7

The Court subsequently refused to reduce Reverend Moon's prison sentence.

Just as Reverend Moon's public criticism of the Government's motives served as the basis for the

Government's denial of his request for a bench trial in order to preserve the "appearance of fairness," Reverend Moon's public statements before this Subcommittee provided the basis for the Court's refusal to consider a reduction of his prison sentence. Responding to the fears expressed by

the Government, Judge Goettel explained that the prison

sentence could not be reduced because:

In his recent plea to Congress that he was being
prosecuted solely because of his religious views,
[Reverend Moon] totally misstated what was
involved in the prosecution.

There is

He

nothing to the argument that he was persecuted
because of his religion. He was tried for
specific offenses of a non-religious nature.
was convicted of them and to reduce his sentence
now would give further fuel for the argument that
he has been persecuted, when he has not.

*

there is a need to let the public know that everybody is viewed by the courts as equals and that wealth doesn't affect the sentence administration. (Emphasis added.)

Hearing on Motion to Reduce Sentence, July 18, 1984.

Ironically, the same adverse publicity which precluded a

trial by a fair and impartial jury was also cited in support

of the Court's decision not to reduce Reverend Moon's

sentence.

Essentially then, actual fairness to the

defendants in this case has been sacrificed in order to maintain a false "appearance of fairness."

As discussed below, the Government's actions in this case and the Court's approval of those actions,

resulted in a complete denial of a fair trial to Reverend Moon by a panel of impartial jurors. The trial, moreover, entailed an unfettered jury inquiry into the tenets,

practices and procedures of a recognized religious

institution, as well as the punishment of a religious leader based upon his exercise of the Constitutional right to freedom of expression.

A.

Reverend Moon Was Investigated, Not Simply As a Taxpayer, But Because He Was the Head of the Unification Church.

The investigation which eventually led to the indictment, trial, and conviction of Reverend Moon was initially directed at the Unification Church and at Reverend Moon in his capacity as leader of the Church. Thus, in his letter to the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Senator Dole listed the following reasons for an

investigation of the Unification Church:

(1) "Most of those contacting me question whether the organization is based on a bona fide religion or on mind control techniques.

This may indicate that the organization is

maintained not by religious motivation, but by the
calculated eradication or erosion of each member's
ability to make an alternate choice. The

well-documented process of training and initiation
activities appear to substantiate that the

9

organization is based more on mind control and
indoctrination then on religious faith.

Members

(2) Many Kansans have advised me that a
major purpose of the organization is the
accumulation of wealth and power and not the
pratice or furtherance of religion. . . .
of the organization are subjected to great
pressure to obtain funds, suggesting that the
exclusive purpose of the organization is not a
religious one, but that in fact a major goal is
the accumulation of wealth.

(3) . . . Mr. Moon has made several statements implying political and governmental objectives. Since many members of the group apparently perceive Mr. Moon to be the embodiment of the Church, the appearance is that his stated intentions are not simply the goals of a private individual but the stated purposes of the organization.

(4)

Mr. Moon, leads a far more
affluent life then could reasonably be expected
for any clergyman. This fact, if substantiated,
suggests that a substantial portion of the group's
net earnings, including the sizeable wealth
collected by its members may accrue to the private
holdings and benefit of Mr. Moon. (Emphasis
added.)

Letter dated January 9, 1976 from Senator Robert Dole to
Mr. Donald Alexander, Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
The District Court addressed Senator Dole's letter
during post-trial proceedings, when it dismissed the
defendants' claims of selective prosecution. Judge Goettel

stated:

. . for as long as I can remember, Congressmen and Senators have been raising their voices about various people they thought should be investigated or prosecuted. It has happened, I don't know, how many times in the past. If the simple fact that there is a political leader who thinks that an individual or group should be investigated is adequate to open up a selective prosecution

10

hearing, we are going to have an awful lot of
them. S34.

The Judge's comments ignore two critical facts, however.

First, Senator Dole was a member of an important

Congressional committee with jurisdiction over the Internal In that capacity, he specifically

Revenue Service.

requested that an investigation of the Unification Church be undertaken. Second, the letter requesting the investigation is replete with accusations of brainwashing, empire building and political activity against a church which the New York Court of Appeals has characterized as a genuine religious institution. unreasonable for Reverend Moon to question the motivation for the Government prosecution which subsequently ensued. 5/

Under these circumstances, it was not

By

On March 10, 1982, Reverend Moon moved for a bench trial on the ground that pervasive public hostility precluded the selection of a fair and impartial jury. letter dated March 11, 1982, the Government's senior litigation counsel, Joanne Harris, advised the Court that the Government was concerned with the questions the defendants had raised concerning the integrity and motives of the prosecution:

Defendant Moon has stated publicly that "I would not be standing here today if my skin were white and my religion were Presbyterian. I am here today only because my skin is yellow and my

11

religion is Unification Church." Indeed, for
three hours at a rally in Foley Square following
the defendants' arraignment on October 22, 1981,
speaker after speaker charged religious
persecution and racial bigotry.

We believe that these allegations, however
unfounded and irrelevant, have placed any single
fact-finder, such as the Court in an untenable
position. When the defendants attempt to create a
public atmosphere of distrust for our system, as
they have here, there is an overriding public
interest in the appearance as well as the fact of
a fair trial.
The Government believes with
a careful, searching voir dire the impartial jury
we all seek can be impaneled and with an
appropriate order from the Court, protected from
improper influence. (A811.) (Emphasis added.)

At a hearing on March 17, 1982, the Government presented its oral argument explaining why it would not agree to a bench trial:

We like to think of ourselves. as responsible
public officials, and we have two roles here. One
is certainly as advocates, but the second is to
protect the public interest, the public interest
in the defendants' right to a fair trial, but
certainly another public interest, which is
distinct from the defendants' right to a fair
trial, and that is the deep and central place of a
trial by jury, a resolution of the facts in a
criminal case by a jury in this system. (P370.)

we have a defendant who has clearly
set out to blame any adverse decision in this case
on racial and religious bigotry. And to us, that
places any single trier of fact in an untenable
position, because the trier of fact is going to be
blamed. (P371.) (Emphasis added.)

The Court, in response, asked the prosecutor why the public interest should outweigh the interest of the defendant:

The question is, when you have a problem of
hostility to a defendant such as to imperil his
opportunity of getting a fair jury trial, should