ILNews

Solvent defendant must pay for interpreter

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
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."
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT