Opinion ID: 77692
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Interpreter

Text: 25 Edouard contends that the district court violated the Court Interpreters Act and his constitutional rights to due process, confrontation of witnesses, effective assistance of counsel, and to be present at his trial by failing to inquire into his need for an interpreter and failing to appoint one. The appointment of an interpreter, both under the Court Interpreters Act and as a constitutional matter, is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and we review the court's handling of this issue for abuse of discretion. 3 Valladares v. United States, 871 F.2d 1564, 1566 (11th Cir.1989); Suarez v. United States, 309 F.2d 709, 712 (5th Cir.1962). 4 The basic inquiry is whether the failure to provide an interpreter made the trial fundamentally unfair. United States v. Tapia, 631 F.2d 1207, 1210 (5th Cir.1980). 26 The Court Interpreters Act provides that a district court shall utilize an interpreter 27 if the presiding judicial officer determines on such officer's own motion or on the motion of a party that such party (including a defendant in a criminal case), or a witness who may present testimony in such judicial proceedings . . . speaks only or primarily a language other than the English language . . . so as to inhibit such party's comprehension of the proceedings or communication with counsel or the presiding judicial officer, or so as to inhibit such witness' comprehension of questions and the presentation of such testimony. 28 28 U.S.C. § 1827(d)(1) (emphasis added). Thus, a defendant is only statutorily entitled to the appointment of an interpreter if the district court determines that the defendant [or a witness]: (1) speaks only or primarily a language other than the English language; and (2) this fact inhibits their comprehension of the proceedings or communication with counsel or the presiding judicial officer. United States v. Johnson, 248 F.3d 655, 661 (7th Cir.2001) (emphasis added). Any indication to the presiding judicial officer that a criminal defendant speaks only or primarily a language other than the English language should trigger the application of Sections (d) and (f)(1) [defendant's waiver of the right to an interpreter] of the Court Interpreters Act. Tapia, 631 F.2d at 1209 (emphasis added). Thus, the Act places on the trial court a mandatory duty to inquire as to the need for an interpreter when a defendant has difficulty with English.  Valladares, 871 F.2d at 1565-66 (citing Tapia, 631 F.2d at 1209) (emphasis added); United States v. Osuna, 189 F.3d 1289, 1292 (10th Cir.1999) (stating that the Court Interpreters Act places on the district court a mandatory duty to inquire as to the need for an interpreter when a defendant has difficulty with English) (quoting Valladares, 871 F.2d at 1566 and citing Tapia, 631 F.2d at 1209); Luna v. Black, 772 F.2d 448, 451 (8th Cir.1985) (stating that a trial court should determine whether an interpreter is needed when put on notice that there may be some significant language difficulties); United States v. Carrion, 488 F.2d 12, 15 (1st Cir.1973) (holding that whenever put on notice that there may be some significant language difficulty, the court should make such a determination of need [for an interpreter]). Trial courts may be put on notice of the defendant's difficulty with English where the defendant is arraigned through an interpreter, Tapia, 631 F.2d at 1209, where the defendant testifies in his own behalf through the use of an interpreter, id., where there are several places in the trial transcript where the court reporter noted that the defendant's testimony was unintelligible, United States v. Black, 369 F.3d 1171, 1175 (10th Cir.2004), or when it is otherwise clear that the defendant's communication with the court or counsel is inhibited by language[,] Johnson, 248 F.3d at 661. 29 As a constitutional matter, in determining whether an interpreter is needed, the trial court must balance the defendant's rights to due process, confrontation of witnesses, effective assistance of counsel, and to be present at his trial against the public's interest in the economical administration of criminal law. Valladares, 871 F.2d at 1566 (citing United States v. Martinez, 616 F.2d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1980)). 30 Edouard is a native of Haiti, and his native language is Haitian Creole. Shortly before his trial commenced, the district court addressed a conflict of interest involving Edouard's previous attorney, Walter Deloatch, who had accepted two checks from Edouard that were the subject of Counts 10 and 11 (money laundering) of the superseding indictment. The court removed Deloatch as Edouard's trial counsel, but Deloatch had continued to confer with Edouard's newly-appointed trial counsel, Clayton Kaeiser. The court and the prosecutor questioned Edouard directly to determine whether Deloatch's continued involvement had impeded his defense. 31 The Court: Well, I just want to make sure Mr. Edouard, you're present. Do you have any problem with Mr. Kaeiser in his representation of you? You understand he's your lawyer? 32 The Defendant: If I have any problem with him? 33 The Court: Right. 34 The Defendant: I don't have any problem. 35 The Court: Okay. Anything else? 36 Ms. Kirkpatrick: Only that, you know, if Mr. Deloatch has in fact been involved, does he feel that conflict that Mr. Deloatch — that he's aware of that Mr. Deloatch has, has in any way impeded his defense. 37 The Court: All right, did you understand the question, Mr. Edouard? 38 The Defendant: I'm sorry, repeat that for me again. 39 Ms. Kirkpatrick: If Mr. Deloatch's involvement in any aspect of this defense has impeded his conflict-free representation by Mr. Kaiser, does he feel that Mr. Deloatch's involvement in any way has, because of the conflict that the Court has already found, interfered with his defense. 40 The Defendant: Could the interpreter translate for me, please? Because I really want to understand everything very well. 41 The Court: I'm not sure I understand it either. That's why I don't want to ask it. 42 Ms. Kirkpatrick: Your honor, may I address the Defendant directly? 43 The Court: Sure. 44 Ms. Kirkpatrick: Mr Edouard, it is my understanding that Mr. Deloatch has come to meet with you during your defense. You understand that Mr. Deloatch has conflicted off of your case because of his involvement in counts number 10 and 11; that is, he received the checks made out to him in counts number 10 and 11. So the Court told him he couldn't be involved in your case. It's my understanding that he continued to meet with you. Do you feel that him — his continuing to meet with you has interfered in your right to a conflict-free defense by Mr. Kaeiser? 45 The Defendant: I don't really understand well. I don't want to say something and not understand exactly what it is. 46 Ms. Kirkpatrick: Your Honor, this kind of raises a whole new concerns [sic] about an interpreter for me at this point. 47 The Court: Well, I think its your question. I mean, it's incomprehensible. 48 Ms. Kirkpatrick: Do you feel you have had a conflict-free defense? 49 The Defendant: If I really want him to represent me? 50 Ms. Kirkpatrick: No, do you think that Mr. Deloatch meeting with you has caused you any problems in your defense? 51 The Defendant: No. 52 Ms. Kirkpatrick: You have no problems with Mr. Kaeiser? 53 The Defendant: No problem at all. 54 Ms. Kirkpatrick: And if Mr. Deloatch is not involved, you're okay with that? 55 The Defendant: Yes. 56 Ms. Kirkpatrick: Okay, I think that was — 57 The Court: Okay. What's next? 58 Edouard argues that his request for an interpreter during this exchange triggered the district court's duty under the Court Interpreters Act to inquire into his need for an interpreter. According to Edouard, the district court ignored his request for an interpreter and his repeated indications that he did not understand. To that end, he argues that the district court's failure to conduct this inquiry necessitates a remand to allow the court to conduct the required inquiry. We disagree. 59 It is not apparent from the record that Edouard had such difficulty with English so as to trigger the district court's duty to inquire into whether Edouard's language difficulties would inhibit his comprehension of the proceedings or communications with his counsel and the district judge. See Valladares, 871 F.2d at 1565. First, pre-trial proceedings, such as Edouard's arraignment before the magistrate court and a hearing regarding the Government's motion for a Garcia hearing, were conducted entirely in English, and there is no indication that Edouard expressed a need for an interpreter during those proceedings. Second, Edouard's request for an interpreter to translate a specific question posed by the prosecutor — a question the district court deemed incomprehensible — suggested that Edouard had trouble understanding the awkwardly-phrased question. Once the question was re-phrased, at the court's direction, Edouard answered it in English and evinced no broader difficulty understanding or speaking English. Thus, rather than ignore Edouard's request, the court ensured that the prosecutor's question was re-phrased so that Edouard (and the court) could understand it before the proceedings continued. 60 Third, although the trial was conducted primarily in English, Creole-speaking interpreters were available during the trial and assisted in translating the testimony of, and/or counsels' questions to, several witnesses, including Eddy Aurelien, Michelle Pean Berret, and Oriel Jean. Fourth, co-conspirator Clifford Sibilia testified that when he spoke with Edouard approximately one month before Edouard's trial while they were both in federal custody, they spoke to each other in Creole and English. Finally, three of Edouard's co-conspirators testified in English, including Sibilia and Edouard's brothers, Hughes and Hubert. Nothing in the record indicates that Edouard had difficulty comprehending their testimony. 61 Hence, the record in this case is quite different from that in Tapia (on which Edouard heavily relies) because in that case, the defendant was arraigned through an interpreter and the defendant testified in his own behalf using an interpreter. 5 Tapia, 631 F.2d at 1209. On those facts, the former Fifth Circuit determined that the district court should have been aware that the defendant spoke only or primarily a language other than English and therefore should have inquired whether the failure to appoint an interpreter for the defendant would inhibit his comprehension of the proceedings. Id. (We believe that in this case when the defendant Tapia was arraigned through an interpreter, the Court below, on its own motion, should have inquired whether the failure to have an interpreter with him throughout the proceedings inhibited Tapia's comprehension of the proceedings and communications with his counsel. (emphasis added)). Indeed, in United States v. Perez, the Fifth Circuit distinguished Tapia on the ground that the need for translation of the pretrial proceeding put the district court on notice of the need to make inquiry regarding the defendant's language competency. 918 F.2d 488, 490 (5th Cir.1990). On the record before us in this case, we cannot say that the district court was put on such notice. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err by failing to conduct further inquiry into whether Edouard's comprehension of the proceedings or communications with his counsel and the court would be inhibited by difficulty with the English language. 62 For these same reasons, we likewise conclude that the district court did not err by failing to appoint an interpreter, as nothing in the record demonstrates that the lack of an interpreter rendered Edouard's trial fundamentally unfair. See United States v. Joshi, 896 F.2d 1303, 1309 (11th Cir.1990). Edouard argues that in addition to the pretrial exchange excerpted above, his need for an interpreter was made apparent after the verdict was returned when the court asked if he wished to waive his right to a jury determination on the issue of forfeiture. 63 The Court: Mr. Edouard, are you comfortable waiving your right to a jury on the forfeiture issue? 64 Mr. Kaeiser: I don't really think he understands. Let me explain to him. 65 The Court: Mr. Kaeiser, if you need more time to talk to him about it, if you don't feel comfortable doing it now, we can take it up another time . . . . 66