How have appellate courts interpreted the language of the interpreter at trial?

Two recent appellate decisions agree with this analysis. As noted in People v. Rioz (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 905, 913, 207 Cal.Rptr. 903; "Since the one interpreter could not act even as a proceedings interpreter and as a defense interpreter for all defendants, the conclusion is inescapable that each of the defendants did not know at all times what was going on in the proceedings, or they had no effective means of communicating with their respective attorneys at critical points of the trial, or both." (Accord, People v. Resendes (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 812, 210 Cal.Rptr. 609.) Given the inescapable force of this analysis, the People's argument that defendant has failed to show a denial of his constitutional right, in that the record indicates defendant's counsel may have spoken Spanish, loses all significance.