2005. Spanish (214,355 events) remains the language most often interpreted in the courts, accounting for
94 percent of all reported events, followed by Mandarin (1,792 events), Arabic (1250 events), Vietnamese
(863 events), Korean (796 events), Cantonese (745 events), Russian (610 events), French (417 events),
and Foochow (409 events).
Courts along the Southwest border are in “crisis mode,” contending with criminal caseloads that have
skyrocketed since the late 1990s.
8
In 2005, “more than one-third of all federal felonies prosecuted in the
U.S. came from five of the 94 judicial districts — the southwest border courts of the District of New
Mexico, the Southern and Western Districts of Texas, the District of Arizona, and the Southern District of
California.”
9
In New Mexico’s federal district courts, criminal felony cases have climbed 287 percent since
1997. The average felony caseload (felony case per authorized judgeship) nationwide is 87. In the District
of New Mexico, which ranks first, the average is 405. The Southern District of Texas ranks third, with an
average of 326. That district’s Laredo division carries 2,800 felony cases — an average of 1,400 per
judge.
10
Legal Precedents
In U.S. district courts, the right to sign language and foreign language interpretation is recognized by case
law as protected especially by the Fifth, Sixth, and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth
Amendment, which guarantees fundamental fairness and equal protection under the law, states, in
pertinent part: “No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor
be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .” The Sixth Amendment, the
major federal source of the right to an interpreter, states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
enjoy the right . . . to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense.” The 14th Amendment extends the application of these rights to all
states. Federal as well as state jurisdictions have affirmed the right to an interpreter in criminal
proceedings. Some states — such as California — guarantee the right to an interpreter in their
constitutions, although there is no explicit provision providing for this in the U.S. Constitution.
11
There is a considerable amount of case law relating to interpreter use in courts across the country. The
first federal court ruling stating that a Spanish-speaking defendant in a criminal case was entitled to the
services of an interpreter and that failure to provide an interpreter rendered the trial constitutionally infirm
is U.S. ex rel. Negron v. State of New York, 434 F.2d 386 (2d Cir. 1970). This landmark case, often cited
as a basis for providing court interpreters, involved the murder trial of a 23-year-old Spanish-speaking
migrant worker who was not provided an interpreter, even though he spoke no English and an interpreter
was necessary to translate the testimony of two Spanish-speaking witnesses for the court. Not only was
the defendant unable to communicate with his court-appointed attorney, who spoke no Spanish, the trial
proceedings were incomprehensible to the defendant because the English testimony of witnesses was not
interpreted for him, although his own testimony had to be given through an interpreter. The court found
that the lack of adequate interpretation was a violation of the due process clause, a decision affirmed by
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In a related case, United States v. Torres, 793 F.2d 436 (1986), the
court held that a defendant had the right to an interpreter in order to understand the charges against him,
to confront his accusers, and to understand and be understood “without discretion to limit translation to
those statements deemed appropriate by the court or government.” Another significant case is U.S. ex rel.
Navarrow v. Johnson, 34 F. Supp. 679, 682 (D.Pa. 1973), in which the court found that the absence of an
interpreter violates the right of confrontation.
Federal Legislation
The Court Interpreters Act of 1978 [amended in 1988 (28 U.S.C. 1827-1828)], the federal statute
governing the use of interpreters in U.S. district courts, marks a watershed moment in the history of court
interpreting in the U.S. because it mandated the development of a national certification examination on
the federal level to test for linguistic and interpreting skills, provided for the use of certified interpreters in
judicial proceedings instituted by the United States, and required the use of certified interpreters when
reasonably available.
12
When a certified interpreter is not available, the law allows for the use of
“otherwise qualified” or “language skilled” interpreters, defined as individuals who meet “the educational,
training, job-related performance and experience criteria established by the [d]irector of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, after consultation with the National Court Interpreters
Special Task Force, for non-certified court interpreters.”
13
Certification
Certification is the principal indicator that a person has passed an examination mandated by legislation to
assess interpreter competency for court proceedings, such as the federal court interpreter examination
administered by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Unfortunately, the term “certified” is often
used imprecisely to refer to individuals who have completed a certificate program or passed a qualifying
examination. Moreover, it should be noted that, although different states “have several different kinds of
interpreter testing, not all tests are recognized by law as certification tests.”
14
The establishment of a
consortium by the National Center for the State Courts (NCSC) is a significant improvement toward
professionalizing and setting uniform requirements in court interpreting services at the state level. In
http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNJournal0.../089c9fc08403fdf885257471005ecf98?OpenDocument (3 of 11) [7/2/2008 1:19:31 PM]