Judge Stanley J Rumbaugh Department 18 Pierce County Superior Court Current Issues on Courtroom Interpreters Starting with the obvious the interpreter is in court to accurately interpret the witnesses testimony not be the witness ID: 250834
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Presented by" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Presented byJudge Stanley J. RumbaughDepartment 18Pierce County Superior Court
Current Issues on Courtroom Interpreters Slide2
Starting with the obvious, the interpreter is in court to accurately interpret the witnesses testimony, not be the witnessSlide3
Witness says: “Someone began to push me with a black tow truck. Later he began to move me.”Slide4
Interpreter Says: “Someone began to honk at me and I moved.” (fn 1)Slide5
Witness says: “I don’t even have ten cents.”Slide6
Interpreter Says: “I don’t even have ten kilos.” (fn 2)Slide7
Witness is asked by counsel: “Do you remember the day [defendant] sexually assaulted you?”Slide8
Interpreter asks the witness: “Do you remember the day [defendant] made love to you?” (fn 3)Slide9
The growing requirement of bilingual courtrooms mirrors expanding bilingualism in the larger culture regionally, and nationally.Slide10
By the 1990 census, 13.8% of Americans over the age of 5 did not use English in the home. (fn 4)Slide11
Of that 13.8% in 1990, 44% (almost 14 million people) spoke English less than very well. (fn 5)Slide12
By 2011, 20.7% of all Americans over the age of 5 did not use English in the home. (fn 6)Slide13
Of the 20.7% of individuals not speaking English in the home, 62% speak Spanish in the home, 4.8% speak Chinese (Mandarin), 2.6 speak Tagalog, and 2.3% speak Vietnamese. (fn 7)Slide14
Filling out the approximately 28% remaining is a melange of nearly 300 recognized languages or dialects. (fn 8)Slide15
Exclusion of bilingual jurors who have doubts about their ability to ignore original, non-English language testimony in favor of English language interpretation is authorized. (fn 9)Slide16
The venire of prospective jury members must be composed of individuals who reasonably reflect the ethnic and racial composition of the vicinage population. (fn 10)Slide17
The requirement of a racially neutral explanation for juror challenge (fn 11) does not, ipso factor, prohibit bilingual jurors from being subject to challenge because of their bilingual abilities. Slide18
Intentional discrimination is not established by exclusion of bilingual jurors who are hesitant to swear allegiance to the foreign language to English evidentiary interpretation of a court interpreter, regardless of the accuracy of the interpretation. Such hesitancy can be accepted as a racially neutral explanation for the challenge. (fn 12)Slide19
Some state constitutions offer greater protection against the potential for discrimination in jury selection than exist under Federal law. (fn 13)Slide20
Greater state constitutional protections do not necessarily prohibit peremptory challenges of bilingual jurors who express concern about basing their decision only on the English interpretation of testimony. (fn 14)Slide21
The so-called Hernandez accommodation presents an alternative to exclusion of bilingual jurors whose sole reliance on the English record cannot be assured. Slide22
Bilingual jurors can be impaneled with a process in place to inform the court of potential or perceived interpretation errors. Slide23
Jurors can be permitted to inform the court of perceived interpretation error and furnish the court with written explanation of the difference between what the juror heard and what the interpreter said.Slide24
A second alternate to resolving the bilingual juror’s “harsh paradox” is to remove the paradox. This removal is accomplished by confining what the jurors hear exclusively to the simultaneous translation. Slide25
Recorded foreign language testimony, in some jurisdictions, forms part of the official record and has independent evidentiary value. Slide26
Special instructions to the jury defining exactly what is the official record of proceedings, and confining the jury’s attention to the English translation, are required in some states. (fn 15)Slide27
Why not acknowledge both the original foreign language testimony and its English interpretation, allow jurors to consider both, and preserve both for the record?Slide28
For cause challenges are generally not permitted of jurors with highly specialized skills, other than language skills, who can assure impartiality. (fn 16) There seems no reason to treat specialized language skills any differently.