Vilis HāznersJudicial review and denial of motion to appeal

A10 305 336

photographs (Tr. p. 751). Following objections by the respondent's counsel, the immigration judge stated that the introduction of the photographs required better foundation such as the number of photographs which were shown to the witness and in what order (Tr. p. 762). The immigration judge then learned from the Trial Attorney that the photographs in Exhibit 5 might be reproductions of the ones shown in Israel and not the originals (Tr. p. 803). A sharp exchange between the immigration judge and counsel ensued with the result that the immigration judge stated that unless the Service established that these were the same photographs shown In Israel by the live testimony of the Israeli investigator, the photographs, would be given little weight. The witnesss then testified that he had picked out photograph number 4 from Exhibit G5 as "Hazners" (Tr. p. 894). Witnesses Dolgizer, Ljak, Wulfowitz and Lowenstein similarly identified photograph number 4 from the display (Tr. p. 2515, 3536, 5137, 593-6038).

The witness gave extensive testimony as to how he was contacted by the Israeli investigators. He said "they came to me and they showed me the pictures of these people who participated in the extermination of Latvian Jewry" (Tr. p. 4319). He also stated that he was told that "since I was in the ghetto, I should come and talk to them, perhaps I will recognize some people who exterminated Jews" (Tr. p. 43110). The witness saw photographs on three occasions, twice in Israel and once in the United States, before testifying (Tr. p. 430, 43511), He claimed that on his first interview with Inspector Radiwker he picked out the respondent's photograph in a military uniform and in the second interview he recognized the same man in civilian dress (Tr. p. 43412, 434A13, 43114, 43515). Before the second interview began he was told that among the photos to be shown him there was a picture of the same person dressed differently (Tr. p. 46216).

Respondent's counsel objected to the photo spread and the related evidence's admissibility and the immigration judge later concluded that it had not been introduced into evidence (i.j. dec. p. 9). The Service contends that the photographic spread was offered into evidence and that its admission would have increased the weight of the evidence against the respondent dramatically (brief p. 1920) (Tr. p. 85317). We will consider the photographic spread as having been received into evidence (Tr. p. 85318).

However, we do not consider that it adds a great deal of weight to the Service's evidence.19 Some of the witnesses had also identified the respondent in court as the man they saw. Moreover, Inspector Radiwker testified that the photographs were shown to as many as 150 to 200 potential witnesses (Tr. p.

22