Opinion ID: 2296081
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The applicability of the Interpreter Act.

Text: Section 3 (a) of the Interpreter Act provides, inter alia, that the [court] shall appoint a qualified interpreter upon the request of the communication-impaired person. D.C.Code § 31-2702(a). The government argues that those interpreters whose salaries it paid were retained for the purpose of interpreting the testimony of prosecution witnesses, and that they therefore were not appointed upon the request of the communication-impaired person. Accordingly, says the government, these individuals were not subject to the provisions of the Interpreter Act specifying that interpreters appointed under the Act are to be paid by the Interpreter Office. See D.C.Code §§ 31-2711(b)(6), -2712(b). The government's argument, however, cannot be reconciled with the factual scenario that actually developed in this case. The interpreters sponsored by the government were eventually subcontracted during the trial to the OCIS. They were then rotated with the interpreters who had initially been appointed by the court. As a result, they were called upon to interpret for the defendants, including Ko, and their responsibilities were indistinguishable from the duties of those interpreters whom the judge had appointed to interpret for the defense. Moreover, and more fundamentally: There are two basic reasons for having an interpreter present in a court case  to enable the defendant to understand the proceedings, and to enable the court to understand all non-English speakers who address the court. Therefore, the interpreter's clients are all of the protagonists in the court proceeding; the defendant and defense counsel, the prosecution, the judge, the clerk and other court personnel, and all witnesses who testify. No matter for whom interpreters are interpreting at a given moment, they are officers of the court, neutral participants in the process. They are not part of the defense team if they are interpreting for the defendant, or part of the prosecution team if they are interpreting for prosecution witnesses. This is an aspect often misunderstood by interpreters who report being influenced by the social environment. MANUAL, Appendix C, Ethical Principles and Standards, at 22. (Emphasis added.) On this record, we conclude that the Interpreter Act applied to all of the interpreters, including those whose salaries and costs were paid by the United States Attorney's office.