Stating the obvious, interpreters must be qualified in order to interpret in a court proceeding. The essence of an interpreter’s qualifications is the competency to render an accurate interpretation. It cannot be emphasized enough that the interpreter is of critical importance to the LEP individual. This is equally true whether the communication is with the court or with the individual’s attorney. Just as the court would not appoint its clerk or stenographer or use a family member to interpret in court, so should attorneys not choose individuals who have no training, skill, or experience as interpreters when communicating with a client.
For purposes of court appointment, interpreter qualifications are governed by the La. C.E. art. 604, which states that “[a]n interpreter is subject to the provisions of this Code relating to qualification as an expert and the administration of an oath or affirmation that he will make a true translation.” Thus, Louisiana, like many other states, classifies interpreters as expert witnesses. Yet nothing in Louisiana law sets forth any interpreter standards, nor is there any guidance for judges or lawyers to follow when considering the use and evaluation of an interpreter other than La. C.C.P. art. 192.2, which simply requires that the interpreter be competent, and La. C.E. arts. 702 and 706, which must be read in pari materia with La. C.E. art. 604.
Article 702 of the Louisiana Code of Evidence allows an individual qualified as an expert on account of the individual’s education, knowledge, experience, training, or skill to testify to an opinion on a particular subject. If the expert is qualified, the article further requires that the opinion satisfy a four-element test: (1) the opinion will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or ascertain facts at issue; (2) there is enough data to support the opinion; (3) the opinion was reached through an established method; and (4) the methodology has been properly applied in reaching the opinion.
When applied to interpreters, this language is like fitting a square peg in a round hole. This ill fit should be immediately obvious because interpreters, unlike experts, cannot and should not give opinions. That alone should make La. C.E. art. 702 inapplicable. Leaving that fundamental difference between interpreters and experts aside, one must still do a bit of mental gymnastics to make the factors fit. The first two factors could be fulfilled by acknowledging that, yes, an interpreter will help the court understand the facts in English, which facts are those being spoken in the language other than English. The last two factors, reliability of the methodology and their applicability seem to be met as long as the interpreter is qualified and competent as an interpreter. Nevertheless, despite the poor fit between the requirements for expert witnesses and the role of the interpreter, the court’s discretion to qualify the interpreter is tied to La. C.E. art. 702 pursuant to the cross-reference set out in La. C.E. art. 604. A trial court’s refusal to qualify an interpreter-expert is reviewed for manifest error.
The other evidentiary provision implicated here, La. C.E. art. 706, regulates a court’s appointment of experts (presumably including interpreters). This article allows a court, on its own or upon motion by a party, to enter an order to show cause why an expert should not be appointed. Article 706 also allows any court-appointed expert to be called to testify and to be deposed. Nevertheless, Article 706 is as inappropriate as Article 702 when applied to interpreters. Because interpreters must be disinterested, they are ethically prohibited from giving an opinion and thus are unlikely to need to testify or be deposed. The only exception would be if the interpreter has been qualified as a language expert, for instance, as a linguist who could give an opinion as to whether a written contractual arrangement was accurately translated or whether previous court interpretations were accurate. In such cases, the interpreter-expert is not serving as a court interpreter. However, an attorney worried about the accurate nature of an interpretation might consider retaining such an expert to be present during the proceedings in order to monitor the competence of the court-appointed interpreter.
In the end, however, the fact remains that a court interpreter is not an expert in the sense contemplated by La. C.E. arts. 702 and 706. Neither applies, as interpreters should not be deposed, give an opinion, or otherwise testify.