Criminal Defense of Immigrants

(A)  Interpreter Errors.  Interpreter error can also may violate the right to a accurate interpretation of the proceedings.[84]  Kay, Ramirez, and Hill give this list of common interpreter errors:

1) switching first person to third person; 2) literal translation; 3) inadequate language proficiency; 4) omission resulting from a deficient memory span or fatigue; 5) distortion resulting from an interpreter’s failure to preserve the hesitation words, fillers, interrupted and incomplete sentences characteristic of real speech; 6) switching active and passive verbs; 7) adding or deleting “politeness markers”;[85] 8) cleaning up the language used by a witness due to a hesitancy to use Street language in court.[86]

Some courts, however, have minimized the importance of some interpreter errors, as when the testimony as to which the inaccuracies occurred was cumulative of the testimony of other witnesses.[87]

[84] See People v. Cunningham, 546 N.W.2d 715, 717 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).

[85] Linguist Susan Berk-Seligson calls expressions like “Sir,” “Ma’am,” or “Your Honor,” “politeness markers.” The addition or deletion of these terms by an interpreter can distort the message of the speaker. Berk-Seligson observed and recorded many hours of in-court interpretation, and identified some of the most common interpreter errors. She reported her conclusions in Berk- Seligson, supra. Another source to turn to for an in-depth look at interpreter errors is R. Gonzalez, Fundamentals of Court Interpretation 281 (1991).

[86] Kay, Ramirez & Hill, Using Interpreters, in J. Connell & R. Valladares, eds., Cultural Issues in Criminal Defense 2-1, 2-32 (Juris Publishing 2000).

[87] Rodriguez v. State, 518 S.E.2d 131  (Ga. 1999) (in capital case, alleged inaccuracies in interpretation were held not to be reversible error as testimony was cumulative of other witnesses).