Opinion ID: 430498
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Hearsay Question

Text: 13 The hearsay question is more complex. If Tripicchio had spoken with Da Silva directly and could himself have testified to Da Silva's answers, his testimony as to Da Silva's statements would have been non-hearsay admissions under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(A) (A statement is not hearsay if ... [t]he statement is offered against a party and is (A) his own statement ....). The specter of hearsay arises because Tripicchio could testify only to what Stewart said Da Silva had said. Although case authority dealing with such a situation is sparse, the prevailing view is that the translator is normally to be viewed as an agent of the defendant; hence the translation is attributable to the defendant as his own admission and is properly characterizable as non-hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(C) or (D), which provides: 14 A statement is not hearsay if-- 15 .... 16 (2) The statement is offered against a party and is ... (C) a statement by a person authorized by him to make a statement concerning the subject, or (D) a statement by his agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of his agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship .... 17 Thus, 4 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Evidence p 801(d)(2)(C), at 801-158 n. 34 (1981), states that 18 [p]rovided the interpreter has a sufficient capacity, and there is no motive to misrepresent, the interpreter is treated as the agent of the party and the statement is admitted as an admission unless circumstances are present which would negate the presumption of agency. 19 See also 6 J. Wigmore, Evidence Sec. 1810(2), at 376 (Chadbourn rev. ed. 1976). 20 Circumstances tending to negate an inference of agency would include the existence of a substantial possibility that the interpreter sought to shift suspicion to the accused and away from himself, see Kalos v. United States, 9 F.2d 268, 271 (8th Cir.1925) (excluding third party's account of translator's interpretation where translator had motive to fabricate), or demonstrated incompetence on the part of the translator, see United States v. Santana, 503 F.2d 710, 717 (2d Cir.) (accurate translation by coconspirator held not hearsay), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1053, 95 S.Ct. 632, 42 L.Ed.2d 649 (1974). Where, however, there is no motive to mislead and no reason to believe the translation is inaccurate, the agency relationship may properly be found to exist. In those circumstances the translator is no more than a language conduit, United States v. Ushakow, 474 F.2d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir.1973), and a testimonial identity between declarant and translator brings the declarant's admissions within Rule 801(d)(2)(C) or (D). 3 21 On the record before us we have no difficulty in concluding that Da Silva authorized Stewart to speak for him in his interview with Tripicchio. The fact that Stewart was an employee of the government did not prevent him from acting as Da Silva's agent for the purpose of translating and communicating Da Silva's statements to Tripicchio. See Restatement (Second) of Agency Sec. 392 (1958) (dual agency permitted). Da Silva was plainly much relieved to have a translator, and, after receiving Miranda warnings from Stewart, spoke freely with Tripicchio through Stewart. Da Silva could not, in the circumstances, fail to understand Stewart's role as an employee of the government. Da Silva's conscious reliance on Stewart's translation amounted to authorization for purposes of the hearsay rule. Since, as discussed in Part A above, the substance of Stewart's translation, which was independently confirmed, was apparently accurate, Da Silva's hearsay objection was properly overruled. 22 The judgment of conviction is affirmed.