Tell your lawyer promptly and identify the specific words or exchange that you did not understand or believe were interpreted inaccurately. Your lawyer can raise the problem with the judge, request clarification or correction on the record, and ask whether the interpreter’s qualifications or ability to continue should be addressed. A disputed phrase, accent, or noncertified appointment does not automatically invalidate the hearing or require reversal. (California Rules of Court, rule 2.890; rule 2.893; California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 2.11.)
Raise a concrete, current problem
Write down the hearing date and time, the language and dialect, who was speaking, the original words if you remember them, what you heard in English, and why the difference mattered. Be specific about whether words were omitted, added, softened, or mistranslated; whether you could not understand the dialect; or whether the interpreter stopped interpreting for you to perform another task. Have counsel direct the objection to the court. The judge can pause the proceeding, clarify the disputed exchange, or consider a qualification inquiry. Standard 2.11 allows counsel to request additional qualification examination when needed. (Standard 2.11.)
California’s interpreter rules require accurate, complete and impartial interpretation and address disclosure of conflicts. They also provide for an on-record appointment record, including the interpreter’s identity, language and status; additional findings apply when a noncertified or nonregistered interpreter is appointed. A qualified noncertified appointment is not automatically invalid just because the interpreter lacks certification. The court must apply the rule requirements to the specific appointment. (California Rules of Court, rule 2.890; rule 2.893.)
Protect the record and distinguish a complaint
Ask that the disputed wording, any correction, your objection, and the court’s ruling be captured in the record. A written transcript may show the English interpretation but may not preserve every original-language word, so note what happened as soon as possible and tell counsel if audio or another qualified review may help. A separate administrative complaint about interpreter conduct does not itself correct the record or resolve the immediate court issue.
In People v. Aguilar, the California Supreme Court addressed the defendant’s ability to understand and communicate throughout the proceedings, including with counsel. Its decision involved a particular use of the defendant’s interpreter for witnesses; it does not mean every isolated interpretation dispute automatically invalidates a hearing. The remedy depends on the actual error, timing, objection, record, and effect on the proceeding. (People v. Aguilar.)
For an interpreter issue in a pending California case, contact the Law Offices of David S. Chesley. Call (800) 755-5174, or see the arraignment and pretrial hearings page.