## Facts

- John Demjanjuk (born Iwan Demjanjuk) was born in Ukraine, was drafted into the Soviet Army during World War II, and was captured by German forces.
- After his capture, Demjanjuk was recruited by the Nazis and became associated with the SS guard system that used trained auxiliaries from the Trawniki camp to staff “Operation Reinhard” facilities.
- After the war, Demjanjuk lived in displaced-persons camps and later entered the United States on a visa issued under the Displaced Persons Act (DPA). He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1958.
- In 1977, the United States began denaturalization proceedings alleging that Demjanjuk had concealed SS guard service when applying for his visa and citizenship.
- In the first denaturalization case, the court revoked Demjanjuk’s citizenship based on documentary evidence (including a Trawniki identification card) and testimony linking him to “Ivan the Terrible,” the Treblinka gas-chamber operator.
- Demjanjuk was deported, extradited to Israel, convicted of war crimes, and later acquitted when other evidence indicated mistaken identity.
- Demjanjuk’s extradition-related judgments were vacated and his U.S. citizenship was restored after findings that the government had suppressed exculpatory materials in the first denaturalization litigation.
- In a second denaturalization proceeding, the government sought revocation again, this time based on evidence that Demjanjuk served as an SS guard trained at Trawniki and assigned to multiple camps. The government introduced wartime documents and expert testimony supporting the documents’ authenticity.
- The court found Demjanjuk had misrepresented material facts on his visa and naturalization applications, had assisted in the persecution of civilians (making him ineligible for a DPA visa), and had therefore illegally procured U.S. citizenship. He was deported and faced criminal proceedings in Germany.
- Years later, press reports described internal FBI documents from 1985 in which an FBI agent suggested that Soviet authorities sometimes supplied falsified war-crimes records about dissidents and speculated that the KGB may have influenced Demjanjuk’s prosecution; the agent did not conduct an independent investigation, interview witnesses, or review the documents at issue.
- Demjanjuk moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, including Rule 60(d)(3), seeking to set aside the second denaturalization judgment on the theory that the government’s failure to disclose the FBI documents amounted to fraud on the court.

## Issues

1. Whether the government’s failure to disclose internal FBI memoranda reflecting an agent’s speculation about possible Soviet fabrication of evidence constituted “fraud on the court” warranting relief from the second denaturalization judgment under Rule 60.

## Decision

- The court denied Demjanjuk’s Rule 60 motion.
- The court held that the withheld FBI materials did not establish fraud on the court.
- The court characterized the FBI memos as unsupported conjecture that would not have changed the outcome given the documentary record and expert testimony supporting the government’s proof in the second denaturalization case.
- The denaturalization judgment remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- Relief from a final judgment under Rule 60 is exceptional; a party must show a legally sufficient basis to reopen a concluded case.
- “Fraud on the court” under Rule 60(d)(3) is construed narrowly and targets conduct that corrupts the judicial process itself, not routine disputes over evidence or discovery.
- Nondisclosure, standing alone, typically does not amount to fraud on the court absent proof of an intentional scheme by officers of the court to deceive the tribunal and subvert adjudication.
- Speculative, uninvestigated opinions—especially where the author did not test the claim by examining the challenged evidence—do not show that trial evidence was false or that the court was misled.
- Where the original judgment rests on substantial documentary proof and supporting expert testimony, a movant must show more than possible impeachment value; the movant must demonstrate a serious effect on the integrity and result of the proceeding.

## Conclusion

The district court refused to reopen Demjanjuk’s second denaturalization judgment because the late-disclosed FBI memoranda amounted to an agent’s unverified suspicion about possible Soviet misconduct, not proof that the government presented false evidence or carried out a deliberate plan to mislead the court, and therefore did not meet the demanding standard for fraud-on-the-court relief under Rule 60.


United States v. Demjanjuk, 838 F. Supp. 2d 616 (2011)