Opinion ID: 1435822
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Diaz's Mistrial Motions Denied Bilingual Juror's Improper Translations

Text: Diaz made two motions for mistrial based upon the conduct of Juror # 6. The Superior Court denied both motions. The first incident occurred when the prosecutor was questioning Ms. Rivera, about a bite mark. Ms. Rivera denied it was a bite and said the mark ... could be something to do with lips, rouge. The prosecutrix then asked Ms. Rivera, Now, this picture that was taken in the hospital, are you trying to tell us, Mrs. Rivera, that [oval] mark is lipstick near your vagina? Before Ms. Rivera could answer, the prosecutrix said, We have an offer from another Spanish-speaking person in the room that it's a `suck mark.' The record then reflects that one or two persons in the courtroom, including Juror # 6, were in disagreement with the interpreter's translation and interjected out loud in open court that Ms. Rivera was saying she had a suck mark, not a bite mark. Defense counsel asked for a side bar conference and moved for a mistrial. The following excerpt is from part of that side-bar exchange: Judge: Okay. And the fact of the matter is, on your other point, I think the record should be made clear we had voir dire. She said English is her secondary language. You knew from the get-go that this case was going to have interpretation from Spanish to English, English to Spanish. And you also know that this juror speaks Spanish. You also  you also had agreed to [have the court translator] as the interpreter [for Juror # 6]. Defense Counsel: The ground rules was if she has a problem with the interpretation, the juror would raise her hand and make it known. That's not what happened. So I don't think that's the problem as caused by this counsel's agreements to accept  Judge: Raising of hands was with regard to I don't understand that English word. Defense Counsel: It didn't happen though, your Honor. Judge: Anyway, you're asking for a mistrial. That's denied. . . . After the trial judge denied the defense mistrial motion, the interpreter agreed with the translation that had apparently been proposed by Juror # 6. The trial judge did not give any instructions to Juror # 6 or the other person who had interpreted the translation of Ms. Rivera's testimony. The trial judge also did not instruct all jurors to rely only upon the court interpreter's translation of Ms. Rivera's testimony. The second defense motion for a mistrial, also based on conduct attributable to Juror # 6, was made on the next trial day. The record reflects the following: Judge: Good morning. Prosecutrix: Good morning, your Honor. Judge: Bailiff, could you repeat what you told me up in chambers? You can be seated. Bailiff: Juror Number Six got a hold of me this morning. She said that one thing that [the interpreter] translated yesterday for Maria was not correct and it has changed the whole scenario of the trial. I don't know what she meant by the whole scenario, but she said it's changed her whole feelings. It's made it different. Judge: Okay. It's a new one on me. So I think we ought to bring Juror Number Six into the courtroom and let me question her a little bit. Bailiff: Okay (Juror Number Six, ..., entered the courtroom at 11:25 a.m.) Judge: Q. Hi. Good morning. A. Good morning. Q. [Juror # 6], could you  you can have a seat ma'am, and just talk into the microphone, if you will. I don't mean to embarrass you. And I hope that you're not embarrassed. A. No, I'm not. Q. Okay. Thank you. The bailiff has told us that, in your opinion, [the interpreter] was inaccurate in some of her translations of the witness yesterday. A. At least one of the pictures  one of the pictures. Q. Can you be more specific? A. Okay. There was a picture that was showing the living room and it was asked of Maria Rivera if the blood  let me see. Let me see if I remember from yesterday  that what was on the floor and she said that was blood, and then Maria was explaining  they asked Maria, how did that blood get on the floor. So Maria was explaining that she had blood all over her and then when she went to the living room, the blood just got, you know, on the floor. But what I understood the translation yesterday was that this is what Maria said that the blood just got, you know, on the floor from her, but the translation  the translation made by  [the interpreter] was different. I think she said that Maria went to the living room and saw the blood  saw the blood on the floor. Q. Okay. A. And I think that it changes the whole picture of, you know, where the accident really happened. Because if it happened in the bathroom and now Maria  if Maria said that the blood was there, that means that everybody is going to think that maybe the accident happened in the living room. To me, if she already said that the accident happened in the bedroom and she said that she went to the living room and because of all the blood she had with  you know, it went down the floor. Q. Okay. Is there another instance where you believe that there was an incorrect translation or is that the only one? A. That's the only one. Judge: Okay. Thank you very much. You can return to the jury room. Prosecutrix: Your Honor, could you ask her whether there's been any conversation with other jurors about this? Q. Have you talked to other jurors about this? A. I did mention that I thought one of the translations was not correct. Judge: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. You can go back to the jury room. . . . Defense Counsel: Your Honor, my client asks the court for a mistrial, because there was discussion among the jurors. Whatever the court's decision on that, I understand, but I must make it for the record, because it's a serious matter and it relates to my objection yesterday. Judge: How so? Defense Counsel: Well, this is the same juror that I thought interjected the word hickey or a similar word and I felt that was the equivalent of a juror testifying. Judge: Okay. Well, I've already ruled on that. And as far as your  I'll call it a renewed motion or second motion  Defense Counsel: Second motion. Judge: What she told the jury was inconsequential, only that there was a mistake in translation, according to Juror Number Six, and that will be clarified as we begin the trial again today. So the motion is denied. . . . Once again, the trial judge gave no instructions to Juror # 6 individually or to the jury panel collectively. The trial judge also did not question the other jurors about the nature or extent of what they had been told by Juror # 6. [39]