A translation error can change how an interview appears, so counsel should compare the original-language source with the complete interpretation and later English transcript. A disputed word alone may not reveal the problem. The reviewer should look at the question and answer together, the words used at the time, and whether the recording captures the original speech. An alleged mistranslation does not automatically suppress a statement or end a case.

Separate what was said from what was recorded

There may be three different things to compare: what the person said in the original language, what an interpreter conveyed during the interview, and what a later transcript says in English. If the interview was recorded in both languages, preserve the full recording and compare question-and-answer pairs. If there is no original-language recording, identify that gap rather than treating a later English rendering as a verified verbatim account.

A focused comparison checks more than one disputed phrase. Review qualifiers, negations, pronouns, slang, dialect, pauses, interruptions, and whether a question itself suggested an answer. The surrounding exchange can change the meaning of a short answer. If the interpreter paraphrased or summarized, note where the original words cannot be confirmed. A transcript may also omit overlap or uncertainty that is audible in the recording.

The underlying materials may include the complete audio or video, any English transcript, the interpreter’s identity and role, notes made during the interview, and records showing which languages were used. Keep the whole source file and its context. Do not edit, clip, or recirculate it; provide it to counsel so the complete sequence can be reviewed.

Use a qualified language review

A qualified independent reviewer can compare the original speech to the interpretation and transcript, identify time-coded differences, and explain where meaning is uncertain. The review should record the exact passage and surrounding question, not simply announce that a translation was “wrong.” Dialect, idiom, overlapping speech, and audio quality may limit certainty. If there is no original-language source, the reviewer should say what cannot be determined.

This assessment can be paired with other interview context: who was in the room, what language each person used, whether the interviewee appeared to understand the question, and whether the interviewer rephrased or clarified it. These details can help explain how a mistranslation may have affected the account, but they do not decide admissibility by themselves.

What records may be available?

California’s criminal discovery statute requires disclosure of a defendant’s statements and relevant real evidence seized or obtained in the case when those materials are in the prosecutor’s possession or known to be in an investigating agency’s possession. The statute treats witness statements and reports under its specified trial-witness conditions; it does not promise that every transcript or recording is automatically provided in every case. (Penal Code § 1054.1) Counsel can assess what material is covered and what process applies.

If a witness later testifies about what was said, California’s personal-knowledge rule generally requires a basis to know the matter, subject to the expert-opinion exception. The factfinder may also consider a witness’s opportunity and capacity to perceive, recollect, or communicate, along with prior inconsistent statements and other applicable law. (Evidence Code § 702, Evidence Code § 780) Those rules may be relevant to testimony about interpretation, but they do not create an automatic remedy for every translation dispute.

California’s court interpreter standard directs interpreters in court to convey all words, including slang. That is a useful comparison for why completeness matters, but the court standard governs court proceedings; it does not automatically establish a rule for police or forensic interviews outside court. (California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 2.11)

A practical comparison checklist

  • Preserve the full original-language recording and the complete transcript or translation, if they exist.
  • Identify the interpreter, languages and dialects used, and each person’s role.
  • Mark the time of each disputed passage and include the question, answer, and surrounding exchange.
  • Note uncertainty, overlapping speech, corrections, paraphrases, or missing segments.
  • Ask a qualified independent reviewer to explain differences and limits in the source material.
  • Give the original files and review to counsel; avoid public commentary about the translation or interview.

The effect of an error depends on the interview, the evidence, and the applicable legal process. Counsel can assess how the difference bears on the statement and what steps are available without assuming that a mistranslation alone requires exclusion.

For broader information about sex-crime investigations, see the Law Offices of David S. Chesley’s Los Angeles sex-crimes defense page and investigation and pretrial hearings page. To discuss a specific translated interview, call (800) 755-5174.