28 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. 31/ 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 32/ These ("Mrs. Sato"), a distinguished Japanese attorney. materials confirm that Mr. Mochizuki's errors were not, as 31/ 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. 32/ 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. 29 characterized by the prosecutor, "very, very minor and very, Mr. Mochizuki's interpretation went to the very core of the Moreover, Mr. Flumenbaum's efforts to perjury charges. 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 30 Mr. Kamiyama on several occasions, Mr. Flumenbaum objected to any procedures which might have remedied the situation. 2. The Translation of Mr. Kamiyama's Appointed Translator Put Mr. Flumenbaum In response to Mr. Kamiyama's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, the Government stated that it would not object to the use of a court-appointed "independent" Japanese translator to resolve issues pertaining to the disputed portions of Mr. Mochizuki's interpretation. Mr. Flumenbaum noted that it was "not the intention of the Government to prosecute Mr. Kamiyama for something which he, in fact, did not say. Affidavit of Martin Flumenbaum, January 1982 (A. 555). Ms. Kosaka's subsequent translation of Mr. Kamiyama's testimony revealed that Mr. Mochizuki's interpretation contained numerous errors, omissions and deletions. 35/ Thus, following a discussion of these mistakes during the hearing on Mr. Kamiyama's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, the prosecutor agreed that the court-appointed translator's version of Mr. Kamiyama's testimony "would be put in the part [sic] as the See, Section C, infra. 31 Government's case on the perjury count. 36/ Ms. Kosaka's translation, however, was never presented to the jury as agreed. Despite Mr. Flumenbaum's representation to the Court that he would accept the Kosaka translation as the basis for the presentation of the false swearing counts to the trial jury, Mr. Lawler's effort at the end of the trial to have the court-appointed translator's reconstruction considered by the jury, was opposed by the prosecution: MR. FLUMENBAUM: My understanding of that conference and decision was that your Honor for purposes of that motion took the Court interpreter's version as being a standard upon which we could compare what took place in the grand jury. Your Honor, then made a legal determination as to whether the word changes were of any material variance. THE COURT: All that is correct. But then I went a further step and said what are you going to do at trial? . . I asked you whether you agreed 36/ THE COURT: But I am still asking you what are we going to do with the official court translator's translation? Is either side going to use it, and if so, how? MR. LAWLER: We have indicated that for the purposes of this motion, we are prepared to accept that translation. ... I guess my interpretation was that by agreeing for purposes of this motion that I was also agreeing that that would be the translation which would be put in the part as the Government's case on the perjury count. P. 302-303. THE COURT: Do you agree with that? MR. FLUMENBAUM: That's right, your Honor. (Emphasis added.) 32 with that, and you said that's right but you didn't do that. MR. FLUMENBAUM: There certainly would not be T. 6091. Shortly thereafter, another prosecution attorney, Ms. Jo Ann Harris ("Ms. Harris"), also objected to the use of Ms. Kosaka's translation: I read I MS. HARRIS: Your Honor, at this point we T. 6138-6139. Mr. Kamiyama's attorney subsequently reiterated his request that the more accurate translation be placed before the jury: MR. LAWLER: I want the more accurate translation before this jury. The whole purpose of the court-appointed translator and the subject See, note 35, supra. |