Presiding Judge Brand: Thank you.
Dr. Tipp: Witness, may I repeat my question. I may ask you to tell us what were these general prerequisites for filing an indictment?
Defendant Barnickel: Well, that question has been touched upon repeatedly here. There had to be sufficient suspicion that the defendant had committed the offense, that is to say, a certain probability was sufficient.
Q. In connection with the undermining of military efficiency particularly in this case, I think a further question is important. The question, what did one mean when one said the undermining of military efficiency in public?
A. According to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Reich Court and the Supreme Military Court, military efficiency was undermined in public even if statements had been made in front of only one person, if the offender had to expect that that person would pass on his statements to an indefinite number of other persons.
Q. These two prerequisites, therefore in your opinion in the Beck case, did exist?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, one more question concerning the undermining of military efficiency cases in general. Were all those cases dealt with by your department?
A. To start with, yes; from the summer of 1943, however, certain categories of cases were transferred to Department I, which collaborated with Freisler’s senate. According to the distribution plan of the People’s Court, Freisler could also deal with certain cases from my department, at his senate.
Q. How long was it that your department dealt with those undermining of military efficiency cases?