Opinion ID: 1435822
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Diaz Jury Selection Bilingual Juror # 6 Special Voir Dire Absent

Text: The purpose of voir dire examination is to provide the trial judge with sufficient information to decide whether prospective jurors can render an impartial verdict based on the evidence developed at trial and in accordance with the applicable law. [33] Voir dire is also the procedure that enables the State and defense counsel to effectively exercise challenges. The right to challenge prospective jurors, either peremptorily or for cause, is one of the primary safeguards available to secure an impartial jury. [34] If the trial judge's special instructions to bilingual jurors are to have full force and effect after the entire jury is empaneled, their substance must be made known during the voir dire of all prospective jurors. Bilingual jurors must be questioned individually regarding their ability: to treat their own foreign language translation as inadmissible evidence; to base their judgment solely upon the official interpreter's translation that is admitted into evidence; and to refrain from discussing inadmissible evidence (their own translation) with other jurors. In addition to the foregoing inquiries, the record should also reflect the actions of the parties' attorneys and the trial judge's rulings. [35] The exact nature and extent of any voir dire examination rest within the sound discretion of the trial judge. [36] The exercise of that discretion, however, is limited by the essential demands of fundamental fairness. [37] In the Diaz case, the record reflects there was no voir dire of Juror # 6 regarding either her ability to base her judgment on the court interpreter's translation of the foreign language testimony or Juror # 6's obligation not to discuss her own translation with the other jurors. Under the circumstances presented, the failure to conduct such voir dire constituted error. [38] Juror # 6's improper conduct occurred during the course of Diaz's trial when Juror # 6 disagreed with the interpreter's translation of Ms. Rivera's testimony from Spanish to English. That misconduct is directly attributable to the complete absence of any voir dire originally or any special instructions later directed to Juror # 6 regarding her duty to adhere to the court interpreter's translation from Spanish to English and to refrain from discussing any different translation of her own with the other jurors.