Arrieta v. State
| Decision Date | 09 January 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 10S05-0704-CR-139.,10S05-0704-CR-139. |
| Citation | 878 N.E.2d 1238 |
| Parties | Jesus ARRIETA, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Stephen J. Beardsley, New Albany, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Ellen H. Meilaender, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 10A05-0602-CR-92
American courts regularly supply interpreters at public expense to criminal defendants who are indigent. This appeal presents quite a different proposition: what should the court supply when the defendant is solvent?
When appellant Jesus Arrieta came before the court for his initial hearing on drug charges, the court provided an interpreter at public expense because the defendant did not speak English. The defense subsequently requested a court-funded interpreter for all remaining proceedings. The court declined to pay for these services absent a showing of indigency. The Court of Appeals affirmed on interlocutory appeal.
We distinguish defense interpreters, who simultaneously translate English proceedings for non-English-speaking defendants, from proceedings interpreters, who translate non-English testimony for the whole court. We conclude that courts should regularly provide proceedings interpreters at public expense when they are needed, regardless of a defendant's indigency even when the defendant speaks English, as they are part of the basic apparatus of a court's operation. By contrast, we see little reason why the public should finance defense interpreters for defendants who possess financial means.
Jesus Arrieta was arrested on June 9, 2005, and subsequently charged with dealing in cocaine (three grams or more), a class A felony. The next day, Arrieta made a preliminary appearance and told the court that he did not speak English. The court ordered an interpreter to be present at the initial hearing.
Arrieta posted a $50,000 bond on June 13 and said he planned to hire Stephen Beardsley as his attorney. On June 14, the State filed formal charging documents at the initial hearing, and Arrieta participated, accompanied by Mr. Beardsley. An interpreter paid by the court was also present.
The court contacted Beardsley on August 31, 2005, to advise him that Arrieta needed to provide an interpreter at his own expense for future hearings. Arrieta objected to paying, and no interpreter was present at a pre-trial hearing on September 8, 2005. This hearing was rescheduled. The court subsequently sent notice to the parties that due to "the dire financial needs of the County," the court does not provide a court-paid interpreter beyond the initial hearing unless the defendant demonstrates indigency. The court noted that Arrieta "was provided a translator for the initial hearing where the charges were explained to [him], constitutional rights were reviewed and trial dates were set." (App. at 21.)
On October 27, 2005, Arrieta filed a "Motion to Provide Translator Services," requesting an interpreter at public expense for all future proceedings. At a hearing on the motion, the court said,
[T]he question here is who's going to pay for the translator . . . because the Court will always respect your right and your client's right to have a translator. . . . The Court does provide translators for individuals who are indigent. . . . But that's something that needs to be brought to the Court's attention . . . .
(Id. at 10.) The court went on to say that after the initial hearing, "it's Mr. Arrieta's burden to establish that he . . . is unable to pay for a translator."1 (Id. at 14.) Because such a showing had not been made, the court denied Arrieta's motion.
The trial court granted Arrieta's request to pursue an interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals accepted the appeal and affirmed, concluding that "our legislature has made a policy decision to require trial courts to provide interpreters at government expense only when the defendant is indigent." Arrieta v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1286, 1288 (Ind.Ct.App.2006), vacated. We granted transfer.
As the number of Indiana residents who do not speak English continues to rise, we must ensure these individuals can maneuver the system of justice. Encountering the court system is difficult enough for native English speakers. Non-English speakers struggle merely to understand the words of court staff, lawyers, and judges, let alone the corresponding processes they reflect. When court arrangements to meet this need go badly, the consequences can be very adverse.2 Providing adequate arrangements requires both decisions about when to engage interpreters and mechanisms to assure the availability of capable interpreters.
Although the necessity of interpreting court proceedings has long been with us, the need for a coordinated approach to providing qualified interpreters was highlighted by a report from our Supreme Court Commission on Race and Gender Fairness. The Commission surveyed Indiana judges, attorneys, court employees, and court users concerning issues of language and cultural barriers in the legal system. See Ind. Supreme Court Comm'n on Race and Gender Fairness, Honored to Serve: Executive Report and Recommendations 14 (Dec. 20, 2002).3 This survey documented the many interpreter problems Indiana courts faced on a daily basis, and plainly indicated a growing need for interpreters in Indiana courts.4
The Commission's survey of Indiana trial judges, conducted in 2001, revealed that 90 percent had used an interpreter in the past six months. While more than half of the state's judges had used interpreters between one and ten times during that time period, 4.9 percent had used interpreters more than a hundred times. Judges most commonly reported using Spanish interpreters (84.6 percent), followed by Vietnamese (10.1 percent), Chinese (9.7 percent), and Russian (6.1 percent). Other surveys reported use of interpreters for languages such as Polish, German, Japanese, Korean, Arabic, French, Greek, Ethiopian, Punjabi, Croatian, Serbian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Czech, Thai, Burmese, Tongan and Rumanian.
Unsurprisingly, judges found it challenging to fulfill such needs. Thirty percent reported an inability to find an interpreter when one was needed, forcing use of alternative strategies, such as postponing hearings and allowing family members, friends, bilingual counsel, or other court personnel to interpret. Id. at app. A, at 5, 7. Even when judges were able to locate a potential interpreter, they were often unable to determine whether he or she was genuinely qualified. Id. at app. A, at 7.
Based on these findings, the Commission recommended development of a state-wide court interpreter system. Indiana subsequently joined a collaborative enterprise established by the National Center for State Courts — the Court Interpreter Certification Consortium. The National Center launched this collaborative in 1995, recognizing that the cost of implementing reliable certification procedures for the many necessary languages could not be shouldered by any individual state. The Consortium's goal has been "to facilitate court interpretation test development and administration standards, to provide testing materials, to develop educational programs and standards, and to facilitate communication among the member states and entities." See State Court Admin., Court Interpreter Certification Program: About the Program, http://www.in.gov/ judiciary/interpreter/about.html (last visited Jan. 8, 2008).5
With the assistance of the Consortium, Indiana devised a program to train, test, and certify Spanish interpreters, which today recognizes fifty-two certified Spanish interpreters. We also permit certification by reciprocity to out-of-state interpreters with Federal Certification or State Certification from NCSC Interpreter Consortium member states.6 As with interpreters elsewhere, Indiana's certified personnel are sworn to a code of conduct.7
The Indiana General Assembly has appropriated funds to assist courts in engaging qualified interpreters, especially in Spanish,8 and the Supreme Court opened an account with "Language Line Services" for telephone interpretation. Language Line is an over-the-phone interpretation service based in Monterey, California, which provides interpreting of more than 140 languages, every day of the year, around the clock. Our trial courts have used Language Line interpreters to assist people who spoke French, Somalian, Russian, Mongolian, Yeman, Korean, and Mextaco (a Mexican regional dialect).
Interpreters serve two crucial roles in criminal proceedings. First, defense interpreters benefit the non-English-speaking defendant by simultaneously translating the English proceedings and assisting with attorney-client communications. Second, proceedings interpreters serve the court by translating the speech of participants at various junctures.
Defense Interpreters. A non-English-speaking defendant relies on his interpreter to understand the trial, to communicate with his attorney, and to communicate with the court. For these defendants, interpreters are "necessary to implement fundamental notions of due process such as the right to be present at trial, the right to confront one's accusers, and the right to counsel." Martinez Chavez v. State, 534 N.E.2d 731, 737 (Ind.1989). Without the aid of an interpreter, these rights cannot be assured to non-English-speaking defendants.
In United States ex rel. Negron v. New York, for example, the Spanish-speaking defendant on trial for murder was unable to communicate effectively with his court-appointed attorney who spoke no Spanish. 434 F.2d 386, 388 (2nd Cir.1970). He was similarly unable to understand twelve of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reyes v. Brown
... ... Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying Certificate of AppealabilityPetitioner Martin Reyes was convicted in an Indiana state court of murder and other serious felonies based on a tragic outburst of violence in late August 2004. He is currently serving a seventy-five year ... with Reyes in jail.In arguing that trial counsel should have requested a separate defense interpreter, Reyes relies primarily on the case of Arrieta v. State. 878 N.E.2d at 1238. We need not analyze the applicability of Arrieta, however, because that case was decided in 2008, and Reyes was tried ... ...
-
Ponce v. State
...Courts 5 (2009).1 This is equally damaging to the State's interests as well as those of the defendant. See, e.g., Arrieta v. State, 878 N.E.2d 1238, 1240 n. 2 (Ind.2008) (recounting instance when charges of child abuse were “dismissed on speedy trial grounds after three-year failure to find......
- Sholes v. State
-
Diaz v. State
...speakers,” and has “highlighted the importance of having qualified interpreters.” Diaz, 934 N.E.2d at 1095 (citing Arrieta v. State, 878 N.E.2d 1238, 1241 (Ind.2008)). “Having a capable interpreter is crucial when a defendant is entering a guilty plea,” and the availability of a capable int......