37

jurors at least accept the fact that the Unification Church was a genuine church. Consequently, because at least one of

the jurors believed the Unification Church was a cult, and at least nine jurors were uncertain as to whether it was a true religion, Reverend Moon was clearly denied a fair trial.

3.

The Court Ignored Clear and Pervasive
Bias Against Reverend Moon and the
Unification Church in Denying Reverend
Moon's Final Motion for a Bench Trial.

At the conclusion of the jury selection process, Reverend Moon renewed his request that the Court reject the Government's refusal to accept a jury waiver. The basis for this motion was the pervasive bias of the prospective jurors with respect to the Church, the question of "brainwashing," questions concerning the use of funds by the Church and their attitude toward Church fundraising activities. In addition, the defense contended that it was not accorded a number of peremptory challenges sufficient to effectively eliminate prospective jurors with prejudicial preconceptions. Finally, Reverend Moon's counsel emphasized that approximately nine of the prospective jurors interviewed during voir dire had mentioned incidents of discussions among the prospective jurors concerning Reverend Moon and the Unification Church, as well as conversations concerning the prospective juror's knowledge that the defense was having a difficult time finding unbiased jurors.

38

The Government argued in response that:

the process of jury selection 'has demonstrated that you could get a fair and

impartial jury. (TR. 1732.)

If we didn't believe that we could get a fair and
impartial jury for Mr. Moon and the Government in
this district, we would have consented in the
first place. If we didn't believe that we got one
now, we would consent at this time. (TR. 1737.)

Despite the foregoing evidence of pervasive bias among the prospective jurors, the Court once again denied the defendants' request for a jury waiver stating:

I believe that when a defendant in a criminal
trial has reasonable cause for believing there is
a substantial prejudice or bias against him
personally and that when he wishes to waive a jury
trial, that preference should not be overborn by
the prosecutor's desire for a public trial by
jury. That is my personal view. It doesn't
appear to be the law. The rule in the judicial
interpretations of it seem to put no restrictions
upon the prosecution being able to insist upon a
jury. (TR. 1752.)

In view of the pervasive prejudice against Reverend Moon and
the Unification Church revealed during jury selection,
Reverend Moon's decision that it was in his interest to
waive a jury trial should not have been disregarded by the
Government based on the Government's perception of the
"public interest."

39

C.

The Government's Prosecution of This Case on the Basis of Whether the Unification Church Was a True Religion, Deprived Reverend Moon of the Opportunity For a Fair Trial.

The prejudice accruing to Reverend Moon as a

result of the Government's insistence on a jury trial was
exacerbated by the presentation of the case in terms of
whether or not the Unification Church was a genuine
religion, rather than as a simple tax case. The most
critical statement made by the Judge during the proceedings
against Reverend Moon, came at the conclusion of the jury
selection process, in the context of the Judge's decision
denying Reverend Moon's motion for waiver of a jury trial:

If this criminal case were being tried on whether
or not the Unification Church is a true religion
or a cult, or whether or not it has been
beneficial to America, the situation would be
pretty critical, because to the extent that people
know about it, it is true that their attitudes are
negative.

However, the issue in this trial is whether or not certain properties belonged to defendant Moon and whether he should have declared them as his and paid taxes on them. . .

I don't mean to suggest that general

attitudes toward the Church and to the Moonies
don't impact on juror attitudes. But they won't
impact as directly as those were the issues to be

tried. (TR. 1758-1759.)

18/

The trial judge subsequently pointed out that he was concerned that in the effort to find a jury totally free from bias, people had been selected "who don't read much, talk much and don't know much" and that the jurors would therefore tend to be the educated and less intelligent

(Footnote Continued)

40

The crucial significance of this statement can be

fully appreciated only through a review of the manner in which the Government conducted Reverend Moon's trial. During its opening statements to the jury, as well as during the direct and cross examination of both Government and defense witnesses, and continuing through its summation to the jury, the Government consistently attempted to introduce evidence or to elicit testimony intended to prove that the Unification Church was in fact not a true religion, but was rather a massive and complex business operation directed by Reverend Moon, which was supported by a cadre of young "Moonies" who had been brainwashed by the Church and compelled to solicit funds in order to support Reverend Moon's "luxurious" lifestyle. In this effort, the

Government consciously attempted to appeal to the various prejudices which had been revealed during the jury selection

(Footnote Continued)

people. Noting that this would not be a problem unless the case became complicated, the Judge concluded "I would have thought it fairer to have this case tried without a jury." (TR. 1759-1760.)

I would feel better about the fairness from the position of defendants had they been granted a non-jury trial. But I don't feel I have the right to substitute my views on that matter to what appears to be the law and what I understand to be the law. Consequently, I have to deny the defendant's motion. (TR. 1761.)

41

process the very same prejudices which Moon had cited as

the basis for seeking a non-jury trial.

1.

The Government Consistently Portrayed
the Unification Church as a Mere
Business, and Reverend Moon as a
Businessman, in Its Presentation to the

Jury.

During the jury selection process, a majority of

the prospective jurors interviewed stated that they were aware that Reverend Moon, or the Unification Church, were involved in various business enterprises. As noted earlier, a number of the veniremen also did not believe that it was appropriate for a church to be overtly involved in business activities. Many of the prospective jurors who questioned whether the Unification Church was a bona fide religion moreover, expressed the opinion that it might be considered a cult in view of its extensive involvement in commercial operations and the fact that many of its members were involved in fundraising activities. A large number of prospective jurors clearly stated their opposition to the practice of soliciting funds on street corners or at airports.

The Government promptly proceeded to exploit these concerns, addressing them in opening remarks to the jury: MR. FLUMENBAUM: The evidence will show that Moon was not only a leader of a church, but also a very very successful businessman. . . . You will hear evidence about fundraising, and you will hear in early 1973 members of the church fundraised primarily by selling flowers. You will hear how