California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Moreno, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1816, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 669, 192 Cal.App.4th 692, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 21 (Cal. App. 2011):
9 Although we find no basis for reversing the judgment based on defendant's arguments and the record concerning the use of an interpreter in this case, we note our concern about providing interpreters to jurors and make clear we do not endorse the practice. Although the use of the interpreter apparently caused no problem in this case, the potential for problems, including possible mistranslation and distraction of other jurors, as well as the questionable use of scarce judicial resources, weigh heavily against such use. (See, e.g., People v. Lesara (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1304, 1309-1310, 254 Cal.Rptr. 417 [identifying potential problems arising from use of interpreters for jurors].)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.