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].
The Council rejected the remaining petitions. He asserted that the mental state of the accused Hans Hirzel and Harnack – for the latter at the time of the incident – could be determined from the matter itself. The testimony of the cousin of the accused Grimminger in addition to the testimony of the witness Hahn was no longer necessary. The statements of the accused Huber, namely that he told the truth to the police, would be stipulated. The testimony of the father of the accused Müller for judging the personality of the accused was not necessary [Illegible].
The presiding judge acquainted the witnesses Zacher, Schmauβ, and Hahn with the object of the inquiry and the persons accused. He exhorted them to tell the truth and reminded them of the meaning of an oath and the criminal consequences of perjury.
The witnesses were then examined individually and in the absence of witnesses who would be deposed later, as follows: …
==========
White Rose History: January 1933 - October 1943 