues had little prospect of success. I considered OESCHEY's juridical knowledge inadequate.
"To emphasize OESCHEY's inhuman and reprehensible behavior, I would like to mention the following cases, in which I participated as prosecutor."
Skipping to page 60, which is page 57 in the German book, commencing nine lines from the bottom:
"Concerning" the case of Mongelas, it must be pointed out that this was a case of political extermination, which was handled in a most hideous fashion. As the criminal export on this case, I transferred the case to the People's Court. Mongelas had an appointment with a woman, with whom he but recently became acquainted, in the Grand Hotel, Nurnberg. He went with this woman to a hotel room where they began a discussion of art. The woman subtly directed the conversation into political channels, whereupon Mongelas vehemently expressed his hate of the existing system. This conversation was overheard by an official of the Gestapo, an SS lieutenant, in the next room. It was stated in the declaration as if this Gestapo man had been an accidental witness to the conversation. Considering the case as a whole, this could not have been true. Rather, the whole affair was planned from the beginning as a plot to remove Mongelas, just before the collapse. For quite some time I heard nothing more about the case. Then, suddenly, in the first week of April, I learned that Mongelas would be tried before a court martial. I was extremely shocked, but Dr. Schroeder assured me that the case would proceed in the proper manner. When I objected that Mongelas' defense counsel, Dr. Eichinger, had not been informed of the case until very recently and that I, in ignorance of the facts of the case, had misinformed him, Schroeder told me Eichinger was to be informed It was the duty of the Presiding Officer of the Military Court" -- that is, the Court Martial.
If I may interrupt, "Military Court" is a mistranslation. The original affidavit reads "Standgericht", which is Court Martial.
"It was the duty of the Presiding Officer of the Military Court Martial, Ocschey, to summon the defense. His failure to do this was a serious legal infringement. It is further proof of Oeschcy's cooperation and complicity with the Gau authorities in their scheme to eliminate a political enemy just before the complete collapse. I learned later that Ocschey did not study the criminal incriminating documents, but was guided in his actions much more by the Gestapo reports. I consider this case a great crime. It was committed without considering the impending defeat of Germany and with the intention of forcing the people into stubborn opposition, causing more insane bloodshed.
"Furthermore, Mongelas had already been in prison for a long time. The crime occurred so long ago that, by this time, it could in no way have influenced the will of the people to resist. A Court Martial would only have been justified under these circumstances, however."
Signed, "Dr. Hermann Mueller, Prosecutor, Nurnberg; 15 January 1947.
Signed and sworn the same date, "Henry Einstein, OCC."
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask a question before you exchange places?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE BRAND: In Exhibit 148, a man with a very similar name, differently spelled, is mentioned. Is it the same man?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It is the same man, Your Honor. The spelling in Exhibit 148 is a typographical error.
JUDGE BRAND: I see, thank you.
DR. SCHUBERT (Counsel for the defendant Oeschcy): May it please the Tribunal, with respect to this document as well, I should like to make the reservation to cross-examine the witness at the proper time.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be granted.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The prosecution offers, as Exhibit 149; document NG653.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: Turning now to Document NG 513, which begins on Page 35 in the English book and Page 45 in the German. Due to faulty mechanical assembly of the pages of this document, it will become necessary for coherent presentation to skip around. However, it will not be hard to follow.
A brief word describing what this document purports to be. In 1946 a post war investigation was conducted of activities of the Nuremberg Special Court, This investigation was related in no way to the preparation of the case at bar, but was conducted entirely by the German judicial authorities themselves independently of the American occupation. This document came to us as a result of that independent investigation. That explains the dates appearing throughout the document, which are 1946.
Beginning on Page 38, which is 37 in the German book, we find a letterhead "District Court Nuremberg Investigating Judge, Testimony in the investigation of Oeschcy and Dr. Schroeder for perversion of justice, etc., dated Fuerth, 16 August 1946," In the presence of various other German judicial officials listed in the lefthand margin.
"Summoned. The witness was notified of the subject of the interrogation and had to declare solemnly that he would speak the truth and was interrogated as follows. The person concerned; Adolf Soeldner, 59, Landgerichtsrat in Nuremberg.
"The matter concerned; I had nothing to do with the proceedings in the case against Count Montgelas. I was simply appointed as an air raid warden and in the forenoon of 5 or 6 April 1945 happened to be in the air raid shelter together with about ten other employees and officials of the court house because of an air raid alarm. Among the people present in the air raid shelter was also Oeschey, then president of the court martial, and then Chief Public Prosecutor Dr. Schroeder. I was standing near then and overheard Oeschey saying to Schroeder, as for as I remember:
"Now we will go over and shoot the little count." This disrespectful way to talk about a matter of such serious nature disgusted me. I discussed the whole case once with Dr. Ferber. I, personally, have not observed anything more. Read and signed, Adolf Soeldner, District Court. Signature, Stiegler, court employee."
Turning now to Page 35, which is Page 45 in the German, there is found the letterhead of Rose Marie Countess Montgelas, Castle Kreuth, Post Office Heideck, dated the 24th of August, 1946. This latter is stamped received on the second of September, 1946, Prosecuting Authorities of the District Court, Nuernberg-Fuerth.
"Referring to: Your letters of 17 June 1946 and 5 August 1946. Concerning: Oeschey and Dr. Schroeder, accused of defeating the end of the law, etc."
Skipping now to Page 36, which is page 46 in the German, we will read an excerpt from this letter of Countess montgelas. "On 13 April --" And if I may interpolate here, she obviously refers to 13 April 1945, which date occurs on the first page of the letter -
"On 13 April I learned from the "Fraenkische Tageblatt" that my husband had been executed.
"On 16 April I had the opportunity to enter Nuremberg in a German army vehicle. In the courthouse I talked with Dr. Schroeder who, among other things, told me that my husband's case had been the most serious political case of his whole practice, and therefore one could not wait for a decision from Berlin. I was not to be given any information on the disposal of the body of my husband, because he had died a dishonorable death."
Skipping to the signature, it is signed "Countess Montgelas." 987 Skipping now to Page 40, which is Page 32 of the German book, there is found a similar interrogation investigation to one read previously.
There is the letterhead of the District Court, Nuremberg, investigating judge.
"Testimony in the investigation of Oeschey and Dr. Schroedcr for the perversion of justice. Fuerth, 16 August 1946. Being summoned, the witness w s notified of the subject of the interrogation and had to declare solemnly that he would speak the truth and was interrogated as follows:
"The person concerned: Dr. Wilhelm Eser, 39 years old, married, in Nurnberg.
"The matter concerned: At the time when Count Montgelas was brought before me I was investigating judge and judge in the local criminal court." Skipping now to page 42, which is Page 34 in the German, Investigating Judge Eser goes on to testify:
"Some time after the arrest of Count Montgelas I was visited by the Countess, who asked me for information concerning the probable future development of the case. She wanted to be informed so that she would not, one day, have to learn from the papers that her husband had been executed. I explained to her that, judging from the nature and importance of the utterances, I thought that the People's Court would have to deal with it; that I had passed the case on to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor at Nuernberg and from there it would be referred to the Chief Public Prosecutor with the People's Court, due to the nature of the offense. Furthermore I explained to the countess that it would, according to my observations, take at least six to eight months until a date for a session at the People's Court could be held. The Countess said that she was quite relieved, since her main object was to gain time. Judging by the situation at the fronts, one could be almost certain that events would cause this case to be forgotten, and the People's Court would actually no longer be in the position to render a verdict.