Opinion ID: 2318093
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Sworn Interpreter Required

Text: Gomez also argues that the trial judge erred by failing to swear the interpreter at his trial. In Diaz v. State, [31] this Court held that [b]efore participating in any court proceeding, all interpreters must swear under oath that they will comply with the provisions of the Delaware Court Interpreters' Code of Professional Responsibility. [32] Similarly, Delaware Rule of Evidence 604 provides: An interpreter is subject to the provisions of these Rules relating to . . . the administration of an oath or affirmation to make a true translation. [33] This Court's administrative directive also provides that [a]n oath shall be administered to court interpreters providing interpretative services in connection with court proceedings at the commencement of each proceeding, unless the interpreter is a full or part-time court employee.  [34] The requirement for an interpreter to be sworn is one of long-standing. As early as 1906, Professor and Judge Victor B. Woolley recognized that an interpreter should be sworn. [35] An interpreter is required to take an oath because [a] person who is unquestionably fluent in a foreign language may not understand the role of an official interpreter and the ethical issues related to court interpretation. [36] This Court's administrative directive explains that [c]ourt interpreters act as officers of the court while providing interpretative services and, as a consequence, must abide by ethical considerations to ensure the proper administration of justice. [37] Canon 2 of the Delaware Court Interpreters Code of Professional Responsibility similarly explains that [c]ourt interpreters fulfill a special duty to interpret accurately and faithfully. . . . Requiring an interpreter to take an oath informs the interpreter of his critical role. [38] The record does not clearly reflect whether the trial judge declined to swear the interpreter at Gomez's trial because the trial judge adopted an improper practiceas Gomez contendsof never swearing interpreters, or because the interpreter was a court employee who previously had been sworn pursuant to this Court's administrative directive. One could infer from one of the trial judge's exchanges that the interpreter had been sworn previously, perhaps as a court employee. [39] But, we cannot validate that inference because the record does not reflect, and the parties have not disclosed, the identity of the interpreter. If an interpreter is necessary, the trial judge is required to swear that interpreter before he or she participates in the proceeding. If the interpreter is a full or part-time court employee who is not required to take an oath at the trial, [40] the trial judge should state that on the record so that the record will be complete.