“The character of the defendant has been clearly described at the trial, in particular also the fact that the defendant, apart from the offense which in its execution was very grave, has also made himself guilty of violent behavior toward his employer.”
In other words, it is made perfectly clear here that the last point of view was decisive for us.
Presiding Judge Brand: May I ask you a question to which the answer, I think, could be brief? My notes show that the defendant was sentenced to death for violation of articles 2, 3, and 4 of the law or decree concerning Poles and Jews. Is there such a provision in your judgment? You needn’t read it. Just tell me if that is in there.
Defendant Rothaug: Yes.
Presiding Judge Brand: Thank you.
Dr. Koessl: The witness Doebig said that the offense in his view was not designed to prove that the offender was a public enemy. Would you, therefore, please briefly summarize the points which led you to assume that a very serious offense had been committed?
Defendant Rothaug: The justification for our sentence can be seen from the opinion given by the court, and that is before this Tribunal. I cannot say any more. All I can add is, that specifically for this case that is to say for the original case that had to be dealt with, that is to say, for molesting the woman in a sexual way, there was a decision from the Reich Supreme Court which stated an opinion specifically in regard to this question and discussed it from its basic angles, and that decision evidently was the cause for considering the death sentence at all.
With us a further point of view was added and it was that decision that was made available to the court.
*******
Presiding Judge Brand: I should like your professional opinion. Was the nullity plea[538] involved in the Lopata case? I don’t remember at the moment.