Dealing With Juror Challenges When Interpreting on the Witness Stand
by Silvia Barden and Roxana Cárdenas

As interpreters, we are often faced with challenges that we are not always equipped to respond to as effectively and quickly as we would like. One such challenge is when we are interpreting for a witness during a jury trial and the judge encourages bilingual jurors to speak up if they hear the interpreter say something that the juror does not agree with. This situation almost cost one interpreter her certification in Los Angeles when the trial judge accepted the opinion of a juror, and based on this opinion, requested that court administration retest the interpreter before allowing her to interpret in any more criminal cases. The interpreter in question has a Ph.D. and enjoys a reputation among her colleagues as an excellent interpreter. A transcript of the juror's complaint casts doubt on whether the juror was truly bilingual. Due to CFI’s advocacy, administration withdrew its demand that she agree to be retested.

More recently, a similar situation arose in the Long Beach courthouse. Again, the trial judge in this matter indicated that he would allow a bilingual juror to bring to his attention any disagreement with the interpreter’s interpretation of the testimony. This resulted in a flurry of activity among interpreters trying to find information that could be taken to the judge to prevent juror opinion from superseding the interpreter’s rendition of the testimony. Interpreters are considered to be expert witnesses and as such, should only be challenged by other expert witnesses.

The question still remains, what can we do when faced with a situation like this? Short of recusing ourselves, we can make an effort to educate the attorneys and judges we work with by pointing out the case law recommending that the court admonish jurors that they must accept the interpreter’s rendition as correct. This case law also states that if a juror were to discuss his/her opinion of the interpretation during deliberations, it could amount to juror misconduct.

The CALJIC instruction that applies to interpreters (but only as a side note if a certified interpreter is used) is CALJIC 1.03. It reads: "You must decide all questions of fact in this case from the evidence received in this trial and not from any other source. When a witness has testified through a Certified Court Interpreter, you must accept the English interpretation of that testimony even if you would have translated the foreign language differently.”

The instruction is followed by a Use Note for judges: “In the discretion of the trial judge, this instruction may also be given at the outset of the trial.” Then, the Use Note is followed by this comment: “It is misconduct by a juror to give his or her own version of a witness’s Spanish-language testimony to fellow jurors.” People v. Cabrera (1991); 230 Cal. App. 3d 300, 303 [281 Cal. Rptr. 238].

In dealing with cases in which a juror challenges our interpretation, we should all know this case number and name by heart.