## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 0413- 08

A U D R EY R . LINT O N , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON S TATE’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE THI RTEENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

M ON TGO M ERY CO UNTY J OHNS ON , J. , f

i l e d a c onc ur r i ng o pi ni on.
C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N Duringmy

y ear s in practice , Irepr esente d a fa ir number of de af c lients with vastly differ ing abilities to communicate with me. Some could ade quately communicate without a

n interpre ter. On
at le a st o ne oc c a sio n, Ius e d th e pr oc e dure that a pp e lla nt n owa sse rt s w ou ld h ave be e n a pp ro pr iate duringher tria l. My

purpose in wr iting this concurr ence is to pass on some of what I lear ned fr om my c lie nts and

the ir int e rp re te rs to j udge s who fi nd the mse lve s in

c ir c ums tanc e s si mil ar t o th os e pr e se nte d he re . I f I am no t e nti re ly a c c ur ate , I ho pe that the de a f c omm un ity wi ll fo rg ive my2

H ear i ng hous ehol ds t hat i ncl ude a he ar i ng - i mp ai r ed i ndi vi dual f r equen t l y cr eat e a f

ami l i al s i gn l ang uag e, 1 c o m m o n ly kn o w n a s “h o m e sign s.”

T he cons ens us of

t hos e wh o s er ve t he deaf comm un i t y appear s t o be t hat t he mean r eadi ng l eve l of deaf 2 p ers o ns i n t he U ni t ed Stat es i s ap p roximatel y f o urt h grade, t he l evel at whi ch D r. A nd rews t est i f i ed ap p el l ant f un ct i ons . H avi ng a h i gh
- s chool di pl om a may or may not i ndi cat e a n a dequat e a bi l i t y t o re ad an d under s t and wr i t t en docu men t s , n or ma y pos s es s i on of a dr i v er ’ s l i ce n s e s o i n di ca t e, a s t h e l i ce n s i n g t es t ma y h av e bee n i n t er pr et ed f or the d e a f p e rs o n . ignor ance . By law, “a person may

not interpret for a hear ing- impaired indi vidual at a court proce eding or adve rtise or re prese nt that the person is a c ertified c ourt int erp re t er u nless the per son holds an appropriate ce rtificate under this subcha pter.” G OV ’ T C ODE Ch
. 5 7 , § 5 7
. 0 2 6
. In terpre tation
cer tificates a re issued by

the National Reg istry

of Interp re t er s for the D eaf (RI D) or the Boa

rd for Evaluation of Interpre ters (B EI ). “I t should be noted that Texas law re quires the use of an inter prete r with BEI Court I nterpre ter Cer

tification (CI C) or RI D SC:Lin Criminal or Civi l Court procee dings.” DH HS w e bs ite : htt

p:/ /w ww .d ars .s tate .tx.u s/d

hh s/b e ilv ls. sh tml
. “Relay interpre tation,” as used by the court below and the m ajority opinion, is t erme d in the deaf community

as ce rtified dea f interpr etation or, in Texas, as i ntermedia ry interpre tation. In such an interpr etation, a c ommunication passes fr om a hearing person to a he aringinterpre ter (a hear ing person who inter

prets) to a

deaf in t erp re t er (a deaf

person who inter

prets) to a

deaf person. The
res po ns e pa sse s f

ro m de a f p e rs on

to d e a f i nte rp re te r t o h e ari ngint e rp re te r t o h e ari ngpe rs on . It is
a bs olute ly ne c e ssa ry fo r com mu ni c atio n b e tw e e n h e ari ngind ivi du a ls a nd so me de a f i nd ivi du a ls. Suc h d e a f i nd ivi du a ls m ay have a dd iti on a l cha lle ng e s, su c h a s me nta l r e tard atio n o r m e nta l il lne ss,
cer ebra l palsy , a low level of competenc e or a lack of education in commonly used modes of ma nual
c omm un ic atio n, or

low le ve ls of a

bil ity to re a d or wri te . A n e e d f or int e rm e dia

ry int e rp re tatio n is 1 2 not common, but when it exi sts, it i s a nec essity , not an option.3

O n oc ca s i on , t h e or i g i n al t r i al j u dg e’ s pr on ou n ce men t s l ac k ed s en s i t i v i t y a n d, a t t h e h ea r i n g on 3 a p p e llan t’s re q u e st to re -o p e n the he a rin g o n the m o tio n to su p p re ss, the sta te m isu n d e rs to o d a p p e llan t’s co m p la int, say i ng t hat s he was not i nco m p et ent t o s t and t ri al rat her t han ad d res si ng her act ual co m p l ai nt

– t hat s he d i d not have a d e q u a te inte rp re ta tio n . The issue for the t rial court is how t o deter mine what level of interpr etation is appropr iate. M o s t j u d g es, and pr osecutors, ha ve little, if any , experience with deaf culture a

nd are thus
un pr e pa re d to a c c ur ate ly e va luate a de fe nd ant’ s le ve l of

un de rs tand ingon

the ir own. Th e y

may a lso become frustrated by

the nec essar ily

slow pace or m isinterpret the de af pe rson’s asse rtions. Dea f 3 persons a re just like hea

ringpersons, minus the ability to he ar sounds. They do not w ant to be see n
a s st up id, so the y may

c on c e a l th e ir

la c k o f u nd e rs tand ing , ju st a s ma

ny he ari ngpe rs on s c on c e a l th e ir illit era cy . Noddingof t he head, especially continuous small nodding, does not mean that the de af person unde rstands or ag ree s, only that he is paying attention and trying to unde rstand. A bignod
may ind ic ate un de rs tand ing
. Or no t. De a f pe rs on s may mir ro r a no the r p e rs on ’s bo dy

langua g e , s o b o dy l an gu age m ay

o r m ay n o tb e i n d i ca t i v e o f u n d er s t an d i n g. The fir st line of investigation is t o inquire of the interpre ter as to the ease or diffic ulty and the ef fica cy of interpr etingfor the de fenda nt in question. Taking into ac count that interpre ters have eg os and some may

not be comfor

table with admitting that their interpre tation is not g etting thr oug h, a trial judg e then ha s at least some infor mation about the def

endant’ s le v el o f fu n cti on. Another consideration in evaluating the s ituational level of function is the defe ndant’s under standingof leg al
vo c a bu lary , e sp e c ia lly

if the de fe nd ant i s a

fi rs t- tim e of

fe nd e r. Th e a

bil ity to un de rs tand is m ark e dly
a ff e c te d b y the us e of wo rd s that are be y on d a pe rs on ’s e xpe ri e nc e or

e du c atio na l le ve l; a

jud g e wi th
an undergraduate deg ree in liber al arts might have problems with c omprehen s i o n i n a dis cussion
a bo ut m e so ns and

qu ark s. F ir st -t im e of

fe nd e rs , e ve n h e a

ri ngon e s, may

be c on fu se d b y

te rm s4

In this c a se , ap p e llan t m isto o k the sign fo r th e un fam ili a r w o rd “w itne ss” fo r th e sign tha t m e a n s the c ity 4 of W i l l i s . M aj
. op. a t 6. C ert i f i cat i o n at Level V or ab o ve i s p ref erred f o r i nt erm ed i ary i nt erpret at i o n. 5 ingr ai n e d in th e mi n d s o f la w y e r s an d ju d g e s an d th e r e f o r e n o t r e c o g n iz e d b y th e m a s h aving the potential to confuse. Care should be taken to asc erta in whether any lack of understandingof such 4 leg alese is beca

use of lac k of familiarity

and conte x t or bec ause of failure of the interpr etation, or both. I t may

assist t h e t ri al co urt in its evaluation to question the defe ndant direc tly . Questions sh ou ld b e o p e n - e n d e d
. Y e s - o r - n o qu e s t i o n s m ay m a s k l a c k o f un d e r s t an d i n g , e s p e c i a l l y i f bo th
answe rs could be c orre ct, e.g ., “Did you g raduate from hig h school? ” A better question, and a w ay to ge t a more r eliable a

nswer, i s t o as k, “How f ar did you g o in school? ” I f the a nswer is “ Two miles,” there may

be a pr oblem with comprehe nsion. Another wa y to ga in i n formation on the eff icac y of interpr etation is to a sk a question, wait for inter pretation, then ask the def endant to re peat the question, as interpr eted, ba ck to the questioner . The pa rroted r esponse may

be ac curate, or more simil ar to the unde rstandingof the last per son in a g ame of “Te lephone.” I f the latter , there may be
a pr ob le m w ithc omp re he nsio n. I f a c ourt is u nc e rt a in a

bo ut t he le ve l of

int e rp re tatio n th at is appropr iate and w ants to c onsult with an uninvolved interprete r, it might conta ct the Te x as Off ice for De af a nd Har d of He aringService s (DHHS), which maintains a list of ce rtified cour t interprete rs and the leve ls at which ea ch is ce rtified. 5 I t is understandable that judge s may be re luctant to employ

intermediar

y interpre tation. Any trial involving interpr etation for a deaf defe ndant or witness will be g reatly leng thened in time, and the g reater the need for e x tended e x planation to the dea f par ticipant, the g reater the inc rea se in time.5

Si g n ed Eng l i s h i s a w or d- f or - wor d t r an s l at i on of

Eng l i s h
. ASL i s a s epa r at e l an g u ag e t h at di f f er s f r om 6 E ngl i sh i n voc ab ul ary and gramm ar. The right to a trial must sti ll be honored, but like he aringdefe ndants, dea f def endants a re pr omised a fa ir trial, not a per fec t one. Appellan ti s h ea ri n g-i mp ai re d an d , ac co rd i n g t o s ev er al i n t er p re t er s an d

h er p as t o r, proficie nt in ne ither Americ an Sign L anguag e (ASL ) nor signe d Eng lish. She beca me deaf befor e l ear

ning 6 to s pe ak. She te sti fi e d th at sh e c ou ld n ot r e a d th e of fi c e r’ s li ps , n ot b e c a

us e sh e do e s n ot r e a d li ps , but be c a us e he ha d a

mou sta c he ; sh e the re fo re c an b e a ssume d to have the a bil ity to r e a d li ps . Communi cation with appe llant appea rs to be more difficult t h an with a he aringperson or with many

hear ing- impaired pe rsons, but it was demonstrated by h er i n t er ac tions with t he other driver, the office r, and the trial court, to be possible; she exchang ed insurance information with the other drive r without interpretation, cha lleng ed par t of the off

icer ’s testimony

in court, and appropr iately

answe red some of the j udg e’s questions without interpre tation. Ba sed on t he re cord befor e us and the broad discr etion permitted to trial cour ts, we ca nnot find an abuse of discre tion. Ijoi n th e op ini on

of the c ourt .

Filed: January

14, 2009 Pub lis h