Can a defendant waive his right to have his interpreter interpret the entire proceedings verbatim?

The defendant also argues that even if he did waive his right to have his personal interpreter interpret all of the proceedings verbatim, that waiver [176 Cal.App.3d 417] was not made knowingly and intelligently as required in Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, and in In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449. Defendant did however make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to have his personal interpreter interpret all of the proceedings. During the trial, the court, talking to defendant, said, "... At that time I had a discussion with your counsel, and it was decided that your interpreter, who is sitting beside you, would only interpret the words of the witness' interpreter if she disagreed with the translation or with the nuance that was used. When I inquired this morning in front of the jury, your attorney indicated that you were willing to give up the right to have your interpreter interpret every word that the witness' interpreter says, and so we went ahead on that basis. [p] Is it your desire to do as your attorney indicated, that is, to have your interpreter, who is sitting beside you, interpret the words of the witness' interpreter only in the event she disagrees with his choice of words or the nuances of his choice of words?

"THE DEFENDANT: Yes. Or when I don't hear what they're saying that she repeat it for me.

"THE COURT: All right. You would like that, too.

"THE DEFENDANT: Yes. Sometimes I can't hear very well what they're saying.

"MR. FLORES: That's fine.