6J 24/43
1 Journal 390/43
1H 101/43
July 5, 1943 Continue reading
Tag Archives: defense
Deppisch follow-up re pre-trial fees
Attorney-at-Law Dr. Aug. Deppisch
[illegible]
Munich, June 23 [?], 1943
Leopoldstr. [illegible] Continue reading
Götz query re Schertling prison
[Handwritten document – not on letterhead.]
Regarding: Miss Gisela Schertling, 6J 24/43 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
Revision of Eble’s invoice
To be written:
People’s Court Accounting Office
Berlin, April 30, 1943
6 J 24/43 g
1 H 101/43 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
==========
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
People’s Court receives Petzl’s POA
/Stamp: Reich Attorney General’s Office of the People’s Court
Received April 17, 1943/ Continue reading
Petition to serve as Schertling defense counsel
Attorney-at-Law, Karl Götz
Elisabeth Str. 48/0
Admitted to the Bar before the Higher Regional Court of Munich and Regional Courts Munich I and II Continue reading
Deisinger Power of Attorney for Alexander Schmorell
Power of Attorney in the Matter of [blank]
Is herewith granted to Attorney-at-Law and Tax Attorney Dr. S. Deisinger, Munich, Nuβbaum Street 12 / Second Floor, Telephone [Illegible]. Continue reading
Walter Petzl Power of Attorney (Grimminger)
Dr. Walter Petzl, Attorney-at-Law
Ritter-von-Epp Platz 12/II
Tel: 10479
Munich 2, April 15, 1943 Continue reading
Petzl Power of Attorney (Grimminger)
[This entire document is handwritten.]
Power of Attorney. Continue reading
Diepold request for information
Munich, April 14, 1943
[Illegible] [Note 1]
People’s Court, Berlin, [Illegible] Council Continue reading
Eble’s pre-trial meeting with Grimminger, Hirzels
Fee for pre-trial activity (visits with all of the accused
On April 13, 1943 in Neudeck and Stadelheim) 40 + 20 + 20 Marks = 80 60 Marks
==========
Source: Eble’s invoice to People’s Court dated April 27, 1943
Bischoff’s memoranda re Schertling
[Note 1] 1) Enter prior convictions of Gisela Schertling.
2) Letter to be written: To Attorney-at-Law Karl Götz in Munich, Elisabeth Str. 48/0. Continue reading
Freisler decision regarding defense counsel
Criminal case against Schmorell and 10 others
6J 24/43 g
1H [illegible]/43 Continue reading
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
White Rose History: January 1933 - October 1943 