The issue of the competence of the court interpreter normally relates to their actual performance during trial/hearings. The interpreter must be able to perform in a way that meets accepted benchmarks, that is, engage in best practices that ensure that the interpreter will be able to convey accurately what the LEP individual wishes to communicate in a court of law.
Accuracy and all that it implies—fluency, cultural competence, register, etc.—is one of the most critical functions of the court interpreter. Inaccurate interpretations are prejudicial. They deny the LEP individual the very “voice” the interpreter is trusted to convey. The benchmarks set forth in the previous section represent standards against which an attorney may judge performance and object as necessary to prevent prejudice.
Certain deviations from these benchmarks such as mumbling instead of speaking clearly, offering personal opinions about the case or the party, or failing to interpret in consecutive mode are easily ascertainable. However, those related to the accuracy of the interpretation may not be unless the attorney is fully bilingual in the language spoken by the LEP individual. It is strongly suggested that an attorney concerned about the accuracy of the interpretation retain an additional qualified interpreter to monitor the court interpreter’s performance. If this proves to be impossible, an alternative might be to ask the court to allow an audio recording of those portions of the proceeding that involve the court interpreter and make the recordings part of the record. It is unclear whether a court would allow this, but, if there is a possibility of prejudice, it may be prudent to make the request and thereby create a record that will allow for appropriate appellate review.1
- 1Appellate review of the interpreter issue would be available either way – if the audio recording is available, then an expert linguist can opine as to the accuracy of the interpretation if that is the error; if the audio is not allowed, the issue might be whether the recording should have been allowed under the particular circumstances of the request.