Speaker 1: You're listening to History on Trial, a production of iHeart Podcasts.
Speaker 1: Listener Discretion Advised, Hello, History on Trial listeners. This is
Speaker 1: the second part of a two episode series on the
Speaker 1: case of Iva Toguri da Kino. In today's episode will
Speaker 1: cover the trial and its aftermath. If you haven't listened
Speaker 1: to part one yet, I strongly recommend starting there to
Speaker 1: hear the full story. A brief reminder of what we
Speaker 1: covered in the last episode. Iva Taguri was the American
Speaker 1: born and raised daughter of two Japanese immigrants. In the
Speaker 1: summer of nineteen forty one, the then twenty five year
Speaker 1: old Iva traveled to Japan to visit her sick aunt.
Speaker 1: Five months later, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the
Speaker 1: United States declared war on Japan. Iva tried desperately to
Speaker 1: get home, but was stymied by multiple obstacles, including a
Speaker 1: lack of money and obstruction by the State Department, who
Speaker 1: questioned her citizenship status. Despite Iva having lived her whole
Speaker 1: life in southern California. Stuck abroad, Iva took on part
Speaker 1: time work, including a job as a typist at the
Speaker 1: Japanese Broadcasting Corporation or NHK. At NHK, she met several
Speaker 1: Allied prisoners of war who had been forced to work
Speaker 1: on a Japanese propaganda radio program called Zero Hour. The
Speaker 1: men were trying to secretly sabotage Zero Hour by filling
Speaker 1: it with music and fun banter. Eventually, the POWs asked
Speaker 1: Iva to join the program as an announcer, both because
Speaker 1: they knew she would support their sabotage agenda and also
Speaker 1: because she had an unappealing voice which would make for
Speaker 1: entertaining broadcasts. Iva agreed and began working on the program
Speaker 1: in late nineteen forty three. When her Japanese military bosses
Speaker 1: assumed more control of the program and changed its tone,
Speaker 1: Iva tried to quit, but was told she could not.
Speaker 1: Conditions in wartime Japan were extremely difficult, and Iva lived
Speaker 1: in near starvation. One bright spot of this dark period
Speaker 1: was her marriage to Felipe Daquino, a man who she
Speaker 1: had met at one of her jobs and who shared
Speaker 1: her pro American stance. In the meantime, Iva's family in
Speaker 1: America was incarcerated, along with approximately one hundred thousand other
Speaker 1: Japanese Americans in camps established by the federal government. The
Speaker 1: terrible conditions at the Camps killed her mother Fumi. After
Speaker 1: the war's end, reporters identified Iva as one of the
Speaker 1: English speaking female broadcasters who had become legendary to American
Speaker 1: gis in the Pacific under the collective nickname Tokyo Rose.
Speaker 1: Iva's role as a Tokyo Rose sparked an investigation by
Speaker 1: the U. S Military and the Department of Justice into
Speaker 1: whether she had committed treason. Iva was arrested and held
Speaker 1: in prison for a year without access to a lawyer. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: both the military and the DOJ concluded that there was
Speaker 1: no evidence of treason and released her. However, when Iva
Speaker 1: and Felipe tried to return to America in nineteen forty seven,
Speaker 1: the press started a crusade against her and called for
Speaker 1: her to be prosecuted. Succumbing to public and political pressure,
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice reopened the case against Iva and
Speaker 1: arrested her in September nineteen forty eight. Iva was brought
Speaker 1: to San Francisco and charged with eight overt acts of treason.
Speaker 1: Despite these extremely difficult circumstances, Iva was optimistic. A prominent
Speaker 1: civil rights attorney, Wayne Collins, agreed to take her case
Speaker 1: for free, and she was able to reunite with her
Speaker 1: family in America. Iva believed that the trial would establish
Speaker 1: her innocence. She believed that the justice system would operate fairly,
Speaker 1: but as she would soon learn, the prosecution wasn't interested
Speaker 1: in fairness or even in following the rules. Welcome to
Speaker 1: History on Trial. I'm your host, Mira Hayward this week
Speaker 1: the United States vi Iva Toguri Taquino. Treason is the
Speaker 1: only crime explicitly defined in the Constitution. When defining the crime,
Speaker 1: the Constitution's framers were very careful with their words. In England,
Speaker 1: treason law had frequently been abused by the government to
Speaker 1: persecute political enemies, and the new American government wanted to
Speaker 1: prevent the same abuses from occurring in the United States. However,
Speaker 1: they also wanted to make it clear that betraying the
Speaker 1: government was a crime. The phrasing they settled on, as
Speaker 1: recorded an Article three, Section three, Clause one is quote.
Speaker 1: Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying
Speaker 1: war against them, or in adhering to their enemies giving
Speaker 1: them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of
Speaker 1: treason in less on the testimony of two witnesses to
Speaker 1: the same overt act or on confession in open court.
Speaker 1: The grand jury charged Iva with eight acts of treason
Speaker 1: with quote treasonable intent and for the purpose of, and
Speaker 1: with the intent in her to adhere and give aid
Speaker 1: and comfort to the Imperial Japanese government. The charges all
Speaker 1: regarded specific allegations, not just that Iva was a radio broadcaster,
Speaker 1: but that she had done specific actions while in this role,
Speaker 1: including making certain statements such as one regarding the loss
Speaker 1: of American ships. Though the acts themselves were specific, the
Speaker 1: details ended there. The charges did not have exact dates
Speaker 1: for the acts, simply giving date ranges instead. Once the
Speaker 1: charges were brought, Iva's lawyer, Wayne Collins, got busy. He
Speaker 1: added two more lawyers, Theodore Tamba and George Olshausen, to
Speaker 1: the defense team. Like Collins, Tamba and Olshausen agreed to
Speaker 1: work for free. On March first, nineteen forty nine, the
Speaker 1: defense petitioned the government that forty three witnesses living abroad
Speaker 1: be subpoenaed and brought at government expense to testify in
Speaker 1: the trial. The government refused to issue the subpoenas, claiming
Speaker 1: that it could not issue subpoenas for residents of foreign countries.
Speaker 1: This may have applied to some of the witnesses, but
Speaker 1: many of the subpoenas the defense had requested were four
Speaker 1: American citizens only temporarily residing in Japan. In an earlier
Speaker 1: treat trial for Mildred Gillers, an American radio broadcaster for
Speaker 1: the Nazis, the government had agreed to pay to bring
Speaker 1: defense witnesses from Germany, but in Iva's case they refused. However,
Speaker 1: the government did agree to provide limited funds for a
Speaker 1: defense lawyer to travel to Japan and collect depositions. The
Speaker 1: funds allocated were so limited that they did not cover
Speaker 1: a translator. June to Guri, Iva's father agreed to cover
Speaker 1: this cost, as he would many of the trial costs,
Speaker 1: eventually having to take out loans to cover the expenses.
Speaker 1: In late March, defense attorney Theodore Tamba traveled to Japan
Speaker 1: to seek out witnesses. Once there, he quickly ran into obstacles.
Speaker 1: When the defense had submitted their request for forty three subpoenas,
Speaker 1: the Justice Department had immediately sent the witness list over
Speaker 1: to the military headquarters in Tokyo, which had then dispatched
Speaker 1: an FBIA to speak to all of these witnesses first,
Speaker 1: when Tamba, his translator, and No Story, a representative of
Speaker 1: the Attorney General's Office who was there to perform costs
Speaker 1: examinations of the witnesses, tried to speak to witnesses. They
Speaker 1: found that many were too frightened to speak. Tomba later said, quote,
Speaker 1: they appeared to mister Story and to me to be
Speaker 1: genuinely frightened of our troops and occupied Japan. A number
Speaker 1: of them had been led to believe that if they
Speaker 1: testified against Missus Daquino, they could avoid being charged and
Speaker 1: put on trial for their own admitted treasonable utterances and conduct.
Speaker 1: Tamba and his translator struggled to get through to these
Speaker 1: witnesses and ended up having to stay in Japan for
Speaker 1: an additional month, at further cost to June Tagouri. This
Speaker 1: resulted in a delay of the trial. The prosecution, on
Speaker 1: the other hand, had no shortage of resources. They made
Speaker 1: for nineteen witnesses to travel from Japan. The government offered
Speaker 1: witnesses ten dollars a day, or around three thousand, three
Speaker 1: hundred yen, more than the monthly salary of the average
Speaker 1: Japanese university graduate at the time. Several of these witnesses
Speaker 1: saved enough during the trial that they were able to
Speaker 1: start businesses upon their return to Japan. Despite the wealth
Speaker 1: of witnesses, time, and money, the prosecutors still had concerns, namely,
Speaker 1: they did not believe that they had a compelling case.
Speaker 1: Frank J. Hennessy, the United States Attorney for the Northern
Speaker 1: District of California, was originally the only prosecutor assigned to
Speaker 1: the case. After Hennessy reviewed the case, however, he recommended
Speaker 1: to Attorney General Tom Clark that the charges be dropped
Speaker 1: for lack of evidence. The Justice Department, instead of following
Speaker 1: Hennessy's recommendation, assigned him a partner, Tom de Wolfe, an
Speaker 1: Assistant Attorney General who specialized in trees and cases. But,
Speaker 1: like Hennessy, d wolf had concerns. He had run the
Speaker 1: grand jury that charged Iva back in October and privately
Speaker 1: admitted shortly after that he had pressured the jurors to indict.
Speaker 1: He wrote to a colleague about how he had promised
Speaker 1: that other American broadcasters would be tried for treason despite
Speaker 1: there being no plan to do so. If the above
Speaker 1: action had not been taken by me, De wolf wrote,
Speaker 1: I believe the grand jury would have returned a no
Speaker 1: true bill against Missus Daquino. In other words, they wouldn't
Speaker 1: have charged her. D Wolfe's doubts about the case were
Speaker 1: long standing. In May nineteen forty eight, he had written
Speaker 1: a strongly worded memo to a colleague in which he
Speaker 1: concluded that quote there is no evidence upon which a
Speaker 1: reasonable mind might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1: Despite their concerns, Hennessy and a wolf continued with the
Speaker 1: prosecution under orders from Attorney General Tom Clark. The prosecution
Speaker 1: team was rounded out by James Knapp and John Hogan.
Speaker 1: On July fifth, nineteen forty nine, at ten am, Judge
Speaker 1: Michael Roche, chief Judge of the United States District Court
Speaker 1: of Northern California, began the proceedings for jury selection. Iva
Speaker 1: sat beside her lawyers, pale and drawn. She had endured
Speaker 1: the traumatic stillbirth of her first child only eighteen months earlier,
Speaker 1: and now suffered from recurring dysentery. Her shoulder length black
Speaker 1: hair was held back by a headband, and she wore
Speaker 1: a modest plaid suit that she had owned for years.
Speaker 1: She would wear the suit every day of the trial.
Speaker 1: Jury selection went quickly. The defense team tried to screen
Speaker 1: jurors for prejudiced attitudes towards Japanese Americans. The prosecution team,
Speaker 1: on the other hand, screened uors by race using their
Speaker 1: peremptory challenges, challenges that do not require an explanation on
Speaker 1: every non white juror. The practice of being able to
Speaker 1: remove jurors of certain races using peremptory challenges was only
Speaker 1: stopped by a nineteen eighty six Supreme Court case bats
Speaker 1: In v. Kentucky, though it is often hard to prove
Speaker 1: that challenges were racially motivated. In the end, Iva's jury
Speaker 1: was entirely white and consisted of six men and six women.
Speaker 1: Tom de Wolfe delivered the opening statement for the prosecution
Speaker 1: the next day. He told jurors that Iva had stayed
Speaker 1: in Japan voluntarily and that she had participated in the
Speaker 1: broadcasts enthusiastically despite knowing that they were quote nefarious and propagandistic.
Speaker 1: He said that Iva had made certain statements designed to
Speaker 1: ruin American morale. Quote she told American troops that their
Speaker 1: wives and sweetheart arts were unfaithful, and also that quote
Speaker 1: the Japanese would never give up, so there was no
Speaker 1: reason for Americans to stay there and be killed. De
Speaker 1: Wolf said she did this all with malicious intent. In
Speaker 1: his May nineteen forty eight memo, de Wolf had thought otherwise,
Speaker 1: writing there is no proof available that when subject committed
Speaker 1: said acts, she intended to portray the United States, but
Speaker 1: that belief wouldn't stop him now. After using his first
Speaker 1: witness to establish that Iva had signed autographs as Tokyo
Speaker 1: Rose after the war, d Wolf called Shiitsugu Tsunaishi to
Speaker 1: the stand. Sunaishi was the Japanese Imperial Army officer in
Speaker 1: charge of the propaganda program at NHK. He testified that
Speaker 1: the purpose of Zero Hour, the program IVA had announced
Speaker 1: for was quote, to make Allied troops homesick and tired
Speaker 1: or disgusted with the war. He also claimed that quote
Speaker 1: absolutely no threatening or violent language was used to compel
Speaker 1: prisoners of war to work on the broadcast. On cross examination,
Speaker 1: Wayne Collins got Sunaishi to concede several points that supported
Speaker 1: the defense. First, he asked Sunaishi if any other Japanese
Speaker 1: propaganda stations broadcasting to the Pacific used English speaking female broadcasters.
Speaker 1: Sunaishi said that there were thirteen such stations. The fact
Speaker 1: that the defense would use to great effect later in
Speaker 1: their case. Next, Collins pressed Sunaishi on the actual propaganda
Speaker 1: content of Zero Hour. Sunaishi admitted that the program had
Speaker 1: focused on entertainment. His strategy had been to rope in
Speaker 1: American listeners with an appealing program, and then, once the
Speaker 1: Japanese began winning the war, to introduce more propagandistic content.
Speaker 1: But unfortunately, Sunaieshi, continued quote, the opportunity did not present
Speaker 1: itself to do the real, true propaganda program that I wanted.
Speaker 1: Here was Iva's Boss's boss, the lead army official on
Speaker 1: the radio propaganda broadcasts, admitting himself that Iva's program had
Speaker 1: not contained propaganda. Collins also tried to pull holes in
Speaker 1: Sunniieshi's claim that POWs were not forced to work on
Speaker 1: the programs by bringing up the story of George Williams.
Speaker 1: Williams was a British civilian who had been held at
Speaker 1: Bunka Camp, the prison where POWs who worked at NHK
Speaker 1: were kept. When Williams had refused to participate in broadcasts,
Speaker 1: Sunniihi ordered guards to take him away. Suoniihi then allowed
Speaker 1: the POWs to believe that Williams had been killed for
Speaker 1: his refusal In reality, Williams had been transported to a
Speaker 1: different pow camp, where he lived for the rest of
Speaker 1: the war, but the imagined threat struck fear into the
Speaker 1: hearts of the POWs. They understood that their choice was
Speaker 1: to participate in the broadcasts or to die. This was
Speaker 1: important information for the jury to understand the culture of
Speaker 1: fear that Ivo was steeped in during her time at NHK,
Speaker 1: but unfortunately they did not get to hear the full story.
Speaker 1: Tom de Wolf had objected to the testimony, and Judge
Speaker 1: Roche had agreed with him that it was irrelevant. Another
Speaker 1: thing the jurors did not get to hear, though they
Speaker 1: may have deduced it for themselves, was about Sunaishi's ulterior motives.
Speaker 1: On July seventh, the day before he testified, an article
Speaker 1: had appeared about Sunaishi in the San Francisco Chronicle. In it,
Speaker 1: a former Bunka Camp inmate, Mark Streeter, had accused Sunaishi
Speaker 1: of being quote one of the worst war criminals. Streeter,
Speaker 1: who alleged that Suneishi had beaten him at Bunka Camp,
Speaker 1: was shocked to learn that the government was using Sunaishi
Speaker 1: as a court witness and not instead prosecuting him for
Speaker 1: the abuses he perpetrated at Lunka Camp. Suniishi then was
Speaker 1: clearly motivated to protect himself and deny using any coercion
Speaker 1: with NHK staff or prisoners of war. In fact, he
Speaker 1: would later admit to a reporter that he had lied
Speaker 1: to Australian officials who were investigating another POW's involvement in
Speaker 1: broadcasts in order to protect himself and his superiors from prosecution.
Speaker 1: Sunaishi was not the only witness whose testimony was affected
Speaker 1: by fear of prosecution. Kenkichi Oki and George Hideo Mitsushio,
Speaker 1: Iva's supervisors on Zero Hour, were also testifying. Oki and Mitsushio,
Speaker 1: like Iva, were nise American born children of Japanese parents.
Speaker 1: Both men had traveled to Japan before the war. They
Speaker 1: had both become Japanese citizens, but had not at this
Speaker 1: point renounced their American citizenship. As directors of Z Zero Hour,
Speaker 1: they were just as vulnerable as Iva, if not more so,
Speaker 1: to charges of treason. The government was relying on Oki
Speaker 1: and Mitsushio to serve as witnesses for each of the
Speaker 1: eight acts of treason Iva was charged with. The Constitution
Speaker 1: stipulates that quote, no person shall be convicted of treason
Speaker 1: unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same
Speaker 1: overt act. Oki and Mitsushio were to be those two witnesses.
Speaker 1: Their testimony was highly specific, even using the exact language
Speaker 1: of the indictments. In their answers when describing Iva's alleged acts,
Speaker 1: Their memory of the crimes was detailed. Both men recited
Speaker 1: the same quote that they claimed Iva had broadcast, quote,
Speaker 1: now you fellows have lost all your ships. You really
Speaker 1: are orphans of the Pacific. How do you think you
Speaker 1: will ever get home? But when Collins pressed Oki for
Speaker 1: any other details of the day, when he claimed that
Speaker 1: Iva had made this statement, Oki could not recall any
Speaker 1: not what breakfast he ate, not what he wore, not
Speaker 1: the weather. He could only remember, in exact order the
Speaker 1: twenty four treasonous words that Ivo was supposed to have
Speaker 1: said that day. Oki also admitted on cross that he
Speaker 1: was not testifying voluntarily and had been brought to San
Speaker 1: Francisco forcibly on the orders of the U. S. Army.
Speaker 1: Mitsushio and OKI's testimony as a whole seemed suspect. At
Speaker 1: the lunch recess, David say Yizo Hyuga, a prosecution witness,
Speaker 1: came up to the defense lawyers and told them that
Speaker 1: he could prove that Mitsushiu and OKI's testimony was false,
Speaker 1: but the defense never got a chance to question Hyuga.
Speaker 1: After the prosecution learned he had been talking to the defense,
Speaker 1: they sent him back to Japan, and he never testified
Speaker 1: at all. In nineteen seventy six, nearly thirty years after
Speaker 1: the trial, Ronald Yates published a bombshell report in the
Speaker 1: Chicago Tribune. Yates had interviewed prosecution witnesses living in Japan,
Speaker 1: including Kenkichi Oki and George Mitsushio. These witnesses all alleged
Speaker 1: that they were coerced to testify and a lie on
Speaker 1: the stand under threat of prosecution. The post war sentiment
Speaker 1: against Japanese and against Americans of Japanese ancestry was tremendous,
Speaker 1: remembered one witness. We were told that if we didn't cooperate,
Speaker 1: Uncle Sam might arrange a trial for US too. Cooperation
Speaker 1: in this case meant lying on the stand. One of
Speaker 1: the men told Yates quote Iva never made a treasonable
Speaker 1: broadcast in her life, threatening witnesses. Shocking as it may be,
Speaker 1: was not the only taint on the prosecution's witnesses. There
Speaker 1: was also the question of bribery. Remember Clark Lee, the
Speaker 1: reporter who interviewed Iva in August nineteen forty five. In
Speaker 1: his May nineteen forty eight memo, de Wolf had called
Speaker 1: Lee and Harry Brundage's interview with Iva quote questionable and
Speaker 1: of doubtful propriety. But now he was relying on Lee's
Speaker 1: testimony as part of his case. Lee's testimony itself was
Speaker 1: also questionable and doubtful. He claimed that Iva had told
Speaker 1: him that she had broadcast the words orphans of the Pacific.
Speaker 1: You really are orphans? Now, how are you going to
Speaker 1: get home? Now that all of your ships are sunk?
Speaker 1: This was very similar to the quote that Mitsushiu and
Speaker 1: Oki had used, But this phrasing appeared nowhere in his
Speaker 1: original notes on the interview with Iva. So that's not great,
Speaker 1: But I promised you for bribery. That little issue came
Speaker 1: out on cross examination when Wayne Collins asked Lee about
Speaker 1: Hiromo Yagi, a witness who had testified at the grand jury. Now,
Speaker 1: mister Lee, Collins asked, isn't it a fact that you
Speaker 1: and mister Brundage requested to me to go to the
Speaker 1: Saint Francis Hotel on October twenty fifth, nineteen forty eight,
Speaker 1: because you wish to ascertain from me whether or not
Speaker 1: I knew that Harry Brundage had gone to Japan in
Speaker 1: nineteen forty eight and advised Yagi to come before the
Speaker 1: grand jury and testify falsely in this case. De Wolf
Speaker 1: immediately objected, shouting, you know that's nonsense. Judge Roche shut
Speaker 1: the line of questioning down, but the seed was planted,
Speaker 1: and the truth or most of it, came out in
Speaker 1: the testimony of the next witness, FBI agent Fred Tillman.
Speaker 1: On cross Collins asked Tillman if he had told defense
Speaker 1: lawyer Theodore Tomba that Hiromu Yagi had confessed that he
Speaker 1: had been bribed to lie to the grand jury. De
Speaker 1: Wolf objected again, but after Collins argued that the jury
Speaker 1: needed to know about a possible obstruction of justice, Judge
Speaker 1: Roche allowed the testimony. Tillman admitted that the answer to Collins'
Speaker 1: question was yes. A witness at the grand jury which
Speaker 1: had indicted Iva and sparked these trial proceedings, had indeed
Speaker 1: been bribed to lie Roche did not allow Tillman to
Speaker 1: tell the whole story, but it is a simple and
Speaker 1: sordid one. Two months after the grand jury indicted at Iva,
Speaker 1: Assistant Attorney General Alexander Campbell sent a memo to Attorney
Speaker 1: General Tom Clark. The memo revealed that Hiromu yah, who
Speaker 1: had told the Grand jury that he had personally seen
Speaker 1: Iva make a broadcast where she taunted Americans, had been
Speaker 1: bribed to lie on the stand by reporter Harry Brundage.
Speaker 1: When Brundage had gone to Japan in nineteen forty eight
Speaker 1: to pursue the Tokyo Rose story, he had tried to
Speaker 1: convince at least two witnesses to lie on the stand
Speaker 1: by plying them with gifts and promises of a free
Speaker 1: trip to America. One of these witnesses had refused, but
Speaker 1: Yagi had gone along with the plan. Yagi's testimony had
Speaker 1: rung false to FBI agent Tillman, so he had immediately
Speaker 1: begun to look into the matter. After an investigation in
Speaker 1: Japan and a further interrogation of Yagi, the truth came out,
Speaker 1: despite the Justice Department knowing full well that the grandeurors
Speaker 1: had heard perjured testimony, and that Harry Brundage had suborned
Speaker 1: the perjury. The Department decided to proceed with Iva's case
Speaker 1: and also not to pursue a case against Brundage. There
Speaker 1: were two reasons not to go after Brundage, according to
Speaker 1: Assistant Attorney General Campbell, First, he believed that jurors would
Speaker 1: not convict Brundage, a white man, on the testimony of
Speaker 1: two Japanese men. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, as Campbell
Speaker 1: wrote in his memo to Attorney General Clark, quote, we
Speaker 1: believe that instituting prosecution against Brundage prior to the completion
Speaker 1: of litigation would completely destroy any chance of a conviction.
Speaker 1: In Iva's case, the Attorney General's office chose a chance
Speaker 1: at conviction over telling the truth. So far, nearly all
Speaker 1: the prosecution witnesses testimony was corrupted in some way, although
Speaker 1: of course the jury did not know the full extent
Speaker 1: of the problem. Fortunately for the prosecution, their next witnesses
Speaker 1: would not have the same credibility issues, though their testimony
Speaker 1: did have other problems. These witnesses were the Pacific gis
Speaker 1: who had heard Tokyo Rose broadcast propaganda statements. These servicemen
Speaker 1: testified to hearing a woman who they said used Ivas
Speaker 1: alias Orphan Anne, talk about troop movements, taunt them with
Speaker 1: allegations of their wives and girlfriends infidelity in their absence,
Speaker 1: and try to make them homesick by talking about steak
Speaker 1: and ice cream. Many of these memories, as Collins was
Speaker 1: able to reveal on cross examination, were vague and amorphous.
Speaker 1: The servicemen could not remember specific dates or times, and
Speaker 1: often it seemed likely that they were remembering rumors about
Speaker 1: Tokyo Rose broadcasts, not actual broadcasts themselves. However, some of
Speaker 1: the testimony was emotionally compelling. Marshall Hoot, a Chief Bosun's mate,
Speaker 1: testified about hearing a broadcast that he then made a
Speaker 1: note of in a letter home to his wife. Judge
Speaker 1: Roche allowed Hoot to read the entirety of the emotional letter,
Speaker 1: where he talked about how much he missed his wife
Speaker 1: and how painful the war was. The letter brought some
Speaker 1: jury members to tears. Suddenly, Tokyo Rose's crimes seemed very real. However,
Speaker 1: the details of those alleged crimes did not always line up.
Speaker 1: For example, Marshall Hoot was sure he had heard Tokyo
Speaker 1: Rose discussing infidelity while he listened at dinner between six
Speaker 1: and seven o'clock. That was indeed when Zero Hour aired,
Speaker 1: but in Tokyo in the Gilbert Islands, where Hoot had
Speaker 1: been at the time, the time was three hours earlier,
Speaker 1: so Zero Hour aired at three o'clock there not six.
Speaker 1: Many other gis testimony had similar time zone issues. Other
Speaker 1: men's statements contradicted earlier statements they had given the FBI,
Speaker 1: although neither the defense attorneys nor the jurors knew this.
Speaker 1: For the final piece of their case, the prosecution introduced
Speaker 1: recordings and scripts of Iva's broadcasts during the war. American
Speaker 1: monitors had recorded all of the Zero Hour broadcasts. While
Speaker 1: she was in Sugamo prison. Iva had been told that
Speaker 1: there were three hundred and forty recordings. However, the prosecution
Speaker 1: now only introduced six recordings. None of these recordings contained
Speaker 1: statements that corroborated the overt acts. For example, none of
Speaker 1: them referenced the loss of ships. Instead, the recordings were
Speaker 1: surprisingly trivial and light. Hello you fighting orphans in the Pacific?
Speaker 1: How's tricks? This is Annie back in the air reception? Okay,
Speaker 1: well it better be because this is all request night,
Speaker 1: and I've got a pretty nice program for my favorite
Speaker 1: little family, The Wandering Boneheads of the Pacific Islands, went
Speaker 1: one broadcast. Her announcements were interspersed with music, and some
Speaker 1: jurors could be observed tapping their fingers or feet to
Speaker 1: the beat. Before the broadcast introduced one song, she jokingly
Speaker 1: warned listeners, it's dangerous enemy propaganda, so beware. As de
Speaker 1: Wolf himself had said in his May memo quote, the
Speaker 1: scripts of her programs seemed totally innocuous and might be
Speaker 1: said to have little, if any entertainment value. On this
Speaker 1: somewhat anti climactic note, on August twelfth, the prosecution rested.
Speaker 1: Though many of their witnesses had had credibility issues. Some
Speaker 1: of these credibility issues were unknown to the jury, and
Speaker 1: the testimony of the servicemen, while somewhat vague, had been
Speaker 1: heart wrenching. Could the defense offer a compelling rebuttal. We're
Speaker 1: going to take a quick break now. When we return,
Speaker 1: we'll find out what Iva's defense team had to say.
Speaker 1: On August thirteenth, nineteen forty nine, Theodore Tamba delivered the
Speaker 1: defense opening. He kept things simple. The defense would show.
Speaker 1: He said that Iva never had treasonous intent, and that
Speaker 1: she had broadcast under threat and duress. The defense's first
Speaker 1: witness was Charles Cousins, the Australian POW who had worked
Speaker 1: with Iva on Zero Hour two years earlier. Cousins himself
Speaker 1: had been charged with treason in Australia, but the charges
Speaker 1: were quickly dropped and he had resumed his civilian life.
Speaker 1: When he heard about Iva's trial, he immediately volunteered to
Speaker 1: testify in her defense. Iva was so happy to be
Speaker 1: reunited with Cousins, who she had last seen in a
Speaker 1: POW hospital as he recovered from a heart attack, that
Speaker 1: she broke down crying when she saw him. The defense
Speaker 1: team hoped that they could use Cousin's experience to provide
Speaker 1: context for the duress Iva might have experienced. They asked
Speaker 1: him to talk about what he had seen while in
Speaker 1: POW camps. As Cousins began to tell the story of
Speaker 1: Japanese guards beating a fellow prisoner to death, the normally
Speaker 1: self possessed man broke down into tears. When he regained
Speaker 1: his composure, he continued the story, but the prosecution objected.
Speaker 1: After an argument out of the jury's hearing, Judge Roche
Speaker 1: once again ruled that this sort of background information was
Speaker 1: irrelevant and admissible. Further testimony about the broadcasting specific threats
Speaker 1: that Cousins had endured, including when Suniishi ordered him to
Speaker 1: participate in broadcasts while pointedly displaying his unsheathed sword, were
Speaker 1: also objected to by the prosecution, and Judge Roche struck
Speaker 1: the testimony. Roche additionally barred Cousins from explaining that Iva
Speaker 1: had brought food and medicine to the POW's because she
Speaker 1: had heard about the awful conditions at Bunka Camp. All
Speaker 1: of this evidence, crucial to explaining the environment Iva lived
Speaker 1: and worked in, was not allowed. Cousins was permitted, however,
Speaker 1: to talk about his work with Iva at NHK. He
Speaker 1: explained that he had coached Iva in order to make
Speaker 1: the material as enjoyable as possible, teaching her comedic timing
Speaker 1: and rhythm. He had chosen Iva, he explained, because of
Speaker 1: her terrible voice, which he believed would make a quote
Speaker 1: complete burlesque of any propaganda content. He also testified that
Speaker 1: he had explicitly told Iva about the subversive intents of
Speaker 1: the program. Cousin's testimony was backed up by the testimony
Speaker 1: of two other POWs, Wallace Ince and Norman Reyes. Next,
Speaker 1: the defense called their own set of gis. These men
Speaker 1: testified that they had enjoyed listening to Zero Hour, although
Speaker 1: some also said that they were disappointed that the g rated,
Speaker 1: somewhat bland banter of Orphan ann didn't live up to
Speaker 1: quote the witty and smutty and entertaining legend of Tokyo Rose.
Speaker 1: An intelligence officer testified that he had originally listened to
Speaker 1: the program in order to learn about Japanese propaganda, but
Speaker 1: Quote did not find propaganda. One officer stationed in Alaska
Speaker 1: recalled the Alaskan command telling him and his colleagues that
Speaker 1: the orphan An broadcasts were good for troop morale. After
Speaker 1: the servicemen's testimony, Yaneko Konzaki took the stand. Kanzaki, a
Speaker 1: Nisse born in New Jersey, had met Iva in Japan
Speaker 1: during the war. Konzaki had later gotten a job as
Speaker 1: an English language announcer for a German radio program. This
Speaker 1: program had for quite some time aired right before Zero Hour,
Speaker 1: but unlike Zero Hour, German Hour contained explicit propaganda content.
Speaker 1: The point of Konzaki's testimony was to establish that there
Speaker 1: had been other female English speaking broadcasters who were just
Speaker 1: as likely to be Tokyo Rose as Ivo was. Another
Speaker 1: Tokyo Rose candidate was Myrtle Lipten. Lipton herself did not
Speaker 1: testify at the trial, but her story was recorded through
Speaker 1: the deposition of Ken Murayama. Moriyama was a Nise reporter
Speaker 1: who had worked for a Japanese news agency in Manila
Speaker 1: during the war. While there, Moriyama had written scripts for
Speaker 1: Melody Lane, an English language Japanese propaganda radio program hosted
Speaker 1: by Myrtle Lipten. Lipton. More Yama testified had a quote,
Speaker 1: low pitched, husky voice that appealed to listeners, just the
Speaker 1: type of voice that the mythological Tokyo Rose was said
Speaker 1: to have, Very different from Iva's harsher tone. Moriyama stated
Speaker 1: that Lipton's scripts were quote designed to create a sense
Speaker 1: of homesickness among troops in the Southwest Pacific. We had
Speaker 1: stories of girls having dates with men at home while
Speaker 1: possibly their sweethearts and husbands might be fighting. Buddy Uno,
Speaker 1: a pow who had also worked on Lipton's program, said
Speaker 1: of the show, quote, it carried a punch. It was sexy,
Speaker 1: She had everything in it. She painted horrible pictures of
Speaker 1: the jungles dropping bombs and foxholes. Then she described the
Speaker 1: good old days back home, saying things like, what a
Speaker 1: pity fellows have to die in the jungle without even
Speaker 1: knowing what you were fighting for. This kind of content
Speaker 1: was exactly what Iva was accused of broadcasting. Could witnesses
Speaker 1: have gotten her broadcast mixed up with Lipton's. On the
Speaker 1: forty sixth day of the trial, September seventh, Iva herself
Speaker 1: took the stand. Reflecting on her decision to take the stand,
Speaker 1: Iva told historian Messiah Deuce, if I got on the
Speaker 1: witness stand and told only the truth, then the truth
Speaker 1: would win. I thought. Collins began by leading Iva through
Speaker 1: her early life in America. As she spoke, reporters and
Speaker 1: jurors alike listened closely. Did this woman's voice align with
Speaker 1: the allegedly seductive, alluring voice of Tokyo Rose. Most did
Speaker 1: not think so. The San Francisco Chronicle called it a
Speaker 1: hard voice, and The Pacific Citizen described her voice as
Speaker 1: harsh and jerky. Personally, I think her voice is charming.
Speaker 1: It isn't sultry or smooth. But it has personality and energy.
Speaker 1: If you'd like to hear Iva's voice for yourself, you
Speaker 1: can hear it in a film she recorded for the
Speaker 1: Army in nineteen forty five, which you can find on
Speaker 1: the History on Trial, Instagram or online. The direct examination
Speaker 1: went smoothly until Collins began questioning Iva about her time
Speaker 1: in Japan. The prosecution immediately began objecting that this testimony
Speaker 1: was irrelevant, and Judge Roche once again agreed. So the
Speaker 1: background about the military and police harassment Iva had faced
Speaker 1: and the terrible condition she had heard about from the
Speaker 1: POW's was all excluded, and how she had repeatedly tried
Speaker 1: to get back to the United States on repatriationships was
Speaker 1: all excluded. Without hearing this information, the jury had little
Speaker 1: chance of understanding Iva's circumstances when she took the broadcasting job.
Speaker 1: Iva was, however, allowed to testify about how she was
Speaker 1: not allowed to quit the program when she had tried to.
Speaker 1: She said her Army supervisors told her that she was
Speaker 1: not permitted to. She also testified that her only reason
Speaker 1: for working on the program was to quote stick by
Speaker 1: the POW's. She explained how she had consistently resisted helping
Speaker 1: the Japanese war effort despite constant pressure by refusing to
Speaker 1: buy war bonds or give to the Japanese Red Cross.
Speaker 1: Collins then walked Iva through the statements that the prosecution's
Speaker 1: witnesses had claimed to have heard her say. Iva denied
Speaker 1: making each statement. Then Colins read through the indictment, asking Iva,
Speaker 1: did you at any time adhere to our enemies, the
Speaker 1: Imperial Japanese Army. Never did you ever do any act
Speaker 1: whatsoever with the intention of betraying the United States. Never
Speaker 1: did you, at any time whatsoever commit treason against the
Speaker 1: United States. Never. By the end of the three and
Speaker 1: a half day direct examination, Iva was shaking with exhaustion
Speaker 1: and emotion. She had suffered a recurrence of dysenteria month earlier,
Speaker 1: causing a brief delay in the trial, and her strength
Speaker 1: was low. Now she had to endure a cross examination,
Speaker 1: which would last for an additional three days. De Wolf
Speaker 1: pushed Iva to specify what kind of duress she had experienced.
Speaker 1: You were not forced by physical force, Missus Dequino to
Speaker 1: go on the air and broadcast. Were you not forced
Speaker 1: just fearful? Iva replied? And you were never jailed by
Speaker 1: the Japanese police authorities. No, And of course, you were
Speaker 1: never personally assaulted or beaten or whipped or suffered any
Speaker 1: physical torture, were you. No, there had never been any
Speaker 1: physical thing. This was likely the most damaging part of
Speaker 1: the cross examination. For the rest of it, Iva largely
Speaker 1: managed to retain her composure, giving simple, straightforward answers. After
Speaker 1: the cross examination ended on the morning of September fifteenth,
Speaker 1: Wayne Collins asked Iva a final redirect question, missus Daquino,
Speaker 1: do you still want to be a citizen of the
Speaker 1: United States. It had been seven years since the State
Speaker 1: Department had prevented her from returning home on a repatriation ship,
Speaker 1: four years since the military had held her in jail
Speaker 1: for a year with no warrant and no explanation, a
Speaker 1: year since she had been taken into custody again in
Speaker 1: Japan and brought to the United States as a prisoner,
Speaker 1: and fifty three days since her grueling trial had begun.
Speaker 1: But Iva did not waiver. Did she still want to
Speaker 1: be a citizen of the United States? Yes, she said.
Speaker 1: Days later, on September nineteenth, the defense rested, Closing arguments
Speaker 1: would begin the next day. US Attorney Frank J. Hennessy
Speaker 1: delivered the first closing argument for the prosecution. Despite having
Speaker 1: earlier expressed doubts about the validity of the case, he
Speaker 1: now displayed no qualms about condemning Iva. She was neither ordered, threatened,
Speaker 1: or coerced a broadcast on the Zero Hour program beamed
Speaker 1: at American troops fighting in the South Pacific. She did
Speaker 1: not conspire with other prisoners of war to sabotage the
Speaker 1: defeatist propaganda aims of the broadcasts, said Hennessy. Attorney George
Speaker 1: Olshausen gave the defense closing argument. He reminded jurors that
Speaker 1: the government needed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1: He then walked through all of the ways in which
Speaker 1: the government's case was lacking. He discussed the ulterior motives
Speaker 1: of two key prosecution witnesses, Mitsuhio and Oki, saying the
Speaker 1: witnesses were perjuring themselves to bring a conviction. He brought
Speaker 1: up the alleged bribery of Hiromo Yagi by Harry Brundage.
Speaker 1: He pointed out that the testimony of the gis was unreliable,
Speaker 1: noting the errors made in time differences and memories Most importantly,
Speaker 1: he reminded jurors that none of the broadcast recordings or
Speaker 1: scripts that the prosecution produced had contained any treasonous material.
Speaker 1: In short, he showed how thin, if not nonexistent, the
Speaker 1: evidence really was. To conclude, Olshausen framed Iva in a
Speaker 1: new light, not as a trader, but as a patriot.
Speaker 1: In effect, he said, she had really been working behind
Speaker 1: the enemy lines. I think she served the United States
Speaker 1: very well, and all she got for her trouble was
Speaker 1: a year in jail. The least and the most we
Speaker 1: can do at this time is to acquit her. Assistant
Speaker 1: Attorney General Tom de Wolfe delivered the prosecut Hustin's final
Speaker 1: closing argument. In his May nineteen forty eight memod. Wolf
Speaker 1: had written, quote, the government's case must fail as a
Speaker 1: matter of law because the testimony of the government will
Speaker 1: disclose that subject did not adhere to the enemy or
Speaker 1: possess the requisite disloyal state of mind. Further, he had written,
Speaker 1: all those who had known Iva during her time at
Speaker 1: NHK quote will testify to facts which show that subject
Speaker 1: was pro American, wished to return to the United States,
Speaker 1: and tried to do so prior to Pearl Harbor attempted
Speaker 1: unsuccessfully to return to the United States in nineteen forty two,
Speaker 1: and beamed to American troops only the introduction to innocuous
Speaker 1: music recordings. The evidence likewise will show that subject was
Speaker 1: a trusted and selected agent of the Allied prisoners of war.
Speaker 1: But now de Wolf delivered a scathing denunciation of this
Speaker 1: same subject Iva to Gouri. He called her a quote
Speaker 1: betrayer of her native land and a betrayer of her
Speaker 1: government in time of need. He said she was a
Speaker 1: female Benedict Arnold. Her trial, he told jurors should serve
Speaker 1: as a warning to others that they cannot, in an
Speaker 1: hour of great peril, adhere to the enemy with impunity.
Speaker 1: With that, after two and a half months, the trial
Speaker 1: concluded on September twenty sixth, Judge Roche instructed the jury.
Speaker 1: Roche was exhausted, so tired that he had regularly been
Speaker 1: observed nodding off during the defense case, but he pulled
Speaker 1: together enough energy to read nearly fifty pages of instruction.
Speaker 1: As Roche instructed the jury, the reporters in the back
Speaker 1: of the courtroom took an informal poll amongst themselves. The
Speaker 1: ten of them, who had watched nearly all of the tree,
Speaker 1: voted nine to one that Iva would be acquitted. The
Speaker 1: jury was sent to deliberate. The hours ticked by with
Speaker 1: no result, and at eleven pm the jurors told Roche
Speaker 1: they were going to pause for the night and resume
Speaker 1: in the morning. They returned at nine am the next day,
Speaker 1: September twenty seventh, and debated all day, periodically coming to
Speaker 1: the courtroom to ask for copies of exhibits or transcripts
Speaker 1: of testimonies. At ten oh four pm, the whole jury
Speaker 1: came into the courtroom and jury foreman John Mann informed
Speaker 1: Judge Roche, we cannot reach a unanimous verdict. Judge Roche
Speaker 1: was not going to accept that answer. This is an
Speaker 1: important case, he told jurors. The trial has been long
Speaker 1: and expensive to both the prosecution and the defense. If
Speaker 1: you should fail to agree on a verdict, the case
Speaker 1: is left open and undecided. Like all cases, it must
Speaker 1: be disposed of sometime. He told the jurors to return
Speaker 1: the next morning and try again. A decision was not forthcoming.
Speaker 1: The jurors spent all of September twenty eighth arguing, only
Speaker 1: stopping at eight pm September twenty ninth was much the same,
Speaker 1: but around five point thirty the jurors returned to the courtroom.
Speaker 1: They wanted clarification on a portion of Roche's instructions. Roche
Speaker 1: had said, quote acts of an apparently incriminating nature, when
Speaker 1: judged in the light of related events, may turn out
Speaker 1: to be acts which were not of aid and comfort
Speaker 1: to the enemy. The jury wanted to know what related
Speaker 1: events meant in this context. Roche basically refused to answer
Speaker 1: the question, telling the jurors that they should not pay
Speaker 1: attention to any specific part of the instructions, but instead
Speaker 1: consider the instructions as a whole. Then he told the
Speaker 1: jury that he was hungry, that it was time for
Speaker 1: the dinner break, and that they should pause their deliberations
Speaker 1: for the day. But the jury did not want to
Speaker 1: have to start again in the morning. They wanted to
Speaker 1: be done only thirty minutes later, after nearly four full
Speaker 1: days of deliberation, the jury returned to the courtroom with
Speaker 1: a verdict. In the case of the United States vi
Speaker 1: Iva to Guri ta Quino on the charge of treason.
Speaker 1: The defendant had been found guilty. Iva did not react
Speaker 1: when she was found guilty of treason. She seemed to
Speaker 1: be dazed. She turned to her lawyers and said, I
Speaker 1: just can't believe it. The jury had found Iva not
Speaker 1: guilty on seven of the eight counts of treason, but
Speaker 1: they had found her guilty on the eighth, which charged
Speaker 1: her with having broadcast this familiar phrase referenced by Mitsushio
Speaker 1: and Oki and Lee quote orphans of the Pacific. You
Speaker 1: are really or now how will you get home? Now
Speaker 1: that your ships are sunk? The government was happy with
Speaker 1: the outcome, with Tom de Wolf saying quote, the United
Speaker 1: States feels that the verdict was a just one, but
Speaker 1: many other people seemed unhappy with the verdict, including the jurors.
Speaker 1: Speaking to the Associated Press, jury foreman John Mann said
Speaker 1: that the jury had wanted to free Iva and quote,
Speaker 1: if it had been possible under the judge's instructions, we
Speaker 1: would have done it. The full picture of the jury
Speaker 1: deliberations reveals just how much Judge Roach's actions influenced the verdict.
Speaker 1: On the first ballot, the jurors had voted ten to
Speaker 1: two to acquit on all charges. However, after further discussion
Speaker 1: of whether or not Iva had intended to betray the
Speaker 1: United States. The vote shifted to six to six by
Speaker 1: the next day, after nearly twenty hours of deliberation. The
Speaker 1: jury felt that they could not reach a unanimous verdict. However,
Speaker 1: when they shared this position with Judge Roche, he did
Speaker 1: not accept it. Instead, he gave them a lecture about
Speaker 1: how expensive the trial had been, how it would have
Speaker 1: to be decided sometime, and how the jurors ought to
Speaker 1: keep working on the problem. This kind of instruction, in
Speaker 1: which a judge tells a hung jury that they should
Speaker 1: reach a verdict, is not uncommon. It is known as
Speaker 1: an Allan charge after the eighteen ninety six Supreme Court
Speaker 1: case that allowed for this type of instruction. Since that ruling,
Speaker 1: states have come to different conclusions on whether or not
Speaker 1: their courts will allow Allen charges, and if they will,
Speaker 1: what language judges are allowed to use in issuing the charge.
Speaker 1: The specific type of Allan charge that Judge Roche delivered
Speaker 1: would likely not be allowed in California today. A nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy seven California Supreme Court case People v. Gainer ruled
Speaker 1: that it was improper for judges to discuss, among other things,
Speaker 1: quote the expense or inconvenience of a retrial, or the
Speaker 1: statement that the case must at some point be decided. Gaynor,
Speaker 1: as well as numerous other cases across the country, ruled
Speaker 1: that expense or inconvenience should be irrelevant to a jury's decision,
Speaker 1: which should be based only on the evidence and arguments
Speaker 1: presented in court. The idea that a case will inevitably
Speaker 1: be decided, another argument Roche used with the jurors, is
Speaker 1: prohibited under Gaynor because it is incorrect. The government may
Speaker 1: at any point decide not to retry a case that
Speaker 1: has ended in a mistrial. In a twenty twenty panel
Speaker 1: on Iva's trial, US District Court Judge John Tiger said
Speaker 1: the judge Roche's charge would today be considered unconstitutional. Though
Speaker 1: Roche's behavior was allowable at the time, it certainly exerted
Speaker 1: undue pressure on the jurors. After his charge, the jurors
Speaker 1: reluctantly went by to work, though their deliberations assumed a
Speaker 1: new tone. Instead of debating the facts of the case,
Speaker 1: the discussions became more emotion based. The two jurors who
Speaker 1: had originally favored conviction began appealing to the other jurors feelings. Imagine,
Speaker 1: they said, being a lonely soldier on a remote Pacific island,
Speaker 1: and hearing that your ships had been sunk, it would
Speaker 1: be awful. This argument worked on many of the jurors,
Speaker 1: who one by one switched their vote to convict. Roche's
Speaker 1: final interaction with the jury also seems to have influenced
Speaker 1: the verdict. By late evening on September twenty ninth, after
Speaker 1: four days of deliberation, the jurors were exhausted. The current
Speaker 1: vote was nine to three to convict. The three holdouts
Speaker 1: were losing their will to push back they had begun
Speaker 1: to feel Foreman John Mann later told reporter Catherine Pinkham
Speaker 1: that by acquitting Iva, they would perhaps be seen as
Speaker 1: traders themselves. But in a last ditch effort to strengthen
Speaker 1: their resolve, Man sent a note to Roche asking for
Speaker 1: clarification on the instructions. Roche chose not to explain himself
Speaker 1: and simply told the jury to keep working. The holdouts,
Speaker 1: Man said, gave up after that and reluctantly agreed to
Speaker 1: vote to convict on one charge. Man had trouble living
Speaker 1: with the decision and barely slept in the week between
Speaker 1: the verdict and the sentencing. On October sixth, Judge Roche
Speaker 1: sentenced Iva to ten years in prison and a ten
Speaker 1: thousand dollars fine. This was a harsher sentence than most
Speaker 1: people had expected. Roche's sentence may have been influenced by
Speaker 1: his own feelings about the case. Reporter Catherine Pinkham, who
Speaker 1: covered the trial, said that after the trial, Roche told
Speaker 1: her that the emotional letter read aloud by one Gi
Speaker 1: Marshall Hoot had convinced him that Iva was guilty. He
Speaker 1: made other comments to Pinkham throughout the trial that indicated
Speaker 1: that he thought Iva going to Japan in nineteen forty
Speaker 1: one was suspicious. Five weeks later, on November fifteenth, Iva
Speaker 1: boarded a train in Oakland, bound for the Federal Reformatory
Speaker 1: for Women in Alderson, West Virginia. Iva was a model prisoner,
Speaker 1: working in the prison infirmary and eventually training as a
Speaker 1: laboratory assistant. Her lawyers filed constant appeals on her behalf,
Speaker 1: but all were rejected. At the time of her sentencing,
Speaker 1: most people expected that she would serve only three or
Speaker 1: four years in prison. She served more than six. When
Speaker 1: her early release was considered, a wave of negative press
Speaker 1: condemned the idea of letting her out of prison. When
Speaker 1: Iva was finally released on January twenty eighth, nineteen fifty
Speaker 1: six of reporters showed up at the prison gates and
Speaker 1: bombarded her with questions. When asked where she was going next,
Speaker 1: Iva said, I really don't know. I'm going out into
Speaker 1: the darkness. When asked if she maintained her innocence, Iva said,
Speaker 1: the trial and the feelings then are past. I hate
Speaker 1: to open up wounds. Unfortunately, she would have no choice
Speaker 1: but to open those wounds because her battle was not
Speaker 1: yet over. On March thirteenth, after Iva had settled into
Speaker 1: her father, June's house in Chicago, the United States Immigration
Speaker 1: and Naturalization Service announced that Iva had to voluntarily leave
Speaker 1: the country within thirty days or else be subject to deportation.
Speaker 1: After her conviction, Iva had lost her American citizenship. Now
Speaker 1: the government was declaring her an undesirable person and trying
Speaker 1: to deport her. Iva vowed to fight the decision. This
Speaker 1: is my country, she said in a press conference. I
Speaker 1: was born here, I belong here, am going to stay.
Speaker 1: Wayne Collins once again stood by her side, even moving
Speaker 1: Iva into his San Francisco home so that they could
Speaker 1: fight the case more efficiently. It would be more than
Speaker 1: two years before the matter was resolved. In July nineteen
Speaker 1: fifty eight, the I n S canceled the deportation order,
Speaker 1: saying that they had nowhere to deport her to since
Speaker 1: she held no other citizenship. Additionally, a recent Supreme Court
Speaker 1: ruling about convictions, citizenship and deportation had been interpreted to
Speaker 1: mean that Iva was not deportable. However, I have a
Speaker 1: citizenship was not restored. She was declared a stateless person.
Speaker 1: This meant that she could not get a passport, which
Speaker 1: had one major consequence. She could not see Felipe, her husband. Felippe,
Speaker 1: a Portuguese citizen living in Japan, had come to America
Speaker 1: to testify at her trial. Upon his arrival, the government
Speaker 1: had forced him to sign a document stating that he
Speaker 1: would not set foot on American soil again in exchange
Speaker 1: for being allowed to testify. Without a passport, Iva could
Speaker 1: not visit him in Japan. Felipe and Iva would never
Speaker 1: see each other again. For years, Iva lived in relative
Speaker 1: anonymity in Chicago, working as a clerk in her father's store,
Speaker 1: but every time a news article about Tokyo Rose cropped up,
Speaker 1: she would be inundated with hate mail and threatening phone calls.
Speaker 1: In nineteen sixty nine, TV journalist Bill Curtis, who is
Speaker 1: now the announcer on NPR's Weightwait Don't Tell Me, befriended
Speaker 1: Iva and convinced her to tell her story one more time.
Speaker 1: Curtis's resulting program was sympathetic and thoughtful, but it did
Speaker 1: not have a big enough reach to change Iva's national reputation. However,
Speaker 1: in the mid nineteen seventies, public opinion began to change.
Speaker 1: During Iva's trial, Japanese American community organizations had distanced themselves
Speaker 1: from her, afraid of being accused of supporting a traitor,
Speaker 1: but his anti Japanese sentiment cooled somewhat in the intervening decades.
Speaker 1: The Japanese American Citizens League, or JACL, took a new
Speaker 1: look at her case. In nineteen seventy four, the JACL
Speaker 1: sent a formal letter of apology to the Tagouri family
Speaker 1: and promised to help advocate for Iva's exoneration. In September
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy five, the JACL published a booklet entitled Iva
Speaker 1: Taguri Daikino, Victim of a Legend, which told Iva's story.
Speaker 1: The booklet declared that Iva was quote a victim of
Speaker 1: a World War II fantasy, a powerful and persistent legend
Speaker 1: that continues to plague her today some thirty years later.
Speaker 1: Six months later, in March nineteen seventy six, Ronald Yeates
Speaker 1: published his bombshell exposee of the prosecution's witnesses in the
Speaker 1: Chicago Tribune. His article revealed that many of these witnesses,
Speaker 1: including George Mitsushio and Kinkicheoki, had been pressured by the
Speaker 1: government until lying on the stand. Since Iva's release from prison,
Speaker 1: her lawyers had petitioned for Iva to receive a presidential pardon. Now,
Speaker 1: momentum for the pardon grew. The California State Assembly and
Speaker 1: State Senate passed resolutions supporting her pardon. Veterans associations supported
Speaker 1: the movement, and the press, who had spent years condemning Iva,
Speaker 1: now took up her cause. On the morning of January nineteenth,
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy seven, the day before he was due to
Speaker 1: leave office, President Gerald Ford signed the necessary documentation. The
Speaker 1: Justice Department announced that Iva had received a full and
Speaker 1: unconditional pardon. As a result, she could once again be
Speaker 1: a United States citizen. Iva was delighted. Unfortunately, the pardon
Speaker 1: came too late for some of her closest supporters to
Speaker 1: celebrate alongside her. Her beloved father, June, had died in
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy two at age ninety. He had left his
Speaker 1: daughter a final gift, though she had begged him not to.
Speaker 1: He had stipulated in his will that his estate be
Speaker 1: used to pay the remains of the ten thousand dollars
Speaker 1: fine that Roche had sentenced Iva to pay. A year later,
Speaker 1: her lawyer, Theodore Tamba, died of a heart attack age
Speaker 1: seventy two, and a year after that, Wayne Collins died
Speaker 1: suddenly on a flight age seventy four. His son, Wayne
Speaker 1: Collins Junior, who had first met Iva as a child
Speaker 1: while she lived in his home during her deportation fight,
Speaker 1: took over her case. Reflecting on her ordeal to historian
Speaker 1: Messiah Duce in the late seventies, Iva was remarkably gracious.
Speaker 1: I have no regret, she said, and I don't hate
Speaker 1: anyone for what happened. Personally, I have a hard time
Speaker 1: being so generous. I try to stay reasonably objective while
Speaker 1: researching these cases, but I hope you'll understand why I
Speaker 1: had a hard time maintaining distance while learning about Iva's story,
Speaker 1: at times while reading about the constant persecution that Iva endured,
Speaker 1: seeing again and again the way that the government abused
Speaker 1: its power, twisted evidence, and subverted justice, all in a
Speaker 1: misguided attempt to satisfy public pressure. I was overwhelmed by
Speaker 1: rage and grief. At every step of the way. There
Speaker 1: were people who knew that what was happening was wrong.
Speaker 1: The military investigators who held Iva without charge or access
Speaker 1: to a lawyer in nineteen forty six found no evidence
Speaker 1: against her. The lead FBI agent in Iva's investigation, Frederick Tillman,
Speaker 1: discovered that Harry Brundage bribed a witness. The prosecutors, Frank
Speaker 1: Hennessy and Tom de Wolf, both believed that there was
Speaker 1: not enough evidence to bring the case to trial. Multiple
Speaker 1: witnesses chose to lie out of fear. At many points.
Speaker 1: As this unjust campaign against Iva continued, any number of
Speaker 1: people could have stepped up and tried to stop it,
Speaker 1: but none of them did. I don't want to portray
Speaker 1: Iva as a perfect person. She, like all people, was complicated.
Speaker 1: She was naive, naive about her role at NHK, naive
Speaker 1: about the way others might view her work, or how
Speaker 1: that work might impact people naive about the potential downsides
Speaker 1: of press attention. But it's hard to compare the sin
Speaker 1: of naivete to the sin of pursuing a prosecution based
Speaker 1: on perjured and coerced testimony. Ivo was pardoned, yes, but
Speaker 1: a pardon is not an exoneration. The government has never
Speaker 1: said that Iva's case was a miscarriage of justice. They
Speaker 1: have never declared her innocent, though no evidence has ever
Speaker 1: been found to show that she was guilty. The FBI,
Speaker 1: whose investigation of Ivo was instrumental in her prosecution, maintains
Speaker 1: a web page about her case which makes no mention
Speaker 1: of the coercet testimony and describes her as quote voluntarily
Speaker 1: staying in Japan during the war. As many of those
Speaker 1: who knew Iva personally remarked, one of the grimmest ironies
Speaker 1: of the case is how faithfully Iva loved the United States.
Speaker 1: One of her NHK colleagues, who had testified against her,
Speaker 1: told Ronald Yates quote, it was that flare for patriotism
Speaker 1: that proved to be her downfall. As Wayne Collins put it,
Speaker 1: it can truly be said that the United States government
Speaker 1: abandoned and betrayed her rights, but she did not abandon
Speaker 1: the United States. Fortunately, another group of patriots did eventually
Speaker 1: recognize Iva's service. In January two thousand and six, the
Speaker 1: American Veterans Center's World War II Veterans Committee presented eighty
Speaker 1: nine year old Iva with its Edward J. Hurlihy Citizenship Award.
Speaker 1: Ronald Yates, the Chicago Tribune reporter who had done so
Speaker 1: much to clear Iva's name, accompanied her to receive the award.
Speaker 1: Iva told Yates that this day, where her steadfast support
Speaker 1: for the United States was finally recognized, was the most
Speaker 1: memorable day of her life. Two months later, on September
Speaker 1: twenty sixth, two thousand and six, Iva Toguri Daquino passed away,
Speaker 1: aged ninety. Though Iva acknowledged the damage caused by her trial,
Speaker 1: telling Messiah Deuce quote, my life has been very lonely.
Speaker 1: They robbed me of the most important part of it.
Speaker 1: She tried to focus on the future, not the past.
Speaker 1: You can either sit in a room and feel sorry
Speaker 1: for yourself, or you can go outside and look ahead.
Speaker 1: I've tried to look ahead, she said. Her attitude is
Speaker 1: a beautiful and admirable one. But her story also reminds
Speaker 1: us of the importance of looking back and learning about
Speaker 1: the past. Stories like Iva's, as heartbreaking as they are,
Speaker 1: are crucial components of American history, and we should not
Speaker 1: forget them. Thank you for listening to History on Trial.
Speaker 1: My main sources for this episode were Messiah Duce's book
Speaker 1: Tokyo Rose Orphan of the Pacific and Yasuhide Kawashima's book
Speaker 1: The Tokyo Rose Case. Treason on Trial Special Thanks to
Speaker 1: the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for providing me with
Speaker 1: a copy of Tom de Wolf's May nineteen forty eight memo,
Speaker 1: and to Dion and Hugo Hagen for Japanese language assistance.
Speaker 1: For a full bibliography, as well as a transcript of
Speaker 1: this episode with citations, please visit our website History on
Speaker 1: Trial podcast dot com. T is written and hosted by
Speaker 1: me Mira Hayward. The show is edited and produced by
Speaker 1: Jesse Funk, with supervising producer Trevor Young and executive producers
Speaker 1: Dana Schwartz, Alexander Williams, Matt Frederick, and Mira Hayward. Learn
Speaker 1: more about the show at History on Trial podcast dot
Speaker 1: com and follow us on Instagram. At History on Trial
Speaker 1: and on Twitter at Underscore History on Trial. Find more
Speaker 1: podcasts from iHeartRadio by visiting the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.