Criminal Defense of Immigrants

(B)  Requirement of Timely Objection.  Under general rules, defense counsel must make a timely objection to an interpreter’s competence or impartiality or the accuracy of the interpretation.[88] Some courts have held that there is a presumption that an interpreter will interpret accurately and that the defendant bears the burden of negating this presumption by challenging the competency of the interpreter prior to the time s/he begins interpreting.[89]

[88] See United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324, 1348 (2d Cir. 1990); United States v. Joshi, 896 F.2d 1303, 1310 (11th Cir. 1990); United States v. Valladares, 871 F.2d 1564, 1566 (11th Cir. 1989); United States v. Urena, 834 F. Supp. 1282, 1286 n.3 (D. Kan. 1993); Delgado v. Walker, 798 F. Supp. 107, 114-15 (E.D.N.Y. 1992); Redman v. United States, 616 A.2d 336, 338 (D.C. 1992); Montoya v. State, 811 S.W.2d 671, 672 (Tex. App. 1991).

[89] State v. Marcham, 770 P.2d 356, 357 (Ariz. App. 1988); Casipeg, 686 P.2d at 33; State v. Puente-Gomez, 827 P.2d 715, 718 (Idaho App. 1992); State v. Thanh Van Pham, 675 P.2d 848, 860 (Kan. 1984); Kan Ting Fung, 907 P.2d at 1194; Stubblefield, 392 S.E.2d at 200.