At times an attorney may deem it appropriate to challenge a court interpreter’s qualifications. The decision should be carefully weighed in light of interpreter standards and ethics, and, even more importantly, the language needs of the LEP client. For example, a court might appoint a Spanish-speaking interpreter for an LEP individual from Guatemala, presuming that that individual speaks Spanish, when in fact the individual speaks the Quechua language, but no Spanish. More nuanced still is where the LEP individual speaks a local dialect or one heavily influenced by colloquialisms.
In keeping with the Code of Evidence, the challenge should be made by requesting a voir dire of the interpreter at the time the appointment is being considered. However, note that under the La. C.C.P. art. 192.2 and La. C.Cr.P. 25.1, which mandate the appointment of a qualified interpreter upon request by the LEP individual, a legitimate question arises as to whether, for example, interpreters who are listed by the Louisiana Supreme Court as “registered” or “certified” are presumptively qualified by virtue of having been previously vetted by the Court (through training and testing). There are no rules that address this issue, and thus, the attorney is left to consult what is available: La. C.E. arts. 702 and 706.
Possible voir dire to establish an interpreter’s qualifications might include questions about the communication needs of the particular LEP individual involved, knowledge of legal terminology, any conflicts of interest which might exist, ethics, mastery of languages, and/or prior disqualification. The Best Practices Manual on Interpreters in the Minnesota State Court System offers some ideas for voir dire of interpreters.1
- 1Minn. Sup. Ct. Interpreter Advisory Comm., Best Practices Manual on Interpreters in the Minnesota State Court System J-1 (1999).