Imágenes de páginas


contemporaneous running translation that was made
by an interpreter in the jury. I think you will
understand that somebody sitting down and
listening to and studying for a period of time the
translation involved can come up with a much more
complete and accurate translation than can
somebody who is making a simultaneous translation
immediately before the jury. In one regard,
however, the interpretation in the Grand Jury is
better than the court appointed translation, and
that is that the interpreter on the scene was able
to hear things that on the tape the
court-appointed translator couldn't pick up. So
the court-appointed translator has got some
inaudibles where the translator in the court made

[ocr errors]

Mr. Mochizuki was obviously not qualified to perform simultaneous interpretation, nor did he actually perform simultaneous interpretation during Mr. Kamiyama's Grand Jury testimony, as suggested by the prosecutor and the Court. Neither party, consequently, had an adequate understanding of the critical role played by the Grand Jury interpreter. As previously noted, simultaneous interpretation is performed at almost the same time, i.e., "simultaneously," as the words being translated are spoken. Because simultaneous interpretation requires that the interpreter hear the words and convey their meaning while other words are being spoken, simultaneous interpretation requires an unusually high level of competence. If done properly, simultaneous interpretation should constitute an exact word-for-word replication, not a mere summary of what

was said.


Mr. Mochizuki, utilizing a consecutive method, listened to the words spoken, made fragmentary notations of those words, 90 and subsequently retranslated the questions or answers after they had been spoken. Mr. Mochizuki's interpretation, however, was replete with errors and unexplained omissions or embellishments. 497 In many instances Mr. Mochizuki attempted to summarize sentences, rather than interpreting Mr. Kamiyama's exact words. Such a summary should not serve as the basis for a perjury indictment, where every word of the defendant is critical.


The Prosecutor Proceeded with the Indictment
and Prosecution of Mr. Kamiyama, Although He
Was Aware That Mr. Mochizuki's Interpretation
Did Not Accurately Reflect the Substance of
Mr. Kamiyama's Testimony.

The Government's failure to retain a competent

interpreter had a grave impact upon the outcome of

Mr. Kamiyama's case. The prosecutor's adamant refusal to correct this error reflects the Government's intention to continue with the prosecution of Reverend Moon and Mr. Kamiyama irrespective of any injustice resulting from an

incorrect interpretation.

28/ 20 Mr. Mochizuki made only partial notations of the prosecutor's questions because Mr. Flumenbaum spoke hurriedly and posed his questions in rapid succession. See, Affidavit of Takeru Kamiyama, attached hereto as Exhibit I.

See, Section c, infra.

Even if one were to assume, however, that at the time of Mr. Kamiyama's Grand Jury testimony Mr. Flumenbaum was unaware of the fact that Mr. Mochizuki was qualified to perform only informal escort level interpretation, the inadequacy of Mr. Mochizuki's interpretation was subsequently brought to the prosecutor's attention. Mr. Flumenbaum was provided with translations prepared by Mr. Sasagawa, and by the Court-appointed translator, Ms. Kosaka. 30 Mr. Flumenbaum, however, disregarded Mr. Sasagawa's painstaking reconstruction and proceeded with his efforts to obtain an indictment charging Mr. Kamiyama with perjury. Further, after he successfully obtained an indictment and after he had received copies of Ms. Kosaka's translation and Mr. Sasagawa's complete report, Mr. Flumenbaum proceeded with the prosecution of Mr. Kamiyama, knowing that the translation contained within the indictment did not accurately reflect Mr. Kamiyama's testimony. This prosecution led to the conviction and imprisonment of both Reverend Moon and Mr. Kamiyama.


The Translation Prepared by the
Government-Appointed Translator Clearly
Indicated that Mr. Mochizuki's
Interpretation Was Deficient in several
Major Respects.

On December 15, 1981, the prosecutor presented a superseding indictment to the Grand Jury which he

20 A copy of this translation and Ms. Kosaka's notes to the Court are attached hereto as Exhibit J.

[blocks in formation]

characterized as correcting several "minor" errors in Mr. Mochizuki's interpretation. On the same day, Mr. Sasagawa appeared as a witness before the Grand Jury to testify with regard to the adequacy of Mr. Mochizuki's interpretation. 317 Although Mr. Kamiyama has not been permitted to review the transcript of Mr. Sasagawa's testimony, or the report which Mr. Sasagawa prepared for Mr. Flumenbaum, a copy of the transcript of the colloquy between Mr. Flumenbaum and the Grand Jury pertaining to Mr. Sasagawa's testimony was subsequently provided to counsel for Mr. Kamiyama -- Mr. Andrew Lawler ("Mr. Lawler"). Similarly, Mr. Sasagawa was interviewed in Tokyo, Japan on August 25, 1984, by Mrs. Kinko Sato ("Mrs. Sato"), a distinguished Japanese attorney. 32 These materials confirm that Mr. Mochizuki's errors were not, as

2 Mr. Flumenbaum did not disclose to Mr. Kamiyama that a translator had appeared before the Grand Jury. After the trial, however, Mr. Kamiyama inadvertently learned of Mr. Sasagawa's appearance and requested a transcript of his testimony, as well as a copy of a report which he had prepared for Mr. Flumenbaum. Both the Government and the Court refused to provide Mr. Kamiyama with these documents. See, Endorsement, March 10, 1983.

22 Mrs. Sato's curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit K. In addition, a transcript of Mr. Sasagawa's interview is attached hereto as Exhibit L.


characterized by the prosecutor, "very, very minor and very, very interpretative. ..."

As analyzed below, 34/ the errors in Mr. Mochizuki's interpretation went to the very core of the perjury charges. Moreover, Mr. Flumenbaum's efforts to convince the Grand Jury otherwise and his argument that Mr. Mochizuki was in fact a qualified interpreter, clearly misled the Grand Jury.

Further, the changes which were made to the superseding indictment unfairly prejudiced Mr. Kamiyama. Thus, specifications favorable to Mr. Kamiyama were intentionally deleted, despite the fact that these specifications were critically important in terms of placing other statements which remained in the indictment in a proper context. By contrast, translations which were clearly erroneous and confusing, but favorable to the Government, were left intact in the indictment, some with only the underscoring (indicating a perjurious statement) removed. As a result of these alterations, the indictment effectively placed Mr. Kamiyama's testimony in a misleading and inaccurate context. Although this problem was raised by

See, Section c, infra.

« AnteriorContinuar »