John Demjanjuk v. Joseph Petrovsky
United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit (1994)

Among the IAJLJ's concerns has been the identification and legal prosecution of those who participated in the genocide of the Jewish people during the Second World War. Our interest extends beyond the punishment of particular guilty individuals. We are also concerned with the verdict of history.

The public trial given to Demjanjuk in Israel, followed by the meticulous scrutiny of the appellate record by the Supreme Court of Israel and that Court's willingness to consider evidence that was not available at the time of the trial demonstrate the scrupulousness with which Demjanjuk was tried. The Supreme Court of Israel determined that the later-obtained documents created enough of a reasonable doubt as to whether Demjanjuk was, in fact, "Ivan the Terrible" of Treblinka to warrant reversal of the judgment of conviction. His death sentence was vacated and Demjanjuk was released from custody in Israel. That is the nature of due process, and we accept that Court's judgment as the outcome of fair procedures. We are troubled, however, by recent proceedings in this Court, which appears to us to have skewed the process and directed it towards an unjust conclusion.

As lawyers and jurists we place an exceedingly high value on due process of law and as Jews we are firmly committed to the Biblical doctrine: "Justice, justice shalt thou pursue." The recent decisions that have been rendered in this case do not, in our view, achieve justice.

We are filing this Memorandum to support the request of the United States that this case be reheard en banc. We have reviewed the motion filed by the United States, as well as the pleadings filed by Allan A. Ryan, Jr., Esq., and Norma Moscowitz, Esq., and the letters submitted by George Parker, Esq., and by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith signed by seven other organizations urging en banc review. We believe that this Memorandum does not duplicate any of the filings heretofore made with the Court. It presents valid reasons to support en banc review that have not previously been set forth.