« AnteriorContinuar »
The charge that one of Reverend Moon's closest advisors had committed perjury and had submitted false documents to the Justice Department had an obvious
prejudicial impact on this proceeding. Similarly, the
allegations against Mr. Kamiyama provided the government
with a means by which inflammatory evidence could be
introduced in support of the alleged conspiracy. In order to exploit this evidence, the government insisted upon a trial before a jury which would be more susceptible to such prejudicial evidence than would be a judge presiding in a bench trial. It did so with knowledge that a public poll had confirmed that a substantial portion of the general public held an unfavorable image of the international Unification Church movement and even though both defendants had requested a non-jury trial. The Court, while expressing misgivings over the government's action, ignored this indisputable evidence of hostile public opinion regarding the Unification Church movement and denied defendants' request for non-jury trial.
Once it successfully secured a jury trial, the government attempted to take advantage of the known preconceptions and biases of the jurors by introducing highly prejudicial and irrelevant evidence. For example, by demonstrating the intense faith and devotion of adherents to Unification theology, the prosecution sought to establish that Church members would go to any length to protect Reverend Moon -- including the commission of illegal and conspiratorial acts. This information clearly would have been inadmissible had Reverend Moon been tried alone. The Court, nevertheless, permitted the evidence to be admitted, accepting the government's argument that such evidence was necessary to support the general and vague conspiracy alleged in the indictment. Mr. Kamiyama's presence, therefore, served to convert a trial involving narrow
questions of tax and trust principles into a trial of the
Unification Church movement itself.
In conclusion, the record reveals that the prosecution and conviction of Reverend Moon were motivated and supported by governmental bias toward the international Unification Church movement. As the leader of that movement, Reverend Moon was selectively prosecuted for financial practices which have been readily accepted when utilized by established religions in the United States. The
government thus used Reverend Moon as a scapegoat and used
his prosecution in order to establish a precedent for
government intrusion into the affairs of religious groups. Indeed, as Reverend Moon himself noted in a speech given several days following his indictment: "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 religion is Unification Church." 4 This conclusion is supported by the fact that the government spent several hundred thousand dollars in order to prosecute a tax deficiency which even according to its own calculations was less than $8,000 during the 3-year period in question. Both defendants were thus subjected to manifold injustices, including violations of their Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial and standards of due process which are the proper concern of the Subcommittee and all responsible citizens.
2 This speech, given in front of the United States courthouse at Foley Square in New York City, was later cited by the government as the basis for its decision to refuse the defendants' request for a non-jury trial.
LIST OF FYIPUTS
Court Interpreters Act -- Public Law 95-539, 95th Congress, October 28, 1978
Congressional record -- House, October 10, 1978; legislative llistory of. Court Interpreters Act
Affidavit of Robert F. Peggestad re conversation with Jack Teeth, Adninistrative office cf United States Courts
Affidavit of ficbert F. Heggestad re conversation with Manabu Fukuda, interpreting Pranch of the language Services Division of the United States Department of State
Affidavit of Pchert L. Heggestad 1 conversation with dina Kohn, Director of the United States District Court Interpreters office in New York
Letter date:ccctcher 9, 1985 tc Iakeru
Letter dated October 3, 1984 to Honorable
Tetter dated September ??, 1984 to Takeru kaniyama from Pon Paul, Member of Congress
Affidavit of Takeru Kamiyama
Michiko Kesaka -- Translator's Notes
and Translations Kinko Sato's Prief Personal llistory
Interview of Mr. risuke Sasagawa on his
Peport of Kinko Sate entitled "On the Grand
92 STAT. 2040
PUBLIC LAW 95-539–OCT. 28, 1978
Oct. 28, 1978
To provide more effectively for the use of interpreters in courts of the United
States, and for other purposes.
Court Interpreters Act. 28 USC 1 note. 28 USC 1827.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Onited States of America' in Congress asacmhled, That this Act may be cited as the “Court Interpreters Act”.
Sec. 2. (a) Chapter 119 of title 28, United States Coile, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sections: "g 1827. Interpreters in courts of the United States
“(a) The Director of the Administrative Office of the Unitrodd States Courts shall establish a program to facilitate the use of interpreters in courts of the United States.
“(b) The Director shall prescribe, determine, and certify the qualifications of persons who may serve as certified interpreters in courts of the United States in bilingual proceedings and proceedings involving the hearing impaired (whether or not also speech impaired), and in so doing, the Director shall consider the education, training, and exposie ence of those persons. The Director shall maintain a ciirrent master list of all interpreters certified by the Director and shall report annu. ally on the frequency of requests for, and the use and cffectiveness of, interpreters. The Director shall prescribe & schedule of fees for sery. ices rendered by interpreters.
"(c) Each United States district court shall maintain on file in the office of the clerk of court a list of all persons who have been certified as interpreters, including bilingual interpreters and oral or manual interpreters for the hearing impaired (whether or not also speech impaired), by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts in accordance with the certification program established pursuant to subsection (b) of this section.
“(d) The presiding judicial officer, with the assistance of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, shall utilize the services of the most available certified interpreter, or when no certified interpreter is reasonably available, as determined by the presiding judicial officer, the services of an otherwise competent interpreter, in any criminal or civil action initiated by the United States in a United States district court (including a petition for a writ of habeas corpus initiated in the name of the United States by a relator), if the presiding judicial officer determines on such officer's own motion or on the motion of a party that such party (including a defendant in a criminal case), or a witness who may present testimony in such action
"(1) speaks only or primarily a language other than the English language; or
*(2) suffers from a hearing impairment (whether or not suffer.
ing also from a speech impairment) so as to inhibit such party's coinprclension of the proceedings or communication with comsel or the presiding judicial officer, or so as to inhibit such witness' comprehension of questions and the presentation of such testimony.
PUBLIC LAW 95-539-OCT. 28, 1978
92 STAT. 2041
“(e) (1) If any interpreter is unable to communicate effectively with the presiding judicial officer, the United States attorncy, a party (including a defendant in a criminal case), or a witness, the presiding judicial officer shall disniiss such interpreter and obtain the services of another interpreter in accordance with this section.
“(2) In any criminal or civil action in a l’nited States district court, if the presiding judicial officer does not appoint an interpreter under subsection (d) of this section, an individual requiring the sery. ices of an interpreter may seek assistance of the clerk of court or the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts in obtaining the assistance of a certified interpreter.
"(f) (i) Any individual other than a witness who is entitled to Waiver, approval interpretation under subsection (d) of this section may raive sich and consultation. interpretation in whole or in part. Such a waiver shall be effectire only if approved by the presiding jndicial officer and macle expressly by such individual on the record after opportunity to consult with counsel and after the presiding judicial officer has explained to such individual, utilizing the services of the most available certifier interpreter, or when no certified interpreter is reasonably available, as determined by the presiding judicial officer, the services of an otherwisc competent interpreter, the nature and effect of the wairer.
*(?) An individual who waives under paragraph (1) of this subsection the right to an interpreter may utilize the services of a noncertified interpreter of such individual's choice whose fres, expenses, and costs shall be paid in the manner provided for the payment of such fees, expenses, and costs of an interpreter appointed under subsection (d) of this section. '"(g)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection or section Salaries, fees, 1828 of this title, the salaries, fees, expenses, and costs incident to and expenses. providing the services of interpreters under subsection (cl) of this post. p. 2 section shall be paid by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts from sunis appropriated to the Feileral judiciary.
"12) Such salaries, fees, expenses, and costs that are incurred with respect to Government witnesses shall, unless direction is made under paragraph (3) of this subsection, be paid by the Ittorney General from sums appropriated to the Department of Justice.
“(3) The presiding judicial officer may in such officer's discretion direct that all or part of such snlaries, fees, expenses, and costs shall be apportioned between or among the parties or shall be taxed as costs in a civil action.
“(4) Any moneys collected under this subsection may be used to reimburse the appropriations obligated and disbursed in payment for such services.
“(h) In any action in a court of the United States where the presiding judicial officer establishes, fixes, or approves the compensation and expenses payable to an interpreter from funds appropriated to the Federal judiciary, the presiding judicial officer shall not establish, fis. or approve compensation and expenses in excess of the maximum allotr. able under the schedule of fees for services prescribed pursuant to subsection (b) of this section.
"(i) The term 'presiding judicial officer as used in this section and “Presiding section 1828 of this title includes a judge of a United States listrict judicial officer.' court, a United States magistrate, and a referee in bankruptcy.