From the Classroom to the Courtroom

American Translators Association Scholarly

Monograph Series (ATA)
As of 1993 John Benjamins has been the official publisher of the ATA Scholarly
Monograph Series. Edited by Françoise Massardier-Kenney, under the auspices
of the American Translators Association, this peer-reviewed series has an
international scope and addresses research and professional issues in the
translation community worldwide. These accessible collections of scholarly
articles range from issues of training and business environments to case studies
or aspects of specialized translation relevant to translators, translator trainers,
and translation researchers.
For an overview of all books published in this series, please see
http://benjamins.com/catalog/ata

Managing Editor
Françoise Massardier-Kenney
Institute for Applied Linguistics,
Kent State University (Kent, Ohio)

Editorial Board
Keiran Dunne Marshall Morris
Kent State University (Kent, Ohio) University of Puerto Rico (Rio Piedras, P.R.)
Marilyn Gaddis Rose Sue Ellen Wright
Binghamton University (NY) Institute for Applied Linguistics,
Kent State University (Kent, Ohio)
Peter W. Krawutschke
Western Michigan University (Kalamazoo)

Volume XVII
From the Classroom to the Courtroom. A guide to interpreting
in the U.S. justice system
by Elena M. de Jongh
From the Classroom
to the Courtroom
A guide to interpreting in the U.S. justice system

Elena M. de Jongh
Florida International University/
United States Court Certified Interpreter

John Benjamins Publishing Company

Amsterdam / Philadelphia
 TM
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
8

the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence

of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

de Jongh, Elena M.
From the Classroom to the Courtroom : A guide to interpreting in the U.S. justice system /
Elena M. de Jongh.
p. cm. (American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series,
issn 0890-4111; v. XVII)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Court interpreting and translating--United States. 2. Conduct of court proceedings--
United States. 3. Hispanic Americans--Legal status, laws, etc.--United States. 4.
Linguistic minorities--Services for--United States. I. Title.
KF8806.D4   2012
347.73’16--dc23 2011036370
isbn 978 90 272 3193 2  (Hb; alk. paper)  /  isbn 978 90 272 3194 9  (Pb; alk. paper)
isbn 978 90 272 8220 0  (Eb)

© 2012 – Elena M. de Jongh

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any
other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia, pa 19118-0519 · usa
For my father, David S. de Jongh, MD, in loving memory
 Table of contents

List of tables xi
List of figures xiii
List of documents xv
Acknowledgments xvii
Preface xix

part i.  In the classroom: Background and context

Introduction to Part I  1

chapter 1
Court interpreting and due process 3
Landmark legislation, legal precedents and recent case law  3
Linguistic presence  4
A growing need for qualified interpreters  7
Interpreters in the courtroom  11
The process of interpretation  11
Aspects of U.S. legal language  12
Translation v. interpretation  15
Modes of interpretation used in court   16
Court interpreter qualifications and certification  17
Certification  19

chapter 2
Overview of the courts: The U.S. judicial system 21
Background: Common (English) and civil (Roman) law  21
The separation of powers and an independent judiciary  22
The structure of courts: Federal and state systems  23
State courts  24
Federal courts  25
The Supreme Court  28
The U.S. justice system and the rule of law  28
Judge’s remarks addressed to visiting attorneys from Argentina,
Chile and Venezuela  29
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

part ii.  In the courtroom: Interpreting practice

Introduction to Part II  33
How to use this part  34

chapter 3
Pretrial proceedings 37
Criminal v. civil cases  37
Criminal actions  37
Civil actions  38
Pretrial proceedings in criminal cases  41
Arrest and charging documents   41
Initial appearance  51
Sample interpreter oaths  51
Bail and detention hearings  58
Pretrial conferences and motions  60
Change of plea hearing  61

chapter 4
Trials 79
Types of trials  79
Jury selection  80
Judge’s introductory remarks to potential jurors
in a criminal case  81
Burden of proof  88
Opening statements  89
Opening statement by the prosecution  90
Opening statement by the defense  92
Presentation of evidence and questioning of witnesses  94
Direct examination of an English-Speaking witness  96
Cross-examination of an English-speaking witness  103
Expert witness testimony  108
Interpreting at the witness stand – consecutive mode  113
Note-taking in the consecutive mode  116
Direct examination of a non-English-speaking witness  118
Cross-examination of a non-English-speaking witness  122
Rebuttal  133
Motion for judgment of acquittal  133
 Table of contents 

Closing arguments   136

Closing argument by the prosecution  136
 losing argument by the defense  138
C
Jury instructions  140
Deliberations and verdict  147

chapter 5
Sentences and post-trial proceedings 151
Presentence investigation report  151
Sentencing hearing  154
Sample allocution  157
Appeals and post-judgment motions  161
Conclusion  162

part iii.  Appendices

Introduction to Part III  163

appendix 1
Glossary of selected legal terms and phrases (English-Spanish) 165

appendix 2
Court interpreter codes of ethics and professional responsibility 183
I. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts  183
II. National Association of Judiciary Interpreters
& Translators (NAJIT) Code of Ethics
and Professional Responsibilities  185
III. Sample State Court Code of Conduct
for Interpreters – Washington State Courts  187

appendix 3
Selected dictionaries and references for further study 189

appendix 4
Selected translation & interpretation (T&I) organizations and resources 193

appendix 5
Index of selected recordings for interpreting practice 197
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

appendix 6
Court Interpreters Act of 1978 199

appendix 7
Executive Order 13166 of August 11, 2000 205

References 209
Index 213
About the author 215

The audio files of numerous transcripts in this volume can be found

online, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ata.xvii.audio
This logo marks the availability of an audio file.
 List of tables

Table 1.1 Interpreter Use in U.S. District Courts for Calendar Years 9
2000–2005
Table 1.2 Languages Used in the U.S. District Courts in Fiscal Year 2008 10
Table 1.3 Languages Used in the U.S. District Courts in Fiscal Year 2009 10
Table 4.1 Sample Suggested Symbols for Note-Taking 117
Table 5.1 Sentencing Computations 152
 List of figures

Figure 3.1 Pretrial, Trial and Post-Judgment Proceedings in Civil Actions 40

Figure 3.2 Pretrial Proceedings in Criminal Actions 42
Figure 3.3 Interpreting Practice Self-Assessment Form 44
Figure 3.4 General Outline of a Change of Plea Hearing 65
Figure 4.1 Flow Chart of Proceedings in Criminal and Civil Actions 80
Figure 4.2 Review of the Stages in a Criminal Jury Trial 150
 List of documents

Document 3.1 Warrant for Arrest 45

Document 3.2 Criminal Complaint 46
Document 3.3 Affidavit 47
Document 3.4 Affidavit 48
Document 3.5 Indictment 50
Document 3.6 Written Plea Agreement 63
Document 3.7 Factual Proffer (Immigration Offense) 74
Document 3.8 Factual Proffer (Drug Offense) 75
Document 3.9 Factual Proffer (Murder-for-Hire) 75
Document 3.10 Factual Proffer (Maritime Smuggling of Drugs and Firearms Offenses) 76
Document 3.11 Factual Proffer (Fraud Offense: Health Care) 77
Document 4.1 Sample Verdict Form 148
Document 5.1 Sample Presentence Report – Face Sheet 153
Document 5.2 Sample Addendum to a Presentence Report 154
Document 5.3 Sample Statement Read by a Defendant 158
Document 5.4 Sample Statement Read by a Defendant 159
Document 5.5 Sample Letter Written by a Defendant 160
 Acknowledgments

I am indebted to many friends and colleagues for their support of this project,
most particularly, fellow federally certified court interpreters Dr. Virginia Benma-
man, Rebeca Calderón, María J. Cazabon, and Anthony T. Rivas, who read por-
tions of the manuscript and whose valuable suggestions improved the text; as well
as the attorneys, court reporters, and other court personnel who provided court
documents and trial transcripts, especially Sandra Burnham, Assistant U.S. Attor-
ney Dawn Bowen, and Carleen L. Horenkamp, RPR, FCRR. In addition, I wish to
express my appreciation to actor and fellow federally certified court interpreter,
Daniel Novoa, for his important role in recording transcripts, and to Dr. Françoise
Massardier-Kenney for her careful editing of the text, many valuable suggestions,
and support of this project.
I owe a special debt of gratitude to The Honorable Shelby Highsmith, Senior
United States District Judge, and Mrs. Mary Ann Highsmith for allowing me to
include his presentation on the U.S. legal system and the rule of law (Chapter 2).
For their valuable assistance, suggestions and encouragement, I thank The Honor-
able Adalberto Jordan, United States District Judge, and The Honorable Chris M.
McAliley, United States Magistrate Judge.
Finally, I wish to express my appreciation to my family for their support and
invaluable assistance in recording and editing of transcripts. In particular, I thank
my mother, Elena Portuondo de Jongh, sons William and Edward Rossel de Jongh,
daughter-in-law, Yumiko Hirayama, and Kevin Kappes, for the understanding
and limitless patience shown throughout every phase of this project. I am also
grateful to sister-in-law, Michelle de Jongh, for her meticulous proofreading of the
manuscript.
Without the resolute and loving inspiration of my father, Dr. David S. de Jongh,
MD, this book would not have been written. It is dedicated to his memory.
 Preface

This book is intended to be an easy-to-use guide to familiarize prospective court

interpreters with the nature, purpose and language of the courtroom proceedings
in which they are likely to be involved. Though the book is designed primarily for
aspiring court interpreters and instructors, it contains information that may also
prove useful to experienced interpreters. The guide is a road map to the complex
proceedings of the United States justice system. Its central aim is to provide inter-
preters with essential information about pretrial, trial and post-judgment process-
es. Documents, dialogues and monologues from actual court cases are included to
illustrate judicial procedures and the language of the courts.
The conception and design of the guide draw abundantly on my experience of
over two decades as a certified federal court interpreter and educator. It follows on
the success of my book, An Introduction to Court Interpreting: Theory and Practice,
used in academic settings that offer interpreter training – among them, Florida In-
ternational University, NYU and the University of California, San Diego. When first
published in 1992, that textbook was considered “the first major text for the training
of court interpreters” (M. Bowen 1992). This new guide is a logical outgrowth of
that first book but differs from it in several significant ways: (1) practice is empha-
sized over theory; (2) practice materials, which are recent and authentic, actually
follow the movement of criminal cases through the courts; (3) statistics, references
and other data reflect the current state of the profession; and (4) a companion
webpage containing recordings of practice materials in English and Spanish from
Part II – e.g., opening statements, jury instructions, examination of witnesses – is
included as a supplementary instructional aid. The entire concept of the guide, in
fact, can be described as a fresh and practical “hands on” approach to interpreter
training that takes the reader out of the classroom and straight into the courtroom.
Throughout the guide, flow charts and summaries are provided for civil as well as
criminal cases. By combining the description of court hearings with transcripts of
actual proceedings, using authentic legal documents (e.g., arrest warrant, indictment,
plea agreement, verdict form), the guide creates a realistic “virtual” model of the stag-
es that the interpreter will confront when participating in live court proceedings.
This novel organization of materials leads prospective court interpreters to
achieve three main instructional objectives: (1) a greater awareness of their own
place and function through a detailed explanation of the interpreter’s role in the
courtroom; (2) a thorough knowledge of the court system, through a comprehensive
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

description of the legal process from initial appearance through post-judgment

stage; and (3) enhanced interpreting skills through the use of authentic material.
Organizing the content around the stages of the judicial process also facilitates
quick reference without the need to review the entire volume – an additional ad-
vantage that makes this guide the ideal interpreters’ reference manual.
From the Classroom to the Courtroom is offered in response to the growing na-
tionwide demand for trained, qualified court interpreters, a need resulting from the
increase in the number of non-English-speaking minorities in the U.S. and the pas-
sage of laws designed to protect their due process rights (e.g., the Court Interpreters
Act of 1978). Many states, California among them, report that their courts are un-
able to provide qualified interpreters to meet the current need in juvenile, criminal
and civil proceedings.1 Additionally, the rapid growth of international trade, com-
merce, travel and migration, along with globalization and recent international crises,
all point to a pressing need for individuals with advanced language and interpreting
skills. Though job prospects are projected to vary by language and specialty, the most
recent edition of the Occupational Outlook Handbook of the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics predicts that interpreters and translators can expect much faster than aver-
age employment growth. In fact, employment of translators and interpreters:
is projected to increase 22 percent over the 2008-18 decade, which is much faster
than the average for all occupations. Higher demand for interpreters and transla-
tors results directly from the broadening of international ties and the large in-
creases in the number of non-English-speaking people in the United States. Both
of these trends are expected to continue throughout the projections period, con-
tributing to relatively rapid growth in the number of jobs for interpreters and
translators across all industries in the economy. (2010–2011 Edition, 5)

The focus of this guide is on English/Spanish court proceedings because Spanish

is currently the language most in demand in state and federal courts. The U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that the particular demand for interpreters and
translators of Spanish will remain strong because of expected increases in the
Hispanic population in the United States.2 Indeed, as documented in Chapter 1,

1. See Laura Abel, “Language Access in State Courts,” Brennan Center for Justice at New York
University School of Law, 2009. Since the late 1990s federal district courts along the Southwest
border have been contending with skyrocketing criminal caseloads. In New Mexico’s federal
courts, for example, criminal felony cases have climbed 287 percent since 1997. See “Immigra-
tion Crisis Tests Federal Courts on Southwest Border,” 38 The Third Branch, June 2006, available
at http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/06-06/border/index.html.
2. Demand is also expected to be strong for translators and interpreters of Portuguese, French,
Italian, German, Arabic and other Middle Eastern languages, as well as the principal East Asian
languages. See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook: 2010–2011 Edi-
tion, 5. Accessed 2/12/2010, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/print.pl/oco/ocos175.htm.
 Preface 

Hispanics currently represent 16% of the population and are both the largest and
the fastest growing minority group in the country.
This guide is divided into three sections. Part I sets out the background and
context that provide the foundation for the interpreting practice in Part II and the
supplementary material in Part III. Part I, “In the Classroom: Background and
context,” consists of two chapters. Chapter 1 presents an overview of the process of
interpretation, interpreter qualifications and the impact of court interpreting on
the due process rights of defendants with “Limited English Proficiency” (LEP) in
the United States. In this context, LEP persons are those who do not speak, read,
write or understand English well enough to interact meaningfully with the justice
system. Such individuals are entitled to interpreter services when participating in
court proceedings.
This first chapter, which draws heavily from my article, “Court Interpreting:
Linguistic Presence v. Linguistic Absence” (The Florida Bar Journal: July-August
2008), also discusses key legislation, landmark rulings and recent case law impact-
ing the use of interpreters in court; finally, it documents the dramatic increase in
the need and use of interpreters in U.S. courts. Chapter 2 briefly reviews the struc-
ture of the U.S. judicial system (federal and state), touches on the concept of sepa-
ration of powers and summarizes the basic differences between civil and criminal
cases. It concludes with eloquent remarks by a United States District Judge on the
rule of law and our system of justice.
Part II contains the distinctive and original synthesis of content and form that
sets this guide apart from all other books on court interpreting. No other book on
court interpreting provides this “virtual roadmap” to courtroom interpreting
(see Appendix 3). The chosen structure mirrors the progression of criminal cases
through the courts and has a twofold purpose: to explain and illustrate court pro-
cedure and to provide interpreting exercises based on authentic materials from
each successive stage. This second portion of From the Classroom to the Courtroom
is organized into three chapters: Chapter 3 deals with pretrial matters, Chapter 4
covers trials and Chapter 5 summarizes post-trial procedures. The arrangement is
sequential and allows for maximum flexibility in tailoring the book to instruc-
tional and individual needs. The function of the interpreter is illustrated through-
out with legal documents and transcripts. These texts are accompanied by
interpreting exercises whose use will be determined by the reader or instructor in
proportion to the individual’s familiarity with court proceedings.
The practice materials have been selected from actual court cases and are rep-
resentative samples of courtroom language (e.g., a judge’s instructions to the jury,
testimony by an expert witness, an LEP defendant’s plea for leniency at a sentenc-
ing hearing). Recognizing that interpreters are also frequently needed for LEP in-
dividuals involved in civil matters, various types of civil actions are briefly described
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

in this guide. Nonetheless, mindful of the stress placed by current legislation on

the need for court interpreters in criminal cases, the primary emphasis of this
guide is on criminal proceedings. All identifying data such as proper names, dates,
addresses, place names, and case numbers have been replaced with fictitious infor-
mation to protect the privacy of all parties.
Part III features several appendices. The first is an English-to-Spanish glossary
of selected legal terms and phrases commonly used in pretrial, trial and post-trial
proceedings involving criminal actions. This glossary is included as a convenient
reference, and is not meant to be exhaustive. Appendix 2 contains the Standards
for Performance and Professional Responsibility for Contract Court Interpreters
in the Federal Courts, the Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities ad-
opted by the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators
(NAJIT), and a sample state Code of Conduct for foreign language court interpret-
ers. Appendix 3 provides a list of selected monolingual and bilingual dictionaries
and references, as well as suggested reference works for further study on court
interpreting. Appendix 4 offers information on translator and interpreter organi-
zations and other useful resources. A companion webpage contains selected re-
cordings of English and Spanish practice texts for interpreting practice; its con-
tents are listed in Appendix 5. The Court Interpreters Act is included as Appendix 6,
and finally, Appendix 7 contains the text of Executive Order 13166: Improving ac-
cess to services for persons with limited English proficiency.
The fundamental objective of this book is to disseminate information that will
contribute to the development of the skills necessary for competent court inter-
preting. First and foremost, this guide offers foreign language interpreters a wealth
of information that will assist them in providing linguistic minorities with access
to fair and expeditious judicial proceedings. In content and structure, From the
Classroom to the Courtroom: A guide to interpreting in the U.S. justice system incor-
porates materials derived from my personal research and has been shaped by my
own professional experience. While this guide does not attempt to be an exhaustive
treatment of any of the subjects involved in foreign language court interpreting in
the United States – matters pertaining to interpretation theory, bilingualism, fo-
rensic linguistics, sociolinguistics or discourse theory must necessarily remain
outside the limits of this guide – the reader will find recommendations for further
study listed in Appendix 3.
The publisher and the author have no responsibility for the persistence or ac-
curacy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this
publication and do not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will re-
main, accurate or appropriate.
 part i

In the classroom
Background and context

Introduction to Part I

Interpreters have long played an essential role in human communication. In this

new millennium, they have become even more crucial in the world community.
Interpreters and translators have the ability to bridge cultural and linguistic barri-
ers born of the multiplicity of languages and the ever-increasing need of human
beings to communicate with one another. Today, despite dramatic advances in
communication technology, linguistic and cultural heterogeneity persists and lan-
guage barriers are felt more acutely than ever.
Notwithstanding the many different settings in which interpreters work, they
all have a common role – eliminating linguistic and cultural gaps. Whether in
community settings, international organizations or tribunals, interpreters are piv-
otal in the exchange of information, since without them there could be little, if any,
effective communication. Because linguistic and cultural proficiencies inevitably
affect the accuracy of the communicative event, interpreters have a direct impact
on the interaction and outcome. In the legal setting in the United States, foreign
language and sign language interpreters are regularly present in law enforcement
investigations, attorney-client interviews, depositions, and in county, state and
federal courtrooms throughout the country. Clearly, the quality of the interpreta-
tion is a decisive factor at every stage of the legal process – from the investigative
phase of a case until its final disposition. Nonetheless, as recognized by case law
and legislation such as the Court Interpreters Act of 1978, it is in the courtroom
itself – the setting where matters of guilt and innocence are decided – that the ac-
curacy of the interpreted communication is all the more significant.
This guide focuses on the presence of Spanish-language interpreters in U.S.
courtrooms. Its basis is the recognition that competent court interpreting requires
more than fluency in two languages and the ability to interpret in the three modes
of interpretation used in court. The modes are the techniques interpreters use to
convey message content from one language (the source language) into another
language (the target language). The modes used in court – sight translation, con-
secutive interpretation and simultaneous interpretation – are defined in Chapter 1.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Courtroom interpreting also requires knowledge of court proceedings, profes-

sional ethics, specialized terminology and legal concepts; information that is pro-
vided in the three parts that make up this guide. The authentic court transcripts
and documents included in Part II allow for contextualized practice in these three
modes of interpretation. Because these materials are presented according to the
sequence of events that cases follow in the courts, they mirror courtroom proceed-
ings from beginning to end. Each stage in the process is described, as is the inter-
preter’s role in that stage.
As discussed in Chapter 1, in the United States, the influx of large numbers of
immigrants with little or no proficiency in English, along with legislation and case
law intended to protect their due process rights, have brought about a significant
increase in the need for court interpreters.
 chapter 1

Court interpreting and due process

As long as human speech communities have existed, intermediaries have been

necessary to facilitate communication from one linguistic and cultural group to
another. In converting one spoken language into another, interpreters do more
than translate spoken utterances; they convey concepts and ideas from one lan-
guage to another. Today, with the expansion in international business, travel, mi-
gration, as well as globalization and the rapidly changing political environment,
interpretation has become an activity increasingly practiced by professionals.
This chapter presents an overview of the role of court interpreters in protect-
ing the due process rights of linguistic minorities, including key legislation, legal
precedents and the constitutional basis for using foreign language court interpret-
ers in the United States, before discussing interpreter qualifications and certifica-
tion, the process of interpretation, and statistics regarding the growing need for
court interpreters.

Landmark legislation, legal precedents and recent case law

In United States District Courts, the right to sign language and foreign language
interpretation is recognized by case law as protected, especially by the 5th, 6th and
14th amendments to the Constitution of the United States. 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 wit-
nesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” The Four-
teenth 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 pro-
ceedings. Some states – such as California – guarantee the right to an interpreter
in their constitutions (Art. I §14), although there is no explicit provision providing
for this in the U.S. Constitution (see de Jongh 2008; González et al. 1991).
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

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
twenty-three-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, but, in addition, 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 in Negron found that the lack of adequate interpretation was a viola-
tion 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” (U.S. v. Torres, 793, F.2nd 436 [1986]). Another significant case is
U.S. ex rel. Navarrow v. Johnson, 34 F. Supp. 679, 682 (D.Pa., 1973), wherein the court
found that the absence of an interpreter violates the right of confrontation.

Linguistic presence

A number of courts have ruled that a defendant’s physical presence in the court-
room is not enough to constitute legal presence. For a defendant in criminal matters
to be “meaningfully present,” everything that is being said in the case must be com-
municated in a language he or she can understand. Moreover, a non-English-speak-
ing defendant’s linguistic presence in his own case is inextricably linked to the degree
of accuracy of the interpretation. This concept, known as linguistic presence, re-
quires the services of a qualified foreign-language interpreter for non-English speak-
ers and a sign language interpreter for the hearing-impaired. In State v. Natividad,
111 Ariz. 191, 526 P.2d 730 (1974), the Arizona Supreme Court, en banc, held:
The inability of a defendant to understand the proceedings would be [not only]
fundamentally unfair but particularly inappropriate in a state where a signifi-
cant minority of the population is burdened with the handicap of being unable
to effectively communicate in our national language. A defendant’s inability to
spontaneously understand testimony being given would undoubtedly limit his
attorney’s effectiveness, especially on cross-examination. It would be as though
 Chapter 1.  Court interpreting and due process 

a defendant were forced to observe the proceedings from a soundproof booth

or seated out of hearing at the rear of the courtroom, being able to observe but
not comprehend the criminal processes whereby the state had put his freedom
in jeopardy. Such a trial comes close to being an invective against an insensible
object, possibly infringing upon the accused’s [sic] basic right to be present in the
courtroom at every stage of his trial. (Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 13 S.Ct.
136, Negron v. New York, 434 F.2d 386 (2d Cir. 1970))

The Court Interpreters Act of 1978, amended in 1988 (28 U.S.C. §1827), is the
federal statute governing the use of interpreters in United States district courts
(see Appendix 6). It marks a watershed moment in the history of court interpret-
ing 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, pro-
vided for the use of certified interpreters in judicial proceedings instituted by the
United States, and required the use of certified interpreters when reasonably avail-
able. 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 Director of the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts, after consultation with the National Court Interpreters Special Task Force,
for non-certified court interpreters” (Sec.12 (1) (k) of Title 28, U.S.C.).1 Although
the Court Interpreters Act of 1978 accomplished a great deal in the protection of
due process rights for linguistic minorities, gross miscarriages of justice have
nonetheless persisted. The case of State of Oregon v. Ventura Morales, Nos. 86–630,
1988 Ore. App. LEXIS 1627 (Or. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 1988) for example, involves a
Mexican Native American who spoke only Mixtec, an indigenous language, and
was assigned a Spanish interpreter for his trial. Although the interpreter – unable
to faithfully interpret the proceedings into Mixtec and the testimony of Mixtec-
speaking witnesses into English – repeatedly complained on the record regarding
linguistic limitations, the court took no action (Davis et al. 2004). The defendant
served four years in prison before it was discovered that he had not understood the
courtroom proceedings.2

1. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts defines “professionally qualified” and
“language skilled” interpreters at http://www.uscourts.gov/interpretprog/categories.html.
2. For a review of approximately thirty decisions from 1998–2003 involving court interpreting
and including the Ventura Morales case, see Davis et al., “The Changing Face of Justice: A Sur-
vey of Recent Cases Involving Courtroom Interpretation.” Harvard Latino Law Review, Spring
2004, 7: 1. According to A Quarterly Newsletter 1 (3), National Latino Research Center, Califor-
nia State University San Marcos, four years after Ventura Morales’ conviction, a reinvestigation
of the case established convincingly that another man was the killer and that cultural and lin-
guistic barriers contributed to a wrongful conviction. The Newsletter also reports that Santiago
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

In State v. Santiago Calderon, 13 P.3d 871, 876 (Kan. 2000), the defendant,
Domingo Santiago Calderon, appealed his murder conviction and claimed that the
trial court erred in ordering that the closing argument not be translated. On appeal,
the Supreme Court of Kansas held that the “right to be present at one’s own crimi-
nal trial is a fundamental right.... A defendant’s right to be present includes a right
to have trial proceedings translated into a language that he or she understands so
that he or she can participate effectively in his or her own defense.” The Supreme
Court of Kansas also held that the trial court’s failure to provide a translator consti-
tuted plain error because this violated the appellant’s fundamental right to be “pres-
ent” at trial. Santiago Calderon’s conviction was reversed, and the case was remand-
ed for a new trial.
Several rulings since 2000 have recognized not only that defendants with lim-
ited or non-existent knowledge of English possess a fundamental right to have
court proceedings interpreted, but they have also emphasized that quality – the
accuracy – of interpretation is essential to protect those rights. In U.S. v. Gonzales,
339 F.3d 725 (2003) a decision from the Eighth Circuit, the court ruled on the
importance of using federally certified interpreters in district courts. The decision
acknowledges that accurate court interpreting is fundamental to the rights of a
non-English-speaking defendant in the federal court system. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled:
adherence to the requirements of the [Court Interpreters] Act is not optional. ...
When district courts ... decline to follow the unambiguous language of the Court
Interpreters Act, the rights of non-native English speaking criminal defendants
may be impermissibly jeopardized.” U.S. v. Gonzales, 339 F.3d 725 (8th Cir. 2003).
... [Although] the appointment of an interpreter lies within the sound discretion of
the trial judge (U.S. v. Tapia, 631 F.2d 1207, 1210 [5th Cir. 1980]), once the district
judge decides to appoint an interpreter, however, it is obligated to follow the man-
dates of the Court Interpreters Act. (U.S. v. Gonzales, 339 F.3d 725 [8th Cir. 2003])

The court further states:

it is important in the administration of justice that the provisions of the Court
Interpreters Act be followed. The legislature recognized a need for this Act, to
ensure that justice is provided to non-native English speaking defendants. The Act
obligates district courts to make every effort to use certified interpreters, and we
caution district courts that this obligation should not be ignored. (U.S. v. Gonzales,
339 F.3d 725 [8th Cir. 2003])

While not binding in all circuits, this decision provides some additional informa-
tion for consideration by the courts.

Ventura Morales graduated from the University of Portland and was working at the Oregon Law
Center as a community outreach worker, accessed 2006, http://www.csusm.edu/nlrc.
 Chapter 1.  Court interpreting and due process 

U.S. v. Bailon-Santana, 429 F.3d 1258, a 2005 decision from the Ninth Circuit,
involves the case of a non-English-speaking defendant who was convicted at trial
and sentenced to 30 years in prison. Bailon-Santana communicated with the court
through a court-certified interpreter during the proceedings, but before trial
signed a jury waiver form that was printed only in English and had been translated
for him by his counsel. The court considered whether the attorney’s representation
that he translated the document for his client obviated the need for an in-court
waiver colloquy. The court in Bailon-Santana ruled that the jury waiver was invalid
because the attorney who translated the form was not certified as an interpreter,
and reversed the conviction, stating: “Many people claim ‘fluency’ in a foreign
language, but [t]here are few persons in the United States who can interpret with
the degree of precision and accuracy required at the Federal court level.” H.R. Rep.
No. 100–889, at 58 (1988), reprinted in USCCAN 5982, 6012 ....” (U.S. v. Bailon-
Santana, 429 F. 3d 1258 [9th Cir. 2005]). Because the record reflected only the
defense lawyer’s self-assessment that he had the requisite translating ability, the
court further stated: “we cannot be sure that his Spanish-speaking ability is as
good as he believes it to be ...” (U.S. v. Bailon-Santana, 429 F.3d 1258 [9th Cir.
2005]). On the issue of attorneys serving as interpreters, Virginia Benmaman
(2000, 7) points out that “bilingual ability does not automatically translate into
interpreting ability.”

A growing need for qualified interpreters

U.S. Census data and statistics on interpreter use in the United States District Courts
document the growth in foreign language speakers and in the need for foreign
language court interpreters in the United States. Research on court interpreter deci-
sions from state and federal courts indicates that non-English speakers are appear-
ing in courts across the country with increasing frequency and that many courts are
struggling to cope with a shortage of qualified interpreters (Davis et al. 2004: 2).3
In “Language Use and English-Speaking Ability: 2000,” U.S. Census data indi-
cate that the number of people aged five and over, who spoke a language other than
English at home grew by 38 percent in the 1980s and by 47 percent in the 1990s. In
2000, 18 percent of the total population aged five and over, or 47.0 million people,
reported that they spoke a language other than English at home. Approximately two

3. See “Realizing the Goal of Equal Access to the Courts: Increasing Access to Competent
Interpreters. A Report to the Legislature,” California Federation of Interpreters, November 2008,
2. See also The Hon. Ronald B. Adrine, “Fundamental Fairness and Limited English Proficiency:
One Should Not Prevent the Other.” Proteus, Fall 2009, XVIII (3): 1, 4–5.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

thousand unique languages were identified within the borders of the United States.
The population of individuals who spoke a language other than English was: 29 per-
cent in the West, 20 percent in the Northeast, 15 percent in the South, and 9 percent
in the Midwest. Generally, the highest concentrations of non-English speakers were
in states that border Mexico, the Pacific Ocean, and the Atlantic Ocean.4
The number of non-English-language speakers at least doubled in six states
from 1990 to 2000. Spanish speakers grew by about 60 percent and Spanish contin-
ued to be the non-English language most frequently spoken at home in the U.S.,
followed by Chinese (2.0 million people), French (1.6 million) and German
(1.4 million speakers). Of the 20 non-English languages most frequently spoken at
home, the largest proportional increase was for Russian speakers, who nearly tripled
from 242,000 to 706,000. The second largest increase was for French Creole speak-
ers (the language group that includes Haitian Creoles), whose numbers more than
doubled from 188,000 to 453,000. The largest percentage increase between 1990 and
2000 in the population that spoke a language other than English at home occurred
in Nevada (193 percent), which also had the highest rate of population increase dur-
ing the decade. Georgia’s non-English-language-speaking residents increased by
164 percent, followed by North Carolina (151 percent), Utah (110 percent), Arkansas
(104 percent), and Oregon (103 percent). In Florida, 23.1 percent of the population
in 2006 was reported to speak a language other than English at home.5
Spanish was spoken more than any other language group in all regions of the
country, according to 2000 U.S. Census figures. And although the number of Span-
ish speakers grew in all regions, more than three-fourths of that growth was in the
West and South, which combined had about three times the number of Spanish
speakers (21 million) as the Northeast and the Midwest combined (7.1 million).
California had the largest percentage of non-English speakers (39 percent), fol-
lowed by New Mexico (37 percent), Texas (31 percent), New York (28 percent),
Hawaii (27 percent), Arizona, and New Jersey (each about 26 percent).
Hispanics accounted for almost half (1.4 million) of the national population
growth of 2.9 million between July 1, 2005, and July 1, 2006. The nation’s Hispanic
population increased 1.4 million to reach 45.5 million on July 1, 2007, or 15.1 per-
cent of the estimated total U.S. population of 301.6 million. Overall, the nation’s
minority population reached 102.5 million in 2007 – 34 percent of the total.
California had a minority population of 20.9 million – 12 percent of the U.S. total.

4. See “Language Use and English-Speaking Ability: 2000,” Hyron B. Shin with Rosalind Bruno,
Census 2000 Brief, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic and Statistics
Administration, available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf. Additional in-
formation about language use is available on the Census Bureau’s web site http://www.census.gov.
5. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov/. See also U.S. Census Bureau, State and County
QuickFacts. Available at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html.
 Chapter 1.  Court interpreting and due process 

In 2007, Hispanics remained the largest minority group. With a 3.3 percent in-
crease between July 1, 2006, and July 1, 2007, Hispanics were the fastest-growing
minority group. Asians were the second fastest-growing minority group, with a 2.9
percent population increase during the period (U.S. Census Bureau News 2008).
Data released on May 1, 2008, by the U.S. Census Bureau show that the His-
panic population exceeded 500,000 in 16 states. California had the largest His-
panic population of any state as of July 1, 2007 (13.2 million), followed by Texas
(8.6 million) and Florida (3.8 million). Texas had the largest numerical increase
between 2006 and 2007 (308,000), followed by California (268,000) and Florida
(131,000). In New Mexico, Hispanics comprised the highest proportion of the total
population (44 percent), with California and Texas (36 percent each) next in line.6
According to the Census Bureau’s first release of detailed 2010 national data,
the number of Hispanics surpassed the 50 million mark, growing 43 percent and
account for more than half the national growth since 2000. At the time of this writ-
ing, Census figures show that Hispanics make up 16 percent of the total popula-
tion of the United States. More than 84 percent of population increases happened
in the West and South (2010.census.gov/2010/census/data/).
Statistics from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for the
years 2000–2005 document an increase in the number of cases requiring interpreters
in the federal courts (see Table 1.1). In 2005, for instance, U.S. district courts re-
ported that interpreters were required in 227,461 events, compared to 190,127 events
reported in 2000. Moreover, the number of languages requiring interpretation

Table 1.1  Interpreter Use in U.S. District Courts for Calendar Years 2000–2005

Year Number of Events* Total

Spanish All Languages

2000 179,271 190,127
2001 171,331 181,303
2002 163,344 174,405
2003 176,704 189,044
2004 212,223 223,996
2005 214,355 227,461
Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Annual Report of the Director (2000–2005).
*An event is defined as one court proceeding (trial, hearing, conference or interview), or a combination of two
or more court proceedings, conferences or hearings under the same case number on the same day.

6. See “U.S. Hispanic Population Surpasses 45 Million. Now 15 Percent Total.” U.S. Census
Bureau News, May 1, 2008. See also “Minority Population Tops 100 Million,” U.S. Census Bureau
News, May 17, 2007 at http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/
population/010048.html.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

rose from 106 in 2004 to 111 in 2005. Spanish (214,355 events) remained the lan-
guage most often interpreted in the federal courts, accounting for 94 percent of all
reported events, followed by Mandarin (1,792 events); Arabic (1,250 events);
Vietnamese (863 events); Korean (796 events); Cantonese (745 events); Russian
(610 events); French (417 events); and Foochow (409 events).
Table 1.2 indicates a 14.9 percent increase in the number of events requiring
the use of interpreters in the courts in fiscal year 2008. District courts reported
that they used interpreters in 282,721 events, compared to 246,037 events reported
in fiscal year 2007.
The number of federal court events requiring interpreters increased by 11
percent in fiscal year 2009 (Table 1.3). The number of languages requiring

Table 1.2  Languages Used in the U.S. District Courts in Fiscal Year 2008

Languages Number of Events

Spanish 271,155
Mandarin    1,299
Vietnamese    1,156
Arabic     901
Cantonese     843
Korean     834
Russian     689
Portuguese     588
Mixteco Alto     467
Foochow     389
Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Report of the Director, 2008

Table 1.3  Languages Used in the U.S. District Courts in Fiscal Year 2009

Languages Number of Events

Spanish 302,959
Mandarin    1,543
Vietnamese     987
Portuguese     776
Cantonese     733
Korean     618
Russian     594
Arabic     556
Haitian Creole     469
Foochow     467
Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Report of the Director, 2009
 Chapter 1.  Court interpreting and due process 

interpretation increased from 113 in 2008 to 120 in 2009. Spanish remained the
most-used language for interpreters by far, representing 96.5 percent of all report-
ed events.
In fiscal year 2010 there was a 13.8 percent increase in the number of events
requiring interpreters in the federal courts. Collectively, the 94 U.S. district courts
reported that interpreters were needed in 357,171 events, compared to 313,969
events in fiscal year 2009. Spanish remained the language most frequently used for
interpreters in the courts, accounting for 96.6 percent of all interpreted events. Of
the 120 languages for which interpreters were needed, the most frequently used
after Spanish (345,106) include Mandarin (1,640), Russian (935), Cantonese (803),
Vietnamese (755), Haitian Creole (621), Mixteco Bajo (580), Arabic (549), Portu-
guese (543), and Korean (479) (U.S. Courts News, April 13, 2011).

Interpreters in the courtroom

Fundamental fairness and equal protection under the law require communication
in the courts to be effective and accurate. Title VI, enacted as part of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and na-
tional origin in all programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires local and state courts
to provide qualified sign-language interpreters or other assistance to ensure effec-
tive communication with individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. Executive
Order 13166 – Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English
Proficiency – is intended to help prevent discrimination on the basis of national
origin in violation of Title VI (Appendix 7). The passage of the 1978 Court Inter-
preters Act by the U.S. Congress marked a turning point in the history of court in-
terpreting in the United States because with this legislation the federal government
recognized that qualified interpreters are critically necessary in the judicial system
to protect the constitutional rights of individuals who do not speak English, have
limited English proficiency (LEP), or are deaf or hard-of-hearing (Appendix 6).

The process of interpretation

Foreign language court interpreting involves a linguistic and cultural performance

whose objective is to overcome the language barriers and cultural misunderstand-
ings that could cause non-English-speaking defendants to be linguistically absent
from their own legal proceedings. High-level proficiencies in the source and target
languages and cultures, including knowledge of geographic variation, an under-
standing of the legal process and related terminology, the ability to manipulate the
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

various discourse styles used in the courtroom, along with interpreting skills and
adherence to standards of ethics and professional conduct, are essential in protect-
ing a non-English speaker’s right to due process.
The interpretation process involves the comprehension and analysis of a spoken
or signed message and the rendering of that message in another language, taking
into account the cultural and social context. The task of interpreting is extremely
complex. Interpreters perform two functions simultaneously in the field of language
and communication that otherwise are always carried out separately: speech
(the expression of our ideas), and understanding (our comprehension of the ideas
of the other speaker). Interpretation is a unique activity because the same person
performs these two processes, often simultaneously. In place of the usual communi-
cation that occurs between speaker and listener – two individuals who reverse their
respective roles in the course of communicating with one another – the communi-
cation takes place through the interpreter. In other words, “an interpreter is at the
same time both speaker and listener, although in reverse order: listening and then
expressing the same verbal message, but doing so through a different linguistic sys-
tem” (de Jongh 1992, 25). The interpreting process thus requires: (1) concentrated
listening to the source language utterances; (2) analysis and comprehension of the
original (source language) message; and (3) transference of the original message
into a different (target) language accurately, completely and immediately.7

Aspects of U.S. legal language

It is important for interpreters and translators of legal texts to be aware of the dif-
ferences that exist between legal English and ordinary English. In Legal Language,
Peter Tiersma points out that because legal English differs from ordinary language,
it is also interpreted differently, precisely because it differs from ordinary language.
He writes, “talking like a lawyer requires using long, complex and redundant sen-
tences, conjoined phrases, impersonal constructions, and arcane words or phrases
like the document aforesaid, witnesseth, or to wit” (1999, 3). Tiersma explains the
history of legal English and “some of the ways in which legal English is distinct
from ordinary speech” (see Tiersma 1999). In fact, features such as technical ter-
minology, deliberate obscurity, ambiguity, and passive constructions (e.g., “the
victim was injured”) are much more commonly found in the language of the legal
profession.

7. For additional information on the interpreting process in the legal setting see Angelelli
(2004); González et al. (1991); Colin & Morris (1996. Second reprint 2001); de Jongh (1992:
25–33, 54–66); Edwards (1995); Mikkelson (2000); and Hale (2004).
 Chapter 1.  Court interpreting and due process 

Taking into account those characteristics, the practice materials in Part II of

this guide illustrate some of the main features of spoken “legalese” that foreign
language interpreters are likely to encounter in the courtroom:
– common words with specialized meanings (e.g., “information” may refer to a
legal document);
– professional jargon;
– “terms of art,” that is, words having specific, precise definitions in a given area
of law;
– ambiguity;
– archaic usage and obsolete word order (e.g., phrases such as “Further affiant
sayeth not” and “Comes now plaintiff,” which are regularly used in court doc-
uments);
– doublets and triplets (e.g., “aid and abet,” “possession, custody and control”);
– Latin words and phrases (e.g., alias, nolo contendere, habeas corpus);
– Old French and Anglo-Norman words and phrases (e.g., “Oyez, oyez, oyez” a
form sometimes used to announce that court is in session. Like many English
legal terms, it is derived from the dialect spoken by the Normans who invaded
England in 1066).8
Aside from having to convey the broad range of registers spoken in court – from the
judge’s formal instructions on the law, to the highly technical speech of expert wit-
nesses, to the slang and uneducated speech of many witnesses and defendants –
Spanish-English court interpreters also face other special linguistic challenges re-
sulting, in part, from the many regional varieties of Spanish spoken in the U.S., and
from having to deal with languages in contact. Thus, it is not unusual for Spanish-
English interpreters to encounter Spanish speakers who use false cognates and
whose habitual form of speech is the variety of that language known as “Spanglish.”
False or partly false cognates may be defined as words that appear to be similar
or almost identical but whose meanings in certain contexts are often completely
different. For instance, the words crime in English and crimen in Spanish are partly
false or deceptive cognates with important implications in the legal setting. In
English, crime refers to any violation of the law, whether a felony or a misdemean-
or. In Spanish, however, crimen refers to a very serious violation that may involve
killing or causing grave injury to another person. Thus, when there is a lack of
context, the word “crime” is often better translated into Spanish as delito, which
means any violation of the law, from a misdemeanor to homicide (see Prado 1993,

8. Tiersma, Legal Language, 54. For a discussion of the differences between written and spo-
ken legal language, see Tiersma, Legal Language (1999, 135–136; 147–198). For an extensive list
of Latin terms see James Nolan, Interpretation. Techniques and Exercises (2005, 279–287).
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

58; de Jongh 2008). Other deceptive or semideceptive cognates commonly en-

countered in courtroom settings in bilingual communities may include molestar
(to bother) instead of abusar sexualmente for “to molest,” and actualmente (at the
present time) instead of en realidad for “actually.” Court interpreters must be aware
that some Spanish speakers may use the deceptive cognates with their English
meaning. When in doubt about the speaker’s intended meaning, interpreters
should first ask the judge for permission to request a clarification.
In turn, speakers of Spanglish will use English loan words that have undergone
the process called relexification (e.g., troca for truck, carpeta for carpet or rug). Such
words have become “part of the repertoire of Spanish speakers who for the most part
do not recognize their English source” (Elías Olivares 1983, 125). That is the process
undergone by the legal term “vacate” (i.e., annul a case) when a witness states, «me
vacaron el caso» (instead of the standard Spanish «me anularon el caso»).
Other challenges include the wide range of cases and vocabulary (technical or
non-technical) used in court proceedings. For example, Spanish interpreters in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida report working in
criminal court matters involving nautical terminology, cockfighting, gambling,
santería (an Afro-Cuban religion), health care and mortgage fraud, armed rob-
bery, drug trafficking, identity theft, firearms violations, DNA and fingerprint ex-
pert witness testimony, mental competency evaluations, airplane parts, money
laundering, mislabeling of animal species and smuggling of illegal wildlife.
In one such criminal case worth noting, the outcome hinged almost entirely
on the interpretation of the Spanish name for a fish commonly called robalo or
róbalo. The indictment in question had charged a seafood company with a viola-
tion of the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. §3372(a), under which individual states may en-
force game laws against wildlife imported from other states or foreign countries.
The defendant company had imported the robalo to Florida from Nicaragua and
labeled it as “sea bass” or “golden sea bass,” which they claimed was the correct
translation. The government, on the other hand, was alleging that the imported
fish was actually “snook,” a different species and whose importation was illegal;
consequently, the correct translation for robalo was “snook” and not “sea bass.”
Naturally, each party would come to court armed with various English-Spanish/
Spanish-English dictionaries to support their respective positions. Some sources
provided “snook” as the English equivalent of robalo; others gave “sea bass” or
“bass;” and yet others had both “bass” and “snook” as equivalent terms.
The court, therefore, was faced with a dilemma for the approaching trial: Since
using the scientific names was not a viable alternative, what English equivalent
should the interpreters use for robalo during the testimony of the Spanish-speak-
ing witnesses? Obviously, whatever term was used in front of the jury, whether
“bass” or “snook,” would instantly make the case for one of the parties. After much
 Chapter 1.  Court interpreting and due process 

intensive research and consultation with court interpreting experts, the presiding
judge, The Honorable Adalberto Jordan, came to a decision: While the rest of the
testimony would be interpreted into English, the disputed word robalo would re-
main untranslated throughout the trial to ensure impartiality. In the end, this par-
ticular case was resolved before coming to trial; however, it does serve to illustrate
the need for interpreters to become familiar with a broad range of subjects in their
working languages. That goal can be attained only through systematic reading and
development of research skills.

Translation v. interpretation

Translation and interpretation are frequently discussed together because they share
many common traits and functions. Both translators and interpreters enable cross-
cultural communication by transferring a message in one language into another.
But both do more than merely translate words. They convey concepts and ideas
between languages and cultures. Although the terms are often used interchange-
ably by the general public and even by attorneys, they refer to two very different
activities requiring different skills. Translation refers to the written rendition of
textual information in one language by the equivalent textual material in another
language. Translators have time to reflect and craft their work, whereas interpret-
ers must instantaneously produce a target language equivalent. Research on con-
ference interpreters (Moser-Mercer et al. 1998, 47–48) reveals that:
During a regular 30-minute turn, working from an original speaker whose speak-
ing speed is between 100 and 130 words per minute, considered more or less com-
fortable... an interpreter processes and delivers final copy of an average of 3000 to
3900 words (equivalent to 12 to 15 1/2 type-written double-spaced pages). With fast
speakers, speaking at a rate of 135 to 180 words per minute, the interpreter’s output
can increase to 4050–5400 words, or 16–21 1/2 pages per 30-minute turn. By way of
comparison, the output of translators working as permanents in an international or-
ganization or in a company translation service varies between 3 and 10 pages a day.

Interpretation in any setting is a demanding activity. It has been estimated that in

a jury trial, approximately 50,000 words are spoken on an “average” day. For
example, during a randomly selected day in the criminal jury trial of a Spanish-
speaking defendant in federal court, the official court reporter processed 47,155
words.9 Because Spanish requires more words than English to convey the same

9. Personal communication, January 21, 2010. The author wishes to thank official court re-
porter, Joseph Millikan, RPR, CM, NSC, CRR, for providing this information. On the selected
day of trial, testimony was heard from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., with a 1-hour lunch break and
two 15-minute breaks.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

message, the target language output of the Spanish-language interpreters undoubt-

edly exceeded the 47,155 words spoken in English that day.
Spontaneous speech is produced at a rate that may vary between 120 and
150 words per minute, and in some cases, up to 220 words per minute (Bowen and
Bowen 1984, 18). As the speed and duration of interpretation increase, so does the
possibility of interpreter error. In the United Nations and other international orga-
nizations it is standard procedure to have established time limits for interpreting.
UN interpreters, for example, are not allowed to interpret simultaneously for more
than thirty consecutive minutes (Nolan 2005). Studies of conference interpreting
reveal that a correlation exists between accuracy and the length of time a person
interprets. The previously mentioned study conducted at the University of Geneva’s
School of Translation and Interpretation by Barbara Moser-Mercer and her col-
leagues, showed that the frequency of errors rose consistently with increased time
on task. The authors found a significant decline in quality and “a considerable in-
crease in the number of meaning errors after 30 minutes on task” (1998, 55). In the
courtroom setting, interpreter fatigue is a major consideration in determining the
number of interpreters to cover court proceedings. As a general rule, two inter-
preters should be assigned to any hearing expected to last over one hour.

Modes of interpretation used in court

The modes of interpretation used in courtroom interpreting are: simultaneous in-

terpretation, consecutive interpretation, and sight translation. Depending on the
nature of the proceedings, all three modes may be used in a single hearing or trial.
Another mode of interpretation, the summary mode, in which the interpreter con-
denses or summarizes the original speaker’s message, may not be used in court-
room proceedings. Federal statute does not permit summary interpreting in court
because this mode does not provide a true interpretation of the original message
(see Appendix 6).
The simultaneous mode is the technique or method of transferring the source
language message into the target language while the source language speaker is
speaking or signing. The goal of the interpreter is to convey the full and accurate
meaning of speech from one language into another without omissions and errors of
meaning. Because interpretation is not a word-for-word translation but rather a
transferring of the thoughts and ideas of the source language speaker into the target
language, the interpretation is not literally simultaneous. The interpreter typically
lags behind the source language speaker from a split second to several seconds.
The simultaneous mode is best performed with electronic equipment that
allows the interpreter to whisper the interpretation into a microphone while lis-
tening to the source language message through headphones with an adjustable
 Chapter 1.  Court interpreting and due process 

volume control. The interpretation is transmitted immediately to the headsets or

earphones worn by one or more defendants. The use of wireless remote interpret-
ing equipment, when available, can minimize the “intrusiveness” of an interpreter
in courtroom proceedings. When such equipment is not available, the interpreters
must be positioned close enough to the LEP individuals requiring their services
to permit clear audibility of whisper interpreting, while at the same time not in-
terfering with the proceedings or the court reporter’s ability to hear the other
speakers.
In the consecutive mode, the interpreter waits until the source language speak-
er pauses, then renders the original meaning into the target language. It is used to
interpret testimony given by LEP witnesses on the witness stand, as well as in
other situations involving dialogues with non-English speakers. These may include
off-the-record attorney-client consultations or questions and answers between
judges and non-English speakers.
Sight translation, which is the oral rendition into a target language of material
written in a source language, is a hybrid form used when providing defendants
with an “oral translation” or “sight interpretation” of written documents such as
indictments, plea agreements, pre-sentence investigation reports or letters. It is
done without advance notice. The interpreter briefly reviews the document before
rendering its contents orally and immediately into the target language.
The use of each mode of interpretation in the various courtroom proceedings
in which interpreters are likely to be needed is more fully described through au-
thentic examples in Part II of this guide. Transcripts, the written transcriptions
and translations of recorded conversations, often introduced as evidence in trials,
also constitute a hybrid form. Preparation of such transcripts requires special
equipment and is done outside the courtroom.

Court interpreter qualifications and certification

Obviously, one cannot interpret what one does not understand. To interpret ac-
curately, therefore, the original message must be clearly understood. The degree to
which interpreters understand the original message depends on many factors. As
stated previously, in addition to a thorough knowledge of two languages, inter-
preting requires the ability to decode the message heard in the source language
(language A) while instantaneously re-encoding it in the target language
(language B). In this process of listening, understanding and producing a spoken
message, the interpreter’s relevant knowledge of the subject under discussion plays
a major role in his or her comprehension of the original message.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Although court interpreting may appear simple, it is an exceedingly complex

and demanding process. Key qualifications for competent court interpreting
include:
– Proficiency in the source and target languages
– Cross-cultural awareness or thorough knowledge of two cultures
– Knowledge of geographic varieties of the working languages
– Familiarity with the legal process
– Adherence to standards of ethics and professional conduct
– Ability to interpret in all modes of interpretation (interpreting skills)
– Ability to manipulate the discourse styles and registers used in the courtroom.
This skill, which may be characterized as “linguistic flexibility,” includes a wide
range of different speech styles, from slang and “street language” to technical,
articulate or erudite speech.
– Comprehension of legal concepts, terms and phrases
– Good public speaking skills
– Ability to effectively and smoothly interact with individuals from many di-
verse backgrounds, languages and cultures (good interpersonal skills)
In summary, for a defendant to be linguistically present, the interpretation must be
impartial, complete and accurate. In the legal setting the interpretation must also
reflect the tone, intonation, register and educational level of every source language
speaker, because it is the interpreter’s words – and not the original source language
utterances – that become the official court record. Moreover, jurors make determi-
nations regarding the credibility of LEP individuals who testify before them on the
basis of several factors, including the impact of interpreted testimony.
Studies on the impact of interpreted proceedings, such as those conducted
by Berk-Seligson, show that the courtroom is transformed in the presence of the
interpreter. Her work with mock jurors has shown that alterations made by the
interpreter play a significant role “in shaping the impressions that mock jurors
form, both of the testifying witness and of the examining attorney” (2002, 194).
For example, mock jurors generally perceive hedging in the interpreted testi-
mony of a Spanish-speaking witness in a negative light. Hedging, in this context,
refers to the interpreter’s use of expressions such as “sort of,” “it seems like,” “you
know,” and other noncommittal or cautious expressions (which were never ex-
pressed by the Spanish-speaking witness). Interpreters should be aware of these
findings and of the ways their presence in the courtroom could potentially affect
perceptions formed by juries. Several relevant studies on forensic linguistics and
linguistic approaches to court interpreting are listed elsewhere in this guide (see
Appendix 3).
 Chapter 1.  Court interpreting and due process 

Certification

Certification is the principal indicator that a person has passed an examination

mandated by legislation to assess interpreter competency for court proceedings.
As of this writing, there is no universal form of certification in the U.S. for inter-
preters and translators, although there are a variety of different examinations to
test for proficiency. Unfortunately, the term “certified” is often used imprecisely to
refer to individuals who have completed a certificate program or passed a qualify-
ing examination.
At the federal courts level, the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts (AOUSC) has developed certification examinations for three languages:
Haitian Creole, Navajo and Spanish. The AOUSC, the administrative arm of the
federal courts, provides information and guidelines to the 94 U.S. district courts.
The federal court interpreter certification examination (FCICE) was developed in
direct response to the Court Interpreters Act of 1978. It is currently administered
under contract from the Administrative Office with the National Center for State
Courts. Currently, only the Spanish-English examination is being administered. In
addition to certifying interpreters for federal court, the AOUSC maintains a data-
base of all certified and “otherwise qualified” interpreters.
The federal certification examination is a two-phase process, consisting of a
Spanish-English written test (phase one), followed by an oral examination
(phase two). The examination is offered on a biennial basis with phase one and
phase two occurring in alternating years. Candidates must pass the written ex-
amination with a score of 75 percent or higher to be eligible to take the oral por-
tion. The written examination serves primarily as a screening test for competence
in English and Spanish, and the oral examination directly measures interpreting
skills. As of this writing, 1,194 individuals have been certified for Spanish/English
proceedings by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts since the
inception of the FCICE program in 1980.10
The impact of the Court Interpreters Act has been felt beyond the federal
courts, stimulating similar measures in state and municipal courts. In the 1990s,
few states had the necessary mechanisms for determining that interpreters had the
minimum skills required for interpreting in their courts. However, significant
gains were made in the last two decades, and many state court systems now require
certification and have adopted codes of ethics for court interpreters. Establish-
ment of the Consortium for State Court Interpreter Certification (now called Con-
sortium for Language Access in the Courts) in 1995 was a major step toward

10. Source: Carolyn J. Kinney, Ph.D., Court Interpreting Program Specialist, Administrative Of-
fice of the U.S. Courts.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

responding to the problems created by inadequate interpreting services in the state

courts. Approximately forty states have joined the Consortium, which provides
their members access to tests in over 15 different languages. The Consortium is
administered by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). In addition to ad-
ministering court interpreter examinations, the NCSC provides court interpreter
orientation and training. Some of the states that are not members of the Consor-
tium have their own interpreter testing and qualification procedures.
Interpreters may also obtain credentialing from other agencies or professional
organizations. The National Association of Judiciary Interpreters & Translators
(NAJIT), for example, has approximately 1,300 members who interpret in legal
and “quasi-legal settings.” NAJIT administers credentialing for judiciary interpret-
ers and translators via a written and oral examination, currently available only in
Spanish. The U.S. Department of State has a three-test series for interpreters, in-
cluding consecutive interpreting (for guide or escort interpreting), simultaneous
interpreting (for court or seminar work), and conference-level interpreting
(for international conferences). These tests are not referred to directly as certifica-
tion, but successful completion indicates that a person has a significant level of
skill to work in the field.
The National Association of the Deaf and the Registry of Interpreters for the
Deaf (RID) jointly offer certification for general sign language interpreters. RID is
a national interpreter association in the U.S. for the deaf and hard of hearing. The
registry also offers tests in legal interpreting. Some interpreters also hold certifica-
tion as translators. The American Translators Association (ATA) administers a
certification test for translators in more than 24 language combinations. ATA cer-
tification does not include interpretation, but the organization does have an inter-
preters division. Each of these entities has differing criteria for its certification
program and certifications are, therefore, not equivalent (see Appendix 4).
Because it is important for court interpreters to understand the legal system in
which they work, the next chapter provides a brief overview of the courts.
 chapter 2

Overview of the courts

The U.S. judicial system

To perform their job effectively, interpreters should understand how the legal sys-
tem works, the meaning of terms commonly used by the parties in criminal and
civil cases and the fundamental differences between federal and state courts. Those
matters are briefly reviewed here. Interpreting exercises are introduced at the end
of the chapter.

Background: Common (English) and civil (Roman) law

Unlike the legal system of most other countries, which is called civil law and is
derived from Roman law, the U.S. legal system is called common law. This term
refers to early English laws, developed by judges, which incorporated Anglo-Saxon
tribal custom, feudal rules and practices, and the everyday rules of behavior of lo-
cal villages. Common law thus refers to judge-made law rather than a fixed body
of code or codified rules. Black’s Law Dictionary (1990, 276) gives the following
definition:
As distinguished from statutory law created by the enactment of legislatures, the
common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relat-
ing to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their
authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the
judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such
usages and customs, and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of
England. In general, it is a body of law that develops and derives through judicial
decisions, as distinguished from legislative enactments.

The common law system became the standardized law of the land in England and
eventually formed the basis of the legal system of the United States of America. A
cornerstone of Anglo-Saxon justice is that any person accused of a crime is pre-
sumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Another important charac-
teristic of the U.S. legal system is the so-called adversary process, the method used
by the courts to resolve disputes. Through this method, each side in a legal action
has the right to present its case as persuasively as possible, according to the rules
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

of evidence and before a neutral fact-finder (judge or jury), who decides in favor
of one side or the other. By contrast, civil law is “one of the two prominent systems
in the Western world, originally administered in the Roman Empire and still influ-
ential in continental Europe, Latin America, Scotland ... among other parts of the
world ...” (Black’s 2009, 280). It is the “system of jurisprudence held and adminis-
tered in the Roman Empire, particularly as set forth in the compilation of Justinian
and his successors, – comprising the Institutes, Code, Digest, and Novels, and col-
lectively denominated the ‘Corpus Juris Civilis,’ – as distinguished from the com-
mon law of England and the canon law” (Black’s 1990, 246). In the United States,
only the state of Louisiana follows the civil law (Civil Code).
It is important to note that the term civil law has other meanings and is not
always synonymous with Roman law – the system of law predominant on the
European continent. As explained in greater detail in Chapter 3, the phrase “civil
law” is also used to distinguish the law governing the relations between persons
(private law) from criminal or public law, which deals with persons who are
accused of committing a crime. Because crimes are considered offenses against
individual victims as well as against society at large, the prosecution of alleged
offenders is generally pursued in the name of the public (e.g., The People v. John
Doe, The United States of America v. Jane Doe). To avoid confusion, whenever the
term civil law is used in subsequent chapters, it refers to lawsuits between private
persons and private organizations, although the government may also be involved
in civil actions. In this sense civil law refers to laws that regulate private matters
and is concerned with civil or private rights and remedies, as contrasted with
criminal laws.

The separation of powers and an independent judiciary

The Constitution of the United States establishes a “national” system of govern-

ment that gives specific powers to the federal government. All power not delegat-
ed to the federal government remains with the states, each one of which has its
own state constitution and governmental structure. The framers of the U.S. Con-
stitution created a federal system of government in which power is separated into
three branches: the executive branch, comprised of the President of the United
States and most government agencies; the legislative branch, made up by Con-
gress (the House of Representatives and the Senate), with the power to make laws;
and the judicial branch, or the court system. This separation of power forms the
cornerstone of the constitutional framework envisioned by the founders to en-
sure a form of government in which no individual or group ever becomes too
powerful.
 Chapter 2.  Overview of the courts 

The judicial branch – the court system – is also known as the third branch. In
order to balance the authority of the executive and legislative branches, the judicial
branch holds the power of judicial review, which allows a court to declare legisla-
tive or executive acts invalid, if those acts are contrary to the federal or state con-
stitutions. This same three-branch structure exists in the government of every state
of the Union.
Clearly, courts have a fundamental role in the structure of the U.S. govern-
ment. For its own preservation, the rule of law requires the existence of indepen-
dent courts that will not fall “under the thumb of the political powers that be. An
independent judge can assure that everyone’s case will be decided according to the
law and the facts – not the vagaries of shifting political currents” (ABA 2008,
vol. 1: 4). Courts in the U.S. are often called on to uphold limitations on the gov-
ernment and to protect against abuses by all governmental branches. Our courts
embody the notion of equal treatment and due process; they protect the rights of
minorities and of those who cannot protect themselves.

The structure of courts: Federal and state systems

As a product of the federalist form of government, the United States has a dual
court system in every state of the Union: state courts and federal courts. The two
systems are separate and distinct because our system of government assigns sepa-
rate powers to state and federal governments. Under federalism, the functions of
the federal government involve the nation as a whole and include regulating com-
merce between the states and other countries, providing for the national defense,
and administering federal lands and other property. All other government func-
tions, including education (e.g., running school systems) and law enforcement
(e.g., police and fire departments), are performed by the individual states.
Federal courts are established by Congress under the U.S. Constitution to de-
cide disputes involving the Constitution and laws passed by Congress, called stat-
utes. As specified in the Constitution, the authority of the federal courts grants
them exclusive jurisdiction only over certain types of cases, such as cases involving
foreign governments, violations of the Constitution or federal laws. Issues involv-
ing jurisdiction are complex and beyond the scope of this guide. Court interpret-
ers should be aware, nonetheless, that the general jurisdiction of state courts au-
thorizes them to decide almost any type of controversy involving the civil and
criminal laws passed by each state. However, state courts do not have jurisdiction
over cases which fall within the scope defined by the U.S. Constitution and Con-
gressional statutes (e.g., immigration violations). Some special kinds of cases are
also heard in federal courts. For instance, Congress has determined that all
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

bankruptcy matters should be addressed in federal courts rather than in the state
courts. In certain other areas federal courts share jurisdiction with state courts
(e.g., both federal and state courts may decide cases involving parties who live in
different states). Federal and state courts exist side by side and for the most part,
cases are tried in one or the other. However, on occasion there may be a case with
“overlapping” jurisdiction, as in the case of Terry Nichols, one of the conspirators
in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Nichols was charged by the federal gov-
ernment for conspiracy and involuntary manslaughter and for murder by the state
of Oklahoma. He was tried and found guilty in both the state and federal court
systems (ABA 2008, vol. 1: 8).
State and local courts are established by the states, under their own constitutions
and laws. State courts decide almost every type of case – divorces, traffic violations,
personal injury, contracts, wills, and criminal cases, etc. In both state and federal
courts the parties have a right to a trial by jury in all criminal and most civil matters.
In general terms, both the federal and state courts of the United States are
divided into three levels or tiers, organized as hierarchies: (1) trial courts; (2) ap-
pellate courts; and (3) courts of last resort or supreme courts. Cases start at the
trial court level. Appeals are first heard in the appellate courts, whose role is to
review the proceedings of the trial courts. At the highest level, the supreme courts
hear further appeals and have final authority in the cases they decide to hear.
About three-quarters of the states have intermediate appeals courts, and the re-
maining states have no level of court between trial courts and the highest court in
the state. Because the majority of criminal and civil actions are resolved at the
pretrial stage, most court cases are decided at the trial court level and are not ap-
pealed. Appellate courts thus deal with a very small percentage of the total num-
ber of cases filed.

State courts

The structure of state court systems varies from state to state, but generalizations
can be made. Most states are made up of local governmental units called counties,
each with its own courthouse where local judges preside over county courts – usu-
ally including small claims courts – and circuit judges preside over the more pow-
erful courts known as circuit courts. A circuit is a judicial division “in which hear-
ings occur at several locations, as a result of which judges often travel to different
locations” (Black’s 2009, 276). In the federal system, the term “circuit” refers to “a
judicial division of the United States – that is, one of the 13 circuits into which the
U.S. courts of appeals are organized. 28 USCA §41.” (Ibid.). Every state has trial
courts; their names may vary widely. Some state trial courts exist at the city or
town level, others at the county, circuit, or regional level (ABA 2008, vol 1: 9).
 Chapter 2.  Overview of the courts 

Most states have some trial courts with limited jurisdiction, meaning that they
are only authorized to hear and decide certain types of cases (e.g., small claims
courts). They are presided over by a single judge who hears minor civil and crimi-
nal cases. Such courts handle a very large percentage – perhaps as much as ninety-
eight percent – of the caseload of the state where they exist. They process minor
criminal cases such as misdemeanors, that is, less serious crimes for which the
penalty involves fines and/or jail time of less than a year. They also conduct pre-
trial hearings in more serious criminal cases, and handle civil cases involving
monetary claims up to a certain dollar amount. In some states these courts with
limited jurisdiction get their name from the type of cases they hear (e.g., traffic
courts) or from the title of the presiding judge (e.g., justice of the peace courts).
Most states have courts, or branches of regular trial courts, that handle specific
areas of law specializing in matters such as family law, juvenile, probate, or small
claims.
States also have general jurisdiction trial courts that are presided over by a
single judge. This group of trial courts also goes by various names, such as circuit
courts, superior courts, district courts, or courts of common pleas. These have
general jurisdiction; that is, most states may hear either civil or criminal cases
without limits on the penalties they can impose or the amount of money involved
(ABA 2008, vol. 1: 10).
Defendants who lose in trial court in criminal cases may appeal their verdict;
the government, however, has no right of appeal if it loses in a criminal case. De-
fendants in civil cases who are ordered to pay money to a plaintiff may appeal the
case to a court of appeals. Appeals courts review the procedures of lower courts to
ensure that the law was applied properly, but they do not retry cases. Instead, they
determine if a party was deprived of its rights because the trial judge did not apply
the law correctly or because of some other legal error.
The highest court in every state system is called the state supreme court or the
court of appeals. Regardless of what its name may be, this court has the final au-
thority to interpret the law. Like intermediate courts of appeals, these higher courts
do not retry cases. They only review the procedures and rulings of the lower courts
to decide if the law was correctly applied.

Federal courts

The U.S. Constitution addresses the organization and powers of the judiciary. Ar-
ticle III of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court and gives Congress the
authority to establish the federal courts. With the landmark Judiciary Act of 1789
– also called the First Judiciary Act – the First Congress began the creation of the
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

federal court system. Decisions made at “the very beginning of the republic as to
the nature of the federal judicial system have a marked imprint on even the most
routine case to this day” (Wright and Kane 2002, 1). Congress created two levels of
federal courts below the Supreme Court: the United States District Courts and the
United States Circuit Courts of Appeals.
The United States District Courts are the trial courts of the federal system.
They are the most numerous of all the federal courts. In general terms, cases begin
in trial courts and end with a verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty,” which may or may
not have resulted from a trial by jury, as will be explained in Chapter 3. Congress
has divided the country into 94 federal judicial districts with a federal district
court in each; 92 for the fifty states and one each for the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico (see Fallow et al. 2009, 41). Likewise, there are district courts in three
territories of the United States – Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands. There is at least one district court in each state. Some states,
such as Alaska, are composed of a single judicial district, while the more populous
states such as California, Florida, New York, and Texas, are divided into multiple
judicial districts. Unlike state court judges, federal judges are nominated by the
President and confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United
States. They typically hold office for life. The states select their judges in different
ways – by appointment, election, or a combination of systems.
Within each federal judicial district is a U.S. bankruptcy court that adminis-
ters bankruptcy laws and functions as a separate unit of the district courts. Be-
cause federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases, such cases
cannot be filed in a state court. Magistrate judges are also located within the district
courts. A United States Magistrate Judge is a judicial officer of the district court
and is appointed by a majority vote of the active district judges of the court. The
duties assigned to magistrate judges by district court judges may vary from court
to court. In general, they assist the trial judges by conducting initial proceedings
in criminal cases, deciding criminal misdemeanor matters on behalf of district
judges, and deciding civil cases with the consent of the parties (Federal Judicial
Center 2006, 13).
The 94 judicial districts of the United States are subdivided into twelve re-
gional circuits. Each circuit has a federal court of appeals, where panels of three
judges hear appeals from the federal district courts belonging to that circuit. A
party to any case heard in a federal district court may appeal to the circuit court,
except for the government who (as we saw in state courts) has no right of appeal if
it loses in a criminal action. The regional circuit court also hears appeals from
decisions of federal administrative agencies.
Aside from the federal district courts, it is important to point out that Con-
gress authorized the creation of courts of specialized jurisdiction which have
 Chapter 2.  Overview of the courts 

exclusive jurisdiction over certain claims against the U.S. government arising out
of decisions of federal administrative agencies. For example, there are two special
U.S. trial courts that have nationwide jurisdiction over certain types of cases: the
Court of International Trade – which addresses cases involving international trade
and customs issues – and the United States Court of Federal Claims, which has
jurisdiction over most claims for money damages against the United States.
The trial courts are the setting where all jury trials take place. It is there that
evidence is introduced and witnesses are examined. It is there that defendants in
criminal actions are found guilty or not guilty and that defendants in civil matters
are found liable or not liable. Although the federal courts hear fewer cases than do
the state courts, the cases handled by the federal courts tend more often to be of
national importance, because federal court jurisdiction is limited to the types of
cases listed in the Constitution and specifically provided for by Congress. As pre-
viously stated, for the most part federal courts only hear cases in which the United
States is a party, cases involving violations of the Constitution or federal laws, and
some special kinds of cases, such as bankruptcy cases, patent cases, and cases in-
volving maritime law. Federal criminal cases requiring foreign-language interpret-
ers are wide-ranging, and may involve drug importation, counterfeiting, human
trafficking, immigration and firearms violations, bank robbery, as well as credit
card, mortgage and health care (Medicare) fraud. All proceedings described in
Part II, the interpreting practice, take place at the trial court level of the federal
courts.
A federal crime involves a violation of a criminal law passed by Congress. This
makes the violation relevant to the interests of the nation as a whole, not just a
particular state. Federal offenses include crimes occurring on federal government
property, such as in a national park; crimes affecting federal government agencies,
such as the Social Security Administration; and crimes affecting areas regulated by
the federal government under the Constitution, such as interstate commerce.
All federal authority, therefore, originally stems from the Congress, that is,
from the legislative branch, which is responsible for defining what constitutes a
federal crime. After this, at the federal level, it is the executive branch of the fed-
eral government – not the judiciary – that is responsible for investigating alleged
violations of the law and filing charges. As head of the executive branch, the Presi-
dent of the United States appoints a U.S. Attorney in each federal judicial district.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office of each district decides what alleged violations of fed-
eral laws to prosecute. However, the U.S. Attorney’s office does not itself initiate
the investigation of criminal conduct. Rather, it pursues only those criminal cases
initiated by the federal law enforcement agencies.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation (FBI), Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF or ATFE),
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Postal Service and the Se-
cret Service are among the federal agencies that initiate investigations. Once inves-
tigators have concluded that a federal crime may have been committed, they rec-
ommend that the U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecute the case. The U.S. Attorney’s
Office reviews the evidence developed by law enforcement in their investigation
and then decides whether or not to prosecute the alleged violation.
To summarize, the federal court system consists of district courts – which are
trial courts – circuit courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court. The trial courts are
courts of original jurisdiction, meaning that they have the power to conduct the
trial of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower
court). The jurisdiction of the federal district courts is established by Congress and
extends to both civil and criminal cases, within the limits set by Congress and the
Constitution. Each federal district court is jurisdictionally independent from oth-
er federal district courts.

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States is the final court of appeals in the nation.
It consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and a number of Associate Jus-
tices as fixed by Congress. The number of Associate Justices is currently set at eight
(28 U.S.C. §1). The U.S. President nominates the justices and appointments are
made with the advice and consent of the Senate. Justices serve for life or until they
choose to step down. The Supreme Court, at its discretion and within certain
guidelines established by Congress, hears a limited number of the cases it is asked
to decide. Those cases may begin in the federal or state courts and generally in-
volve important issues about the Constitution and federal law.

The U.S. justice system and the rule of law

Law is considered the cornerstone of a democratic society. Adherence to the rule

of law helps to preserve the rights of all people in a democratic society. To live
under the rule of law means that no one is above the law and no one is below it.
The law protects every member of society, including its weakest members who
otherwise would not be heard. The rule of law makes it possible to solve disputes
rationally, rather than by force, and provides “an opportunity to build a peaceful,
orderly society committed to equal justice under the law” (ABA, vol. 1: 4).
Author’s Note: The following summary of the U.S. justice system and the rule of law
was delivered by The Honorable Shelby Highsmith, Senior United States District
 Chapter 2.  Overview of the courts 

Judge, before a group of Latin American attorneys visiting the United States to ob-
serve the judicial system at work.
Interpreting Exercises: These remarks may be adapted to use for interpreting practice
as follows: (1) Read the text and make a list of legal terms and phrases to research.
(2) After you have looked up the terms, sight translate the speech. (3) A recording or
reading of these remarks may be used to practice “shadowing.” This activity involves
listening to the speech (in a recording or read out loud by someone else) and at the
same time repeating in the same language everything that you hear. The difficulty of
interpreting into a different language is attempted only after you are comfortable
listening and speaking simultaneously. (4) Experienced interpreters may use a re-
cording or reading of the text to practice interpreting simultaneously.

Judge’s remarks addressed to visiting attorneys from Argentina, Chile and Venezuela

1 First, let me welcome you to this courtroom! It is one of countless across this
land where the “rule of law” is observed, in matters great and small: in resolving
civil disputes; in deciding the culpability of an accused; and in imposing pun-
ishment on those who are found guilty. Thus, in performing the daily, some-
times highly controversial and sometimes mundane, duties of adjudicating
individual cases in this courtroom, I and those who participate in the process
carry out the larger task of maintaining an ordered society ... a society gov-
erned by the rule of law.
In many ways, a courtroom resembles a stage... and the participants in a
trial or formal hearing are “actors” whose adherence to, and respect for, their
distinct roles ensures the fairness of the judicial process. In the brief time that
we will spend together, I would like to provide you with some insight as to
each of these actors: the judge, the jury, the attorneys, and the litigants, about
their respective roles and about the interplay among them. In doing so, I will
highlight the common ingredient that is essential for each and every one of
these “actors” to be true to their respective roles. That ingredient is integrity ...
the cornerstone of our system of justice. Without integrity, the dramas that are
played out in courtrooms across this land would become charades ... the rule
of law would crumble ... and our society would be plunged into chaos.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Let me begin with the most prominent, and most obvious of the actors...
the judge. As you are probably aware, our country has two parallel systems of
justice... the federal system and the conglomerate of state systems. In the fed-
eral system, the judiciary is one of three co-equal branches, along with the
legislative and the executive. United States judges, such as myself, who serve
at the trial level, as well as appellate federal judges, receive lifetime appoint-
ments and are subject to removal only by impeachment. As noted by one of
our past distinguished justices of the Supreme Court, William Brennan, the fed-
eral judiciary was designed by the framers of our Constitution “to stand inde-
pendent of the executive and legislature – to maintain the checks and balances
of the constitutional structure, and also to guarantee that the process of adju-
dication itself remained impartial.”
The independence that assures impartiality would be subject to abuse,
but for the overwhelming majority of judges who carry out their duties with
integrity. This internal, self-regulating principle encompasses adherence to a
judge’s oath of office – to uphold the law even if philosophically opposed to it.
It requires intellectual honesty in legal analysis and decision-making. It circum-
scribes the judge to the performance of his own role, thereby avoiding inter-
ference with or invasion of the roles of the jury and counsel. It makes judges
even-handed, not swayed by the economic and social differences among liti-
gants. It insures that, at the end of the day, the loser will know that he has had
his day in court.
Because federal judges must be independent and impartial, they never be-
come involved in the accusatory aspect of criminal prosecutions. Those tasks
are performed by the United States Attorney’s office with the assistance of the
Grand Jury, a panel of citizens summoned to hear evidence and determine
whether probable cause exists to charge an individual with the commission of
a crime. After the accusatory phase is completed, the adjudication of guilt or
innocence falls squarely upon the judicial officer, who presides over jury trials.
There, the adversary system comes into play, with counsel for the government
and the defendant expected to zealously and properly represent the compet-
ing interests of society and the criminally accused. Before I discuss the role of
counsel, however, let me make a few comments about our jury system.
It is often said that the two most powerful “boxes” in this our system of
government are “the ballot box” and “the jury box.” Why? Because these are the
two primary vehicles through which our citizenry participate in the task of
maintaining an ordered society. The right to vote and the right to serve on ju-
ries, and to do so with integrity and without fear, are the bulwarks that protect
us against tyranny and oppression.
 Chapter 2.  Overview of the courts 

Like the judge, the members of the jury must perform their task with in-
tegrity. They receive all evidence in open court ... but they deliberate in secret.
It is interesting, and rewarding, to observe, as I do, the transformation process
that people undergo when they serve on juries. They are imbued by the seri-
ous and solemn duty which falls upon them to decide a civil dispute or the
guilt of an accused, using their common sense and infusing into that decision
the values of our society. While only they know if they have carried out their
duty in good faith, it is in their interest to do so, thereby contributing to main-
taining the rule of law.
In many ways, however, the pivotal role in our adversary system of justice
is played by the advocates, the attorneys who represent the interests of their
clients in court. While all legal systems strive for decision-making that is impar-
tial and fully informed, the characteristics of the adversary system go a long
way to achieve this goal. As you may have discerned already, these features
include: (1) a neutral and passive decision-maker, who is charged solely with
the responsibility of deciding the case; (2) reliance upon the parties themselves
to develop and present the evidence and arguments on which the decision
will be based; (3) a proceeding that is concentrated, uninterrupted and other-
wise designed to emphasize the clash of opposing evidence and arguments
presented by the parties; and (4) equal opportunity for the parties to present
and argue their respective cases to the decision maker.
For the adversary system to function properly, judges must depend, in
large measure, upon the professionalism of counsel for both sides, be it two
civil litigants or the government and the accused. Professionalism in the prac-
tice of law is about meaningful participation. It is about an advocate zealously
representing his client, within the confines of the governing code of conduct.
The goal of the advocate, like that of a runner in a race, is to win. In fully
participating to achieve that goal, the advocate, like the runner, contributes to
a larger objective, provided he plays by the rules. In the case of the runner ... an
orderly and fair race. In the case of the advocate ... a fair and impartial legal
outcome. To achieve this objective, one of the most important duties of a
judge, who, in this analogy acts like a race official, is to ensure that the rules of
procedure and the rules of evidence are followed. But beyond these official
rules, the judge must rely on the integrity of the advocates, on their adherence
to their oaths as “officers of the court” that they will discharge their duties to
the client without impinging on their opponent’s right to a fair proceeding.
When a judge discovers a violation of this trust, he is empowered to impose
discipline upon the offending advocate. But, as is the case with juries and
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

judges, our system relies upon the good faith of the advocates and their de-
votion to integrity, for its success.
I congratulate each of you for your willing participation in a process, which
hopefully, may serve to extend and prolong this system, in your respective
countries.1

Part II of this guide – the interpreting practice – is organized into three chapters,
each of which may be considered a road map to pretrial hearings, trials and post-
judgment proceedings in criminal cases. Each stage in this “virtual” tour of the
process is explained and illustrated with authentic documents and transcripts. Be-
cause interpreters are also needed in civil court proceedings, these are briefly sum-
marized in the sections that follow.

1. Document in author’s archives. These remarks were delivered by The Honorable Shelby
Highsmith in the early-to-mid-1990s (exact date unknown). It is worth noting that the criminal
justice system in many Latin American nations has undergone major reforms since the 1990s.
In Judicial Reform in Latin America: An Assessment (2006, 13) DeShazo and Vargas conclude
that these efforts have brought about significant progress in dismantling the inquisitorial sys-
tems of procedure and replacing them with accusatorial procedure. Evidence of that is the im-
plementation of the juicio oral (oral trial) in Chile. Although there are differences in the make-
up of Chilean and U.S. juries, “in general terms, the trial structure [of the Chilean juicio oral] is
very similar to that of any U.S. court” (Kauffman 2010, 41).
 part ii

In the courtroom
Interpreting practice

Introduction to Part II

Part II introduces the stages that make up courtroom proceedings. The three chap-
ters that comprise this section of the guide follow the path of cases from the mo-
ment a defendant is brought before a judge. They contain scripts for the sight
translation, consecutive and simultaneous interpretation exercises designed to im-
prove vocabulary and interpreting skills. These materials introduce aspiring court
interpreters to the language of the courts, familiarize them with courtroom pro-
ceedings and provide them with contextualized interpreting practice.
As noted in Part I, the various stages involved in criminal and civil actions are
complex. In every state, there are two distinct court systems – state and federal
courts. In a sense, there are fifty-one court systems in the U.S. – the federal system,
and one system for each state. Every state has established a court system, under its
own constitution and laws. No two states have exactly the same system. Although
many states follow the federal rules of procedure, they have different features, lev-
els of courts and names for courts. Federal district courts are located in every state
and also exist in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia,
Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The descriptions offered here are, by
necessity, basic summaries of the pretrial, trial and post-judgment proceedings in
which foreign language interpreters are most likely to be needed. They are sum-
maries of those proceedings and are not intended as an exhaustive description of
the law, of rules of procedure or of legal terminology. Rather, they serve as a guide
to the essential framework of the legal proceedings under consideration.
Because local practices and protocol can vary widely among jurisdictions, it is
incumbent on interpreters to become familiarized with the practices and proce-
dures of the court(s) where they are working. Prior to any assignment, interpreters
should attempt to obtain relevant information about court practices and the sub-
ject matter at issue, knowing that it is important to follow the protocol for each
court and comply with the guidance provided by the interpreter’s section or desig-
nated contact person.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

How to use this part

The transcripts and documents presented here have been carefully selected for the
practice of the three modes of interpretation used in court: sight translation, con-
secutive and simultaneous interpretation. I have included suggestions on ways to
use these materials; however, instructors and self-learners may easily adapt this
part to fit their instructional needs.
It is assumed that students have mastered their working languages and are fa-
miliar with the fundamentals of interpreting. Nonetheless, many of the passages
may be adapted for use as preliminary exercises (e.g., documents 3.7, 3.8, 3.9,
3.10, 3.11). For the consecutive mode, these include memory and note-taking exer-
cises. Memory exercises involve retention and repetition of utterances in the same
language without taking notes. Simple material such as short paragraphs on a vari-
ety of subjects (recorded or read out loud by someone else) is used first; the diffi-
culty and length of the passages are gradually increased. As discussed in Chapter 4,
note-taking is an essential aid to memory and necessary for optimal performance
in consecutive interpreting. Practice in note-taking should be introduced after the
student has obtained sufficient practice with memory exercises. Suggestions for
taking notes during consecutive interpreting are given in Chapter 4.
For the simultaneous mode, beginners are encouraged to practice shadowing
in both their working languages prior to attempting the added difficulty of render-
ing the source language message (language A) into the target language (language B).
As explained in the instructions to the suggested interpreting activities in Chapter
2, shadowing involves listening to the speech (in a recording or read out loud by
someone else) and at the same time repeating in the same language everything that
you hear. Shadowing exercises are often used in interpreter training programs and
workshops to prepare students for simultaneous interpretation. Shadowing exer-
cises are useful because they introduce the activity of listening and speaking si-
multaneously. Nonetheless, it must be underscored that shadowing is not inter-
preting and that the process of interpretation is not a word-for-word or verbatim
transfer from one language to another. Shadowing, defined by Pöchhacker as the
“immediate repetition of auditory input in the same language” (2004, 117; 184),
also introduces beginners to the concept of self-monitoring; that is, the ability to
hear their own voice (and check their output) while listening intently to the origi-
nal input. Shadowing may also be used to demonstrate décalage – the time lag or
delay between the original utterances and the interpreter’s output, a concept also
known as ear-voice span (EVS).
Whether you are using this guide in a formal course or for self-instruction, all
three modes of interpretation should be practiced regularly. In a court of law all
three modes are sometimes used within a short period of time, as determined by
 Part II.  In the courtroom 

the nature of the proceeding and circumstances. In a change of plea hearing, for
instance, the interpreter may need to sight translate documents such as the plea
agreement, use the consecutive mode to interpret the dialogue or colloquy be-
tween the judge and the defendant, and simultaneously interpret for the defendant
everything else that is said in English in the courtroom (see Chapter 3).
The companion webpage (see Appendix 5) gives students the opportunity to
listen to recordings of selected practice materials included in this guide and use
them to interpret in the consecutive and simultaneous modes. The recordings in-
clude question and answer passages in English and Spanish (e.g., the examination
of a Spanish-speaking witness) for practicing the consecutive mode and passages
in English for simultaneous interpretation. It is recommended that students use
the pause button on the companion webpage to pause the recordings as needed,
particularly when practicing the consecutive mode. It is important to be aware
that speakers may make grammatical errors or use awkward syntax, and that indi-
viduals with limited English proficiency sometimes “borrow” English words or
phrases. Students are encouraged to record their interpretations, play them back
and evaluate their performances by checking them against the written scripts pro-
vided in Part II.
All the authentic texts included here are public documents; nonetheless, all
identifying data (proper names, dates, addresses, case numbers, geographic loca-
tion of courts and other place names, etc.,) have been changed to protect the iden-
tity of all parties involved in these legal proceedings.
 chapter 3

Pretrial proceedings

This chapter offers an overview of the various proceedings that take place in the
courtroom prior to a trial in criminal cases. The practices, procedures and safe-
guards involved in the pretrial stage of the judicial process are summarized in the
subsections that follow, with emphasis on federal criminal court procedures. The
role of the interpreter in pretrial proceedings is then discussed and authentic legal
documents and transcripts are provided. Finally, because of the significant role of
interpreters in civil court and the high stakes involved, civil court proceedings are
briefly discussed.

Criminal v. civil cases

The law deals with two kinds of cases – criminal and civil. A criminal action is the
procedure by which someone accused of a crime is brought to court to answer
charges and go to trial and either is found not guilty or guilty and sentenced. A
criminal case is always brought by and in the name of the government, whether
federal, state, or local. A criminal case involves an action that is considered to be
harmful to society as a whole. A civil action generally involves private disputes
between persons or entities such as corporations or organizations. It is a lawsuit,
and may be brought in both federal and state court to enforce a right or gain pay-
ment for a wrong, rather than a court action in which the government prosecutes
an alleged crime.

Criminal actions

The justice system in the U.S. – both criminal and civil – is an adversarial system,
based on the notion that the truth is most likely to be revealed if each adversary
has an opportunity to fully present its version of the case in court. Before an ac-
cused in a criminal action can be found guilty, the government must prove its case
beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant, on the other hand, can deny the gov-
ernment’s accusations, present a defense in court and seek acquittal. Defendants
do not have to present a defense; they have the right to remain silent at every stage
of the proceedings.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Criminal cases involve “enforcing public codes of behavior as embodied in the

law, with the government prosecuting individuals or institutions” (ABA 1998,
vol. 2: 4). Thus, in a criminal case the government brings the charges against the
person or entity alleged to have committed a crime. An automobile collision may
give rise to a criminal case, for instance, if it involves allegations of a crime such as
DUI (driving under the influence). This is also called DWI (driving while im-
paired) now. This is the type of criminal case that would be heard in county or state
court. Criminal cases in federal court include offenses involving the sale or impor-
tation of drugs into the United States, bank robberies, firearms, espionage, health
care, credit card, immigration and mortgage fraud.

Civil actions

A civil action usually begins when a person or entity claims that another person or
entity owes that claimant a legal duty and determines that the problem cannot be
solved without the intervention of the courts. The dispute brought before the court
is called the case, suit, litigation, or action. The party who sues or complains is the
plaintiff or petitioner. The party whom the plaintiff accuses of wrongdoing is the
defendant or respondent.
A lawsuit begins when the person bringing the suit files a complaint or formal
written statement stating his view of the facts, and demands the relief to which he
believes to be entitled. The plaintiff may ask the court to compel the defendant to
fulfill that duty, or make compensation for the harm done, or both. To file a document
is to submit it to the court by placing it in the official custody of the clerk. Generally,
the complaint is drawn up and filed by an attorney hired by the plaintiff. A summons
is the procedure used to notify defendants in lawsuits that they are being sued and
that an answer must be filed within a given time. It is a writ or formal command from
the court, and is delivered or served by a law enforcement officer or a privately hired
process server. Plaintiffs and defendants are the parties or the litigants to the suit.
A divorce and related lawsuits such as child custody and support are examples
of civil suits in state or local court. They account for a large number of civil cases.
Cases involving contracts are also frequent. Many tort or personal injury cases
such as automobile collisions are also common civil cases. An automobile collision
may give rise to a civil case if one driver sues another, or if a passenger in one car
sues the driver of the other car. In many parts of the world, civil and criminal legal
actions are combined into one case, but in the United States they are not (Abraham
1986, 20–21). Thus, if an event involves serious civil and criminal aspects, there
will be distinct civil and criminal cases. For example, in a criminal trial, the vic-
tims of the defendant may file a separate civil suit against said defendant to re-
cover damages caused by the crime.
 Chapter 3.  Pretrial proceedings 

The plaintiff ’s lawyer must decide where to file the case. A court has no au-
thority to decide a case unless it has jurisdiction over the person or property in-
volved. To have jurisdiction, a court must have authority over the subject matter of
the case and must be able to exercise control over the defendant, or the property
involved must be located in the area under the court’s control. Venue refers to the
county or district within a state of the U.S. where the case is to be tried. It is set by
statute, i.e., a law passed by the legislative branch, but it can sometimes be changed
to a different location. It may be changed, for instance, if a case has received so
much pretrial publicity that it would be difficult to find jurors who have not al-
ready formed an opinion about the case. A request to the judge – a motion – may
be filed by an attorney for a change of venue.
Lawsuits in civil cases begin when the person bringing the suit files a com-
plaint in the proper court. This first step sets into motion the first stage of the suit,
the pleadings. The complaint and the answer make up the pleadings, or formal al-
legations that state the parties’ basic positions. Common pretrial pleadings in-
clude: the complaint, the answer, the reply, and the counterclaim. The complaint
(or petition or bill) sets out the plaintiff ’s version of the facts and specifies the relief
sought. The statement by which the defendant usually explains why the plaintiff
should not prevail is called the answer – the defendant’s version of what happened.
This is the principal pleading on the part of the defendant in response to the plain-
tiff ’s complaint. It may also offer additional facts, or plead an excuse. The defen-
dant may file a counterclaim, asserting that the plaintiff has injured the defendant
in some way, and should therefore pay damages. This may be filed separately or as
part of the answer. If a counterclaim is filed, the plaintiff must be given an oppor-
tunity to reply. Figure 3.1 shows a flow chart of proceedings in civil cases. To il-
lustrate this early stage in a civil case, consider the example of an automobile ac-
cident. Driver A (Roger Martel) and Driver B (Alberto Castillo) are injured when
their automobiles collide. Martel files a complaint against Castillo demanding pay-
ment for the expenses involved. Castillo files an answer to the complaint and de-
nies Martel’s allegations of negligence. Castillo feels that Martel caused the acci-
dent and should pay for all the expenses, including his own. In defense he pleads
that Martel was negligent and files a counterclaim for his own damages. On the
counterclaim, Castillo denies the accusation that he was negligent in the operation
of his vehicle, and claims that it was Martel who was negligent. In other words, the
defendant (Driver B) sues the plaintiff (Driver A).
A few additional terms and concepts must be defined here, however briefly.
These include discovery, the pretrial process in civil and criminal cases of exchang-
ing information between the parties about the witnesses and evidence they will
present at trial. The deposition is one of the most common methods used in the
discovery process; it provides attorneys the opportunity to question witnesses
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Pretrial proceedings

Pleadings
↓
Pretrial conferences
↓
Discovery
↓
Motions
↓
Settlement efforts and alternative dispute resolution (ADR)

Trial

Jury selection
↓
Opening statements
↓
Presentation of evidence
↓
Motions
↓
Closing arguments
↓
Jury instructions
↓
Jury deliberations
↓
Verdict

Post-judgment proceedings

Motions
↓
Judgment
↓
Sentencing
↓
Appeals

Figure 3.1  Pretrial, Trial and Post-Judgment Proceedings in Civil Actions

under oath. Additionally, one of the parties may submit written questions called
interrogatories to the other party and require that they be answered in writing un-
der oath. During this pretrial phase, the judge may call a pretrial or status confer-
ence, a court hearing involving the attorneys and the parties. These conferences are
held for a number of reasons, such as setting deadlines for filing all pretrial mo-
tions and setting a tentative trial date. The judge may inquire about the possibility
 Chapter 3.  Pretrial proceedings 

that the case may be settled without a trial. Civil cases are usually settled without
the need for a trial. Settlement efforts in civil cases may involve mediation. The
process of mediation involves a neutral third party who assists the parties to nego-
tiate an agreement between the parties. Interpretation, when necessary at these
proceedings, is in the consecutive mode. If the case is not settled and a trial is held,
the basic trial procedure in civil and criminal trials is the same, although some
differences exist, as pointed out in the next chapter.

Pretrial proceedings in criminal cases

This subsection summarizes pretrial hearings and defines the special terms used in
criminal cases. Generally speaking, pretrial proceedings are the court hearings
that occur from the time the defendant first appears in court until trial. It is ex-
tremely common for cases to be resolved during the pretrial period and never go
to trial. In federal court, most pretrial hearings are presided over by United States
Magistrate Judges. The paragraphs that follow present an overview of the charging
instruments (i.e., criminal complaint, indictment, information) necessary to ac-
cuse someone of the commission of a crime in a criminal case.

Arrest and charging documents

An arrest may take place during the commission of a crime, while a suspect is at-
tempting to flee, or as a result of an arrest warrant. When a police officer or other
law enforcement agent apprehends or arrests someone, the accused is taken into
custody. Likewise, when a prosecutor files a formal written accusation known as an
information, or a grand jury returns an indictment, or a judge or magistrate issues
a warrant for arrest, the person may be taken into custody. When people are taken
into custody, before they are questioned, they must be informed of certain rights
– what are often referred to as the Miranda rights or Miranda warnings. These in-
clude the right to remain silent, to consult with an attorney before and during
questioning by the authorities, and to have an attorney appointed to represent
them if they cannot afford one (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 [1966]).
The instrument by which a person is accused of a crime and brought to court
to answer the charge or accusations is known as a charging document. It does not
constitute evidence of guilt. Unless prospective defendants voluntarily surrender
to the authorities, they may be arrested or apprehended on a criminal charge. In-
terpreters should try to obtain a copy of the charging documents and review them
as part of the preparation for their assignments.
In a criminal case the complaint is often the first legal document filed regard-
ing a criminal offense. It is a statement made in writing to a judge or court of the
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

essential facts accusing one or more persons of the charged offense. It is generally
supported by an affidavit (see Documents 3.3 and 3.4 in this chapter). The affidavit
is a sworn statement prepared by a law enforcement officer or agent involved in the
case alleging that there are sufficient legal reasons or probable cause to believe that
an offense has been committed and that the person or persons named committed
it. If it appears that there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed
by the accused, the judge signs the complaint, and if the defendant has not already
been arrested, she or he also signs an arrest warrant. Probable cause is the legal
standard justifying an arrest. Of course, a defendant can be arrested during the
commission of a felony with or without any charging document having been filed,
and without an arrest warrant. Within 48 hours of the arrest, the defendant must
be taken before a Magistrate Judge and a charging document (complaint, indict-
ment, or information) must be filed with the court.
When the complaint and accompanying affidavit establish probable cause to
believe that an offense was committed and that the defendant(s) named in the affi-
davit committed it, the judge may issue an arrest warrant (see Document 3.1). The
law enforcement office seeking the arrest warrant must present it along with the
supporting complaint and affidavit to a judge for review. The officer must swear that
the facts in the complaint and affidavit are true. An arrest warrant is issued only
after the judge finds that there is probable cause.
In summary, criminal charges are brought as follows: through a citation
(e.g., from a police officer or park ranger). Citations are usually used for petty mis-
demeanors, such as certain criminal matters (e.g., disorderly conduct) and minor
traffic offenses (e.g., improper parking on federal property such as the V. A.
Hospital); through a criminal complaint from another individual who asks the
prosecutor to initiate charges; through an information from the prosecuting at-
torney; and through an indictment from a grand jury.

Arrest, citation, complaint, information or indictment

↓
Initial appearance
↓
Preliminary hearing or arraignment
↓
Bail or detention hearing
↓
Discovery and motions
↓
Plea negotiations
↓
Change of plea hearing or trial

Figure 3.2  Pretrial Proceedings in Criminal Actions

 Chapter 3.  Pretrial proceedings 

Interpreting Exercises-Sight Translation: Use the sample arrest warrant(s), affidavit(s),

proffers, complaint(s) and indictment(s) included in this section to practice sight
translation. Prior to performing each sight translation, take a minute or two to read
over each document. Beginners may research words and phrases with which they are
unfamiliar. Keep in mind that when performing a sight translation, the interpreter
must pay attention to public speaking quality, poise, pace or speed of delivery, clarity
and accuracy of the rendition. Audio recording the performance(s) for self-evaluation
is a highly useful instructional tool, whether in a classroom setting or at home.
Author’s Note: The feedback sheet, “Interpreting Practice Self-Assessment Form,”
(see Figure 3.3) was designed to enable self-learners to evaluate their own sight trans-
lation performances. Trainers may also use this form to assess student performance
in the classroom. The following exercise is designed to simulate real-life sight transla-
tion in the courtroom.
Instructions: Have an audio recorder (digital or tape) ready to record your perfor-
mance. Before beginning the exercise, review the evaluation criteria in Figure 3.3.
From the texts provided in the following pages, select a text to sight translate, such as
an affidavit or proffer. Take a few minutes to examine the document, paying special
attention to terms and phrases that may be particularly challenging. Quickly “skim”
the document, mentally preparing a “rough draft” of the oral rendition. You may
wish to make notes on a photocopy of the document as you work through this step.
Turn on the recorder. Interpret the entire text in a loud, clear voice, and do not stop
until you have reached the end of the document. Stop the recorder. Rewind, play and
listen to the recording once without pausing and rewinding. Take a few minutes to
write down your comments on your performance on a separate sheet of paper. Re-
wind and listen to the recording again, comparing your interpretation to the original
SL (source language) text.
Using the self-assessment form in Figure 3.3, evaluate your performance by com-
paring your recorded interpretation to the original document. Place a checkmark in
each of the numbered boxes, using the scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest score.
After completing the evaluation, research the terms with which you had difficulties.
In the “Notes & Comments” section of the form write down suggestions for improving
your performance. In addition, set the recording aside and listen to it at home after
some time has passed, but without viewing the original text. Listen to check if what
you have said is comprehensible: put yourself in the shoes of the person who is de-
pending on your interpretation. It is important that you do not refer to the original
text. In a second step, you can listen to the interpretation with the source text in order
to evaluate the interpreting itself.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Sight translation Scale

1 2 3 4 5
Accuracy Names/dates
of message content Figures/amounts
Message/ideas
Use of specialized
terminology/vocabulary
Use of appropriate grammatical
structures
Use of register that is appropriate
for the context (formal/informal)
Comprehensibility Comprehensibility of interpreted
message
Completeness No unwarranted omissions or
superfluous additions
Delivery No false starts that No hesitations,
interfere with “ums” or “ahs”
message that interfere
production with message
production
Fluency/smooth No mumbling
flow
Articulation/clarity of speech/ability
to connect ideas and concepts
Voice (appropriate intonation,
volume)
Speed/pace (not too fast or too
slow)
Adequacy Knowledge of cultural
references/appropriate
substitutions when needed
Idiomatic expressions (conveyed
accurately, not word-for-word)
Appropriate syntactic
restructuring, where appropriate
Cohesiveness Target text is comprehensible:
pronoun references are clear,
terminology is used consistently
Overall score

Notes &
comments

Figure 3.3  Interpreting Practice Self-Assessment Form

 Chapter 3.  Pretrial proceedings 

Document 3.1
Warrant for Arrest
United States of America District:
v. Magistrate Case No.:
Victor Camino Name and Address of Individual to be arrested:
Victor Camino El Paso County Jail
DOB: 8-8-80 SSN: Unknown
________________________________________________________________
Warrant Issued on the Basis of: Complaint
District of Arrest: Western District of Texas City: El Paso
________________________________________________________________
TO:  United States Marshals Service or any other authorized representative
________________________________________________________________
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest the above-named person and bring
that person before the nearest available magistrate to answer to the charge(s) listed
below.
DESCRIPTION OF CHARGE(S): Unlawfully seize, confine, kidnap, abduct
and carry away and transport in interstate commerce a person for ransom or
otherwise,
________________________________________________________________
IN VIOLATION OF: USC TITLE 18, SECTION 1201 (a)
________________________________________________________________
Bail Fixed by Court: NONE Other conditions of release:
Detain
ORDERED BY: SIGNATURE:
(JUDGE/U.S.MAGISTRATE):
U.S.MAGISTRATE JUDGE: DATE:
CLERK OF COURT: DATE ISSUED: 1-9-2007
________________________________________________________________
RETURN:
This warrant was received and executed with the arrest of the above-named per-
son.
Date Received: Name and Title of Arresting Officer:
Signature of Arresting Officer:
Date Executed:
________________________________________________________________
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Document 3.2
United States District Court
___________DISTRICT OF___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
DANIEL DEL OLMO
CASE NUMBER: 08-2231-CAB
I, the undersigned complainant, being duly sworn, state the following is true and
accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. On or about May 25, 2008, at
_______ International Airport, in ____ County, in the ______ District of ______,
the defendant, Daniel del Olmo, did knowingly and willfully use or attempt to use
a false, forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or altered passport or instrument pur-
porting to be a passport, in that, the defendant attempted to enter the United States
with a Spanish passport, which had been altered to include the defendant’s photo-
graph and biographical information; in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1543.
I further state that I am a CBP Enforcement Officer with U.S. Customs and Border
Protection and that this complaint is based on the following facts:
See attached affidavit
Continued on the attached sheet and made a part hereof: o Yes  o No
________________________
Signature of Complainant
Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence.
________________________ at ___________________________________
Date City and State
CHRIS BLOOM, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
________________________ ___________________________________
Name and Title of Judicial Officer Signature of Judicial Officer
________________________________________________________________
 Chapter 3.  Pretrial proceedings 

Document 3.3
AFFIDAVIT
I, George B. Weston, being duly sworn, depose and say:
I am a Special Agent with the United States Secret Service (USSS), and I have
been so employed since November of 1994. Prior to working for the USSS, I was a
Deputy United States Marshal in the Southern District of California for two years.
As a USSS Special Agent, I am responsible for the investigation of violations of
United States law, including violations of Title 18 of the United States Code.
The information in this affidavit is based on my personal knowledge and in-
formation obtained from other law enforcement personnel. Because the informa-
tion set forth in this affidavit is provided solely for the purpose of establishing
probable cause in support of a criminal complaint, it does not include all facts
known to law enforcement.
On June 18, 2008, Julio Espinosa presented two (2) counterfeit Visa cards in an
attempt to purchase a Mac Book Pro laptop computer at the Apple Store located at
65231 Camp Blvd. in San Rafael, California. When it was determined that the
Apple Store could not process the counterfeit credit cards, the cashier asked to see
Espinosa’s identification. Espinosa reached over the counter, grabbed the counter-
feit credit cards and immediately fled the store. The total value of the attempted
purchase was $1,099.00.
Espinosa was arrested by officers of the Police Department upon leaving the
store. A search incident to arrest uncovered an additional fourteen (14) counterfeit
Master Card, Discover, and American Express credit cards on Espinosa’s person.
All sixteen of the counterfeit credit cards recovered were in the name of B.T. A
fraudulent Puerto Rican driver’s license bearing the name of B.T. was also recov-
ered from Espinosa.
After the arrest, Espinosa was read his Miranda rights and acknowledged his
understanding of these rights in writing. Espinosa stated that he was given these
cards by an individual in Puerto Rico. Espinosa further stated that he came to San
Rafael from Puerto Rico with the cards on June 2, 2008. Espinosa indicated that he
wanted to speak to an attorney, and no further questions were asked.
 FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT
 ___________________________
S/A George B. Weston
U.S. Secret Service
Sworn and subscribed before me ___________________________
This ___ day of June 2008. Walter McBride,
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
________________________________________________________________
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Document 3.4
State of Mississippi
Jackson County
AFFIDAVIT
I, Paul A. Peters, the undersigned affiant, first being duly sworn upon oath, hereby
depose and state the following:
  1. I am a Senior Special Agent with the United States Department of Homeland
Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). I have been employed
by this agency, or the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS),
for approximately fourteen (14) years. I am currently assigned to the Jackson,
Mississippi ICE office.
  2. In my employment, I am assigned to investigate alleged violations of the Im-
migration and Nationality Act, including aliens who have entered the United
States illegally and aliens who have presented fraudulent immigration docu-
ments to unlawfully obtain employment.
  3. This affidavit is made in support of criminal complaints charging Guillermo
Torre-Molina, Leonardo Rocha-Lima, aka: Emilio Lima, Ronaldo Alvarez-
Muro, Hernando Silva-Huerta, Abimael Lima-Romero, and Adelardo Torre-
Galdo with the offense of Fraud and Misuse of Visas, Permits, and Other
Documents in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1546. War-
rants for the arrests of the defendants are requested.
  4. On September 18, 2008, I served a Form I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verifica-
tion) Notice of Inspection on the Churrasco Steakhouse restaurant in Jackson,
Mississippi. On September 24, 2008, I received one-hundred ten (110) Forms
I-9 relating to current employees of the Churrasco Steakhouse restaurant.
Subsequently, I reviewed the Forms I-9 and conducted ICE database checks
and determined that Guillermo Torre-Molina, Leonardo Rocha-Lima, aka:
Emilio Lima, Ronaldo Alvarez-Muro, Hernando Silva-Huerta, and Abimael
Lima-Romero had unlawfully obtained their employment by presenting
fraudulent Resident Alien cards and fraudulent Social Security cards.
  5. On Wednesday, January 9, 2009, ICE Special Agents located and arrested
Guillermo Torre-Molina, Leonardo Rocha-Lima, aka: Emilio Lima, Ronaldo
Alvarez-Muro, Hernando Silva-Huerta, Abimael Lima-Romero, and Adelardo
Torre-Galdo at various locations in Jackson County, Mississippi. Upon ques-
tioning, all of the individuals admitted that they were citizens of Mexico ille-
gally within the United States.
  6. Upon arrival at the Jackson ICE office, the six individuals were fingerprinted
and the fingerprint impressions were submitted to the FBI through the Inte-
grated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS).
 Chapter 3.  Pretrial proceedings 

  7. Fingerprint comparison results show that Leonardo Rocha-Lima, aka: Emilio

Lima was previously deported from the United States to Mexico on December
1, 2007 at El Paso, Texas. ICE databases contain no record of Leonardo Rocha-
Lima, aka: Emilio Lima requesting or receiving permission to apply for read-
mission to the United States from the Attorney General of the United States or
the Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security since his
last deportation.
  8. Prior to questioning, Guillermo Torre-Molina, Ronaldo Alvarez-Muro, Her-
nando Silva-Huerta, Abimael Lima-Romero, and Adelardo Torre-Galdo were
advised of their rights per Miranda. Ronaldo Alvarez-Muro stated that he un-
derstood his rights and wished to invoke his right to remain silent.
  9. Guillermo Torre-Molina, Hernando Silva-Huerta, Abimael Lima-Romero,
and Adelardo Torre-Galdo stated that they understood their rights and agreed
to answer questions, signing Form I-214 waiving their right to have attorneys
present. Guillermo Torre-Molina, Hernando Silva-Huerta, and Abimael Lima-
Romero all admitted to possessing and using fraudulent Resident Alien cards
and fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain their employment at the Chur-
rasco Steakhouse restaurant in Jackson, Mississippi. Adelardo Torre-Galdo
admitted to possessing and using a fraudulent Resident Alien card and a
fraudulent Social Security card to obtain his employment at the Charlie’s and
Chino’s restaurants in Jackson, Mississippi.
10. Prior to questioning, Leonardo Rocha-Lima, aka: Emilio Lima, was advised of
his rights per Miranda. Leonardo Rocha-Lima, aka: Emilio Lima, stated that
he understood his rights and agreed to answer questions, signing Form I-214
waiving his right to have an attorney present. Leonardo Rocha-Lima, aka:
Emilio Lima, admitted that he was previously deported from the United States
to Mexico and that he had neither sought nor received permission to apply for
readmission to the United States from the Attorney General of the United
States or the Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security
since his last deportation. Leonardo Rocha-Lima, aka: Emilio Lima, also ad-
mitted to possessing and using a fraudulent Resident Alien card and a fraudu-
lent Social Security card to obtain his employment at the Churrasco Steak-
house restaurant in Jackson, Mississippi.
Based on the foregoing, affiant believes that there is probable cause to charge
Guillermo Torre-Molina, Leonardo Rocha-Lima, aka: Emilio Lima, Ronaldo
Alvarez-Muro, Hernando Silva-Huerta, Abimael Lima-Romero, and Adelardo
Torre-Galdo with violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1546, and
these activities occurred in Jackson County, Mississippi, within the District of
Mississippi.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

 FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT

 ___________________________
Paul A. Peters, Senior Special Agent
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of January 2009.____________
Honorable Roberta L. Morton,
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
________________________________________________________________
Document 3.5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
 Case No. 09-3313-CR-Bennington
United States of America
v.
Rosa Camila Pedraza,
Defendant/
INDICTMENT
The Grand Jury charges that:
COUNT 1
On or about June 24, 2009, in ____ County, in the District of Nebraska, the
defendant,
Rosa Camila Pedraza,
did willfully and knowingly make a false statement in an application for a passport
with the intent to induce and secure the issuance of a passport under the authority
of the United States, for her own use, contrary to the laws regulating the issuance
of passports and the rules prescribed pursuant to such laws, in that the defendant
stated in said application that her name was “L.A.U.,” when in truth and in fact,
and as the defendant then and there well knew, her name was not “L.A.U.,” in vio-
lation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1542.
COUNT 2
On or about June 24, 2009, in ____ County, in the District of Nebraska, the
defendant,
Rosa Camila Pedraza,
During and in relation to a felony violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1542, that is, making a false statement in an application for a passport as
set forth in Count 1, did knowingly possess, and use, without lawful authority, a
 Chapter 3.  Pretrial proceedings 

means of identification of another person, that is, the name of “L.A.U.,” in viola-
tion of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A(a) (1).
A TRUE BILL
___________________________
FOREPERSON
__________________________
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
________________________________________________________________

Initial appearance

Generally, the role of the court interpreter begins when the accused is brought to
court for the initial appearance. This is the defendant’s first formal appearance be-
fore a judge. In many courts, prior to interpreting in formal court proceedings,
interpreters may be asked to take an oath to interpret faithfully and accurately.
Although this varies from court to court, and while there may be slight differences
in the oaths administered, the following are representative:

Sample interpreter oaths

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will justly, truly, fairly, and impartially
act as an interpreter in the case now before the Court, so help you God?
__________
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will faithfully and accurately interpret
from English into Spanish and from Spanish into English such testimony of the
witnesses, and such other matters as may be required of you by the Court, accord-
ing to the best of your knowledge and ability, so help you God?
__________
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will interpret accurately, completely and
impartially, all proceedings before the Court from English into the defendant’s
language and from the defendant’s language into English, to the best of your abil-
ity and capacity?
__________
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will interpret accurately, completely,
and impartially, using your best skill and judgment in accordance with the stan-
dards prescribed by law and the Rules of Ethics for Spoken Foreign Language
Interpreters; that you will follow all official guidelines established by this Court
for legal interpreting or translating, and discharge all of the solemn duties and
obligations of legal interpretation and translation?

In some courts interpreters may be formally sworn in and asked to sign a written
document similar to the one included below, which is then kept on record with the
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

court. In such cases, the court may not need to swear in the interpreter for every
hearing. This practice varies and is always at the discretion of the judge.

United States District Court

_________ District of __________
Interpreters’ Oath
                          Spanish-English
I, ____________, do solemnly swear to faithfully interpret from and into the
English language all the proceedings in which I participate in this district, to
and from the language(s) above indicated for which I am authorized to inter-
pret, so help me God.
_________________________________
Interpreter
Subscribed and sworn before me in _______, ______ on this ____day of
_____ of 200___.
___________________________
Signature of Individual Administering Oath
________________________
Print Name and Title

Interpreters are sometimes needed to assist the officer who processes or books the
accused or for pretrial interviews prior to the first appearance in court. If the de-
fendant is in custody, an officer from pretrial services will interview the defendant
to prepare a report that will assist the judge in determining bail or detention. The
defendant may also be interviewed by the defense attorney prior to the first ap-
pearance in court. These interviews generally take place in the lock-up or deten-
tion area of the courthouse where defendants are held until they are brought to the
courtroom. Such interviews are interpreted in the consecutive mode.
At the initial appearance, defendants are advised of their rights in a criminal
matter and of the charges filed against them. The rights of a defendant accused in
a criminal matter include the right: to remain silent; to an attorney; to a bond
hearing; and to a preliminary examination in a felony case. The court will also
decide whether to release or detain the defendant.
Interpreters should arrive in the courtroom approximately 15 minutes before
court is scheduled to begin, to have ample time to “set up” for the hearing that is
about to take place. If simultaneous interpreting equipment is used, it must be ready
to be tested as soon as the defendants are brought in to the courtroom (if in custody),
or as soon as everyone is allowed into the courtroom. Interpreters may be asked to
 Chapter 3.  Pretrial proceedings 

sight translate documents for defense counsel, such as financial affidavits or charg-
ing documents. The interpreter must never give opinions about the case. All ques-
tions from defendants or their families must be referred to defense counsel.
The interpreter’s role is to interpret for the defendant as soon as the judge takes
the bench and court is called to order. It is likely that the judge will begin by reading
defendants’ constitutional rights. Everything the judge says must be interpreted.
Defendants must be put in the same situation in which they would be if they were
fluent speakers of English. When each case is called, if simultaneous interpretation
equipment is not used, the interpreter should accompany the defendant to the lec-
tern. The simultaneous mode is used to interpret everything that is said about the
case, and the consecutive mode is used to interpret the defendant’s answers to ques-
tions from the court. Interpreters should always carry a pad and pencil or pen and
be prepared to take notes when interpreting in the consecutive mode.
Interpreting Exercise: What follows is the general statement of rights given at an
initial appearance. The words will vary slightly from court to court. The statement is
to be interpreted in the simultaneous mode:

Sample Statement of Rights

THE COURT: This is your first appearance in court. I am now going to explain
the constitutional and statutory rights you have as someone accused in our
system of justice. You are here because you are charged with a criminal offense
or with a violation of probation or supervised release. You will receive a copy of
the complaint or formal charge against you. Please listen carefully.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say may be used against
you in this or any other court of law. You have the right to an attorney of your
own choosing at each and every stage of the proceedings, including this one.
If you do not have the funds with which to hire an attorney, the court may ap-
point one for you free of charge. If you would like the court to appoint an at-
torney for you, you must first answer questions under oath about your finan-
cial condition to determine if you qualify for a court-appointed attorney.
(Author’s Note: in many courts, defendants submit a financial affidavit to dem-
onstrate that they are unable to afford a lawyer.) If you answer questions false-
ly while under oath you may be prosecuted for perjury or having made a false
statement, and that is a separate offense for which the government may pros-
ecute you.
You have the right to a bond hearing to determine, in accordance with the
provisions of the Bail Reform Act of 1984 under what, if any, conditions you
may be released on bond. If the government seeks detention, you have
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

the right to a hearing on the date of your first court appearance, or within 3 to
5 days of your first court appearance if a continuance is granted.
You have the right to a preliminary hearing or examination within ten days
of your first appearance in court if you are in custody, and within twenty days
if released on bond. In a preliminary hearing the government is required to
present evidence to convince the court that there is probable cause to believe
the charged offense was committed and that you committed it. If the govern-
ment’s evidence does not establish probable cause, the case will be dismissed.
If probable cause is found, you will be required to enter a plea to the charges.
Probable cause may also be established by the return of an indictment by a
grand jury. If a grand jury returns an indictment prior to the date set for the
preliminary hearing, the probable cause requirement is satisfied and no pre-
liminary hearing will be held. You will then enter a plea to the indictment.

After reading defendants their rights, the judge will ask each defendant if he or she
has an attorney. This questioning is interpreted in the consecutive mode; the ques-
tion posed by the judge is interpreted into Spanish and the defendant’s response is
interpreted into English. In the case of defendants who are not represented by
counsel and claim to be indigent, the judge will need to obtain information relative
to their financial ability to hire counsel. In so doing, the judge will ask defendants
questions such as the following, after placing them under oath, and asking them to
give their name and age:

  1. Are you married?

  2. Do you have any children? (If so, how many? What are their ages?)
  3. Do you support your spouse or children?
  4. Are you employed? What do you do for a living? (Author’s Note: If the answer
is no, the judge may ask: When was the last time you were employed?)
  5. What is your average weekly (or monthly) take-home pay?
  6. Do you own a car, truck, boat or motorcycle?
  7. Do you have any money in a bank, in an account or safe deposit box? Do
you have a savings or checking account, bonds, stocks, or other account of
any kind? What balance do you have?
  8. Do you have money that is not in the bank or in a safe deposit box any-
where in the world?
  9. Do you own your home or do you rent? How much is your mortgage/rent
payment?
 Chapter 3.  Pretrial proceedings 

10. Do you own any other real estate? A house, land – anything like that?
11. Do you have anything of value that I have not asked you about?

If the judge rules that the defendant qualifies for a court-appointed attorney, one
will be appointed, usually a public defender. If the public defender has a conflict
(for instance, he or she is already representing another defendant in the same case)
and cannot represent the defendant, a private attorney will be appointed from a
panel of attorneys approved by the court. At this time the judge may also set dates
for future proceedings, which may include the arraignment, the preliminary hear-
ing and the bond or detention hearing. The arraignment is an initial step in a crim-
inal case in which a defendant is read the charges and asked to plead “guilty,” “not
guilty” or, where permitted, nolo contendere (Latin for “I will not contest it” or “no
contest”) to those charges. Preliminary hearings are held to determine if there is
sufficient evidence to continue with the case and to require defendants to post bail
or be held in pretrial detention. As discussed in a separate subsection of this chap-
ter, bond hearings are held to determine if the court can set conditions of release
that will reasonably guarantee the defendant’s appearance at future court dates
while the case is pending.

THE COURT: What is the government’s recommendation on bond?

PROSECUTOR: We’re asking for pretrial detention, Your Honor, and three days
to prepare for the hearing.

THE COURT: All right. We’ll set the PTD hearing in three days.

THE COURT (to the defendant): An attorney from the public defender’s office
will be in contact with you today.

Preliminary hearing, grand jury proceedings and arraignment

As explained in the statement of rights, a preliminary hearing is held to establish if a

crime has been committed and if there is probable cause to believe that the defendant
committed the offense(s) alleged in the complaint. Its purpose is to see if there is
probable cause to justify holding the defendant. The preliminary hearing is held with-
in 10 days of a defendant’s initial appearance in court (if in custody) or within twenty
days (if the defendant is released on bail). If the evidence presented by the prosecu-
tion does not convince the judge that there is probable cause, then the complaint is
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

dismissed and the defendant released. A preliminary hearing will not be held,
however, if prior to the scheduled preliminary hearing, a grand jury finds that there
is probable cause by returning an indictment, that is, a formal charging document.
Grand juries exist in the federal system and in many states, although their func-
tion differs from state to state. The federal grand jury is a body of between 16 and 23
citizens who hear evidence presented by the prosecution. There is no judge or defense
attorney present. In grand jury proceedings interpreters are needed to interpret the
testimony of witnesses with limited proficiency in English. The testimony of such wit-
nesses is interpreted in the consecutive mode. It is common for interpreters to be re-
quired to undergo a background check prior to working in grand jury proceedings.
Grand juries are charged with deciding if there is a probable cause to require
the defendant (who may be in custody, out on bail, or who may not yet have been
arrested) to stand trial. If the grand jury finds probable cause, it returns an indict-
ment, the formal written charges against the defendant. In other words, grand ju-
ries determine during the investigative stage of a criminal case whether there is
enough evidence to charge the accused with a crime. They do not decide a defen-
dant’s innocence or guilt. An indictment may be returned if at least 12 of the mem-
bers of the grand jury vote to do so. A defendant must respond to the indictment
by entering a plea of guilty or not guilty. Indictments are signed by both the forep-
erson (the presiding member of the grand jury), and the prosecutor, and list each
charge or count and each statute involved (see Document 3.5).
All grand jury proceedings are conducted secretly. The secrecy of the proceed-
ings is intended to encourage witnesses to speak freely without fear of retaliation
(i.e., threats from someone who is unhappy with their testimony). It also protects
the person under investigation should the evidence be deemed insufficient to re-
turn an indictment. Interpreters in grand jury proceedings are bound by the se-
crecy of the proceedings, and unless ordered by a court, may not reveal any aspect
of the hearings to anyone.
The arraignment is held after an indictment has been returned. At arraignments,
indictments are read to the defendants unless they waive the right to have it read in
open court. Defendants enter a plea to the charges, and the court may set deadlines
for completion of other pretrial proceedings, or set a trial date. Where permitted,
possible pleas are “not guilty,” “nolo contendere,” (i.e., “I will not contest it” or “no
contest”) or “guilty.” In some courts defendants are arraigned by video teleconfer-
ence. If the arraignment is by video teleconferencing and there is no prior written
consent, the judge will determine that the defendant explicitly waives the right to
appear in person and consents to conduct the arraignment by video teleconference.
Interpreting Exercise: The following procedure may be used to arraign a defendant in
federal court whether the defendant appears in person or has consented to video
teleconference. Interpret the dialogue with the defendant in the consecutive mode.
Interpret everything else that is said in the hearing in the simultaneous mode:
 Chapter 3.  Pretrial proceedings 

THE CLERK: Calling case number 09-7021-CR-Sosa. The United States of Amer-
ica v. Elisa Ruaza.

THE PROSECUTOR: Good morning, Your Honor. For the United States, Bill
Edwards.

THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good morning, Your Honor. Sam Levin for Elisa Ruaza.

THE CLERK: Ms. Ruaza, please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or
affirm that you will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

MS. RUAZA: Sí, lo juro.

THE COURT: We are here today for the arraignment of Ms. Elisa Ruaza on a one-
count indictment charging her in a conspiracy to commit health care fraud.
Counsel, have you gone over the indictment with your client and are you ready
to proceed to the arraignment?

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Yes, Your Honor. I have gone over the charge with my cli-
ent and we are ready to arraign her.

THE COURT (to the defendant): Ma’am, please state your full name and age for
the record.

THE DEFENDANT: Elisa María Ruaza, treinta y seis.

THE COURT: Are you currently employed?

THE DEFENDANT: No, hace tres meses que no trabajo.

THE COURT: When you were working, what did you do?

THE DEFENDANT: Trabajaba limpiando casas.

THE COURT: Have you received a copy of the indictment and have you had
time to consult with your attorney?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí, Señoría.

THE COURT: Do you want the indictment read to you, or will you waive the
reading of the indictment?

THE DEFENDANT: No, mi abogado me lo leyó.

THE COURT: You may proceed, counsel.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Thank you, Your Honor. We have received a copy of the
indictment, which I reviewed with my client. We waive its formal reading in
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

open court. My client enters a plea of not guilty. We request a trial by jury and
that Your Honor sign the standing discovery order.

THE COURT: Ms. Ruaza, I accept your waiver of formal reading of the indict-
ment in open court. The Court has entered your plea of not guilty and request
for a jury trial. All bond conditions remain the same at this time. The standing
discovery order will be signed today. Check with the chambers of Judge
Smythe, who is the district judge assigned to this case, for a trial date. Is there
anything else on this case at this time?

PROSECUTOR: Nothing else at this time, Your Honor.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Nothing else from the defense. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Motion and trial dates may be set at this time, depending on the local rules. Note
the special meaning given here to terms such as discovery in the phrase standing
discovery order. In this context, discovery refers to physical evidence such as docu-
ments, recordings, and reports prepared by law enforcement, and any other mate-
rials that comprise the government’s evidence against the defendant. The phrase
“standing orders” refers to rules adopted by particular courts for governing prac-
tice before them. A standing order is a “forward-looking order that applies to all
cases pending before a court” (Black’s 2009, 1207). In other words, it is an order
that is in force until specifically changed or cancelled. In criminal proceedings,
“discovery” emphasizes the right of the defense to obtain access to evidence neces-
sary to prepare its own case (Black’s 1990, 466).

Bail and detention hearings

The issue of bond or detention may be decided at this time. At bond or bail hearings
the judge must decide whether to release a defendant on bond or order detention.
In making that decision, judges consider the nature of the alleged crime, the defen-
dant’s ties to the community, whether the defendant is likely to flee, pose a danger
to the community or to another person. All testimony given in English is inter-
preted in the simultaneous mode for the defendant. Anything the defendant says in
Spanish (or other foreign language) is to be interpreted in the consecutive mode for
the court and the record. Certain conditions such as drug testing, restrictions on
travel or a curfew may be imposed to reduce the likelihood that a released defen-
dant will flee, endanger others or the community. Hearings regarding pretrial
 Chapter 3.  Pretrial proceedings 

detention or release on bail can be lengthy, particularly in complex multi-defendant

cases in which there is no agreement between the defense and the prosecution.
The judge may use the report of the interview by the pretrial services officer as
an aid to setting bail. Bail may be defined as the pretrial release of a person accused
of a crime, under specified conditions designed to assure not only his or her ap-
pearance in court when required, but also protect the community. The term refers
especially to a security (such as cash or a bond) required by a court “for the release
of a prisoner who must appear in court at a future time” (Black’s 2009, 160). The
purpose of bail is “to ensure the return of the accused at subsequent proceedings”
(Black’s 1990, 140). At these hearings, the prosecutor may present arguments and
a summary of evidence gathered by the detective, agent or other law enforcement
officer involved in the investigation or arrest of the defendant(s). The law enforce-
ment agent may be called to the witness stand to testify and be questioned under
oath by the attorneys regarding the evidence against the defendant(s). The defense
may also call witnesses and present arguments to try to persuade the court to set
conditions of pretrial release. That testimony and all legal arguments are inter-
preted in the simultaneous mode for the defendant(s). The consecutive mode is
used when a non-English speaker testifies during the hearing.
If the defendant is released on bail, the conditions of the release are generally
set at this time. They may include: house arrest with electronic monitoring, a cur-
few, maintaining or actively seeking full-time employment, reporting to pretrial
services, the surrender of all passports and travel documents, if any, random urine
testing and drug treatment as deemed necessary. When the court finds that no
condition or combination of conditions could reasonably guarantee a defendant’s
appearance in court, or ensure the safety of the community, the court may order
the detention (pretrial detention) of that defendant.
The judge may set different types of bonds and conditions, depending on the
nature of the crime and the specific characteristics of the defendant. Bail bonds
serve as a guarantee (or surety) that the money posted for the bond will be paid if
the defendant does not appear in court as required, or otherwise violates a condi-
tion of the pretrial release. There are many kinds of bail bonds and they have dif-
ferent names in different jurisdictions. Some of the most common include:
– personal surety bond/personal recognizance (PR): also known as a signature
bond, it recognizes the obligation to pay a certain amount of money if the de-
fendant does not appear in court as required;
– percentage bond: a percentage of the bond must be deposited with the court to
secure the defendant’s release;
– corporate surety bond/secured bail bond.: bond that must be guaranteed or
have collateral and must be posted through a bondsperson. There may also be
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

special conditions that must be met such as a Nebbia requirement (it may have
a different name in the state courts) to determine the source of the funds used
for the bond.

Pretrial conferences and motions

After a case has been indicted, several types of hearings may be set prior to the
date set for trial. One such hearing is the status or pretrial conference. At this con-
ference judges establish a time frame for concluding all pretrial activities. They
may consider motions and set a trial date at this time. Motions are requests by ei-
ther party for the judge to make a legal ruling on a matter in dispute. Some of the
most common pretrial motions include: motion for discovery; motion to dismiss;
motion to sever; and motion to suppress.
A motion for discovery is a motion by which one party seeks to gain information
from the adverse party. To begin preparing for trial, both parties engage in discovery,
the process of exchanging information about the witnesses and evidence the parties
may present at trial. This process enables the parties to know prior to the beginning
of the trial what evidence may be presented. If either party refuses to give discovery
of a requested item, the requesting party may file a motion asking the judge to order
discovery of the item in dispute. One of the most frequently used methods of dis-
covery, particularly in civil cases, is the taking of a deposition. This is a statement
given under oath by anyone involved in the case – be it civil or criminal – although
depositions are very rarely taken in federal criminal cases.1 It is given outside the
courtroom setting and may be used in preparation for trial or at trial. Interpreters
are needed for depositions any time a non-English speaker is deposed.
In a motion to dismiss, the court is asked to dismiss the suit or criminal charge
because it does not have a legally sound basis, even if all the facts alleged are prov-
en true. A motion for a change of venue is a request to change the trial to another
jurisdiction because the defendant believes that the conditions in the judicial dis-
trict where the trial is to be held are such that a fair trial is not possible. A motion
to sever is a request for a separate trial in a case involving two or more defendants,
and one (or more) of them may believe that if tried with the others they would not
receive a fair trial. A motion to suppress is a request by the defendant in a criminal
case to exclude some of the government’s evidence. A motion for summary judg-
ment (or motion for summary disposition) asks the court for a judgment on the
merits of a civil case before the trial.

1. The Honorable Chris M. McAliley, United States Magistrate Judge. Personal communica-
tion. The author is grateful for her careful review of this chapter and valuable suggestions.
 Chapter 3.  Pretrial proceedings 

If the court must resolve questions of fact in order to rule on the motion, it
will hold an evidentiary hearing. Evidentiary hearings may be lengthy because of
the introduction of evidence through witnesses. In a sense, they are “mini trials.”
As in a trial, interpreting will be done in the simultaneous mode for the defen-
dants and the consecutive mode will be used for non-English-speaking or LEP
(Limited English Proficient) witnesses. Interpreters assigned to evidentiary hear-
ings and suppression motions, in particular, should be prepared for the possibility
that foreign-language testimony may be taken from the defendant or other LEP
witnesses.

Change of plea hearing

Most cases (criminal or civil) are resolved prior to the date set for trial. Criminal
defendants may resolve their cases by pleading guilty. A plea is an answer to formal
charges by an accused. Rather than going to trial, defendants may choose to plead
guilty to the crimes charged. In federal court, the plea is taken by district (Article III)
judges and by magistrate judges who are authorized to take the plea by consent of
the defendant.
According to the Federal Judicial Center, more than nine out of ten civil cases
never come to trial, and about eight out of ten defendants in criminal cases plead
guilty (2006, 10). The 2006 Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts shows that eighty-seven percent of criminal
defendants pled guilty that year. That same year, there were 18,055 defendants
charged with immigration offenses, of which 17,328 pled guilty. Chang (2008)
points out that the impact of plea bargaining on the immigrant LEP population
within the federal court system is staggering. She notes that court interpreters play
“a particularly crucial role in the plea bargain context when a non-English-speak-
ing defendant is asked to waive substantial constitutional rights” (446–7). Non-
English-speaking defendants are dependent on the work of court interpreters. At
the change of plea hearing – as in every hearing – it is of the utmost importance
that interpreters convey completely and accurately everything that is said or pre-
sented in writing, including plea agreements and the proffer or offer of evidence
presented in writing by the prosecutor. The proffer is a written summary of the
evidence the prosecution says it could prove if the case were to go to trial. It is
generally read out loud by the prosecutor at the change of plea hearing (see page
65). The defendant listens to this and, having been placed under oath, swears that
he or she did or did not do what the government alleges.
Guilty pleas, as illustrated in the script that follows this section, are required to
be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Without adequate interpretation, the very
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

validity of these pleas is undermined and questioned. Inadequate interpretation

could cause defendants with limited or non-existent English skills to unknowingly
or involuntarily waive constitutional rights in a plea hearing. As Chang points out:
The harms resulting from inadequate courtroom interpretation for non-English-
speaking defendants in the plea bargain process are both individualized and insti-
tutional. Inadequate courtroom interpretation produces individualized harms for
the non-English-speaking defendant because it implicates the individual’s Four-
teenth Amendment right to equal protection and Sixth Amendment right to ef-
fective assistance of counsel. Similarly, inadequate court interpretation harms the
criminal justice system because it undermines public confidence in the fairness of
the plea bargaining process. (449)

At the change of plea hearing, the judge asks the defendant a series of questions to
determine if the defendant is competent to plead guilty and understands the
charges and possible penalties. The judge must also establish that the plea is volun-
tary and that there is a factual basis for the plea of guilt. Judges may reject the plea
if they are not convinced that the defendant is guilty of the alleged charges or if the
judge is not persuaded that the defendant understands and agrees to give up his or
her right to trial. If the judge accepts the plea, there is no trial in the case. The next
court proceeding is the sentencing hearing.
Judges do not participate in plea negotiations. These are the discussions be-
tween the defense counsel and the prosecutor by which the defendant agrees to
plead guilty in exchange for certain considerations. Most guilty pleas are entered
as a result of negotiations in which both parties generally yield something. For
example, the prosecution may agree to drop a count (or more, depending on the
nature of the case and other factors) of the indictment. A count is an allegation in
a charging document (indictment or information), accusing a defendant of a
crime. An indictment or information may contain allegations that the defendant
committed more than one crime. Each allegation is called a count. The defendant
who pleads guilty always agrees to give up the right to a jury trial.
The terms of the plea are often written down in a document, commonly re-
ferred to as the plea agreement (see Document 3.6. Written Plea Agreement). All
the parties must sign this document, reviewed by the judge with the defendant
as part of the change of plea colloquy. The plea agreement may also contain “co-
operation language,” which may include an agreement on the part of the defen-
dant to work with the authorities in an undercover capacity, or give testimony
against others involved in criminal activity. Both parties stand to benefit from
such an agreement as the prosecution obtains a conviction without the time
and resources of a trial; in return the defendant may receive a more lenient
sentence.
 Chapter 3.  Pretrial proceedings 

Document 3.6 Written Plea Agreement (excerpt)

________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA No. 99-33-CR-JONES
v.
Antonio Javier Saavedra
PLEA AGREEMENT
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the United
States of America, by Charles Patrick, United States Attorney for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Tennessee, the defendant, Antonio Javier Saavedra, and his attorney, have
agreed upon the following:
1. The defendant will plead guilty to Count One of the Superseding Indictment
charging him with a violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 846 and
841(b) (1) (A), which is conspiracy to distribute marijuana and Count Two of
the Superseding Indictment with a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sec-
tion 1958(h) which is conspiracy to commit money laundering. The parties fur-
ther agree that the appropriate disposition of this case would be the following:
a. The Court may impose any lawful term of imprisonment up to the statu-
tory maximum;
b. The Court may impose any lawful fine up to the statutory maximum;
c. The Court may impose any lawful term of supervised release; and
d. The Court will impose any applicable mandatory assessment.
2. The maximum penalty to which the defendant will be exposed by virtue of his
guilty plea to Count One is a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of
five years to forty (40) years, a fine of $1,000,000, and a term of supervised
release of at least four (4) years up to life. In addition, there is a mandatory
special assessment of $100. The maximum penalty to which the defendant will
be exposed by virtue of his plea to Count Two is a term of imprisonment of not
more than twenty (20) years, a fine of not more than $500,000, a term of su-
pervised release of three to five years and a special assessment of $100.
3. The defendant further agrees to cooperate fully, truthfully, and completely
with any and all law enforcement agents including but not limited to person-
nel of the United States Attorney’s Office. This cooperation includes, but is not
limited to, meeting with and being interviewed by such law enforcement
agents of United States Attorney’s personnel whenever requested. The defen-
dant further agrees to testify fully, truthfully, and completely before a federal
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

grand jury, at any trial, or any other time or proceeding in any federal district
if called upon by the United States to do so.
4. Nothing in this agreement shields the defendant from prosecution for perjury
or the giving of a false statement to a federal agent in the event that he com-
mits such an offense. Should the defendant commit perjury or give a false
statement to a federal agent, then the United States will be free to prosecute
him for that offense and will be free to withdraw from this plea agreement or
be relieved of its obligations, if any, under paragraph 5 of this agreement.
5. At the time of Sentencing, the United States will bring to the Court’s attention
the nature, extent and value of the defendant’s cooperation. This information
will be provided to the Court so that it may be considered in determining a
fair and appropriate sentence under the facts of the case.
6. This plea agreement constitutes the full and complete agreement and under-
standing between the parties concerning the defendant’s guilty plea to the
above-referenced charges, and there are no other agreements, promises, un-
dertakings, or understandings between the defendant and the United States.
CHARLES PATRICK
United States Attorney
______________ ____________________________________
Date Henry West, Assistant United States Attorney
______________ ____________________________________
Date George Lee, Counsel for Defendant
______________ ____________________________________
Date Antonio Javier Saavedra, Defendant
________________________________________________________________
The change of plea hearing takes place in the courtroom. All modes of interpret-
ing may be utilized. For instance, the consecutive mode is used to interpret the
dialogue between the defendant and the judge; the simultaneous mode is used to
interpret for the defendant everything that is said from English into the foreign
language; and sight translation may be necessary when interpreting the plea agree-
ment. Some judges require that the interpreter covering the change of plea hear-
ing sight translate the plea agreement to the defendant. If there is no written plea
agreement, the terms of the plea are presented orally in court during the hearing.
It is important to remember that defendants who do not speak English come
from a different culture and legal tradition and may be unfamiliar with legal con-
cepts such as the presumption of innocence and the right to an attorney, to a trial,
to testify or remain silent, to confront and cross-examine prosecution witnesses
 Chapter 3.  Pretrial proceedings 

and to appeal. Before accepting a guilty plea, the judge will want to be satisfied that
the defendant understands these concepts.
What follows is a general outline of a change of plea hearing. Although the
order of the outline may vary somewhat from court to court, in general terms the
change of plea hearing proceeds as described in Figure 3.4.

– Swearing in of the defendant and preliminary questions

– Determination of competence of the defendant to plead
– Defendant’s right to counsel
– Defendant’s right to trial
– Nature of the charges and consequences of the plea
– Sentencing guidelines
– Voluntariness of the plea and the plea agreement
– Factual proffer (the factual basis for a guilty plea)
– Defendant pleads
– Court accepts or defers plea

Figure 3.4  General Outline of a Change of Plea Hearing

Interpreting Exercises: Interpreters may use all the modes of interpreting in a change
of plea hearing. Use the following transcript to practice all the modes as follows:
(1) interpret questions, statements and explanations from the judge or either counsel
into Spanish in the simultaneous mode; (2) interpret the defendant’s replies and state-
ments into English using the consecutive mode; and (3) sight translate written docu-
ments such as the plea proffers and the plea agreement into Spanish for the defendant
(Documents 3.6-3.11). Note: For suggestions on note-taking during consecutive in-
terpreting, see Chapter 4.

Transcript of a Change of Plea Hearing

(Call to order of the Court)

2 THE COURT: Be seated, please. Call our first case for the afternoon.

THE DEPUTY CLERK: Calling the case of Eladia Costera, 08-158-CR-Green.

THE COURT: Appearances, please.

MR. VAN HORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. John Van Horn, on behalf of the
United States, standing in for Vincent Lee.

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

MR. JOHNSON: Your Honor, Good afternoon. David Johnson, on behalf of Ms.
Costera. Your Honor, we’re here this afternoon for a change of plea. I have a
written plea agreement. So you want me to approach?

THE COURT: Would you, please, and we’ll make it Court Exhibit 1. Ms. Costera,
I’ve been advised that you wish to change the plea you have previously en-
tered to a plea of guilty, is that correct?

THE DEFENDANT: Correcto.

THE COURT: Ms. Costera, before accepting your guilty plea, there are a number
of questions I will ask you to assure that it is a valid plea. If you do not under-
stand any of the questions, or at any time wish to consult with your attorney,
please say so. It is essential to a valid plea that you understand each question
before you answer. Do you understand?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí, Sr. Juez.

THE COURT: Please swear in the defendant.

THE DEPUTY CLERK: Please stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly
swear or affirm that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth in this hearing, so help you God?

THE DEFENDANT: Lo juro.

THE COURT: Ms. Costera, you are now under oath. Do you understand that,
having been sworn, your answers to my questions will be subject to the penal-
ties of perjury or of making a false statement if you do not answer truthfully in
this afternoon’s hearing, and that your answers may be used against you in any
proceeding for perjury or false statement?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí, lo entiendo.

THE COURT: Ms. Costera, please state your name for the record. How old are
you? And how far did you go in school?

THE DEFENDANT: Me llamo Eladia Costera. Tengo 64 años y terminé el bachillerato.

THE COURT: (to counsel) Have you been able to communicate effectively with
the defendant in English?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, Your Honor. I have used an interpreter every time I have
met with the defendant.
 Chapter 3.  Pretrial proceedings 

THE COURT: (to the defendant) Have you ever been treated for addiction to
either a narcotic or a non-narcotic drug or alcoholism?

THE DEFENDANT: No.

THE COURT: Have you taken any drugs, prescription or non-prescription medi-
cations, or drunk any alcoholic beverages in the past twenty-four hours? (Note:
If the defendant answers in the affirmative, the judge will make further inquiries to
determine the defendant’s competency to plead.)

THE DEFENDANT: No, solamente lo que me dan en la cárcel.

THE COURT: What are they giving you in jail? What drugs or medication did you
take recently?

THE DEFENDANT: No sé cómo se llaman. Pero me dan algo para la presión y la

diabetes.

THE COURT: When did you last take them?

THE DEFENDANT: Ayer.

THE COURT: Do those medications affect your ability to think clearly?

THE DEFENDANT: No, no me afectan.

THE COURT: Do you clearly understand the purpose of these proceedings and
what it is we are here to do today? Do you understand the consequences of
pleading guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí, lo entiendo. Todo está muy claro.

THE COURT: Do either counsel have any doubt as to the defendant’s compe-
tence to plead at this time?

MR. JOHNSON: No, Your Honor.

MR. VAN HORN: The government does not, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Have you had sufficient time to discuss your case thoroughly with
your attorney?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí.

THE COURT: Do you need additional time to discuss your case?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Señoría.

 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

THE COURT: Has your attorney discussed all aspects of the case with you?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí, me lo explicó todo.

THE COURT: Are you satisfied with your attorney’s advice and representation in
this case?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí. Estoy muy agradecida.

THE COURT: At this time, Ms. Costera, I would like to advise you of the rights
that you have in this criminal case. First of all, ma’am, do you understand that
you have the right to plead not guilty to any offense charged against you and
to persist in that plea?

THE DEFENDANT: Lo entiendo.

THE COURT: Do you understand that you have a right to a trial before a jury of
12 members of the community and that you would participate in the selection
of the jury that would decide your case?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí, lo sé, pero quiero declararme culpable.

THE COURT: Are you aware that all twelve jurors would have to unanimously
come to a verdict before you could be found guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí.

THE COURT: Are you aware that, at trial, you would be presumed to be inno-
cent and the government would be required to prove your guilt by evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt before you could be found guilty, and that you
would not have to prove your innocence?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí, me lo dijo mi abogado.

THE COURT: Do you understand that, in the course of the trial, the government
would have to bring witnesses to court to testify in your presence, and your
attorney could cross-examine the government’s witnesses, present objections
to evidence offered by the government, and offer evidence on your behalf?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí.

THE COURT: Do you understand also that, at a trial, while you would have the
right to testify if you chose to do so, you would also have the right not to tes-
tify, and no inference or suggestion of guilt could be drawn from the fact that
you did not testify?
 Chapter 3.  Pretrial proceedings 

THE DEFENDANT: Lo sé. Mi abogado me lo explicó todo.

THE COURT: Do you understand that you would have the right to have subpoe-
nas or other process issued for the production of witnesses and exhibits in
your defense?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí, lo entiendo.

THE COURT: Do you understand that if you exercised your right to a trial by jury
and were convicted at trial, you would have the right to appeal my rulings and
your conviction?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí.

THE COURT: Do you understand that if you plead guilty and the court accepts
your plea, you will have waived your right to a trial and the other rights associ-
ated with the trial that I have just explained? That there will be no trial, a
judgment of guilty will be entered on your behalf and you will be sentenced on
the basis of your guilty plea after the court considers a presentence report. Do
you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí, Señoría.

THE COURT: If you plead guilty, ma’am, do you also understand that you will
also have to waive your right not to incriminate yourself, since I will ask you
questions about what you did in order to satisfy myself that you are indeed
guilty as charged, and you will have to acknowledge your guilt?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí, Señoría.

THE COURT: You should understand, ma’am, that the offense to which you pro-
pose to plead guilty is a felony offense. If you are adjudicated guilty you could
lose certain valuable civil rights in this country, including the right to vote, the
right to serve on a jury, the right to hold public office, the right to possess a fire-
arm of any kind?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí.

THE COURT: Having gone over your rights with you, do you still want to plead
guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí, Señoría. Me declaro culpable. Sé que cometí un error y estoy
muy arrepentida.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

THE COURT: Ms. Costera, have you received a copy of the indictment, that is, the
written document with the charges the government has brought against you?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí, señor. Mi abogado me dio una copia y me lo explicó todo.

THE COURT: I have a document here captioned “Plea Agreement.” It purports to

have your signature on the last page. Is this, in fact, your signature on the last
page of the agreement?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí, es mi firma.

THE COURT: Was it translated for you before you signed it?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí, me lo leyó la intérprete.

THE COURT: Did you understand the translation and all of the terms of the
agreement?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí, Su Señoría.

THE COURT: Do you have any questions at this time about the agreement?

THE DEFENDANT: No, señor. No tengo ninguna pregunta. Todo está muy bien.

THE COURT: Mr. Van Horn, could you please summarize the charge to which
the defendant intends to plead guilty?

MR. VAN HORN: Yes, Your Honor. The charge to which the defendant proposes
to plead guilty includes the following elements:
a.  that she voluntarily reentered the United States without consent or
permission;
b. that she was not a citizen of the United States at the time she reentered
this country;
c.  that she reentered the United States after she had previously been law-
fully denied entry, excluded, removed, or deported from the United
States;
d.  that she was found in the United States following her removal or depor-
tation without first having obtained the consent or permission of the
Attorney General of the United States or the Secretary of the Depart-
ment of Homeland Security for reapplication for such admission; and
e.  that her reentry into the United States without permission or consent oc-
curred after she had been convicted previously of an aggravated felony.

THE COURT: Did you understand what the prosecutor just said about the
charge?
 Chapter 3.  Pretrial proceedings 

THE DEFENDANT: Sí, lo entendí perfectamente.

THE COURT: Mr. Johnson, have you discussed these elements with your client
and do you believe that your client understands the legal elements of the
charge to which she wishes to plead guilty?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, Your Honor. I have gone over all the elements with my cli-
ent and I believe she understands everything.

THE COURT: Are you aware that the maximum possible penalty authorized by
law for the count to which you are pleading guilty, Count 1, is 20 years impris-
onment, a fine of $250,000, or both, a special assessment of $100.00, and a
term of supervised release of at least two years and not more than three
years?

THE DEFENDANT: Lo sé.

THE COURT: Do you understand that the supervised release term of which I
spoke is entirely different from parole, that parole has been abolished and that
if you violate the terms of your supervised release, you can be returned to pris-
on to serve, not only the remainder, if any, of the sentence imposed, but also,
the full length of any supervised release you receive?

THE DEFENDANT: OK, está bien.

THE COURT: Do you understand that as a consequence of your guilty plea you
may be removed or deported from the United States?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí.

THE COURT: Under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the United States Sen-
tencing Commission has issued guidelines for judges to follow in determining
the sentence in a criminal case. The United States Supreme Court has deter-
mined that these guidelines are advisory and not mandatory. Have you and
your attorney talked about how these guidelines might apply to your case?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí.

THE COURT: Are you aware that at this time I do not know the sentence I will
impose and that I will not be able to determine the advisory guideline sen-
tence in your case until after a presentence report is completed and you and
the government have had an opportunity to challenge the facts and the guide-
line recommendation by the probation officer?

THE DEFENDANT: Todo eso me lo dijo mi abogado.

 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

THE COURT: Are you aware that I may consider other factors outside those fac-
tors used to determine your advisory guideline range?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí.

THE COURT: Do you also understand that under some circumstances you or the
government may have the right to appeal any conviction and sentence that the
court imposes?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí.

THE COURT: Do you understand that under paragraph 10 of your plea agree-
ment, you have waived your right to appeal your sentence?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí, Señoría.

THE COURT: Do you understand that, if the court does not accept the sentenc-
ing recommendation in your plea agreement or that if the sentence is more
severe than you expected, you will still be bound by your plea and will have no
right to withdraw it?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí, señor.

THE COURT: Do you understand all the possible consequences of your plea of
guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí, señor.

THE COURT: Ms. Costera, has anyone threatened you, coerced you, or forced
you in any way to plead guilty in this case?

THE DEFENDANT: No, señor. Nadie me ha amenazado. Me declaro culpable

porque soy culpable.

THE COURT: At this time, I will ask Mr. Van Horn to provide us with a factual
basis for your plea of guilty. Listen carefully, Ms. Costera. I will ask you, when
the prosecutor completes his statement, if you agree that what he has said ac-
curately describes your conduct in this case. Counsel.

Note: Interpreters should always request a copy of the proffer before the hearing
begins.

MR. VAN HORN: Your Honor, had the case gone to trial, the government would
have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about September 3, 2008,
in Harris County, Houston, Texas, this defendant, Eladia Games-Costera, was
found in the United States without having obtained the consent of the Attorney
 Chapter 3.  Pretrial proceedings 

General of the United States for reapplication for admission into the United
States, and that her reentry into the United States occurred after she had been
removed or deported from this country on or about April 7, 2001. The defen-
dant had been removed from the United States following her conviction for an
aggravated felony.

THE COURT: Ms. Costera, did you hear and understand what the prosecutor
just said you did in this case?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí, lo oí y lo entendí.

THE COURT: You heard what the government said it could prove if the case
were to go to trial. Is what the prosecutor said true? Did you do what the gov-
ernment says you did?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí, es verdad.

THE COURT: So, now how do you plead to the charge, guilty or not guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Me declaro culpable.

THE COURT: It is the finding of the Court in the case of the United States of
America versus Eladia Costera that the defendant is fully competent and ca-
pable of entering an informed plea and that she understands her rights and
the consequences of a guilty plea. I also find that she is represented by compe-
tent counsel with whom she says she is satisfied. I find that the plea is knowing
and voluntary and not the result of threats, coercion or promises. The plea is
supported by an independent basis in fact, containing each of the essential
elements of the offense alleged. The plea is therefore accepted. Ms. Costera, I
now adjudge you guilty of the charge contained in Count 1 of the indictment.

Sentencing is set for March 10, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. Ms. Costera, a probation of-
ficer will meet with you to prepare a presentence investigation report which
will help me in imposing your sentence. Your attorney can be present with you
if you wish when you meet with probation. Is there anything else from either
counsel with regard to this matter?

MR. VAN HORN: Nothing from the government, Your Honor.

MR. JOHNSON: Nothing from the defense, Your Honor.

Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you. Court is adjourned. If counsel will come forward, we
will provide you with the notice of the sentencing date.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Note: The proffers included in the following pages are from cases that required inter-
preters. Use them to research terms and to practice interpreting.
Document 3.7 Factual Proffer (Immigration Offense)

THE PROSECUTOR: Your Honor, had this case gone to trial, we would have prov-
en beyond a reasonable doubt that Emilio Ramirez, a citizen of Mexico, was
removed from the United States on April 28, 2006, and was excluded perma-
nently from the United States as an aggravated felon. The defendant had been
previously removed on March 11, 2003, at which time he had been excluded
for a period of 10 years. The defendant’s fingerprints were taken at the time of
his arrest by Metro Police on January 30, 2009. The defendant’s standard fin-
gerprints were compared to the prints, which appear on the form 1–205, War-
rant of Removal/Deportation, dated March 11, 2003, and April 28, 2006, and
with the respective form I-294, Warning to Alien Ordered Removed or Deport-
ed. All prints match the fingerprints taken at the time of the defendant’s cur-
rent arrest.
Prior to the defendant’s 2004 sentencing for the 1326 offense, the defen-
dant met with the probation officer preparing the presentence report. The de-
fendant issued a statement accepting his responsibility and admitting that he
had entered the United States illegally, had been previously deported, and had
not requested permission to reenter. Additionally, at the time of his second il-
legal entry in 2003, the defendant admitted in an administrative statement
that he was a citizen of Mexico and had entered illegally.
Computer checks of all the ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement]
and CBP [Customs and Border Protection] systems do not show any authorized
permission granted by the Attorney General or his successor, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, for legal entry into the United States by Emilio Ramirez,
indicating that Emilio Ramirez entered into the United States sometime after
April 28, 2006, contrary to law and is currently present in the United States il-
legally.
Based on these facts, the defendant, after having previously been removed
from the United States, did knowingly and unlawfully enter the United States
without having received the express consent of the Attorney General or his
successor, the Secretary of Homeland Security (Title 6, United States Code,
Sections 202(3), 202(4), and 557), to his reapplication for admission, in viola-
tion of Title 8, United States Code, Section 1326(a).
 Chapter 3.  Pretrial proceedings 

Document 3.8 Factual Proffer (Drug Offense)

THE PROSECUTOR: If this case had gone to trial, the United States would have
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Juan Antonio Sevilla,
conspired to import into the United States from a place outside thereof, a con-
trolled substance, that is, two kilograms of heroin, in violation of Title 21, Unit-
ed States Code, Section 963.
From June 2008 through January 2009, Sevilla and his co-defendant,
Gustavo Tosa, met with a confidential source known to the United States and
discussed the importation of heroin from Colombia into the United States. The
importation scheme involved Tosa and Sevilla’s source of supply in Colombia
and the connections the CS allegedly had with airline baggage carriers in Co-
lombia and New York. In July 2008, Tosa and Sevilla asked the CS if the CS could
transport five (5) kilograms of heroin from Bogota to New York. The CS told
Tosa and Sevilla that his transportation fee would be $20,000.

Document 3.9 Factual Proffer (Murder-for-Hire)

THE PROSECUTOR: If this case were to proceed to trial, the United States would
prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
In late 2007, an individual in Northern Illinois asked the defendant to find
a group of hit men in Philadelphia willing to kill Gerardo Mesa, an individual
believed to be about to testify before a federal grand jury in Northern Illinois.
The defendant, Alberto Greva, contacted another individual in Philadelphia
named Montes, who secured the hit men. This hit crew came to Illinois, watched
Mesa for some time and ultimately shot and killed him in Chicago, Illinois.
Sometime after the murder, the defendant was paid approximately $50,000 in
cash for his participation in the murder. The defendant, in turn, paid Montes
$20,000. Montes, sometime later paid the individuals who actually did the
shooting. The chain of payments continued until after November of 2008.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Document 3.10 Factual Proffer (Maritime Smuggling of Drugs and Firearms

Offenses)

THE PROSECUTOR: On July 8, 2009, a Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) observed a

“go-fast vessel,” later identified as the Rum Runner (hereinafter “go-fast vessel”)
in international waters, approximately 49 nautical miles southwest of the bor-
der between Panama and Colombia. Shortly thereafter, a United States Coast
Guard boarding team made contact with the go-fast vessel, and observed four
individuals on board. The go-fast vessel was approximately 20 feet in length
and was powered by two outboard motors.
While conducting an initial safety inspection of the go-fast vessel, the
boarding team found 16 bales of suspected narcotics and a loaded AK-47 as-
sault rifle in the vessel’s center console, which was unlocked. A loaded maga-
zine was attached to the AK-47. The console also contained snacks, water, and
other beverages. In addition to the bales and weapon, the boarding team also
observed 7 barrels of fuel near the stern of the vessel ranging between 35 and
55 gallons each. No fishing equipment was found on the vessel.
During the inspection, the boarding team did not observe any markings of
nationality or documentation on board. The four persons aboard the vessel in-
dentified themselves as Danilo Valencia-Matas, Juan Palacios, Dario Valencia,
and Edwin Pacheco, the defendants in this case. Valencia-Matas identified him-
self as the master of the vessel, but made no claim of nationality for the vessel.
As a result, the boarding team concluded that the go-fast vessel was a vessel
without nationality.
The boarding team proceeded to conduct field tests on random samples
from the recovered bales. The substance inside of the bales field-tested posi-
tive for cocaine, and the four subjects were detained. The cocaine was found to
have a weight of 428 kilograms. A representative sample of the cocaine found
on board the go-fast vessel was then transferred to the Southern District of
Florida. The cocaine was subsequently tested by a DEA chemist in Miami, who
concluded that the substance found on board the vessel was cocaine.
The defendants’ first point of entry into the United States was Miami, Florida.
While in the FBI’s custody in Miami, Valencia-Matas, Palacios, Valencia, and Pacheco
admitted in a post Miranda statement that they knew that the go-fast vessel was
carrying drugs. Valencia-Matas explained that he was on the vessel when four
unidentified Colombian males loaded the bales onto the vessel prior to its depar-
ture. Valencia-Matas stated that he was in charge of navigating the vessel to San
Miguel Island to transfer the bales of cocaine to another vessel. Palacios and Va-
lencia stated that they agreed to be paid $2,000 to transport drugs on the vessel.
 Chapter 3.  Pretrial proceedings 

Document 3.11 Factual Proffer (Fraud Offense: Health Care)

THE PROSECUTOR: If this case were to proceed to trial, the government would
prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
On or about March 2, 2008, the defendant, Julio B. Ramirez, incorporated
Acme Diagnostic Group, Inc., a purported supplier of HIV infusion-related
medications, which was located at East Martin Street, Suite 101, Amarillo, Texas.
Ramirez was listed as the President, Director, Registered Agent, and sole Incor-
porator of Acme. Acme was eligible to receive reimbursement from Medicare via
Global MA, for providing HIV infusion-related medications. Medicare is a federal
health care program as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 24(b).
On October 29, 2008; March 5, 2009; November 15, 2009; and January 7,
2010, the defendant opened bank accounts for Acme at Capital Bank.
From on or about March 2, 2008, through on or about January 7, 2010, the
defendant and his co-conspirators provided kickbacks and bribes to Medicare
beneficiaries so that the beneficiaries would serve as patients at Acme. Acme
would then obtain reimbursement from Medicare for medical treatments and
services that the conspirators purported to provide those beneficiaries. Ramirez
and his co-conspirators paid approximately $22,200 in kickbacks and bribes to
Medicare beneficiaries. Specifically, in or around March 2008, Ramirez and his co-
conspirators caused kickbacks to be paid to a Medicare beneficiary with the ini-
tials C.U. so that C.U. would serve as a patient. In addition, between October 2009
and December 2009, Ramirez and his co-conspirators paid and caused kickbacks
to be paid to Medicare beneficiary P.M., so that P.M. would serve as a patient.
The elements of the offense, Your Honor, are:

First: That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual
understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan to
provide kickbacks, in violation of 42 USC § 1320a-7b(b) (2) (B). To
prove this violation, two elements must be shown:

The elements of the kickbacks are:

First: That the defendant knowingly and willfully offered or

paid someone a kickback, bribe, rebate, or other remu-
neration; and
Second: That the defendant offered or paid the remuneration ei-
ther (1) to induce the recipient to refer another person to
someone for the furnishing or arranging for the furnish-
ing of any item or service for which payment may be
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

made in whole or in part under a federal health care pro-

gram or (2) to induce the recipient of the kickback to
purchase, lease, order, or arrange for or recommend the
purchase lease, or ordering of a good, service, or item for
which payment may be made in whole or in part by a fed-
eral health care program.

Second: That the defendant, knowing the unlawful purpose of the plan, will-
fully joined in it.
Third: That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy
knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or “overt acts”)
described in the indictment; and
Fourth: That such “overt act” was knowingly committed at or about the time
alleged in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the
conspiracy.

The maximum penalties for this offense are 5 years imprisonment, up to 3

years of supervised release, and a fine of up to the greater of $250,000 or the
pecuniary gain derived from the offense. Restitution may be ordered.

Of course, civil cases that do not settle also proceed to trial. Defendants in crimi-
nal actions may persist in a plea of not guilty and proceed to a trial. That is the
subject of the next chapter.
 chapter 4

Trials

This chapter covers the basic stages of the trial process: jury selection, opening state-
ments, presentation of evidence and testimony, closing arguments, charges to the
jury, deliberations and verdict. While some differences exist between criminal and
civil trials, the basic courtroom procedure is the same. The focus of the chapter is on
criminal cases and the sample transcripts illustrate the stages of a criminal trial.

Types of trials

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees the right
to a jury trial to all defendants in a criminal case, with the exception of petty of-
fenses. The defendant may waive that right and choose instead a trial without a jury,
in which the judge serves as the fact-finder. This type of trial is called a bench trial.
It cannot occur unless both prosecution and defense consent to waive the right to a
jury trial. Additionally, the judge must approve the waiver. When a defendant is
tried before a jury, the verdict of guilty or not guilty is determined by a group of
citizens (usually twelve) who represent the community as a whole. In general terms,
civil and criminal cases move through the courts as summarized in Figure 4.1.
As discussed in Chapter 3, the majority of civil and criminal cases are resolved
prior to the date set for trial. On occasion, the defendant may enter a guilty plea
the same day the trial is scheduled to begin. Although different courts follow dif-
ferent procedures in the assignment of interpreters, two interpreters are generally
assigned to cover a trial. In jurisdictions where the likelihood is high that the de-
fendant will plead guilty on the first day of trial, only one interpreter may be as-
signed at the beginning of the trial. If the trial proceeds as scheduled, a second
interpreter will be assigned. Both interpreters assigned to a trial must remain in
the courtroom while court is in session. Each team member takes 20–30 minute
turns at the microphone, whether interpreting simultaneously through headsets,
or consecutively at the witness stand.
Interpreters covering any trial must maintain a professional distance at all
times from defendants, witnesses, family members, counsel and members of the
media. They must never express any opinions regarding the case to anyone associ-
ated with the proceedings.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Civil action Criminal action

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretrial phase
Pleadings Arrest, indictment or information
Pretrial conferences Pretrial conferences
Discovery Discovery
Motions Motions
Settlement efforts & Plea negotiations &
alternative dispute resolution change of plea hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jury trial phase
Jury selection
Opening statements
Presentation of evidence and witnesses
Rulings on evidence
Closing arguments
Judge’s instructions to the jury and standard of proof
Jury deliberations and verdict
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-trial phase
Judgment Judgment and sentencing
Right to appeal Right to appeal

Figure 4.1  Flow Chart of Proceedings in Criminal and Civil Actions

Jury selection

Trials are very formal proceedings. The jury trial begins when the judge directs the
courtroom deputy, clerk, or court security officer to bring a panel of prospective ju-
rors (or venire panel) to the courtroom. This is the first step in the voir dire examina-
tion or jury selection process. Voir dire is an Old French expression derived from the
Latin verum dicere and means “to speak the truth” (see Black’s 2009, 1710). This pro-
cess of examination or questioning of potential jurors is designed to ascertain their
qualifications and determine their suitability to “sit” on a particular case. When the
jury panel arrives in the courtroom, the judge, attorneys, defendants, interpreters,
court reporter and other court personnel are already in place and ready to begin.
Jury selections are interpreted in the simultaneous mode. Equipment used for
simultaneous interpretation should be set up and tested before the judge takes the
bench and prior to the beginning of the proceeding, to make sure the defendant is
able to hear through the headsets. It must be underscored that defendants have the
legal right to be physically and linguistically present in court, and that they must
be able to “hear” everything that is said in the case just as if they were native
speakers of English. During the voir dire, defendants must be able to assist their
attorneys in the selection of the jurors who will try the case.
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

Before the jury questioning begins, the judge welcomes the panel of potential
jurors (the venire) to the courtroom, introduces the parties and explains the role of
the jury and the selection process. The judge may also discuss the rights of em-
ployees selected for jury service and go over administrative matters such as the
trial schedule.
Interpreting Exercise: In the simultaneous mode, interpret these statements by a
judge to prospective jurors:

Judge’s Introductory Remarks to Potential Jurors in a Criminal Case

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome you to the courtroom. I am

Judge Clarence Roberts and I will preside over this case.
The jury is one of our most cherished rights. It is recognized, preserved,
and protected by our Constitution. Jury service is one of the most important
duties that a citizen is called upon to perform. Without you, our judicial system
could not function.
I am aware that for some of you this is your first call to jury service, and that
these proceedings are totally unfamiliar to you. Please do not be apprehensive.
As we go along, the attorneys and I will acquaint you with the proceedings and
will instruct you as to your role and your duties. If you have any questions,
please feel free to ask me.
Ladies and gentlemen, the attorneys and I will be asking you questions
touching on your qualifications to serve as jurors in this particular case. This
part of the case is the jury selection examination. This examination is for the
purpose of determining if your decision in this case would be affected in any
way by opinions you now hold, or by some personal experience or special
knowledge you may have concerning the case to be tried. Our goal is to obtain
jurors who will impartially try the issues of this case upon the evidence pre-
sented in this courtroom without being influenced by any other factors.
Please understand that this questioning is not meant to pry into your affairs
for personal reasons. It is only for the purpose of obtaining an impartial jury.
Not all of you will have the privilege to sit as jurors in this case. There are
many reasons why a person may not be selected as a juror. Either side can ask
that you be excused without giving a reason, or I can excuse you. If you are
excused, please do not be offended or feel that your integrity is being ques-
tioned. It is not.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

The judge introduces the court personnel who will be working with the jurors,
including the courtroom deputy or clerk, the bailiff or security officer(s) and the
court reporter. Some judges may take this opportunity to introduce the interpret-
ers and explain their presence in the case. Before questioning jurors, judges usually
ask the attorneys to introduce themselves and their clients. They may also ask the
parties to read a list of the names of witnesses who are expected to testify in the
case. This is done to determine if any of the prospective jurors know any of the
parties. At this time the “rule” may be “invoked” to keep all potential witnesses
outside the courtroom until it is their turn to testify. Because proper names are
frequently mispronounced, interpreters should always try to obtain the names of
all parties in advance.
It is customary for everyone to stand every time the jury is taken in and out of
the courtroom where the case is being tried. Prospective jurors are asked to take
designated seats according to their juror numbers. The judge and the attorneys
receive printed lists of potential jurors by name and number. Interpreters should
request a copy of these lists because of the potential for confusion if a juror’s name
is mispronounced. Although criminal jury trials are decided by twelve jurors, an
additional juror or two will be selected to guarantee an alternate in the event a ju-
ror becomes sick, has an emergency or is otherwise unable to serve. In lengthy
trials, more than two alternates may be needed.
Prospective jurors are required to answer a series of questions asked by the
judge and the attorneys to determine if they are qualified to serve. These questions
generally concern prior jury experience, knowledge of the case, the parties or wit-
nesses or anything else that might prevent the juror from being fair and impartial.
They are also asked if they are willing and able to base their verdict on the evidence
alone and the law as explained by the judge. Prior to answering questions, jurors
take an oath that they will answer all questions truthfully. They are usually given
the opportunity to answer certain sensitive questions at sidebar, that is, at the
judge’s bench, without the presence of the other panel members. Some courts pro-
vide questionnaires to the jurors to facilitate the selection process.
Judges also review the basic legal principles that govern a criminal jury trial
and ask the jurors if there is anyone among them who cannot fully accept those
principles. Among them: (1) the presumption of innocence; (2) the burden of proof
of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) the right to not testify or present any
evidence in their own trial. Jurors will also be told that defendants can be con-
victed only upon evidence against them in open court and not upon anything that
jurors may hear or read outside the courtroom. Moreover, jurors must apply the
law given by the Court even if they disagree with it. The parties strive to select a
panel of jurors who can decide the case solely upon the evidence and the law with-
out bias toward or against the government or the defendant. The judge may give a
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

thumbnail sketch of the case and briefly summarize the charges contained in the
indictment:

Summary of Charges Contained in the Indictment

Ladies and gentlemen, the indictment in this case charges five counts, or five
different offenses, against the defendant Ada Cano.
Count 1 charges that between, on or about January 3, 2010, and on or about
July of 2010, the defendant Ada Cano was involved in a mail fraud conspiracy
with the other people named in the indictment. A conspiracy is an agreement
between two or more people to do something illegal. Here, the agreement was
to commit mail fraud.
Counts 2–5 charge four counts of mail fraud against defendant Ada Cano
between January 3, 2010, and July of 2010. Mail fraud is when someone uses
the mail to execute a scheme to defraud or to obtain money through false or
fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises. In this case, the fraud al-
leged was for defendants to unlawfully enrich themselves by, among other
things, recruiting individuals to participate in fictitious automobile accidents,
obtaining PIP insurance for the accident participants, and submitting false and
fraudulent insurance claims to Best Insurance Company for the treatment of
fictitious injuries that the accident participants did not sustain.

Before questioning jurors individually, the judge may question the entire panel to
determine if anyone has heard anything about the case or knows anyone connect-
ed with the case. The entire selection process is interpreted in the simultaneous
mode. Interpreters may also be asked to interpret private conversations between
the defense counsel and the defendant regarding selection decisions.
The following example of a voir dire in a criminal case illustrates the types of
questions posed to prospective jurors:

THE COURT: Please state your name.

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My name is Timothy Walters.

THE COURT: What is your occupation? How long have you been so employed?

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I’m currently unemployed. My occupation was in IT,

delivering computers. I did that for about four years.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

THE COURT: Prior to that job what did you do?

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Before that, I worked as a truck driver.

THE COURT: What is your general area of residence? Please do not give your
exact address.

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I live in Grove Acres. That’s in the southwest part of
the county.

THE COURT: How long have you lived in this community? If less than five years,
where did you live before?

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I moved here from New York about fifteen years
ago.

THE COURT: What is your marital status? What is your spouse’s occupation?

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I’m married. My wife is a registered nurse.

THE COURT: Do you have any children? What are their ages? If over the age of
majority, are they employed?

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I have two daughters, ages ten and twelve.

THE COURT: Do you have prior or present military service? If so, were you ever
in the military or shore (border) patrol or had any disciplinary action taken
against you?

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, no military service.

THE COURT: Are any of your family members or close friends employed in the
criminal justice system (i.e., law enforcement officer, probation officers, law-
yers, judges, etc.)?

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I have relatives with law enforcement. They’re DEA
and probation officers.

THE COURT: Are you close to them? Do they discuss their work with you?

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, the DEA agent is a distant cousin. I see her about
once a year and we’ve never talked about her work. The probation officers are
neighbors. I don’t see them very often and basically we just say hello.

THE COURT: Can you give both sides in this case a fair trial?
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

THE COURT: Have you or any close friend or family member ever been a victim
of a crime?

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: We had a burglary in our home last year. Also, about
five years ago we had two cars stolen – one from our driveway and the other
from a public parking lot.

THE COURT: Was anyone arrested?

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

THE COURT: Are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the way you were
treated by law enforcement and the judicial system?

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Satisfied. They did what they could.

THE COURT: Have you, any family member or close friend ever been accused of
a crime? (Note: If the answer is affirmative, the answer may be given privately at
sidebar or outside the presence of the other jurors.)

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: A friend of mine was arrested for DUI.

THE COURT: Anything about those circumstances that would affect you here?

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you feel you could put that aside and be fair and impartial
here?

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you have any religious or moral beliefs that preclude you from
sitting in judgment of another person or deliberating with others?

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, I don’t.

THE COURT: Have you previously served on a jury – either a petit or grand
jury?

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I was in a jury about ten years ago.

THE COURT: Was it a criminal or civil trial? Was it in state or federal court?

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: It was so long ago, I really don’t remember. I think it
was in state court. It had to do with an insurance claim.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

THE COURT: Were you the foreperson?

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

THE COURT: Did the jury reach a verdict? Without telling us the verdict, tell us
if the jury was able to reach a verdict.

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Actually, we never had to decide the verdict because
they settled before the trial started and we were told to go home.

THE COURT: Do you have any physical, emotional or language problems that
would make it difficult for you to participate as a juror?

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

THE COURT: If selected, can you render a verdict based solely on the evidence
and the law and be fair to all concerned?

THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, Your Honor.

Although the selection process in a civil trial is very similar, judges generally ask
jurors if they have ever been involved in a civil lawsuit as a plaintiff, defendant or
witness. Also, if any of their immediate family members have been involved in a
civil litigation. If the answer to either question is affirmative, follow-up questions
will be asked to determine the juror’s suitability for the instant case.
After the judge is done questioning the jurors, the attorneys for the parties
are generally given the opportunity to ask follow-up questions. Any juror who
demonstrates bias by their answers may be excused. If any of the jurors in the jury
box is excused or challenged, other prospective jurors will be selected to replace
them. Jurors may be dismissed for various reasons: because they are biased or prej-
udiced; have prior knowledge of the case; or demonstrate the inability to render a
fair and impartial judgment in the case. This is known as challenge for cause. A
peremptory challenge is the dismissal of a potential juror by either the defense or the
prosecution for unexplained discretionary reasons. Both sides are granted a num-
ber of peremptory challenges, which they can use to dismiss without cause jurors
from the jury pool. The questioning continues until the jury panel is selected.
When the lawyers announce that the panel is satisfactory, the selection process
is over and the jury is sworn. The oath in which all the jurors – including the alter-
nates – swear to “well and truly” try the case and return a true verdict according to
the evidence and the law, is administered:
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

Oath to Try the Case

You and each of you do solemnly swear or affirm that you will well and truly try
the issues herein between the United States and [name(s) of defendant(s)] and a
true verdict render according to the law and the evidence, so help you God?

After the jurors are seated, the judge gives preliminary instructions regarding their
role in the trial, the need for impartiality, and the rules they must follow. These
remarks precede the opening statements by the attorneys. They are interpreted for
the defendant(s) in the simultaneous mode.

Court’s Preliminary Instructions to Jurors Prior to Opening Statements

(excerpts)

THE COURT: Members of the jury:

You have now been sworn as the jury to try this case and I would like to
give you some preliminary instructions at this time.
By your verdict(s) you will decide the disputed issues of fact. I will decide
all questions of law that arise during the trial, and before you retire to deliber-
ate together and decide the case at the end of the trial, I will then instruct you
again on the rules of law that you must follow and apply in reaching your
decision.
Because you will be called upon to decide the facts of the case, you should
give careful attention to the testimony and evidence presented for your con-
sideration during the trial, but you should keep an open mind and should not
form or state any opinion about the case one way or another until you have
heard all of the evidence and have had the benefit of the closing arguments of
the lawyers as well as my instructions to you on the applicable law.
During the trial you must not discuss the case in any manner among your-
selves or with anyone else, and you must not permit anyone to attempt to
discuss it with you or in your presence; and, insofar as the lawyers are con-
cerned, as well as others whom you may come to recognize as having some
connection with the case, you are instructed that, in order to avoid even the
appearance of impropriety, you should have no conversation whatsoever with
those persons while you are serving on the jury.
In order that you might better understand at the beginning of the case the
nature of the decisions you will be asked to make and how you should go
about making them, I would like to give you some preliminary instructions at
this time concerning some of the rules of law that will apply.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

As you were told during the process of your selection, an indictment in a

criminal case is merely the accusatory document that states the charge or
charges to be determined at the trial, but it is not evidence against the defen-
dant or anyone else. Indeed, the defendant has entered a plea of not guilty and
is presumed by the law to be innocent. The government has the burden of
proving a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do so
you must find that defendant not guilty.1

Burden of proof

An important difference between civil and criminal jury trials involves the burden
of proof. In this context, the phrase “burden of proof ” (Latin: onus probandi) refers
to the duty or obligation of a party of proving a fact (or facts) in dispute between
the parties in a cause, according to a specific standard of proof. In a criminal trial,
all the elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This refers
to the degree of certainty jurors must have before they can reach a verdict of guilty.
Civil cases require proof by a preponderance of the evidence. This standard of proof
means that the evidence is of greater weight, that is, more convincing than the
evidence offered in opposition to it. It is the degree of proof “in most civil trials, in
which the jury is instructed to find for the party that, on the whole, has the stron-
ger evidence, however slight the edge may be” (Black’s 2009, 1301). Compare the
following instructions jurors must follow and apply in deciding verdicts in civil
and criminal cases. You may use the texts for sight translation practice:

Burden of Proof in a Civil Case

THE COURT: This is a civil case. The plaintiffs have the burden of proving their
case by what is called the preponderance of the evidence. That means the plain-
tiffs have to produce evidence which, when considered in the light of all the
facts, leads you to believe that what the plaintiffs claim is more likely true than
not. To put it differently, if you were to put the plaintiffs’ and the defendants’ evi-
dence on opposite sides of the scales, the plaintiffs would have to make the
scales tip somewhat on their side. If the plaintiffs fail to meet this burden the
verdict must be for the defendants.

1. Adapted from Benchbook for U.S. District Court Judges. 5th edition, (Washington, D.C.:
Federal Judicial Center, Sept. 2007), 102.
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

Those of you who have sat on criminal cases will have heard of proof be­
yond a reasonable doubt. That requirement does not apply to a civil case; there-
fore, you should put it out of your mind.

Burden of Proof in a Criminal Case

THE COURT: Thus, while the government’s burden of proof is a strict or heavy
burden, it is not necessary that a defendant’s guilt be proved beyond all pos-
sible doubt. It is only required that the government’s proof exclude any “rea-
sonable doubt” concerning the defendant’s guilt.
A “reasonable doubt” is a real doubt, based upon reason and common
sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing
character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation
in the most important of your own affairs. If you are convinced that a defendant
has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, say so. If you are not con-
vinced, say so.2

Opening statements

After the judge’s preliminary instructions to the jurors, each side has the opportu-
nity to present its case, starting with the plaintiff or prosecutor. Before calling wit-
nesses to testify, the attorney for each party may address the jury in an opening
statement, although the defendant in a criminal case always retains the right to
remain silent.
An opening statement is an outline of the case from the prosecution’s perspec-
tive and focuses on what the prosecutors intend to prove, how they intend to prove
it, and what they believe the evidence will show. The prosecutor is followed by the
defense attorney(s), although they may or may not offer an opening statement at this
time. The defense can reserve its opening until after the prosecution has presented
its case, or choose not to make an opening statement at all. When opening state-
ments are concluded, the judge will direct the prosecutors to call their first witness.
Interpreters will use the simultaneous mode to interpret the opening statements.
It should be emphasized that opening statements are expository. Their func-
tion is to narrate or describe, not argue. In their opening statements attorneys are
limited to outlining the facts and stating what they believe the evidence will show

2. Ibid., 186.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

(e.g., “Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence will show that my client’s fingerprints
were not on the murder weapon”). Arguments are only presented at the end of the
case, after all the evidence is in. In other words, opening statements tell a story.
Each party has an opportunity to set the stage for the jury, introduce them to the
principal players and the central dispute(s) in the case, and describe how they ex-
pect the trial to unfold. However, Tiersma (1999) points out that even though at-
torneys should limit themselves to outlining the facts that they intend to prove,
most of them try to use opening statements strategically. In addition to outlining
the story they will tell through the evidence, most lawyers attempt to persuade the
jury that the story is true. Moreover, attorneys “have a strong incentive to be as
clear as possible when addressing the jury. They realize intuitively that convoluted
legalese does not communicate very well, so the opening statement is normally
made in ordinary, albeit fairly formal, English” (158–159). This strategy has an
important consequence for interpreters, since opening arguments tend to be free
of legalese and are organized in a coherent, logical manner. Nonetheless, interpret-
ers should be aware that attorneys frequently switch between language registers
when speaking in the courtroom. They may mix formal speech with colloquial or
regional variants of English in an effort to bond with a jury.
Interpreting Exercise: In the simultaneous mode, interpret the following excerpts
from an opening statement:

Opening Statement
(by the Prosecution- excerpt)

3 THE PROSECUTOR: Your Honor. Good afternoon. Counsel. Ladies and gentle-
men of the jury.
In a span of 30 days this defendant, Rodrigo Madrigal, twice planned and
twice attempted to break into someone else’s home, hold the occupants up at
gunpoint and steal from them. It is for these crimes, the first committed on
October 1st and the second on October 31st, that he stands charged before
you today.
October 1st, 2007, started off just like any other day for Mr. Hector Orlando,
one of the victims in this case. Unfortunately, it wouldn’t end that way for Mr.
Hector Orlando because when Mr. Orlando arrived home on the night of Octo-
ber 1st he noticed that a black Dodge Dakota that didn’t belong on his street was
parked directly across the street from his home. Ignoring the black Dodge Da-
kota, Mr. Orlando pulled into his driveway and got out of his car. But as Mr. Hector
Orlando was walking toward the front door of his house, he noticed that the
black Dodge Dakota sped into the driveway behind him and blocked his exit.
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

Mr. Orlando then watched as the front passenger of the black Dodge Da-
kota got out of the car, walked over to him, punched him in the chest, told him
to relax, and pointed a silver revolver at him. At the same time, a second man
wearing a bright blue shirt and holding a black gun, with a ski mask with two
holes over his eyes jumped out of the rear passenger side of the Dodge Dakota
and walked over to the passenger side of Mr. Hector Orlando’s car.
Ladies and gentlemen, as you will see, this second man wearing that bright
blue shirt and holding that black gun was none other than our defendant, Ro-
drigo Madrigal.
Fortunately for Mr. Hector Orlando, his wife had seen the whole thing from
the front window of their house. She began to scream for their son, who was
home that evening, to call the police. Hearing this, the defendant and his as-
sociates jumped back into their Dodge Dakota and sped away. But they
wouldn’t get away, ladies and gentlemen, because within a few minutes, Offi-
cers Suarez and Silva of the Orange County Police Department, spotted the
speeding Dodge Dakota and chased it into a Home Depot parking lot where
the defendant, still wearing that bright blue shirt, bailed from the vehicle leav-
ing behind several key pieces of evidence, including the black gun that had
been stuck in Mr. Hector Orlando’s face earlier that evening. Officers Silva and
Suarez then chased the defendant through the parking lot but lost sight of him
behind the Home Depot where the black Dodge Dakota picked him up and
sped off again. Moments later, Detective Jim More of the Orange County Police
Department, spotted the fleeing Dodge Dakota and chased it as it sped reck-
lessly through several red lights, drove through a chain-link fence, and ulti-
mately, lost control and flipped onto its top.
The defendant, still wearing that bright blue shirt, was arrested along with
two of his associates trying to flee from the wrecked Dodge Dakota. After his
arrest, in statements to the officers, the defendant confessed that he and his
associates had heard that Mr. Hector Orlando was a drug dealer who was hid-
ing $250,000 worth of drug proceeds in his home. Mr. Madrigal admitted that
he and his associates had arrived at Mr. Hector Orlando’s house that night to
steal those $250,000 at gunpoint and that when they arrived, he and another
of his associates had bolted out of the black Dodge Dakota and approached
Mr. Orlando, each armed with a loaded handgun. Unfortunately, the defendant
explained to the officers, the victim’s wife was home. She started to yell and she
called the police and so the defendant and his associates got back in their car
and sped away, as you now know, only to be caught a few minutes later.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Soon after his arrest for this first home invasion, the defendant was ready for
seconds. He was ready, willing and able to do another. And so it is that on Octo-
ber 31st, 2007, just 30 days after he was arrested for committing or attempting
to commit that first home invasion, the defendant got into a car with two loaded
.38 caliber revolvers and 12 pairs of flex handcuffs to bind his victims with, and
along with three of his associates drove to a fast-food restaurant near a ware-
house area where they planned to get into a car that they planned to drive to a
house in a residential neighborhood right here in Orange County, where they
planned to steal 30 kilograms of cocaine forcibly and, again, at gunpoint.
But what the defendant did not know, ladies and gentlemen, is the whole
of this case. What the defendant did not know was the rest of the story. What
the defendant did not know was that the police were on to him, that this time
the drug dealer he thought he was robbing, Carlos Encino, was actually a Task
Force officer working undercover for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
& Explosives, ATF. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this time, when the defen-
dant and his associates arrived at that fast-food restaurant near the warehouse
area with their loaded .38 caliber revolvers and those 12 pairs of makeshift
cuffs, they were quickly and swiftly arrested. But in order to understand what
the defendant was doing at that particular location on the night of October
31st, you have to understand how and why this investigation began.

Note: The defense is under no obligation to make an opening statement and may
choose not to make one at this time. However, if the defense attorney does make
an opening statement, it is also interpreted in the simultaneous mode.
Interpreting Exercise: In the simultaneous mode, interpret the following excerpts
from an opening statement by the defense:

Opening Statement by the Defense

(excerpts)

4 MS. WHITE: Good afternoon. Again, my name is Donna White. I represent Mr.
Madrigal, who’s the gentleman in the dark blue shirt. The prosecutor oversells
his case quite a bit in this instance and I have to get technical with you because
the law is technical and what happened in this case is nowhere near what the
prosecutor just told you happened.
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

In order to understand how the law affects that, you need to understand a
little bit about where we are. We are in a federal courtroom, United States Dis-
trict Court, and what United States District Courts do, and the federal courts
do, is they deal with crimes committed against the United States of America,
and there are crimes such as bank robbery, treason and those types of crimes,
and then there are crimes that are committed between the states, interstate
crimes and crimes with foreign nations. Those are the crimes for which the
federal government and federal courts have jurisdiction. State courts have ju-
risdiction on all kinds of state crimes, murders, robberies, car thefts, all those
sorts of things.
Now, in order for there to be a federal crime, in order for there to be a
guilty verdict at all in this case, the first thing the prosecutors have to establish
is that there is an interstate nexus. That’s the words they use. It’s a technical
word. It’s a legal word, but there has to be an effect or potential effect on inter-
state commerce. The word “commerce” is a word we use to mean the trade in
goods or materials. Money, in and of itself, is not commerce. Stealing money
does not affect interstate commerce and it’s not sufficient to satisfy the re-
quirements of what’s called the Hobbs Act or the Federal Robbery Statute.
Robbery of money is a state crime.

THE PROSECUTOR: Objection, Your Honor. I’m sorry. These are legal issues.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. WHITE: And the Judge, of course, is going to instruct you on the law, but
I’m giving you background and the reason I’m giving you background is this: In
the first instance, on the October 1st incident, this is what happens: Okay? A
car pulls up to a house. There are three or four men in the car. It’s alleged that
Mr. Madrigal was one of the men in the car. A man who was not Mr. Madrigal
gets out and points a gun at Mr. Hector Orlando.
Mr. Madrigal and another man are there. The words are spoken, “Relax.”
They hear the woman inside say, “I’m calling the police,” and they leave. That’s it.
That is all the testimony. There is no home invasion robbery. There’s no testi-
mony there was going to be a home invasion robbery. There is no testimony
that this gentleman was a drug dealer. There’s going to be no testimony that
there was any attempt to steal any drugs or that any drugs ever existed, and at
the end of the case the Judge is going to tell you that you have to find that this
was an attempt to invade a home and there’s no evidence of that. It could have
been anything. It could have that. It could have been anything. It could have
been an attempt to steal his watch. It could have been a neighborhood dispute.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

It could have been a million things. There’s going to be no evidence as to any of

that, and the Judge is going to tell you that you have to find that it was an at-
tempt to rob somebody of drugs or their drug proceeds and that would have
affected interstate commerce before you could find anybody guilty of this.
The only evidence – if you call it evidence – that the government, that the
prosecutors will have to try and satisfy that element of simply a man pointing a
gun and getting back in the car and leaving, is they’re going to say that Mr.
Madrigal confessed to the police. He didn’t. Okay? He didn’t confess to anything,
and after you hear the evidence, you’ll see that there’s no confession, that there
was no federal crime and that there was no attempt at a robbery. There was no
anything in that first instance.
Now, there’s a car chase. There’s guns found. There are bad things, things
that sound scary and things that will sound dangerous, men with guns in cars.
It’s window dressing. It’s something so that you will – it’s something being
brought into the case so you will, basically, think he’s a bad person, these are
bad men and they need to be convicted, but that’s not what the case is about.
Okay? Don’t get sidetracked by that stuff.
The question is going to be was there an attempted robbery of drugs or
the proceeds of drugs that affected interstate commerce and whether they
have to prove that. There is nothing. Okay? There’s nothing. They can’t even
prove the drugs existed, which brings us to the second case.

Presentation of evidence and questioning of witnesses

The presentation of evidence begins after opening statements have been made. The
prosecution always presents its case first because it has the burden of proof; that is,
it has to overcome the presumption of innocence and convince the jury of the
defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. After the prosecution concludes its
“case in chief ” (i.e., presents all the evidence) the defense has the option to call
witnesses and present evidence.
The law does not require defendants to prove their innocence or produce evi-
dence. The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination applies at trial and
no inference of guilt may be drawn if a defendant does not testify. Even if the de-
fense does not present any evidence, it may still argue that the defendant should be
acquitted (found not guilty) because the prosecution did not prove its case beyond
a reasonable doubt.
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

Evidence may be testimonial or physical. In other words, it may be presented

through the testimony of witnesses (testimonial evidence) or it could take the
form of exhibits such as drugs, weapons, photographs or bank statements (physical
evidence). When an object is introduced as evidence, it must be marked for iden-
tification with numbers or letters. The attorney offering the exhibit will “move” it
into evidence. The opposing party may object to the presentation of a particular
item. The judge will either overrule or sustain the objection. If the judge considers
the legal basis for the objection and discussions are held in open court, they are
interpreted for the defendant. However, many judges will hear legal arguments at
sidebar, outside the presence of the jury. Obviously, if that occurs, the interpreters
will be unable to hear the discussion and interpret it for the defendant. When an
objection is sustained, the exhibit will not be admitted as evidence. If it is over-
ruled, the jury may consider it as evidence.
If transcribed translations of recordings or translations of documents are in-
troduced as evidence, the trial interpreters should remain neutral regarding the
accuracy of any such translation. Interpreters should not communicate their opin-
ions to the parties about the quality of such documents because they are evidence;
it is inappropriate for the interpreters assigned to the trial to comment on the reli-
ability of the evidence. Should a translated document introduced as evidence by
one of the parties be so inaccurate or misleading that it creates an ethical conflict
for the trial interpreters, they should bring it to the attention of the interpreters’
office or appropriate contact person. These matters must not be discussed with the
trial attorneys or other parties in the case.
Testimonial evidence is presented according to the following sequence: direct
examination, cross-examination, redirect examination, and (sometimes) re-cross.
Direct examination is the questioning of a witness by the attorney who calls the
witness to the stand. The Sixth Amendment allows defendants to confront and
cross-examine witnesses called by the prosecution after their direct examination
has concluded. Cross-examination usually attempts to show that the witnesses’
testimony on direct examination was not true. It also attempts to highlight evi-
dence that is favorable to the party doing the cross-examination. Both the defense
and the prosecution have the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
Either of the parties may voice an objection to the introduction of physical
evidence or to a question asked of a witness. If the objection to a question is over-
ruled (the judge rejects the objection), the witness may answer. If it is sustained
(accepted), the witness must not answer. When interpreting at the witness stand
for the LEP or non-English-speaking witness, the interpreter must wait for the
judge to rule on the objection before he or she interprets the witness’s answer.
The testimony given by each witness forms a part of the larger narrative pre-
sented to the jury during the trial. The legal system requires a rigid question and
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

answer format, and witnesses are not allowed to give their testimony in narrative
form. In general, in the beginning of the direct examination, the examining attor-
ney gives the witness an opportunity to present a very brief narrative. After that,
the questioning is increasingly coercive or controlling, designed to limit the wit-
ness to brief responses to ensure that only legally relevant facts are told, while
avoiding problematic issues.
Interpreting Exercise: In the simultaneous mode, interpret the following transcript of
the direct examination of an English-speaking prosecution witness:

Direct Examination of an English-Speaking Witness

THE COURT: Bring the jury in.

(At this time, the jury was seated in the jury box and the following pro-
ceedings were had).

THE COURT: Be seated, please. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are
ready to continue with the trial this morning. Would you call your next witness,
please?

MR. TROY: Yes. The United States calls Special Agent Robert Carter.
Robert Carter is called as a witness on behalf of the government, was
sworn, and testified as follows:

Direct Examination

5 BY MR. TROY:
Q: Tell us your name, please, and spell your last name for the court reporter.
A: Robert Carter, C-A-R-T-E-R.
Q: And how are you employed?
A: I’m a special agent with the FBI.
Q: Based here in Hollywood?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And which unit within the FBI’s Hollywood office are you assigned to?
A: I’m on the C12 squad, which is a drug squad.
Q: How long have you been with the FBI?
A: A few months shy of five years.
Q: And do you have some previous law enforcement experience before you
joined the Bureau?
A: Yes. I was a police officer in Kentucky for about three years.
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

Q: Do you find things a lot different in Hollywood than they were in Ken-
tucky?
A: Very much, counsel.
Q: Are you a Spanish speaker?
A: I am.
Q: And what is your degree of fluency in the Spanish language?
A: I’m fluent. As part of the hiring process with the FBI I was tested and certi-
fied as a fluent Spanish speaker.
Q: And how did you learn your Spanish?
A: I was born in New Mexico, both my parents are from Guatemala, and as a
child I learned Spanish from them.
Q: Was that your first language at home when you were a small child?
A: Yes, that’s correct.
Q: Now, let me direct your attention to July 10th of this year. Were you working
with Special Agent Tom Greghauser in the investigation of this proposed
drug deal?
A: Yes, I was.
Q: And where were you at the time that things started happening in relation
to the Wendy’s parking lot?
A: I was actually about a half a block away out of sight of the – of where the
arrests actually occurred.
Q: And what was your function, tactically speaking, at that time?
A: I was serving a perimeter, perimeter security. It was the North Hollywood
tactical team that actually initiated the arrest. I was, as I said, serving as a
perimeter security purpose.
Q: And did you arrive on the scene after the arrest signal was given?
A: Yes, a few seconds afterwards.
Q: And what did you observe in terms of where the defendants were and
what was happening?
A: Several of them had – by the time I showed up several of them had already
been handcuffed and then I approached and assisted with security on Mr.
Castillo.
Q: Were the defendants eventually transported to the FBI headquarters in
North Hollywood?
A: Yes, they were.
Q: And did you have some discussion with a defendant identified as Jaime
Sierra at FBI headquarters?
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

A: Yes, I did.
Q: Can you point him out in the courtroom, please?
A: Yes, sir. He’s sitting – the defendant on the far right.
MR. TROY: Your Honor, I’d like the record to reflect he’s indicated de-
fendant Sierra.
BY MR. TROY:
Q: When you spoke with Mr. Sierra, what language did you speak to him in?
A: In Spanish.
Q: Did you read him his Miranda rights?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Did you provide anything in writing to him to help him understand his
Miranda rights?
A: Yes. We have a standard form in Spanish that we use. I placed one in front
of him so he could follow along as I was orally advising him of his rights.
Q: I’ve placed Government’s Exhibit 21 in front of you. Can you tell us what that
is?
A: Yes, it’s the advice of rights form that I signed after reading his rights to
him.
Q: Did you read them to him verbatim from that form?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: If you would, please, can you translate for us the entire form into English so
we know exactly what it was you read to the defendant in Spanish?
A: Sure. At the very top it says Notification of Rights. It says Place, Date and
Time. It says Your Rights. It says, before beginning any questions you
should be made aware of your rights. You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say may be used against you in court. You have the right to
consult with an attorney, that he can advise you before any questions are
asked. You also have the right to have an attorney present during ques-
tions. If you cannot afford an attorney – if you cannot pay the costs of an
attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
If you decide to answer questions now without the presence of an attor-
ney, you have the right to refuse to answer questions at any time. You also
have the right to refuse to answer questions at any time – at any time. The
last paragraph indicates I have read this declaration of my rights, I under-
stand them, and I am willing to make a declaration and answer questions
without the presence of an attorney.
MR. TROY: At this time, Your Honor, I move Government’s Exhibit 21
into evidence.
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. PALACIOS: Your Honor, other than the one before the trial com-
menced, no.
THE COURT: The objection is overruled. 21 for identification is received
as marked.
BY MR. TROY:
Q: Tell us what measures you took to make sure that Mr. Sierra understood
the rights you read to him.
A: As I advised him of each right, the right to remain silent, the right to an
attorney, I asked him if he understood and he indicated that he did.
Q: And after you were done, did he sign the form?
A: Yes, he did.
Q: Did you also sign it?
A: I did.
Q: After he agreed to answer questions without a lawyer present, did you ask
him what he was doing at the location where he was arrested?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: And what did he tell you – what did Mr. Sierra tell you that he was there to
do?
A: He said he had traveled down from central Florida, to purchase drugs.
Q: Did he specify what kind of drugs?
A: Cocaine.
Q: Okay. How much did he say, if anything, that he contributed to the pur-
chase price?
A: He said he had brought $3,000 to purchase cocaine.
Q: Did he say whether or not he knew how much the total was that was go-
ing to be purchased?
A: He expected it was $3,000 to buy approximately a few – 15 ounces of co-
caine.
Q: After your interview with Mr. Sierra, did you have a written statement pre-
pared in English summarizing what he said about his role?
A: Yes, I did. I wrote it in English and read it to him in Spanish. I asked him if
he, if he agreed with the statement, if those were – if that was an accurate
representation of his statement. He said yes and he signed it.
Q: Okay. I placed in front of you, what’s the exhibit number? I’m sorry.
A: Oh, 22.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Q: 22, that’s what I thought. Just wanted to make sure.

THE COURT: 22 for identification.
MR. TROY: Move 22 for identification into evidence.
MR. PALACIOS: Other than the prior objection, none at this time, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Received as –
MR. BROWN: Your Honor, we would like to reserve a motion preserv-
ing matters already argued.
THE COURT: Received as marked.
BY MR. TROY:
Q: Would you just read what that statement says before I circulate it?
A: It says, I, Javier Sierra, voluntarily make the following statement: On July
10th, 2007, I traveled to Belle Glade from Melbourne, Florida. I came to
purchase drugs. I put in $3,000 to buy the drugs.
Q: And did you read that to him in Spanish word for word exactly as it’s writ-
ten there before he signed it?
A: Yes, sir, I did.
Q: Now, let me direct your attention to another defendant who was arrested
at the scene, a Freddy Castillo. Did you have an encounter with him at the
scene of the arrest?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: And do you see him here in the courtroom?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Please point him out.
A: He’s the second defendant from the right.
Q: From your right?
A: From my right.
MR. TROY: Your Honor, I’d like the record to reflect he’s indicated de-
fendant Freddy Castillo.
BY MR. TROY:
Q: After the arrest scene, did you also interview him at FBI headquarters a
little later on?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: And what language did you speak to him in?
A: In Spanish.
Q: Did you also give him his Miranda rights in Spanish?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: I’ve just placed in front of you Government’s Exhibit 19 for identification.
Do you recognize that document?
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

A: Yes, I do.
Q: And what is that document?
A: It’s a copy of the advice of rights form that I read to Mr. Castillo.
Q: And did you – how did you proceed with reading him his rights to make
sure that he understood what you were telling him?
A: In the same fashion as with Mr. Javier Sierra. After every right I asked him if
he understood and he indicated that he did.
Q: And at the end, did he indicate whether or not he’d be willing to speak to
you about the case?
A: Orally he did so, yes.
MR. TROY: Your Honor, at this time I move Government’s Exhibit 19 for
identification into evidence.
MS. GIBBONS: No objection, Judge.
THE COURT: Received as marked.
BY MR. TROY:
Q: Does Government’s Exhibit 19 have your signature on it?
A: Yes, it does.
Q: Does it have Mr. Freddy Castillo’s signature on it?
A: No, it doesn’t.
Q: And can you tell us why not?
A: There were – pretty much after he was advised of his rights and indicated
that he understood, the interview commenced then.
Q: Did you just forget to have him sign it?
A: It was an oversight, yes.
Q: But is there any question in your mind about whether or not he under-
stood everything you’d read to him?
A: Absolutely not. He indicated that he understood all of his rights prior to
any questioning.
Q: After you read him his rights and understood them, are those rights the
same in English as the ones that you’ve just translated previously from Mr.
Sierra’s form?
A: Yes, that’s correct.
Q: After you read him his rights and he indicated he understood them, did
you start asking him what he was doing and where – you know, where
he’d come from and what he was doing there?
A: Yes. He indicated that he had traveled down from central Florida. He was
along just for the ride, as well as to help with the driving duties back to
central Florida.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Q: Okay. What did you tell him when he told you that?
A: Agent Greghauser and I were both actually in the – involved in that inter-
view at that time. We both indicated to him that we didn’t believe his story.
We asked him to be honest and tell us the truth as to why he was there.
Q: And what did he say after you’d given that speech, so to speak?
A: He indicated that, yes, he was there to purchase drugs.
Q: Did he specify what kind of drugs?
A: Cocaine as well.
Q: And did he say how much money he put up to purchase cocaine?
A: He said he had brought $8,000 to purchase a one-half kilo of cocaine.
Q: What did he say he hoped to do with it after he bought it?
A: He hopefully wished to sell it and make a profit.
Q: And did he say –
MS. GIBBONS: Judge, I have an objection. If we can go sidebar or just
reserve a motion.
THE COURT: Very well.
BY MR. TROY:
Q: And did he say anything about where the money was, the $8,000 that he
had brought to buy the drugs?
A: He indicated it was in a plastic bag on the floor by his seat.
Q: Did you take a written statement from him or did you prepare a written
statement summarizing what he had told you or was that done by another
agent?
A: I believe that was done by another agent.
MS. GIBBONS: Your Honor, I’m going to object to leading.
THE COURT: I’m sorry?
MS. GIBBONS: Object to leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. TROY:
Q: Did you or anyone else prepare a written statement summarizing what Mr.
Castillo had said?
A: Another agent prepared a written statement for him.
Q: Okay.
MR. TROY: At this time, Your Honor, I tender the witness for cross-ex-
amination.
MS. GIBBONS: May it please the Court. Briefly, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes, ma’am.
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

CROSS-EXAMINATION of the same witness, FBI agent Robert Carter.

BY MS. GIBBONS:
Q: Good morning, agent.
A: Good morning. How are you?
Q: Good. Sir, now, you’ve already told us that you were present at the scene
of the Wendy’s, right?
A: Yes.
Q: And you’ve already clarified for us that you did in fact – you were in fact
the sole agent that testified at the grand jury.
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And isn’t it true, Agent Carter, that Freddy Castillo and Javier Sierra
– hold on, I have the wrong file. Excuse me. Sir, isn’t it true that Freddy
Castillo and Javier Sierra both stayed in the vehicle the whole time?
A: That’s what I had testified to during grand jury, yes.
Q: So my question to you is, isn’t it a fact that Castillo and Sierra, who were in
the back seat, stayed in the vehicle the entire time?
MR. TROY: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MS. GIBBONS:
Q: So you testified in the grand jury that they in fact stayed in the car the
whole time.
THE COURT: Ma’am, this is the same point we discussed earlier. Hear-
say at the grand jury. Let’s question him about what occurred on the
scene. That’s the evidence that he can present.
MS. GIBBONS: Well, Judge, I’m going to ask one more question related
to that.
THE COURT: No, ma’am.
BY MS. GIBBONS:
Q: Did Agent Greghauser tell you that they stayed in the car the entire time?
A: I don’t recall who told me, but I had been told by another agent.
Q: Thank you. Now, you – primarily what you did in this case was have con-
tact with Mr. Castillo at the FBI station, right?
A: I interviewed him at the station, at the office, yes.
Q: Okay. And you told this jury that you – and the first thing you do is in fact
read Mr. Castillo this Miranda form that the government has introduced.
A: Yes, that’s correct.
Q: Okay. And you do this before you speak to Mr. Castillo about anything sub-
stantively, that’s your testimony?
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

A: Yes, that’s correct.

Q: Okay. And you read the entire – you read him from that form, right?
A: Correct.
Q: You’re the one that read it to him.
A: In Spanish, yes.
Q: Okay. And you are, during this interview process, sir, you are going back
and forth between Mr. Castillo’s room and Mr. Sierra’s room, right?
A: No, the advice of rights came first. Then during the interview process while
we were actually interviewing him I was in and out of the interview room.
Q: And you went and spoke to Mr. Sierra during that time, right?
A: Later on, yes.
Q: So you first meet with Mr. Castillo, right?
A: Yes.
Q: After this point that you then have contact with Mr. Sierra, right?
A: Correct.
Q: And you’ve already told the jury that you have Mr. Sierra sign this Miranda
form, right?
A: He signed his Miranda form, yes.
Q: And at this point it doesn’t jog your memory in any way that you didn’t –
you didn’t have Mr. Castillo sign the thing?
A: The main focus is on advising him of his rights orally and making sure that
he understood his rights.
Q: Well, you went the extra step with Mr. Sierra, didn’t you? You went the ex-
tra step to have him sign the thing, right?
A: He signed it, yeah.
Q: And you don’t just do that for no reason, there’s a purpose in having a
person that you’re sitting there speaking to signing the form, right?
A: Yes.
Q: And the purpose is so that you can come and confirm to the jury that you
did in fact do it and they did in fact understand the Miranda rights, right?
A: It would be an extra confirmation. My testimony that I advised him of his
rights and – it would be my testimony that I advised him of his rights oral-
ly and that he understood them.
Q: But you would agree with me, Agent, wouldn’t you, that that’s your op-
portunity to prove to the jury that they in fact received what you’re telling
them that they received, these rights?
A: Yes.
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

Q: And your testimony to this jury is that when it came to Mr. Castillo, you
simply forgot to have him sign the form that was right there in front of
your face.
A: Forgot to have him sign it, but there was no doubt that he was advised of
his rights and he indicated he understood.
Q: And you forgot to have him sign the form that you were reading to the
guy, right?
A: Yes.
Q: So you were present when – strike that. You were present with Special
Agent Mr. Greghauser, right?
A: When?
Q: During the interview of Mr. Castillo.
A: Yes.
Q: He’s there with you the entire time, Special Agent Greghauser.
A: Not the entire time, no.
Q: He’s coming in and out?
A: Yes.
Q: But he was there to hear what Freddy Castillo had to say, right?
A: Correct.
Q: Were you translating for him and telling him what was being said?
A: Yes, I was.
Q: Okay. So you are – clearly Mr. Castillo doesn’t speak English, right? That’s
the reason you were there.
A: Correct.
Q: And you already explained to the jury that you speak fluent Spanish,
right?
A: I do.
Q: You also write Spanish, sir?
A: Yes.
Q: And Mr. Castillo adamantly tells you, when you start talking to him, that he
had nothing to do with that drug deal at Wendy’s doesn’t he?
A: Yes, he does.
Q: He denies any involvement in what happened at the Wendy’s, right?
A: He did at first, yes.
Q: Okay. So much so, sir, that you all have to give him a speech to tell him and
explain to him, “Hey, we don’t believe you, man.”
A: Yes. That’s not uncommon for someone to – who has been arrested to ini-
tially deny that they’ve had any criminal involvement.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Q: It’s not uncommon for an innocent man to also deny involvement in a

crime, is it, sir?
A: That’s true.
Q: Now, you then – I guess you’re coming back and forth during this conver-
sation, right?
A: During the interview, yes, I was stepping in and out of the interview
room.
Q: Okay. And at some point your testimony is, is that Mr. Castillo basically tells
you three things, right? That – let’s start with the first one. That he knew
there was a drug deal, right?
A: Yes.
Q: That he put in $8,000.
A: That’s correct.
Q: Okay. And there’s more. He also says to you that he’s supposed to get, what
is it, a half a key?
A: A half a kilo of cocaine.
Q: Okay. And he also tells you that the money that – this $8,000 he’s brought
is in a bag on the floor of the car.
A: That’s correct.
Q: Okay. You’re there when he’s telling you all of this in Spanish.
A: Yes.
Q: And you say all this to Special Agent Greghauser, you tell him that he says
all this to you?
A: I did.
Q: Okay. And you are also there, sir, when Special Agent Greghauser writes a
statement in Spanish – I mean, excuse me, in English.
A: Yes.
Q: So you’re present when he’s memorializing and writing down this state-
ment in a language that Mr. Castillo does not speak or read, right?
A: Correct.
Q: And you in fact are the person that supposedly translates this statement to
Mr. Castillo.
A: No, that’s not correct.
Q: You were not the person that translates this to Mr. Castillo.
A: No, I was not.
Q: So are you there when it’s translated, sir?
A: I was.
Q: Who translates it to him?
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

A: Another special agent.

Q: And who would that be?
A: Special Agent Ana Castellanos.
Q: Okay. So you’re there to hear this translation of a statement.
A: Yes, I was.
Q: And you in fact know, sir, let this jury know, Mr. Castillo is never given the
opportunity to write his own statement, is he?
A: I’m not sure if he was or not.
Q: You’re not sure about that?
A: I never asked him to write it. I don’t know if anyone else asked him to write
it.
MS. GIBBONS: Judge, may I have a moment?
THE COURT: Yes, you may. (Pause)
BY MS. GIBBONS:
Q: Sir, you just told this jury that it was Agent – am I saying this right, Caste­
llanos?
A: That’s correct.
Q: That translated this statement, this English statement to Mr. Castillo?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, you’ve testified about this matter before, right, sir?
A: Yes.
Q: On October 2nd, I believe?
A: Yes.
Q: And you said prior to this, question, page 67, line 13: “There was no ques-
tion in your mind that Freddy Castillo could not read the statement, right?”
“Correct.” “So he didn’t know what it said, right?” Answer: “Which is why I
translated it for him, yes.” “So you’ve in fact testified before that it was you,
sir, who translated the statement to Mr. Castillo. Right?”
A: I’d have to check the transcript, I don’t recall. If I did, that was a mistake.
Q: So before when you – well, let me get this right. Before when you testified
in this courtroom under oath that you were the one that translated an
English statement to a man –
MR. TROY: Objection, Your Honor, the witness said he’d have to see the
transcript. Let him see the transcript before she asks him –
MS. GIBBONS: Judge, I have no problem showing him exactly –
THE COURT: One moment. If that’s an objection, then it’s overruled.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Expert witness testimony

Witnesses generally cannot state opinions or conclusions unless they are qualified
as expert witnesses. In a trial, either party may call an expert witness to testify. An
expert witness is someone who has specialized knowledge of a particular field and
may give his or her opinion based on the facts in evidence and explain the basis for
such opinions. As with any other witness, it is up to the jury to decide how much
weight to give to the testimony.
Expert witness testimony may involve the specialized vocabulary of such sub-
jects as DNA and fingerprint analysis, nautical or firearms terminology. Because
such testimony is often highly technical, interpreters should research the subject
matter and consult specialized bilingual glossaries and dictionaries in advance of
their assignments. As stated earlier, opening statements outline what the prosecu-
tion intends to prove, how they intend to prove it, and what they believe the evi-
dence will show. Defense attorneys may also offer opening statements, but are un-
der no obligation to do so. Given that the prosecution has the burden to prove the
defendant’s guilt, this early phase of the trial affords interpreters an ideal opportu-
nity to gather information that will help them prepare for the assignment. This
includes information about potential witnesses (e.g., expert witnesses, co-defen-
dants, law enforcement) and the type of physical evidence (e.g., weapons, DNA,
fingerprint, photographs) that may be introduced.
Interpreting Exercise: Interpret a recording or reading of the following expert witness
testimony from English into Spanish in the simultaneous mode. Record your perfor-
mance. Check your interpretation by listening to your recorded performance and
checking it against the script below. Look up any unfamiliar terms. These exercises
may be repeated many times.

Sample Direct Examination of a Defense Expert Witness (excerpt)

THE COURT: Mr. Berkowe, you may call your next witness.

MR. BERKOWE: The defense will call Dr. Alexander Rand.

THE COURT: Swear the witness.

THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?

WITNESS: I do.

THE COURT REPORTER: State your full name and spell your last name for the
record, please.
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

WITNESS: Alexander Rand, Ph.D. R-A-N-D.

THE COURT: Thank you. You may proceed whenever you are ready, Mr.
Berkowe.

BY MR. BERKOWE:
Q: Good afternoon, Doctor.
A: Good afternoon.
Q: Doctor, could you state the nature of your occupation?
A: Yes. I am a clinical psychologist with psychoanalytic training.
Q: Could you tell the Court and the jury the nature of your educational back-
ground?
A: Yes. I received my Ph.D. in 1978 from NYU. While at NYU, I taught in the
undergraduate division and I taught general psychology, social psycholo-
gy, adolescent psychology, child development, and theories of mental
health. I had a fellowship with NIMH at the Lanoka County Juvenile Court
in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Upon coming to – I also did a two-year intern-
ship with the VA system when I was at Northway VA Hospital as well as the
Broadway VA Hospital, and we did a lot of work with veterans coming back
from war who had a variety of disorders.
Q: Please continue.
A: I came to Henredon Clinic in Georgia in 1990 and was there for approxi-
mately two years. While at Henredon Clinic, I did a number of different
workshops, for example, training workshops with psychiatric workers. I
joined the faculty at North Central University and was involved in helping
start the graduate program there. I also taught some of the graduate stu-
dents theories of behavior modification, theories of personality, theories
of psychoanalysis. While there, I was also at the Institute for Human Devel-
opment and we started a biofeedback laboratory and a child development
program. Shortly after that I went into full-time private practice while stay-
ing on as an adjunct Associate Professor on a part-time basis, and I was
with the Palm psychiatric group in Atlanta. We also set up one of the first
private biofeedback clinics in the southeast.
Q: Doctor, how are you currently employed?
A: I am with the Georgia Institute. I’m senior partner with the Georgia Insti-
tute in Atlanta.
Q: How long have you been in that position?
A: Eight years.
Q: Have you published any learned treatises in the field of clinical psychology?
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

A: Well, I am biased. When you say learned, I would like to think they are
learned, but yes, I was editor of a special edition of The Message, the jour-
nal of the Academy of Psychotherapy, on substance abuse. As you can see
on my résumé, I wrote a number of the articles that appear there. One of
those articles was basically dealing with the diagnostic and treatment is-
sues in the substance abuse field. I also have a chapter coming out with
Martha Hearst on the eggshell theory, and another one on evaluation in
personal injury cases and an evaluation of post traumatic issues, how to
go ahead and evaluate post traumatic issues. And there are other articles
that I have published on depression and so on and so forth.

MR. BERKOWE: Your Honor, at this time I would offer Dr. Rand as an expert in
the field of clinical psychology.

MR. LIND: [opposing counsel] I have no objection.

THE COURT: All right. Well, he will be received as such.

MR. BERKOWE: Thank you, Judge.

Q: Dr. Rand, are you familiar with the psychological history of Mr. Tomás Bello?
A: Yes.
Q: How are you familiar with his past psychological history?
A: Well, he was referred by your office for an evaluation, and shortly thereaf-
ter you forwarded the records to us and he was seen at our organization
on February 4, 2007.
Q: Now, where did these documents, these records come from that you have
received?
A: They were provided by your office.
MR. BERKOWE: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q: Doctor, I’m showing you what I’m marking as defendant’s Exhibit No. 1,
and ask you to take a look at that exhibit.
A: Right.
Q: Prior to looking at the exhibit, Doctor, do you see Mr. Tomás Bello present
in the courtroom today?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Where is he sitting? Could you point him out?
A: Yes, he is sitting to my right in the far side of the courtroom, first row.
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

MR. BERKOWE: Your Honor, let the record reflect that Dr. Rand has
identified the defendant, Mr. Tomás Bello.
THE COURT: The record shall so reflect.
Q: Calling your attention now, Doctor, to defendant’s Exhibit No. 1, do you
recognize that exhibit?
A: Yes, I’ve reviewed this.
Q: Please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what it is.
A: Well, basically it’s a summary, and there are many other summaries from
many of the different VA hospitals and other hospitals. To make it simple for
the jury, this man has been through the VA system. I’m kind of familiar with
that having served in it for two years. There’s been a wide range of diagnosis
given to him, both in the VA system as well as outside, ranging as severe as
catatonic schizophrenia where someone is frozen in a position like this,
which is rather hard to mimic, on through paranoid schizophrenic, on
through depression, on through post traumatic stress disorder and sub-
stance abuse. They have narcissistic features, borderline anti-social features.
By and large, sometimes when they do hospital summaries like this and
they really don’t know what to do with somebody who has a full range of
symptoms, particularly if somebody is under supervision, they very safely
list all the different diagnostic entities.

MR. LIND: Excuse me, counsel. Your Honor, I don’t have a real strong
objection, but I would suggest that the documents be admitted into
evidence before the doctor testifies about its contents further.
MR. BERKOWE: I’m sorry, Your Honor. I would offer defendant’s Exhibit
number 1 into evidence.
THE COURT: What is it?
THE WITNESS: These are the records from the Pine Bay VA Hospital.
THE COURT: All right. They will be received, Defendant’s 1.
Q: Now Doctor, based on your training and experience as a clinical psycholo-
gist, what is the significance of materials contained in this summary?
A: Well, this summary basically is corroborative of all the other medical re-
cords. I think when all is said and done it misses the central point. I think if
the jury might think of an onion, and let’s think, let’s use a metaphor, let’s
think of layers of the onion. On the outside of the onion, a lot of the differ-
ent kinds of things that are noted consistently throughout the records are
– will be found. For example, he is psychopathic, or he is narcissistic. What
that means is that somebody is very manipulative, at times can engage in
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

criminal-like type thinking. Somebody who is narcissistic can be very self-

centered and drawn in upon one’s self and thinking only of one’s self and the
image that one projects. Post traumatic stress disorder, which I suppose would
be in his case the most outer or superficial layer of the onion would be when
you have somebody who comes back from a war, from Vietnam for example,
and went through a lot of combat stress and got shot, what happens is some-
times that the stress there permanently catalyzes or releases inner, very prim-
itive feelings.
It depends on how somebody was constituted before they got there as to
whether, in fact, they are going to have a breakdown.
As we move toward some of the deeper layers of the onion, in the records
there have been issues of depression noted. As you move further towards the
inner part of the onion in terms of his psychopathology, I would say what you
are really looking at is a fellow who has very little ability to control the instinc-
tual forces of aggression, sexuality and dependency, and, in a sense, due to ei-
ther the post traumatic issues or due to some genetic predisposition that be-
came exacerbated or made worse in a combat zone, you have somebody who
has difficulty in three areas.
One area, the first area is affect, which is emotion. He is very depressed,
and there are three types of depression. One is anger turned inward. Now, he
just doesn’t really transform or process aggression very well, so he turns it to-
wards himself or he can turn it outwards.
There has been suicide ideation, allegedly a suicidal attempt. Whether or
not there was or wasn’t, it certainly would not be inconsistent with his person-
ality. In terms of possible harm to others, I think he is explosive. I think that was
going on even in the hallway out there.

MR. LIND: Your Honor, I’m going to object to the line of testimony the doctor is
getting into now as outside the scope of the issue, which is apparently the
defense of insanity.

After the prosecutors have presented all their evidence, they will “rest,” i.e., they
will announce in the presence of the jury that they have concluded the presenta-
tion of evidence. This stage of the trial is called the case in chief – the part of the
trial in which the party with the initial burden of proof presents its evidence. At
this time the judge will ask the jury to go into the jury room so that he or she can
address legal matters with the attorneys outside the jury’s presence. For example,
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

defense counsel may argue that the prosecution did not prove the elements of the
offense(s) and that the defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal. The judge
will rule on all motions and issues raised by the attorneys. All arguments and the
judge’s rulings are interpreted simultaneously for the defendant(s).
At the conclusion of these discussions, the defense will announce if it intends
to make an opening statement, call any witnesses or present evidence. Defendants
are under no obligation to do so and may choose to remain silent. If there is to be
a case, however, it will begin at this time. The defense case follows the same struc-
ture as that of the prosecution. For example, if the defense calls a witness to the
stand, the defense attorney – the party calling the witness – will begin the exami-
nation or direct examination of that witness. Once that questioning has conclud-
ed, the prosecutor has the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. After the
prosecutor has concluded the cross-examination, defense counsel may question
the witness again (i.e., the redirect examination). After both parties have con-
cluded or “rested,” the prosecution may present rebuttal testimony or evidence.
Rebuttal evidence is intended to refute or oppose a claim by the opposing party.

Interpreting at the witness stand – consecutive mode

Most of the interpreting in court is done in the simultaneous mode. However, when
an LEP person or non-English speaker is called to testify, the interpreting is typi-
cally done in the consecutive mode. Although procedures may vary from court to
court, witness interpreters generally stand (or sit) in close proximity to the witness
whose testimony must be interpreted into English. According to the Court Inter-
preters Act (28 U.S.C. § 1827(g) [3]), when interpreters are needed for government
witnesses, the prosecution (U.S. Attorney’s Office) is responsible for securing and
paying for their services: “Such salaries, fees, expenses, and costs that are incurred
with respect to Government witnesses (including for grand jury proceedings) shall,
unless direction is made under paragraph (4), be paid by the Attorney General
from sums appropriated to the Department of Justice” (see Appendix 6 for the full
text of the Act). The proceedings (trial) interpreters provide interpreting services
for all other LEP or non-English-speaking witnesses. The function of witness or
“record” interpreting is to make “evidence taken from non-English-speaking wit-
nesses accessible to the court and parties and preserve it for the record” (Interpret-
ers in the Judicial System. A Handbook for Ohio Judges: 2008, 47).
When interpreting at the stand, interpreters must avoid obstructing the jury’s
view of the witness and should strive to be as unobtrusive as possible. Unless the
judge presiding in the case decides otherwise, consecutive interpreting is used
when interpreting for non-English speakers or those with limited proficiency in
English. As in the case of the previous expert witness testimony, the simultaneous
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

mode is used for English-speaking witnesses. The Court Interpreters Act states, in
pertinent part:
(k) The interpretation provided by certified or otherwise qualified interpreters
pursuant to this section shall be in the simultaneous mode for any party to a ju-
dicial proceeding instituted by the United States and in the consecutive mode for
witnesses, except that the presiding judicial officer, sua sponte or on the motion
of a party, may authorize a simultaneous, or consecutive interpretation when such
officer determines after a hearing on the record that such interpretation will aid in
the efficient administration of justice.... (see Appendix 6 for the complete text)

Regardless of language combination(s) or examining party (defense or prosecu-

tion), the following recommendations apply when interpreting in the consecutive
mode at the witness stand:
________________________________________________________________
Interpreting at the Witness Stand: Do’s and Don’ts
________________________________________________________________
Do’s:
– prepare in advance. Find out as much as possible about the case and research
any items or subjects that may be unfamiliar.
– carry a large notepad and pen to the witness stand. Be prepared to take notes.
– ask the names of the witnesses in advance. Write them down, along with the
names of defendants, other parties to the case and any addresses and tele-
phone numbers that may come up during the testimony.
– have a dictionary, glossary or other reference material available to consult during
breaks (or for consultation by the team member who is not “up” at the stand).
– behave and dress in a professional manner. Avoid clothing or jewelry that may
be distracting to jurors.
– request or ask in advance to see a copy of evidentiary material such as plea
agreements or other documents that will be shown to the witness.
– find a position at the witness stand that is comfortable but does not block the
jury or judge’s view of the witness.
– act composed and confident – do not reveal nervousness or unease.
– address the judge as “Your Honor.”
– refer to yourself as “the interpreter” in the third person and not in the first
person (“I”).
– interpret all questions and answers in a clear, audible voice. Do not mumble.
– conserve the register of language used by all speakers. Strive to reproduce the
“verbal” picture painted by each speaker, including the use of vulgar language
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

and slang as well as erudite and technical language. Do not attempt to clean up
obscene language or simplify complex utterances.
– strive to reproduce answers exactly, including ambiguities in the witness’s
answer.
– maintain a professional distance from the witness at all times.
– correct the record as soon as you become aware that you made a mistake in the
interpretation (“Interpreter’s correction, Your Honor”). If one interpreter be-
lieves that the other made a substantive mistake while interpreting at the wit-
ness stand, the “stand by” interpreter should let the other interpreter know
right away so the record can be corrected. This should be done discreetly.
– abide by the code of ethics (see Appendix 2).
______________________________________
Don’ts:
– do not reveal personal opinions or feelings such as incredulity, sympathy or
dislike, whether verbally or through body language and facial expressions.
– do not engage in any private conversation with witnesses, defendants, their
relatives or friends.
– do not clarify a question if the witness did not appear to understand; it is the
attorney’s responsibility to do so. If the witness says, «no entendí» simply state,
“I didn’t understand.”
– do not address attorneys or witnesses directly. If you need something repeated
or clarified, ask the judge if you may ask for a repetition or clarification.
– do not address the witness using the familiar form (tú). Always use the formal
(usted).
– do not use fillers or hedge words (“uh,” “um,” “you know,” “well,” “actually”) if
the witness did not use them because they may give the impression that the
witness is hesitating. This is likely to affect the credibility judgments jurors
make about the witness or witnesses.
– do not express opinions about any aspect of the case, ever, to anyone involved
in the trial. This includes opinions about the translated documents and tran-
scripts introduced as evidence. If asked by the attorneys, explain that trial in-
terpreters can only do this if directed by the judge; and
– do not discuss the case with any member of the media.
________________________________________________________________
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Note-taking in the consecutive mode

No interpreter should ever walk into a courtroom without a notepad and writing
instrument. It cannot be over-emphasized that court interpreters must always be
prepared to take notes, particularly when interpreting in the consecutive mode.
Why is note-taking of such importance? Consecutive interpretation relies heavily
on short-term memory, which is limited in capacity and duration. This mode re-
quires that the interpreter wait for the source language speaker to pause before
beginning the interpretation. The interpreter must remember not only what was
said (content) but also how it was said (intonation, syntax, register). It should be
emphasized that this mode is used to interpret witness testimony in court, and that
it is the interpreter’s words – not those of the non-English speaker – that become
part of the original court record. Moreover, cross-examination may get quite heat-
ed, and witnesses often give lengthy responses. A notation system will minimize
what Mason (2008) calls “cognitive overload” and will greatly improve the quality
of the end product. Notes are essential for remarks running to more than a few
sentences, but they must not interfere with the concentrated listening necessary
for consecutive interpretation. Notes should be simple and concise.
Basic guidelines on note-taking include the following recommenda-
tions:
– develop your own note-taking system. It should be simple, individualized and
designed to aid your memory. How much or how little should be recorded
depends on the individual.
– jot down only key reminders.
– record dates, names, numbers, addresses and amounts.
– arrange the notes on the page in a way that is meaningful to you.
– use symbols that are meaningful to you and use them consistently (see Table
4.1).
– use a notebook with large blank sheets of paper. Use space to your advantage
by grouping, indenting, or separating items on the page.
– write notes vertically instead of across the page. This allows the arrangement of
notes in a way that conveys more information (e.g., write the main points at the
top and the minor points at the bottom. On a separate sheet of paper or on the
side of the page, list addresses, dates, names or figures that come up repeatedly).
– use indentation to show relative or subordinate relationships by placing one
note beneath another.
– use indentations for noting lists or enumerations.
– use arrows, lines, circles, squares and the positions of items on the page to help
show relationships.
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

– use conventional acronyms (DEA, FBI, ATF, PTD, PSI, ICE).

– use simple abbreviations ($ = dollars, # = numbers).
– write your notes as much as possible in the target language, although there are
no hard and fast rules about this.
– adopt symbols that are easy to write and remember. For example: punctuation
marks (e.g., the ampersand -&- to mean “and”), conventional symbols and ab-
breviations (e.g., @ to mean “at”) and mathematical symbols (e.g., x to mean
“time”) (see Table 4.1).
– use capital letters for a specific meaning (e.g., K to mean “kilo” in a drug case).
Capital letters are useful to refer to a country (e.g., CR to mean Costa Rica).
Don’ts:
– do not write too much.
– do not allow note-taking to interfere with your concentrated listening and at-
tention.
– do not make mathematical conversions of measurements, foreign currency or
temperatures. Remember, however, that 1 billion is equivalent to mil millones
in Spanish and is not 1 billón.
– do not use symbols that are unfamiliar or do not carry meaning for you.
– do not double any consonants when you write out words, unless necessary to
avoid confusion with another similar abbreviation.
– do not include vowels when writing out words, unless necessary to avoid
confusion.

Table 4.1  Sample Suggested Symbols for Note-Taking

Symbol Meaning

∆ Defendant
× Time (e.g., 2x = twice; x. = time period; @x = at the time; xly = timely, on time; un-
xly = untimely; x,x = time after time, repeatedly; xx = often, many times)3
“” Speak, said, stated, told
← Before
→ After
↔ During the time, from the time you left until the time you arrived
§ Section (legal)
@ At

3. Nolan, Interpretation Techniques and Exercises, 296–297.

 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Interpreting Exercise: At the witness stand. For individual practice interpreting in the
consecutive mode, you may wish to make your own recording of the following question
and answer session. Use the script for group practice as follows: one person, in the role
of the attorney, reads the questions in English; another person plays the role of the
defendant, and reads the answers in Spanish; a third person, in the role of the inter-
preter, interprets the questions in English into Spanish and the Spanish answers into
English in the consecutive mode; finally, someone will need to play the role of the judge.
The interpreter does not, of course, have a copy of the script. You may take turns play-
ing the different roles. This exercise may be recorded or videotaped for self-evaluation,
using the script to check your performance and improve your note-taking techniques.

Direct Examination of a Non-English-Speaking Witness

THE COURT: Please call your next witness.

MR. SYMMES: Your Honor, the defense calls Miguel Santiago to the stand.

THE COURT: All right. Please come forward.

(Note: The defendant, Miguel Santiago, is called by his counsel to testify on his
own behalf. He is one of several defendants accused in a drug conspiracy case.)

THE COURT: Please swear in the witness.

THE CLERK: Sir, please raise your right hand.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

MR. SANTIAGO: Sí, lo juro.

MR. SYMMES: Your Honor, may I proceed?

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. SYMMES: Thank you.

BY MR. SYMMES:

6 Q: Mr. Santiago, I’m going to need you to state your name for the record,
please.
A: Miguel Santiago.
Q: And how old are you, Miguel?
A: Tengo 23 años de edad.
Q: Where are you from?
A: De México.
Q: What part of Mexico are you from?
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

A: Del estado de México.

Q: Are you from a village or a town with a name?
A: Sí, yo vivía en Sonaura es, un pueblo en el Estado de México.
Q: All right. Now, where in Mexico, central, south, north, east, west, is your
town?
A: Está en el centro mismo de la República de México.
Q: And is it a big town, a small town?
A: No es grande, es un pueblo pequeño.
Q: Can you tell the jury about your family background and your education?
A: Soy el mayor de cinco hermanos y mi padre nos pudo dar estudios hasta el ter­
cero de secundaria. El trató de que sig... quería que siguiéramos con los estudios,
pero yo no pude por la situación económica de la familia. Mi padre es carpintero
y empecé a trabajar con él desde que tenía yo unos doce o trece años. A la edad
de doce o trece y cuando estaba como en el tercero de secundaria, cuando salía
de la escuela iba y trabajaba con mi padre en un pequeño taller de carpintería.
Después, cuando completé el tercero de secundaria, ya que no teníamos el dine­
ro para seguir estudiando, me puse a trabajar con mi padre todo el tiempo y así
lo hice durante cinco años. Después de esos cinco años seguí trabajando con mi
padre, pero tuve la oportunidad de estudiar los fines de semana y empecé la
prepa. Entonces trabajaba de lunes a viernes, desde las ocho de la mañana
hasta las siete de la noche y los fines de semana iba a la escuela. Y en marzo de
ese año terminé la prepa.
Q: Sir, you are obviously here now. How did you come to the United States?
A: Debido a la situación económica en mi pueblo y en mi casa, como dije antes,
tengo cinco hermanos y mi padre, que tiene 52 años de edad, es diabético. Y
por la escasez y la falta de trabajo y porque mis hermanos menores tenían que
ir a la escuela, tuve que tomar la decisión de emigrar a los Estados Unidos.
MS. MARTINEZ-KATZ: Objection, Your Honor. It doesn’t seem like
there’s any question pending. This seems like a narrative.
THE COURT: All right. Why don’t you ask –?
MR. SYMMES: I’ll ask more questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: – in a question and answer format, please. Sustained.
BY MR. SYMMES:
Q: Okay. Why don’t you tell the jury exactly how you came across the border
into the United States. Tell us that.
A: Entré en este país de ilegal.
Q: Okay. How?
A: Crucé el río y caminé casi ocho horas.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Q: And what did you do once you were – did you go into Texas? Is that right?
A: Sí, así es.
Q: What did you do once you got to Texas?
A: Reunirme con un primo que es la persona que me prestó el dinero para pa­
garle al coyote.
Q: Right. And where was this in Texas?
A: En Corpus Christi, Tejas.
Q: Now, how did you end up in Florida?
A: Tenía pensado llegar hasta Belle Glade porque había oído decir que allá le era
posible a un extranjero como yo, sin papeles, conseguir trabajo. Por eso decidí
venir, viajar todo el camino hasta acá. Y llegué a un lugar en la Florida, no re­
cuerdo el nombre, pero está por el centro de la Florida.
Q: Okay. What happened once you got to central Florida there?
A: Llamé a mi casa en México para conseguir el número de teléfono de Francisco
Brines porque era un conocido de mi pueblo. Yo lo conocía ya en México.
Q: Excuse me one second. Is he from the same town in Mexico?
A: No, no es del mismo pueblo, pero sus padres sí viven allá.
Q: Okay. What happened then?
A: Mi madre consiguió el teléfono y me lo dio y entonces me puse en contacto con
él.
Q: And what happened then?
A: Le dije que estaba en la Florida y le di las señas del lugar donde estaba y en­
tonces me vino a buscar.
Q: What happened then?
A: Me llevó a casa de unos conocidos de él par a ver si podría conseguir trabajo
limpiando yardas.
Q: What happened then?
A: Y entonces me fui a un lugar que se llama Melbourne, creo, porque era ahí
donde estaba el trabajo de las yardas, pero la primera vez que me reuní con
Francisco Brines le pregunté cómo podría llegar a Belle Glade.
Q: What happened then?
A: Me recomendó a unos conocidos de él para que yo pudiera hacer el trabajo de
las yardas y me dijo que tratara de trabajar ahí par ver si me iba bien y si no,
que más adelante buscaría la forma de traerme a Belle Glade o buscaría a al­
guien que me trajera.
Q: Okay. What happened after that?
A: Entonces un día, exactamente el 19 de julio, pasó por la casa donde yo estaba
viviendo y me dijo que tenía un viaje acá y que si yo quería me traería. Y como
lo que yo quería era venir acá, bueno, pues muy contento le dije que sí.
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

Q: How did you end up driving the car, the Jeep?

A: Cuando vino a buscarme a la casa donde yo estaba, me dijo, si quieres puedes
manejar hasta allá, y no me negué porque al traerme acá me estaba haciendo
un favor y yo no tenía el dinero para pagárselo. Así que accedí a manejar
porque me parecía que tenía que corresponder el favor.
Q: What was your purpose in driving here to West Palm Beach?
A: Lo que yo quería era llegar a Belle Glade. No sé qué está primero, si West Palm
Beach o Belle Glade, o si la una queda cerca a la otra.
Q: Were you coming down here to do a drug deal?
A: No, en absoluto.
Q: Did you know that a drug deal was going to be done in West Palm Beach?
A: No.
Q: Nobody said anything about a drug deal?
A: No, si me lo hubieran dicho, al momento de decírmelo me hubiera bajado del
carro.
Q: When you got to the Wendy’s, what happened?
A: Cuando recién llegamos al Wendy’s pensé que era con la intención de que
comiéramos algo porque habíamos conducido como 4 o 5 horas. Entonces, al
entrar al restaurante, había un – me dijeron – bueno, había un auto estacio­
nado ahí, supuestamente el que está ahí, el auto del informante–y me dijeron,
«quédate ahí cerca del auto». Pero no ... no fue como está dibujado ahí. (Au­
thor’s Note: the witness is making reference to a sketch, previously introduced
as evidence.)
Q: Did you park next to the informant’s vehicle?
A: No exactamente al lado, porque en el medio había un espacio como de 3 o 4
metros.
Q: Can you get up, go over to that, and show me where you would have
parked in relation to Mr. Marco’s car?
A: Sí.
Q: Please.
A: Se supone que éste es el carro del Sr. Marco y éste se supone que es el carro en
que llegamos. Es cierto que me estacioné hacia este lado del carro, pero el es­
pacio que hay entre estos dos vehículos es como de 3 o 4 metros porque hay
otro espacio para estacionar otro carro. Y además, están mal los dibujos de
los carros en cuanto a la ubicación del Wendy.
Q: How so?
A: El carro de esta persona estaba de frente hacia la esquina del restaurante. Y el
carro que traíamos nosotros estaba hacia este lado–de frente a la calle. Se
podía ver desde la calle.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Q: Okay. Thank you. What happened once you had parked the car at the
Wendy’s?
A: Francisco Brines se bajó del carro y caminó hacia la parte de atrás del carro.
Q: What happened then?
A: Vi que alguien del otro carro también se bajó del carro y se reunieron en la
parte de atrás del carro. Después de un rato me bajé del carro. Cuando me
bajé del carro, eso fue para estirarme, porque estaba muy cansado porque
había manejado cuatro horas. Al bajarme del carro, la persona del otro carro
me saludó y yo contesté: «bien, bien. Aquí andamos».
Q: Okay. Why did you say that?
A: Porque él dijo, «¿Qué tal?» Y para mí, cuando alguien lo saluda a uno, por res­
peto uno responde aunque no los conozca. Después de saludarlo me retiré.
Estuvieron platicando juntos y yo me retiré porque no me gusta estar cerca de
conversaciones que no me incumben.
Q: What happened then?
A: Después le dieron la vuelta al carro. Y no sabía que habían dicho, de qué
habían platicado. No sabía absolutamente nada. Después se fueron al otro
carro, iban hacia la dirección del otro carro y yo me fui hacia el otro lado del
carro. Fui hacia la parte de atrás y me encontré con Freddy Castillo en la puer­
ta. El estaba en el carro, adentro. Y yo le estaba preguntando si íbamos a en­
trar a comer. Y ellos me dijeron que sí, que eso era lo que pensaban hacer. Y
entonces se bajaron del carro y estábamos caminando hacia el restaurante.
Estábamos al punto de empezar a caminar hacia el restaurante cuando de
repente pasó esto cuando nos rodearon y yo no sabía qué estaba pasando.
Nos encañonaron con armas y nos dijeron en inglés y español – en inglés no
entendía, pero en español nos dijeron que nos tiráramos al suelo. Yo estaba
horrorizado y me tiré al suelo. Llegaron unos policías o se supone que eran
policías porque yo no sabía quiénes eran. Me dijeron: «Pon las manos hacia
atrás» y me dieron de patadas en las costillas. Yo no – yo no estaba resistiendo
nada ni obstruyendo nada de lo que estaban haciendo, pero me golpearon.
Q: Okay, sir. The prosecutor is going to ask you some questions now. I have no
further questions.
MR. SYMMES: Thank you, Your Honor.

Cross-examination of a non-English-speaking witness

After the direct examination of a defendant is completed, the opposing side – the
prosecution – has the opportunity to cross-examine. Cross-examination is much
more challenging for interpreters than direct examination because of the nature
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

and purpose of cross-examination. Sometimes the cross-examining lawyer seeks

information from the witness, but a common strategy is to damage the opposi-
tion’s case. Opposing counsel may ask questions intended to “undermine the clear
communications made during direct examination and render them as uncertain,
vague, and ambiguous as possible” (Tiersma 1999, 164). Interpreters must strive to
communicate the attorney’s wording, degree of coerciveness or incredulity, speed
of delivery (sometimes rapid-fire) from English into Spanish, as well as the wit-
ness’s response, whether ambiguous, indignant, angry, coherent or not – from
Spanish into English.

Cross-Examination of LEP Defendant (excerpt)

BY MS. MARTINEZ-KATZ:

7 Q: Mr. Santiago, good afternoon.

A: Buenas tardes.
Q: You testified that you are originally from Mexico?
A: Es cierto.
Q: And I’m sorry, you said that you are 23 years old?
A: Cierto.
Q: And you’re obviously an educated young man?
A: Cierto.
Q: And you have your high school degree?
A: Lo terminé estudiando los fines de semana.
Q: By your diligent efforts of even studying on the weekends to obtain your
high school degree, correct?
A: Sí.
Q: Because you want to better yourself?
A: Sí.
Q: And you wanted to better the financial situation for your family back in
Mexico?
A: Es cierto.
Q: And you’ve testified that you would study on the weekends, Saturday and
Sunday, while still maintaining a full-time job Monday through Friday from
8 to 7, correct?
A: Es verdad.
Q: And that you would work – what you were working is, was side by side
with your father as a carpenter, correct?
A: Es verdad.
Q: So that would have been your trade?
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

A: Es cierto. Puedo hacer todo tipo de muebles, cualquier mueble lo puedo hacer
yo mero, yo solito.
Q: So you would classify yourself as a carpenter, correct?
A: Soy carpintero, pero también quería estudiar. Sentí la necesidad de estudiar.
Q: And in fact, as you testified, you completed your high school education in
March of 2007. I think that was what your testimony was?
A: La secundaria no, la prepa, es decir, el bachillerato. Para mí la secundaria sig­
nifica del séptimo al noveno grado.
Q: I’m sorry. I thought you said you attended the 10th through 12th grade
studying on the weekends?
A: Sí, pero en mi país a eso no se le dice secundaria. Es preparatoria. (Note the
terms used to refer to school levels).
Q: So you have a 12th grade education. Apparently there’s – you have a 12th
grade education; is that correct?
A: Es cierto.
Q: Okay. And then you came, you testified that you came in March of 2007
into the United States, correct?
A: No es cierto. Nunca dije que había llegado a los Estados Unidos en marzo del
2007.
Q: When did you come to the United States?
A: En realidad, he estado en la cárcel más tiempo de lo que llevo en los Estados
Unidos. Antes de mi detención, aproximadamente tres semanas.
Q: You were arrested August 12th, so it would have been sometime more or
less the middle of June when you entered the United States?
A: A mediados de julio. No recuerdo la fecha.
Q: Was this your first time into the United States?
A: No. ¿Puedo aclarar el por qué?
Q: No. Excuse me a second. So sometime in July of 2007 you entered the
United States, correct?
A: Sí.
Q: And you did not have a visa to enter the United States?
A: No.
Q: You didn’t have a permit to enter the United States?
A: No, me vine de ilegal.
Q: Granted. So you entered the United States illegally.
A: Sí, yo lo he aceptado.
Q: Okay. And you entered the United States illegally, knowing it was illegal,
because you wanted to better yourself, correct?
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

A: Sí. Ese fue un delito por el que ya me he declarado culpable y le pido perdón a
los Estados Unidos de América y a Su Señoría, el juez.
Q: When you entered the United States, you indicated that you went through
Texas, crossing Texas?
A: Sí, Tejas.
Q: And you said it was a town of Corpus Christi?
A: Bueno, creo que sí porque – no conozco bien los Estados Unidos. Esta es la
primera vez que me encuentro en los Estados Unidos.
Q: I’m sorry. Didn’t you say that you had been into the United States before,
like two minutes ago?
A: Bueno, yo – pedí explicar eso y Ud. no me dio la opción.
Q: My question was: Have you been, prior to July of 2007, in the United States;
yes or no?
A: Sí, estuve en una cárcel de inmigración.
Q: And when was it that you were in the United States before?
A: En marzo del 2006.
Q: So you were in the United States in March of 2006?
A: En la cárcel, sí. Detenido.
Q: And you testified that was as a result of coming into the United States il-
legally then?
A: Cierto.
Q: And were you eventually taken back to another country, like Mexico?
A: Sí, después de 15 días.
Q: And then when you went back to Mexico you decided to come right – to
come back to the United States again without permission; is that correct?
A: Como dije hace un momento, no vine por mi propia voluntad.
Q: You came knowing it was illegal, did you not?
A: Es verdad.
Q: So you did something even though you knew it was illegal.
A: Sí, y lo hice por mi familia y me siento honrado de haberlo hecho por mi fa­
milia.
Q: So what you’re saying is you had honorable reasons for committing an il-
legal act.
A: Para mí la familia es lo primero porque mi familia es mi vida. Es lo único que
tengo.
Q: You indicated that – do you know who “El Gato” is?
A: Es la persona que me trajo a Corpus Christi, Tejas. No conozco a esa persona.
Q: You don’t know that person?
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

A: No. La primera vez que vi a esta persona fue cuando me trajo a los Estados
Unidos.
Q: Okay. So let me try to understand this. You enter sometime in July 2007
through Texas, correct?
A: Cierto.
Q: Okay. You are unsure of what town it was that you – in the U.S. that you
officially entered through, correct?
A: No, porque no conocía bien el lugar.
Q: Okay. But when you’re there you meet someone called “El Gato,” meaning
the cat?
A: Como dije antes, esa es la persona que me trajo, me hizo entrar en los Estados
Unidos y conozco a esa persona por ese nombre.
Q: So “El Gato” is what you refer to as “the coyote” that transported you across
the border.
A: El – después de haber entrado yo en los Estados Unidos, después de haber
caminado por horas como dije, esa persona me recogió en un carro y me trajo
a Corpus Christi, Tejas.
Q: Okay. And how did you get from Corpus Christi, Texas, to central Florida?
A: «El Gato» me trajo también.
Q: He brought you over from Texas all the way to central Florida?
A: Primero me dejó, me dejó en Tejas, como dije antes. Ahí estaba yo con mi pri­
mo. Me reuní con mi primo. Como dije, él fue el que le pagó al coyote. Y enton­
ces mi primo y esa persona llegaron a un acuerdo para que él me trajera al
centro de la Florida.
Q: And so “El Gato” drove you from Texas to central Florida?
A: Sí.
Q: How long was the ride?
A: No recuerdo, pero fueron unas cuantas horas.
Q: Was it hours or was it days?
A: Bueno, unas cuantas horas pueden ser más de 24. Recuerdo que salimos una
tarde y llegamos al día siguiente por la noche.
Q: Now, was this just you and “El Gato”?
A: Sí.
Q: Did you pay “El Gato”?
A: No.
Q: Oh, so he did this for free?
A: Yo creo que Ud. no me entiende. He dicho que mi primo y «El Gato» llegaron a
un acuerdo y que él fue el que le pagó. Yo no tenía dinero.
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

Q: Now, when you arrived in central Florida, did you have any family in central
Florida?
A: No.
Q: So why did you decide to go to central Florida?
A: Porque sí tengo conocidos. Familia no, pero sí conocidos.
Q: So you had acquaintances in central Florida.
A: Sí.
Q: Was Francisco Brines amongst one of your acquaintances?
A: Sí.
Q: Okay. And you knew that he was living in central Florida?
A: Había oído decir que vivía allá.
Q: And did you know defendant Castillo?
A: No.
Q: You didn’t know him from before?
A: No, de antes no. ¿Qué quiere decir con de antes, cuánto tiempo?
Q: When did you meet defendant Castillo?
A: Después de llegar al centro de la Florida, pasaron unos dos o tres días y fui a
este lugar que es como una cancha de juegos donde la gente se reúne para
jugar deportes y Castillo y Sierra están ahí.
Q: So that’s where you met Sierra and Castillo?
A: Es ahí donde los vi por primera vez.
Q: Now, when you were in central Florida, how long did you stay in central
Florida?
A: Alrededor de una semana.
Q: And you were staying with whom?
A: Me quedé con distintos conocidos. Los que me daban alojamiento porque yo
no tenía dinero y no tenía dónde quedarme.
Q: And did you have any friends and family in Belle Glade?
A: Bueno, oí por medio de un conocido que tenía un amigo que dijo que ahí
existía la posibilidad de poder conseguir trabajo en el campo, siendo ilegal.
Q: Okay. And so, but you did not know anyone in Belle Glade; is that correct?
A: No, no es correcto. La persona que yo conocía y que a la vez conocía a la per­
sona de Belle Glade vive en Belle Glade.
Q: Had you spoken to this person?
A: Antes de mi detención, sí.
Q: Who was this person? Who was this person?
A: Es un conocido, una persona que vive cerca de mi pueblo en México.
Q: Let me be more specific. What is the name of the person in Belle Glade
who has this farm that employs illegal aliens?
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

A: Me parece que Ud. no entiende lo que estoy diciendo. La persona que conozco
no le da trabajo a los ilegales. Esta persona conoce a otra persona.
Q: You have a friend who told you that they knew someone who had a place
in Belle Glade, correct?
A: Es cierto.
Q: Just so we’re clear, what’s your friend’s name?
A: Se llama Carlos.
Q: Carlos? Does Carlos have a last name?
A: Bueno, él sí tiene apellido pero no sé si digo su apellido aquí si lo voy a com­
prometer, sabiendo como trabajan Uds.
Q: Sir, you have taken an oath to tell the truth, so my question to you is, what
is Carlos’ last name, your friend?
A: No lo he ocultado, no lo he negado y tengo la intención de decirlo. Santana,
Carlos Santana.
Q: So Carlos Santana, your friend, told you that he had a friend who had a
farm in Belle Glade, correct?
A: ¿Qué quiere decir con finca?
Q: Did he have any plot of land in Belle Glade?
A: Un lugar donde se trabaja afuera en el campo, pero no sé si la propiedad es de
él.
Q: What is his name?
A: ¿Quién?
Q: What is the name of the person in Belle Glade who you hoped to work with
or for?
A: No sé su apellido.
Q: You don’t know his name?
A: Yo conozco a mi amigo Carlos y él era el que me iba a recomendar a esa per­
sona.
Q: Fine. You do not know the person’s name in Belle Glade, correct?
A: Correcto.
Q: What’s the name of the business?
A: Es la pizca de naranjas.
Q: That’s the name of the business, harvesting oranges?
A: No sé el nombre del negocio. Sé qué clase de trabajo es.
Q: Where is it located, where in Belle Glade?
A: Ya le dije que no conozco los Estados Unidos. Sé que está en Belle Glade.
Q: Okay. So let me just say, because I want to make sure I understand this cor-
rectly. You’re going to Belle Glade, correct?
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

A: Cierto.
Q: To meet with someone whose name you do not know, correct?
A: No, no, no, no, no haga que se revuelvan las cosas.
Q: What was the name then?
A: Me iba a encontrar con mi amigo Carlos.
Q: So your friend Carlos is in Belle Glade; is that what you’re saying now?
A: Sí, como se lo dije hace mucho tiempo.
Q: So Carlos is going to – then what you’re trying to say is going to put you in
contact with someone in Belle Glade who is going to offer you a job, cor-
rect?
A: Es verdad.
Q: And it was your understanding, I think you testified that you were going to
pick oranges.
A: Es verdad.
Q: Do you know how much you were going to get paid?
A: No.
Q: Would that have been a consideration for you?
A: A mí, mientras sea un trabajo y sea honorable, no me importa si no se trata de
mucho para empezar.
Q: But sir, you’ve just testified that you traveled from Texas. Do they have
farms in Texas, do you know?
A: No sé.
Q: When you were driving all those eight hours, did you ever see any farms,
any vast lands in Texas?
A: Puede ser. Yo estaba dormido. No recuerdo. Lo que sí sé – lo que sí sé es que me
dijeron que en la Florida, en esta parte de la Florida, en Belle Glade, hay mu­
cho trabajo y lo pagan bien.
Q: So you traveled cross-country to come to southern Florida, specifically
Belle Glade, because you heard the pay was good; is that your testimony?
A: Primero llegué a Tejas. Llegué a Tejas con la intención de trabajar y ahí oí co­
mentarios de que allá por Belle Glade, el trabajo del campo se paga bien y
entonces me puse a averiguar – para ver si alguna de las personas que yo
conocía estaba por esta zona y me enteré que mi amigo Carlos estaba vi­
viendo aquí. Y ese era mi propósito al venir aquí.
Q: Sir, you indicated that you knew Francisco Brines and met up with him
here in Florida, correct?
A: Cierto.
Q: And had you been doing yard work when you were in central Florida?
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

A: Durante unos dos o tres días aproximadamente.

Q: Okay. So you were employed there in central Florida?
A: Sí.
Q: And then you said that while you’re there you get a call from Francisco
Brines who tells you that he is coming, what, to South Florida or to West
Palm Beach?
A: Le dije que desde el primer día, cuando llegué al centro de la Florida, que mi
intención era llegar hasta Belle Glade, pero que por el momento me iba a que­
dar ahí una semana aproximadamente para ver si podía conseguir un buen
trabajo.
Q: My question is, did you have a conversation with Francisco Brines about a
trip to south Florida?
A: ¿Al sur? ¿Exactamente a qué lugar se refiere?
Q: Well, did you tell him? And what did he tell you?
A: Le dije cuando llegué que mi intención era llegar hasta Belle Glade. El me dijo
– me dijo que haría todo lo posible para ver si me podía traer aquí o si algún
conocido de él me podría traer. De manera que entonces el 12 de agosto él
vino al lugar donde me estaba quedando y me dijo que me iba a poder traer
hasta aquí y en ese momento yo no tenía trabajo y acepté.
Q: And so he tells you that he’s picking you up because he’s going to take you
to Belle Glade?
A: Es cierto.
Q: You must have been excited.
A: Es cierto. Me dio mucho gusto. Me puse contento.
Q: So you got ready and you left with him, correct?
A: Sí.
Q: Okay. Because that was where you were going to be from now on, in Belle
Glade, working and living in Belle Glade, correct?
A: Es cierto.
Q: Where was your luggage?
A: Yo no tenía equipaje. Lo único que traje conmigo fue la ropa que tenía puesta.
Una persona que entra en este país ilegalmente, es muy difícil para ellos aco­
modarse enseguida y tener ropa.
Q: You didn’t pack anything, did you?
A: No tenía nada que empacar.
Q: You didn’t pack any clothing?
MR. SYMMES: Your Honor, objection to asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A: No, porque lo único que tenía era lo que tenía puesto.
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

BY MS. MARTINEZ-KATZ:
Q: You’re going to Belle Glade to pick oranges. That’s what you said, right?
A: Sí.
Q: But you don’t have the faintest idea of what they’re paying; is that cor-
rect?
MR. SYMMES: Your Honor, objection to asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A: Sé que se paga bien. Eso es lo que he oído. Pero no sé exactamente por qué.
BY MS. MARTINEZ-KATZ:
Q: But your experience, you testified, is as a carpenter, correct?
A: Es cierto.
Q: But your testimony is that you’re not seeking employment as a carpenter,
but as an orange picker.
A: No busqué trabajo de carpintero porque para mí es más difícil aquí. Si se me
hubiera presentado una oportunidad para trabajar en carpintería, la hubiera
aceptado desde que llegué a Tejas.
Q: Now, let me ask you, when Francisco picks you up on August 12, he picks
you up, he said, where you were residing, correct?
A: Es cierto.
Q: And whose home was that?
A: De un conocido que tuvo la bondad de alojarme en su casa unos días.
Q: And what was his name?
A: Ernesto Cano.
Q: Now, when you get picked up on August 12 by Francisco, was there any-
one else in the car?
A: Sí.
Q: Who was in the car?
A: Sierra y Castillo.
Q: And did you know that they were coming along?
A: Ni siquiera sabía que Francisco iba a pasar a buscarme.
Q: Well, when Francisco stopped by to pick you up and you saw him, did you
also see Castillo and Sierra?
A: Sí, los vi.
Q: Did you have conversations with them?
A: Sí.
Q: Okay. Did you discuss the purpose of coming south into south Florida?
A: Yo sí entendí que el objetivo era traerme a Belle Glade. Eso es lo que se había
platicado.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Q: So all the three people were discussing about we’re taking – the purpose
of this trip is to take you to Belle Glade? That is what was being discussed?
A: Sí.
Q: And you said that you were picked up at your friend Ernesto’s house, cor-
rect?
A: Es cierto.
Q: Do you recall giving a statement to law enforcement on August 12th?
A: Sí.
Q: Okay. And do you recall telling law enforcement that you had been picked
up in some unknown restaurant?
A: Es cierto.
Q: So you testified right now that you were picked up at your friend Ernesto’s
house, correct?
A: Sí, pero es que Ud. no me está entendiendo.
Q: And you told law enforcement on August 12th that you had been picked
up in an unknown restaurant.
A: Y es verdad, pero cuando pasaron para recogerme en el restaurante, ese no
fue el 12 de agosto. Ese fue el día que llegué del centro de la Florida y Francisco
estaba solo.
Q: While you were – excuse me, let me backtrack. Do you have a driver’s
license?
A: Sí, mexicana.
Q: Do you have a valid U.S. driver’s license?
A: No.
Q: All right. But your testimony is that when you get picked up, Francisco, your
friend, says, “Hey, would you drive for me?” Wasn’t that your testimony?
A: Es verdad.
Q: And you, being a friend, said, “eh, what the heck,” and you drove, correct?
A: No fue cosa de qué más da porque me estaban haciendo un favor y lo mínimo
que podía hacer para devolverles el favor era manejar.
Q: You decided you agreed to drive.
A: Acepté manejar.
Q: You were literally in the driver’s seat, weren’t you?
THE COURT: Do you expect to finish quickly or –
MS. MARTINEZ-KATZ: Ten minutes.
THE COURT: All right. Let’s take a 15-minute break, ladies and
gentlemen.
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

Rebuttal

As pointed out earlier in this chapter, after both parties have rested, the prosecution
may present a rebuttal case by calling witnesses and presenting evidence to rebut
the defense case. Once all of the evidence and witnesses have been presented, the
testimonial phase of the trial is over. Some judges may choose to instruct the jury
on the law before the presentation of closing arguments. Other judges may prefer to
read the jury instructions after the jury has heard the attorneys’ final arguments.

Motion for judgment of acquittal

After the prosecution presents its case in chief, or after the defense rests (if pre-
senting a case), or after all the evidence has been presented, the defendant will
generally make an oral motion for a judgment of acquittal (also known as a Rule 29
motion in federal court). To grant the motion the court must conclude that no
reasonable juror could find that the charges had been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt, based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Sample Argument for Judgment of Acquittal

(On behalf of defendant Santiago)

THE COURT: All right. Now, additional motions?

MR. SYMMES: Your Honor, at this time, on behalf of Mr. Santiago, I renew all
previous motions and objections. Your Honor, at this time, we’re making our mo-
tion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29. As I indicated in my opening
statement and still believe now, based on the evidence, Mr. Santiago is in a dif-
ferent situation from the codefendants. In the light most favorable to the gov-
ernment, here is the evidence against Mr. Santiago. He is not on any of the
phone calls before August 12. So we can discount all of that evidence against
him because there’s no mention of him in any of those phone calls. The second
thing. On August 12, he is not on any of the phone calls on his way to the Wen-
dy’s. At the Wendy’s, the evidence against him is this: The evidence presented by
the government in the light most favorable to the government is that Francisco
Brines gets out of the car, comes to the rear of the car, is talking to Mr. Marco.
Who sent you? El Camaleón. El Camaleón? Yes. That’s who sent you? As they
were finishing that discussion, the testimony is a door opens and shuts, that’s
Mr. Santiago getting out of the car. The testimony is he walks to the rear of the
car. Mr. Marco asks him how he is doing, he says fine, fine, fine, hanging in there,
or words to that effect. That’s the last thing that we hear from him. The eyeball,
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

in the light most favorable to the government, then says that he walks with
them to the passenger side of the car, where Mr. Brines shows him money in a
bag. Mr. Santiago doesn’t say anything. And the conversation in the transcript, it
never mentions cocaine, it never says money. It says – Your Honor, it says that,
yes – Mr. Brines allegedly says “yes, I was given a number,” and there “we brought
for two.”There “we’re bringing 35.” Mr. Marco says, “You’re bringing 35?” Mr. Brines
allegedly says, “35,000 for two.” The witness says, “And where is the money?” Mr.
Brines allegedly says, “We have it here.”

THE COURT: We have, I’m sorry.

MR. SYMMES: He says, “we have it here.”

THE COURT: We have it here. We have it here.

MR. SYMMES: Yes, Your Honor. But remember, Your Honor, in the light most fa-
vorable to the government, that Mr. Castillo and Mr. Sierra admitted to the
government that they contributed money to this.

THE COURT: All right. But in the light most favorable to the government, we
could include everyone, correct?

MR. SYMMES: It could, but even taking in the light most favorable to the gov-
ernment, that’s stretching to a greater inference than what the evidence has
presented.

THE COURT: Well, you may have answered the question because, if it could be
that conclusion, then if you look at it in the light most favorable to the govern-
ment, then the government would prevail on that point at Rule 29.

MR. SYMMES: I disagree, and here is why, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SYMMES: That in the light most favorable to the government, based on the
evidence that’s been presented, not just on things existing out there in cyber-
space, but on the evidence that’s presented, is the “we” is very easily related to
two other people who admit that they had money, whereas as opposed to a
person who never admitted anything about having money. Now, the govern-
ment has to prove three things: one, that the conspiracy existed; two, that Mr.
Santiago knew of the conspiracy. And three, that he voluntarily joined in the
conspiracy. Mr. Marco testified in the government’s case on cross-examination
that the only reason he knows that this language about 35,000 for two is re-
lated to drugs is because he was a smuggler for 13 years, because he had been
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

on the phone with José, last name unknown, and knew allegedly that Mr.
Brines was coming, and he only expected one person to conduct this deal.
Now, the law is that association with a codefendant or presence at the scene,
even in the light most favorable to the government, is insufficient to prove a
conspiracy. And the law goes on in the jury instruction that even if he’s present
and figures out there that a crime is being committed, that’s not enough. So
that is the sole, sole evidence against Mr. Santiago. Well, that’s – even in the
light most favorable to the government, there’s no relation back to him based
on the evidence. What’s happening is, is we’re saying, okay, take everything in
the light most favorable to the government, but that’s taking the evidence in
the light most favorable to the government and the inferences based on the
evidence, but it always has to relate back to the evidence. That’s all there is.
Mr. Santiago, he can’t be related into knowing there was a conspiracy and
voluntarily join in the conspiracy. He’s not invited to go over and see the co-
caine or the sham cocaine and there’s [sic] no statements by him that are in-
criminating that have been introduced that actually exist. And therefore, Judge,
I think even taking the inferences based on the evidence in the light most fa-
vorable to the government, that it’s insufficient to prove that he knew and vol-
untarily joined in the conspiracy or that he knowingly attempted to possess
with intent to distribute cocaine.

THE COURT: Government, briefly, please.

THE PROSECUTOR: Yes, Judge. The facts in evidence are that the defendant
drove three other people to a meeting, the sole purpose of which was to buy
cocaine, and it was planned that there would have to be a physical exchange
of money for bricks of cocaine for that to take place. The idea that he was di-
rected to drive everybody to this meeting without knowing what was going to
happen is not a real – a reasonable interpretation of events.
In terms of additional details, he was standing next to Brines when Brines
said, “we brought 35 for two, $35,000.” So he hears that. The only interpretation
of that meeting that is in evidence before this Court is the informant’s testi-
mony that it was $35,000 to purchase two kilograms of cocaine. And Agent
Greghauser testified that that is a market price for two kilograms of cocaine.
And the term “we” is certainly susceptible to the interpretation that “we” means
the person standing with him and the others who arrived at the scene, be-
cause there’s no other reason for them to be there.
Moreover, after that discussion, Brines accompanies – excuse me, Santiago
then accompanies Brines to the car where Mr. Brines is going to show the money
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

to the informant. All of that taken together is certainly enough evidence to go

to the jury.

THE COURT: As stated, the Court has to look at the evidence in the light most
favorable to the government, which is a pretty difficult burden to overcome by
the defense. The Court finds that the government has met its burden of proof
at this stage of the proceedings. The motion pursuant to Rule 29 on behalf of
Mr. Santiago is denied.

Closing arguments

After the jury has seen and heard the factual evidence of the case, the parties may
argue its significance in closing arguments. Closing arguments are summations in
which the attorney for each party can speak directly to jurors to summarize and
discuss the evidence in the light more favorable to their side. Although they resemble
opening statements in some ways, they differ in that closing arguments are the time
each side argues its side to try to persuade the jury to return the verdict they want.
The parties are now free to make their points, to comment on the credibility of the
witnesses, and to attempt to convince the jury to decide the verdict in their favor.
The prosecution goes first because it has the burden of proof. The defense fol-
lows, and the prosecutor is then allowed to present a rebuttal argument. After both
sides have concluded, i.e., have finished presenting their argument, the judge charg-
es or instructs the jury on the law they must apply in deciding the verdict, though
some judges may choose to instruct the jury prior to closing arguments, after the
close of evidence. Closing arguments are interpreted in the simultaneous mode.
Interpreting Exercise: Interpret the following closing arguments in the simultaneous
mode:

Sample Closing Argument (by the prosecution – excerpt)

(Bribery Case)

8 THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. You are about to hear the
closing arguments in the case.
The purpose of closing arguments is to now highlight for you what the
lawyers believe the evidence in this case has established, and to call to your
attention certain inferences that might otherwise escape your notice.
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

Again, bear in mind that what they have to say to you is not evidence.
They’re now outlining to you what they believe the evidence in this case has in
fact established. If you have an independent recollection that the evidence
was something different than what they’re telling you, you are to rely on our
own independent recollection of what the evidence in the case is.
After we have heard all of the closing arguments, the court will outline to
you what the law is and then you will proceed to deliberate on your verdict.
Mr. Davidson, you may proceed, sir.

MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, Mr. Granger, ladies and
gentlemen of the jury. Good morning.
As I told you earlier, my name is Edward Davidson, I am the Assistant Unit-
ed States Attorney prosecuting this case, as you know. You have before you the
charge of bribery, just bribery, that is what the defendant is charged with com-
mitting in this case. He is not charged with preparing documents that might
be phony, he is not charged with immigration fraud, he is not charged with
making false statements to government agencies or anything of that matter.
He is charged with bribery, bribery, the peddling of influence, influence in this
case is the key I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, to consider. In other
words, favorable treatment, that is what bribery is all about.
As the judge will instruct you on the law on bribery, what elements have to
be met in order to prove bribery. Basically, the Judge will instruct you, bribery
is offering money or anything of value to a government official in order to influ-
ence that government official to do something in violation of his duty. In this
case, the duty is what Mr. Field explained to you was to review the applications
for the farm workers and interview the applicants, and as he explained to you,
the interview is very important. He would question each applicant and ask him
whether he really knows about picking beans, tomatoes or whatever, and that
is how he would determine whether or not the application was valid or not, but
in all of these cases for these 72 people that the defendant brought in to him,
he did not conduct the interview. That was in violation of his duty, his under-
standing was that the defendant pays one thousand dollars for each applicant,
and he would expedite it, push it through. That is the influence, ladies and gen-
tlemen, I ask you to consider in this case.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Sample Closing Argument (by the defense-excerpt)

(Drug Case)

MR. KALLIN:
9 Good morning. It seems like we have been here a long time, but we haven’t
been here a very long time at all.
This is the last opportunity I’ll have to talk to you directly. I want to talk to
you about what you’ve heard. Some of you have sat on juries before and some
of you haven’t. Now, just because a witness testifies doesn’t mean you have to
accept his testimony. You can accept all of it, you can accept part of it, you can
accept none of it. That is the reason you’re here. That’s the job you have under
the Constitution and the laws of this country.
Let me suggest that there’s something wrong here. This is not a game. It
wasn’t a game on the road. It isn’t a game here. I want you, as I go through my
closing argument, to try to go to that private area that you have, each one of
you, each one of us has, and think about this individually.
What first comes to mind when someone hears a story is usually the most
accurate, the most accurate reflection. When a neighbor tells a story, when a
friend tells a story, when a co-worker tells a story, sometimes we say, “Wow, I
don’t know about this. Something is wrong here,” but as we get to a new sub-
ject matter, we often forget about that what I call visceral, that gut feeling that
we have initially. Unless – lawyers sometimes write them down. Investigators
write them down. But in everyday life, sometimes people, that’s not the way
they think about it. When their kid tells them a story and there’s something a
little bit [sic], they’ve got a sixth sense.
I’m telling you there’s something wrong here in this case. Don’t discount it,
don’t disregard it. Test it. You are an American jury. That’s your responsibility. To
disregard it would not be to do your job.
Let me also remind you this [sic], and the Court will remind you. The fact
that a defendant, and this is different than everyday life, this is different than
what we do at home. In our country, our country, a defendant does not have to
testify. You cannot use that against him. Outside this building, you can do
whatever you want. That’s another right we have in this land. But the rules here
are different. That is probably one of the most difficult rules. You can’t use that
against him.
There’s a lot of reasons why [sic]. There’s a building in Washington which
has the Declaration of Independence in the Archives Building and the Consti-
tution. And that is where it all started. You can’t use his silence against him. It
may bother you. It may concern you. You may say, well, something is wrong
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

here. But in this room and when you deliberate, you can’t use that in any way.
If you do, and I hate to use this phrase, but I use it in every trial when this
happens, you’re smuggling a prejudice into the jury room. You can’t do it. Make
sure you don’t do it.
Now let’s talk about the testimony here. If you can believe anything this
trooper says – I don’t believe anybody can determine someone going five to ten
miles over the speed limit, across a barrier wall on the expressway, in the oppo-
site direction. I can’t believe that anyone would be willing, under oath, to testify
that way, unless they’re just saying, “Hey, I don’t care. We got the drugs here. We
got the defendant here. We got the defense attorney here. We got the United
States District Courthouse, and we’re going to convict him. By God, we know.”
The point is, they don’t know, and we will get into that in a moment. They
don’t know. And you don’t know either, because I asked the questions that are
the most relevant questions. And the questions come down to, did Esteban
Iglesias know?
And it’s the indictment. It’s only a piece of paper. It says on or about April 20,
2010, in Union County, in the District of Nebraska, the defendant, a real human
being, Esteban Iglesias, who sits here, did knowingly and intentionally possess
with the intent to distribute cocaine, and it goes on to describe portions of the
statute, A Schedule II narcotic controlled substance, in violation of Title 21, Unit-
ed States Code, Section 841(a) (1), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.
What does that all mean? It means did he know and intentionally possess
the cocaine? Did he know? And we are going to go right to that in a moment.
Well, let me go to it right now, and then I’ll back up a little.
Were his fingerprints there? No. His fingerprints were not on there. The
government wants you to believe he put the cocaine in the car. The govern-
ment can’t tell you he put the cocaine in the car. In fact, the government can’t
even tell you that he knew the cocaine was in the car. The government can
only tell you that the cocaine was in the car. When was it put in the car? I don’t
know. Who was there when it was put in? I don’t know. How long was it in the
car? I don’t know. How long has he owned the car? Well, at least until that time
period, but they never went to check to see and check out this other person
whose name they have.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Jury instructions

Prior to deliberations, the judge instructs the members of the jury on the law they
are to apply in deciding the verdict. The court may instruct the jury on the
applicable principles of law either before or after closing arguments are completed.
Before reading these instructions or charges, the judge and the attorneys for both
parties hold a so-called charge conference to discuss and review the instructions
the court will give the jurors. In federal court and in most states, the bulk of the
instructions are taken from what are called pattern or standard instructions. The
interpreters must simultaneously interpret for the defendant everything said, in-
cluding all the legal arguments.
As evident in the following excerpts, in giving the instructions the judge will
state the issues, define legal terms, discuss the standard of proof, instruct the jurors
to apply the relevant laws that govern the case, explain that they must base their
verdict on the evidence admitted in court and that what the lawyers say is not evi-
dence. In other words, jurors must determine the facts and decide the verdict in
accordance with the legal guidelines determined by the court.
The language of jury instructions tends to be extremely formal and is in sharp
contrast to the language used by the attorneys in their opening statements. Jury
instructions can be difficult to follow because they are composed as written text
and tend to be more complex lexically and syntactically than ordinary speech.
There are different sets of model instructions for use in state and federal courts, as
well as for civil and criminal cases. However, because certain terms and phrases
are standard and used regularly in jury instructions (e.g., “burden of proof,”
“knowingly,” “presumption of innocence,” “beyond a reasonable doubt”), they can
be learned ahead of time. Knowledge of these terms and their target language
equivalents is essential. As evident in the following sample jury instructions, ef-
forts have been made recently to improve “clarity and juror comprehension
through the use of plain English, and the removal of complexity and legal termi-
nology where possible” (Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit 2010, v). The
websites of many federal, state, and county courts throughout the country contain
valuable information relevant for court interpreters, including sample jury in-
structions.
Interpreting Exercise: Interpret the following jury instructions in the simultaneous
mode:
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

Note: These instructions, adapted from the 2010 revisions of the Eleventh Circuit
Pattern Jury Instructions, relate to a hypothetical case of mail fraud.4 Interpreters
should always request a copy of the written jury instructions to use when interpreting
them simultaneously into the target language as the judge reads them to the jury.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of Georgia
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff
v. Case No. 1052
Juan Diego,
Defendant
Court’s Instructions to the Jury
Members of the jury:
10 It is my duty to instruct you on the rules of law that you must use in decid-
ing this case. After I have completed these instructions you will go to the jury
room and begin your discussions – what we call your deliberations.
You must decide whether the government has proved the specific facts
necessary to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Duty to Follow Instructions and the Presumption of Innocence When a De-

fendant Does Not Testify

Your decision must be based only on the evidence presented during the trial.
You must not be influenced in any way either by sympathy for or prejudice
against the defendant or the government.
You must follow the law as I explain it – even if you do not agree with the
law – and you must follow all of my instructions as a whole. You must not single
out or disregard any of the Court’s instructions on the law.
The indictment or formal charge against a defendant is not evidence of
guilt. The law presumes every defendant is innocent. The defendant does not
have to prove [his] [her] innocence or produce any evidence at all. A defendant

4. Adapted from Judicial Conference of the Eleventh Circuit, Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury In-
structions (Criminal Cases). 2010 revision, 17–21; 23–24; 33; 35; 39–40; 44–45; 73; 307. Note that
some instructions contain bracketed material consisting of alternative statements that “may or
may not apply in a particular case. Such material must be tailored to fit the case, and the brackets
must be removed” (xii). Available at http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/documents/jury/Crimi-
nalJury2010.pdf.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

does not have to testify, and if the defendant chose not to testify, you cannot
consider that in any way while making your decision. The government must
prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If it fails to do so, you must find the
defendant not guilty.

Definition of “Reasonable Doubt”

The government’s proof is heavy, but it does not have to prove a defendant’s
guilt beyond all possible doubt. The government’s proof only has to exclude
any “reasonable doubt” concerning the defendant’s guilt.
A “reasonable doubt” is a real doubt, based on your reason and common
sense after you have carefully and impartially considered all the evidence in
the case.
“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is proof so convincing that you would
be willing to rely and act on it without hesitation in the most important of your
own affairs. If you are convinced that the defendant has been proved guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt, say so. If you are not convinced, say so.

Consideration of Direct and Circumstantial Evidence;

Argument of Counsel; Comments by the Court

As I said before, you must consider only the evidence I have admitted in the
case. Evidence includes the testimony of witnesses and the exhibits admitted.
But, anything the lawyers say is not evidence and is not binding on you.
You should not assume from anything I have said that I have any opinion
about any factual issue in this case. Except for my instructions to you on the
law, you should disregard anything I may have said during the trial in arriving
at your own decision about the facts.
Your own recollection and interpretation of the evidence is what matters.
In considering the evidence you may use reasoning and common sense to
make deductions and reach conclusions. You should not be concerned about
whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial.
“Direct evidence” is the testimony of one who asserts that he or she has
actual knowledge of a fact, such as an eyewitness.
“Circumstantial evidence” is proof of a chain of facts and circumstances
that tend to prove or disprove a fact. There is no legal difference in the weight
you may give to either direct or circumstantial evidence.
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

Credibility of Witnesses

When I say you must consider all the evidence, I do not mean that you must
accept all the evidence as true or accurate. You should decide whether you be-
lieve what each witness had to say, and how important that testimony was. In
making that decision you may believe or disbelieve any witness, in whole or in
part. The number of witnesses testifying concerning a particular point does not
necessarily matter.
To decide whether you believe any witness, I suggest that you ask yourself
a few questions:

– Did the witness impress you as one who was telling the truth?
– Did the witness have any particular reason not to tell the truth?
– Did the witness have a personal interest in the outcome of the case?
– Did the witness seem to have a good memory?
– Did the witness have the opportunity and ability to accurately observe the
things he or she testified about?
– Did the witness appear to understand the questions clearly and answer
them directly?
– Did the witness’s testimony differ from other testimony or other evi-
dence?

Impeachment of Witnesses Because of Inconsistent Statements

You should also ask yourself whether there was evidence that a witness testi-
fied falsely about an important fact. And ask whether there was evidence that
at some other time a witness said or did something, or did not say or do some-
thing, that was different from the testimony the witness gave during this trial.
But keep in mind that a simple mistake does not mean a witness was not
telling the truth as he or she remembers it. People naturally tend to forget
some things or remember them inaccurately. So, if a witness misstated some-
thing, you must decide whether it was because of an innocent lapse of memo-
ry or an intentional deception. The significance of your decision may depend
on whether the misstatement is about an important fact or about an unim-
portant detail.

Expert Witness

When scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge might be helpful, a

person who has special training or experience in that field is allowed to state
an opinion about the matter.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

But that does not mean you must accept the witness’s opinion. As with any
other witness’s testimony, you must decide for yourself whether to rely upon the
opinion.

Mail Fraud

It is a federal crime to [use the United States mail] [transmit something by pri-
vate or commercial interstate carrier] in carrying out a scheme to defraud
someone.
The defendant can be found guilty of this crime only if all the following
facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. the defendant knowingly devised or participated in a scheme to defraud

someone, or obtain money or property, using false or fraudulent pretens-
es, representations, or promises;
2. the false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises were about
a material fact;
3. the defendant intended to defraud someone; and
4. the defendant used [the United States Postal Service by mailing or by
causing to be mailed] [a private or commercial interstate carrier by depos-
iting with the carrier] something meant to help carry out the scheme to
defraud.

[A “private or commercial interstate carrier” includes any business that trans-

mits, carries, or delivers items from one state to another. It does not matter
whether the message or item actually moves from one state to another as long
as the message or item is delivered to the carrier.]
A “scheme to defraud” includes any plan or course of action intended to
deceive or cheat someone out of money or property using false or fraudulent
pretenses, representations, or promises.
A statement or representation is “false” or “fraudulent” if it is about a mate-
rial fact, it is made with intent to defraud, and the speaker either knows it is
untrue or fraudulent if it is made with the intent to defraud and is a half-truth
or effectively conceals a material fact.
A “material fact” is an important fact that a reasonable person would use to
decide whether to do or not do something. A fact is “material” if it has the ca-
pacity or natural tendency to influence a person’s decision. It does not matter
whether the decision-maker actually relied on the statement or knew or should
have known that the statement was false.
To act with “intent to defraud” means to act knowingly and with the spe-
cific intent to deceive or cheat someone, usually for personal financial gain or
to cause financial loss to someone else.
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

The government does not have to prove all the details about the precise
nature and purpose of the scheme or that the material [mailed] [deposited
with an interstate carrier] was itself false or fraudulent. It also does not have to
prove that the use of [the mail] [the interstate carrier] was intended as the spe-
cific or exclusive means carrying out the fraud, or that the defendant did the
actual [mailing] [depositing]. It does not even have to prove that anyone was
actually defrauded.
To “cause” [the mail] [an interstate carrier] to be used is to do an act know-
ing that the use of [the mail] [the carrier] will usually follow in the ordinary
course of business or where that use can reasonably be foreseen.
Each separate use of [the mail] [an interstate carrier] as part of a scheme to
defraud is a separate crime.

Character Evidence

Evidence of a defendant’s character traits may create a reasonable doubt.

You should consider testimony that a defendant is an honest and law-
abiding citizen along with all the other evidence to decide whether the gov-
ernment has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant commit-
ted the offense.

Burden of Proof

The jury will always bear in mind, however, that the law never imposes upon a
defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or
producing any evidence.

On or About; Knowingly; Willfully – Generally

You will see that the indictment charges that a crime was committed “on or
about” a certain date. The government does not have to prove that the crime
occurred on an exact date. The government only has to prove beyond a rea-
sonable doubt that the crime was committed on a date reasonably close to the
date alleged.
The word “knowingly” means that an act was done voluntarily and inten-
tionally and not because of a mistake or by accident.
[The word “willfully” means that the act was committed voluntarily and
purposely, with the intent to do something the law forbids; that is, with the
bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law. While a person must have acted
with the intent to do something the law forbids before you can find that the
person acted “willfully,” the person need not be aware of the specific law or rule
that [his] [her] conduct may be violating.]
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Caution – Punishment

I caution you that the defendant is on trial only for the specific crime charged
in the indictment. You are here to determine from the evidence in this case
whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. If you find the defendant guilty,
the punishment is for the Court alone to decide later.

Duty to Deliberate

Your verdict, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous – in other words,
you must all agree. Your deliberations are secret, and you will never have to
explain your verdict to anyone.
Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but only after fully consider-
ing the evidence with the other jurors. So you must discuss the case with one
another and try to reach an agreement. While you are discussing the case, do
not hesitate to reexamine your own opinion and change your mind if you be-
come convinced that you were wrong. But do not give up your honest beliefs
just because others think differently or because you simply want to get the
case over with.
Remember that, in a very real way, you are judges – judges of the facts.
Your only interest is to seek the truth from the evidence in the case.

Verdict

When you get to the jury room, choose one of your members to act as foreper-
son. The foreperson will direct your deliberations and will speak for you in
court.
A verdict form has been prepared for your convenience.
[Note: at this time the judge explains the verdict form to the jurors]
Take the verdict form with you to the jury room. When you have all agreed
on the verdict, your foreperson must fill in the form, sign it, and date it. Then
you will return it to the courtroom.
If you wish to communicate with me at any time, please write down your
message or question and give it to the security officer. The security officer will
bring it to me. I will respond as promptly as possible – either in writing or by
talking to you in the courtroom. But I caution you not to tell me how many ju-
rors have voted one way or the other at that time.
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

Deliberations and verdict

After the final arguments and the jury instructions have concluded, the judge will
thank and excuse the alternate jurors. Although present throughout the trial, alter-
nate jurors do not participate in the deliberations. Their function is very impor-
tant, nonetheless, because alternate jurors are prepared and ready to replace any
member of the jury panel who, due to illness or some other reason, may not be
able to remain in the trial until the verdict is reached. At this time the jury retires
to the jury room to begin their deliberations. In very high profile cases, the jurors
may be sequestered, during deliberations, that is, housed in a hotel and secluded
from contact with other people and media broadcasts. In general, the first order of
business is for the jury to elect one juror to act as the foreperson or presiding juror.
This person’s role is to preside over the deliberations and votes of the jurors, and
deliver the verdict.
In some states and in federal court, the jury is generally given the verdict form
along with the exhibits, the judge’s written instructions and other documents, such
as the indictment, to take to the jury room. Jurors are instructed that if they have
a question, they are to write it down and give it to the bailiff or security officer, who
will take it to the judge. The judge will reconvene all the parties and discuss the
note or question before responding either in writing, or by calling the jurors back
into the courtroom to address them orally.
The verdict in a criminal case must be unanimous while in some states “a less
than unanimous decision is permitted in civil cases. All federal cases require a
unanimous decision” (ABA, vol II: 28). When the verdict is reached, the foreper-
son completes, signs and dates the verdict form. The jury notifies the bailiff or
court security officer, who then notifies the judge. All of the parties reconvene in
the courtroom and the verdict is read either by the clerk or foreperson. Everyone
stands as the jurors enter the courtroom and take their place in the jury box. The
foreperson hands the verdict form to the clerk, who may hand it to the judge to
make sure that it is filled out properly. The judge will ask the clerk to “publish,” that
is, read the verdict out loud, in open court. Everything is interpreted simultane-
ously for the defendant(s). Possible verdicts in criminal cases are “guilty” or “not
guilty” (see Document 4.1).
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Document 4.1 Sample Verdict Form

________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Case No. 08-3902-CR-ANTON
v.
Gael de García,
Defendant.
___________________________/
VERDICT
1. We, the Jury, unanimously find the Defendant, Gael de García, as to Count
1 of the Indictment:
Guilty__________ Not Guilty__________
2. We, the Jury, unanimously find the Defendant, Gael de García, as to Count
2 of the Indictment:
Guilty__________ Not Guilty__________
3. We, the Jury, unanimously find the Defendant, Gael de García, as to Count
3 of the Indictment:
Guilty__________ Not Guilty__________
a. If you find the Defendant not guilty as charged in Count 3, you need not
consider the paragraph (b) below.
b. We, the Jury, having found the Defendant guilty of the offense charged in
Count 3, further find with respect to that Count that said firearm was:
(place an X in the appropriate box):
i. a Ruger 10-22, 22LR caliber, short-barreled rifle []
ii. equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler []
iii. both []
iv. neither []
SO SAY WE ALL.
Signed and dated at the United States Courthouse, San Jose, California this ____
day of September, 2008.
___________________________ ___________________________
Foreperson’s Signature Foreperson’s Printed Name
________________________________________________________________

A verdict of not guilty in a criminal case is also called an acquittal. In a civil suit,
the jury finds for the plaintiff or the defendant. If it finds for the plaintiff, it will
usually set out the amount the defendant should pay for damages, often after a
 Chapter 4.  Trials 

separate hearing concerning damages. The jury will also make a decision about
any counterclaims that may be a part of the case. Lawyers may ask that the jury be
polled, that is, each juror is asked if the verdict that was announced reflects that
juror’s individual verdict. This polling of the jury serves to ensure that the verdict
read is the actual verdict of each juror. After the court accepts the jury’s decision,
the court will thank and dismiss the jurors, thus ending the trial. If the poll reveals
that there is not unanimous agreement, the jury may be directed to retire for ad-
ditional deliberations, or discharged.
If a jury cannot reach a decision, they become a hung jury. Mistrials are trials
that are not successfully completed. They are terminated and declared void before
the jury returns a verdict or the judge renders the decision in a nonjury (bench)
trial. Mistrials can occur for many reasons, including the jury’s inability to reach a
verdict because it is hopelessly deadlocked. Either side may make a motion for a
mistrial. The judge may either grant the motion or deny it and the trial will
continue. If a mistrial is declared, the case may be tried later before a different jury.
Defendants who are acquitted are free to go. If the jury returned a guilty verdict,
however, the defendant will be taken into custody or allowed to remain on bond,
pending the sentencing hearing. The trial has officially concluded.
The jury’s verdict takes effect when the judge enters a judgment on the deci-
sion, that is, an order to be filed in public records. In a civil suit, the judge may
have the authority to increase or decrease the amount of damages awarded by the
jury, or to make some other modification before entering judgment. In criminal
matters, the judge generally has no authority to modify the verdict.
Motions permitted after the verdict is announced vary from state to state. They
may include a motion for a new trial, a motion in arrest of judgment, and a motion
for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. A motion for a new trial is a request to
the judge to set aside the judgment or verdict and order a new trial on the basis
that the trial was unfair or improper. A motion for arrest of judgment questions
the sufficiency of the information or indictment in a criminal case and asks that
the judgment not be enforced. A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
is a request for a judgment entered by order of court “for one party even though a
jury verdict has been rendered for the opposing party. – Also termed judgment
non obstante veredicto” (Black’s 2009, 920).
The next chapter discusses post-judgment proceedings such as sentencings
and appeals.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Jury selection
↓
Judge’s preliminary remarks and instructions to the jury
↓
Opening statements
Prosecution
Defense (optional)
↓
Presentation of evidence and witnesses
Prosecution
Defense (optional)
↓
Motions
Rulings on evidence
↓
Presentation of defense evidence and witnesses (optional)
Defense rests
↓
Rebuttal case by prosecution (optional)
↓
Both sides rest
↓
Motions
↓
Closing arguments:
Prosecution
Defense
Prosecution rebuttal
↓
Charge conference
↓
Jury instructions and standard of proof
↓
Deliberations and verdict
Jury is polled on the verdict (optional)
↓
Jury is thanked and discharged
If the verdict is not guilty, the defendant is discharged
If the verdict is guilty, the defendant is released or detained
↓
Court adjourned

Figure 4.2  Review of the Stages in a Criminal Jury Trial

 chapter 5

Sentences and post-trial proceedings

Defendants in criminal cases who either plead guilty or are found guilty in a jury
or bench trial must be sentenced. A sentence is a judgment of the court upon a
defendant found guilty of a crime. In civil cases, if the defendant wins the case,
there is nothing more that needs to be done. If, however, the judge or the jury de-
cides in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant is usually ordered to pay the plaintiff
or to take some specific action that will restore the plaintiff ’s rights. This chapter
provides a brief overview of sentencing procedures and appeals, with emphasis on
criminal matters.

Presentence investigation report

At the time the guilty plea or judgment is entered, the judge will set a date for im-
posing the sentence. In most states and in the federal courts, only the judge deter-
mines the sentence to be imposed. Before the date set for sentencing, at the request
of the court, a probation officer will conduct a presentence investigation and pre-
pare a report based on that investigation.
The probation officer responsible for preparing the report will meet with the
defendant and may need an interpreter for the interview. The defendant’s attorney
may be present at this interview, generally held at the detention facilities. Anything
discussed during the presentence report interview is confidential and may not be
divulged by the interpreter. Although the interpretation does not take place in the
courtroom, the same code of professional responsibility applies to the interpreter,
who must not offer opinions about such matters as the defendant’s circumstances,
educational level, mental state, or sincerity.
The presentence investigation report (PSI or PSR) provides the judge with ex-
tensive information that he or she will use to fashion the appropriate sentence. The
presentence investigation may consider the defendant’s prior record, if any, family
and work history, health, and other relevant factors that may help the court in
sentencing. It will also contain the probation officer’s recommendations regarding
the applicable rules and sentencing guidelines. Some states and the federal courts
have sentencing guidelines to guide the judges in imposing sentences. These
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

guidelines are intended to encourage uniformity and avoid sentencing disparities.

In determining appropriate sentences, federal judges consider sentencing statutes
promulgated by Congress and U.S. Sentencing Commission guidelines, which are
advisory, not mandatory.1
Presentence reports (PSRs) are not public documents and their disclosure is
limited. For that reason, the information in Table 5.1, Document 5.1 and
Document 5.2, is from a hypothetical case. Presentence reports can be lengthy;
they are generally divided into several sections containing a summary of the sen-
tencing guidelines, a description of the offense, the computation of the offense
level and the criminal history of the defendant (see Table 5.1. Sentencing Compu-
tations). They may also contain a description of factors that may warrant a depar-
ture or variance under the guidelines.
Prior to the sentencing hearing, both parties have the opportunity to review
the presentence report and file written objections, corrections, or other requested
changes. If the parties are not able to reach agreement on the objections, the judge
will rule on them at the sentencing hearing. Defense counsel may need the ser-
vices of an interpreter to go over the report with the defendant. In such cases, the
interpreter sight translates the document in the presence of the defense attorney.
All questions from the defendant about the case, the report or the sentence must
be answered by the attorney, not the interpreter. As always, interpreters must avoid
expressing opinions unrelated to linguistic or semantic issues.

Table 5.1  Sentencing Computations

Total Offense Level: 8 Criminal History IV

Category

Statutory Advisory Guideline Recommended

Provisions Provisions Sentence

Custody: 0 to 10 years 10 to 16 months 16 months

Probation: 1 to 5 years Not authorized Not authorized
Supervised Release: Not more than 3 years 2 to 3 years 3 years
Fine: $250,000 $1,000 to $10,000 Not recommended
Restitution: N/A N/A N/A
Special Assessment: $100 $100 $100

1. For additional information on the United States Sentencing Guidelines, see the website of
the United States Sentencing Commission at http://www.ussc.gov.
 Chapter 5.  Sentences and post-trial proceedings 

Document 5.1 Sample Presentence Report – Face Sheet

United States District Court

____________ District of ____________
United States of America
v. Docket No. 10-213-CR
Myra Britto
Presentence Report
Prepared for: The Hon. Marcia Smith Lee Sentencing Date: 10/31/10
Prepared by: Charlene Carlton
United States Probation Officer
Office Location:   423 Princeton Street, Mountainview Plaza
Offense: Count 1: 18 U.S.C. 846
Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine, a felony
18 U.S.C. §841 (a) (1), 841 (b) (1) (B)
Date of Arrest: 7/14/10
Custodial Status: In Custody since July 14, 2010
Identifying Data:
Date of Birth: March 10, 1980 Age: 30 Citizenship: U.S.A.
Race: Caucasian Sex: F Dependents: 2
SSN: xxx-xx-7654 Other ID No.: N/A
Education: 9th Grade U.S. Marshal No.: 321-7988
Legal Address: 33 Hill Drive # 212
Detainers: None
Co-defendants: Carlos Janzsen (10-213-CR)
Assistant U. S. Attorney Defense Counsel
William C. Edwards, AUSA Leslie Jones, Esq.
Date Report Prepared: 10/15/2010

The presentence report may contain an addendum, which is an addition to the

presentence report prepared by the probation officer (see Document 5.2). The ad-
dendum includes any objections to the report by the parties, as well as the proba-
tion officer’s recommendations to the court regarding those objections. Objections
can be factual (e.g., the date of arrest) or legal (e.g., the defendant’s role in the
offense).
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Document 5.2 Sample Addendum to a Presentence Report

Addendum to the Presentence Report

Objections
By the Government:
The Government has no objections.
By the Defendant:
Defense counsel maintains that the defendant was a minor participant in the
offense. She will present argument at the sentencing hearing that the defendant’s
offense level should be adjusted downward by two points under guideline 3B1.2
because of the defendant’s role in the offense.
The probation officer does not believe that the defendant’s participation in
the offense can properly be characterized as “minor,” as that term is used in the
commentary accompanying guideline 3B1.2(b). The probation officer believes
that the facts of this case reflect the defendant’s full and knowing participation in
the offense and make her as culpable as her co-defendant, Carlos Janzsen.

Certified By
James B. Luck
Chief Probation Officer
By
[signature]
Carla Jones
U.S. Probation Officer
Reviewed and Approved:
[signature]
Jean Bastien
Supervisor

Sentencing hearing

At the sentencing hearing, the defendant, defense counsel, and the prosecutor ap-
pear before the court. The probation officer is usually present as well. Prior to the
sentencing hearing, the judge reviews the presentence report and materials sub-
mitted by counsel. The defense may introduce evidence regarding alleged inaccu-
racies in the presentence report. After considering the submissions and listening
to the parties, the judge resolves any disputed issues regarding the sentence.
Before the case is called, interpreters should attempt to gather information
regarding pending objections to the presentence investigation report. It will be
 Chapter 5.  Sentences and post-trial proceedings 

very helpful to the interpreter to review any objections to the presentence report as
well as the probation officer’s recommendation letter, if available. As with other
types of hearings, interpreters should arrive approximately 15 minutes before the
scheduled proceeding and politely ask the parties – counsel, courtroom staff – for
the opportunity to quickly review any relevant documents. If the defendant or
someone speaking on behalf of the defendant is planning to read a letter written in
his or her native language, the interpreter should ask the defense attorney if it
would be possible to read the statement before the hearing begins. This is strongly
recommended because written language tends to be more syntactically complex
than spoken language. Moreover, written documents tend to be lengthy (see Doc-
uments 5.3 and 5.4). When the case is called, everything that is said in the hearing
is interpreted for the defendant in the simultaneous mode. All statements made by
the defendant or other non-English speakers are interpreted consecutively.
Sentencing hearings vary widely from court to court. In general, federal sen-
tencing hearings are structured as follows:
– the court asks if the presentence investigation report was translated into Span-
ish for the defendant, if the defendant had the opportunity to review and dis-
cuss the presentence report with his or her attorney, and if there are any fac-
tual errors in the report.
– the court asks if there are objections to the presentence report. If there are no
objections to the report, both the prosecutor and the defense attorney will ad-
dress the judge with their views on the appropriate sentence. If there are objec-
tions, the court and the attorneys will discuss those objections. At times these
discussions may be lengthy. They typically involve the application of the sen-
tencing guidelines, sentencing recommendations, reasons for upward or
downward departures or variances from the guidelines, and any motions for
sentence reductions. Depending on the nature of the disputed issues, witness-
es may be called to give testimony and documents and other evidence may be
introduced.
– the court asks if the defendant wishes to make a statement on his or her own
behalf prior to the imposition of sentence. This is known as the defendant’s
right to allocution. The defendant may not wish to say anything and rely in-
stead on the defense attorney’s statements. If the defendant does speak, how-
ever, the statement is interpreted in the consecutive mode.
– the court imposes the sentence, stating for the record the reasons for the sen-
tence just imposed.
– the court advises the defendant of the right to appeal the sentence.
– the clerk or courtroom deputy enters the judgment of the court, including the
date of the judgment into the records.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Some of the most frequently used terms during sentencing hearings involve the
different sentencing options such as probation, supervised release, restitution, pay-
ment of a fine, and term of imprisonment. Probation is a sentence that allows the
defendant to remain in the community, under the supervision of a probation offi-
cer. Supervised release requires supervision of the offender in the community after
he or she completes a prison term or term of incarceration.
What follows is an excerpt of the transcript of a sentencing hearing in which
neither party had objections to the presentence report.
Interpreting Exercise: The dialogue between the court and the defendant is interpreted
in the consecutive mode. Everything else is interpreted in the simultaneous mode.

Sample Sentencing Hearing – excerpt

11 THE COURT: We’re here this afternoon to impose sentence on Mr. Mario Jorge.
Mr. Jorge, did your attorney have the presentence report translated for you?

THE DEFENDANT: Sí, Su Señoría.

THE COURT: Did you see anything in your report that needs to be corrected?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Señoría, solamente la fecha de arresto.

THE COURT: And what should that be?

THE DEFENDANT: Sería el 4 de septiembre.

THE COURT (to the probation officer): Then, Ms. Robbins, please correct the
date to reflect that the defendant was arrested on September 4.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Jorge. Do you see anything else?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Su Señoría, todo está bien.

THE COURT: I didn’t see any objections.

COUNSEL: There are no objections, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Jorge, you have the right to allocution. That means that you
can say anything you wish to say before I impose sentence. You are under no
obligation to say anything, however, and if you decide not to say anything, I
will not hold that against you in any way.

THE DEFENDANT: Yo solo quería decir unas pocas palabras antes de que Su Se­
ñoría dicte sentencia. Su Señoría, quiero pedir perdón. Me siento muy avergonzado
por el delito que cometí. Perdóneme. Le prometo que nunca más lo voy a hacer.
 Chapter 5.  Sentences and post-trial proceedings 

As illustrated in the previous excerpt, defendants have the right to allocution at the
sentencing hearing, that is, the right to address the judge prior to the imposition of
sentence. When the judge asks defendants just before formally imposing the sen-
tence if they wish to address the court, some will choose to have their attorney
speak for them and others will address the court. Some defendants give brief state-
ments of apology or remorse and ask for leniency, others give lengthy statements,
and others bring to court prepared written statements they wish to read out loud.
Witnesses such as close family members or friends of the defendant who may wish
to address the court may need interpreting services. All foreign language state-
ments must be interpreted in the consecutive mode.
At sentencing hearings, it may also be necessary to sight translate letters or
other documents presented by the defense. If the interpreter is asked to sight trans-
late a handwritten letter from the defendant or a relative of the defendant, the in-
terpreter should ask the judge for an opportunity to review the text to determine
its legibility. It would not be unusual for such a letter to contain mistakes in spell-
ing, grammar and punctuation (see Document 5.5). Many defendants will speak
extemporaneously and keep their statements to a brief apology and expression of
remorse, as in the following example:

Sample allocution

THE COURT: Does the defendant wish to say anything at this time? Mr. Torres,
you are under no obligation to speak and if you choose to remain silent I will
not hold that against you in any way. However, if you wish to say something,
this is the time for you to do so.

THE DEFENDANT: Su Señoría, sé que cometí un error. Sé que este país me ha brin­
dado tantas oportunidades. Sé que caí, como dice mi abogado y que fue algo bien
tonto, bien estúpido de mi parte.
Si Ud. mira mi historia en este país puede ver que he tratado de comportarme
como buen ciudadano. No sé cómo decirle las cosas a Ud. de la vergüenza que sien­
to. Sé que Ud. toma la decisión final. Estoy dispuesto a acatar lo que Ud. decida.

Interpreting Exercises Interpret the following statement in the consecutive mode as

the defendant reads the written text to the judge:
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Document 5.3 Sample Statement Read by a Defendant

THE DEFENDANT: Estoy aquí para recibir mi condena por los actos de los cuales yo
me declaré culpable. Yo he reflexionado sobre estos actos y he concluido que nada
que yo haga jamás repararía el daño que he causado. Mi esperanza es que mi de­
cisión de declararme culpable y aceptar mi castigo traerá algún medio de paz a las
víctimas de mis actos y a sus familias.
Cuando sólo tenía doce años de edad, mi padre se murió y por ello fui lanzado
al papel de cabeza de familia, de ahí en adelante, mi vida cambió dramáticamente
y comencé a tomar decisiones equivocadas y a seguir caminos errados, tratando
de defenderme y a mi familia de la guerrilla. Por medio de este proceso hoy reco­
nozco que la historia mía no es la única que es repetida diariamente en las ciu­
dades de este país cada vez que un padre deja huérfanos a sus hijos por cuenta de
la violencia producida por el narcotráfico. Las víctimas no son solamente los muer­
tos, las familias, particularmente los hijos quedan como víctimas vivientes en­
frentando un mundo cruel y cínico, lleno de hombres maliciosos.
Es mi sincera esperanza poder darle alivio a las familias de las víctimas por
medio de tomar pasos afirmativos hacia la reconciliación y poder darles alguna
conclusión a sus pesadillas. Yo sé que estos pasos nunca pagarán por el mal que se
hizo y por eso estoy extremadamente arrepentido. Yo he pensado profundamente
sobre las presiones y tentaciones que me rodeaban cuando falleció mi padre y de
cómo yo debí haber sido más fuerte para resistirlas. Lamentablemente no lo fui y
dirigí mis pasos hacia un camino equivocado. Es mi esperanza que la juventud de
este país, igual que la de mi amada Colombia, aprendan de mis malas decisiones
y no repitan mi gran error, sean fuertes, resistan las tentaciones, vivan vidas de paz
y de propósito con sus familias, basadas en principios honrados, trabajo legítimo
y honesto, y vivan con la fe y la paz que nuestro Dios les dará.
Aunque no estoy muerto, para mis hijos y particularmente para mi hijita, es
un hecho que los he dejado huérfanos con mis actos; ellos también son víctimas
de mis actos, le ruego a Dios que les de la paz que tanto se han merecido.
De nuevo le quiero dar las gracias a Su Señoría por escuchar mi disculpa y por
la oportunidad de comenzar un proceso curativo. Le quiero pedir el gran perdón a
mi familia y a todas las víctimas, a los Estados Unidos y al pueblo colombiano. A
Dios le he pedido perdón y tengo fe que me acompañará en mi camino.

Interpreting Exercises Interpret the following statement in the consecutive mode as

the defendant reads the written text to the judge:
 Chapter 5.  Sentences and post-trial proceedings 

Document 5.4 Sample Statement Read by a Defendant

THE DEFENDANT: Hoy, que me encuentro frente a la honorable Juez que emitirá
su fallo por mi penosa y triste equivocación, ruego a Dios Todopoderoso toque su
corazón y guíe con su sabiduría la decisión que vaya a tomar.
Solo puedo decir respetuosamente que estoy muy arrepentido y lamento que
con mis actos haya ofendido a esta nación, a su justicia y a la sociedad en general,
por lo cual pido su perdón y benevolencia.
Así mismo, esta dolorosa situación me ha hecho comprender la tragedia que
ha debido afrontar toda mi familia, que a pesar de todo me ha brindado su apoyo
permanente e incondicional; mi mamá, mis hermanas, mis sobrinas, mi esposa y
mis dos hijos, el menor un pequeño de tan sólo 23 meses de edad, con quien no he
podido disfrutar sino 5 meses de su corta existencia. A todos ellos, solicito también
su perdón.
Pero sobre todo a Dios, ese ser maravilloso que siempre acude en nuestra
ayuda en los momentos de desesperación y que cuando nos encontramos al borde
del abismo nos sostiene para no caer o simplemente nos enseña a volar. Con res­
pecto a esta etapa de mi vida, el Profeta Job (cap 5–7) nos dice, «Bienaventurado
es el hombre a quien Dios castiga», llamándonos la atención sobre el carácter edu­
cativo y no retributivo del sufrimiento humano, y en Proverbios (cap 3/11) Salomón
nos indica que la corrección de Dios, por dura que sea, prueba su amor e interés
por nosotros.
Igualmente deseo manifestar, que una vez termine esta cruel y prolongada
pesadilla, que nunca debió comenzar, es mi compromiso y mi deseo reiniciar mi
vida (de la cual he desperdiciado un tiempo valiosísimo a raíz de esta situación),
con una conducta limpia, responsable y sin mancha, compartiendo al lado de los
míos, dentro de un ambiente de fe, amor, comprensión y rectitud.
Finalmente reitero mi solicitud de clemencia, misericordia a consideración de
su parte en el momento de dictar su sentencia.
Con todo mi respeto,
Enrique Marcial Iglesias

Interpreting Exercise: Sight translate the following letter written by a defendant. Note
that the original language, including syntax and spelling errors, has been preserved.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Document 5.5 Sample Letter Written by a Defendant

 Luis Guerrero
 16/8/2011
Sr: Kevin M. O’Connor
Jues: Del Distrito de Mineapolis
Honorable Sr O’Connor
Me dirijo a usted a traves de esta carta con mucho respeto expresando mi arre-
pentimiento por todos los errores que he cometido todo por mi ignoransia y descono-
simiento de las leyes de este país aunque se que el desconosimiento no exonera de
responsabilidades y las asumo reconosiendo y aceptando la responsabilidad personal
por mi conducta, aceptando con mucho respeto su desisión. Le pido arrepentido pie-
dad y misericordia en el nombre de Dios.
Dios le bendiga.
Luis Guerrero2
After all parties have spoken, the judge imposes the sentence. The language used
by the judge in imposing sentence is similar to the following:
Interpreting Exercise: Interpret the judge’s words in the simultaneous mode:

THE COURT: The Court has considered the statements of all parties, the Presen-
tence Report which contains the advisory guidelines, and the statutory factors.
It is the finding of the Court that the defendant is not able to pay a fine and
therefore one will not be imposed.
It is therefore the judgment of the Court that the defendant, Rafael Aran-
guren, is committed to the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for 16 months.
Upon release from imprisonment, the defendant shall be placed on super-
vised release for a term of three years. Within 72 hours of release, the defendant
shall report in person to the probation office in the district where released.
While on supervised release, the defendant shall not commit any crimes, shall
be prohibited from possessing a firearm or other dangerous devices, shall not
possess a controlled substance, shall cooperate in the collection of DNA, and
shall comply with the standard conditions of supervised release, including the
following special condition(s):
The defendant shall be surrendered to Immigration for removal after im-
prisonment. The defendant shall immediately pay a special assessment of
$100. Total sentence is 16 months imprisonment, 3 years supervised release

2. Courtesy Bill Suquet, U.S. Court Certified Interpreter.

 Chapter 5.  Sentences and post-trial proceedings 

and $100 assessment. Now that sentence has been imposed, is there any ob-
jection from any of the parties to the way sentence was pronounced?

THE PROSECUTION: No objections, Your Honor.

THE DEFENSE: The defendant has no objections, Your Honor.

Following the imposition of the sentence, the judge will offer the parties an op-
portunity to preserve any objections and the right to appeal. The court also advises
the defendant that if he or she cannot afford counsel for the appeal, one would be
appointed for the purpose of the appeal. Defendants have a specific number of
days from the entry of the judgment of conviction to file a notice of appeal. If they
fail to do so within that deadline, they waive or lose the right to appeal.

Appeals and post-judgment motions

Defendants who are found guilty after a criminal trial have the right to appeal their
cases to the court of appeals. Appeals by the prosecution after a verdict are not
normally allowed because the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides
that no person shall “be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb” for the same offense.
This protection against double jeopardy means that no one may be tried twice for
the same crime. Criminal defendants in state courts may also appeal to the federal
courts after they have exhausted all of their rights to appeal at the state level. They
may do this by filing a writ of habeas corpus in the federal courts to attempt to
show that their federal constitutional rights were violated. In a civil case, either
party may appeal to a higher court.
Appeals are not new trials or retrials. As discussed in Chapter 2, appeals courts
do not generally consider new witnesses or evidence. Courts of appeals usually
deliberate in panels of three judges. They review the record (i.e., the transcripts of
the trial and the documents filed in the case) along with the legal briefs or state-
ments written by the attorneys presenting arguments for both sides. The judges
may hear oral argument by attorneys in a formal session, but many cases are de-
cided on the basis of the briefs and the record alone. Interpreters are normally not
needed during these proceedings. Appeals in criminal and civil cases are generally
based on arguments that errors were made in the judge’s interpretation of the law
or in trial procedure (such as by admitting improper evidence). If the appeals court
rules that the trial judge erred, it will reverse the judge’s decision. Should that hap-
pen, sometimes the higher court will send back or remand the case to the district
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

court for another trial or resentencing. A court of appeals can also affirm or vali-
date a decision of a trial judge.
The well-known Miranda case is an example of a reversal of a lower court deci-
sion. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that Ernesto Miranda’s confession could
not be used as evidence because he had not been advised of his right to remain silent
or of the right to have a lawyer present during questioning. The case was remanded
for a new trial at which the improperly obtained confession was not used as evi-
dence. Other evidence the government had was used, and Miranda was convicted.

Conclusion

Court interpreting in the U.S. has come a long way since passage of the Court In-
terpreters Act and the establishment of a certification process in the federal district
courts in 1978. The provision of competent interpreting services is pivotal in pre-
serving fundamental fairness and equal access to the courts for linguistic minori-
ties. In The Practice of Court Interpreting (1995: 4) Alicia Betsy Edwards empha-
sized that “study does not end with the acquisition of a degree or certification.” As
members of a professional group, interpreters must continually hone their skills,
enhance their cultural awareness and update their linguistic knowledge. As Ben-
maman (1997) explains:
the constantly evolving nature of language produces changes in regional, vernacu-
lar and popular vocabulary, idiomatic expressions and slang terms. Laws change
and new ones are enacted regularly. Maintaining currency in legal matters and re-
searching new terminology must be an integral part of professional commitment.
Legal interpreters can benefit greatly by active involvement in professional organi-
zations, participation in workshops and seminars, interaction with other colleagues
and specialists in related fields, and familiarity with current literature. (186)

Thus, to further develop cultural and linguistic awareness, to better understand

the analysis and discussion of physical and testimonial evidence and legal terms
and concepts, interpreters working in the legal field – whether in the courtroom or
elsewhere – are encouraged to take university courses, attend professional associa-
tion conferences and workshops, and read extensively (newspapers, journals,
works of fiction and non-fiction) on a wide variety of subjects in their working
languages.
Part III contains suggestions for relevant references and resources.
 part iii

Appendices
Introduction to Part III

Part III contains several appendices with the following supplementary informa-
tion: Appendix 1 – a bilingual (English to Spanish) glossary of selected legal terms
and phrases in context; Appendix 2 – several codes of ethics and professional re-
sponsibility for court interpreters; Appendix 3 – lists of selected monolingual and
bilingual dictionaries, language and legal references, and suggestions for further
study; Appendix 4 – selected translation and interpretation (T&I) organizations
and other resources; Appendix 5 – an index of selected recordings for interpreting
practice; Appendix 6 – the text of the Court Interpreters Act (28 U.S.C. § 1827);
and Appendix 7 – the text of Executive Order 13166: Improving access to services
for persons with limited English proficiency.
 appendix 1

Glossary of selected legal terms

and phrases (English-Spanish)

The main function of this English to Spanish glossary is to introduce aspiring court
interpreters to some of the basic terminology commonly used in courtroom pro-
ceedings. Designed to reflect the content of this guide, the terms are focused on
courtroom procedure only; the reader can find a more comprehensive selection of
terms regarding all aspects of legal interpreting in the references listed in Appendix 3
and in de Jongh (2011). It is not within the scope of this guide to attempt to provide
an exhaustive compendium of legal terms and their Spanish equivalents in all dialec-
tal variations. However, readers should be fully aware that there are many ways to say
the same thing and that Spanish is rich with alternatives from country to country and
region to region. In preparing for assignments, court interpreters regularly need to
consult general and specialized monolingual and bilingual glossaries and dictionar-
ies (e.g., criminal justice terms) as well as legal references (see Appendices 3 and 4).
Note: As a general rule, material to be translated appears in bold, translations
appear in regular typeface, and all other material appears in italics. The virgule or
slash (/) indicates alternative interpretations. Synonymous interpretations are sep-
arated by commas; alternate meanings by semicolons. Common word combina-
tions have been provided for context. Country-specific terms are indicated only
when they are markedly different or are more commonly used in the country indi-
cated in parentheses.1 Optional parts of an interpretation are in regular typeface
and enclosed in parentheses. Terms applicable exclusively to civil cases are indi-
cated with (civ); otherwise the terms may be used in both civil and criminal cases.
When the entry term is repeated, it is listed as a subheading after the dominant
word and the entry term is replaced with a long dash as follows:
witness (n) testigo; adverse – testigo hostil/desfavorable; alibi – testigo de coar-
tada; character – testigo de solvencia moral; expert – testigo pericial, perito;
eye – testigo de vista/presencial/ocular; hearsay – testigo de oídas/referencia;
material – testigo esencial – for the defense testigo de descargo; – for the

1. In many Latin American countries the changes from the inquisitorial criminal justice sys-
tem toward an accusatory system with oral trials – similar to the U.S. system – have produced a
number of new country-specific terms in Spanish. See, for example, “100 Preguntas. Sistema
Penal Acusatorio. Nueva justicia para los colombianos.” Available at http://www.fiscalia.gov.co.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

prosecution testigo de cargo; – protection program programa de protección de

testigos; (v) – a crime presenciar un delito

Abbreviations:

(adj) adjective (Hon) Honduras

(adv) adverb (Lt) Latin
(Arg) Argentina (Mx) Mexico
(Ch) Chile (n) noun
(civ) civil (npl) noun plural
(Col) Colombia (Per) Peru
(Cub) Cuba (PR) Puerto Rico
(DR) Dominican Republic (Sp) Spain
(Ec) Ecuador (Ven) Venezuela
(Guat) Guatemala (v) verb

English-Spanish

abet (v) (in a crime) instigar, incitar; (con-
ceal a crime) encubrir un delito; aid and
– instigar y auxiliar; ayudar y encubrir
(ayudar en la comisión de un delito; se re-
fiere a complicidad en sentido amplio, in-
cluyendo la instigación)
acceptance (n) aceptación, reconocimien-
to; – agreement convenio/contrato de
aceptación; – of responsibility acepta­
ción de responsabilidad
accessory (n) (accomplice to a crime) cóm-
plice (de un delito), codelincuente, par-
ticipante (persona que coopera en un deli-
to); – after the fact cómplice encubridor;
– at the fact cómplice que presencia el
delito; – before the fact cómplice instiga-
dor
accusation (n) acusación, imputación;
bring an – against (someone) presentar
una acusación (en contra de alguien);
make a formal – radicar una acusación
accuse (v) (general) acusar; (to the authori-
ties) denunciar, delatar (a alguien);
(charge) imputar, acusar; – someone of a
crime acusar a alguien de un delito
accused (n) acusado, imputado, inculpado
(Mx), defendido, sindicado (Col, Ven, Ec)
acquit (v) absolver, exculpar, exonerar
acquittal (n) (judgment of) fallo absoluto-
rio, declaración de no culpable; verdict
of – veredicto absolutorio, sentencia ab-
solutoria
acquitted (v) absuelto, exculpado, exone­
rado; – of all charges absuelto de todos
los cargos
action (n) acción legal, causa; gestión, dili-
gencia; (civ) demanda, pleito; class – ac-
ción judicial colectiva
address (v) (the court) dirigirse al tribunal,
dirigirse a la sala; (an issue) abordar/tra-
tar/atender (una cuestión)
 Appendix 1.  Glossary of selected legal terms and phrases (English-Spanish) 
adjourn (v) (court session) dar por termi-
nada/levantar la sesión (“court is ad-
journed” «se levanta la sesión»)
adjudicate (v) dictar resolución judicial
adjudication (n) (judicial decision) senten-
cia, fallo, resolución judicial; – of guilt
fallo condenatorio; – withheld suspen-
sión de fallo, fallo retenido
admissible (adj) admisible, procedente; –
evidence prueba admisible
admit (v) (acknowledge) admitir, reconocer,
aceptar; – to the facts reconocer/aceptar
los hechos
adversarial (adj) – proceeding proceso an-
tagónico/contencioso; – system (n)
sistema acusatorio/adversarial, sistema
de impugnación
advice (n) (guidance) consejo, recomen-
dación; – and counsel consejo y reco-
mendación; – of counsel asesoramiento
de abogado(s); – of rights advertencia/
amonestación de derechos
advise (v) (inform) informar, comunicar,
notificar; (to give counsel) asesorar, acon-
sejar
advisory (adj) consultivo, de consulta; –
guidelines pautas consultivas
affiant (n) declarante, deponente, quien da fe
affidavit (n) afidávit, acta juramentada, de-
claración jurada por escrito; testimonio;
(law enforcement) atestado; testimonio
(some Southern Cone countries)
affirm (v) afirmar, confirmar, ratificar,
protestar (Mx); (oath) prometer, protestar
(Mx); “do you swear or – to tell the
truth?” «¿jura o promete decir la ver-
dad¿», «¿jura o protesta decir la verdad?»
(Mx); (appellate court) ratificar, confir-
mar, re­afirmar (el fallo)
agree (v) acordar, acceder a, convenir en; –
on convenir en, acordar, estar de acuerdo
con, estar de acuerdo en; – on terms con-
ciliar posturas; – to acceder a, convenir
en, estar de acuerdo con; – to disagree
estar de acuerdo en discrepar; – unani-
mously acordar por unanimidad
agreement (n) acuerdo, arreglo, convenio,
pacto, trato; enter into an – celebrar un
convenio; plea – convenio negociado (de
culpabilidad); reach an – llegar a un
acuerdo; (contract) contrato, transacción;
cooperation – convenio de colaboración
aka (also known as) también/más conocido
por (el nombre), alias
allege (v) alegar, afirmar, sostener
alleged (adj) presunto, supuesto; – crime
presunto delito; – offender presunto in-
fractor/indiciado del delito
allocution (n) exposición, derecho a última
palabra, declaración (hecha por el acusa-
do ante el juez)
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) (n)
(civ) solución alternativa de controver-
sias (actos extrajudiciales para la resolu-
ción de la controversia)
answer (n) (general) respuesta, contesta­
ción; (civ) contestación de demanda, de-
fensa, réplica; – to interrogatories (n)
(civ) contestación a los interrogatorios;
absolución de posiciones; (v) (to a ques-
tion) responder, contestar; (to a motion)
replicar, defender; responsabilizarse o res­
ponder (frente a una deuda u obligación)
appeal (n) apelación, recurso (de ape­
lación), alzada; (v) apelar, interponer re-
curso de apelación/alzada; right to –
derecho de recurrir/apelar (a un
tribunal)
appear (v) (in court) comparecer ante un
tribunal; – on the record constar en ac­
tas; failure to – falta de comparecencia,
incomparecencia, rebeldía, contumacia
appearance (n) (presence) comparecencia;
initial – comparecencia inicial, audiencia
de control de detención (Ch)
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom
apprehend (v) (someone) aprehender, apre-
sar, detener, capturar
arbitration (n) (civ) arbitraje; – award lau-
do arbitral; – clause cláusula compro-
misoria
argument (n) alegato, argumento (defensa
de una posición); closing – conclusiones,
alegatos finales
armed (adj) armado, a mano armada; –
robbery atraco, robo a mano armada,
robo con arma, asalto
arraignment (n) instrucción de cargos, lec-
tura de cargos
arrest (n) detención, arresto, aprehensión;
– record antecedentes penales, ficha poli-
cial; – warrant orden de detención, orden
de captura, orden de aprehensión (Mx),
auto de prisión, orden de arresto (PR,
Cub); (v) detener, arrestar
assault (n) agresión; aggravated – agresión
con agravantes; – and battery agresión
física, agresión con lesiones/
acometimiento; (v) agredir
attorney (n) abogado, letrado, licenciado;
assigned – abogado designado; assistant
U.S. – (AUSA) fiscal auxiliar/delegado
(del distrito federal); – General Minis-
tro/Secretario de Justicia; U.S. – fiscal
federal del distrito; (see counsel, lawyer)
bail (n) (money or security given to ensure
the appearance of a defendant in court)
fianza, caución; – bond documento/con-
trato de fianza; cash – fianza en efectivo;
– hearing vista de fianza; – jumping fuga
bajo fianza, quebranto de fianza, que-
branto del arraigo (Mx); – Reform Act
Ley de Reforma de Fianzas; to be on –
estar bajo fianza; (v) – out sacar bajo
fianza; post – pagar la fianza; actuar de
garante; (rescue from trouble) sacar de
apuros
bailiff (n) alguacil, guardia de sala, oficial
bank (n) banco; – account cuenta bancaria;
– fraud fraude bancario, estafa bancaria
bankruptcy (n) quiebra, bancarrota; –
court tribunal en materia de quiebras/de
quiebras
bench (n) (the judge) (el, la) juez (judge’s
seat in the courtroom) estrado judicial,
tribuna (del juez); (judiciary) poder judi-
cial (judicatura); (v) approach the – acer-
carse al estrado; (adj) – trial: juicio oral
por juez; juicio por tribunal de derecho
(PR) (juicio por juez sin jurados); – war-
rant for arrest orden judicial de deten-
ción/aprehensión/captura
bias (n) (partiality) prejuicio, parcialidad;
(predisposition) sesgo; (mindset) predis-
posición mental; (v) crear un prejuicio/
una parcialidad
bond (n) (a written commitment of money
or property pledged to guarantee the ap-
pearance of a defendant) fianza, certifica-
do de caución/garantía; cash – fianza de
dinero efectivo; corporate surety – fianza
con garantía de fiador/garante judicial,
fianza garantizada por compañía de fian-
zas; personal surety – fianza de garantía
personal, fianza de palabra/promesa de
pago/con garantía de firma; (financial)
bono; (a certificate or evidence of a debt)
obligación
bondsman, bondsperson (n) garante, fia-
dor (judicial), agente de fianzas, fiancista
(Cub)
book (v) (someone who has been arrested)
fichar (un detenido), registrar el arresto
border (n) (geography) frontera; – check-
point punto de inspección fronterizo; –
cross station garita fronteriza de control;
– crossing cruce fronterizo; – patrol pa-
trulla fronteriza/de fronteras
bribery (n) (general) soborno; (bribery of a
public official) cohecho, mordida (Mx),
coima (Southern Cone)
 Appendix 1.  Glossary of selected legal terms and phrases (English-Spanish) 
burden of proof (see proof)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (ATF or ATFE) Dirección de
Alcohol, Tabaco, Armas de Fuego y Ex-
plosivos (ATF, por sus siglas en inglés)
Bureau of Prisons (n) Dirección de Pri-
siones
burglary (n) robo con escalo, violación de
domicilio (con fines delictivos), allana-
miento de lugar ajeno con fines delicti-
vos, entrada ilícita con fines delictivos
case (n) (general) causa, caso; – at bar causa
que nos ocupa, causa que está a derecho,
causa en curso; case in chief actos proba-
torios, fase probatoria (de la causa), pre-
sentación/práctica principal de pruebas;
criminal – causa penal; (civ) civil – causa
civil; – law jurisprudencia, precedentes
judiciales, derecho jurisprudencial
cause (n) (general) causa; good – causa
legítima; good – shown habiéndose de­
mostrado fundamento; probable – (to
prosecute) motivo fundado, fundada
sospecha, motivos suficientes, razones
fundadas, causa fundada/razonable, in-
dicios racionales de criminalidad
cell (n) celda; holding – calabozo, celda de
detención temporal; jail/prison – celda
challenge (n) (general) desafío, reto; (of a
juror) recusación, objeción; – for cause
recusación con causa/justificada/moti-
vada; peremptory – recusación sin causa/
inmotivada; (v) retar, desafiar, impugnar;
– a decision cuestionar/impugnar una
decisión
charge (n) (accusation) acusación, impu­
tación; (count of an indictment) cargo;
drop the – s retirar los cargos; related
– delito conexo; reduced – cargo de
gravedad reducida; (v) (charge someone
with a crime) acusar, imputar, inculpar,
procesar, encausar; (instruct) – the jury
dar instrucciones al jurado (sobre cues-
tiones de derecho); (charge money) co-
brar
charged (v) (with a crime) imputado,
acusado (de un delito)
charging document (n) documento acusa-
torio, escrito de procesamiento/
acusación, pliego de cargos (Col, Ven)
civil (case) proceso civil, causa civil; (not
criminal) – law derecho civil (privado);
(legal system) derecho romano; – law
countries países con tradición de derecho
romano; – lawyer abogado civilista; –
procedure derecho procesal civil; – rights
derechos/garantías constitucionales, li­
bertades individuales
code (n) (body of laws) (compilación de
leyes) código; – of Criminal Procedure
Código de Procesamiento Penal, Código
Procesal Penal, Código de Enjuiciamien-
to Criminal (Sp); civil – código civil;
criminal – código penal
coerce (v) coaccionar; – into inducir a la
fuerza; – to coaccionar a
coercion (n) coacción, coerción
commerce (n) comercio, negocio (see in-
terstate)
commit (v) (go through with) cometer; – a
crime cometer un delito, delinquir; –
perjury jurar en falso; – to prison encar-
celar
community (n) (general) comunidad, so-
ciedad; – service trabajos comunitarios,
trabajos en beneficio de la comunidad;
danger to the – peligrosidad social
complainant (n) (civ) querellante, denun-
ciante, peticionario; (criminal) (general)
acusador
complaint (n) (general) queja; denuncia;
(civ) escrito de demanda, libelo de de-
manda (Ven)
confess (v) confesar; – to the crime confe-
sarse culpable
confession (n) confesión
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom
conspiracy (n) conspiración, asociación
para delinquir, asociación delictuosa
(Mx), concierto para delinquir (Col);
join a – integrarse a una conspiración; –
to rob conspiración de robo
continuance (n) (postponement of a trial or
hearing) aplazamiento (de un juicio o una
audiencia), continuación (Ven)
controlled (adj) controlado, regulado; –
substance sustancia regulada/controlada
contract (n) (general) contrato; – killer
asesino por contrato, sicario
convict (n) convicto, reo, penado, con-
denado; (v) (find someone guilty) decla-
rar/hallar/juzgar culpable, condenar
conviction (n) (moral belief, opinion) con-
vicción, creencia; (finding of guilt) fallo
de culpabilidad, fallo condenatorio, sen-
tencia condenatoria, condena; upon
trial and – tras ser juzgado y condena-
do
counsel (n) (legal advice) consejo, asesora-
miento; (attorney) asesor legal, abogado,
asesor jurídico, licenciado, letrado; ap-
pointed – abogado designado por el tri-
bunal; assistance of – representación
legal; ineffective assistance of – repre-
sentación ineficaz de abogado; opposing
– abogado de la contraparte; retained –
abogado contratado; (v) to give – to
aconsejar (a) (see attorney, lawyer)
count (n) (accusation) cargo, acusación;
(civ) demanda, pretensión (in civil brief
of complaint)
counterclaim (n) (civ) reconvención
court (n) (of justice) tribunal, juzgado, au-
diencia; Clerk of – Secretario del Tribu-
nal, Actuario del Tribunal (Mx); con-
tempt of – desacato al tribunal; – costs
costas procesales; – decision fallo, sen-
tencia; – of appeals tribunal de alzada,
corte de apelaciones (Ven, Ch), tribunal
de segunda instancia; – of inquiry
comisión de investigación; – of law tri-
bunal de justicia; – of original jurisdic-
tion juez natural; – order auto/orden
judicial, mandamiento, (procedural)
providencia; – proceedings autos pro­
cesales, procedimientos judiciales; – re-
porter taquígrafo (de actas), relator del
tribunal; juvenile – tribunal de meno-
res; open – audiencia/sesión pública;
(judge) juez; Supreme – Tribunal Supre-
mo (Sp, Cub, Ven), Suprema Corte de
Justicia, Corte Suprema de Justicia
(Col), Corte de Casación, Sala de Casa-
ción Penal (Supreme Court Criminal Di-
vision)
courthouse (n) palacio de justicia, sede del
tribunal
courtroom (n) sala de audiencias, tribunal
crime (n) delito; (serious criminal act) de­
lito grave, crimen (Usage Note: the word
«crimen» must be used cautiously be-
cause “crime” refers to both felonies and
misdemeanors, and «crimen» refers to se-
rious criminal acts and violent crimes.
Whenever there is a lack of context, the
word «delito» should be used); – against
persons delito contra las personas; –
against property delitos contra la
propiedad; – of passion crimen pasio­
nal; – of moral turpitude delito de vileza
moral
criminal (n) (person) delincuente; criminal
(violent); (adj) ilícito, delictivo; (adminis-
trative) penal; – activity actividad delicti-
va; – case causa penal; – act hecho delic-
tivo; – court tribunal en lo penal; – history/
record antecedentes penales; – law
derecho penal; – mischief daño en bien
ajeno; – negligence negligencia culposa;
– procedure procedimiento penal; – pro-
ceeding acto procesal, diligencia; – tres-
pass violación de propiedad ajena, entra-
da ilícita (en lugar ajeno)
 Appendix 1.  Glossary of selected legal terms and phrases (English-Spanish) 
cross-claim (n) (civ) reclamo recíproco,
demanda en contra de la parte contraria,
reconvención
damages (npl) (civ) daños y perjuicios; in-
demnización por daños y perjuicios
defendant (n) (en lo penal) acusado, im-
putado, encausado, procesado; (en lo
civil) demandado, parte demandada, reo
(Mx); (civ) codemandado; co-defendant
coacusado, coprocesado, compañero de
causa (Cub); as a – en calidad de acusa-
do
defense (n) defensa; in one’s own – en de-
fensa propia
deliberate (adj) deliberado, intencional; –
ignorance desconocimiento deliberado/
intencional; (v) deliberar; – the verdict
deliberar sobre el veredicto
deliberation (n) deliberación
Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretaría de
Justicia
deportation (n) deportación; – order or-
den de deportación (see removal)
deposition (n) deposición judicial, de-
claración jurada extrajudicial
detain (v) (arrest) detener, arrestar, captu­
rar; (hold in custody) retener, detener;
detained in custody detenido, a dis-
posición judicial (Usage Note: a distinc-
tion is made between «retención» [deten-
tion], which means you are not in custody,
and «detención» [arrest])
detention (n) detención; pretrial – prisión
preventiva
direct (adj) directo; – evidence prueba di-
recta; – examination interrogatorio/ex-
amen directo, primer interrogatorio (por
la parte citante); (v) (someone to do some-
thing) mandar, ordenar (a alguien a hacer
algo)
discovery (n) (process) exhibición/divul-
gación/revelación/entrega de pruebas,
proposición de pruebas, descubrimiento
de pruebas (Col, PR); standing – order
orden o auto permanente de proposición/
divulgación/revelación de pruebas
discretion (n) discreción, prudencia, juicio;
criterio, decisión, voluntad; at the judge’s
– según criterio del/de la juez; broad –
amplia discreción; legal – criterio de la
autoridad
dismissal (n) (of criminal charges) sobre-
seimiento, desestimación; (of civil mat-
ter) desistimiento de la acción; – with
prejudice sobreseimiento libre/definitivo
(pone término al proceso); – without prej-
udice sobreseimiento provisional (para­
liza la causa)
district (n) distrito; – attorney (D.A.) fiscal
de distrito; (group of attorneys) fiscalía,
procuraduría; (individual office) despa-
cho del fiscal, oficina del fiscal
docket (n) (a log of the history of cases with
brief chronological entries summarizing
the court proceedings) registro de actos
procesales; (calendar) calendario de se­
siones, lista de causas
double jeopardy non bis in idem (Lt), doble
enjuiciamiento (por la misma causa)
doubt (n) duda; beyond a reasonable – más
allá de toda duda razonable, fuera de
toda duda razonable, sin lugar a duda ra-
zonable; (v) dudar (de)
driving (n/v) conducción, manejo; – while
impaired/intoxicated (DWI) conducción
bajo efectos etílicos; – under the influ-
ence (DUI) (of alcohol or drugs) or – un-
der the influence of an intoxicating sub-
stance conducir bajo los efectos de
sustancias que alteran el comportamiento
drug (n) droga, estupefaciente; – abuse
abuso de las drogas, consumo ilegal de
drogas; – abuser toxicómano; – addict
toxicómano, drogadicto; – dealer trafi-
cante de estupefacientes, vendedor de
drogas; – dependence narcodependencia;
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom
– traffic/trafficking narcotráfico, tráfico
de drogas/estupefacientes; (v) drogar
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
Agencia Antidroga (DR), Dirección Fe­
deral Antinarcóticos, Dirección Esta-
dounidense Antinarcóticos (DEA, por
sus siglas en inglés)
due process of law (see law)
entrapment (n) inducción al delito
entry (n) (admission) entrada, ingreso; il-
legal – ingreso ilegal; (notation) entrada,
asiento, constancia; make an – hacer
constar (en), asentar (en)
evidence (n) pruebas documentales, me-
dios de prueba; admissible – prueba(s)
admisible(s); circumstantial – prueba
indiciaria/de indicios, prueba indirecta/
circunstancial; credible – prueba feha­
ciente; direct – prueba directa; exculpa-
tory – pruebas exculpatorias/eximentes;
expert – prueba pericial; forensic – prue-
ba forense; hearsay – prueba de oídas,
testimonio de referencia; oral – prueba
testifical
evidentiary (adj) probatorio; – hearing
vista/audiencia probatoria
examination (n) examen, inspección;
(questioning) interrogatorio, examen de
testigos; cross-examination contrainte­
rrogatorio, repreguntas, contrainte­
rrogación (Ch) (por la parte contraria);
direct – interrogatorio directo; re-cross
segundo contrainterrogatorio; redirect –
segundo interrogatorio directo (por la
parte citante)
execute (v) (carry out) desempeñar, ejecu-
tar, llevar a cabo, cumplir, realizar; (put to
death) ajusticiar, ejecutar; – a document
formalizar un documento
exhibit (n) (evidence) elemento de prueba
exonerate (v) exonerar (de culpa), absolver
expert (n) perito, experto; – testimony peri­
taje, prueba/testimonio pericial
extenuating (adj) atenuante; – circum-
stances circunstancias atenuantes
extradition (n) extradición; – treaty trata-
do de extradición
fact (n) hecho; disputed – hecho(s)
controvertido(s), hecho debatido; finder
of the – s juzgador de los hechos; mate-
rial – hecho esencial
false (adj) falso, falsificado, fraudulento; –
claim reclamación falsa/fraudulenta; –
document documento falso/falsificado
federal (adj) federal; – court juzgado fede­
ral de primera instancia; – crime delito
federal; (district) – judge juez de juzgado
federal de primera instancia; – prosecu-
tor fiscal federal, agente del ministerio
público; (office of) – public defender de-
fensoría pública
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Ofi-
cina Federal de Investigaciones (FBI, por
sus siglas en inglés), Negociado Federal de
Investigaciones (PR)
Federal Bureau of Prisons Dirección Fe­
deral de Prisiones
felony (n) delito mayor, delito grave
file (n) expediente, carpeta (de documen-
tos), legajo (los documentos de una cau-
sa); (document folder) archivo; (v) (accu-
sation, complaint) (civ) entablar;
(criminal) radicar, formular, presentar; –
a motion formular/promover un pedi-
mento; – a motion in a timely manner
cursar un pedimento de forma oportuna;
– charges against formular cargos con-
tra; – a petition presentar una petición;
– an appeal apelar, interponer/presentar/
radicar apelación, presentar un recurso;
– an objection elevar/formular una
protesta/objeción
final (adj) final, decisivo; – and binding
obligatorio y definitivo
 Appendix 1.  Glossary of selected legal terms and phrases (English-Spanish) 
finding (n) (resolution) determinación, fa­
llo, dictamen, decisión; – of fact conclu-
siones de hecho, fallo sobre los hechos
fine (n) (penalty) multa, pena pecuniaria;
(v) multar; impose a – imponer pena de
multa
fingerprint (n) huella dactilar/digital; (v)
tomarle las huellas dactilares (a alguien)
firearm (n) arma de fuego; carry a – portar
arma de fuego; – license licencia de armas
forfeit (v) perder un derecho; (confiscate
property) decomisar, incautar bienes
foreperson (n) portavoz del jurado, presi-
dente del jurado
forgery (n) falsificación
fraud (n) fraude, estafa; mortgage – fraude
hipotecario; (swindler) estafador
fraudulent (adj) fraudulento, engañoso; –
act acto fraudulento
fugitive (n) (from justice) fugitivo, prófugo
(de la justicia)
government (n) (general) gobierno; (federal
prosecution) fiscalía (federal), ministerio
público; (prosecutor) abogado fiscal; –
agency organismo público, dependencia
gubernamental; – official funcionario
público
grand juror (n) miembro de un gran jura-
do/jurado acusatorio
grand jury (n) gran jurado, jurado de
acusación/acusatorio, jurado indagato-
rio/de instrucción
grounds (npl) (basis for) fundamento,
causal, motivo; – for appeal fundamento
de apelación; – for divorce causal/causa
de divorcio
guidelines (n) pautas, guías, normas; con-
junto de directrices; sentencing – normas
de imposición de penas, pautas de san-
ción/pena
guilt (n) culpabilidad, culpa; admission of
– reconocimiento de responsabilidad; –
feeling sentimiento de culpabilidad
guilty (adj) culpable; – as charged confir-
mado culpable; – party parte culpable
(see verdict)
halfway house (n) casa/centro de tran-
sición/readaptación/reintegración social
hearing (n) audiencia, vista; competency –
audiencia para determinar la capacidad
mental (del acusado); evidentiary – au-
diencia probatoria; – in open court au­
diencia pública; preliminary – audien-
cia/vista preliminar
home invasion robbery (see robbery)
homicide (n) homicidio; justifiable –
homicidio justificado
house arrest (n) detención domiciliaria,
arresto domiciliario, detención preventi-
va en el domicilio del procesado
identity (adj/n) identidad; – card carné/
cédula/tarjeta de identidad; – theft (n)
(taking someone else’s identity) usurpar la
identidad de otro (y usarla como si fuera
propia), usurpación de estado civil, hurto
de (los documentos de) identidad
illegal (adj) ilegal, ilícito; – entry entrada
ilícita, ingreso ilegal; – search and sei-
zure registro e incautación ilegales; (n)
(person) inmigrante indocumentado/sin
papeles;
immigrant (n) inmigrante; illegal – inmi-
grante indocumentado/sin papeles
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) Policía de Inmigración y Control
de Aduanas
impartial (adj) imparcial; – jury jurado im-
parcial
impeach (v) (a witness) desacreditar/im-
pugnar/tachar (la credibilidad de un tes-
tigo)
impose (v) (fine, sentence) imponer (una
multa, una pena)
imprison (v) encarcelar, recluir
imprisonment (n) encarcelamiento; false
– privación ilegítima de libertad; life –
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom
cadena perpetua; term of – período de
encarcelamiento
income (n) ingresos, entradas; – tax im-
puestos sobre la renta/los ingresos
indict (v) (criminal) radicar escrito de
acusación de gran jurado, formular docu-
mento acusatorio/inculpatorio de gran ju-
rado, radicar causa formal de gran jurado
indictment (n) (criminal) documento de
acusación por gran jurado, acta de
acusación/pliego de acusación/auto de
procesamiento de gran jurado, docu-
mento inculpatorio de gran jurado; bill
of – escrito/auto/pliego de acusación de
gran jurado (formulado por gran jurado
que autoriza la apertura de juicio en una
acción penal)
information (n) (general) información, da-
tos; (criminal) informe acusatorio/docu-
mento inculpatorio de la fiscalía,
acusación fiscal (Per), requerimiento fis-
cal (Hon)
infraction (n) infracción, contravención
inmate (n) recluso, detenido, preso
insanity (n) enajenación mental, insania
(término forense), demencia
intent (n) (general) intención, propósito,
objetivo; criminal – dolo penal, inten-
ción delictiva, ánimo doloso; fraudulent
– propósito fraudulento
intentionally (adv) a propósito, intencio-
nalmente, deliberadamente, con inten-
ción
interrogatories (npl) (civil) (written ques-
tions) (pliego de) posiciones; (v) answer
– absolver posiciones; propound – arti­
cular posiciones
interstate (adj) interestatal; – commerce
comercio interestatal; – nexus nexo/vín-
culo interestatal
investigate (v) investigar; – at depth inda-
gar/escudriñar hasta el fondo; – closely
investigar a fondo
investigation (n) investigación, pesquisa,
indagación
irrelevant (adj) inaplicable, no pertinente
issue (n) (matter) asunto, cuestión, tema,
punto; (problem) problema; (v) (send)
emitir, enviar, mandar; (provide) expedir,
proveer; – a check girar/emitir/librar un
cheque; – a passport expedir un pasa-
porte; – a warning dar una advertencia;
at issue asunto en cuestión
jail (n) cárcel; (v) encarcelar; – break fuga
de la cárcel; – sentence pena de cárcel,
pena de privación de libertad
judge (n) (el, la) juez; (v) (evaluate) juzgar;
– for oneself juzgar por uno mismo
judgment (n) (judge’s ruling) sentencia,
fallo, decisión, dictamen, disposición;
abstract of – resumen de fallo; enter a –
asentar un fallo, dictar/registrar senten-
cia; final – sentencia firme/definitiva; –
of acquittal sentencia absolutoria; – of
conviction fallo condenatorio, sentencia
condenatoria; execution of – (a writ or
order requiring the marshal or sheriff to
carry out the judgment of the court) eje-
cución de la sentencia; (civ) motion for
summary – petición de fallo sumarial
judicial (adj) judicial; – branch poder judi-
cial; – decree auto judicial; – notice re-
conocimiento de oficio
judiciary (n) (branch of government) poder
judicial
jurisdiction (n) (the court’s authority to
hear cases) competencia; (venue) juris-
dicción; lack of – falta de competencia
juror (n) miembro del jurado, jurado; al-
ternate – jurado suplente
jury (n) jurado; – duty deber civil como ju-
rado; grand – jurado acusatorio/de
acusación; hung – (n) jurado dividido,
jurado en desacuerdo/indeciso, jurado
sin veredicto; petit – jurado (de juicio
oral), jurado procesal; – room sala (de
 Appendix 1.  Glossary of selected legal terms and phrases (English-Spanish) 
deliberaciones) del jurado; trial by –
juicio oral ante jurado, juicio por jurado
knowingly (adv) a sabiendas, con cono-
cimiento de causa, conscientemente; –
and intelligently a sabiendas y con cono-
cimiento (de causa); – and willfully a
sabiendas e intencionalmente, a sabien-
das y voluntariamente
knowledge (n) conocimiento; to the best of
my – and belief según mi buen saber y
entender, a mi buen saber y entender, a
mi buen y leal saber
law (n) (rule, piece of legislation, principle)
ley; (abstract) derecho; due process of –
derechos procesales, debido proceso de
ley; law-abiding observante/respetuoso
de la ley; – and order seguridad ciuda-
dana; – enforcement (personnel) agente
del orden público/de la fuerza pública; –
firm bufete (de abogados), estudio (ju-
rídico); rule of – el imperio de la ley; –
school facultad de derecho
lawsuit, suit (n) (civ) demanda, pleito, liti-
gio, juicio
lawyer (n) abogado; criminal defense –
abogado penalista, abogado criminalista
(see attorney, counsel)
legal (adj/n) legal, lícito; – age mayoría de
edad; – costs costas procesales; – fees
honorarios (del abogado), cuota litis; –
guardian tutor legal; – process proceso
judicial; – system ordenamiento jurídico;
– tender moneda de curso legal/de poder
liberatorio
liability (n) (debt) obligación, deuda, pasi-
vo; (legal) responsabilidad legal
Limited English Proficient (LEP) (adj)
(person) persona con conocimientos
limitados del inglés
litigant (n) litigante, contendiente
litigate (v) litigar
litigation (n) litigio; (civ) pleito, juicio civil
magistrate judge (n) juez de garantías (Ch),
juez de control (Mx,Ven), juez de control
de garantías (Col), juez de instrucción (son
jueces adjuntos nombrados por el tribunal)
malice (n) dolo (penal); (general) malicia;
intención de dañar; mala voluntad
mandatory (adj) obligatorio; – special as-
sessment recargo especial obligatorio
manslaughter (n) homicidio, homicidio
sin premeditación; involuntary – homi-
cidio involuntario/culposo; vehicular –
homicidio involuntario vehicular; volun-
tary – homicidio doloso
mediation (n) arbitraje, mediación
minor (n) menor de edad, menor; – offense
falta, delito leve; – traffic violation in-
fracción menor de tránsito
Miranda Rights/Warnings advertencia de
derechos constitucionales (advertencia
de derechos según el caso Miranda);
(v) (Mirandize) advertir de los derechos
constitucionales
misdemeanor (n) delito menor
mistrial (n) anulación de juicio, juicio nulo
motion (n) (legal request) petición, pedi-
mento, solicitud, moción (PR); make a –
formular un pedimento; – in arrest of
judgment pedimento para impedir el
registro de la sentencia – to sever pedi-
mento de separación de causas/de las
partes; – to suppress evidence pedimen-
to de exclusión de pruebas; (parliamen-
tary) moción
movant (n) (person filing a motion) solici-
tante
murder (n) asesinato, homicidio agravado/
calificado; – in the first degree asesinato
en primer grado; premeditated – asesi-
nato con premeditación
no contest, nolo contendere (Latin phrase
meaning “I will not contest it.”) «ni afirmo
ni niego», «no lo disputo», nolo conten-
dere (sin oposición)
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom
no true bill (decision by a grand jury not to
indict) no ha lugar el procesamiento,
acusación infundada (see true bill)
notice (n) (communication) notificación,
aviso, parte; – of appearance notificación
de comparecencia; (v) notificar; give –
citar, avisar, hacer saber
oath (n) juramento; testify under – decla-
rar bajo juramento; take an – prestar ju-
ramento, juramentarse
objection (n) objeción, protesta, oposición
offender (n) infractor (de la ley), transgresor,
delincuente, malhechor; (recidivist) repeat
– reincidente
offense (n) (crime) delito, infracción, acto
delictivo/ilícito; alleged – presunto deli-
to, presunta infracción
officer (n) (police) agente de policía, policía,
oficial (Cub, Mx); – of the court funcio-
nario del tribunal
opening statement (n) declaración de
apertura, exposición inicial
order (n) (general, court) orden, man-
damiento; (v) ordenar, mandar; – of
commitment orden de reclusión; – of
dismissal orden de sobreseimiento; out
of – improcedente
overrule (v) denegar, declarar sin lugar,
desestimar, negar lugar; – an objection
negar lugar a una objeción (“overruled”
«no ha lugar»)
pardon (n) (by court) indulto; (general)
perdón; (v) perdonar; indultar
parole (n) (the conditional release of an in-
mate from jail, prison or other confine-
ment before the full sentence has been
served. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984
abolished parole in the U.S. federal system.
See probation, release) libertad condicio-
nal, libertad anticipada, libertad prepara-
toria (Mx), libertad bajo palabra (PR); –
board junta de libertad condicional
party (n) (to the case) parte; (civ) parte en
el litigio, litigante, parte en la controver-
sia; (to a crime) codelincuentes; ag-
grieved – persona perjudicada, parte
agraviada; – ies to the suit litigantes
penal (adj) penal; – code código penal; –
law derecho penal
penalty (n) castigo, pena, sanción (puni-
tiva); – assessment recargo judicial; un-
der – of perjury so/bajo pena de perju-
rio
penitentiary (n) penitenciaría, penal,
prisión, institución penal, presidio, cen-
tro carcelario, establecimiento peniten-
ciario
perjury (n) perjurio, falso testimonio, falsa
declaración
perpetrator (n) autor (del delito)
petition (n) (formal, written request pre-
sented to the court) memorial (Col), so-
licitud, petición; (v) solicitar, presentar
una petición
petitioner (n) (civ) solicitante, peticionario,
peticionante (Arg, Per)
petty (adj) de menor cuantía, de menor
cantidad; de menor importancia; – lar-
ceny hurto menor; – offense contraven-
ción, infracción menor, falta leve; – theft
hurto simple menor/de menor cantidad,
raterismo
physical (adj) físico; – evidence pruebas
físicas; – harm daño corporal
plaintiff (n) demandante, querellante, pro-
moviente, parte actora
plea (n) (declaración formal del acusado
ante las acusaciones/imputaciones), con-
testación (a la acusación, a los cargos); –
agreement convenio negociado de de-
claración de culpabilidad; (v) enter a
– dejar constancia de la contestación a la
acusación, asentar una declaración de
culpable/no culpable, declararse (culpa-
ble/no culpable), responder a los cargos
 Appendix 1.  Glossary of selected legal terms and phrases (English-Spanish) 
pleadings (npl) (civ) escritos de alegaciones
(de las partes)
police (n) (force) policías, fueza policial; –
car coche patrulla, patrulla, radiopatru­
lla; – custody custodia policial; – head-
quarters comisaría, jefatura, prefectura
(Ven), unidad de la policía (Cub); (offi-
cer) oficial/agente de policía, policía; riot
– policía antimotines; (v) vigilar (el or-
den público)
possession (n) (general) posesión, tenencia;
(ownership) pertenencia, propiedad; (civ)
actual – posesión material; (criminal) ac-
tual – tenencia/posesión directa; (civ)
constructive – posesión sobreentendida;
(criminal) constructive – tenencia/pose­
sión indirecta/presunta (por deducción);
criminal – tenencia ilícita; joint – pose­
sión compartida; sole – posesión exclu-
siva
power (n) poder, facultad; (civ) – of attor-
ney (carta) poder, escritura de po­der,
poder notarial, mandato
precedent (n) precedente, jurisprudencia
preponderance (n) preponderancia; – of
the evidence preponderancia de las prue-
bas
presentation (n) (of evidence) presentación
de las pruebas, práctica de las pruebas,
desahogo de pruebas (Mx)
presentence (adj) antes de la/previo a la
imposición de pena; – investigation in-
vestigación preparatoria/previa a la (im-
posición de la) pena
presumption (n) presunción; – of inno-
cence presunción de inocencia; rebutta-
ble – presunción rebatible
pretrial (adj) preliminar/preparatorio al
juicio, pre-procesal; – conference (n) au-
diencia preliminar/preparatoria al juicio;
– diversion programa alternativo/susti-
tutivo al procesamiento; – detention
prisión preventiva; – motion pedimento
preliminar/preparatorio al juicio
prison (n) penitenciaría, cárcel, penal, pre-
sidio, centro correccional, reclusorio; –
sentence pena de privación de libertad,
pena penitenciaria/de prisión
probable cause (n) (see cause)
probation (n) (the sentencing option by
which the court releases a convicted per-
son to the community and orders him or
her to abide by certain conditions and
complete a period of supervision moni-
tored by a probation officer. It relates to
“judicial action taken before the prison
door is closed, whereas ‘parole’ relates to
executive action taken after the door has
closed on a convict” (Black’s 1990, 1116)
(condena de) régimen probatorio, régi-
men de presentación (Ven), libertad a
prueba, libertad probatoria, período de
prueba; (officer) agente de probatoria/ré-
gimen probatorio, agente de régimen de
presentación/libertad a prueba (see pa-
role, release)
procedure (n) procedimiento, trámite, dili-
gencia; criminal – procedimiento penal
proceeding (n) proceso (judicial), actua­
ción; in all stages of the – en toda etapa
del proceso
process (n) proceso; compulsory – cita-
ciones y emplazamientos, citaciones
obligatorias
proffer (n) (proposal of evidence) propues-
ta/oferta de pruebas, exposición de
hechos, resumen de los hechos; (v) pro-
poner, ofrecer, postular
proof (n) prueba; burden of – carga de la
prueba, carga probatoria, responsabili-
dad/obligación de probar; standard of
– criterio probatorio; the prosecution
has the – la fiscalía tiene la carga de la
prueba
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom
prosecute (v) (file charges against) encausar,
procesar; – a case seguir causa; (civ)
seguir pleito
prosecution (n) (accusation) acusación;
(trial) proceso judicial, procesamiento,
enjuiciamiento; (see witness)
prosecutor (n) fiscal, procurador; (Office of
the Public Prosecutor) Ministerio Público
(Ch, Mx, Per, Ven), Ministerio Fiscal
(Cub, Sp), Ministerio Público Fiscal
(Arg)
prove (v) (guilty) probar culpable, declarar
culpable; (demonstrate) demostrar, sus-
tentar, comprobar, verificar
provisions (npl) disposiciones
public (adj) público; – defender (n) aboga-
do de oficio, defensor de oficio, abogado
de pobres, defensor público; (staff of law-
yers) defensoría penal pública
quash (v) (invalidate) anular, invalidar,
cancelar; (suppress) suprimir
question (n) pregunta; (v) interrogar, pre-
guntar, examinar, hacer preguntas
questioning (n) (of witnesses) interrogato-
rio; (doubting) puesta en duda
rape (n) violación, violencia carnal; (v) vio-
lar; statutory – estupro
reasonable (adj) razonable; beyond a –
doubt más allá de toda duda razonable,
sin que quepa duda razonable, sin lugar a
duda razonable; – fear temor fundado
rebut (v) refutar, rebatir; – the presump-
tion refutar la presunción
rebuttal (n) refutación; – witness testigo de
refutación
recidivist (n) (see offender)
reckless (adj) temerario, imprudente; – dis-
regard indiferencia temeraria; – driver
conductor imprudente; (adv) recklessly
temerariamente
recklessness (n) imprudencia, temeridad,
imprudencia temeraria
record (n) actas; constancia; registro; (file)
expediente; (case history) historial; (v)
registrar; hacer constar; (electronically)
grabar; (write down) anotar, tomar nota
de; (notarize) elevar a escritura pública;
make a – dejar constancia, hacer constar;
– of convictions antecedentes penales; –
of fingerprints ficha dactiloscópica; off
the – sin constar/que conste en actas; –
on appeal expediente de apelación
release (n) (on bail) libertad bajo fianza,
libertad bajo caución; supervised – (term
of supervision imposed during sentencing
and served after a person is released from
prison. Unlike parole, it does not replace a
portion of the sentence of imprisonment)
libertad provisional bajo vigilancia, li­
bertad supervisada; (civ) (from contract
or other agreement); exonerar (v) (from
prison) excarcelar, poner en libertad
relevant (adj) pertinente, aplicable, rele-
vante; – conduct conducta pertinente
remand (v) (custody) entregar, reencarcelar,
poner a disposición de; (send case back
from appellate court) reenviar, remitir,
devolver (reenviar la causa al juez de ins­
tancia)
removal (n) expulsión o repatriación (de
inmigrante); (proceedings) audiencia de
traslado (a otra jurisdicción); (from of-
fice) destitución; – order orden de expul-
sión (del país)
remove (v) (deport) expulsar (del territorio
nacional); (someone from office) destituir
reply (n) (answer) respuesta, contestación;
(civ) (retort) réplica; (v) (general) res­
ponder, contestar (a); replicar
report (n) informe, reporte; incident – in-
forme sobre los sucesos; (v) (communi-
cate) informar, comunicar; (denounce)
denunciar, acusar, delatar, reportar; – an
accident reportar un accidente; – for
 Appendix 1.  Glossary of selected legal terms and phrases (English-Spanish) 
work presentarse al trabajo, reportarse al
trabajo; – form formulario de de-
claración
rest (v) (a case) concluir/terminar la pre-
sentación de pruebas, concluir la fase
probatoria (del juicio)
restitution (n) (compensation) pago repa-
ratorio, indemnización, compensación;
(giving back) devolución, restitución
restraining order (n) interdicto, orden de
alejamiento, orden inhibitoria/de
prohibición, orden judicial de no acer-
camiento
reverse (v) (revoke an order, a ruling) revo-
car, anular, declarer nulo
revoke (v) revocar
right (n) derecho; derecho individual; – of
asylum derecho de asilo; – to a fair trial
derecho a un juicio justo; – to appeal
derecho de apelación/alzada, recurso de
apelación/alzada; – to consult with an at-
torney derecho a consultar a un abogado;
– to privacy derecho a (protección de) la
intimidad; – to process of the court
derecho de citar y emplazar judicial-
mente; – to remain silent derecho a
guardar silencio; – to speak derecho a
hablar, derecho a la palabra; – to trial
derecho a ser juzgado, derecho a juicio
(oral); (v) (vindicate) vindicar; (correct)
corregir, enderezar, rectificar
robbery (n) robo (implica fuerza), asalto;
armed – robo a mano armada, robo con
arma, asalto, atraco; home invasion –
asalto a vivienda ocupada, intrusión
domiciliaria
rule (n) norma, precepto; principio, regla;
– of law imperio de la ley, estado de
derecho; – to show cause orden de pre-
sentar motivos justificantes; (v) dictar
fallo, fallar, juzgar; – against decidir en
contra (de), fallar en contra (de); – out
excluir; (npl) – s of evidence; reglas/nor-
mas en materia de prueba; – s of proce-
dure normas procesales, código de pro-
cedimiento; – s of professional conduct
reglas de conducta profesional
ruling (n) fallo, dictamen, decisión; – of
the judge fallo, sentencia
search (n) (inspection) registro; – and sei-
zure registro y embargo, registro e incau-
tación; – warrant orden de allanamiento/
registro/cateo; (v) registrar, catear, allanar
self (adj) – -defense (n) defensa propia,
legítima defensa; – - incrimination auto-
incriminación, incriminación de sí mis-
mo, autoinculpación
sentence (n) (punishment, penalty) pena,
sanción; (of the judge) dictamen, resolu-
ción judicial; concurrent – s penas si-
multáneas, penas paralelas; consecutive
– pena consecutiva, penas sucesivas;
death – pena capital/de muerte; life –
cadena perpetua; non-jail – pena no-
carcelaria; range of–escala de las san-
ciones/penas; serve a – purgar/cumplir la
sanción/pena; (v) imponer una pena,
condenar a
sentencing (n) (act of imposing sentence)
imposición de la pena, audiencia de im-
posición de la pena/sanción
separation of powers (n) división/sepa-
ración de poderes
sequester (v) (a jury) aislar al jurado
serve (v) (a sentence) cumplir/purgar una
condena; (deliver notice of process) notifi-
car, diligenciar, entregar la notificación;
– on a jury ser miembro de un jurado
settlement (n) (civ) transacción extrajudi-
cial, acuerdo, arreglo final
signatory (n) firmante, parte firmante, sig-
natario, persona que firma
standard of proof (see proof)
state (n) (jurisdictional division) estado; (adj)
estatal; (v) (declare) declarar, decir,
manifes­tar, afirmar, exponer; (plaintiff in
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom
criminal case) parte acusadora, la fiscalía;
– of mind estado de ánimo, disposición
mental
statement (n) declaración, afirmación,
manifestación; written – declaración por
escrito
status (n) estado, estatus, situación, clasifi-
cación; immigration – clasificación/situ-
ación migratoria/inmigratoria
statute (n) ley, legislación (promulgada por
la legislatura); – of limitations ley de
prescripción
statutory (adj) según la ley, establecido por
ley
subpoena (n) citación judicial, citatorio
(Mx), comparendo; (v) citar; – duces te-
cum (Lt) citación duces tecum (con orden
de aportar documentos)
sue (v) (civ) demandar
summons (n) orden de comparecencia, ci­
tación, escrito de emplazamiento, com-
parendo (Col)
supervised release (see release)
surrender (v) entregar; – oneself to en-
tregarse a
surveillance (n) vigilancia
sustain (v) (an objection) dar lugar, decla-
rar con lugar, hallar con lugar una protes-
ta/objeción, aceptar (una objeción); ob-
jection – ed «ha lugar» la objeción; (a
ruling) confirmar
swear (v) (take an oath) jurar, prestar jura-
mento; (v) jurar; (swear in a witness)
tomar juramento (a alguien)
testify (v) prestar testimonio, atestiguar,
declarar, deponer, testificar
testimony (n) testimonio, prueba testimo-
nial/testifical
tort (n) (civ) agravio, ilícito civil, acto da-
ñoso
traffic (n) (commerce) tráfico, negocio, co-
mercio; (illegal drugs,) narcotráfico; (sto-
len property) tráfico de bienes robados;
(transit) tránsito; – offense infracción de
las reglas de tránsito
transcript (n) transcripción
trial (n) (lawsuit); juicio (oral); – court tri-
bunal de primera instancia; – judge juez
del conocimiento (Col), juez de la causa;
– lawyer abogado litigante; – record actas
del juicio; bench – juicio sin jurado; jury
– juicio con jurado; speedy – celeridad
procesal, juicio sin dilaciones indebidas,
juicio sin demoras; – rights garantías
procesales; (v) stand – someterse a juicio
true bill (n) (grand jury charging document)
documento acusatorio de gran jurado,
escrito inculpatorio de gran jurado, ha
lugar el procesamiento de gran jurado,
acusación fundada (see no true bill)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
(USCIS) Oficina de Ciudadanía y Servi-
cios de Inmigración de los EE.UU.
U.S. Code Código de los Estados Unidos,
código federal
U.S. Court tribunal/juzgado federal de dis-
trito/de primera instancia
U.S. Courts judicatura federal, tribunales
federales (de los EE.UU.)
U.S. Marshal policía judicial federal
U.S. Postal Service (n) servicio de correos,
correos (de los EE.UU.)
U.S. Sentencing Commission Comisión
Federal en Materia de Penas, Comisión
Federal sobre Penas Judiciales
undercover (adj) encubierto; secreto;
(agent) agente encubierto; – operation
operativo secreto/encubierto
vacate (v) (a ruling) invalidar, anular
venue (n) jurisdicción territorial; change of
– cambio de jurisdicción territorial
verdict (n) veredicto; guilty – veredicto de
culpabilidad/de culpable; not guilty –
veredicto de no culpable; return a – pro-
nunciar/dictar el veredicto
 Appendix 1.  Glossary of selected legal terms and phrases (English-Spanish) 

victim (n) víctima; – impact statement de-
claración de los efectos del delito sobre la
víctima (o sus familiares); vulnerable –
víctima vulnerable
violation (n) (general) infracción, trans-
gresión; (failure to comply) incumplimien­
to, quebrantamiento; – of a minor (with-
out the use of violence) estupro; – of the
law violación de la ley
voir dire (n) voir dire, proceso de selección
de jurados, interrogatorio preliminar de
jurados potenciales/en pers­pectiva, in-
terrogatorio preliminar de (testigo) peri-
to propuesto
voluntary (adj) voluntario; – surrender en-
trega voluntaria; (adv) voluntariamente
waive (renounce a right) (n) abandono de
derecho; (v) renunciar a un derecho; –
the right to a trial renunciar al derecho a
juicio
waiver (n) renuncia, abandono (de); – of
trial rights renuncia a las garantías pro­
cesales; (of fees) exención, dispensa
warrant (n) (judicial decree) orden, man-
damiento judicial; bench – auto de de-
tención; search – orden de registro
domi­ciliario, orden de allanamiento/ca-
teo; – for arrest orden de detención, or-
den de aprehensión, orden de captura
weapon (n) arma; concealed – arma oculta
will (n) (civ) testamento; last – and testa-
ment última disposición testamentaria,
testamento; (v) (bequeath) legar
willful (adj) intencional, voluntario, delibe­
rado; willfully (adv) intencionalmente,
deliberadamente, voluntariamente
withdraw (v) retirar; – charges retirar car-
gos; – from retirarse (de); – the plea reti-
rar la declaración de culpabilidad/el con-
venio declaratorio (de culpabilidad)
witness (n) testigo; adverse – testigo hostil/
desfavorable; alibi – testigo de coartada;
character – testigo de solvencia moral;
expert – testigo pericial, perito;
eye – testigo de vista/presencial/ocular;
hearsay – testigo de oídas/de referencia;
material – testigo esencial; – for the
defense testigo de descargo; – for the
prosecution testigo de cargo; – protection
program programa de protección de
testigos (v) – a crime presenciar un delito
writ (n) (court order) auto, mandato judi-
cial, mandamiento, decreto judicial es-
crito; (petition) recurso; – for imprison-
ment auto de prisión; – of attachment
auto de embargo, mandato de embargo;
– of certiorari (Lt) auto de certiorari,
auto de avocación; – of habeas corpus (a
writ ordering a prisoner to be brought be-
fore a judge) auto/recurso de habeas cor-
pus, exhibición personal (Guat)

Note: These entries have been selected and adapted from de Jongh (1992; 2011)
and represent the consensus of several federally certified court interpreters. I am
grateful to many colleagues who generously shared their own glossaries or con-
tributed in other ways. I am particularly indebted to Maria J. Cazabon, Scott
Robert Loos, and Anthony T. Rivas.
 appendix 2

Court interpreter codes of ethics

and professional responsibility

In their capacity as officers of the court, court interpreters are bound to a profes-
sional code of ethics. This appendix includes three codes of ethics. The first is the
Standards for Performance and Professional Responsibility for Contract Court In-
terpreters in the Federal Courts, developed by the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts. It is followed by the code of ethics of the National Associa-
tion of Judiciary Interpreters & Translators (NAJIT), a U.S.-based professional as-
sociation for judiciary interpreters. Lastly, the Washington state code of ethics is
included as a sample state court interpreter code of conduct.

I. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Standards for Performance and Professional Responsibility for Contract Court

Interpreters in the Federal Courts

Preamble

Federally certified court interpreters are highly skilled professionals who bring to
the judicial process specialized language skills, impartiality, and propriety in deal-
ing with parties, counsel, the court, and the jury. All contract court interpreters,
regardless of certification, are appointed to serve the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1827. When interpreters are sworn in they become, for the duration of the assign-
ment, officers of the court with the specific duty and responsibility of interpreting
between English and the language specified. In their capacity as officers of the
court, contract court interpreters are expected to follow the Standards for Perfor-
mance and Professional Responsibility for Contract Court Interpreters in the Fed-
eral Courts.
1. Accuracy and Completeness
Interpreters shall render a complete and accurate interpretation or sight transla-
tion that preserves the level of language used without altering, omitting, or adding
anything to what is stated or written, and without explanation. The obligation to
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

preserve accuracy includes the interpreter’s duty to correct any error of interpreta-
tion discovered by the interpreter during the proceeding.
2. Representation of Qualifications
Interpreters shall accurately and completely represent their certifications, training,
and pertinent experience.
3. Impartiality, Conflicts of Interest, and Remuneration and Gifts
Impartiality. Interpreters shall be impartial and unbiased and shall refrain from
conduct that may give an appearance of bias. During the course of the proceed-
ings, interpreters shall not converse with parties, witnesses, jurors, attorneys, or
with friends or relatives of any party, except in the discharge of their official func-
tions.
Conflicts of Interest. Interpreters shall disclose any real or perceived conflict of
interest, including any prior involvement with the case, parties, witnesses or at-
torneys, and shall not serve in any matter in which they have a conflict of interest.
Remuneration and Gifts. Court interpreters shall accept remuneration for their
service to the court only from the court. Court interpreters shall not accept any
gifts, gratuities, or valuable consideration from any litigant, witness, or attorney in
a case in which the interpreter is serving the court, provided, however, that when
no other court interpreters are available, the court may authorize court interpret-
ers working for the court to provide interpreting services to, and receive compen-
sation for such services from, an attorney in the case.
4. Professional Demeanor
In the course of their service to the court, interpreters shall conduct themselves in
a manner consistent with the dignity of the court and shall be as unobtrusive as
possible.
5. Confidentiality
Interpreters shall protect the confidentiality of all privileged and other confidential
information.
6. Restriction of Public Comment
Interpreters shall not publicly discuss, report, or offer an opinion concerning a
matter in which they are or have been engaged, even when that information is not
privileged or required by law to be confidential.
7. Scope of Practice
Interpreters shall limit themselves to interpreting or translating, and shall not give
legal advice, express personal opinions to individuals for whom they are interpret-
ing, or engage in any other activities which may be construed to constitute a ser-
vice other than interpreting or translating while serving as an interpreter.
 Appendix 2.  Court interpreter codes of ethics and professional responsibility 

8. Assessing and Reporting Impediments to Performance

Interpreters shall assess at all times their ability to deliver their services. When
interpreters have any reservation about their ability to satisfy an assignment com-
petently, they shall immediately convey that reservation to the appropriate judicial
authority.
9. Duty to Report Ethical Violations
Interpreters shall report to the proper judicial authority any effort to impede their
compliance with any law, any provision of these Standards, or any other official
policy governing court interpreting and legal translating.
Source: Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

II. National Association of Judiciary Interpreters & Translators

(NAJIT) Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities

Preamble

Many persons who come before the courts are non- or limited-English speakers.
The function of court interpreters and translators is to remove the language bar-
rier to the extent possible, so that such persons’ access to justice is the same as that
of similarly-situated English speakers for whom no such barrier exists. The degree
of trust that is placed in court interpreters and the magnitude of their responsibil-
ity necessitate high, uniform ethical standards that will both guide and protect
court interpreters in the course of their duties as well as uphold the standards of
the profession as a whole.
While many ethical decisions are straightforward, no code of ethics can fore-
see every conceivable scenario; court interpreters cannot mechanically apply ab-
stract ethical principles to every situation that may arise. This Code is therefore
intended not only to set forth fundamental ethical precepts for court interpreters
to follow, but also to encourage them to develop their own, well-informed ethical
judgment.

Applicability

All NAJIT members are bound to comply with this Code.

Canon 1. Accuracy
Source-language speech should be faithfully rendered into the target language by
conserving all the elements of the original message while accommodating the syn-
tactic and semantic patterns of the target language. The rendition should sound
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

natural in the target language, and there should be no distortion of the original
message through addition or omission, explanation or paraphrasing. All hedges,
false starts and repetitions should be conveyed; also, English words mixed into the
other language should be retained, as should culturally-bound terms which have
no direct equivalent in English, or which may have more than one meaning. The
register, style and tone of the source language should be conserved. Guessing
should be avoided. Court interpreters who do not hear or understand what a
speaker has said should seek clarification. Interpreter errors should be corrected
for the record as soon as possible.
Canon 2. Impartiality and Conflicts of Interest
Court interpreters and translators are to remain impartial and neutral in proceed-
ings where they serve, and must maintain the appearance of impartiality and neu-
trality, avoiding unnecessary contact with the parties. Court interpreters and transla-
tors shall abstain from comment on matters in which they serve. Any real or potential
conflict of interest shall be immediately disclosed to the Court and all parties as soon
as the interpreter or translator becomes aware of such conflict of interest.
Canon 3. Confidentiality
Privileged or confidential information acquired in the course of interpreting or
preparing a translation shall not be disclosed by the interpreter without authori-
zation.
Canon 4. Limitations of Practice
Court interpreters and translators shall limit their participation in those matters in
which they serve to interpreting and translating, and shall not give advice to the
parties or otherwise engage in activities that can be construed as the practice
of law.
Canon 5. Protocol and Demeanor
Court interpreters shall conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the stan-
dards and protocol of the court, and shall perform their duties as unobtrusively as
possible. Court interpreters are to use the same grammatical person as the speaker.
When it becomes necessary to assume a primary role in the communication, they
must make it clear that they are speaking for themselves.
Canon 6. Maintenance and Improvement of Skills and Knowledge
Court interpreters and translators shall strive to maintain and improve their inter-
preting and translation skills and knowledge.
Canon 7. Accurate Representation of Credentials
Court interpreters and translators shall accurately represent their certifications,
accreditations, training and pertinent experience.
 Appendix 2.  Court interpreter codes of ethics and professional responsibility 

Canon 8. Impediments to Compliance

Court interpreters and translators shall bring to the Court’s attention any circum-
stance or condition that impedes full compliance with any Canon of this Code,
including interpreter fatigue, inability to hear, or inadequate knowledge of special-
ized terminology, and must decline assignments under conditions that make such
compliance patently impossible.
Source: National Association of Judiciary Interpreters & Translators (NAJIT)

III. Sample State Court Code of Conduct for Interpreters – Washington

State Courts1

Code of Conduct for Court Interpreters

Preamble. All language interpreters serving in a legal proceeding, whether certi-
fied or uncertified, shall abide by the following Code of Conduct:
A language interpreter who violates any of the provisions of this code is sub-
ject to a citation for contempt, disciplinary action or any other sanction that may
be imposed by law. The purpose of this Code of Conduct is to establish and main-
tain high standards of conduct to preserve the integrity and independence of the
adjudicative system.
(a) A language interpreter, like an officer of the court, shall maintain high stan-
dards of personal and professional conduct that promote public confidence in
the administration of justice.
(b) A language interpreter shall interpret or translate the material thoroughly and
precisely, adding or omitting nothing, and stating as nearly as possible what has
been stated in the language of the speaker, giving consideration to variations in
grammar and syntax for both languages involved. A language interpreter shall
use the level of communication that best conveys the meaning of the source,
and shall not interject the interpreter’s personal moods or attitudes.
(c) When a language interpreter has any reservation about ability to satisfy an as-
signment competently, the interpreter shall immediately convey that reserva-
tion to the parties and to the court. If the communication mode or language of

1. Wanda Romberger, Manager, Court Interpreting Services, National Center for State Courts,
states that “most of the Consortium [for Language Access in the Courts] members’ codes are very
similar to each other and were based on Bill Hewitt’s ‘model code.’” (Personal communication,
6/15/2011). See William E. Hewitt, Model Guide for Policy and Practice in the State Courts, 1995,
available online at http://ncsconline.org/wc/publications/Res_CtInte_ModelGuidePub.pdf.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

the non-English speaking person cannot be readily interpreted, the interpreter

shall notify the appointing authority or the court.
(d) No language interpreter shall render services in any matter in which the inter-
preter is a potential witness, associate, friend, or relative of a contending party,
unless a specific exception is allowed by the appointing authority for good
cause [and] noted on the record. Neither shall the interpreter serve in any
matter in which the interpreter has an interest, financial or otherwise, in the
outcome. Nor shall any language interpreter serve in a matter where the inter-
preter has participated in the choice of counsel.
(e) Except in the interpreters’ official capacity, no language interpreter shall dis-
cuss, report, or comment upon a matter in which the person serves as inter-
preter. Interpreters shall not disclose any communication that is privileged by
law without the written consent of the parties to the communication, or pur-
suant to court order.
(f) A language interpreter shall report immediately to the appointing authority in
the proceeding any solicitation or effort by another to induce or encourage the
interpreter to violate any law, any provision of the rules which may be ap-
proved by the courts for the practice of language interpreting, or any provi-
sions of this Code of Conduct.
(g) Language interpreters shall not give legal advice and shall refrain from the
unauthorized practice of law.
Source: Rule 11.2. Washington State Courts. Adopted effective November 17, 1989;
September 1, 2005.
Note: To see other codes of ethics visit the website of the individual state court
(e.g., see “Standards and Procedures of the Office of Court Interpreter Services,”
Commonwealth of Massachusetts at http://www.mass.gov/courts/ocis-standards-
procedures.pdf) or http://www.courtethics.org/Interpreter%20Codes.htm for a
compilation of state codes of conduct.
 appendix 3

Selected dictionaries and references

for further study

At the very least, English-Spanish court interpreters need to have the following
basic reference materials available for consultation: a comprehensive English
monolingual dictionary; a comprehensive Spanish monolingual dictionary; a gen-
eral bilingual dictionary; a standard legal dictionary in each language; a bilingual
legal dictionary; a reference book on court interpreting and a thesaurus or diction-
ary of synonyms and antonyms in each language. Interpreters also rely on resourc-
es such as specialized technical dictionaries, references on regional and colloquial
Spanish, personal and commercial glossaries, computerized dictionaries, internet
research and consultations with other colleagues.
The following list of monolingual and bilingual dictionaries and legal refer-
ences is an introduction to some of the basic references available to interpreters
and translators. The monolingual English references will be useful to interpreters
of all languages, whereas the bilingual references target English-Spanish court in-
terpreters and legal translators.

I. English-Spanish/Spanish-English: General Dictionaries and References

Álvarez Teresa, ed. 2005. Harrap’s Dictionary: Spanish-English/Inglés-Español. New York:

McGraw-Hill.
Bradley, D. 2005. Harper Collins Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary. New York: Harper
Collins.
Collins Spanish-English, English-Spanish Dictionary. Collins diccionario español-inglés, ingles-es-
pañol (Teresa Álvarez García et al). 1998. 3rd edition. New York: HarperCollins.
de Gamez, T., ed. 1997. Simon & Schuster’s International Spanish Dictionary. Diccionario inter-
nacional Simon & Schuster (English/Spanish.Spanish/English). (2nd edition). New York:
Macmillan, Simon and Schuster Adult Publishing Group.
Galimberti Jarman, Beatriz et al., eds. 2003. The Oxford Spanish Dictionary: Spanish-English/
English-Spanish. 3rd Ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gold, David L. Random House Latin-American Spanish Dictionary. (revised and updated by
Kathleen O’Connor). 2000. 2nd ed. New York: Random House.
Larousse Gran Diccionario, Español-Inglés/Inglés-Español. Publisher: 1999. Larousse Kingfisher
Chambers.
Merriam-Webster’s Spanish-English Dictionary. 2003. Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Prado, Marcial. 1993. NTC Dictionary of Spanish False Cognates. Lincolnwood (Chicago): NTC
Publishing Group.
Orellana, Marina. 2002. Glosario internacional para el traductor. 4th edition. Santiago, Chile:
Editorial Universitaria.
Oxford English-Spanish Dictionary. 2008. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, C. Collins Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary. 2006. 3rd edition. New York:
Harper Collins.
Sofer, M., Ed. 2006. Multicultural Spanish Dictionary. 2nd edition. Rockville, MD: Schreiber
Publishing.
The American Heritage Spanish Dictionary. Spanish/English - Inglés/Español. 2001. Second edi-
tion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
The Firefly Mini Spanish/English Visual Dictionary. 2006. Buffalo, NY: Firefly Books, Inc.

II. Legal Dictionaries and References

A. English:
Black’s Law Dictionary. 1990. 6th edition. St. Paul, MN: West Group.
Black’s Law Dictionary. 2009. 9th edition. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
Garner, Bryan A. 1987. A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gibbons, John. 2003. Forensic Linguistics. An Introduction to Language in the Justice System.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Gifis, Steven H. 1984. Law Dictionary. New York: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc.
Oran, Daniel. 1983. Oran’s Dictionary of the Law. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
Solan, Lawrence M., and Peter M. Tiersma. 2005. Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal
Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tiersma, Peter M. 2000. Legal Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wright, Charles Alan and Mary Kay Kane. 2002. Law of Federal Courts. Sixth edition. St. Paul,
MN: Hornbook Series, West Group.

B. Spanish:
Alcaraz Varó, Enrique, M.A., and Campos and Cynthia Miguélez. 2002. El inglés jurídico
norteamericano. 2nd ed. Barcelona: Ariel.
Alcaraz Varó, Enrique, and B. Hughes. 2005. Diccionario de términos jurídicos. Barcelona: Ariel.
Becerra, Javier F. 1999. Diccionario de terminología jurídica mexicana. México: Escuela Libre de
Derecho.
Borja, Albi Anabel. 2000. El texto jurídico inglés y su traducción al español. Barcelona: Ariel.
de Pina, Rafael, and Rafael de Pina Vara. 2008. Diccionario de derecho. 37th edition. México:
Porrúa.
del Burgo y Marchán, Angel Martín. 2000. El lenguaje del derecho. Barcelona: Editorial Bosch,
S.A.
de Romero, Meilij. 1987. Vocabulario legal y empresario. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Depalma.
 Appendix 3.  Selected dictionaries and references for further study 

Díaz del León, Marco Antonio. 2004. Diccionario de derecho procesal penal. 5th edition. México:
Porrúa.
Oronoz Santana, Carlos M. 1996. Manual de derecho procesal penal. México: Editorial Limusa.
Ossorio, M. 2007. Diccionario de ciencias jurídicas, políticas y sociales. 34th edition. Buenos Ai-
res, Heliasta.
Reyes Echandía, Alfonso. 2004. Diccionario de derecho penal. 6th edition. Colombia: Editorial
Temis, S.A.

III. English-Spanish/Spanish-English Legal Dictionaries and References

Alcaraz Varó, Enrique. 1995. Términos jurídicos inglés-español. Spanish-English. Publisher: I.B.D.
Limited.
Alcaraz Varó, E., and B. Hughes. 2007. Diccionario de Términos Jurídicos. A Dictionary of Legal
Terms. Español-Inglés, Inglés-Español. 10th edition. Barcelona: Ariel.
Becerra, Javier F. 2008. Diccionario de terminología jurídica norteamericana (inglés-español).
México: Escuela Libre de Derecho.
Benmaman, Virginia, Norma C. Connolly, and Scott Robert Loos. 1992. Bilingual Dictionary of
Criminal Justice Terms (English-Spanish). Gould Publications.
Cabanellas de las Cuevas, Guillermo and Eleanor C. Hoague. 2002. Butterworth’s English-Span-
ish Legal Dictionary. Butterworth Legal Publishers.
Cabanellas de las Cuevas, Guillermo and Eleanor C. Hoague. 1998. Diccionario jurídico español-
inglés. Buenos Aires: Editorial Heliasta.
Dahl, Henry S. 2004. McGraw-Hill’s Spanish and English Legal Dictionary. Diccionario Jurídico
Inglés-Español. New York: McGraw-Hill.
de Romero, Meilij. 1987.Vocabulario Legal y Empresario. Legal and Business Terms. Buenos Ai-
res: Ediciones Depalma.
Festinger, Nancy. 1986. Key Verbs for Court Interpreters. New York: Court Interpreters and
Translators Association.
Gallegos, Cuauhtémoc., ed. 2005. Merl Bilingual Law Dictionary. Diccionario jurídico bilingüe.
Chicago, Illinois: Merl Publications.
Gallegos, Cuauhtémoc., ed. 2007. Glossary One: Crimes/Glosario Uno: Delitos. Merl Publica-
tions.
Mazzucco, Patricia Olga and Alejandra Hebe Maranghello. 1988. Diccionario bilingüe de termi-
nología jurídica (inglés-castellano/castellano-inglés). Buenos Aires: Abeledo-Perrot.
McKenna, Dennis. 2006. Criminal Court Dictionary. Pasadena, CA: Adelfa Books.
Mikkelson, Holly. 2000. Interpreter’s Companion, 4th edition. Spreckels, CA: ACEBO.
Nolan, James. 2008. Spanish-English/English-Spanish Pocket Legal Dictionary. New York: Hip-
pocrene Books, Inc.
Robb, Louis A., 1982. Dictionary of Legal Terms. Spanish-English and English-Spanish. Dicciona-
rio de términos legales. español-inglés e inglés-español. México: Editorial Limusa.
Tomasi, Sandro. 2009. Tomasi’s Law Dictionary. An English-Spanish Dictionary of Criminal Law
and Procedure. NY: BilingualLawDictionary.com.
West, Thomas L. 1999. Spanish-English Dictionary of Law and Business. Atlanta, Georgia: Protea
Publishing.
West’s Law and Commercial Dictionary in Five Languages. 1985. Publisher: West Wadsworth.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

IV. Basic Bibliography on Foreign-Language Court Interpreting

for Further Study

Angelelli, Claudia V. 2004. Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role. A Study of Conference, Court, and
Medical Interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Berk-Seligson, Susan. 2002. The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process
(with a new chapter). Chicago: U of Chicago Press.
Colin, Joan & Ruth Morris. 1996. Interpreters in the Legal Process. Winchester: Waterside Press.
Crooker, C.E. 1996. The Art of Legal Interpretation: A Guide for Court Interpreters. Portland State
University: Continuing Education Press.
de Jongh, Elena M. 1992. An Introduction to Court Interpreting. Theory and Practice. Lanham,
Maryland: University Press of America.
Dueñas González, Roseann et al. 1991. Fundamentals of Court Interpretation. Theory, Policy and
Practice. NC: Academic Press.
Edwards, Alicia B. 1992. The Practice of Court Interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Gaiba, F. 1998. The Origins of Simultaneous Interpretation: The Nuremberg Trial. Ottawa: Univer-
sity of Ottawa Press.
Hale, Sandra Beatriz. 2004. The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the
witness and the interpreter. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hewitt, William E. 1995. Court Interpretation: Model Guides for Policy and Practice in the State
Courts. Williamsburg, Virginia: National Center for State Courts.
Laster, K., and V.L. Taylor. 1994. Interpreters and the Legal System. Sydney: The Federation
Press.
Mason, Marianne. 2008. Courtroom Interpreting. Lanham: University Press of America.
Mikkelson, Holly. 2000. An Introduction to Court Interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Moetski, R. 1999. Discourse in a Multilingual and Multicultural Courtroom: A Court Interpreter’s
Guide. Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik.
Phelan, Mary. 2001. The Interpreter’s Resource. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
Pöchhaker, Franz and M. Schlesinger. 2001. The Interpreting Studies Reader. London/NY: Rout-
ledge.
Pöchhaker, Franz. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge.
Ramler, Siegfried. 2008. Nuremberg and Beyond: The Memoirs of Siegfried Ramler from 20th
Century Europe to Hawaii. Kailua, Hawaii: Ahuna Press.
Sibirsky, Saúl and Martin C. Taylor. 2010. Language into Language. Cultural, Legal and Linguistic
Issues for Interpreters and Translators. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company,
Inc.
 appendix 4

Selected translation & interpretation

(T&I) organizations and resources

There are numerous professional translator and interpreter organizations, chap-

ters and local groups throughout the world. The list below offers a selection of
several of the largest organizations in the United States and abroad. It is followed
by a list of additional relevant organizations and resources for court interpreters.

I. Organizations

American Literary Translators Association (ALTA)

The University of Texas at Dallas
Box 830688 Mail Station JO51
Richardson, Texas 75083-0688 USA
http://www.literarytranslators.org
American Translators Association (ATA)
225 Reinekers Ln., Suite 590
Alexandria, Virginia 22314 USA
http://www.atanet.org
Center for Legal American Sign Language Interpreters (LASLI)
P. O. Box 2407
Suwanee, Georgia 30024-0980 USA
www.laslicenter.com
European Legal Interpreters and Translators Association (EULITA)
http://www.eulita.eu
International Association of Conference Interpreters – Association Internation-
ale des Interprètes de Conférence (AIIC)
46, avenue Blanc
CH-1202 Geneva, Switzerland
www.aiic.net
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

International Federation of Translators – Fédération Internationale des Traduc-

teurs (FIT)
2021 Union Avenue, Suite 1108
Montreal (Quebec) H3A 259 Canada
www.fit-ift.org/
National Association of Judiciary Interpreters & Translators (NAJIT)
603 Stewart St., Suite 610
Seattle, Washington 98101 USA
http://www.najit.org
Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID)
333 Commerce St.
Alexandria, Virginia 22314 USA
http://www.rid.org
The American Association of Language Specialists (TAALS)
P. O. Box 27306
Washington, D.C. 20038-7306 USA
http://www.taals.net
The Translators and Interpreters Guild (TTIG)
P. O. Box 77624
Washington, D.C. 20013-8624 USA
www.unionlanguages.org

II. Additional Resources

Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC)

One Columbus Circle, NE
Washington, D.C. 20544 USA
www.uscourts.gov
American Bar Association (ABA)
321 North Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois 60654-7598
www.abanet.org
Centro de Estudios de Justicia de las Americas (CEJA)
Rodo No. 1950
Providencia, Santiago, Chile
www.cejasamericas.org
 Appendix 4.  Selected translation & interpretation (T&I) organizations and resources 

Department of State (U.S.)

Office of Language Services
2401 E. St. NW, SA-1, Room H1400
Washington, D.C. 20520-2204 USA
www.languageservices.state.gov/?menu_id=109
National Center for State Courts
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
http://www.ncsc.org
For comparative or international law:
Latin American Network Information Center (LANIC)
http://lanic.utexas.edu/la/region/law
For information on certification examinations:
Federal Court Interpreter Certification Examination Program (FCICE)
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
http://www.uscourts.gov/interpretprog/interp_prog.html.
Consortium for Language Access in the Courts (formerly the Consortium for
State Court Interpreter Certification)
http://www.ncsconline.org/d_research/CourtInterp/CICourtConsort.html
For jurisprudence:
http://www.todoelderecho.com/
For law enforcement:
http://www.interpol.int/
For legislation:
http://www.todalaley.com/
 appendix 5

Index of selected recordings

for interpreting practice

Selected scripts from Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5 have been recorded at varying speeds
for interpreting practice and are available through this guide. These recordings are
intended for practice in the consecutive and simultaneous modes, but may be
adapted for use in preliminary or warm-up activities such as shadowing and mem-
ory exercises.
The selections are:
Chapter 2: “Judge’s Remarks Addressed to Visiting Attorneys from Argentina,
Chile and Venezuela,” by The Honorable Shelby Highsmith, Senior
United States District Judge
Chapter 3: Change of Plea Hearing
Chapter 4: Opening Statement by the Prosecution (excerpt)
Opening Statement by the Defense (excerpt)
Direct Examination of a Witness (excerpt)
Direct Examination of a Non-English-Speaking Witness (excerpt)
Cross-Examination of a Non-English-Speaking Witness (excerpt)
Closing Argument by the Prosecution (excerpt)
Closing Argument by the Defense
Judge’s Instructions to the Jury (excerpts)
Chapter 5: Sentencing Hearing (excerpt)
The voices heard on these recordings are those of:
Yumiko Hirayama
Kevin Kappes
Elena M. de Jongh
Daniel Novoa
Elena Portuondo de Jongh
Edward Rossel de Jongh
William Rossel de Jongh
Audio editor: William Rossel de Jongh
 appendix 6

Court Interpreters Act of 1978

28 USC § 1827. Interpreters in courts of the United States

(a) The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall
establish a program to facilitate the use of certified and otherwise qualified
interpreters in judicial proceedings instituted by the United States.
(b)
(1) The Director shall prescribe, determine, and certify the qualifications of
persons who may serve as certified interpreters, when the Director considers
certification of interpreters to be merited, for the hearing impaired (whether
or not also speech impaired) and persons who speak only or primarily a lan-
guage other than the English language, in judicial proceedings instituted by
the United States. The Director may certify interpreters for any language if the
Director determines that there is a need for certified interpreters in that lan-
guage. Upon the request of the Judicial Conference of the United States for
certified interpreters in a language, the Director shall certify interpreters in
that language. Upon such a request from the judicial council of a circuit and
the approval of the Judicial Conference, the Director shall certify interpreters
for that circuit in the language requested. The judicial council of a circuit shall
identify and evaluate the needs of the districts within a circuit. The Director
shall certify interpreters based on the results of criterion-referenced perfor-
mance examinations. The Director shall issue regulations to carry out this
paragraph within 1 year after the date of the enactment of the Judicial Im-
provements and Access to Justice Act.
(2) Only in a case in which no certified interpreter is reasonably available as
provided in subsection (d) of this section, including a case in which certifica-
tion of interpreters is not provided under paragraph (1) in a particular lan-
guage, may the services of otherwise qualified interpreters be used. The Direc-
tor shall provide guidelines to the courts for the selection of otherwise qualified
interpreters, in order to ensure that the highest standards of accuracy are main-
tained in all judicial proceedings subject to the provisions of this chapter.
(3) The Director shall maintain a current master list of all certified interpret-
ers and otherwise qualified interpreters and shall report periodically on the
use and performance of both certified and otherwise qualified interpreters in
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

judicial proceedings instituted by the United States and on the languages for
which interpreters have been certified. The Director shall prescribe, subject to
periodic review, a schedule of reasonable fees for services rendered by inter-
preters, certified or otherwise, used in proceedings instituted by the United
States, and in doing so shall consider the prevailing rate of compensation for
comparable service in other governmental entities.
(c)
(1) Each United States district court shall maintain on file in the office of the
clerk, and each United States attorney shall maintain on file, a list of all per-
sons who have been certified as interpreters by the Director in accordance
with subsection (b) of this section. The clerk shall make the list of certified
interpreters for judicial proceeding available upon request.
(2) The clerk of the court, or other court employee designated by the chief
judge, shall be responsible for securing the services of certified interpreters
and otherwise qualified interpreters required for proceedings initiated by the
United States, except that the United States attorney is responsible for securing
the services of such interpreters for governmental witnesses.
(d)
(1) The presiding judicial officer, with the assistance of the Director of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, shall utilize the services of
the most available certified interpreter, or when no certified interpreter is rea-
sonably available, as determined by the presiding judicial officer, the services
of an otherwise qualified interpreter, in judicial proceedings instituted by the
United States, if the presiding judicial officer determines on such officer’s own
motion or on the motion of a party that such party (including a defendant in
a criminal case), or a witness who may present testimony in such judicial pro-
ceedings –
(A) speaks only or primarily a language other than the English language;
or
(B) suffers from a hearing impairment (whether or not suffering also
from a speech impairment)
so as to inhibit such party’s comprehension of the proceedings or communica-
tion with counsel or the presiding judicial officer, or so as to inhibit such wit-
ness’s comprehension of questions and the presentation of such testimony.
(2) Upon the motion of a party, the presiding judicial officer shall determine
whether to require the electronic sound recording of a judicial proceeding in
which an interpreter is used under this section. In making this determination,
the presiding judicial officer shall consider, among other things, the qualifica-
tions of the interpreter and prior experience in interpretation of court
 Appendix 6.  Court Interpreters Act of 1978 

proceedings; whether the language to be interpreted is not one of the lan-

guages for which the Director has certified interpreters, and the complexity or
length of the proceeding. In a grand jury proceeding, upon the motion of the
accused, the presiding judicial officer shall require the electronic sound re-
cording of the portion of the proceeding in which an interpreter is used.
(e)
(1) If any interpreter is unable to communicate effectively with the presiding
judicial officer, the United States attorney, a party (including a defendant in a
criminal case), or a witness, the presiding judicial officer shall dismiss such
interpreter and obtain the services of another interpreter in accordance with
this section.
(2) In any judicial proceedings instituted by the United States, if the presiding
judicial officer does not appoint an interpreter under subsection (d) of this
section, an individual requiring the services of an interpreter may seek assis-
tance of the clerk of court or the Director of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts in obtaining the assistance of a certified interpreter.
(f)
(1) Any individual other than a witness who is entitled to interpretation un-
der subsection (d) of this section may waive such interpretation in whole or in
part. Such a waiver shall be effective only if approved by the presiding judicial
officer and made expressly by such individual on the record after opportunity
to consult with counsel and after the presiding judicial officer has explained to
such individual, utilizing the services of the most available certified interpret-
er, or when no certified interpreter is reasonably available, as determined by
the presiding judicial officer, the services of an otherwise competent inter-
preter, the nature and effect of the waiver.
(2) An individual who waives under paragraph (1) of this subsection the right
to an interpreter may utilize the services of a noncertified interpreter of such
individual’s choice whose fees, expenses, and costs shall be paid in the manner
provided for the payment of such fees, expenses, and costs of an interpreter
appointed under subsection (d) of this section.
(g)
(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Federal judiciary, and to be
paid by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts,
such sums as may be necessary to establish a program to facilitate the use of
certified and otherwise qualified interpreters, and otherwise fulfill the provi-
sions of this section and the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act,
except as provided in paragraph (3).
(2) Implementation of the provisions of this section is contingent upon the
availability of appropriated funds to carry out the purposes of this section.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

(3) Such salaries, fees, expenses, and costs that are incurred with respect to
Government witnesses (including for grand jury proceedings) shall, unless
direction is made under paragraph (4), be paid by the Attorney General from
sums appropriated to the Department of Justice.
(4) Upon the request of any person in any action for which interpreting ser-
vices established pursuant to subsection (d) are not otherwise provided, the
clerk of the court, or other court employee designated by the chief judge, upon
the request of the presiding judicial officer, shall, where possible, make such
services available to that person on a cost-reimbursable basis, but the judicial
officer may also require the prepayment of the estimated expenses of provid-
ing such services.
(5) If the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts
finds it necessary to develop and administer criterion-referenced performance
examinations for purposes of certification, or other examinations for the se-
lection of otherwise qualified interpreters, the Director may prescribe for each
examination a uniform fee for applicants to take such examination. In deter-
mining the rate of the fee for each examination, the Director shall consider the
fees charged by other organizations for examinations that are similar in scope
or nature. Notwithstanding Section 3302 (b) of Title 31, the Director is autho-
rized to provide in any contract or agreement for the development or admin-
istration of examinations and the collection of fees that the contractor may
retain all or a portion of the fees in payment for the services. Notwithstanding
paragraph (6) of this subsection, all fees collected after the effective date of this
paragraph and not retained by a contractor shall be deposited in the fund
established under Section 1931 of this title and shall remain available until
expended.
(6) Any moneys collected under this subsection may be used to reimburse the
appropriations obligated and disbursed in payment for such services.
(h) The presiding judicial officer shall approve the compensation and expenses
payable to interpreters, pursuant to the schedule of fees prescribed by the Di-
rector under subsection (b) (3).
(i) The term “presiding judicial officer” as used in this section refers to any judge
of a United States district court, including a bankruptcy judge, a United States
magistrate judge, and in the case of grand jury proceedings conducted under
the auspices of the United States attorney, a United States attorney.
(j) The term “judicial proceedings instituted by the United States” as used in this
section refers to all proceedings, whether criminal or civil, including pretrial
and grand jury proceedings (as well as proceedings upon a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus initiated in the name of the United States by a relator) con-
ducted in, or pursuant to the lawful authority and jurisdiction of a United
 Appendix 6.  Court Interpreters Act of 1978 

States district court. The term “United States district court” as used in this
subsection includes any court which is created by an Act of Congress in a
territory and is invested with any jurisdiction of a district court established by
Chapter 5 of this title.
(k) The interpretation provided by certified or otherwise qualified interpreters
pursuant to this section shall be in the simultaneous mode for any party to a
judicial proceeding instituted by the United States and in the consecutive
mode for witnesses, except that the presiding judicial officer, sua sponte or on
the motion of a party, may authorize a simultaneous, or consecutive interpre-
tation when such officer determines after a hearing on the record that such
interpretation will aid in the efficient administration of justice. The presiding
judicial officer, on such officer’s motion or on the motion of a party, may order
that special interpretation services as authorized in Section 1828 of this title be
provided if such officer determines that the provision of such services will aid
in the efficient administration of justice.
(l) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section or Section 1828, the pre-
siding judicial officer may appoint a certified or otherwise qualified sign lan-
guage interpreter to provide services to a party, witness, or other participant in
a judicial proceeding, whether or not the proceeding is instituted by the United
States, if the presiding judicial officer determines, on such officer’s own mo-
tion or on the motion of a party or other participant in the proceeding, that
such individual suffers from a hearing impairment. The presiding judicial of-
ficer shall, subject to the availability of appropriated funds, approve the com-
pensation and expenses payable to sign language interpreters appointed under
this section in accordance with the schedule of fees prescribed by the Director
under subsection (b) (3) of this section.
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00001827–000.html.
 appendix 7

Executive Order 13166 of August 11, 2000

Improving access to services for persons
with limited English proficiency

The President

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and 
the laws of the
United States of America, and to improve access to 
federally conducted and feder-
ally assisted programs and activities for
persons who, as a result of national origin,
are limited in their
English proficiency (LEP), it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Goals
The Federal Government provides and funds an array of services that
can be made
accessible to otherwise eligible persons who are not 
proficient in the English lan-
guage. The Federal Government is 
committed to improving the accessibility of
these services to eligible 
LEP persons, a goal that reinforces its equally important
commitment to
promoting programs and activities designed to help individuals
learn 
English. To this end, each Federal agency shall examine the services 
it pro-
vides and develop and implement a system by which LEP persons can 
meaning-
fully access those services consistent with, and without unduly
burdening, the
fundamental mission of the agency. Each Federal agency 
shall also work to ensure
that recipients of Federal financial 
assistance (recipients) provide meaningful ac-
cess to their LEP 
applicants and beneficiaries. To assist the agencies with this 
en-
deavor, the Department of Justice has today issued a general
guidance document
(LEP Guidance), which sets forth the compliance 
standards that recipients must
follow to ensure that the programs and 
activities they normally provide in English
are accessible to LEP 
persons and thus do not discriminate on the basis of na-
tional origin 
in violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amend-
ed, 
and its implementing regulations. As described in the LEP Guidance, 
recipi-
ents must take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to
their programs and
activities by LEP persons.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Section 2. Federally Conducted Programs and Activities

Each Federal agency shall prepare a plan to improve access to its
federally con-
ducted programs and activities by eligible LEP persons. 
Each plan shall be consis-
tent with the standards set forth in the LEP
Guidance, and shall include the steps
the agency will take to ensure 
that eligible LEP persons can meaningfully access
the agency’s programs
and activities. Agencies shall develop and begin to imple-
ment these
plans within 120 days of the date of this order, and shall send copies 
of
their plans to the Department of Justice, which shall serve as the 
central reposi-
tory of the agencies’ plans.
Section 3. Federally Assisted Programs and Activities
Each agency providing Federal financial assistance shall draft 
title VI guidance
specifically tailored to its recipients that is 
consistent with the LEP Guidance is-
sued by the Department of Justice. 
This agency-specific guidance shall detail how
the general standards 
established in the LEP Guidance will be applied to the agen-
cy’s 
recipients. The agency-specific guidance shall take into account the 
types of
services provided by the recipients, the individuals
served by the recipients, and
other factors set out in the LEP Guidance.
Agencies that already have developed
title VI guidance that the 
Department of Justice determines is consistent with the
LEP Guidance 
shall examine their existing guidance, as well as their programs
and 
activities, to determine if additional guidance is necessary to comply 
with
this order. The Department of Justice shall consult with the 
agencies in creating
their guidance and, within 120 days of the date 
of this order, each agency shall
submit its specific guidance to the 
Department of Justice for review and approval.
Following approval by 
the Department of Justice, each agency shall publish its
guidance 
document in the Federal Register for public comment.
Section 4. Consultations
In carrying out this order, agencies shall ensure that 
stakeholders, such as LEP
persons and their representative 
organizations, recipients, and other appropriate
individuals or 
entities, have an adequate opportunity to provide input. Agencies
will 
evaluate the particular needs of the LEP persons they and their
recipients
serve and the burdens of compliance on the agency and its 
recipients. This input
from stakeholders will assist the agencies in 
developing an approach to ensuring
meaningful access by LEP persons
that is practical and effective, fiscally responsi-
ble, responsive to
the particular circumstances of each agency, and can be readi-
ly
implemented.
 Appendix 7.  Executive Order 13166 of August 11, 2000 

Section 5. Judicial Review

This order is intended only to improve the internal management of 
the executive
branch and does not create any right or benefit, 
substantive or procedural, en-
forceable at law or equity by a party 
against the United States, its agencies, its of-
ficers or employees, or
any person.
William J. Clinton



The White House
August 11, 2000
Source: Federal Register. Vol. 65, No. 159, Wednesday, August 16, 2000. Presiden-
tial Documents: 50121-50122.
 References

ABA (American Bar Association). 1998. Law & the Courts. Vol. II: Court Procedures. Chicago:
ABA Division for Public Education.
—–. 2008. Law & the Courts. Vol. I: The Role of Courts. Chicago: ABA Division for Public Edu-
cation.
Abel, Laura. 2009. “Language Access in State Courts.” Brennan Center for Justice at the New
York University School of Law. Available at http://www.brennancenter.org/content/re-
source/language_access_in_state_courts/.
Abraham, Henry J. 1986. The Judicial Process. 5th edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Administrative Office of the United States Courts. 2000–2010. Annual Report of the Director:
Judicial Business of the United States Courts. Washington, D.C. Available http://www.
uscourts.gov/library/statisticalreports.html.
Adrine, Ronald B. Fall 2009. “Fundamental Fairness and Limited English Proficiency: One
should not prevent the other.” Proteus XVIII (3): 1–5.
Angelelli, Claudia. 2004. Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role. A Study of Conference, Court, and Med-
ical Interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Benchbook for United States District Court Judges. Sept. 2007. 5th edition. Washington, D.C.:
Federal Judicial Center.
Benmaman, Virginia. 1997. “Legal interpreting by any other name is still legal interpreting.” In
The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community. Silvana E. Carr et al., eds. Benjamins
Translation Library, Vol 19. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
—–. Fall 2000. “Interpreter issues on appeal.” Proteus IX (4). Available at www.najit.org/certifica-
tion/FAQarticleBenmaman.htm.
Berk-Seligson, Susan. 2002. The Bilingual Courtroom. Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process.
(accesed 1/15/2012). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Black’s Law Dictionary. 1990. 6th edition. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
Black’s Law Dictionary. 2009. 9th edition. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
Bowen, Margareta. Nov-Dec 1992. “Review of An Introduction to Court Interpreting: Theory and
Practice.” The Jerome Quarterly 8 (1): 11.
Bowen, David and Margareta Bowen. 1984. Steps to Consecutive Interpretation. Washington,
D.C.: Pen & Booth.
California Federation of Interpreters. November 2008. “Realizing the Goal of Equal Access to
the Courts: Increasing Access to Competent Interpreters.” A Report to the Legislature.
Available at http://www.calinterpreters.org/news/report-to-the-legislature/.
Chang, Annabel R. 2008. “Lost in Interpretation: The Problem of Plea Bargains and Court Inter-
pretation for non-English-Speaking Defendants.” Washington University Law Review 86:
445–480.
Colin, Joan and Ruth Morris. 1996. Interpreters and the Legal Process. Winchester: Waterside
Press.
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

Davis. The Honorable Lynn et al. Spring 2004. “The Changing Face of Justice: A Survey of Re-
cent Cases Involving Courtroom Interpretation.” Harvard Latino Law Review 7: 1–25.
Available at www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/llr/vol7/davis.pdf.
de Jongh, Elena M. 1992. An Introduction to Court Interpreting. Theory and Practice. Lanham,
Maryland: University Press of America.
—–. July/August 2008. “Linguistic Presence v. Linguistic Absence.” Florida Bar Journal 82 (7):
21–32. Available at http://www.elenadejongh.com/files/de_JONGH.pdf.
—–. 2011. Courtroom Terminology for Interpreters (English-Spanish). Miami: Associated Lan-
guage Services.
DeShazo, Peter & Juan Enrique Vargas. Sept. 2006. “CSIS: Judicial Reform in Latin America: An
Assessment.” Policy Papers on the Americas XVII (Study 2). Available at http://csis.org/files/
media/csis/pubs/0609_latin_judicial_reform.pdf.
Edwards, Alicia Betsy. 1995. The Practice of Court Interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing.
Elías Olivares, Lucía. 1983. “Language Use in a Chicano Community: A Sociolinguistic Ap-
proach.” In Spanish in the U.S. Setting: Beyond the Southwest, Lucía E. Olivares (ed),120–
128. Rosslyn, Virginia: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Fallow, Jr., Richard H. et al. 2009. Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System.
6th edition. NY: Foundation Press.
“Federal Court Basics.” Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center. Available at www.uscourts.
gov/EducationalResources/FederalCourtBasics.aspx.
“Federal Courts and What They Do.” 2006. Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center. Admin-
istrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Available at www.fjc.gov/library/fjc_catalog.nsf/.
“Federal Court Interpreting Events Rose in Fiscal Year 2010.” U.S. Courts News. April 13, 2011,
http://www.uscourts.gov.
Fiscalía General de la Nación. “100 Preguntas. Sistema Penal Acusatorio. Nueva justicia para los
colombianos.” Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional de Colombia. 11/16/2006. Available at http://
www.fiscalia.gov.co/sistPenal/sistemapenal/Cartilla%20100 %20pr.
Glossary of Legal Terms Used in the Federal Courts. 1980. 6th printing. Washington, D.C.: Statis-
tical Analysis and Reports Division, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Electronic
version available at http://www.uscourts.gov.
González, Roseann Dueñas et al. 1991. Fundamentals of Court Interpretation: Theory, Policy and
Practice. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.
Hale, Sandra Beatriz. 2004. The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of the Law,
the Witness and the Interpreter. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Highsmith, The Honorable Shelby. “Remarks Addressed to Visiting Attorneys from Argentina,
Chile and Venezuela.” Unpublished manuscript.
“Immigration Crisis Tests Federal Courts on Southwest Border.” June 2006. The Third Branch 38
(6). Available at http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/06-06/border/index.html.
“Interpreter Categories.” Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC). Available
at http://www.uscourts.gov/interpretprog/categories.html.
Interpreters in the Judicial System. A Handbook for Ohio Judges. February 2008. (Lois Feuerle,
editor). Columbus, Ohio: Supreme Court of Ohio Judicial & Court Services, Interpreter
Services Program. Available at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/publications/interpreter_ser-
vices/Shandb.
 References 

Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit. Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions. (Criminal
Cases). (2010 revision). Available at http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/documents/jury/Crimi-
nalJury2010.pdf.
Kauffman, Katherine. 2010. “Chile’s Revamped Criminal Justice System.” The Summit: George-
town Journal of International Law. Issue 1, vol. 40: 25–47. Available at http://www.law.
georgetown.edu/journals/gjil/pdf/1_25_Kauffman. pdf.
Mason, Marianne. 2008. Courtroom Interpreting. Lanham: University Press of America.
Mikkelson, Holly. 2000. Introduction to Court Interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 1998. “Prolonged Turns in Interpreting: Effects on Quality, Physiologi-
cal and Psychological Stress (Pilot Study).” In Interpreting 3 (1): 47–64. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing.
National Center for State Courts. “Access and Fairness. Court Interpretation. Overview.”
Accessed 5/5/10, http://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Access-and-Fairness/CourtInterpretation/
Overview.aspx.
National Latino Research Center, California State University San Marcos. A Quarterly Newslet-
ter (Fall 2004): 3, accessed 2006, http://www.csusm.edu/nlrc.
Nolan, James. 2005. (reprinted 2006, 2007). Interpretation Techniques and Exercises. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge.
Prado, Marcial. 1993. NTC’s Dictionary of Spanish False Cognates. Lincolnwood (Chicago): NTC
Publishing Group.
Shin, Hyron B. with Rosalind Bruno. “Language Use and English-Speaking Ability: 2000.” Cen-
sus 2000 Brief. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic and Statistics Administration.
Available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf.
Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Guidelines. U.S. Sentencing Commission. Online at www.ussc.
gov/ANNRPT/2008/Table 09.pdf.
“The U.S. Legal System: A Short Description.” Federal Judicial Center. Available at http://www.
fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/U.S._Legal_System_English07.pdf.
Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
U.S. Census 2010. Available at http://www.uscensus.gov/2010/census/data/.
U.S. Department of Labor. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010–2011 Edition. Occupational
Outlook Handbook.
“U.S. Hispanic Population Surpasses 45 Million: Now 15 Percent of Total.” (May 1, 2008). U.S.
Census Bureau News. U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C. Accessed May
2008. Available at www.census/gov/Press-Release.
Wright, Charles Alan and Mary Kay Kane. 2002. Law of Federal Courts. Sixth edition. St. Paul,
MN: Hornbook Series, West Group.

Cases Cited:
Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 13 S.Ct. 136
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
State v. Natividad, 111 Ariz. 191, 526 P.2d 730 (1974)
State of Oregon v. Ventura Morales, Nos. 86–630, 1988 Ore. App. LEXIS 1627 (Or. Ct. App.
Aug. 30, 1988)
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

State v. Santiago Calderon, 13 P.3d 871, 876 (Kan. 2000)

U.S. v. Gilberto Bailon-Santana, 429 F.3d 1258 (9th Cir. 2005)
U.S. ex rel. Negron v. State of New York, 434 2d 386 (2d Cir. 1970)
U.S. v. Gonzales, 339 F.3d 725 (8th Cir 2003)
U.S. v. Tapia, 631 F.2d 1207, 1210, 5th Cir. 1980
U.S. v. Torres, 793 F.2d 436 (1986)
U.S. ex rel. Navarrow v. Johnson, 34 F.Supp. 679, 682 (D.Pa., 1973)
 Index
A consecutive interpreting  16, 17,
Abraham, Henry  38
accuracy  1, 4, 6, 7, 16, 43, 44, 95,
183–185
acquittal  37, 113, 148, 166, 174;
see judgment of acquittal
adversarial system  30, 31, 37
adversary process  21
affidavit  42, 47, 48, 167
allocution  155, 157, 167
appeal  24–26, 28, 155, 161, 162,
167, 170, 172, 173, 178, 179;
see court of appeals
arraignment  55, 56, 168
arrest  41, 42, 56, 149, 168
B see cultural awareness
bail  52, 55, 56, 58, 59, 168
bankruptcy  26, 27, 168
Benmaman, Virginia  7, 162
Berk-Seligson, Susan  18
bond  52, 55, 58–60, 149, 168
Bowen, Margareta and
David  16
C de Jongh, Elena M.  3, 12, 14
case law  3, 4
census  7, 8, 9
certification of court
interpreters  5, 19, 20
Chang, Annabel  61, 62
change of plea hearing  35,
61, 62, 64–65; see also plea
agreement
charging document  41, 53, 56,
62, 169
circuit  24–26, 28
civil actions  24, 37, 38, 80;
case  38, 39, 88, 151;
law  21, 22; trial  86, 88
closing argument  136
cognates: deceptive, false,
semideceptive  13, 14
common law  21, 22
complaint  38, 39, 41, 42, 46, 53,
55, 169, 172
34, 35, 52–54, 58, 59, 61, 64;
at the witness stand  113–115,
118, 155, 157, 158, 179; see also
note-taking
Consortium for Language
Access in the Courts  19, 20
Court Interpreters Act  1, 5, 6, 11,
19, 113, 114, 162, 199
court of appeals  24–26, 28, 161,
162; see appeal
crime  13, 22, 27, 37, 38, 41, 42, 55,
56, 88, 170; see federal crime
criminal actions  27, 37, 42, 78;
cases  38
cross-cultural awareness  18;
cross-examination  95, 113, 116,
122, 123, 172
cultural awareness  162;
see cross-cultural awareness
D idiomatic expressions  44, 162
Davis, The Honorable
Lynn  5n, 7
deliberations  40, 79, 80, 141,
146, 147, 150, 171
deposition  39, 60, 171
detention  52, 55, 58, 59, 151,
171, 177
direct examination  95, 96, 108,
113, 118, 122
discovery  39, 40, 42, 58, 60,
80, 171
E judgment  21, 28, 80, 86, 113,
ear-voice span  34
Edwards, Alicia Betsy  162
Elías Olivares, Lucía  14
error  6, 16, 184, 186
ethics  2, 12, 18, 19, 51, 115, 183
evidence  56, 58, 59, 61, 88, 90, 94,
95, 108, 112, 133, 142, 145, 172
evidentiary hearing  61
exhibit  95, 147, 172
expert witness  13, 108, 143
F
federal court  6, 7, 9–11, 19,
23–27, 33, 38, 41, 61, 93, 161
federal crime  27, 28, 93, 172;
see crime
felony  13, 42, 172
G
González, Roseann Dueñas  3,
12n
grand jury  30, 41, 55, 56, 173
H
hedging  18
Highsmith, The Honorable
Shelby  28
Hispanics  8, 9
I
immigration  23, 27, 38, 61
indictment  17, 41, 42, 50, 56, 62,
83, 88, 149, 169
information (charging
document)  13, 41, 42, 62, 80,
149, 174
initial appearance  42, 51–53;
see appearance  167
interpreting process  11, 12
J
Jordan, The Honorable
Adalberto  15
133, 149, 151, 155, 174; of
acquittal  133; 166, 174;
summary judgment  60;
post-judgment  161
judicial system  21, 26, 29;
see judicial  174
jurisdiction  3, 23–26, 28, 39,
60, 174
 From the Classroom to the Courtroom

jury  30, 31, 79–82, 86, 112, 136,
147, 149, 174–175; see jury
instructions
jury instructions  140–146
K nolo contendere  13, 55, 56, 175
Kauffman, Katherine  32n
L O
Lacey Act  14
lawsuit  37–39, 175
legal language  12, 13
LEP  17, 18, 95, 113, 205
Limited English Proficiency
(LEP)  xxi, xxii, 11, 35, 61,
175; see also LEP
linguistic presence  4, 80
M Pöchhacker, Franz  34
Mason, Marianne  116
McAliley, The Honorable Chris
M.  60n
mediation  41, 175
memory  34
Miranda rights, warnings  41,
162, 175
misdemeanor  13, 25, 26, 175
mistrial  149
modes of interpreting  1, 2, 16,
18, 34, 64, 65
Moser-Mercer, Barbara  15, 16
motion  39, 175; for a change
of venue  39, 60; for a new
trial  149; for discovery  60,
171; for judgment notwith-
standing the verdict  149; for
judgment of acquittal  133; for
summary judgment  60; in
arrest of judgment  149, 175;
to dismiss  60; to sever  60,
175; to suppress  60, 61, 175
N rule of law  23, 28, 29, 179
National Association of
Judiciary Interpreters &
Translators (NAJIT)  20
National Association of the
Deaf  20
National Center for State
Courts  19, 20
Nolan, James  16
note-taking  34, 116–117
objection  95, 153–155, 176
opening statement  89–90, 92,
108, 176
P 26, 38, 93, 161
parole  176; see probation
plea  61, 62, 176; plea agree-
ment  17, 35, 61, 62–65, 176; see
also change of plea hearing
Prado, Marcial  13
preliminary hearing  54–56
presentence investigation
report  151–155
pretrial conference  60, 177;
proceedings  37, 41
probable cause  30, 42, 54–56,
169; see cause
probation  151, 153, 156, 177;
see parole
proffer  61, 65, 74–78, 177
proof: burden of proof  82,
88–89, 94, 177; proof beyond a
reasonable doubt  142
R voir dire  80, 83, 181
re-cross examination  95
redirect examination  95, 113
regional varieties of Spanish  13
register  18, 90, 114
Registry of Interpreters for the
Deaf (RID)  20
Roman law  21, 22
S
self-assessment  43, 44
sentencing  151–152, 154–157, 179
separation of powers  22, 179
shadowing  29, 34
sight translation  16, 17, 34, 35,
43, 44, 64, 88, 157
sign language interpretation  3,
4, 11, 20
simultaneous interpreting  16,
17, 34, 35, 52, 53, 64, 80, 89, 113,
136, 140, 155
source language  1, 12, 16–18, 34
Spanglish  13, 14
state  179; courts  11, 19, 23–25,
summary mode  16
state supreme court  24, 25; U.S.
Supreme Court  25, 26, 28, 170
T
target language  1, 12, 15, 16–18,
34, 117, 140
team  79, 114
Tiersma, Peter  12, 13, 90, 123
translation  15, 16, 95; American
Translators Association
(ATA) certification  20
trial: types of trials  79; jury
trial  27, 62, 79, 80–82, 88, 180;
bench trial  79, 149, 180
V
Ventura Morales, Santiago  5
verdict  79, 82, 88, 140, 147–149,
180
W
witness, questioning of  94–96;
see also expert witness
Wright, Charles and M. K.
Kane  26
 About the author

Dr. Elena M. de Jongh is a federally certified court interpreter, author and educa-
tor. She holds a Ph.D. degree in Spanish language and literature from Tulane Uni-
versity. She has received a number of scholarships for her research in court inter-
preting, Spanish literature and Cuban women writers, including two Fulbright-Hays
grants and an American Association of University Women fellowship for research
in Spain. Dr. de Jongh is the author of several books: An Introduction to Court In-
terpreting: Theory and Practice (1992); El krausismo y la generación de 1898 (1985);
and Florilegium: poesía última española (1982), as well as numerous articles on
court interpreting and Hispanic literature that have been published in the U.S. and
abroad.
Dr. de Jongh has interpreted in the U.S. district courts since 1985. She has
served on the Federal Court Interpreter Advisory Group, and has been a reviewer,
lead rater, and a rater trainer for federal court interpreter certification examina-
tions. She currently serves as a member of the Florida Supreme Court Interpreter
Certification Board and the editorial committee of the Florida Benchguide on
Court Interpreting. Dr. de Jongh is a member of the National Association of
Judiciary Translators and Interpreters (NAJIT) and the American Translators As-
sociation (ATA). She is Adjunct Professor of Modern Languages at Florida Inter-
national University, where she teaches court interpreting.