Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01623/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01623-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vitalijus Polikarpovas
Petitioner
Bruno Stolic
Respondent

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SRM

- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Vitalijus Polikarpovas,

Petitioner

-vsBruno Stolic,

Respondent(s)

CV-06-1623-PHX-SRB (JI)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241

I. MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION

Petitioner, presently incarcerated in the Central Arizona Detention Center at Florence,

Arizona, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on June 27,

2006 (#1). On August 1, 2006 Respondent filed his Answer (#17). Petitioner filed a Reply

on October 10, 2006 (#29).

The Petitioner's Petition is now ripe for consideration. Accordingly, the undersigned

makes the following proposed findings of fact, report, and recommendation pursuant to Rule

8(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28

U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72.2(a)(2), Local Rules of Civil Procedure. 

II. RELEVANT FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This habeas petition arises out of a certificate of extraditability issued by Magistrate

Judge David K. Duncan in District of Arizona case number 05-6204MJ-DKD (hereinafter

“Extradition”), certifying that Petitioner was properly subject to extradition to Lithuania to

face charges of burglary. In issuing that order, Judge Duncan restated the allegations against

Petitioner:

Case 2:06-cv-01623-SRB Document 30 Filed 10/26/06 Page 1 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

The Arrest Warrant (denominated as "Enclosure No 5" attached to

Government's Exhibit 1) alleges that Vitalijus Polikarpovas violated

Paragraph 2 of Article 271 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of

Lithuania in that "on 18 July 1999, at about 4.00 p.m. and at about 5.00

p.m., by breaking into non-residential premises – the window workshop

of UAB 'Runika', which was being equipped, located at Savitiškio str. 10

b, Panev.žys, he secretly stole the property belonging to the company

'Runika' – 10 sacks of the cement 'Vilmesta' and a welding apparatus

totally estimated LTL 920." Based upon the accompanying investigative

report which includes interviews with witnesses and the Defendant,

Vitalijus Polikarpovas, it is more particularly alleged that Vitalijus

Polikarpovas made arrangements to sell bags of cement to two

individuals.

He then in the company of another individual traveled by taxi

twice to Runika, opened a gate to a workshop, escorted the taxi into the

workshop and loaded bags of cement and the welding apparatus into the

taxi. On one of the trips into the workshop Respondent was approached

by a worker who inquired about the removal of the cement. The

Respondent answered that the cement belonged to him. Runika later

reported the cement and welding apparatus as stolen.

(Extradition #16, Order 5/22/6 at 5-6.)

An investigation ensued, and is summarized in the documents submitted with the

application for extradition, which included: 

(1) Anilionis - The Concerned Employee - An interview of Virgis Anilionis, who

said that on July 18, 1999, his brother Jurijus Anilionis called him on his mobile

phone to tell him that some men were taking goods away from UAB “Runika”

by taxi. Anilionis called Brazdžionis, the head of the Runika workshop, and told

him about the men removing the goods. Brazdžionis told him no one had

permission to remove any goods. Anilionis reported the matter to the police.

(Id. at 21-22.)

(2) Janulis - Another Employee - An interview of Vaidas Janulis who reported that

on July 18, 1999, he was called by Virgis Anilionis who informed him that

cement and a welder had been stolen from UAB “Runika.” When Janulis arrived

at Runika, he found out from Anilionis that the police had found the goods and

the men who stole them. Later, Janulis learned from police that one of the men

was Vitalijus Polikarpovas, a man who had come to Runika several weeks prior,

but he did not work at Runika. 

Case 2:06-cv-01623-SRB Document 30 Filed 10/26/06 Page 2 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The numbering of the pages of the summary of the criminal case are irregular, and are therefore reproduced

verbatim herein. The originals of the Exhibits to the Complaint (Extradition #1) were introduced at the extradition hearing

as Exhibits 1 and 2, but were apparently forwarded to the State Department with the extradition certification. (Extradition

#18, Letter to State Dept.) Exhibit 3 introduced at the extradition hearing is undefined, and apparently not part of the

Court’s record. (See Extradition #17, R.T. 1/10/6 at 14-15.)

- 3 -

(3) Rudys - The Identifier of the Stolen Goods - An interview of Valdas Rudys,

who was called by Virgis Anilionis and told about the theft from UAB “Runika”.

Rudys went to the police, who took him to the house in Jotvingiå Street, and

explained that the residents had purchased cement and a welder stolen from

Runika. Rudys saw the cement and welder, and identified them as Runika

property. Rudys was told by police that the property had been stolen by Vitalijus

Polikarpovas, who Rudys had seen several times at Runika. (Id. at 24.)

(4) Alekna - The Investigating Officer - Statements by Aidas Alekna, a Panevéžys

police officer, who took a complaint from V. Rudys who reported the theft,

described the use of the taxi, and implicated Vitalijus Polikarpovas, a former

employee of UAB Runika. Officer Alekna located the taxi and its driver, who

described the homes where the stolen goods were taken, and the pub where he

had picked up the passengers who got them. Officer Alekna then went to the

homes, on Jotvingiå street, and interviewed Povlias Klezys and Regina Vizoriene

who said they had purchased the goods from Vitalijus Polikarpovas and Vytautas

Janušonis. The goods were recovered from Klezys and Vizoriene. Officer

Alekna then went to the pub described by the taxi driver, and found Polikarpovas

and Janušonis. (Extradition #1, Complaint, Exhibit 2, Enclosure 4, at “20.”)1

 

(5) Klezys - The Primary Purchaser - An interview of Povilas Klezys who

reported that a few days before the theft he met a friend, Vytautas Janušonis at

a pub. Janušonis introduced him to man he called Vitalijus Polikarpovas.

Polikarpovas offered to sell Klezys some leftover cement. Klezys agreed to

buy four bags. They also discussed the potential that Klezys’ neighbor, Regina

Vizoriene might want to purchase some as well. On July 18, 1999, Janušonis

Case 2:06-cv-01623-SRB Document 30 Filed 10/26/06 Page 3 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

and Polikarpovas came to say the cement would be delivered soon. Klezys went

to Vizoriene and found she was interested in six bags of cement. Later that day,

Janušonis and Polikarpovas delivered by taxi six bags of cement to Vizoriene

and four bags to Klezys. Klezys, seeing the welder, inquired about it and

purchased it as well. Klezys paid Polikarpovas for the cement and the welder.

(Id. at “30-30a

”.) 

(6) Vizorienè - The Secondary Purchaser - An interview of Regina Vizorienè who

arranged to purchase some cement through her neighbor Povlias Klezys, and

stated it was delivered by Vytautas Janušonis and a man who introduced himself

as Vitalijus Polikarpovas, who she paid for the cement. She also saw Janušonis

and Polikarpovas delivering a welding apparatus to Klezys. (Id. at “2-47.”)

(7) Janušonis - The Unwitting Accomplice - An interview of Vytautas Janušonis,

who stated that while at a beer pub he met a man named Vitalijus Polikarpovas,

who lived in Kaunas City. On July 17, 1999, he was at the pub with Polikarpovas

and Povilas Klezys, when Polikarpovas offered to sell Klezys some cement.

Polikarpovas claimed that he worked at UAB “Runika,” knew the owner, and kept

10 bags of cement there, but the owner had told him to take them away. On July

18, Janušonis confirmed how much cement Klezys and his neighbor Regina

Vizorienè wanted. He then went with Polikarpovas by taxi, to UAB “Runika” and

got six bags of cement and delivered them to Klezys. They returned again to

UAB “Runika” by taxi, got four more bags and a welder, which were delivered

to Klezys. Polikarpovas also sold the welder to Klezys. Janušonis and

Polikarpovas then went back to the pub. (Id. at “31-32.”)

(8) Blauzdys - The Taxi Driver - An interview of Aidas Blauzdys, the taxi driver

who picked up two unknown, intoxicated men at the beer pub on Vilniaus Street,

took them to a storehouse on Savitiškio Street where they loaded his trunk with

six bags of cement, and them he took them to a house on Jotvingiå Street. After

they unloaded the cement, he drove them back to the storehouse, where they

Case 2:06-cv-01623-SRB Document 30 Filed 10/26/06 Page 4 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

loaded his car with another four bags of cement and a welder. One of the

passengers was asked by workers at the storehouse about the cement, but the

passenger told them that it belonged to him. Blauzdys then drove them back to

the house where they unloaded the stuff, and paid Blauzdys. (Id. at “25-25.”)

During an “identity parade,” Blauzdys identified the suspect, Vitalijus

Polikarpovas, as one of the men he had driven from Savitiškio Street to Jotvingiå

Street. (Id. at 41.) 

(9) Brazdžionis - The Owner Who Gave a Ride - An interview of Audrius

Brazdžionis, who reported that at the end of June, 1999, had given a ride to a

hitchhiker traveling from Kaunas City, who introduced himself as Vitalijus

Polikarpovas from Kaunas City. Brazdžionis left Polikarpovas in Cikiškés, but

gave him his phone number. Two weeks later Polikarpovas called him and said

that he wanted to come to Panevèžys. Polikarpovas later showed up and asked

Brazdžionis for a job at UAB “Runika.” Polikarpovas came again the next day,

and Brazdžionis showed him where he would work and what he would do.

Polikarpovas left for a week, and then showed up again on July 15-16, 1999,

again asking for work. Brazdžionis then left for Germany and heard nothing

more until being told that Polikarpovas had been caught stealing from Runika.

(Id. at “27-28.”)

(10) Polikarpovas - The Suspect - An interrogation of Vitalijus Polikarpovas, who

claimed that on July 10, 1999 he had come to Panevèžys from Kaunas City to

see Audrius Brazdžionis, the owner of UAB “Runika.” Polikarpovas was

working at Runika, and sleeping there. He met Vytautas Janušonis at a beer pub,

and began meeting him there every day. On July 17, 1999, Janušonis introduced

his friend Povilas Klezys, and they discussed Klezys’ need for cement and

Polikarpovas’ ability to get cement. They also discussed Klezys’ neighbor’s

need for cement. On July 18, 1999, after finding out how much cement Klezys

needed, Polikarpovas and Janušonis took a taxi to Runika. They got six bags of

Case 2:06-cv-01623-SRB Document 30 Filed 10/26/06 Page 5 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 The basis for identifying the photos as passport photos is unclear. The space on the passport application

itself (Extradition #1, Complaint, Exhibit 2 at Enclosure 1) is blank. Enclosure 2 does not contain anything identifying

it with a passport, but instead bears repeated stamps of the “Chief Police Commissariat, Panevèžys City.”

- 6 -

cement into the taxi and delivered them to a house on Jotvingiå Street. Being

drunk, he didn’t know which house. They then returned to Runika and got four

more bags of cement and a welder. They took those to Jotvingiå Street and sold

them as well. Polikarpovas and Janušonis then returned to the pub. The next

thing he remembers is waking up at the sobering-up station. (Id. at 23.)

Polikarpovas confirmed his statements during an inspection of the scene of the

crime. (Id. at 38-39.) 

The suspect was charged with the theft, and summary proceedings determined that a trial

should be held. The suspect executed a “written pledge of not leaving” wherein he identified

himself as Vitalijus Polikarpovas, and provided an address of Taikos Avenue 82-57, Kaunas.

The criminal court’s documents identified his date of birth as March 23, 1972. The suspect

absconded, and on August 31, 1999 a warrant for his arrest was issued. (Extradition #1,

Complaint, Exhibit 2, Enclosure 5.) On September 8, 1999, the criminal case was suspended.

(Id. at Enclosure 6.) 

Also produced by the Government is a Lithuanian passport application made by Vitalijus

Polikarpovas, born March 23, 1972, residing at Taikos Avenue 82-57, Kaunas. (Id. at

Enclosure 1.) Also provided were photographs, that the Government identified without

objection by Petitioner as passport photos. (Id. at Enclosure 2; Extradition #17, R.T. 1/10/06

at 16-17.)2

B. PROCEEDINGS ON EXTRADITION

The extradition proceeding was commenced on August 19, 2005, when the United

States, acting on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, executed a Complaint

(Extradition, #1) for extradition of Petitioner to Lithuania pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184. An

arrest warrant was issued (Extradition, #3), and Petitioner was arrested on November 28, 2005

Case 2:06-cv-01623-SRB Document 30 Filed 10/26/06 Page 6 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

(Extradition, #20, Arrest Warrant Returned Executed). Counsel Tom Crow was appointed to

represent Petitioner, who was ordered detained (Extradition #5, M.E. 11/29/5).

On January 10, 2006, Judge Duncan conducted an extradition hearing, where Petitioner

was present with counsel. (Extradition #17, R.T. 1/10/06; Extradition #11, M.E. 1/10/06.) 

At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel were directed to file supplemental briefs.

(Extradition #11, M.E. 1/10/06.) Counsel did so, and on May 22, 2006, Judge Duncan issued

his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Certification of Extraditability (Extradition

#16). The Certificate was ordered to be submitted to the U.S. Department of State for a

determination of whether Petitioner should be surrendered to Lithuania. (Extradition #16,

Certificate.) 

In issuing his certificate, Judge Duncan reached the following conclusions, inter alia:

1. the court had proper jurisdiction;

2. an extradition treaty was in effect;

3. the alleged crime was covered by the treaty, and charges for the crime remained

pending; 

4. there was “competent legal evidence which supports the issuance of an arrest

warrant for Vitalijus Polikarpovas for the crime alleged in the Complaint”; and

5. “[t]he evidence is sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that the crime

was committed and that the person before the court, Vitalijus Polikarpovas,

committed it”. 

(Extradition #16, Certification at 8-9.)

C. PRESENT HABEAS PROCEEDINGS

On June 27, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that there was no probable cause to conclude that

Petitioner was the person who committed the alleged offense in Lithuania. Specifically,

Petitioner alleges that “[t]here was no evidence in the record which connected the passport

photo contained in the extradition documents to the person identified by the witnesses in the

Case 2:06-cv-01623-SRB Document 30 Filed 10/26/06 Page 7 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 See Vo v. Benov, 447 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2006) (“ a habeas petition is the only available avenue to

challenge an extradition order”).

- 8 -

remainder of the extradition documents.” (#1 at 5.)

The extradition of Petitioner was stayed, and service and an answer was ordered (#7).

On August 1, 2006 Respondent filed his Answer (#17). Respondent concedes the propriety

of habeas review of the Petitioner’s ground for relief,3

 but asserts there was sufficient

evidence to support Judge Duncan’s order.

Following delays resulting from Petitioner’s transport to Chicago for extradition, and

ultimate return to Arizona (see Notice re Petitioner’s Custody Status, #27), Petitioner filed

a Reply on October 10, 2006 (#29). Petitioner argues in his Reply that the evidence may show

that Petitioner is the person charged with the crime (as established by the listing of his name

and address in the charges), but there was not sufficient evidence to show that Petitioner

committed the crime.

III. APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS

The sole issue in this habeas proceeding is whether there was sufficient evidence

presented in the extradition proceeding for Judge Duncan to conclude that there was “probable

cause to believe that the crime was committed and that the person before the court, Vitalijus

Polikarpovas, committed it”. (Extradition #16 at 8-9.)

Extent of Habeas Review - “The scope of the district court's review of a magistrate's

extradition order on a petition for writ of habeas corpus is limited to ‘. . . whether there was

any evidence warranting the finding that there was reasonable ground to believe the accused

guilty.’ ” Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 790 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Fernandez v.

Phillips, 268 U.S. 311, 312 (1925). 

The magistrate's probable cause determination “serve[s] only the narrow

function of indicating those items of submitted evidence on which the

decision to certify extradition is based.” Because the magistrate's

probable cause finding is thus not a finding of fact “in the sense that the

court has weighed the evidence and resolved disputed factual issues,” it

must be upheld if there is any competent evidence in the record to

support it. 

Case 2:06-cv-01623-SRB Document 30 Filed 10/26/06 Page 8 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 -

Quinn, 783 F.3d at 790 (citations omitted). The question is one of sufficiency to find

probable cause of guilt, not sufficiency to find guilt. Id. “But the country seeking extradition

is not required to produce all its evidence at an extradition hearing and it is not our role to

determine whether there is sufficient evidence to convict the accused. The magistrate does not

weigh conflicting evidence and make factual determinations but, rather, determines only

whether there is competent evidence to support the belief that the accused has committed the

charged offense.” Id. 

Thus, this habeas court’s scope of review is limited to determining “whether, because

of an absence of competent evidence, the magistrate's determination is wrong as a matter of

law.” Id. at 815. In conducting such review, the “credibility of witnesses and the weight to be

accorded their testimony is solely within the province of the extradition magistrate.” Id.

Nature of Evidence Presented - In this proceeding, the Government introduced

evidence that could be categorized as two different stages in the process: the evidence of the

crime to support the prosecution (crime evidence), and the evidence connecting Petitioner to

the prosecution (identity evidence). Both must be established to provide the necessary

connection between Petitioner and the crime. Petitioner alleges that only the latter (“identity

evidence”) was established in this extradition proceeding, and that the Government failed to

connect Petitioner, through the prosecution, to the commission of the crime.

The Nature of Judge Duncan’s Probable Cause Determination - In making his

findings of fact and conclusions of law, Judge Duncan noted that Petitioner argued inter alia

that “there is not sufficient evidence in the record to establish probable cause that he is the

individual who committed the charged offense.” (Extradition #16, Order at 6.) And indeed,

Judge Duncan had properly noted his duty to find probable cause that “a crime was committed

and that the person before the court committed it.” (Id. at 5.) 

 In resolving Petitioner’s issue, however, Judge Duncan stated his conclusion as a

finding that “sufficient evidence exists to establish probable cause that the Respondent is the

individual sought pursuant to the warrant of arrest.” (Extradition #16, Order at 6 (emphasis

added).) Thus, Judge Duncan’s discussion focused not on evidence of Petitioner’s commission

Case 2:06-cv-01623-SRB Document 30 Filed 10/26/06 Page 9 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 -

of the crime, but on evidence of Petitioner’s having been charged with a crime. In doing so,

Judge Duncan focused on the “identity evidence” to the exclusion of the “crime evidence.”

This shift in focus is shown by the evidence on which Judge Duncan relied to justify his

conclusion: 

The Court finds that sufficient evidence exists to establish

probable cause that the Respondent is the individual sought pursuant to

the warrant of arrest. The August 31, 1999 Order issuing the arrest

warrant for Vitalijus Polikarpovas (Enclosure No 5 attached to

Government's Exhibit 1) sets forth a birth date of March 23 1972, and a

residential address of Taikos Avenue 82-57, Kaunas City. Both sets of

particulars match the information contained in the passport application

submitted for this Court's consideration. The passport photo submitted

to this Court as part of this passport application matches the visage of the

Respondent such that, taking these facts together, there is probable cause

to believe that the person named in the extradition request is the

individual sought pursuant to the warrant of arrest and is the same

individual presently in the custody of this Court and identified as

Vitalijus Polikarpovas. The Court Order issuing the arrest warrant

further indicates that Vitalijus Polikarpovas pledged not to leave his

residence address for a period of a year and a half but that he had not

done so because "to the knowledge of the court, the accused Vitalijus

Polikarpovas has not been living at the address: Taikos Avenue 82-57,

Kaunas." A subsequent court order issued upon defendant's failure to

appear on September 8, 1999, notes that "Vitalijus Polikarpovas does not

live at the address indicated in the written pledge of not leaving: Taikos

Avenue 82-57, Kaunas city". There is probable cause to believe that

Respondent provided this address to the authorities in the charging

jurisdiction – an address which matches the passport application

associated with the photograph which matches the Respondent in this

Court's custody. The Court admits there is the possibility that the

individual who appeared before the district court of Panev.žys City

falsely provided the name and address of a person from Kaunas City and

that the Court now has before it the person whose identity was falsely

assumed. The Court believes this possibility is remote and far less than

the fair probability that the individual sought pursuant to the arrest

warrant is the person presently in the custody of the United States

District Court for the District of Arizona.

(Extradition #16, Order at 6-7.) Thus, it is apparent that in at least this part of his Order, Judge

Duncan was not responding to Petitioner’s challenge to evidence of his commission of the

crime, but was instead addressing only the “identity evidence”, i.e. whether it was Petitioner

who had been prosecuted in Lithuania. The evidence discussed by Judge Duncan does not

include the “crime evidence.” It does not extend back to the commission of the crime, nor

even its investigation. Rather, it begins with the August 31, 1999 arrest warrant, moves to the

pledge not to leave, and ends with the order on failure to appear before the Lithuanian court.

Case 2:06-cv-01623-SRB Document 30 Filed 10/26/06 Page 10 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

 The transcript of the extradition hearing suggests that Judge Duncan was not ignoring the need for the “crime

evidence,” but had already implicitly determined that the confession and “identity parade” discussed hereinafter

adequately connected the person arrested in the Lithuanian prosecution with the commision of the crime. (R.T. 1/10/06,

#17 at 33-34.) In that event, the only thing that would remain would be to in turn establish that Petitioner was the person

arrested (the “identity evidence”). 

- 11 -

And Judge Duncan properly connects these to Petitioner through his passport application and

his visage. However, none of this does anything to establish that Petitioner committed the

crime, but merely that he was prosecuted for its commission.4

Judge Duncan did ultimately address the commission of the crime issue when he

concluded, without explanation, that “[t]he evidence is sufficient to establish probable cause

to believe that the crime was committed and that the person before the court, Vitalijus

Polikarpovas, committed it.” (Extradition #16, order at 9.) The question thus remains for this

habeas court to answer: was there competent evidence to support a probable cause finding that

Petitioner committed the crime?

Evidence of Commission of Crime - Petitioner does not, in this proceeding,

challenge whether an extraditable crime occurred. His sole argument is that there was

insufficient evidence before Judge Duncan that Petitioner committed the crime. 

Respondent argues that there was competent evidence that Petitioner committed the

crime. However, much of the evidence to which Respondent points is the same evidence relied

upon by Judge Duncan to connect Petitioner with the prosecution (and not the crime),

including the August 31, 1999 arrest warrant and order and the “written pledge of not leaving.”

(#17 at 3-4.) The only evidence pointed to by Respondents that does serve to connect

Petitioner to the crime, as opposed to the prosecution, is limited to two items: (1) a

confession; and (2) an “identity parade.”

The Confession - Respondents argue that the person who appeared before authorities

in 1999 (“the accused”) had confessed to police “that he had come from Kaunas prior to

stealing cement and welding equipment.” (Response, #17 at 4 (citing Enclosure No. 4 to

Government’s Exhibit 2.) Respondents argue that the person providing this confession had

been described by witnesses Vytautas Janusonis, Vaidas Janulis and Audrius Brazdzionis as

Case 2:06-cv-01623-SRB Document 30 Filed 10/26/06 Page 11 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

 There was ample evidence corroborating the story of the taxi driver, including statements of the accomplice,

Vytautas Janßsonis (Extradition #1, Complaint at Exhibit 2, Enclosure 4 at “31-32"), the buyers, Povilas Klezys (id. at “30-

30a

”) and Regina Vizoriené (id. at “2-47"), another taxi driver, Audrius Brazdzionis, who claimed to have picked up

Vitalijus Polikarpovas on the road from Kaunas (id. at 27-28), and an eyewitness to the theft, Virgis Anilionis, who

related the use of a taxi (id. at 21-22).

- 12 -

“Vitilijus Polikarpovas from ‘Kaunas City.’ “ (Id. (citing Enclosure No. 4 to Government’s

Exhibit 2).) And, Respondents note, Petitioner lists Kaunas City as his permanent address in

his passport application. (Id.)

And indeed, a review of the July 30, 1999 “Notice to the Court” shows that during an

interview of the suspect, the suspect related that he had traveled from Kaunas to Panevéžys

(where the crime occurred), that he met Vytautas Janusonis at a beer pub, and with Janusonis

took a taxi to UAB “Runika” and took cement and a welder and sold it to various persons.

(Complaint, #1 at Exhibit 2, Enclosure 4 at “23".) The Notice does not, however, reflect how

the suspect being interviewed was identified as “Vitalijus Polikarpovas.” That information was

supplied, however, by the testimony of the taxi driver, and others, as discussed hereinafter.

The Identity Parade - Respondent argues that “the July 30, 1999 Notice to the Court

indicates that a witness identified the suspect through an ‘identity parade’ as Vitalijus

Polikarpovas.” (Answer, #17 at 4 (citing Enclosure No. 4 to Government’s Exhibit 2).) 

The documents submitted in support of the extradition application reflect that Aidas

Blauzdys stated that he had driven the taxi used to pickup the cement and welder and deliver it

to the buyers. The record then states that “[d]uring the identity parade, witness Aidas Blauzys

[sic] identified the accused Vitalijus Polikarpovas as the person, whom he took by taxi from

Savitiškio str. 10b

 to Jotvingiå str.” (Extradition #1, Complaint at Exhibit 2, Enclosure 4 at

“41".)5

 Petitioner concedes that the taxi driver made an identification, but protests in his Reply

that the “identity parade” is not defined and is not itself part of the record. (Reply, #29 at 2-3.)

If this matter were being tried, the nature of the “identity parade” would be of the utmost

interest, raising questions of its fairness and reliability. However, for purposes of extradition,

the processes of garnering evidence are not so relevant. “[A]lthough the magistrate may take

the circumstances of an identification into account in assessing its reliability, there is no per

Case 2:06-cv-01623-SRB Document 30 Filed 10/26/06 Page 12 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 13 -

se rule that specifies which identification procedures are ‘competent’ for probable cause

purposes. An identification does not fail to constitute competent evidence merely because the

required United States procedures for admissibility of the identification at trial were not

followed.” Quinn, 783 F.2d at 815.

Moreover, it is of no moment that there is no direct evidence from the various

witnesses, e.g. depositions, affidavits, etc. As in a probable cause determination in the United

States for the issuance of a Complaint and warrant, the use of hearsay evidence is permitted.

“With regard to the admissibility of evidence, the general United States extradition law

requires only that the evidence submitted be properly authenticated.” Emami v. United States

Dist. Court, 834 F.2d 1444, 1451 (9th Cir.1987) (upholding the use of unsigned translations

of witness statements). See 18 U.S.C. § 3190 (“Depositions, warrants, or other papers or

copies thereof offered in evidence upon the hearing of any extradition case shall be received

and admitted as evidence on such hearing for all the purposes of such hearing if they shall be

properly and legally authenticated...”). See also Quinn, 783 F.2d at 815 (rejecting claim of

“double-hearsay”).

The Connection to Petitioner - Based on the foregoing, there is ample evidence to

find probable cause to believe that the suspect in the Lithuanian prosecution did indeed commit

the crime of stealing the cement and the welder. Thus, there was competent evidence for a

probable cause determination on the “crime evidence”

However, that does not necessarily implicate Petitioner. The identification of the

Lithuanian suspect as one “Vitalijus Polikarpovas” may not of itself be sufficient. However,

if the evidence not only provided probable cause that X committed the crime and was arrested

for it (the “crime evidence”), but also probable cause to believe that Y is the same person who

was arrested (the “identity evidence”), then X and Y are the same, and therefore it can be said

there is probable cause to believe that Y committed the crime. That logic provides a basis for

extrapolating probable cause from the evidence showing that Petitioner is the same person as

that who was being prosecuted in Lithuania under the name “Vitalijus Polikarpovas.” 

The evidence connecting Petitioner to the Lithuanian suspect was amply identified by

Case 2:06-cv-01623-SRB Document 30 Filed 10/26/06 Page 13 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 14 -

Judge Duncan, and included the identity of names, addresses and birthdays between the

information provided by the Lithuanian suspect in the course of the prosecution, and that

provided by Petitioner on his passport. Judge Duncan found that the “passport photo submitted

to this Court as part of this passport application matches the visage of the Respondent.”

(Extradition #16, Order at 6.) Thus both the “crime evidence” and the “identity evidence” were

provided by the Government. From Petitioner to his passport photo to his passport application

to the Lithuanian court documents to the suspect and witnesses in the Lithuanian prosecution,

the line of evidence establishes probable cause to believe not only that Petitioner was the one

being prosecuted in Lithuania, but also that he was the one who committed the theft of the

cement and welder.

Thus the evidence before Judge Duncan, in the words of Petitioner, connects “the dots”

between Petitioner and the person identified by the Lithuanian witnesses (and the confessing

suspect) as having committed the theft. As such, there was competent evidence to support

Judge Duncan’s conclusion that there was probable cause to find that Petitioner committed the

crime charged.

IV. RECOMMENDATION

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus, filed June 27, 2006 (#1) be DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that stay of extradition issued July 17, 2006 (#7)

be LIFTED.

V. EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. 

However, pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall

have ten (10) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to

Case 2:06-cv-01623-SRB Document 30 Filed 10/26/06 Page 14 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 15 -

file specific written objections with the Court. See also Rule 8(b), Rules Governing Section

2254 Proceedings. Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response

to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of

the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of

the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).

DATED: October 26, 2006 _____________________________________

JAY R. IRWIN 

S:\Drafts\OutBox\06-1623-1r RR 06 10 20 re HC on Extradition.wpd United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-01623-SRB Document 30 Filed 10/26/06 Page 15 of 15