Interpreting, Legal

Legal interpreting is a very broad arena ranging from traditional court and law enforcement settings to less obvious contexts such as employment terminations and emergency rooms. Federal laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, mandate qualified interpreters in legal settings. This article addresses the qualifications for legal interpreters, the three functions that court interpreters perform, and the ethical and behavioral rules that make legal interpreting different from community interpreting. The profession of court interpreting has only recently refined its understanding of the role of the legal interpreter and has not done enough to assist the Deaf community with appreciating the differences.

Sign language interpreting in legal settings is a high-risk calling that justifiably gives most interpreters pause. At risk may be income, liberty, and property. Most interpreters who work in these settings are highly skilled practitioners who typically were credentialed as community interpreters for years before they began interpreting in court. Most as well have taken some form of legal interpreter education and aspire to achieve the legal interpreting credential offered by the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID), namely, Specialist Certificate: Legal (SC:L). Finally, most legal interpreters work, at least some of the time, with a Certified Deaf Interpreter (CDI). A CDI is an interpreter trained to mediate between the legal system and some of the more challenging legal events for which a native interpretation is more effective. For example, advisements of rights (Miranda warnings), police interviews, juvenile justice settings, and mental health–related court events typically are more effective when interpreted by a Deaf–hearing team.

In court, all interpreters perform three functions. When a proceeding is in session and a Deaf participant is a party—defendant, juror, or audience member—the interpreter interprets all discourse that is on the record. This type of interpreting has been termed the proceedings interpreting function, and the interpreter uses the simultaneous interpreting method, unless a CDI is also interpreting when the consecutive mode of interpreting is used. In the latter case, the pacing of the court must be modified to ensure there is time to complete an accurate interpretation. When a Deaf participant is a witness, regardless of whether the participant is also a party, the interpreter is performing the witness interpreting function. Witness interpreting [Page 503]uses the consecutive interpreting method. When a Deaf person is a party in a civil case or a defendant in a criminal action, the interpreter provides a third function, that of interpreting privileged communications between the attorney and the Deaf client. In these situations, the interpreter also plays an important role in preserving the attorney’s ability to object to a misinterpretation by monitoring the proceedings for accuracy and informing counsel when a misinterpretation has occurred. In this way, counsel can lodge an objection in a timely manner that is entered on the record.

The ethical rules governing legal interpreting in contexts outside the courtroom are laid out in the RID Code of Professional Conduct (CPC). At times, the requirements in the CPC conflict with the law. For example, RID requires strict confidentiality. However, interpreters who interpret in nonprivileged legal settings can be called to testify about their prior interpreting assignments when required by the rules of evidence. For example, if an interpreter interprets for a police interview and a confession is obtained, in order for the officer to testify to the confession, the interpreter must first testify that during the interview, he or she interpreted accurately. Only after this foundation is laid can the officer testify.

...