18 conference level interpretation requires that each word 21/ spoken be correctly interpreted. Escort level interpretation requires only that the interpreter be qualified to perform consecutive interpretation. Consecutive interpretation performed by an escort level interpreter is far less accurate than consecutive interpretation performed by a conference level interpreter. During consecutive interpretation performed by an escort level interpreter, the interpreter waits until a single sentence or several sentences have been spoken, and then, relying upon notes which he has taken, roughly summarizes the sentences. Although a consecutive method may also be used for conference level interpretation, conference level interpretation must reflect the exact words being interpreted, rather than a summary of what has been said. However, as is apparent from subsequent reconstructions of Mr. Kamiyama's testimony, Mr. Mochizuki was not even capable of rendering an adequate consecutive interpretation. Significantly, Mr. Mochizuki would not have been retained to interpret the Grand Jury proceedings if the Justice Department had properly relied upon the Court Interpreter Services Office of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Mr. William E. Foley, Director of 21/ See, Exhibit D, supra. 19 the Administrative Office of the United States Courts recently advised Congressman William R. Ratchford in response to an inquiry concerning Mr. Kamiyama's case, that the Administrative Office's Court Interpreters Section routinely selects only the most qualified interpreters for use in legal proceedings. Mr. Foley noted that these interpreters are normally "the same individuals who work at conferences for the Department of State or International Agencies. 22/ Mr. Mochizuki, however, as noted above, has never been certified for interpretation at the conference level. Further, Mr. Mochizuki proved himself capable of rendering only a summary interpretation. The Court Interpreters Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder, though, specifically prohibit summary interpretation unless permitted by the "presiding judicial officer" with the consent of all parties. See, 28 U.S.c. $18.27 (k); Subpart G $1.61(d) Temporary Regulations (as amended, September 28, 1979) ("The interpreter generally will not interpret judicial proceedings in the summary mode.") Consequently, it is inconceivable that he would have been selected for 22/ See letter of Congressman William R. Ratchford to Mr. Kamiyama, and letter of William E. Foley to Congressman Ratchford, attached hereto as Exhibits F and G, respectively. See also, letter of Congressman Ron Paul to Mr. Kamiyama, attached hereto as Exhibit H. 20 formal Grand Jury interpretation had the appropriate experts at the Court Interpreters Office been consulted. 23/ Even if Mr. Mochizuki had been retained under Court Interpreters Act standards, however, he would not have been permitted to continue interpreting under the circumstances of this case. Subpart D $1.35 of the regulations promulgated under the Act provides: If any interpreter is unable to communicate Interpreters retained in accordance with the Court Interpreters Act, therefore, must be dismissed if it becomes apparent that their interpretation is inaccurate. In the present case, the prosecutor was informed by Mr. Sasagawa and Ms. Kosaka that the Grand Jury interpreter was not performing in an adequate manner. Indeed, the Court dismissed several specifications of the indictment because of interpretation errors. If Court Interpreters Act standards had been applied, Mr. Mochizuki would have been replaced with a capable interpreter. The prejudice to Mr. Kamiyama from the Government's failure to adhere to these standards is manifest. See Exhibit E, supra. 21 In July, 1981 when Mr. Mochizuki was retained by the Government to interpret Mr. Kamiyama's Grand Jury testimony, his services had been utilized by the State Department on only a limited basis. At that time, he had not been authorized to perform "conference" level interpretation for the State Department, nor had he applied to take the State Department's conference level test. If the prosecutor had made an effort to review Mr. Mochizuki's official credentials, he would have known that Mr. Mochizuki was not qualified to work in formal, highly technical 24/ proceedings, such as those before a Grand Jury. Furthermore, even though Mr. Mochizuki did not Since the filing of the indictment, there have 24/ See Affidavit of Robert E. Heggestad, attached hereto as Exhibit E, detailing an interview with Ms. Dina Kohn, (Footnote Continued) 22 Similarly, because of the questions which had been raised, the prosecutor explained that Mr. Sasagawa had been asked to reconstruct Mr. Kamiyama's testimony and to appear before the Grand Jury. Following Mr. Sasagawa's testimony, further questions were raised with regard to Mr. Mochizuki's qualifications: VOICE: Can you prove this interpreter is more qualified or more knowledgeable than the other one? You might need more interpreters to corroborate. MR. FLUMENBAUM: I think there is going to be I think based on Mr. Sasagawa's testimony, that the interpreter that was before the Grand Jury, apparently did a very credible job in terms of simultaneous translation. The changes, as you, yourself have noted, are As I think you have to make some sort of a judgment on Mr. Sasagawa's qualifications, he is Japanese. He lived there twenty-one years and he does do - A VOICE: the other one. To me he seems more credible than MR. FLUMENBAUM: You also have to realize the other interpreter was doing it simultaneously and didn't have the luxury of making a tape and backtracking - (Footnote Continued) Director of the United States District Court Interpreter's Office for the Southern District of New York. |