« AnteriorContinuar »
A VOICE: A woman usually was here to interpret but wasn't. We had another man here.
MR. FLUMENBAUM: We had Mr. Mochizuki at that tine who is qualified, you know, interpreter. Be woolán't be before you if he weren't.
As I said, I think the changes that have been brought to you indicate that Mr. Mochizuki did a credible job in terms of interpreting the transcript. (Emphasis added.)
During the January 15, 1982 hearing on Mr. Kamiyama's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, Mr. Plumenbaum again described Mr. Mochizuki as a simultaneous interpreter:
MR. PLUMENBAUM: We certainly don't need someone who is a simultaneous interpreter as you had at the Grand Jury. Mr. Lawler's suggested changes in the language are based on someone playing the tape, listening to it, going back, listening to it. That is not the luxury that the Grand Jury interpreter and indeed, based on the suggested differences, it is not clear that the Grand Jury interpreter did a superb job in translating what is not a language that translates directly. The whole phraseology is reversed in English. You can't translate word for word.
P. 122. (Emphasis added.) 257
According to the translation which Mr. Sasagawa prepared for Mr. Flumenbaum, 40 the problems with the
23 Citations to the record of the proceedings against Reverend Moon and Mr. Kamiyama will be denoted as follows: citations to pleadings and rulings, "A."; to pretrial transcripts, "P. _"; to trial transcripts, "T._"; and to post-trial transcripts, "s "; and to Government Exhibits as "GX. ."
original consecutive interpretation were not minor, nor should Mr. Mochizuki have been characterized as a "qualified" interpreter. The Grand Jury, however, accepted Mr. Flumenbaum's assurance that Mr. Mochizuki was a
qualified "simultaneous" interpreter, and proceeded to
return a superseding indictment.
The comments of the Court also reveal that Judge Goettel did not understand the difference between simultaneous interpretation and consecutive interpretation as performed by Mr. Mochizuki. Although Judge Goettel
correctly noted that simultaneous interpretation should be required for courtroom proceedings, 21 he subsequently mischaracterized Mr. Mochizuki's interpretation as being simultaneous at the conclusion of the trial during his
instructions to the jury:
. . . in the course of ruling on the motions
2 In discussing the proper qualifications for a court-appointed translator, Judge Goettel stated:
For the courtroom you want somebody who can do
contemporaneous running translation that was made
Mr. Mochizuki was obviously not qualified to perform simultaneous interpretation, nor did he actually perform simultaneous interpretation during Mr. Kamiyama's Grand Jury testimony, as suggested by the prosecutor and the Court. Neither party, consequently, had an adequate understanding of the critical role played by the Grand Jury interpreter. As previously noted, simultaneous interpretation is performed at almost the same time, i.e., "simultaneously," as the words being translated are spoken. Because simultaneous interpretation requires that the
interpreter hear the words and convey their meaning while other words are being spoken, simultaneous interpretation requires an unusually high level of competence. If done properly, simultaneous interpretation should constitute an exact word-for-word replication, not a mere summary of what
Mr. Mochizuki, utilizing a consecutive method, listened to the words spoken, made fragmentary notations of
28/ those words, and subsequently retranslated the questions
or answers after they had been spoken.
interpretation, however, was replete with errors and unexplained omissions or embellishments.
29/ instances Mr. Mochizuki attempted to summarize sentences,
rather than interpreting Mr. Kamiyama's exact words. Such a summary should not serve as the basis for a perjury indictment, where every word of the defendant is critical.
The Prosecutor Proceeded with the Indictment
The Government's failure to retain a competent interpreter had a grave impact upon the outcome of Mr. Kamiyama's case. The prosecutor's adamant refusal to correct this error reflects the Government's intention to
continue with the prosecution of Reverend Moon and Mr. Kamiyama irrespective of any injustice resulting from an incorrect interpretation.
Mr. Mochizuki made only partial notations of the prosecutor's questions because Mr. Plumenbaum spoke hurriedly and posed his questions in rapid succession. See, Affidavit of Takeru Kamiyama, attached hereto as Exhibit T.
See, Section c, infra.
Even if one were to assume, however, that at the
time of Mr. Kamiyama's Grand Jury testimony Mr. Flumenbaum
was unaware of the fact that Mr. Mochizuki was qualified to perform only informal escort level interpretation, the
inadequacy of Mr. Mochizuki's interpretation was
subsequently brought to the prosecutor's attention.
Mr. Flumenbaum was provided with translations prepared by
Mr. Sasagawa, and by the Court-appointed translator,
30/ Ms. Kosaka.
Mr. Flumenbaum, however, disregarded
Mr. Sasagawa's painstaking reconstruction and proceeded with
his efforts to obtain an indictment charging Mr. Kamiyama
Further, after he successfully obtained an
indictment and after he had received copies of Ms. Kosaka's
translation and Mr. Sasagawa's complete report,
Mr. Flumenbaum proceeded with the prosecution of Mr. Kamiyama, knowing that the translation contained within the indictment did not accurately reflect Mr. Kamiyama's
testimony. This prosecution led to the conviction and
imprisonment of both Reverend Moon and Mr. Kamiyama.
The Translation Prepared by the
On December 15, 1981, the prosecutor presented a superseding indictment to the Grand Jury which he
A copy of this translation and Ms. Kosaka's notes to the Court are attached hereto as Exhibit J.