49

The prosecution, accordingly, was not unaware of the Grand Jury interpreter's lack of facility with legal terms and concepts. Throughout the course of the proceedings,

however, Mr. Flumenbaum maintained that the interpreter was qualified to translate before the Grand Jury.

Somewhat less obvious than the interpreter's

inability to think of the word "perjury," but equally prejudicial, was the interpreter's failure to convey the full import of false testimony. While the prosecutor stated that Mr. Kamiyama "could be charged with a separate criminal violation" for perjured testimony, the interpreter told Mr. Kamiyama that there was "a possibility" he would be "criticized" for testifying falsely. Clearly, the two expressions are not interchangeable.

The confusion

inevitably caused by Mr. Mochizuki's circular interpretation was reflected in Mr. Kamiyama's questions, which attempted to clarify the interpreter's vague expressions.

46/

At no

46/

This same type of circumlocution and confusion was noted by Mr. Sasagawa:

[Mr. Sasagawa]: This interpreter

[Mr. Mochizuki] translates with roundabout
expressions adding on his own unnecessary

interpretations, making errors in translation, and
because of this, Mr. Flumenbaum's questions go
around in circles many times. Listening to the
tapes I felt frustrated several times. I did tell
Flumenbaum about this. .

See, Exhibit L, supra at 52.

50

point, however, was the concept of a separate perjury prosecution explained to Mr. Kamiyama in an accurate and

concise manner.

4. Indictment Specifications

In addition to the Grand Jury oath and the various warnings which should have been provided to Mr. Kamiyama, the Grand Jury interpreter altered major portions of the dialogue between the prosecutor and Mr. Kamiyama. Many of these misinterpreted exchanges were incorporated within the indictment against Mr. Kamiyama as specifications of perjury.

(a) Count Ten

Count Ten of the superseding indictment, for example, includes the following specification, which is underlined as perjurious:

Q: [MR. FLUMENBAUM]: You prepared all the checks for him [i.e., Reverend Moon]?

A: [MR. KAMIYAMA]: That's correct.

In its Bill of Particulars, the Government stated that Mr. Kamiyama's answer was false because "Kamiyama did not prepare all the checks for Reverend Moon." (Emphasis

added.) This assertion, however, is intentionally

misleading when viewed in the context of the prosecutor's statements to the Grand Jury on December 15, 1981, the date that the superseding indictment was returned.

51

At that time, Mr. Flumenbaum made the following

comments to the Grand Jury in order to explain the

difference between the interpretation of the specification set forth in the original indictment and the specification as subsequently retranslated by Mr. Sasagawa:

[MR. FLUMENBAUM]: Second in that count, just
before the asterisks, Mr. Kamiyama testified
"that's correct." The question was "You prepared
all the checks for him."

You will remember that Mr. Sasagawa testified that the question was interpreted slightly more broadly than that and the question was "You mean that all the rest of the checks were previously written up, so he could sign when you asked him to sign?"

(Emphasis added.) Mr. Sasagawa's translation is consistent with that of Ms. Kosaka, the Court-appointed translator: In other words, you wrote out everything in other portions so that Reverend can sign and you asked for his signature.

Thus, the question which Mr. Kamiyama actually heard and

responded to, was not whether he prepared all of the checks

(the question asked in English by Mr. Flumenbaum). question which Mr. Kamiyama heard (as asked by the interpreter) was whether, with respect to each check, he had filled out all portions of the check other than the signature.

The

Both Mr. Sasagawa's and Ms. Kosaka's translation of the manner in which the question, "You prepared all of the checks for him?" was interpreted to Mr. Kamiyama, are

52

consistent with Mr. Kamiyama's answer to the question which

immediately followed:

Q: [MR. FLUMENBAUM]: Did you personally write the checks?

A: [MR. KAMIYAMA]: Right after my arrival, I wasn't familiar with English and I had a few other people surrounding me, and these are the people who did the job.

(Emphasis added.) Mr. Kamiyama's answer to this question directly contradicts the Government-appointed interpreter's earlier statement that Mr. Kamiyama had prepared all of the checks. The prosecutor subsequently explained to the Grand Jury that he would remove the "underlining" in this specification, thereby indicating that Mr. Kamiyama's answer was not false:

The job that they were talking about was the
writing of the checks for Reverend Moon. Based on
the review of the tapes, it seems that
Mr. Kamiyama actually didn't say that whole thing
about the actual people doing the job, making his
answer a little more, a little bit vague and as a
matter of law, if an answer is literally true but
unresponsive, that is not a perjurious answer.
it is literally true and non-responsive, even if
it is possibly misleading, that still is not a
perjurious response. It was my opinion that we
should remove the underlining because the

If

translation was slightly off enough, to, you know,
that the substance could be altered.

(Emphasis added.)

Although substantively, the original

interpretation of Mr. Kamiyama's answer to the question "Did you personally write the checks?" was literally the same as those translations subsequently prepared for Mr. Kamiyama

the prosecutor did not remove the Instead, Mr. Flumenbaum

underlining as he said he would.

deleted this question and answer, in its entirety, from the superseding indictment. The result of this deletion is that

-

that he

Mr. Kamiyama's answer to the previous question prepared all of the checks for Reverend Moon -- was taken completely out of context. Read literally in the context of the indictment, Mr. Kamiyama's response to this question clearly states that Mr. Kamiyama personally prepared all of the checks. Without the further qualification provided in the deleted specification, this response confirms the erroneous impression that others around Mr. Kamiyama had not prepared the checks.

Mr. Flumenbaum apparently knew that by deleting a specification which was substantially correct, the

specification which remained in the indictment would assume a completely different meaning. Moreover, as noted earlier, Mr. Flumenbaum knew that the remaining specification was incorrectly translated. The translation of the question

47/

Ms. Kosaka translated this answer as "upon my arrival at that time, my hearing comprehension and my writing ability in English was nil. I (did it) by asking such people around me. The translation prepared by the translator retained by Mr. Kamiyama which was cited in his Motion to Dismiss, was "When I first came, I could not understand English or speak English, so I was helped by those around me who could. There is no indication that Mr. Sasagawa's translation differed substantially.