ILNews

Taking them at their word

Marilyn Odendahl
May 8, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

To understand how difficult the work of a court interpreter is, try this simple test.

Turn on the television and repeat everything the commentator says. Word for word, say exactly what is spoken. Do not summarize. Do not substitute or change the words. Do not leave out or add words and sentences.

Now, using a different language, repeat everything the commentator says.

Court interpreters are the conduit through which individuals not proficient in English can speak and understand the judicial system. In translating what the judges, attorneys, defendants, and witnesses say in the courtroom, the interpreters are key to ensuring the rights of non-English speakers are protected.

15col-IL_Interpreter03.jpg Vivian Kurzendoerfer, a certified court interpreter, ensures Spanish-speaking individuals understand what is being said in court. (IBJ Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

Marion Superior Judge Jose Salinas does not have to imagine what courtrooms would be like without these interpreters. He remembers when he started practicing law in the mid-1990s the system by which interpreters were supplied to defendants was practically nonexistent. His Spanish-speaking clients often had to rely on a family member or friend to tell them what the judge was saying.

Now, the Marion County courts have a pool of educated, well-trained interpreters to call upon. These people repeat, word for word, what is said during the proceeding so the defendant or witness understands what is happening.

“In Marion County, we have come a long way in protecting the rights of the individual,” Salinas said in reference to the interpreter program. “The main thing is protecting people’s rights.”

Words, words, words

Vivian Kurzendoerfer is among the interpreters who have translated court proceedings in Marion and some of the surrounding counties. She became certified through the Indiana Supreme Court in 2009.

Working in the court system, Kurzendoerfer has realized attorneys and judges often have to learn how to function when an interpreter is in the room. Primarily, they need to speak directly to the non-English-speaking individual and, for the most part, ignore the interpreter.

She recounted an incident where a lawyer addressed Kurzendoerfer and not the witness. The attorney said, “Ask her if … , ” so Kurzendoerfer interpreted literally with, “Ask her if …” to which the witness replied, “Ask who?”

What ensued was almost a comedy of errors until Kurzendoerfer told the judge she, as the interpreter, wanted to interrupt and explain what was happening.

A native of Puerto Rico, Kurzendoerfer grew up not only speaking Spanish but also learning legal terminology from her lawyer father. Yet, even with her background and extensive training, she said interpreting is “mentally exhausting.”

By herself, Kurzendoerfer can interpret for about two hours before she needs a break. When she tag teams a trial with another interpreter, she gets a break every 30 minutes.

Outside of the courtroom, she will cluster with the other interpreters.

“We are so boring,” Kurzendoerfer said. “We’re such nerds, all we talk about is words.”

Usually the interpreter will sit next to the defendant and interpret, in a low voice, everything that is being said in court. When the defendant responds to the judge or asks questions, the interpreter will relay the communication in English.

Interpreters have to be well-versed in legal terms. The Spanish language alone has three words for “probation” and DNA translates as ADN. Moreover, clichés and colloquialisms can provide special obstacles. For example, the phrase “drop in the bucket” will lose its meaning if interpreted directly.

Tippecanoe Superior Judge Michael Morrissey has used interpreters for native speakers of Spanish, Mandarin Chinese and Hindi. Occasionally there have also been Russian and Vietnamese speakers.

“It’s so vital to give everyone who appears in court a fair hearing,” he said.

Morrissey does not see the need for interpreters declining in the future. He noted even second and third generations still speak their parents’ native language. On top of this, even if they speak English, they want an interpreter in court because they feel more comfortable in their native language.

In Marion County, Salinas does not anticipate needing fewer interpreters. In fact, he believes more languages will have to be covered going forward.

carrillo Carrillo

Certification

In 2002, Indiana joined the National Center for State Courts’ Consortium for State Court Interpreter Certification and created a certification program especially for interpreters. It is universally described as a rigorous program that produces qualified and capable court interpreters.

“I think the certification process our Supreme Court has implemented is a good thing,” Morrissey said. “It assures the relay of information between the individual and the court, and vise versa, is accurate.”

The certification process consists of two exams, one written and the other oral. For the oral section, the candidates are tested by having to interpret what is being said both simultaneously and consecutively. Also, they must read a document and interpret it by sight.

Carlos Carrillo, attorney at Ball Eggleston P.C. in Lafayette, became certified after being encouraged to do so by a colleague. He compared the difficulty of passing the certification exam to that of passing the bar.

To prepare for the oral exam, Carrillo spent four hours after dinner each night studying over a period of two and a half months. Much of his time was devoted to listening to the radio or television and simultaneously interpreting what was being said.

“I don’t think that I’d want to do it again,” he said of becoming certified. “I don’t regret doing it. It made me a better attorney. I will always be grateful for the training I got from it.”

The difficult part of the oral exam was matching the registers, Carrillo said.

Spanish and English have three registers. The high register includes professional language or the legal terms and phrases used in the judicial system. The middle register is common, everyday language while the lower register is mostly slang and profanity.

Interpreters must retain the register of the speakers. For example, if the judge tells the defendant, “You will be incarcerated,” the interpreter cannot translate that to the defendant as, “You’re going to jail.”

Changing a register and not interpreting everything exactly as it is said can mean the difference between a conviction and an acquittal, Carrillo said.

As an attorney with many Spanish-speaking clients, Carrillo has witnessed bad interpreting. During a custody hearing, the mother brought her own interpreter but that interpreter, he said, left out 40 percent of what was being discussed.

He conceded that having qualified interpreters in courtrooms is an added expense but, echoing Salinas, emphasized the need to protect the rights of the individuals.

“It is important that all persons have their day in court and that they have an opportunity to present their case,” Carrillo said. “The only way this is possible for non-English-speaking persons is by having properly trained interpreters. This is why interpreters have become an integral part of our legal system.”•

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 have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT