CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Court Control of Proceedings
......Interpreters
.........Case Law
 14 Cards On This Topic:
  • District court erred under Court Interpreters Act by dismissing D’s interpreter where D did not validly waive his right to one.
  • No confrontation clause violation where D had opportunity for effective cross-exam. of deaf witness w/interpreters—trial court placed no limits on scope or duration of cross-exam. and jury able to assess her credibility.
  • Evidentiary hearing required on ineffective assistance claim where interpreter alleged to have provided inaccurate translations of D's counsel's advice.
  • Use of interpreter is matter for court's discretion; in light of D's failure to object, and court's inquiry into language issue, court did not err in not appointing interpreter.
  • In evaluating need for interpreter, court's observation of testifying D's language skills must be made outside presence of jury.
  • No error in admitting translation of recorded Spanish phone call implicating D in drug deal; no specific oath required where standard, standing oath of court translator administered.
  • No reason rule of forfeiture does not apply to violations of rules of court or claims of error re interpreters for Ws; D's failure to object precluded him from asserting errors re witness interpreters on appeal.
  • Court properly limited D's interpreter to sequential, rather than requested, simultaneous translation.
  • Since D did not make a specific objection concerning the accuracy of interpretation or competency of the interpreter, he forfeited "ineffective assistance of interpreter" issue.
  • Allowing jurors to translate for themselves the Spanish-language audio recordings of D’s interrogations constituted structural error requiring reversal of D’s convictions.
  • No error in using Spanish interpreter for juror, where, although reasons for it unclear, record did not show he lacked sufficient knowledge of English to be a juror.
  • As EC 755.5 does not prohibit testimony re medical exams not involving communication with P, limiting testimony of defense Es to observations, non-language-dependent test results, and review of P's doctor's records, was not error.
  • Court’s refusal to appoint interpreter to communicate speech-impaired V’s testimony was within its discretion and ample evidence supported conclusion V could communicate without an interpreter.
  • DMV's failure to inform P of his right to an interpreter at time it notified him of admin per se hearing date violated GC §11435.60 but error harmless.


    •