In cocaine conspiracy trial, admitting witness’s testimony about the defendant’s incriminating statements without regard to FRE 604 and even though the witness lacked formal training for translating English and Spanish, because the defendant was allowed to cross-examine the witness about his translating experience and ability, in United States v. Mejia, 600 F.3d __ (1st Cir. March 12, 2010) (No. 08-2505)
FRE 604 specifies that in court proceedings interpreters are to meet the requirements for expert testimony as well as an oath or affirmation. The one-sentence rule provides little more guidance as to the presentation of translations in court. The use by the courts of official translators has become so well established under the Court Interpreters Act and FRE 604 that, occasionally, as demonstrated in a recent First Circuit case, it can create a point of momentary confusion.
In the case, defendant Mejia was convicted charged with conspiring to distribute cocaine after he and a co-defendant (Tejada) were arrested following their sale of two kilograms of cocaine to government informants. After the arrest, Detective Andres Perez, “a native Spanish speaker,” orally advised the defendant of his rights in Spanish. The defendant “began answering questions posed to him by Detective Perez and the other officer present,” which Perez translated. For instance, “Mejia … said that his job was to ‘protect’ Tejada and ‘watch his back,’ though when the police asked what he was protecting Tejada from, he merely stated ‘you know.’ Mejia also said that he ‘assumed’ the transaction that took place was a drug deal.” At his trial, despite the defendant’s objections, the prosecutor “introduced the incriminating statements Mejia made during the interrogation…. The jury convicted Mejia.” Mejia, 600 F.3d at __.
In his appeal, the defendant raised as erroneous the trial court’s admission of the testimony of Detective Perez as to the content of Mejia’s incriminating statements. The circuit noted that it would not be “detain[ed] ... long” in considering the defendant’s appeal on this ground. The circuit disposed of the matter as one concerning testimony by a percipient witness, not as a language expert serving as translator under FRE 604. According to the circuit:
“Mejia’s final evidentiary objection is that the district court improperly allowed Detective Perez to testify as to the content of Mejia’s incriminating statements given that Perez lacked formal training in English-Spanish translation. We … find no abuse of discretion. The district court permitted the defense to probe Detective Perez’s translation ability at the suppression hearing and again at trial and allowed an expert witness for the defendant to testify as to the reliability and benefits of certified interpreters. Mejia’s proof of Perez’s supposed inadequacy is that at the suppression hearing Perez partially mistranslated one phrase (he translated ‘I am a suspect in the crime of …’ to ‘I am suspicious of the crime of …’) and he lacked official training in translation. We find no abuse of discretion in admitting his testimony given that Perez testified that he is a native Spanish speaker (born in Colombia), regularly speaks both English and Spanish at home and work, and has served as a translator in several law enforcement contexts. In addition, “we see this argument as one more properly directed to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.” We therefore affirm admission of the testimony.”
Mejia, 600 F.3d at __ (citing United States v. Gonzalez-Ramirez, 561 F.3d 22, 29 (1st Cir. 2009) (“Gonzalez provides no legal support for his apparent theory that only certified translators may provide such testimony, nor can we locate any.”)).
While the decision in Mejia never directly addressed FRE 604’s application, the case confirms the findings of other circuits that the evidence rule does not affect interpreters who translate out-of- court statements (such as Mejia’s incriminating statements after his arrest). See, e.g., United States v. Armijo, 5 F.3d 1229, 1235 (9th Cir. 1993) (FRE 604 focuses only on interpreters who translate testimony of witnesses on stand.); United States Taren-Palma, 997 F.2d 525, 533 (9th Cir. 1993) (Expert witness who translated recorded conversations between defendant and undercover agent would testify under FRE 702 as expert and not under FRE 604).
Comments
Post new comment