§ 4.29 V. Interpreter's Role
For more text, click "Next Page>"
INTERPRETER " HEARSAY " NO ERROR TO ALLOW OFFICER TO TESTIFY REGARDING STATEMENTS DEFENDANT MADE THROUGH INTERPRETER
United States v. Hieng, 679 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. May 11, 2012) (the district court did not err by allowing a law enforcement agent to testify regarding statements defendant made through an interpreter during a post-arrest interview, even though he had no opportunity to confront the interpreter, since the defendant did not object to the agents testimony on this basis, and there was no plain error because on the facts of this case, the interpreter was not a witness, but a mere language conduit for defendants statements); following United States v. Nazemian, 948 F.3d 522, 525-26, 528 (9th Cir. 1991) (under appropriate circumstances, a person may testify regarding statements made by the defendant through an interpreter without raising either hearsay or Confrontation Clause issues because the statements are properly viewed as the defendant's own, and the defendant cannot claim that he was denied the opportunity to confront himself; a defendant and an interpreter are treated as identical for testimonial purposes if the interpreter acted as a mere language conduit or agent of the defendant).