Source: https://whiterosehistory.com/1943/04/19/minutes-of-the-trial/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 06:30:47+00:00

Document:
14.) Traute Lafrenz from Munich, born May 3, 1919 in Hamburg, single, no prior convictions.
Dr. Diepold was appointed attorney for the accused Gisela Schertling, Dr. Deppisch for the accused Katharina Schüddekopf, and Mr. Klein for the accused Traude [sic] Lafrenz.
The accused made statements regarding their persons.
The deputy of the Chief Prosecutor of the Reich submitted the indictment.
2.) Katharina Schüddekopf from Munich, born February 8, 1916 in Magdeburg, single, no prior convictions, in temporary custody since [illegible] 1943.
3.) Traude (sic) Lafrenz from Munich, born on May 3, 1919 in Hamburg, single, no prior convictions, in temporary custody since March 15, 1943.
The presiding judge called the attention of the accused Susanne Hirzel, Gisela Schertling and Katharina Schüddekopf to the fact that their sentence could possibly be based on collusion and not just “aiding and abetting” and gave them the opportunity to defend themselves in this matter as well.
The presiding judge read the verdict of the People’s Court against Scholl and 2 others dated February 22, 1943 aloud – 1H 47/43 – as well as the leaflets that had been written or distributed by the accused. However, he read only excerpts from the 4 leaflets of the “White Rose”.
After the leaflets had been read aloud, Mr. Roden J.R. [Justizrat] resigned from his position as defense counsel for the accused Huber. He said that he had never had knowledge of the contents of the leaflets before that moment, and that he could no longer defend Huber.
After each accused made a statement, the others among the accused were given opportunity to make a declaration thereto.
The defense counsel for the accused Harnack petitioned that an expert opinion regarding the mental state of the accused at the time of the incident be submitted as evidence.
The defense counsel for the accused Müller petitioned that the father of the accused be allowed to testify about his personality.
To call as witnesses the employee Hahn and the police official Zacher, as well as police official Schmauβ who interrogated the accused Grimminger [Note 2].
The Council rejected the remaining petitions. He asserted that the mental state of the accused Hans Hirzel and Harnack – for the latter at the time of the incident – could be determined from the matter itself. The testimony of the cousin of the accused Grimminger in addition to the testimony of the witness Hahn was no longer necessary. The statements of the accused Huber, namely that he told the truth to the police, would be stipulated. The testimony of the father of the accused Müller for judging the personality of the accused was not necessary [Illegible].
The presiding judge acquainted the witnesses Zacher, Schmauβ, and Hahn with the object of the inquiry and the persons accused. He exhorted them to tell the truth and reminded them of the meaning of an oath and the criminal consequences of perjury.
1.) Witness Zacher. First name: Georg. Born June 22, 1894 in Gunzenhausen. Crim. Secr. Neither related to the accused directly or by marriage. The witness made his statement in this matter. By unanimous decision, the witness was not sworn in.
The witnesses were released at 5 pm.
Following the testimony of each witness, the other accused persons, as well as the reading of each document [illegible], was given an opportunity to make a statement.
The presiding judge declared the presentation of evidence to be closed.
The deputy of the Chief Prosecutor of the Reich and the defense counsel for the accused were granted the opportunity to make a statement.
For aiding and abetting the enemy, preparation for hightreason: The death penalty and loss of civil rights for the rest of their lives.
5) [Against] Hans Hirzel, 12 years in the penitentiary, 10 years loss of civil rights, for aiding and abetting in the aiding and abetting of the enemy and for preparations for high treason.
6) [Against] Müller, 10 years in the penitentiary, 10 years loss of civil rights, for aiding and abetting in the aiding and abetting of the enemy and for preparations for high treason.
7) [Against] Gisela Schertling, 6 years in the penitentiary, 6 years loss of civil rights, for aiding and abetting in the aiding and abetting of the enemy and for preparations for high treason.
8) [Against] Bollinger, 8 years in the penitentiary, 8 years loss of civil rights for the crime against §1 of the VO, regarding extraordinary radio broadcasts and against §139 (II)of the St.GB.
9) [Against] Bauer, 8 years in the penitentiary, 8 years loss of civil rights for the crime against §1 of the VO, regarding extraordinary radio broadcasts and against §139 (II) of the St.GB.
11) [Against]Guter, 5 years in prison for failure to report in accordance with §139 St.GB.
12) [Against] Harnack, 5 years in prison for failure to report in accordance with §139 St.GB.
13) [Against] Schüddekopf, 3 years in the penitentiary, 3 years loss of civil rights, for failure to report in accordance with §139 St.GB.
14) [Against] Lafrenz, 3 years in prison, for failure to report in accordance with § 139 St.GB.
4) Hans Hirzel, sentence in accordance with §84 St.GB.
6) Müller, sentence in accordance with § 84 St.GB.
The accused were given the last word.
Note 2: Handwritten notes following this sentence and in the margin are illegible.
Note 3: This was the official time as recorded by the court clerk. But according to five of the individuals who were there and bore witness postwar to the trial, Judge Freisler did not even return to the courtroom to hand down the verdict until 10:30 p.m. Falk Harnack placed Freisler’s return as even later than that, while Susanne Hirzel noted it could have resumed as early as 10 p.m.

References: §1
 §139
 §1
 §139
 §139
 §139
 §139
 § 139
 §84
 § 84