Opinion ID: 763758
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Interpreters

Text: 47 Finally, Pluta contends that he should have a new trial because the district court failed to administer oaths or affirmations, as required by the Federal Rules of Evidence, to the persons who were to serve as interpreters at his trial. Because Pluta did not make this objection at trial, his present challenge is reviewable only for plain error, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 52, i.e., it must have constituted an error that was clear or obvious, and affect[ed his] substantial rights, United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). We see no such error here. 48 Rule 604 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that [a]n interpreter is subject to the provisions of these rules relating to ... the administration of an oath or affirmation to make a true translation. Fed.R.Evid. 604. As to oaths and affirmations, the Rules provide that 49 [b]efore testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness' conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to do so. 50 Fed.R.Evid. 603. In the present case, the district court appointed two Polish-English interpreters to translate the proceedings, one for Pluta and one for certain other witnesses. Prior to jury selection, the district court questioned the interpreters as follows: 51 THE COURT:.... There is an interpreter who is interpreting these proceedings for Mr. Pluta. Mr. Stanislaus Staron? 52 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, sir. 53 THE COURT: Mr. Staron, you will literally interpret all of these proceedings for the defendant?THE INTERPRETER: Yes, your Honor. 54 THE COURT: And Anna Elmore is another interpreter who will assist us with testimony of witnesses. And at such time as that comes up, Miss Elmore, you will do literal interpretation for the witness? 55 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, I will. 56 (March 24 Tr. 11-12.) 57 Although this colloquy may have been somewhat less than what is envisioned by the Rules' requirement of a dialogue sufficient to awaken the [interpreter's] conscience and impress the [interpreter's] mind with his or her duties, we conclude that Pluta has not shown that any shortfall caused him prejudice. Nor has he called to our attention any respect in which he contends that the interpreters failed to interpret literally or accurately. Accordingly, we see no effect on Pluta's substantial rights, and hence no plain error.