Solvent defendant must pay for interpreter

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A solvent, non-English speaking defendant in a criminal case must pay for a defense interpreter, but the court will continue to provide for proceedings interpreters at the public's expense, ruled the Indiana Supreme Court, upholding a previous decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals.

The high court granted transfer to Jesus Arrieta v. State of Indiana, No. 10S05-0704-CR-139, to determine whether Arrieta was entitled to a court-funded defense interpreter. Arrieta, who did not speak English, was charged with dealing cocaine, a Class A felony. Arrieta, who posted a $50,000 bond and hired an attorney for the hearing, received a court-appointed interpreter at his initial hearing June 14, 2005.

In late August 2005, the court advised Arrieta's attorney that Arrieta needed to hire his own interpreter at his expense for future hearings because the court does not provide interpreters unless the defendant can show indigency. Arrieta objected and showed up at his pre-trial hearing without one.

The trial court denied Arrieta's motion to provide translator services, which requested a publicly funded court interpreter for all future hearings. The court ruled Arrieta had the burden to show he is unable to pay for a translator, which he did not prove.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer after the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.

Non-English speakers have a right to have court proceedings translated simultaneously to allow for effective participation. A non-English speaking criminal defendant's rights can't be preserved without the assistance of a "defense interpreter," wrote Chief Judge Randall T. Shepard. However, the public should not pay for the defense interpreter when the non-English speaking defendant is solvent.

Indiana statute doesn't address interpreter fees in criminal proceedings, but the high court agrees with the Indiana Court of Appeals that solvent defendants are not entitled to court-funded interpreters, at least in the absence of affirmative legislation, wrote Chief Justice Shepard.

Arrieta did not present any evidence that he was indigent and the only evidence on record about his financial ability is that he paid a $50,000 bond and hired his own attorney. He had ample opportunity to show his inability to pay, but did not, so Arrieta is required to pay for his own defense interpreter.

In regards to who should pay for proceedings interpreters, the Supreme Court again agreed with the Court of Appeals that these interpreters should be court-funded. Proceedings interpreters serve the whole court and are necessary to ensure intelligible and fair proceedings.

"Just as a trial cannot proceed without a judge or bailiff, an English-speaking court cannot consider non-English testimony without an interpreter," wrote Chief Justice Shepard. "This analogy suggests that the government should provide proceedings interpreters when necessary in criminal proceedings, whether the witness has been called by the prosecution or the defense, and we perceive this as the practice now prevailing."

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.