Q. Did you know that the then Senate President Cuhorst was also president of the Special Court of Stuttgart; and, were the guidance letters supposed to criticize the jurisdiction of the Special Court at Stuttgart?
A. I did not know the jurisdiction of the Special Court of Stuttgart at all. That the same person was presiding judge of the Special Court and president of the senate of the district court of appeal was not known to me at the time.
*******
Q. One final question in that context. In the two so-called guidance letters, especially in the one to Stuttgart, mention is made of the fact that an extraordinary objection was supposed to be raised. Do you know anything about whether that was done?
A. The sentences were not sent to the Oberreichsanwalt with a request to raise the extraordinary objection, but with the instruction to examine whether it would be worthwhile to raise an extraordinary objection. In neither of those cases, neither in the guidance letter to Hamburg or to Stuttgart, the problem was the changing of prison sentences to death sentences, but the questions were merely prison terms and whether they should be increased but still remain prison sentences. Thus, the Oberreichsanwalt was not instructed to raise an extraordinary objection. As far as I know, at the time, the Oberreichsanwalt in the cases which were sent to him for examination refused to register an extraordinary objection; and, as far as I know, the minister was satisfied with those results of the examination.
Q. With that we have concluded the question of the Guidance Letters.
*******
c. Lawyers’ Letter Written by Thierack
- PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-260[295]
- PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 87
EXTRACTS FROM LAWYERS’ LETTER NO. 1 SIGNED BY REICH MINISTER OF JUSTICE THIERACK, 1 OCTOBER 1944