680 F.2d 32 (6th Cir. 1982), 81-3415, United States v. Demjanjuk

Docket Nº:81-3415.
Citation:680 F.2d 32
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John DEMJANJUK, aka Iwan Demjanjuk, aka Grozny Ivan (Ivan the Terrible), Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:June 08, 1982
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 32

680 F.2d 32 (6th Cir. 1982)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

John DEMJANJUK, aka Iwan Demjanjuk, aka Grozny Ivan (Ivan

the Terrible), Defendant-Appellant.

No. 81-3415.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

June 8, 1982

Argued April 22, 1982.

Page 33

John W. Martin, Spiros E. Gonakis, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant-appellant.

John J. Horrigan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley, Cleveland, Ohio, Bruce J. Einhorn, Norman A. Moscowitz, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before KENNEDY and MARTIN, Circuit Judges and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

In this action appellant seeks review of a decision of the District Court vacating the order admitting him to citizenship and cancelling his certificate of citizenship. The District Court found as a matter of fact that appellant had made material misrepresentations regarding the nature of his wartime activities in his application for a visa under the Displaced Persons Act of 1948. It held that clear and convincing evidence supported the government's contention that the appellant had willfully concealed that he had trained as an armed guard at Trawniki, Poland at a camp run by the German SS and thereafter served with the Nazis as an armed guard at the extermination camp in Treblinka, Poland. Since this information would have made appellant ineligible for a visa and for citizenship, the District Court concluded that appellant's citizenship must be revoked under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a) because it was "illegally procured." Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490, 101 S.Ct. 737, 66 L.Ed.2d 686 (1981).

The District Court considered documentary evidence, eyewitness identifications and the appellant's own testimony, which it found not to be credible, in making its findings. Preliminary to his consideration of the Trawniki identification card and the eyewitness identifications, the lower court was called upon to make evidentiary rulings regarding the admissibility of this evidence and address due process challenges to it. It refused to admit a presidential statement and expert testimony on the suggestiveness of photo lineups proffered by appellant.

We agree with the conclusions of law reached by the District Court. 518 F.Supp. 1362. We further conclude that the District Court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP