Case 6:09-cr-10005-MLB -DWB Document 233 Filed 12/16/10 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF KANSAS

MONTI L. BELOT 111 U.S. Courthouse

Judge 401 N. Market
Wichita, Kansas 67202
December 16, 2010 (316) 315-4340

ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

Re: United States v. Kobagaya, Case No. 09-10005-01

Dear Counsel:

I have discussed the events of Tuesday morning with Judge

Bostwick and Jamie Haig. Upon reflection, I believe my decision to
adjourn the status hearing was premature. Had I spoken with the
interpreter, I believe the hearing could have gone forward to a
satisfactory conclusion. Nevertheless, what occurred provided a
valuable “heads-up” to a possible problem, the solution to which
this letter addresses.

All of us recognize the importance of providing the court, the

jury, counsel and defendant with the services of qualified
interpreters. Defendant’s language, apparently Kinyarwanda, is
uncommon in Wichita, to say the least. It may be that the language
has more than one dialect. I don’t know. What I do know, however,
is that there are not a lot of Kinyarwanda interpreters available,
especially ones who are willing to travel to Africa for depositions
and to Wichita for a long trial. Jamie has spent hours and hours
working with the Administrative Office and other sources to obtain
a qualified interpreter or interpreters. The interpreter who
appeared on Tuesday, Mr. Niyitegyeka, is experienced and is
considered “professionally qualified” by the Administrative Office.
Ms. Morgan reported that defendant’s son told her that Mr.
Niyitegyeka was not accurately interpreting Ms. Morgan’s statements
to defendant. Whether or not the son’s comments were true,
accurate or objective (and I’m not suggesting any wrongful conduct
on his part at this point), neither Ms. Morgan nor I nor anyone
else has, or will ever have, the ability to verify the accuracy of
any interpreter’s translations. We must rely on the skill and
integrity of the interpreter.

Here’s how we’re going to proceed: If counsel can agree on a

full set of interpreters who will commit to be available for the
depositions and trial, that will be acceptable. Mr. Niyitegyeka is
available and must be given very serious consideration.
Defendant’s family members are not to be involved in this process.
If no agreement can be reached, I will assign Mr. Niyitegyeka to
interpret for the court, which means he will be speaking to the
jury, both through the deposition process and at trial. If a
second interpreter is required to spell Mr. Niyitegyeka, I will
select that person with Jamie’s assistance.
 Case 6:09-cr-10005-MLB -DWB Document 233 Filed 12/16/10 Page 2 of 2

December 16, 2010

Page Two

Furthermore, no family member will be permitted to participate

in the depositions or at trial in some variation of an interpreter.
Defendant is an adult and is a citizen. I will not permit
interference by his family members, even well-intentioned
interference, in any further court proceedings because there is no
way for me to make family members responsible to the judicial
process or to insure their objectivity. Family members may be
present at depositions, but they will not be permitted to sit with
defendant, any more than they would be permitted to do so at trial.
Stated another way, I expect the depositions to conform, as closely
as possible, to trial testimony. Finally the location for any
telephone or video hook-up for defendant will be “neutral,” i.e.,
not at his son’s home. In all probability, it will be at the
federal courthouse in Topeka.

You may have until January 7, 2011 to agree upon interpreters.

I will not direct Jamie to reinstitute her efforts to retain
another interpreter at this time. The process was difficult and
time consuming, not to mention enormously expensive to the
taxpayers to secure the necessary interpreters’ services for the
remainder of this case.

Very truly yours,

s/ Monti Belot

Monti L. Belot

MLB/sw

cc: Magistrate Judge Donald W. Bostwick

Jamie Haig, Clerk’s Office Division Manager
Hassan Niyitegyeka, Interpreter