A. Such a motion was not made either at the trial or outside of it by anybody. Not even the mere idea of doing that was ever mentioned, and the reason was that at that time nobody regarded the joinder of the two cases as a defect.
*******
Q. In the case under discussion, was it likely that the chances of the two defendants might be affected by joining their cases?
A. As I have stated before, the legal position of the defendants could not be affected, and their chances were not affected either. If one had thought that their chances might be affected, I think in that case the two defense counsel would have made a motion to have the two proceedings separated. If one wishes to judge the situation properly, one has to bear in mind the following: that is to say, one has to think of the situation such as it would have been if the Seiler woman had not been a codefendant but a witness. In that case, she would have made no different statements at the trial than she had made at her interrogation under oath before the investigating judge, for she made the same statements as a codefendant, and we had to discuss her statements under oath before the investigating judge from every point of view for the purpose of the verdict. What difference would there have been, as far as our judgment was concerned, if she had repeated the same statements at the trial in her capacity as a witness? The real problems of the proceedings would and could not have been affected in any way by that.
*******
Presiding Judge Brand: Were tickets issued for admission to the trial?
Defendant Rothaug: Yes, Your Honor.
Dr. Koessl: I shall come back to those tickets later. What importance had to be attributed to the fact that a trial was held in front of such a large public?
Defendant Rothaug: Under the German Code of Penal Procedure, the fact that the public is admitted to a trial constitutes one guaranty that the proceedings will be conducted in an orderly manner.
Q. Did Katzenberger have a defense counsel?