Language access to the courts
September 21, 2007 (posted by ElektroMoose)“Si usted es una persona que testificará en este caso, por favor, levantese y con su mano derecha, repita después de mÃ.”
For those of us who are not native Spanish speakers, and even for those of us who learned Spanish later in life, the above commands are probably not completely understood. You might be able to pick up bits and pieces, but what if you were in a courtroom representing yourself at an Unlawful Detainer trial and this phrase was read out loud to you once? This is just one example of how difficult court proceedings are for persons who are Limited English Proficient (LEP).
Court interpreters in California are mandated only for defendants in criminal cases under Government Code § 68560. Since then, legislation has been introduced to create the right to a court interpreter in non-criminal cases. Assembly Bill 1884 was passed in 1998 to develop a pilot interpreter program in Family Law Court, and Assemblyman Dave Jones introduced legislation in 2006, to establish the right to a court interpreter in civil cases (AB 2302, vetoed by the Governor).
The question is: Does the law require state courts to provide language access to pro per parties who speak a language other than English? As recipients of federal and state funding, courts could be susceptible to the liability under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California Government Code Sec. 11135, the state civil rights statute. Under the California law, group-based discrimination is illegal under any programs or activities that receive direct or indirect state financial assistance or support. One protected class is “color or ethnic origin identification. Cal. Gov’t. Code § 11135(a). “Linguistic characteristics common to a racial, cultural or ethnic group is included in the definition of “color or ethnic origin identification. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 98210(b). In addition to the prohibition against discrimination, the regulations for § 11135 require that an affirmative effort be made to provide alternative communication services to the beneficiaries of the agency. Id. at § 98211(c).
For more language access advocacy in the courts, check out Language Access to the Courts in California: A Legal Advocate’s Manual. This manual, by a coalition of California advocates, explore the language access rights of LEP persons to receive a court interpreter in civil cases.
By T. Wong, Staff Attorney, Legal Services of Northern California
- Filed under: Language Access
- 5 Comments »
I think the analysis of whether or not interpreters are required can be extended to represented parties, not just to pro pers. There is a diffenet anaylsis for pro pers – and for small claims courts – all explained in the Language Access Manual Tammi mentions. We have had success, without litigation, in having small claims courts provide interpreters to LEPs in Fresno County by sending along a demand letter.
I am a member of the Supreme Court of Ohio interpreter committee. We are looking at the issues of having interpreter in civil cases. One of the sub issues as a legal services manager is free translation services for indigent civil clients.
I would like to know if other states provide free interpreter services to indigent civil case individuals?
Jesus
I don’t know what states require interpreters in civil cases. Neveda S Ct just ruled that interpreters could be appointed.
The Nevada Supreme Court case Jack Daniel refers to is Caballero v. District Court. You can google Nevada Supreme Court, click on the “Decisions” link and then click on the case name to get to the opinion.
Mass. Gen Laws.c.221C, Sec. 2 that governs the provision of interpreters for non-English speakers in legal proceedings covers civil proceedings: ‘[a] non-English speaker, throughout a legal proceeding, shall have a right to the assistance of a qualified interpreter who shall be appointed by the judge.” The standards and procedures of the Office of Court Interpreter Services that coordinate the appointment, certification and compensation of court interpreters have a ranking ordering in scheduling priority, which is as follows: criminal, juvenile, abuse prevention, civil commitment, housing cases and proceedings to secure child support payment. http://www.mass.gov/courts/admin/interpreters/finalstanproc.pdf. In my experience with the probate and family courts, I routinely include the costs of court appointed interprerters in the Affidavit of Indigency and request for fee waivers, and these are routely allowed. In Housing Court, usually a Motion for paid interpreters would be filed to cover the cost of interpreters, and is included in the pro se materials for clients in our housing clinic. The costs for court appointed interpreters are covered by the state in Massachusetts for indigent parties in civil cases. This, however, does not mean that interpreter is always available even when one follows all the procedure to request for one in a civil matter, and the appointment of one is within a judge’s discretion. There is one reported case where the court denied a party the right to an interpreter by finding that the person understood English and did not have the need for an interpreter in past legal proceedings. The issue of right to court interpreter in civil proceedings does not appear to be a highly litigated issue in Massachusetts.