Post-Conviction Relief for Immigrants

            The first task is to determine whether a non-English speaking client or a client who speaks English as a second language needs the assistance of an interpreter.  Counsel should ask the client whether s/he would like an interpreter, but also independently determine whether communication would be enhanced.  Counsel should err on the side of caution, recognizing that clients, who may have the ability to understand and communicate in English on a daily level, may not be able to understand the more difficult English syntax and vocabulary used in the legal context, particularly since they will normally be under considerable stress during legal proceedings. 

            Counsel must also carefully select a qualified interpreter.  If there is a certification process in the jurisdiction, it should be easy to obtain a listing of minimally qualified interpreters.  Other sources include telephonic language line services,[28] or internet listings of regional and national interpreter organizations.[29] 

            Counsel must also ensure that the interpreter is neutral and not potentially biased.  Individuals such as family members or friends should not be used, except in emergency situations.[30] 

Counsel must ensure that the interpreter speaks not only the same language but also the same dialect as the defendant, not just a similar one.  Even a minor difference in a dialect can render a translation unreliable.  Be alert to signs that the client does not understand what is going on.  Interruptions to consult with counsel, statements that the defendant did not understand something, inappropriate responses to questions, and grammatical errors in statements made by the defendant may be evidence that the defendant in fact did not understand something, thus demonstrating that an interpreter — or a different interpreter — may be required. 

[28] For example, AT&T Language Line ServiceÔ provides access to interpreters for as many as 140 languages, although the interpreters are not necessarily certified.

[29] See, e.g., The National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT) at http://www.najit.org/

[30] See, e.g., Henry v. State, 462 S.E.2d 737, 743 (Ga. 1995); In re R.R., 398 A.2d 76, 86 (N.J. 1979).