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.

==========

Source: Verdict with reason, second trial

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!

==========

Source: Verdict with reasons, second trial

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

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

Request for Schertling arrest record

[Left-hand side of page:]

With reference to the excerpt on the reverse, send original copy back to: 8J 37/43.

To the Chief Prosecutor of the People’s Court in Berlin, W9 Bellevue Str. 15.

/Postmark: Rudolstadt, April 17, 1943/
/Stamp: Postage free [postage paid, official government business]/
/Stamp: Attorney General’s Office of the People’s Court, Received April 18, 1943/

[Right-hand side of page:]

In original document, with the request: unlimited – limited – in a matter of a misdemeanor – in accordance with § 35 StRVO (please cross out whatever does not apply).

Location and date: Berlin, April 13, 1943

Signature: By order of /Signed: [Illegible]/, Justice Employee

Office: Chief Prosecutor’s Office of the People’s Court
8J 37/43

/Stamp: District Attorney’s Office, Rudolstadt, April 16, 1943/

To the District Attorney’s Office in Rudolstadt (Strafregister)
/Postmark: Berlin SW11, April 15, 1942 [sic]/

==========

Source: Schertling/Schüddekopf (3)

Freisler approves Deisinger as defense counsel for Schmorell

[Illegible] J 14 / 43 g
[Illegible]

1.) In the criminal case against Schmorell, the choice of the attorney-at-law Dr. Deisinger in Munich, [illegible] 12 for the defendant / accused as above has been approved in accordance with §3 of Article IV of the Law Regarding Revision of the Regulations of Criminal Law and of Criminal Proceedings, dated April 24, 1934. Continue reading