24

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, he subsequently

27/

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
concerning the translation, I had a court

translator appointed and that translator made an
official translation for the court as to what
occurred in the Grand Jury. Needless to say, that
is a far more accurate translation than the

27/

In discussing the proper qualifications for a court-appointed translator, Judge Goettel stated:

P. 43.

For the courtroom you want somebody who can do
pretty close to a simultaneous interpretation and
has a good memory of what has been said and so
forth whereas comparison for the accuracy of
interpretation, given two alternatives, I think
probably something in the nature of a linguistics
scholar is more called for.

25

contemporaneous running translation that was made
by an interpreter in the jury. I think you will
understand that somebody sitting down and

listening to and studying for a period of time the
translation involved can come up with a much more
complete and accurate translation than can
somebody who is making a simultaneous translation
immediately before the jury. In one regard,
however, the interpretation in the Grand Jury is
better than the court appointed translation, and
that is that the interpreter on the scene was able
to hear things that on the tape the

court-appointed translator couldn't pick up. So
the court-appointed translator has got some

inaudibles where the translator in the court made
translations.

T. 6542.

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 was said.

26

Mr. Mochizuki, utilizing a consecutive method,

listened to the words spoken, made fragmentary notations of

those words,

28/

and subsequently retranslated the questions

or answers after they had been spoken. Mr. Mochizuki's

interpretation, however, was replete with errors and unexplained omissions or embellishments. 29/

In many

Such a

instances Mr. Mochizuki attempted to summarize sentences, rather than interpreting Mr. Kamiyama's exact words. summary should not serve as the basis for a perjury indictment, where every word of the defendant is critical.

B.

The Prosecutor Proceeded With the Indictment
and Prosecution of Mr. Kamiyama, Although He
Was Aware That Mr. Mochizuki's Interpretation
Did Not Accurately Reflect the Substance of
Mr. Kamiyama's Testimony.

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.

28/

See,

Mr. Mochizuki made only partial notations of the prosecutor's questions because Mr. Flumenbaum spoke hurriedly and posed his questions in rapid succession. Affidavit of Takeru Kamiyama, attached hereto as Exhibit I.

27

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,
Ms. Kosaka.

30/

Mr. Flumenbaum, however, disregarded

Mr. Sasagawa's painstaking reconstruction and proceeded with his efforts to obtain an indictment charging Mr. Kamiyama

with perjury.

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.

1.

The Translation Prepared by the
Government-Appointed Translator Clearly
Indicated that Mr. Mochizuki's

Interpretation Was Deficient in Several
Major Respects.

On December 15, 1981, the prosecutor presented a

superseding indictment to the Grand Jury which he

30/

A copy of this translation and Ms. Kosaka's notes to the Court are attached hereto as Exhibit J.

28

characterized as correcting several "minor" errors in

Mr. Mochizuki's interpretation. On the same day,

Mr. Sasagawa appeared as a witness before the Grand Jury to

testify with regard to the adequacy of Mr. Mochizuki's

interpretation.

31/

Although Mr. Kamiyama has not been

permitted to review the transcript of Mr. Sasagawa's testimony, or the report which Mr. Sasagawa prepared for Mr. Flumenbaum, a copy of the transcript of the colloquy between Mr. Flumenbaum and the Grand Jury pertaining to Mr. Sasagawa's testimony was subsequently provided to counsel for Mr. Kamiyama

-

Mr. Andrew Lawler

("Mr. Lawler"). Similarly, Mr. Sasagawa was interviewed in Tokyo, Japan on August 25, 1984, by Mrs. Kinko Sato

32/

These

("Mrs. Sato"), a distinguished Japanese attorney. materials confirm that Mr. Mochizuki's errors were not, as

31/

Mr. Flumenbaum did not disclose to Mr. Kamiyama that a translator had appeared before the Grand Jury. After the trial, however, Mr. Kamiyama inadvertently learned of Mr. Sasagawa's appearance and requested a transcript of his testimony, as well as a copy of a report which he had prepared for Mr. Flumenbaum. Both the Government and the Court refused to provide Mr. Kamiyama with these documents. See, Endorsement, March 10, 1983.

32/

Mrs. Sato's curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit K. In addition, a transcript of Mr. Sasagawa's interview is attached hereto as Exhibit L.