Criminal Defense of Immigrants

(B)  State Procedure.  The state jurisdictions are split over the issue of whether qualifica­tion of an interpreter and challenges to the interpreter should be conducted in the presence of the jury. The majority rule among the states is to consider an interpreter a witness,[177] although some states do not consider an interpreter a witness.[178] A number of states require the court to make a preliminary determination of the qualifications and/or competence of an interpreter.[179] In accordance with this preliminary determination, some states require counsel to object to the competence of an interpreter prior to the beginning of actual interpretation.[180] Some states, including some of those which require a preliminary determination of an interpreter’s qualifications, allow impeachment of an interpreter before the jury.[181]

Generally, courts may appoint interpreters for witnesses at trial.[182] Consider whether the interpreter for any prosecution witness is qualified and when appropriate request voir dire of the interpreter. If counsel has reason to suspect the competence or qualifications of an interpreter, s/he should object prior to the beginning of interpretation and at each mistake which comes to his or her attention.  The jurisdictions uniformly hold that failure to object to the competence of an interpreter waives the issue.[183]  Counsel should also object if the prosecutor has waived objection to the defense interpreter, but attempts to insinuate that the interpreter is biased or misinterpreting.

[177] See State v. Burris, 643 P.2d 8, 14 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982); People v. Braley, 879 P.2d 410, 412 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993); State v. Puente-Gomez, 827 P.2d 715, 717 (Idaho Ct. App. 1992); Denton v. State, 945 S.W.2d 793, 797 n.1 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996); Montoya v. State, 811 S.W.2d 671, 672 (Tex. App. 1991); State v. Santiago, 556 N.W.2d 687, 694 & n.18 (Wis. 1996).

[178] See Commonwealth v. Belete, 640 N.E.2d 511, 512 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994); cf. Mariscal v. State, 687 N.E.2d 378, 382 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (holding that interpreter only subject to expert witness rules where interpreter is used to assist the trier of fact rather than interpret testimony); State v. Thanh Van Pham, 675 P.2d 848, 860 (Kan. 1984) (explaining that, although a witness, an interpreter is best described as an attendant of the court).

[179] See State v. Marcham, 770 P.2d 356, 357 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988); Braley, 879 P.2d at 413; Gonzalez v. United States, 697 A.2d 819, 822 (D.C. 1997) (quoting D.C. Code Ann. § 31-2704); Mariscal, 687 N.E.2d at 382; Tranh Van Pham, 675 P.2d at 859. For a requirement of a preliminary determination of whether an interpreter may effectively communicate with a deaf defendant, see Ala. Code § 12-21­131(b); Fla. Stat. ch. 90.6063(6); Ga. Code Ann. § 24-9-106; Miss. Code Ann. § 13-1-301(b); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8B-2(f); OkIa. Stat. § 2409(B); Tenn, Code Ann. § 24-1-103(a)(3); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 1, § 333(a); Wash. Rev. Code § 2.42.130(2); Denton, 945 S.W.2d at 799 (requiring determination that sign language interpreter can communicate with defendant to be made outside of presence of jury).

[180] See Braley, 879 P.2d at 413; State v. Puente-Gomez, 827 P.2d 715, 717 (Idaho Ct. App. 1992); Thanh Van Pham, 675 P.2d at 856.

[181] See Burris, 643 P.2d at 14; Henry v. State, 462 S.E.2d 737, 743 (Ga. 1995); Puente-Gomez, 827 P.2d at 717; see also Denton, 945 S.W.2d at 799, 800 n.5 (requiring court to determine ability to communicate with deaf defendant outside the presence of the jury, but noting that interpreters are subject to impeachment).

[182] See Williams v. State, 384 S.E.2d 877, 880 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989); People v. Warren, 504 N.W.2d 907, 910 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993); State v. Sandlin, 300 S.E.2d 893, 897-98 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983).

[183] 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); Mariscal v. State, 687 N.E.2d 378, 382 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997); Montoya v. State, 811 S.W.2d 671, 672 (Tex. App. 1991). One court has suggested, however, that this rule might not apply if the difficulties with the interpreter are not known to counsel or the defendant until after the trial is over. Gonzalez, 697 A.2d at 823 n.12.