Minutes of the trial

/Stamp: April 28, 1943/

Public Session of the 1st Council of the People’s Court

Munich, April 19, 1943

6I 24/43 [sic]
1H 101/43

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

Representing the Chief Prosecutor of the Reich
Assistant Prosecutor: Bischoff

Against:

1.) Alexander Schmorell from Munich, born on September 16, 1917 in Orenburg (Russia), single, no prior convictions;

2.) Kurt Huber from Munich, born on October 24, 1893 in Chur (Switzerland), married, no prior convictions;

3.) Wilhelm Graf from Munich, born on January 2, 1918 in Kuchenheim, single, no prior convictions;

4.) Hans Hirzel from Ulm, born on October 30, 1924 in Untersteinbach (Stuttgart), single, no prior convictions;

5.) Susanne Hirzel from Stuttgart, born on August 7, 1921 in Untersteinbach, single, no prior convictions;

6.) Franz Josef Müller from Ulm, born on September 8, 1924 in Ulm, single, no prior convictions;

7.) Heinrich Guter from Ulm, born on January [illegible], 1925 in Ulm, single, no prior convictions;

8.) Eugen Grimminger from Stuttgart, born on July 29, 1892 in Crailsheim, married, no prior convictions;

9.) Dr. Heinrich Philipp Bollinger from Freiburg, born on April 23, 1916 in Saarbrücken, single, no prior convictions;

10.) Helmut Karl Theodor Bauer from Freiburg, born on June 19, 1919 in Saarbrücken, single, no prior convictions;

11.) Dr. Falk Erich Walter Harnack from Chemnitz, born on March 2, 1913 in Stuttgart, single, no prior convictions;

12.) Gisela Schertling from Munich, born on February 9, 1922 in Pössneck / Thuringia, single, no prior convictions;

13.) Katharina Schüddekopf from Munich, born on February 8, 1916 in Magdeburg, single, no prior convictions;

14.) Traute Lafrenz from Munich, born May 3, 1919 in Hamburg, single, no prior convictions.

In re aiding and abetting the enemy, the following have been summoned as of today’s date for the trial in this matter:

1.) The accused, being led forth from investigative custody,

2.) As defense counsel [Note 1]:

1.) Dr. Deisinger, Attorney-at-Law, on behalf of Bollinger

2.) Dr. Deppisch, Attorney-at-Law, on behalf of Bauer

3.) Mr. Diepold, Attorney-at-Law, on behalf of Graf and Guter

4.) Dr. Eble, Attorney-at-Law, on behalf of Hans and Susanne Hirzel and Grimminger

5.) Mr. Klein, Attorney-at-Law, on behalf of Müller and Harnack.

The above-mentioned are court-appointed counsel.

1.) Dr. Deisinger, Attorney-at-Law, on behalf of Schmorell

2.) Mr. Roder, J.R., Attorney-at-Law, on behalf of Huber

These defense attorneys have been retained by their clients.

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.

The accused made statements regarding their persons.

The deputy of the Chief Prosecutor of the Reich submitted the indictment.

In addition, an oral indictment for aiding and abetting in the preparation for high treason, for aiding and abetting the enemy, and for demoralizing the armed forces was entered against:

1.) Gisela Schertling from Munich, born on February 9, 1922 in Pössneck, single, no prior convictions, in temporary custody since February 18, 1943

2.) Katharina Schüddekopf from Munich, born February 8, 1916 in Magdeburg, single, no prior convictions, in temporary custody since [illegible] 1943.

An oral indictment for [criminal] offenses against §139 St.GB was entered against:

3.) Traude (sic) Lafrenz from Munich, born on May 3, 1919 in Hamburg, single, no prior convictions, in temporary custody since March 15, 1943.

The presiding judge called the attention of the accused Susanne Hirzel, Gisela Schertling and Katharina Schüddekopf to the fact that their sentence could possibly be based on collusion and not just “aiding and abetting” and gave them the opportunity to defend themselves in this matter as well.

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”.

After the leaflets had been read aloud, Mr. Roden 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.

The court then appointed Dr. Deppisch, Attorney-at-Law, as court-appointed defense counsel for the accused Huber.

The accused gave their statements regarding the matter:

After each accused made a statement, the others among the accused were given opportunity to make a declaration thereto.

The defense counsel for the accused Hans Hirzel petitioned that the father of the accused be allowed to testify regarding his mental condition.

The defense counsel for the accused Grimminger petitioned that the cousin of the accused and the female employee Hahn be allowed to testify what the accused had told them about the 500 Marks he had given to Scholl, in particular for what purpose he gave the money to Scholl.

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.

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.

The defense counsel for the accused Müller petitioned that the father of the accused be allowed to testify about his personality.

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.

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 2].

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:

1.) Witness Zacher. First name: Georg. Born June 22, 1894 in Gunzenhausen. Crim. Secr. Neither related to the accused directly or by marriage. The witness made his statement in this matter. By unanimous decision, the witness was not sworn in.

2.) Witness Schmauβ. First name: Ludwig. Born January 4, 1899 in Wuppenhof. Crim. Secr. Neither related to the accused directly or by marriage. The witness made his statement in this matter. By unanimous decision, the witness was not sworn in. [Illegible].

3.) Witness Hahn. First name: Tilli. Born August 6, 1899 in Stuttgart. Employee. Neither related to the accused directly or by marriage. The witness made his statement in this matter. By unanimous decision, the witness was not sworn in.

The witnesses were released at 5 pm.

The presiding judge read the police judgment dated March 18, 1943 (March 16, 1943) regarding the accused Gisela Schertling from the Schertling volume.

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 presiding judge declared the presentation of evidence to be closed.

The deputy of the Chief Prosecutor of the Reich and the defense counsel for the accused were granted the opportunity to make a statement.

The deputy of the Chief Prosecutor of the Reich petitioned as follows:

1) Against Schmorell;

2) [Against] Huber;

3) [Against] Graf;

4) [Against] Grimminger;

For aiding and abetting the enemy, preparation for hightreason: The death penalty and loss of civil rights for the rest of their lives.

5) [Against] Hans Hirzel, 12 years in the penitentiary, 10 years loss of civil rights, for aiding and abetting in the aiding and abetting of the enemy and for preparations for high treason.

6) [Against] Müller, 10 years in the penitentiary, 10 years loss of civil rights, for aiding and abetting in the aiding and abetting of the enemy and for preparations for high treason.

7) [Against] Gisela Schertling, 6 years in the penitentiary, 6 years loss of civil rights, for aiding and abetting in the aiding and abetting of the enemy and for preparations for high treason.

8) [Against] Bollinger, 8 years in the penitentiary, 8 years loss of civil rights for the crime against §1 of the VO, regarding extraordinary radio broadcasts and against §139 (II)of the St.GB.

9) [Against] Bauer, 8 years in the penitentiary, 8 years loss of civil rights for the crime against §1 of the VO, regarding extraordinary radio broadcasts and against §139 (II) of the St.GB.

10) [Against] Susanne Hirzel, 3 years in prison for the offense against §85 St. GB

11) [Against]Guter, 5 years in prison for failure to report in accordance with §139 St.GB.

12) [Against] Harnack, 5 years in prison for failure to report in accordance with §139 St.GB.

13) [Against] Schüddekopf, 3 years in the penitentiary, 3 years loss of civil rights, for failure to report in accordance with §139 St.GB.

14) [Against] Lafrenz, 3 years in prison, for failure to report in accordance with § 139 St.GB.

The defense counsel petitioned for:

1) Schmorell, disregard of the death penalty

2) Huber, disregard of the death penalty

3) Graf, disregard of the death penalty

4) Hans Hirzel, sentence in accordance with §84 St.GB.

5) Susanne Hirzel: Acquittal

6) Müller, sentence in accordance with § 84 St.GB.

7) Guter: Acquittal

8) Grimminger: Prison sentence

9) Bollinger: Mild sentence. Acquittal in re §139

10) Bauer: Mild sentence. Acquittal in re §139

11) Harnack: Acquittal

12) Gisela Schertling: Prison sentence only

13) Schüddekopf: Prison sentence only

14) Lafrenz: Prison sentence only

The accused were given the last word.

The presiding judge adjourned the proceedings and retired to consider the matter.

The presiding judge announced and justified the following verdict.

Session ended at 9:45 pm. [Note 3]

/Signature: [Illegible/

/Signature: [Illegible]/

==========

Note 1: Syntax is also incorrect in the original document.

Note 2: Handwritten notes following this sentence and in the margin are illegible.

Note 3: This was the official time as recorded by the court clerk. But according to five of the individuals who were there and bore witness postwar to the trial, Judge Freisler did not even return to the courtroom to hand down the verdict until 10:30 p.m. Falk Harnack placed Freisler’s return as even later than that, while Susanne Hirzel noted it could have resumed as early as 10 p.m.

==========

Source: NJ1704 (81 – 87)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s