2 "evidence" which maligned and generally cast aspersion upon the religious tenets and practices of the Unification Church, as well as its members and Reverend Moon. In essence, the case against Reverend Moon is, and has been since its inception, an indictment and trial of the Unification Church. These comments are submitted as a supplement to the oral testimony given by Reverend Moon before the Subcommittee, and are designed in part to address questions raised by certain members of the Subcommittee with respect to the fundamental fairness of the prosecution against Reverend Moon. No attempt has been made herein to justify or criticize specific legal theories asserted during the course of the various proceedings in this case. This document, rather, attempts to portray the full tenor of the prosecution, from the indictment of Reverend Moon to the time of his incarceration, through spontaneous statements of the Court, the prosecutors and the jurors. These remarks . have not been culled selectively for the purpose of creating a predetermined impression. In all cases, they are arranged as fairly as possible, in order to demonstrate individual attitudes and reactions, and to shed light upon the vital issues of religious freedom, Constitutional right and proper functioning of the judicial system, which are the concern of this Subcommittee. 3 Against this background, an objective review of the record herein leads to the conclusion that the purpose of the investigation and trial of Reverend Moon was not, as 1/ 2/ suggested by the Government and the Court, simply to determine "whether or not certain property belonged to defendant Moon and whether he should have declared them as his and paid taxes on them." The purpose of this prosecution, rather, was to determine "whether or not the Unification Church is a true religion or a cult and whether or not it has been beneficial to America.' 3/ BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY The investigation of Reverend Moon began with a letter dated January 9, 1976, from Senator Robert Dole, a member of the Senate Committee responsible for the oversight of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), to Mr. Donald Alexander, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. In 1/ TR. 2194. Citations to the record as reprinted in the appendix submitted to the Court of Appeals will be denoted as follows: Citations to pre-trial transcript, "P__"; to trial transcript, "TR. "; to post-trial transcript, "S__"; to Government Exhibits "GX. "; and to Defendants' Exhibits, "DX. 3/ See, TR. 1758. The Court acknowledged after jury selection and prior to trial that because of the jurors' negative attitudes, if these were the issues to be tried "the situation would be pretty critical." this letter, Senator Dole requested that the IRS begin an investigation of the tax exempt status of the Unification Church. He expressed concern over "mind control techniques" allegedly employed by the Church, as well as the validity of the Church's fundraising activities and Reverend Moon's "affluent life [style]," which he characterized as beyond that which "could be reasonably expected for any clergyman." Subsequent to his indictment for tax evasion and conspiracy, Reverend Moon publicly questioned the Government's motives for prosecuting him. One notable speech, made on October 22, 1981 in Foley Square, outside of the District Court building in New York City, was reprinted in the New York Times. This speech was cited by the Government as the basis for its later refusal to accede to Reverend Moon's request for a bench trial. Ignoring clear evidence that it would be impossible to find a non-biased jury, the Government insisted that Reverend Moon's public criticism of the Government's motives made a jury trial necessary in order to preserve the "appearance of fairness." Even the Court acknowledged, following several days of voir dire examination of prospective jurors however, that a non-jury trial would in fact be fairer, but concluded that it could not overrule the Government's refusal to consent to a bench trial. Reverend Moon's concerns regarding jury bias were confirmed during the jury selection process. The Court's 5 examination of a panel of almost 200 prospective jurors 4/ revealed that a majority of those questioned had in fact been exposed to prejudicial publicity concerning the religious tenets and practices of the Unification Church and its leader, Reverend Moon. Many of these prospective jurors acknowledged that they harbored strong negative feelings about the Unification Church, its members, and Reverend Moon in particular. The preconceptions and prejudices of these prospective jurors focused primarily on the belief that the Unification Church was merely a cult and not a bona fide religion, that the Unification Church and Reverend Moon were involved primarily in business activities rather than religious endeavors, that the Church had expanded its membership by "brainwashing" young people, and that young members of the Church were compelled to solicit funds in order to accomodate the "luxurious" lifestyle of Reverend Moon. Despite the Government's awareness of widespread prejudice against Reverend Moon and the Unification Church, and contrary to the prosecution's assurance that Reverend Moon would not be tried in a religious context, the Government, from the outset of the proceedings against 4/ From the 200 prospective jurors impaneled, 63 were interviewed to select the final jury panel (see, TR. 300-1698) and 17 were interviewed to select the six alternate jurors (see, TR. 1699-1700, 1773-1900, 1933-2121). 6 The Reverend Moon, attempted to exploit the known preconceptions and biases of the jurors who had been selected. Government's efforts to introduce highly prejudicial and irrelevant evidence continued throughout the trial and were for the most part successful. The Court, acknowledging that this evidence had no relevance to the substantive charges, nevertheless permitted the evidence to be admitted, accepting the Government's argument that such evidence was necessary to support the general and vague conspiracy alleged in the indictment. The Government's efforts to persecute and silence Reverend Moon and the Unification Church did not end with Reverend Moon's conviction. In support of its opposition to a recent request for a reduction in Reverend Moon's prison sentence, the Government provided the Court with a copy of Reverend Moon's prepared testimony before this Subcommittee on June 26, 1984. In that Opposition, the Government stated: That campaign of distortion continues to this day. |