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

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

Freisler approves Deisinger as defense counsel for Schmorell

[Illegible] J 14 / 43 g

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