Defending Nazis in Postwar Czechoslovakia. (Ukázka, strana 99)

98

4. The Karl Hermann Frank Case

mitted. He was handed over at Prague’s Ruzyně airport on 7 August 1945 and taken straight to the Regional Criminal Court’s prison at Pankrác, where he was taken into pre-trial custody as standard for crimes within the remit of the Great Retribution Decree.220 While in prison, Frank was not allowed to have contact with the other prisoners, and for his “daily walks he was assigned a courtyard to which no other prisoners had access; hence this courtyard became known as Frank Square”.221 Frank was interrogated from September 1945 until 15 February 1946. The full transcript of his interrogation was published as early as March 1946, as K. H. Frank’s Confession.222 Frank had responded to the questioning extremely openly, after some initial wariness, and attempted to shed light on many events. The book therefore came to be extremely useful during the trial, when both parties carried it with them and referred to it regularly.

On 4 March 1946 public prosecutor JUDr. Jaroslav Drábek and his deputy JUDr. Jan Gemrich charged Frank before the Extraordinary People’s Court in Prague. The charges were on ten counts and were accompanied by an extensive fifty-five page interpretation. On 15 March 1946, seven years after the occupation of the Second Czechoslovak Republic, K. H. Frank appeared before the Extraordinary People’s Court in Prague; the charges were read out to him, and the presiding judge JUDr. Vladimír Kozák asked Frank whether he wished to appoint his own defence lawyer, or whether one should be appointed by the court – ex officio. Since Frank responded that he did not know how these matters were usually handled in the court, the judge informed him that he would be allocated a defence lawyer by the court, with whom he would be able to consult before the planned start of his trial on 22 March 1946.

JUDr. Vladimír Kozák, the presiding judge at the Extraordinary People’s Court in Prague, chaired the trial. His substitute was the court chairman, JUDr. Jaroslav Novák. The lay judges were Václav Koubek, František Klika, who was taken ill on 3rd April and replaced, Alois Fiřt and JUDr. Vladislav Sutnar. Their substitutes were Antonín Blažek, Růžena Rollová and František Červinka. The Court Clerk was Dr Hugo Zeman. Various interpreters were involved, including Dr Felix Gráb for a significant portion of the trial.223

220 Presidential Decree no. 16, 19 June 1945, hereafter simply “Retribution Decree” or “Great Retribution Decree”.

221 Karel Zajíček. Český národ soudí K. H. Franka. [The Czech nation tries K. H. Frank]. Prague: Ministerstvo informací, 1947, p. 17 (hereafter “Český národ soudí”).

222 Karel Výkusa. Zpověď K. H. Franka. [K. H. Frank’s confession]. Prague: Cíl, March 1946.

223 Český národ soudí p. 80.

Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS242747

4. The Karl Hermann Frank Case

99

THE EX OFFICIO APPOINTMENT Early 1946 was not, for obvious reasons, a favourable time to take on the defence of Nazi criminals, and certainly not voluntarily. After the war a number of newspapers, leaders of political parties and even some barristers on the Bar Association’s board had attempted to establish a policy by which Czech barristers could not voluntarily defend traitors, but could do so only if the court ordered them to. In some cities (such as Pardubice), this policy was indeed adopted.224 A difficult task therefore emerged at the Bohemian Bar Association in Prague when, on 15 March 1946, Frank was told that a defence lawyer would be appointed for him within six days. Several barristers refused to take on the case voluntarily, including JUDr. Antonín Švehla, who stated that he was unwell. JUDr. Jaroslav Mellan claimed that if the Bar Association appointed him he would strip naked, throw a sheet over his shoulders, walk out onto the riverside and shout: “I am Jesus Christ!”225 If he had really done so, this would have been a sign of insanity, and would have disgraced the Association. The President of the Bar Association, JUDr. Antonín Klouda, who had been imprisoned at the Büchenwald concentration camp during the war, was aware of the significance of the case and the need for Frank to be properly defended, not just for show. The long process eventually resulted in Kamill Resler, who was five years older than Frank, being appointed for the defence. Why did they choose Resler? It was partly down to luck.

On Friday 15 March 1946 the presiding judge at the Extraordinary People’s Court, JUDr. Kozák, asked the Bar Association not to delay in appointing a defence lawyer for K. H. Frank. That afternoon, Resler happened to come into the Association’s offices, in order to hand in some disciplinary reports. He got talking with the gentlemen of the board about the difficulty of appointing someone to defend Frank. He told them that it was pointless to ask someone to take the case on voluntarily, because “no Czech could willingly do that and if someone did, he would risk justified disapproval from the public and especially the media, and would bring utter discredit upon himself.” President Klouda then arrived, and also discussed with Resler whom he should appoint to the defence. Resler insisted that choosing the next barrister on the register, in alphabetical order, was the fairest (and standard) approach, to which Klouda countered that the chosen barrister must not be just an ordinary barrister, someone who would sit and observe the trial and might end up agreeing with the prosecution. The other lawyers who were present at the time (Tarabrin and Konečný) advised the President of the Association to ask the Ministry of 224 AHMP 12, Podání s č. j. A 8926/46 Advokátní komora [official document].

225 AHMP 12, Lecture On the Demise of K. H. Frank, (hereafter “Demise”) p. 17.

Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS242747

100

4. The Karl Hermann Frank Case

Justice to appoint their salaried barrister.226 Resler was then asked whether he would be willing to take on the case, to which he responded absolutely not, since as the Bar Association’s deputy prosecutor he was exempt from court defence duty, and the Association would seriously breach its code if it appointed him despite this. Klouda then asked him how he would respond if the Association were to impose the case on him, disregarding its own rules.

He was referring to the possibility that he could appoint Resler as Frank’s defence lawyer regardless of the Association’s code, and that if Resler refused to carry out the duty then he could disqualify him from practice as a barrister.

Resler responded that this would constitute “a deliberate contravention of a valid code, that he would consider it wrong and would resist it by all legal means available to him, and that he would cope with the consequences of doing so.” To the direct question whether he would defend Frank, if his means of resistance did not work out and he ended up having to take on the case, he stated that “every defence lawyer is bound by professional duties and must carry out every defence properly and conscientiously; that applies to me too.”

With that, he considered the matter closed, and left.

President Klouda, on the other hand, immediately left for the Ministry of Justice, where the Minister of Justice Prokop Drtina requested that a barrister be appointed to the case without reference to the usual order of priority.227 The same day, the Ministry of Justice instructed the Bar Association (as its supervising body) to appoint an exceptionally competent barrister to the case, and quickly.228 By coincidence on the same day, 15 March, Ivan Suk gave Resler a copy of his book Reportáž o Norimberku (A Report on Nuremberg), little knowing what an omen it was of what awaited him.229 On 16 March Kamill Resler received an order, with a letter from the Ministry of Justice attached, appointing him to defend K. H. Frank. Although it should have been the court itself that appointed the defence counsel, he was in fact appointed by the Bar Association using a form pre-prepared by the Extraordinary People’s Court.

The same day, Resler submitted a complaint to the Ministry of Justice about the Bar Association board’s decision. Beneath his copy of this complaint he noted in pencil: “Submit first thing in the morning to Prague II, Vyšehradská street, no. 16 (beneath Emausy) 16. 3. 1946.”230 226 Jiří Kotyk. JUDr. Kamill Resler (1893–1961), oběť šikany komunistického režimu. [Kamill Resler (1893–1961), Bullied by the Communist Regime]. [online]. 2011 [accessed 2017-11-28]. Available at: http://www.kraj.kppardubicka.cz/stranky/cti-prispevky.php?id=JUDr._Kamill_Resler_(1893 %961961),_obet_sikany_komunistickeho_rezimu.

227 AHMP 12, Podání Reslera doručené AK 23. 8. 1946.

228 Rozhodnutí NS se sp. zn. Ds I 16/46 [court document] p. 3.

229 KNM 1, Ivan Suk. Reportáž o Norimberku: 1945–1946. [A report about Nuremberg: 1945–1946].

Prague: Nová osvěta, 1946, Book with personal inscription.

230 AHMP 12, Complaint on 16 March 1946.

Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS242747