Requiring the Police Interpreter’s In-Court Testimony

the Best Way to Ensure Accuracy?

Abstract

A foreign-language-speaking suspect is interviewed by a police officer through an interpreter. The officer later testifies in court to what the suspect said. In common-law courts, this is where a difficult “hearsay” issue has always arisen. The officer testifies to what the interpreter said as to what the suspect had said, and the defendant is unable to cross-examine and confront the interpreter unless the interpreter testifies in court. Although most U.S. courts have dealt with this issue by ruling that because an interpreter is the suspect’s “agent” and/or “conduit,” no “hearsay” exists, an inter-circuit split is re-emerging. While originally a legal “hearsay” issue, the ultimate question it poses is whether requiring the interpreter’s testimony is the best way to ensure translation accuracy. Based on the data from approximately 300 U.S. appellate cases (from 1850 to August, 2018), this paper contends that such in-court testimonies would not help ensure translation accuracy unless, at least, accompanied by mandatory digital recording.