Session ended at 9:45 pm.
========== Continue reading
Daily Archives: April 19, 1943
Minutes of the trial
/Stamp: April 28, 1943/
Public Session of the 1st Council of the People’s Court
Munich, April 19, 1943 Continue reading
Freisler announces verdict
The presiding judge announced and justified the following verdict.
==========
Verdict with reasons
2nd Trial Against the Students in Munich
April 19, 1943
Munich – Palace of Justice Continue reading
Trial recess
The presiding judge adjourned the proceedings and retired to consider the matter.
==========
Falk Harnack’s comical defense
This was stricken from the second draft of “Reasons” for the verdict, and therefore did not make it to the official record. But it grants insight into the theatrics employed by Falk Harnack during his spirited defense of himself. Continue reading
Willi Graf’s final statement
At least Graf had the courage to admit at the end of the trial that there was no excuse for his crimes. But his deeds are so terrible that this insight – which came much too late – does not change the verdict.
==========
Defendants allowed ‘last words’
Following the testimony of each witness, the other accused persons, as well as the reading of each document [illegible], was given an opportunity to make a statement. …
The accused were given the last word. Continue reading
Freisler impressed by Tilly Hahn’s testimony
And then Grimminger gave him [Hans Scholl] 500 Marks [$4,000.00]!
He should have been aware that this money would be used to undermine the unity of our homeland, and even more to undermine the soldiers on the front and our military forces, thereby aiding and abetting our enemies. But he obviously did not make this connection. Continue reading
Defense counsel rebuttal (punishment requests)
The defense counsel petitioned for:
1) Schmorell, disregard of the death penalty
2) Huber, disregard of the death penalty Continue reading
Bischoff submits punishment requests
The presiding judge declared the presentation of evidence to be closed. …
The deputy of the Chief Prosecutor of the Reich petitioned as follows: Continue reading
Freisler reads Schertling’s police record aloud
The presiding judge read the police judgment dated March 18, 1943 (March 16, 1943) regarding the accused Gisela Schertling from the Schertling volume.
==========
Tilly Hahn testifies (first time)
The witnesses were then examined individually and in the absence of witnesses who would be deposed later, as follows: … Continue reading
Schmauβ testifies
The witnesses were then examined individually and in the absence of witnesses who would be deposed later, as follows: … Continue reading
Zacher testifies
The witnesses were then examined individually and in the absence of witnesses who would be deposed later, as follows: Continue reading
Freisler’s decision regarding witnesses
The Council decided:
To call as witnesses the employee Hahn and the police official Zacher, as well as police official Schmauβ who interrogated the accused Grimminger [Note 1]. Continue reading
Prosecution calls extra witness
The deputy of the Chief Prosecutor of the Reich petitioned that the police official Zacher who interrogated the accused Guter be called as a witness regarding the statements he made during his police interrogation.
==========
Diepold defends Guter
Guter’s defense counsel said he believed that the boy did not know what high treason was. No commentary is required. High treason is the same within the People’s Court as it is for every fellow German, namely a threat to the National Socialist way of life of the German nation. One does not need to know any more than that. A sixth-form boy knows that much. Continue reading
August Klein defends his clients
The defense counsel for the accused Harnack petitioned that an expert opinion regarding the mental state of the accused at the time of the incident be submitted as evidence. Continue reading
Deppisch defends Huber
The defense counsel for the accused Huber petitioned that the police commissioner Geib (sic) be allowed to testify to prove that the accused always made every effort to tell the truth.
==========
Dr. Eble petitions for witnesses
The defense counsel for the accused Hans Hirzel petitioned that the father of the accused be allowed to testify regarding his mental condition. Continue reading
Cross-examination: Katharina and Gisela
One time she assisted with the distribution of leaflets, but the People’s Court does not charge her particularly with that crime. It happened as follows: She was going out with the Scholl sister, who was carrying a briefcase. She stopped at a mailbox, opened the briefcase, and began putting letters in the mailbox. Schertling helped her by raising the lid of the mailbox. This happened so suddenly and unexpectedly, that she did not think at that time that she was helping to undermine the State. Continue reading
Cross-examination: Heinrich Guter
Guter attempts to excuse his failure to report on the basis of camaraderie. And indeed, we wish to raise our youth [to value] camaraderie, but in this case, it is uncalled for. One cannot grant camaraderie to people who exclude themselves from camaraderie with their treasonous actions. There are higher duties to the entire community at stake here.
==========
Cross-examination: Susanne Hirzel
Susanne Hirzel makes an open and good impression. This court believes her statement, that she did not know that her brother was involved in treasonous activities. But it is unforgivable that she did not look to see what actually was contained in that package of several hundred “letters” with allegedly harmless internal-political content. That would have been expected of her. Continue reading
Cross-examination: Hans Hirzel
His family wished to raise young Hirzel to be a respectable German. He is clearly sickly. He has endured a series of grave illnesses and leans to an intellectual preoccupation which in reality is nothing more than word play and a passion for experimentation. Barely even aware of what he was doing, this boy came under the influence of a vulgar girl – Sophie Scholl – and allowed her to take advantage of him. His confused quasi-philosophical attempts to explain his actions – although he was not in agreement with the leaflet – indeed appear not to be dishonest. But they do testify to his eccentricity. Continue reading
Cross-examination: Kurt Huber
In addition, Huber says he believed he was doing something good. However, we will not revert to the same mistake that the interim Weimar government made, wherein they deemed traitors to be men of honor and sent them to minimum security fortresses as “conscientious objectors”. The days wherein anyone could run around promoting his own political “beliefs” are past! For us, there is but one standard, and that is the National Socialist. We measure every man thereby!
==========
People’s Court receipt of Götz’s letter
/Stamp: People’s Court, Received 4/19/43/ Continue reading
Cross-examination: Alexander Schmorell
Schmorell babbled out some kind of an excuse that because his mother was Russian, and he was half-Russian, he somehow wanted to unify Germans and Russians. This led to such an abysmal aberration, which can be seen from his statement during the trial that he had decided that – as a German soldier – he would “fire upon neither Germans nor Russians”!!! National Socialist jurisprudence of course requires us to consider the personality of the perpetrator. Continue reading
Defendants allowed to speak
The accused made statements regarding their persons. …
The accused gave their statements regarding the matter: Continue reading
Deppisch appointed as Huber’s defense counsel
The court then appointed Dr. Deppisch, Attorney-at-Law, as court-appointed defense counsel for the accused Huber.
==========
Justizrat Roder resigns
After the leaflets had been read aloud, Mr. Roder J.R. [Justizrat] resigned from his position as defense counsel for the accused Huber. He said that he had never had knowledge of the contents of the leaflets before that moment, and that he could no longer defend Huber.
==========
Freisler reads leaflets into record
The presiding judge read the verdict of the People’s Court against Scholl and 2 others dated February 22, 1943 aloud – 1H 47/43 – as well as the leaflets that had been written or distributed by the accused. However, he read only excerpts from the 4 leaflets of the “White Rose” [Note 1]. Continue reading
Defense counsel named for three women
Dr. Diepold was appointed attorney for the accused Gisela Schertling, Dr. Deppisch for the accused Katharina Schüddekopf, and Mr. Klein for the accused Traude [sic] Lafrenz. … Continue reading
Indictment read into the record
The deputy of the Chief Prosecutor of the Reich submitted the indictment.
==========
Defense counsel introduced
1.) The accused, being led forth from investigative custody,
2.) As defense counsel [Note 1]: Continue reading
Trial gets underway
Present as judges:
President of the People’s Court, Dr. Freisler, Presiding
Director of the District Court Stier
SS Gruppenführer and Major General of the Waffen-SS Breithaupt
SA Gruppenführer Bunge
SA Gruppenführer and Deputy Secretary of State Köglmaier Continue reading
White Rose History: January 1933 - October 1943 