. NMT03-T0403
Volume III · Page 403
| [particu…] lar, only the truth was at
stake for they were interested in finding out what the population was actually
thinking in regard to certain events, measures, laws, speeches, judgments, etc.
Q. Do you know in what form these reports were forwarded? A. That is not known to me; I never read such a report. Q. According to Elkar's testimony you directed your attention to the development of criminal and penal proceedings. (Tr. p. 2890.) What ideas did you represent? A. I believe I have already stated my position on that question. I do not remember a great deal in detail regarding what was discussed at that time. One question, for example, which interested us and which demonstrates how we came to speak about these matters and what opinion we represented is the question which was frequently discussed in this trial, and that is the contact of the prosecution during the trial with the court because of the application for penalty. Opinions from circles of lawyers and judges and from the prosecution were gathered for this purpose at that time. I myself represented the opinion that this problem grew into a problem only because it was treated in a wrong manner on the part of the administration of justice. The entire question could be solved by a small remark in the "Deutsche Justiz," namely, by pointing out that the law does not provide that a formal application has to be made, and therefore it would have been sufficient to instruct the prosecutors to refrain from a formal application for penalty and to be satisfied with adducing the evidence and then stating the reasons which spoke for and against the defendant. With that, the entire excitement and fuss which was caused by the formal application for penalty could have been avoided. Q. What reason did you give for this suggestion? A. The reason which I have just explained. |
| * * * * * * * * * * |
| Q. Elkar alleges that you had also talked
about pending trials and had discussed also the facts as well as the legal
situation and future judgment. (Tr. p. 2891.) Was the name of a
defendant ever mentioned as long as trial was still pending? A. The names of defendants never played any importance in these conversations. The manner of expression was general. The individual cases, as such, were of no importance at all and their outcome even less so. It is possible that in the most infrequent cases — as an example of a definite criminal deed, in order to demonstrate, for example, the method of the consequences of this |
