Opinion ID: 1435822
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Special Juror Voir Dire Foreign Language Evidence English Interpretation Binding

Text: Voir dire is critical to protecting a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. [13] In the United States, voir dire is the historic method used to identify bias in prospective jurors. [14] The purpose of the voir dire is to ensure the selection of qualified jurors who have no bias or prejudice that would prevent them from returning a verdict based on the law and the evidence that is admitted during trial. [15] With the increasing number of bilingual persons in the United States, the scope of voir dire has been expanded. This Court formed a Task Force on Racial and Ethnic Fairness in 1995 [16] to study racial and ethnic fairness issues in connection with proceedings in Delaware courts. In 1996, Administrative Directive 107 [17] was promulgated in direct response to some of the preliminary findings of that Task Force. Administrative Directive 107 instituted some minimum requirements related to the use of court interpreters in Delaware trial court proceedings [18] and stated, in part: (1) The Delaware justice system is based upon the guiding principle that all persons, regardless of age, color, gender, national origin, physical or mental disability, race, religion, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status, should have equal access to the judicial system. (2) Bias or invidious discrimination with respect to age, color, gender, national origin, physical or mental disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, is inimical to the proper functioning of the judicial system. (3) In recognition of the diversity of persons who appear in and utilize the Delaware courts, it is important to institute minimum requirements related to the use of court interpreters in Delaware courts. . . . (11) Appropriate explanations of the role of an interpreter should be provided to the jury in trial involving juries. An example of an appropriate explanation is as follows: Proceedings Interpretation This Court seeks a fair trial for all regardless of the language they speak and regardless of how well they may or may not use the English language. Bias against or for persons who have little or no proficiency in English because they do not use English is not allowed. Therefore do not allow the fact that the party requires an interpreter to influence you in any way. Witness Interpretation Treat the interpretation of the witness's testimony as if the witness had spoken English and no interpreter were present. Do not allow the fact that testimony is given in a language other than English affect your view of the witness's credibility. [19] Although Diaz's trial took place in 1998, the provisions set forth in this Court's 1996 Administrative Directive were not used. The considerations set forth in Administrative Directive 107 should be an integral part of the veniremen's voir dire whenever a foreign language court interpreter will participate in the trial. In the seminal decision of Hernandez v. New York , the United States Supreme Court stated: Just as shared language can serve to foster community, language differences can be a source of division. Language elicits a response from others, ranging from admiration and respect, to distance and alienation, to ridicule and scorn. Reactions of the latter type all too often result from or initiate racial hostility. [20] Therefore, the English-only speaking jurors should be asked during voir dire if the fact that some testimony would be given in a language other than English would influence them in any way. Additional voir dire is required if bilingual persons who will serve on the jury are proficient in both English and the language of a party or witness that will be translated by an interpreter during the trial. Thus, voir dire must have a dual focus when testimony or other evidence is presented in a foreign language that is understood by a prospective bilingual juror. First, the trial judge must determine that the prospective juror's English proficiency comports with Delaware's statutory requirements. [21] Second, a determination must be made regarding the ability of a bilingual juror to follow the trial judge's instructions to rely exclusively upon the court interpreter's translation of testimony into English from the foreign language that is understood by the prospective juror. Issues relating to the second determination have been examined in many judicial decisions and academic writings after the seminal decision in Hernandez [22] by the United States Supreme Court almost a decade ago. Hernandez involved the review of a New York case in which the prosecutor had used peremptory challenges to exclude Latino bilingual jurors from the panel. The question presented in Hernandez was the proper application of the holding in Batson v. Kentucky. [23] In Batson, the Supreme Court held that the use of peremptory challenges to exclude African-Americans from a jury violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Hernandez, the prosecutor explained to the trial judge that his challenges were not based upon the race or ethnicity of the veniremen, but rather on his uncertainty as to whether they could accept the interpreter as the final arbiter of what was said by each of the witnesses, especially where there were going to be Spanish-speaking witnesses. [24] After voir dire was completed, the prosecutor stated he was not confident that the bilingual veniremen would accept the court interpreter's translation from Spanish into English. The prosecutor asserted that the peremptory challenges were then used based upon his conclusion that those prospective jurors' ability to understand the Spanish-speaking witnesses would cause them to have an unfair impact if they conveyed their own inadmissible translations of foreign language testimony to the other jurors. [25] In Hernandez, the Supreme Court affirmed the New York Court of Appeal's holding that the prosecutor's explanations for using peremptory challenges to strike bilingual persons from the jury were raceneutral. In a plurality opinion, Justice Kennedy stated: Our decision today does not imply that exclusion of bilinguals from jury service is wise, or even that it is constitutional in all cases. It is a harsh paradox that one may become proficient enough in English to participate in a trial, only to encounter disqualification because he knows a second language as well. [26] Many scholars have noted that attorneys will often object to having bilingual persons serve as jurors in a case where evidence will be presented for the English-only speaking jurors in a language that is known to the bilingual juror. It is thought that these objections are based on one or both of the following fears: That the interpreter's version of the testimony will differ materially from the actual testimony, so that bilingual jurors will hear and rely upon a different version of the testimony than monolingual English-speaking jurors; [or] assuming that the interpreter's version is faithful to the original [non-English] testimony, bilingual jurors could claim that the [non-English] testimony was different from what the interpreter said it was, and so undermine potentially the jury's deliberations. [27] The reasonableness of these fears and remedies for the problems each anticipates have been discussed in several articles and books. [28]