The attorney has at least three opportunities to challenge a court interpreter: at the time appointment is requested or needed (but one is not appointed), at the interpreter’s qualification through voir dire or some other process, and during the interpretation itself to the extent that the interpretation is inaccurate or the interpreter’s performance presents other issues serious enough to prejudice the client. Issues of appointment have been greatly minimized in light of the 2008 amendments to La. C.C.P. art. 192.2 and La. C.Cr.P. art. 25.1, both of which mandate the appointment of a court interpreter when requested by an LEP individual. However, issues of appointment should not be conflated with issues of interpreter qualification, or once the interpreter has been qualified, with issues of competence and performance.
The additional issue of whether an attorney may challenge the qualification of the interpreter after the interpreter has been properly qualified by a court is not addressed here. Nevertheless, by way of short discussion, La. C.E. art. 706 offers the opportunity to challenge the appointment. As this done through a hearing to determine whether an interpreter should be appointed, it is apparently available only before the interpreted begins to interpret for a client or witness. However, it is possible to envision a situation in which an interpreter, previously qualified, turns out to be unqualified given their actual performance. For example, there might be a clear language mismatch between witness and interpreter, or the interpreter might consistently deliver subpar interpretations or make serious ethical lapses. Such a performance would belie the initial qualification. If a mere objection to competence will not remediate the prejudice to the client, disqualification or removal should be an option. At this point, Louisiana courts offer no guidance in this regard. However, it stands to reason that the court will entertain a motion to remove or disqualify an interpreter in appropriate circumstances, when fairness and the LEP individual’s meaningful participation in the proceedings are grossly compromised.1
- 1For a good example of a court rule which provides for the removal of an interpreter, see Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 42, § 6.