Criminal Defense of Immigrants
§ 4.34 2. Preventing Testimony Against Client
For more text, click "Next Page>"
The courts do not allow an interpreter to corroborate through his or her own testimony any testimony s/he has interpreted. Moreover, the obligation of impartiality may be violated by an interpreter serving as a witness in the same way as a judge’s impartiality is violated by testimony as a witness concerning a case in over which the judge is currently or has previously presided.
Similarly, a bailiff may not properly testify as a witness before a jury that has been in his or her care.
 See R.R., 398 A.2d at 87; McClellan, 286 S.E.2d at 875. But see Amaya Ruiz v. Stewart 121 F.3d 486 (9th Cir. 1997) (in a capital case, interpreter used as witness by competency examiner, who concluded defendant was malingering).
 Brown v. Lynaugh, 843 F.2d 849, 851 (5th Cir. 1988). See also McCartney v. Com’n on Judicial Qualifications, 12 Cal.3d 512, 534 (1974); Merritt v. Reserve Ins. Co., 34 Cal.App.3d 858 (1973); id. at 883; Ibid.; C. Sevilla, Protecting the Client, the Case and Yourself from an Unruly Jurist, The Champion 28, 30 (National Ass’n of Criminal Defense Lawyers, August, 2004).
 Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466 (1965).