6J 24/43
1 Journal 390/43
1H 101/43
July 5, 1943 Continue reading
Tag Archives: 2nd trial
Deppisch follow-up re pre-trial fees
Attorney-at-Law Dr. Aug. Deppisch
[illegible]
Munich, June 23 [?], 1943
Leopoldstr. [illegible] Continue reading
Clemency petition for Katharina Schüddekopf
/Handwritten: 6. Gns. 37/43/
/Stamp: Reich Prosecutor [illegible]/
To the Chief Prosecuting Attorney of the People’s Court. Continue reading
Weyersberg re prison transfers
Copy
The Chief Prosecutor of the People’s Court
File No.: 6J 24/43
Please cite in response. Continue reading
Deppisch’s resubmission of pre-trial fees
Attorney-at-Law Dr. Aug. Deppisch
Upper District Court and District Court of Munich I and II
Tel: [illegible] Continue reading
Denial of Deppisch’s pre-trial legal fees
Copy.
People’s Court
Accounting Office
6 J 24/43
1 H 101/43 Continue reading
Payment to Hugo Diepold
File No.: 6 J 24/1943 G
Criminal case against: Schmorell and others Continue reading
Payment to August Deppisch
File No.: 6 J 24/43
Criminal case against: Schmorell et al Continue reading
Second draft of “Reasons” (verdict)
This “Reasons for Verdict” is nearly identical with the “Reasons” that follow the verdict earlier in this book. However, this is apparently Judge Freisler’s second draft (not handwritten, so therefore not first draft). The “edits” allow insight into the workings of the 1st Council. Continue reading
Verdict, second White Rose trial (Schmorell copy)
6 J 24 /43
1 H 101/43
IN THE NAME OF THE GERMAN PEOPLE
In the criminal case against Continue reading
Eble’s legal fees
Dr. Eduard Eble, Attorney-at-Law
[Illegible] Street 50/ Third Floor
[Telephone and bank accounts: Illegible]
Office Hours: 4 – 6 o’clock
Except for Wednesday and Saturday Continue reading
Formal verdict rendered
The formal verdict for the second White Rose trial was rendered and published.
==========
Editor’s note: According to eyewitnesses, Judge Freisler had not read from a formal document at the end of the trial.
Response to Götz’s late request
/Handwritten: To the President of the People’s Court with request for [?]. Unfortunately, the trial against Gisela Schertling has already taken place./ Continue reading
Bischoff: Decision re Schertling trial
3) The decision regarding whether the trial should be transferred to the district attorney in Munich will be postponed until the conclusion of the trial in the matter of Schmorell et al. Continue reading
Petzl follow-up on behalf of Grimminger
Dr. Walter Petzl, Attorney-at-Law
Ritter-von-Epp Platz 12/II
Tel: 10479
Munich 2, April 21, 1943 Continue reading
Grimminger prison intake: Stadelheim Prison
/Stamp: Stadelheim Prison, Munich/
Delivered 4/20/43 at 12:30 am from: Neudeck
Prisoner No. H196/43 – Placement: [blank] Continue reading
Second trial ends
Session ended at 9:45 pm.
========== Continue reading
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
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
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
Defendants allowed to speak
The accused made statements regarding their persons. …
The accused gave their statements regarding the matter: 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
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.
==========
Proof of Service: Summons to Trial
[Cover sheet for transmittal letter to all defendants.]
White Rose History: January 1933 - October 1943 