PAGENO="0001"
COURT INTERPRETERS ACT
DEPOS11~QAYNGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 10228, H.R. 10129, and S. 1315
JULY 19. AUGUST 2, AND 9, 1978
Serial No. 66
WTGERS LAW SCHOOL UBRA~ A
CAMDEN, N. J. O8i~~ 1919
GOVERNMENT DOCUM~
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-8820 WASHINGTON 1978 ~ J
c~ c/~
PAGENO="0002"
JACK BROOKS, Texas
ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin
DON EDWARDS, California
JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan
JOSHUA EILBERG, Pennsylvania
WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama
JAMES R. MANN, South Carolina
JOHN F. SEIBERLING, Ohio
GEORGE E. DANIELSON, California
ROBERT F. DRINAN, Massachusetts
BARBARA JORDAN, Texas
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, New York
ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky
WILLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jersey
SAM B. HALL, JR., Texas
LAMAR GUDGER, North Carolina
HAROLD L. VOLKMER, Missouri
HERBERT E. HARRIS II, Virginia
JIM SANTINI, Nevada
ALLEN E. ERTEL, Pennsylvania
BILLY LEE EVANS, Georgia
ANTHONY C. BEILENSON, California
ROBERT McCLORY, Illinois
TOM RAILSBACK, Illinois
CHARLES E. WIGGINS, California
HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York
M. CALDWELL BUTLER, Virginia
WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine
CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
THOMAS N. KINDNESS, Ohio
HAROLD S. SAWYER, Michigan
COMMITTEE ON TH~JTJDICIARY:
PETER W. RODINO, JR., New Jersey, Chairman
ALAN A. PARKER, General Counsel
GARNER J. CLINK, Staff Director
FRANKLIN G. POLK, Associate Counsel
SUBCoMMITTEE ON CIVIL AND CoNSTITuTIoNAL RIGHTS
DON EDWARDS, California, Chairman
JOHN F. SEIBERLING, Ohio M. CALDWELL BUTLER, Virginia
ROBERT F. DRINAN, Maiiachusetts ROBERT McCLORY, Illinois
HAROLD L. VOLKMER, Missouri
ANTHONY C. BEILENSON, California
THOLL&s P. BREEN, Counsel
Ivy L. DAVIS, Assistant Counsel
HELEN C. GONZALES, Assistant Counsel
ROSCOE B. STARER III, Associate Counsel
(II)
PAGENO="0003"
CONTENTS
HEARINGS HELD Page
July 19, 1978 1
August 2, 1978 49
August 9, 1978 85
WITNESSES
Coffin, Hon. Frank M., chief judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Portland,
Maine 103
Prepared statement 90
Corrada, Hon~ Baltasar, Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico 16, 85
Prepared statement 12, 86
DuBow, Sy, National Center for Law and the Deaf
Prepared statement 52
Garretson, Mervin D., National Association of the Deaf so
Prepared statement 50
Harary, Paulette, Court Interpreters Association of New York 78
Huerta, John, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division,
Department of Justice 29
Prepared statement 27
Imlay, Carl H., General Counsel, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts_ 36
Prepared statement 31
Kirchner, Carl J., Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc 50
Prepared statement 62
Morales Sanchez, Julio, U.S. attorney for the District of Puerto Rico 126
Prepared statement 125
Nejelski, Paul, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Office for Improve-
mentsinthe Administration of Justice 25
Prepared statement 24
Richmond, Hon. Fred, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York 4
Prepared statement 2
Ritchie, Stafford D., Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 36
Toledo, Hon. Jose V., chief judge, U.S. District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico 103, 107
Prepared statement 94
Torruella, Hon. Juan R., judge, U.S. District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico 103, 109
Prepared statement 98
STATEMENTS
Ginienez Munoz, Hon. Miguel A., attorney general of Puerto Rico 87
Romero-Barcelo, Hon. Carlos, Governor of Puerto Rico 86
APPENDIXES
Appendix 1.-Additional statements submitted for the record 133
Appendix 2.-Respofise to Hon. Don Edwards by Paulette Harary, court
interpreter 137
Appendix 3.-Translation of correspondence 255
(III)
PAGENO="0004"
PAGENO="0005"
COURT INTERPRETERS ACT
WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 1978
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., in room 2226, of the Rayburn
House Office Building, Hon. Don Edwards (chairman of the sub-
committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Edwards, Drinan, Volkmer, Butler, and
McClory.
Staff present: Thomas P. Breen, counsel; Helen Gonzales and. Ivy
L. Davis, assistant counsel; and Roscoe B. Starek III, associate
counsel
Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to order. The hearing
today is the first in a series of hearings which the subcommittee will
hold regarding 5. 1315, H.R. 10228, and H.R. 10129, legislation which
would mandate interpreters in Federal criminal and civil proceedings.
The bill6 would also make changes affecting the U.S.. District Court
for the District of Puerto Rico.
The testimony today will provide the subcommittee members with
an overall introduction to the issues addressed by the legislation. On
August 2 we will hear more detailed testimony pertaining to the pro-
visions mandating language interpreters and interpreters for the
hearing and speech impaired. On August 9, and, if necessary, on
August 10, we will receive testimony from judges and other representa-
tives from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico regarding the proposed
changes for the U.S. District Court of Puerto Rico.
The goal of this legislation is to insure that all persons are provided
with an interpreter if their comprehension or communication capabil-
ities, during Federal criminal or civil proceedings, may be inhibited
because they speak a language other than the English language or
because they have a hearing or speech impairment.
I share. the conviction expressed back in 1925 by the Court of.
Appeals of Alabama in Terry v. State (15 5. 386, 387), that a de-
fendant's right to confront witnesses implies that he or she must be
accorded all the necessary means to. understand that testimony.
As the court stated:
Mere confrontation of the witnesses would be useless, bordering on the farcical,
if the accused could not hear or understand their testimony.
I want to take this opportunity to commend the. chief sponsor of
this legislation for his determined efforts to insure that due process and
fairness are guaranteed in all Federal proceedings.
(1)
PAGENO="0006"
2
We are honored today to have the chief sponsor as our first witness,
my good friend and a good friend of the committee's the distinguished
gentleman from New York, Congressman Fred Richmond.
Congressman Richmond, we welcome you and we are delighted to
have you. We congratulate you on the work you are doing in other
areas as well. I also want to assure you that this subcommittee is very
mterested m this legislation, and that we intend to move it as fast as
we can. You may proceed.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. Fred Richmond follows:]
STATEMENT BY HON. FRED RICHMOND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the members of the Subcommittee for
this opportunity to support legislation that is needed to rectify a current injustice
in our Federal Court system.
The "Bilingual, Hearing, and Speech Impaired Court Interpreter's Act", which
I introduced in December, 1977, attempts to remedy a grave inequity. This bill
would ensure that a qualified interpreter be present whenever a person who does
not communicate in English is involved in a Federal court proceeding.
Unfortunately, with the deaf community, this communication problem has
long been overlooked because it is invisible. Our legal system has not lived up
to the basic American ideal of equal justice and fairness to all. Deaf and non-
English speaking Americans have been denied the fundamental right to a fair
trial due to their inability to understand the court proceedings.
The Constitution guarantees every American access to the Federal courts
through the 5th and 6th Amendments. If language-handicapped Americans are
not given the Constitutionally established access to understand and participate
in their own defense, then we have failed to carry out a fundamental American
premise; fairness and due process for all.
The basic provisions of the Act are as follows:
The Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. COurts is charged
with the responsibility of establishing and certifying the qualifications of
persons who will serve as interpreters in Federal courts in bilingual proceed-
ings, including the hearing or speech impaired.
The Director shall be responsible for maintaining a current master list,
as well as a schedule of fees for services rendered by iuterpreters which will
be on file in each district court in the Federal system.
If in any criminal or civil action begun by the U.S., the presiding judicial officer
determines that someone involved with the proceedings speaks a language other
than English or suffers from a hearing or speech impairment, then the court will
provide the necessary interpreting services.
The presiding officer shall obtain the services of the most available certified
interpreter.
If the interpreter is unable to communicate effectively with any individual,
another interpreter will be appointed.
The right to an interpreter may he waived in whole or in part only after the
concerned party has consulted with his counsel and after the presiding judicial
officer has explained to the person through an interpreter, the meaning and effect
of the waiver.
Anyone who waives his right to such services may obtain the services of his
own interpreter at his own expense.
The presiding judicial officer has the discretion to direct all or part of the
expenses of the interpreter to be borne between the parties involved or shall be
taxed as costs in a civil action. Otherwise, the interpreter's fees and costs shall
be paid for from funds appropriated to the Federal judiciary.
In those actions where the Attorney General utilizes the services of an inter-
preter, the costs shall be paid from funds appropriated to the Department of
Justice.
The presiding judicial officer may not exceed the maximum allowable set fees
established by the Director.
Interpretations will be in the consecutive mode except where the court has
determined that a summary interpretation will be adequate.
The Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act will be amended to provide that initial
pleadings in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
PAGENO="0007"
3
may be ified in either the English or Spanish and subsequent proceedings shall
be in the English language, unless one of the parties moves that they continue to
be conducted in Spanish.
The written order and decisions of the court shall be in both English and
Spanish; if an appeal is taken of a trial or proceeding conducted in Spanish, the
record shall be translated into English. These translations shall be paid by the
parties under the Judge's discretion.
No person shall be disqualified for service on a grand or petit jury summoned
in Puerto Rico solely because that person is unable to speak, write, or read the
English language if that same person is able to speak, write, or read the Spanish
language.
If the Director finds that some districts need full or part-time interpreters, he
has the discretion to appoint such interpreters and pay for these services under
the relevant provisions of this Act.
The Director has the authority to promulgate and amend rules as he sees
necessary tO carry out his duties and may publish such rules in the Federal
Register.
Finally, the Director may delegate any of his functions, powers, duties and
authority (but not the duty to promulgate rules and regulations) to officers and
employees of the Judicial Branch. Official acts performed by such officers and em-
ployees shall have the same force and effect as though performed by the Director
in person.
At my request, the Congressional Research Service compiled information
regarding the number of men, women and children in the United. States whose
primary language is other than English. The total number of individuals whose
primary language is not English is over 25,347,000. With the addition of the
deaf community, the figure reaches 40 million.
Among these 40 million individuals, there are thousands, who, potentially,
could benefit from this legislation.
Spanish speaking and deaf Americans comprise by far the largest numbers of
people whose primary language is not English.
Of the more than 9.9 million Spanish-speaking Americans, over two million
are Puerto Rican.
It is important to note that Puerto Rican Americans are not confined to New
York. There are large numbers of Puerto Rican families in cities all across the
nation-as far away as Hawaii-with large communities in New Jersey, Penn-
sylvania, Massachusetts, Ohio, Illinois, California and Florida.
Hispanic families are not the only ones who may suffer disadvantages as a
result of court-related language disabilities. Representatives of all nationalities
contribute to American culture and economy. Yet, if they don't speak English
they are at a grooss disadvantage in court proceedings.
I am referring to millions of men and women whose primary language is not
English:
15 million deaf people who use sign language or need oral interpretation;
9.9 million who speak Spanish; 2.8 million who speak Italian; 2.2 million who
speak French; 2.2 million who speak German; half a million who speak
Chinese; half a million who speak Japanese; almost half a million who speak
Greek; almost 400,000 who speak Philippino; almost 350,000 who speak
Portuguese; and over 53~ million more people speak "other" languages;
including many thousands of native Americans.
The District which I represent-the 14th Congressional District of New York-
is the most multi-ethnic District in the United States. Every country represented
in the United Nations is represented in the Fourteenth District.
Close to 20 percent of my constituents are Hispanic, the vast majority of
whom are Puerto Rican. There is also a large number of. families-at least 10 per-
cent of my constituents-whose primary language is Hebrew or Yiddish.
In addition, in this highly diverse District, there are many families whose
primary language is Italian, Greek, Polish, Hungarian, various Arabic languages,
and dozens of other languages from every corner of the world.
Many of these people would benefit from this legislation.
Nationwide, even in courts where interpreters are available for individuals who
need help with translation and interpretation, there is no uniform procedure for
utilization of interpreters.
Mr. Chairman, last Thursday, July 13, a deaf man came before U.S. Federal
Magistrate, George E. Burgess in Greenbelt, Maryland on criminal charges.
This man, who can neigher speak nor lip read, was denied the use of an interpreter.
PAGENO="0008"
4
In Boston, a deaf man was denied the use of an interpreter in Federal Tax Court.
He could not afford to pay for the interpreter himself and his trial was postponed.
The man moved to St. Paul where the trial was resumed and an interpreter finally
appointed.
Last year, in Kansas a deaf man was denied the use of an interpreter during his
Federal bankruptcy triaL
There have been a number of misinterpretations or no interpretations in cases
involving Spanish-speaking defendants.
In the Negron case, the defendant, a 23 year old Puerto Rican American with a
sixth grade education, was provided with an interpreter who merely gave the
defendant a purported summary in Spanish of what had previously transpired in
English. No continuous interpretation was provided. Consequently, Mr. Negron
was convicted of murder and incarcerated. He petitioned the Federal court for a
writ of habeas corpus which was granted on the grounds that the interpreting at
his trial was so inadequate as to deprive him of due process. He was thus released
and given a new trial. (434 F. 2d 386 (2d cir. 1970)).
U.S. v. Carrion, 488 F. 2d. 12 (1973), a case similar to Negron, reaffirmed the
proposition that qualified interpreters as well as continuous interpretation should
be provided when language barriers are ovbious and the defendant is indigent.
Several Federal convictions were reversed on due process grounds where no
interpreter had been appointed and where the accused's knowledge of English
was minimal or non-existent. (U.S. ex rel Navarro v. Johnson, 365 F. Supp. 676
(1973); In re Muravior, 192 Cal. App. 2d 604; Parra v. Page, 430 P. 2d 834 (1967)).
These are only a few of the cases which indicate the need for Federal legislation
to set mandatory standards for the appointment of professional interpreters in
our Federal courts.
The Administrative Office of the Courts estimates the cost of this legislation
at less than $2 million annually. This seems to be a very small price to pay to ensure
equal justice for all.
I believe that such Federal legislation will encourage state legislatures to enact
similar legislation for the state and local courts where a considerable number of
flagrant miscarriages of justice have occurred due to poorly qualified interpreters
being used or no interpreters at all.
Consider for a moment that the 40 million people living in the U.S. today,
whose primary language is not English, represent close to 20 percent of our popula-
tion. Put together, over 80 Members of Congress would represent them alone. This
is obviously a significant number of people who are asking, not an unreasonable
thing: that if they are ever involved in a Federal Trial, they will be guaranteed
the right to understand all the proceedings. In this great country of ours, the fact
that they musteven make such a request is a disgrace. I urge you to act swiftly to
bring an end to this grotesque judicial oversight.
Thank you. ______
TESTIMONY OF HON. FRED RICHMOND, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS PROM THE 14TH DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity
to support legislation that is needed to rectify a current injustice in our
Federal court system.
The Bilingual, Hearing, and Speech Impaired Court Interpreter's
Act, which I introduced in December 1977, attempts to remedy a
grave inequity. This bill would insure that a qualified interpreter be
present whenever a person who does not communicate in English is
involved in a Federal court proceeding.
Unfortunately, with the deaf community, this communication
problem has long been overlooked because it is invisible. Our legal
system has not lived up to the basic American ideal of equal justice
and fairness to all. Deaf and non-English-speaking Americans have
been denied the fundamental right to a fair trial due to their inability
to understand the court proceedings.
PAGENO="0009"
5
The Constitution guarantees every American access to the Federal
courts through the fifth and sixth amendments. If language-handi-
capped Americans are not given the constitutionally established access
to understand and participate in their own defense, then we have failed
to carry out a fundamental American premise-fairness and due
process for all.
The basic provisions of the proposed act are as follows:
The Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is
charged with the responsibility of establishing and certifying the
qualifications of persons who will serve as interpreters in Federal
courts in bilingual proceedings, including the hearing or speech
impaired.
The Director shall be responsible for maintaining a current master
list, as well as a schedule of fees for services rendered by intrepreters
which will be on file in each district court in the Federal system.
If in any criminal or civil action begun by the United States, the
presiding judicial officer determines that someone involved with the
proceedings speaks a language other than English or suffers from a
hearing or speech impairment, then the court will provide the neces-
sary interpreting services.
The presiding officer shall obtain the services of the most available
certified interpreter.
If the interpreter is unable to communicate effectively with any
individual, another interpreter will be appointed.
The right to an interpreter may be waived in whole or in part only
after the concerned party has consulted with his counsel and after the
presiding judicial officer has explained to the person through an inter-
preter, the meaning and effect of the waiver.
Anyone who waives his right to such services may obtain the
services of his own interpreter at his own expense.
The presiding judicial officer has the discretion to direct all or part
of the expenses of the interpreter to be borne between the parties
involved or shall be taxed as costs in a civil action. Otherwise, the
interpreter's fees and costs shall be paid for from funds appropriated
to the Federal judiciary
In those actions where the Attorney General utilizes the services of
an interpreter, the costs shall be paid from funds appropriated to the
Department of Justice.
The presiding judicial officer may not exceed. the maximum allow-
able set fees established by the Director.
Interpretations will be in the consecutive mode except where the
court has determined that a summar'~ interpretation will be adequate
The Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act will be amended to provide
that initial pleadings in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico may be filed in either the English or Spanish language and
subsequent proceedings shall be in the English language, unless one of
the parties moves that they continue to be conducted in Spanish.
The written order and decisions of the court shall be in both English
and Spanish, if an appeal is taken of a trial or proceeding conducted in
Spanish, the record shall be translated into English These translations
shall be paid for by the parties under the judge's discretion.
No person shall be disqualified for service on a grand or petit jury
summoned in Puerto Rico solely because that person is unable to
PAGENO="0010"
6
speak, write, or read the English language, if that same person is able
to speak, write, or read the Spanish language.
If the Director finds that some districts need full- or part-time inter-
preters, he has the discretion to appoint such interpreters and pay for
these services under the relevant provisions of this act.
The Director has the authority to promulgate and amend rules as
he sees necessary to carry out his duties and may publish such rules
in the Federal Register.
Finally, the Director may delegate any of his functions, powers,
duties, and authority-but not the duty to promulgate rules and
regulations-to officers and employees of the judicial branch.. Official
acts performed by such officers and employees shall have the same
force and effect as though performed by the Director in person.
At my request, the Congressional Research Service compiled in-
formation regarding the number of men, women, and children in the
United States whose primary language is other than English. The total
number of individuals whose primary language is not English is over
25,347,000. With the addition of the deaf community, the figure
reaches 40 million.
Among these 40 million individuals, there are thousands who,'
potentially, could benefit from this legislation.
Spanish-speaking and deaf Americans comprise by far the largest
numbers of people whose primary language is not English. Of the
more than 9.9 million Spanish-speaking Americans, over~ 2 million
`are Purto Rican.
It is important to note that Puerto Rican Americans are not con-
fined to New York City. There are large numbers of Puerto Rican
families in cities all across the Nation, as far away as Hawaii, with
large communities~ in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Ohio,
Illinois, California, and Florida.
Hispanic families are not the only ones who may suffer disadvantages
as a result of court-related language `disabilities. Representatives of
all nationalities contribute to American culture and economy, yet, if
they don't speak English, they are at a gross disadvantage in court
proceedings.
I am referring to millions of men and women whose primary language
is not English: For example, 15 million deaf people who use sign
language or need oral interpretation; 9.9 million who speak Spanish;
2.8 million who speak Italian; 2.2 million who speak French; 2.2
million who speak German; 500,000 who speak Chinese; 500,000 who
speak Japanese; almost 500,000 who speak Greek; almost 400,000
who speak Filipino; almost 350,000 who speak Portuguese; and
over 5.5 million more people speak "other" languages, including many
thousands of native Americans.
The district which I represent, the 14th Congressional District of
New York, is the most multiethnic district in the United States.
Every country represented in the United Nations is represented in
my congressional district.
Close to 20 percent of my constituents are Hispanic, the vast
majority of whom are Puerto Rican. There is also a large number of
families, at least 10 percent of my constituents, whose primary
language is Hebrew or Yiddish.
In addition, in this highly diverse district there' are many families
whose primary language is Italian, Greek, Polish, Hungarian, various
PAGENO="0011"
7
Arabic languages, and dozens of other languages from every corner
of the world. Many of these people would benefit from this legislation.
Nationwide, even in courts where interpreters are available for
individuals who need help with translation and interpretation, there
is no uniform procedure for utilization of interpreters.
Mr. Chairman, last Thursday, July 13, a deaf man came before
U.S. Federal Magistrate George E. Burgess in Greenbelt, Md., on
criminal charges. This man, who can neither speak nor lipread, was
denied the use of an interpreter.
In Boston, a deaf man was denied the use of an interpreter in Fed-
eral Tax Court. He could not afford to pay for the interpreter himself,
and his trial was postponed. The man moved to St. Paul, where the
trial was resumed, and an interpreter finally appointed.
Last year in Kansas a deaf man was denied the use of an interpreter
during his Federal bankruptcy trial.
There have been a number of misinterpretations or no interpreta-
tions in cases involving Spanish-speaking defendants.
In the Negron case, the defendant, a 23-year-old Puerto Rican
American with a sixth grade education, was provided with an inter-
preter who merely gave the defendant a purported summary in
Spanish of what had previously transpired in English. No continuous
interpretation was provided. Consequently, Mr. Negron was con-
victed of murder and incarcerated. He petitioned the Federal court
for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted on the grounds that
the interpreting at his trial was so inadequate as to deprive him of
due process. He was thus released and given a new trial. (434 F.2d
386 (2d Cir. 1970).)
United States v. Carrion, 488 F. 2d 12 (1973), a case similar to
Negron, reaffirmed the proposition that qualified interpreters as well
as continuous interpretation should be provided when language bar-
riers are obvious and the defendant is indigent.
Several Federal convictions were reversed on due process grounds
where no interpreter had been appointed and where the accused's
knowledge of English was minimal or nonexistent. (United States ex
rel. Navarro v. Johnson, 365 F. Supp. 676 (1973); In re Muravior,
192 Cal. App. 2d 604; Parra v. Page, 430 P. 2d 834 (1967).)
These are only a few of the cases which indicate the need for Fed-
eral legislation to set mandatory standards for the appointment of
professional interpreters in our Federal courts.
The Administrative Office of the Courts estimates the cost of this
legislation at less than $2 million annually. This seems to be a very
small price to pay to insure equal justice for all.
I believe that such Federal legislation will encourage State legisla-
tures to enact similar legislation for the State and local courts where
a considerable number of flagrant miscarriages of justice have oc-
curred due to poorly qualified interpreters being used or no interpreters
at all.
Consider for a moment that the 40 million people living in the
United States today, whose primary language is not English, represent
close to 20 percent of our population. Put together, over 80 Members
of Congress would represent them alone. This is obviously a significant
number of people who are asking not an unreasonable thing: That if
they are ever involved in a Federal trial, they will be guaranteed the
right to understand all the proceedings.
PAGENO="0012"
8
In this great country of ours, the fact that they must even make
such a request is a disgrace. I urge you to act swiftly to bring an end
to this unfair judicial oversight.
Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Richmond. It was very impressive
testimony. It certainly gave us a lot of good information.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Drinan.
Mr. DRINAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman Richmond,
I commend you. I am so overwhelmed with your arguments that I
wonder whether there are any reasons against this bill, any argument
on the other side? Can you think of one?
Mr. RICHMOND. No.
Mr. DRINAN. You can't?
Mr. RICHMOND. No, sir.
Mr. DRINAN. Tell me why those with hearing difficulties are
linked with the non-English-speaking? Wouldn't it be better, since
in that case it is so obviously clear cut, wouldn't it be better to just
mandate an interpreter or mandate assistance for those who are
hard of hearing?
Couldn't that go through by. rule of the court? Do they* need addi-
tional authority from us to provide a person to communicate with a
person who is hard of hearing, either in a civil or a criminal case?
Mr. RICHMOND. In the Federal court right now there is no regula-
tion demanding that deaf people are given the services of an
interpreter.
Mr. DRINAN. But they are authori~zed to do so, are they not?
Mr. RICHMOND. They can if they wish. But they are not mandated
to. Which is why in one of the cases I cited the deaf man didn't have
an interpreter.
Mr. DRINAN. Overall, how good are they in doing what they are
authorized to do when someone whose hearing is impaired comes
before them?
Aside from the cases you mentioned, is. there any widespread
practice of denying this service? Generally, do the judges and the
magistrates, in fact, give a person who is hard of hearing what that
individual needs?
Mr. RICHMOND. From what we can find out, in some cases they
get it, and in some cases they don't. That is why we felt the legisla-
tion was necessary. In other words, we would like to mandate that
any person who is deaf should have the opportunity to have a proper
interpreter.
Mr. DRINAN. I have no quarrel with that. But it seems to me that
any Federal judge, any magistrate, would simply do that the moment
he understands the condition of his accused or the defendant, or even
in civil litigation.
But above and beyond that, the problem obviously is widespread
and I am a little surprised that it would only cost $2 million. That is
rather nominal really compared to the problem you outlined.
I have had correspondence over a long period with lawyers and
judges from Puerto Rico, and they feel very, very strongly about
this. I thank you for the initiative you have taken, and I hope that
we can get to this matter and follow along the lines of your good
reasoning. So thank you very much.
Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you very much, Father Drinan.
PAGENO="0013"
9
Mr. EDWARDS. Before I recognize Mr. Butler, I would like to point
out to the subcommittee members and the witnesses that for the
benefit of deaf persons in the audience, we are being assisted today
by a certified interpreter for the deaf, who was made available to us
through the Gallaudet School for the Deaf. The interpreter is Linda
Champion. I want to thank her for assisting us today.
The gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I was late in
attending this hearing this morning. However, I have read your testi-
mony, and I appreciate the very fine presentation and summary of the
legislation you have made.
I do have a couple of problems. Let's turn briefly to the subject of
bankruptcy, because that is near and dear to the heart of this
subcommittee
Most of us have been here so long we are ready for bankruptcy.
The deaf man to whom you referred was denied the use of an inter-
preter during his Federal bankruptcy trial. I assume he was the
debtor?
Mr. RICHMOND. Yes, he was.
Mr~ BUTLER. Let's think in terms of what under this legislation
wouldbe the rights in a bankruptcy proceeding. Would every claimant
be entitled to an interpreter during all of the proceedings?
Mr. RICHMOND. I think with the interpretation of this bill, Mr.
Butler, it seems to me every claimant would have the right to have
an interpreter. If one of our deaf Americans has a proceeding before
a Federal cOurt, unless he has an interpreter, he is really not partici-
pating in the proceeding.
Mr. BUTLER. Yes, that is true. It is just that we have to recognize
that we are going to reach a point where we have to draw a line based
on the degree of involvement, for example, the degree of involvement
in the proceeding of a claimant who may have only a remote possibility
of recovering.
There is also a strong possibility, since we are talking about 20
percent of the American population, that 20 percent of all the claim-
ants would be entitled to an interpreter of some form.
Mr. RICHMOND. Not necessarily, Mr. Butler.
Mr. BUTLER. That 20 percent sounds to me like statistically every
single bankruptcy proceeding is going to face the strong possibility
of having to have an interpreter standing by. That is going to get
pretty expensive.
I am wondering if perhaps we haven't overshot the issue in this case?
Mr. RICHMOND. In the case of a bankruptcy, the claimant is, by
and large, probably a supplier of some sort, who speaks English.
On the other hand, he might have employees who are claimants.
Mr. BUTLER. We have a lobby in the Congress that has given the
consumers a strong voice.
Mr. RICHMOND. Let's say a Puerto Rican consumer, Puerto Rican
employee of a bankrupt flim wanted to testify before a referenee rn
bankruptcy on his own behalf, or on behalf of a number of other
eniployees of that factory. Doesn't that person need an interpreter?
Mr. BUTLER. I am thinking about the person that has purchased
an item on a layaway plan, put $5 down on the layaway, and later
the company has gone bankrupt. He is now in a position where he is
a priority, creditor, and he is entitled to know what is going on in the
PAGENO="0014"
10
bankruptcy proceeding. If we mandate interpreters, that $5 claim is
going to put us in a position where we have to provide interpreters
in all of those situations.
Mr. RICHMOND. I think perhaps in the case of a $5 claim, that is
unnecessary.
Mr. BUTLER. Where would you draw the line then?
Mr. RICHMOND. I would leave that to your committee, Mr. Butler.
I am sure your outstanding chairman of the committee can figure that
one out.
Mr. BUTLER. That is what I am looking for. Where are we going to
draw the line? Obviously there is somewhere where we have to draw
the line. I don't know whether it is in the legislation or not.
Mr. RICHMOND. An interpreter at $15 an hour is not terribly ex-
pensive. And if the claim is substantial enough to have the claimant
come into court and spend the day in court arguing his claim, perhaps
that claimant ought to have the right to an interpreter when he is be-
fore the referee in bankruptcy.
Mr. BUTLER. Perhaps it could leave marginal situations to the dis-
cretion of the trial judge, and not included m the legislation.
Mr. RICHMOND. Of course.
Mr. EDWARDS. That was a good question. We will have to have lots
of legislative history on that to guide the people who are running the
court system.
The gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. MCCLORY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased
to observe that we have an interpreter this morning from Gallaudet
College. I had the privilege of participating in a session at Gallaudet
just the other evening where we discussed the impact of the proposed
conversion to the metric system of weights and measures and its effect
on the deaf or those with limited hearing.
On that occasion my remarks were interpreted by a certified inter-
preter such as the one we have present this morning.
I am concerned only, Mr. Richmond, with the possibility of over-
kill. Certainly the purpose and objective of this bill is laudatory. I am
wondering if the existmg law, which provides the opportunity for the
courts to provide interpreters on a discretionary basis, without man-
datmg it, shouldn't be reinforced in some way, so that we do not get
ourselves involved in a program such as the amendments to the Voting
Rights Act. Those amendments have imposed terribly expensive
burdens on communities and States by requiring the printing of ballots
and election information in a variety of languages based upon the
ethnic backgrounds of people. Many of these voters are erroneously
placed in an ethnic category when their fluency in English is far
greater than their fluency in some foreign language in which we now
require ballots to be printed.
Don't you feel that these mandatory provisions* are going to, in
effect, overburden us with a bureaucracy, with regulations and require-
ments that should be capable of being supplied under the permissive
legislation that exists at this time?
In other words, the court at the present time can and should provide
an interpreter. Apparently some of the courts simply do not exercise
good judgment. What is your view on that?
Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. McClory, I mentioned four rather important
cases where interpreters were not used, and as a result the four de-
fendants or plaintiffs were not accorded adequate justice.
PAGENO="0015"
ii
Now since that practice seems to be relatively widespread, it ap-
pears to me it might be necessary to enact enabling legislation to
mstruct the Director to mandate that there should be interpreters in
all cases where one of these 40 million people has a case pendmg before
court, if he or she wishes it.
It is only giving them equal rights under the law. They certainly
don't have equal rights under the law if they can't understand what is
happening, can they?
Mr. MCCL0RY. I agree entirely that we have to provide interpre-
tation, including the important interpretation for the deaf or those
with limited hearing. Yet, do we have any concept of what the scope of
the expense and the personnel necessary would be if we had this pro-
gram mandated?
Mr. RICHMOND. Yes, Mr. McClory. Our research shows it would
cost $2 million, and each interpreter would charge roughly $15 an
hour. Of course every judge would have a panel of interpreters in his
or her area.
Mr. MCCLORY. I see.
Mr. RICHMOND. It seems to me a relatively modest amount of money
to reaffirm the rights of the Constitution to 40 million Americans.
Mr. MCCLORY. These interpreters, will they be permanent Federal
employees, such as the clerks and reporters are?
Mr. RICHMOND. No, sir, they would just be members of a panel, a
prescreened panel of interpreters, who would be called in in the event
that there was a non-English-speaking person before a court pro-
ceeding.
Mr. MCCLORY. You have given very impressive testimony. I cer-
tainly want to applaud you for your analysis and for the detailed infor-
mation you have provided us with respect to the large number and
the different groups of people in our country who require this kind of
service. I appreciate your contribution.
Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. McClory.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much for excellent testimony.
Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like very much
to include three pages of possible questions and answers with my
testimony.
Mr. EDWARDS. Without objection, they will be. included in the
record.
PossIBLE QuEsTIoNs AND ANSWERS
Question 1. Why is it important to mandate provision of interpreters, instead of
allowing the courts to continue with the present system?
Answer. It's important to do so in the interest of justice and uniformity in the
federal system. Also to provide a much needed model for the state legislatures so
they can revise and update their interpreter rules.
Question ~. When should the judge determine whether the person should be
provided an interpreter?
Answer. Initially, it should be the defendant's counsel who informs the court and
makes the request for such a service; ultimately it is up to the presiding judicial
officer to make that decision.
Question 3. What groups should the Director consult before placing qualified
interpreters on the courts' interpreter list?
Answer. Those established groups (i.e. Registry of interpreters for the Deaf)
that set up evaluation boards and issue certification should be consulted as to
available and qualified interpreters.
PAGENO="0016"
12
Question 4. Why should every defendant, not just the indigent defendants,
receive such a service?
Answer. In prior Senate testimony, this service has been deemed so necessary
and crucial in terms of fairness and due process, that interpreter costs are con-
sidered part of the maintenance costs of the court and not in litigation.
However, in civil cases, the judge has the discretion and authority when he
deems it appropriate, to allocate the costs of the interpretation between the parties.
Question 5. Why is it necessary to get a qualified, certified interpreter?
Answer. Such an interpreter will greatly lessen the chance of faulty interpreta-
tibn and thereby reduce the number of cases that had to be reversed on the appel-
late level and remanded to the original court for a retrial with a qualified, certified
interpreter present.
Question 6. What is the present rate for court-appointed interpreters?
Answer. $15 an hour in D.C. and Maryland.
Question 7. What happens if the community or a state like North Dakota has
no qualified Chinese interpreter? and a Chinese-speaking person is charged with a
federal offense.
Answer. The bill has a provision that states if no certified interpreter can be
found, then a person who is fluent in both languages can be used. However, in
the interest of fairness, a qualified, certified interpreter, could be brought into
this court from the nearest district court. The cost should not matter when a
man's life, property, or liberty are at stake.
Question 8. At what stages of the court proceedings can the interpreter be
waived?
Answer. This should be left to the presiding judicial officer as well as defendant's
counsel at such stages such as the voir dire of jurors, technical expert witnesses
(a summary interpretation could be provided), etc. But both counsel and the
judge must explain to the defendant what his rights are.
Question 9. What happens if the defendant speaks no English and a non-English
witness for the government or the Attorney General appears to testify, should we
provide two interpreters? Or will one suffice?
Answer. Since defendant and defense counsel most likely cannot communicate
directly with each other, which necessitates the interpreter's presence at defense
table during the proceedings; in the interest of fairness and due process, it would be
best if the government provided a separate interpreter for that witness. This way
defense interpreter can let defense know about possible slanting of interpretation
which should not happen once the bill is set up but unfortunately may occur and
defense can challenge the interpretation of the government witness' testimony. On
the other hand, if the same interpreter is used for both the defendant and
the government witness, this may cause a problem with respect to the interpreta-
tion of government witness as he/she may he prejudiced.
Question 10. In the Puerto Rican section of the bill: major concern for the fed-
eral judges in this circuit is the fact that the judges and lawyers speak English
while the people appearing in their courts speak Spanish.
One problem now is that English is used in criminal cases which means that the
jury has to be fluent in English. However, in Constitlitional terms, this segment of
Puerto Rican society which.speaks English is a limited cross-representation of the
local community.
A possible question could be: What would be the cost of having to prepare and
provide separate Spanish speaking jury lists (also known as juror wheels) as well
as English speaking juror wheels?
Answer. (One suggestion is the Senate testimony was that Puerto Rico use only
people who spoke both languages fluently; hut again we come up against the prob-
lem that this group is not a broad cross-section of the community). Costs are
unknown at present, but realistically they should not run over $2 million annually,
which is the estimated cost for all the sections of the bill in the continental U.S.
Mr. EDWARDS. Our next witness is our colleague from Puerto Rico,
Hon. Ba~tasar Corrada, Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Baltasar Corrada follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. BALTASAR CORRADA, RESIDENT COMMISSIONER OF
PUERTO Rico, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Baltasar
Corrada, I am the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico to the House of Repre-
sentatives, and the sole representative in Congress of 3.2 million Puerto Ricans.
PAGENO="0017"
13
I wish to take this opportunity to thank you for inviting me to present testi-
mony concerning Section 3 and 4 of H.R. 10228, the Bilingual Court Act.
On November 29, 1977, I introduced H.R. 10129, an identical bill to H.R. 10228
and to S. 1315, which was passed by the Senate on November 8, 1977. H.R. 10228
is geared to provide more effectively for the use of interpreters in courts of the
United States and to allow the use of Spanish in the United States District Court
for the District of Puerto Rico (hereinafter the District Court of Puerto Rico)
when it is found by the court to be in the interest of justice. In essence the purpose
of the bill is to insure that all participants in our Federal courts can meaningfully
take part in the proceedings by assuring qualified interpreters to those who do
not speak or understand English, or have a hearing or speech impairment.
In addition, the bill will improve judicial efficiency by permitting persons in
Puerto Rico who are parties or witnesses in criminal and civil proceedings a much
better understanding of such proceedings by allowing the use of the Spanish
language when the court, in the interest of justice, so determines. I fully support
this legislation and will do my utmost to secure its approval by the House.
H.R. 10228 is a significant and necessary piece of legislation. Up to the present
time the right of parties to have interpretation services has been protected by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 43(b), the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, Rule 28(b) and the Criminal Justice Act of 1964. Hence, time has come
for providing by statute access to qualified interpreters and to expand the spec-
trum of people that might be entitled to such services. If this legislation is enacted,
a positive step will be taken in insuring that all persons before the Federal courts
are able to comprehend and participate in the judicial process. However, this
could not be a complete reform or implementation of a bilingual court program
unless the necessary reforms are also made to existing language problems in the
District Court of Puerto Rico, a situation which is unique in the federal court
system given the fact that the District Court in Puerto Rico is serving a Spanish
speaking society.
Running parallel to the problems intended to be solved by this legislation in all
judicial districts is the converse language situation in the District Court of Puerto
Rico. How could we explain or sustain that when we have a Puerto Rican judge, a
Puerto Rican defense attorney, a Puerto Rican United States Attorney, Puerto
Rican witnesses, Puerto Rican United States marshalls, and a Puerto Rican Clerk
the procedures before the Court should be conducted in English? The same situa-
tion occurs more often than not in civil cases. This is an anomalous situation that
should be corrected now and its solution should not be posponed or delayed by any
reason whatsoever. It is a vestige of colonialism, which is unacceptable to the peo-
ple of Puerto Rico, our culture and traditions.
Puerto Rico is a Spanish-speaking society. According to the findings made by
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the District Court for Puerto Rico sits in a
judicial district in which half the population does not speak English. Census figures
for 1970 indicate that 57.3 percent of the people over the age of 10 living in Puerto
Rico do not speak English. Those figures also state that 59.2 percent of the women
and 75.2 percent of persons over 60 speak no English. Furthermore, persons who
were classified by the Census Bureau as being able to speak English were so classi-
fied if they reported that they were able to speak English. For this reason, the per-
centages cited above in all probability overstate the percentage of people able
to comprehend complicated judicial proceedings conducted in English.
However, and despite those findings, Federal law still provides that all pro-
ceedings in the District Court for Puerto Rico be conducted in English. Since 1917
all pleadings and proceedings in the District Court for Puerto Rico are conducted
in the English language and extensive use of interpreters in both civil and criminal
cases has been the practice of the court for years.
The ability to understand the language is critical to the fairness of the proceed-
ings. The existing situation in the District Court for Puerto Rico is not the most
effective nor the most fair way to operate the proceedings before the court. The
most appropriate solution to this anachronism is the enactment of sections 3 and 4
of H.R.10228. This will do much to effectuate the guarantees of equality of all per-
sons before the court. The existing situation not only creates problems for parties
and witnesses to civil and criminal proceedings but also eliminates half the popula-
tion from possible jury service. According to the Senate Committee on the Judi-
ciary, the English language requirement for jury service results in a jury panel
35-652 0 - 79 - 2
PAGENO="0018"
14
which is often more "white collar" than would be a cross section of the general pop-
ulation of the island. This runs against the policy of the "Jury Selection and Serv-
ice Act of 1968", Public Law 90-274, (28 USC 1861), which provides that "all
htigants in Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to
juries selected at random from a fair cross-section of the community." Further-
more, present situation denies over half the population of Puerto Rico the right to
serve on a Federal jury and this also runs contrary to said Act which provides in its
policy that "all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for service".
H.R. 10228 will correct this situation.
You may be hearing arguments in opposition to some of the concepts embodied
in sections 3 and 4 of this bill. Chief Judge Jose V. Toledo believes that at the
present time the use of Spanish in the District Court for Puerto Rico should be
limited to criminal cases only and opposes its implementation to civil cases. On
June 29, I wrote a letter to the Chairman of this Subcommittee stating my com-
ments to the points raised by Chief Judge Toledo in his June 13 letter regarding
sections 3 and 4 of H.R. 10228. Chief Judge Toledo shares common grounds with
me in the feasibility of allowing the use of Spanish in the District Court for
Puerto Rico when he agrees that Spanish should be used to conduct the proceed-
ings in criminal cases. However, he raises objections of an administrative nature
to the use of Spanish in civil proceedings. After a thorough consideration of
Chief Judge Toledo's allegations, the legal precedents, and the existing record
of previous actions taken by Congress, I have concluded that Judge Toledo is
only concerned over the possible overload of the civil calendar of the Court if
Spanish is allowed in the court. He may not have at the present time the adminis-
trative resources to effectuate this reform. But this is an administrative problem
which is expected to arise when important changes are made to any system.
I am aware that some inconveniences may arise. The court, for example, will
have to make determinations on the question. of the optional use of Spanish
whenever that issue is raised. However, such inconveniences would be more than
justified given the great improvement in the process of doing justice in an essen-
tially Spanish speaking society resulting from the enactment of this bill.
Furthermore, the bill provides for Spanish as an optional language, and the
court will have the instruments to allow for an orderly transition in accordance
with administrative resources made available to it. Chief Judge Toledo also
asserts that the provisions of the bill might transform the District Court for Puerto
Rico from an English speaking court into a bilingual court. As a matter of fact,
the District Court for Puerto Rico has been and is a bilingual court, albeit with
English as the main language.
In addition, I would like to discuss certain significant developments in this 2nd
session of the 95th Congress that have a bearing on this matter. The House and
Senate are having a conference to reconcile their differences on the Omnibus
Judgeship bill, H.R. 7843 and 5. 11. It has been agreed by the conferees that the
District Court for Puerto Rico will have four new judgeships. Thus, it is expected
that the present workload of the Court will be reduced to satisfactory levels when
instead of three we will have seven judges. The House Committee on the Judiciary
reported favorably its version of 5. 1613, the "Magistrate Act of 1977", which
passed the Senate on August 3, 1978. Furthermore, the House passed on February
28, 1978, H.R. 9622 virtually eliminating the diversity of citizenship jurisdiction
in the Federal courts. I was advised that the Senate Judiciary Committee has still
under consideration 5. 2389 and 5. 2094, both bills limiting diversity of citizenship
cases, and they have not decided as to what version they will be reporting out.
However, they expect to take some action during this second session of the 95th
Congress.
These bills are indicative of the tendency to ease out Federal courts' heavy
calendar. One of Judge Toledo's concerns, the adverse impact of a potential in-
crease in the diversity cases pending in Puerto Rico's state courts, which might
otherwise be filed in the District COurt for Puerto Rico if Spanish is allowed, would
be dispelled as a threat to his heavy calendar by the curtailment of this type of
case as a result of congressional action.
On January 4, 1978, United States District Court Judge Juan R. Torruella
wrote a letter to the Hon. Peter Rodino, Chairman of the House Committee on
PAGENO="0019"
15
the Judiciary, contending that sections 3 and 4 of HR. 10228, if enacted would
create:
(a) Lack of uniformity in the Federal judicial system,
(b) Legal problems on its implementation,
(c) Effectively isolate the United States District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico from other districts,
(d) And raise serious constitutional and policy questions.
According to a study made by the Congressional Research Service (CRS),
at my request, they have been unable to find any precedent which would indicate
that the provisions of section 3 and 4 of H.R. 10228 have constitutionalinfirmities.
However, CRS also concluded that enactment of such provisions will have various
adverse effects such as those cited by the COurt in United States v. Valentine
288 F. Supp. 957 (DCPR 1968). But if the Subcommittee looks in detail to the
alleged Valentine adverse impact effects, it has to conclude and agree that said
effects are mere administrative inconveniences.
Among other authorities quoted, Judge Torruella relies on Valentine to buttress
his arguments in opposition tO sections 3 and 4. In Valentine the Court stated:
". . . The basic civil functions of Federal District Court in offering an opportunity
to non-residents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence", (see
Balzac v. People of Puerto Rico, supra, 258 TJ.S. at 312, 42 5. Ct. at 348) "would be
compromised and unreasonably restricted here, were litigants forced, in order
to avail themselves of the facilities of this court, to litigate through interpreters
in a language other than English." This will not happen with the enactment of
sections 3 and 4 of H.R. 10228, nor do we have here an insurmountable legal
problem. Section 3 of the bill provides that "Initial pleadings in the U.S. District
Court for the District Of Puerto Rico may be filed in either the Spanish or English
language and all further pleadings and proceedings shall be in the English language,
unless upon application of a party or upon its own option, the court, in the in-
terest of justice, orders that the further pleadings or proceedings, or any part
thereof, shall be conducted in the Spanish language."
The District Court for Puerto Rico will remain a tribunal not subject to local
influence. The judges there will continue to be appointed for life by the President
of the United States with the consent of the Senate. Furthermore, the court will
retain its authority and will have discretion to decide which cases should be con-
ducted in English. Hence, the legal rights of nonresidents and non-Spanish-
speaking persons would remain protected as they presently are. It is in the interest
of justice and when all circumstances are met that this discretionary authority
will be used.
The U.S. Department of Justice in a letter to Chairman Rodino dated May 12,
1978, regarding sections 3 and 4, expressed support for their enactment, and I
quote: "The section of the bills concerning the district court for the District of
Puerto Rico enjoys the Department's strong support. In many actions, both
civil and criminal, in the District of Puerto Rico everybody in the courtroom,
speaks Spanish, but many do not speak English. Yet under current law all the
proceedings must be conducted in English. The bills provide that the judge may
allow proceedings to be conducted in Spanish. This is expected to result in a sub-
stantial savings in the cost of interpreters for the District of Puerto Rico and to
increase the fairness of proceedings held in that court."
Some may raise the question of potential limitation on judges from other dis-
tricts sitting by designation in the District Court for Puerto Rico when needed.
I do not believe this will be a serious problem. It will be the responsibility of
the Clerk of the Court to place in the calendar of visiting judges those cases in
which the English language will be used.
In its study the CRS raises a question with respect to jury selections which I
should discuss. The decision in United States v. Ramos Colon, 415 F. Supp. 459
(1976) indicates that "of 4,262 questionnaires recently sent to prospective jurors
in Puerto Rico, 3522 or 83% indicated that the persons involved were disqualified
because of insufficient English proficiency.
If this is representative of the entire population of otherwise eligible jurors in
Puerto Rico, section 4, which would prohibit the disqualification for service as
a juror of any person not proficient in English if he is proficient in Spanish, would
doubtless have the effect of causing every jury to have perhaps a majority of
PAGENO="0020"
16
jurors unable adequately to use English". CRS also stated that "If this is true,
every jury trial would have to he conducted in the Spanish language for otherwise
the non-English-speaking jurors would be unable effectively and intelligently to
perform their duties as jurors. See, e.g., Miranda v. U.S., 225 F. 2d 9 16-17,
(CA 1). Thus, the permissive language of section 3 concerning pleadings and the
condi~ct of trials in Spanish would appear currently to be inoperative."
This problem was discussed by. the Senate Committee on the Judiciary by
stating in the report on 5. 1315 that". . . The bill does not address the manner
by which the district court would develop a jury wheel for cases to he conducted
in Spanish. At present the jury wheel would of course include only persons who
speak English; however, most of those who do speak English also speak Spanish
and therefOre would be eligible for cases conducted in Spanish as well. The re-
sponsibility for developing methods of juror selection is already statutorily as-
signed to each district court, 28 U.S.C. 1862." FurthermOre, the report also said
that "The district court in Puerto Rico would be best qualified to develop a proper
procedure for the selection of jurors for such cases, and the committee does not
find it necessary to develop such procedures in this legislation."
The District Court for Puerto Rico should find a workable solution to this prob-
lem in accordance with its needs. The court has the experience and expertise to
establish the mechanisms for an adequate and workable jury wheel.
To conclude, I fully support and urge you to support H.R. 10228 for the follow-
ing reasons:
(1) The administration of justice in any community should allow proceedings
to he conducted in the language of that community, even in a court which forms
part of a federal system of a country where another language is the prevalent
language.
(2) Sections 3 and 4 of H.R. 10228 will improve due process and quality of justice
to litigants in Puerto Rico.
(3) If Spanish were used, the trial time in cases would be reduced by the amount
of time it takes in court interpreters to translate the proceedings from Spanish
to English and English to Spanish.
(4) Allowing some proceedings to he conducted in Spanish will Jn no way jeopar-
dize the rights of those parties who prefer to have the proceedings conducted in
English.
(5) If Spanish were to be allowed, those attorneys who do not litigate in the
Federal Court because they do not feel their mastery in English is good enough to
allow them to represent their clients adequately, would begin to protect their
clients interest in the most apppropriate forum whether State or Federal.
(6) Once Spanish speaking attorneys are allowed to plead in Spanish, and try
their cases in Spanish they will go to the Federal Court in order to get the benefit
of a jury trial in civil cases which they do not get in the Puerto Rican state courts
and to claim the benefits of Federal rights more effectively.
(7) On the merits the bill represents a positive step toward guaranteeing a
better quality of justice to litigants in Puerto Rico.
Finally, I urge you to favorably recommend the enactment of this bill with the
provisions pertaining to Puerto Rico. In the balance of convenience, justice has
much more weight than the administrative problems suffered by those in charge
of its administration. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OP HON. BALTASAR CORRADA, RESIDENT
COMMISSIONER OP PUERTO RICO
Mr. Corrada, we are delighted to have you with us. Without
objection, your full statement will be made a part of the record and
you may proceed.
Mr. CORRADA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Baltasar
Corrada, and I am the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico to
the House of Representatives, and the sole representative in Congress
of 3.2 million Puerto Ricans. .
I wish to take this opportunity to thank you for inviting me to
present testimony concerning sections 3 and 4 of H. R. 10228, the
Bilingual Court Act. . .
On November 29, 1977, 1 introduced H.R. 10129, an identical bill
to H.R. 10228 and to S. 1315, which was passed by the Senate on
PAGENO="0021"
17
November 8, 1977. H.R. 10228 is geared to provide more effectively
for the use of interpreters in courts of the United States and to allow
the use of Spanish in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto
Rico when it is found by the court to be in the interest of justice.
In essence, the purpose of the bill is to insure that all participants
in our Federal courts can meaningfully take part in the proceedings
by assuring qualified interpreters to thOse who d not speak or under-
stand English, or have a hearing or speech impairment.
In addition, the bill will improve judicial efficiency by permitting
persons in Puerto Rico who are parties or witnesses in criminal and
civil proceedings a much better understanding of such proceedings
by allowing the use of the Spanish language when the court, in the
interest of justice, so determines.
May I say the provision with respect to Puerto Rico is the optional
use of Spanish at the discretion of the court. It is not the mandatory
use of Spanish under all circumstances
I fully support: this legislation and will do my utmost to secure its
approval by the House.
H.R. 10228 is a significant and necessary piece of legislation. Up
to the present time, the right of parties to have interpretation services
has been protected by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule
43(b), the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 28(b), and the
Criminal Justice Act of 1964. Hence, the time has come for providing
by statute access to qualified interpreters and to expand the spectrum
of people that might be entitled to such services.
If this legislation is enacted, a positive step will be taken in insuring
that all persons before the Federal courts are able to comprehend
and participate in the judicial process. However, this could not be a
complete reform or implementation of a bilingual court program
unless the necessary reforms are also made to existing language
problems in the District Court of Puerto Rico, a situation which is
unique in the Federal court system, given the fact that the District
Court in Puerto Rico is serving a Spanish-speaking society.
Running parallel to the problems intended to be solved by this
legislation in all judicial districts is the converse language situation
in the District Court of Puerto Rico. How could we explain or sustain
that when we have a Puerto Rican judge, a Puerto Rican defense
attorney, a Puerto Rican U.S. attorney, Puerto Rican witnesses,
Puerto Rican U.S. marshals, and a Puerto Rican clerk, the procedures
before the court should be conducted, at all times, under all circum-
stances, in English?
The same situation occurs more often than not in civil cases. This
is an anomalous situation that should be corrected now and its
solution should not be postponed or delayed by any reason whatso-
ever.
We have been waiting since the year 1917 for a solution. The
Senate has already passed similar provisions as in this bill, and I
would hope, Mr. Chairman, that under your leadership this sub-
committee and the full committee do not delay actiOn on sections
3 and 4, which have been a longstanding problem.Again I believe it is
a modest approach we are following here. Perhaps in the long run
other revisions ought to be made. But this is a very modest approach,
merely allowing optional use of Spanish at the discretion of the court
and in the interestof justice.
PAGENO="0022"
18
This situation is a vestige of colonialism, which is unacceptable to
the people of Puerto Rico, our culture, and traditions.
Puerto Rico, as you know, is a Spanish-speaking society. According
to the findings made by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the
District Court for Puerto Rico sits in a judicial district in which half
the population does not speak English. Census figures for 1970 indi-
cate that 57. 3 percent of the people over the age of 10 living in
Puerto Rico do not speak English. Those figures also state that 59. 2
p1ercent of the women and 75. 2 percent of persons over 60 speak no
English.
Furthermore, persons who were classified by the Census Bureau as
being able to speak English were so classified if they reported that
they were able to speak English. For this reason, the percentages cited
above in all probability overstate the percentage of people able to
comprehend complicated judicial proceeding conducted in English.
However, and despite those findings, Federal law still provides that
all proceedings in the District Court for Puerto Rico mustbe conducted
in English. Since 1917 all pleadings and proceedings in the District
Court for Puerto Rico are conducted in the English language and
extensive use of interpreters in both civil and criminal cases has been
the practice of the court for years.
The ability to understand the language is critical to thc fairness of
the proceedings. The existing situation in the District Court for
Puerto Rico is not the most effective nor the most fair way to operate
the proceedings before the court. The most appropriate solution to this
anachronism is the enactment of sections 3 and 4 of H.R. 10228.
This will do much to effectuate the guarantees of equality of all persons
before the court. The existing situation not only creates problems for
parties and witnesses to civil and criminal proceedings, but also
eliminates half the population from possible jury service.
According to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the English
language requirement for jury service results in a jury panel which is
often more "white collar" than would be a cross-section of the general
population of the island. This runs against the policy of the Jury
Selection and Service Act of 1968, Public Law 90-274 (28 U.S.C.
1861), which provides that:
All litigants in Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to
juries selected at random from a fair cross-section of the community.
Furthermore, the present situation denies over half the population
of Puerto Rico the right to serve on a Federal jury and this also runs
contrary to said act, which provides in its policy that: "All citizens
shall have the opportunity to be considered for service."
H.R. 10228 will correct this situation. You may be hearing argu-
ments in opposition to some of. the concepts embodied in sections 3
and 4 of this bifi. Chief Judge Jose V. Toledo, an excellent friend of
mine and a very able and competent judge, believes that ~it the present
time the use of Spanish in the District Court for Puerto Rico should
be limited to criminal cases only, and opposes its implementation to
civil cases.
On June 29, I wrote a letter to you, Mr. Chairman, stating my
comments to the points raised by Chief Judge Toledo in his June 13
letter regarding sections 3 and 4 of H.R. 10228. Chief Judge Toledo
shares common grounds with me in the feasibility of allowing the use
of Spanish in the District Court for Puerto Rico when he agrees that
PAGENO="0023"
19
Spanish should be used to conduct the proceedings in criminal cases.
However, he raises objections of an administrative nature to the use
of Spanish in civil proceedings.
After a thorough consideration of Chief Judge Toledo's allegations,
the legal precedents, and the existing record of previous actions taken
by Congress, I have concluded that Judge Toledo is mainly concerned
over the possible overload of the civll calendar of the court if Spanish
is allowed in the court. He may not have at the present time the ad-
ministrative resources to effectuate this reform. But in my mind this
is an administrative problem which is expected to arise when important
changes are made to any system.
I am aware that some inconveniences may arise. The court, for
example, will have to make determinations on the question of the
optional use of Spanish whenever that issue is raised. However, such
inconveniences would be more than justified given the great improve-
ment in the process of doing justice in an essentially Spanish-speaking
society resulting from the enactment of this bill.
Furthermore, the bill provides for Spanish as an optional language
and the court will have the instruments to allow for an orderly transi.-
tion in accordance with administrative resources made available to it.
Chief Judge Toledo also asserts that the provisions of the bill might
transform the District Court for Puerto Rico from an English-speaking
court into a bilingual court. As a matter of fact, the District Court for
Puerto Rico has been and is a bilingual court, albeit with English as
the main language.
In addition, I would like to discuss certain significant developments
in this 2d session of the 95th Congress that have a bearing on
this matter. The House and Senate are having a conference to reconcile
their differences on the omnibus judgeship bill, H.R. 7843 and
5. 11. It has been agreed by the conferees that the District Court for
Puerto Rico will have four new judgeships. Thus, it is expected that
the present workload of the court will be reduced to satisfactory levels
when, instead of three, we will have seven judges, more than doubling
the number of Federal judges in that district.
The House Committee on the Judiciary reported favorably its
version of S. 1613, the Magistrate Act of 1977, which passed the
Senate on August 3, 1977, which should also help to expedite the work
of the court.
Furthermore, the House passed on February 28, 1978, H.R. 9622,
virtually eliminating the diversity of citizenship jurisdiction in the
Federal courts. Also, 19 percent of the civil cases in the district of
Puerto Rico are diversity cases. I was advised that the Senate Judici-
ary Committee has still under consideration S. 2389 and S. 2094,
both bills limiting diversity of citizenship cases, and they have not
decided as to what version they will be reporting out. However, they
do expect to take some action during this 2d session of the 95th
Congress.
These bills are indicative of the tendency to ease out Federal
courts' heavy calendar. One of Judge Toledo's concerns, the adverse
impact of a potential increase in the diversity cases pending in Puerto
Rico's State courts, which might otherwise be filed in the District
Court for Puerto Rico if Spanish is allowed, would be dispelled as a
threat to his heavy calendar by the curtailment of this type of case as
a result of congressional action.
PAGENO="0024"
20
On January 4, 1978, U.s. District Court Judge Juan R. Torreulla
wrote a letter to Hon. Peter Rodino, chairman of the House Com-
mittee on the Judiciary, contending that sections 3 and 4 of H. R.
10228, if enacted, would create: (a) lack of uniformity in the Federal
judicial system; (b) legal problems on its implementation; (c) effec-
tively isolate the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
from other districts; and (d) raise serious constitutional and policy
questions.
According to a study made by the Congressional Research Service
at my request, which I made available to the chairman and the com-
mittee, they have been unable to find any precedent which would
indicate that the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of H.R. 10228 have
constitutional infirmities. However, CRS also concluded that enact-
ment of such provisions will have various adverse effects such as those
cited by the court in United States v. Valentine, 288 F. Supp. 957
(DCPR 1968). But if the subcommittee looks in detail to the alleged
Valentine adverse impact effects, it has to conclude and agree that.
said effects are mere administrative inconveniences, and almost
nonexistent when one faces a provision such as the one in this bill that
merely requires, or allows, rather, optional use of Spanish at the dis-
cretion of the court.
Among other authorities quoted, Judge Torruella relies in Valentine
to buttress his arguments in opposition to section 3 and 4. In Valen-
tine, the court stated:
The basic civil functions of Federal district court in offering an opportunity to
nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence (see Balzav v.
People of Puerto Rico, supra, 258 U.s. at 312, 42 5. Ct. at 348) would be compro-
mised and unreasonably restricted here, were litigants forced, in order to avail
themselves of the facilities of this court, to litigate through interpreters in a
language other than English.
Mr. Chairman, in this bill no one will be forced to litigate in Spanish
unless the court in the interest of justice finds that Spanish should
be utilized, and mainly these cases would be those in which all the
parties are Spanish-speaking.
Mr. EDWARDS. Can all of the judges speak Spanish?
Mr. CORRADA. Oh, yes, all of the judges in Puerto Rico are Puerto
Ricans, Judge Toledo, Judge Torruella, Judge Pesquera, they, are
native-born Puerto Ricans.
Mr. EDWARDS. But Judge Torruella is not a friend of the bill.
Mr. CORRADA. Well, he has in his mind some constitutional ques-
tions that he raised that we have dispelled through the study of CRS.
Mr. EDWARDS. He must think his own court runs pretty well.
Mr. CORRADA. I am sure he does, yes.
This will not happen, Mr. Chairman, with the enactment of sec-
tions 3 and 4 of H.R. 10228, nor do we have here an insurmountable
legal problem. Section 3 of the bill provides that:
Initial pleadings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico may
be filed in either the Spanish or English language and all further pleadings and
proceedings shall be in the English language, unless upon application of a party
or upon its own option, the court, in the interest of justice, orders that the further
pleadings or proceedings, or any part thereof, shall be conducted in the Spanish
language.
The District Court for Puerto Rico will remain a tribunal not
subject to local influence. The judges there will continue to be ap-
PAGENO="0025"
21
pointed for life by the President of the United States with the consent
of the Senate.
Furthermore, the court will retain its authority and will have dis-
cretion to decide which cases should be conducted in English. Hence,
the legal rights of nonresidents and non-Spanish-speaking persons
would remain protected as they presently are. It is in the interest of
justice and when all circumstances are met that this discretionary
authority will be used.
The U.S. Department of Justice in a letter to Chairman Rodino,
dated May 12, 1978, regarding sections 3 and 4, expressed support for
their enactment, and I quote
The section of the bills concerning the District Court for the District of Puerto
Rico enjoys the Department's strong support.
In many actions, both civil and criminal, in the district of Puerto Rico every-
body in the courtroom speaks Spanish, but many do not speak English. Yet under
current law all the proceedings must be conducted in English. The bills provide
that the judge may allow proceedings to be conducted in Spanish. This is expected
to result in a substantial savings in the cost of interpreters for the district of
Puerto Rico, and to increase the fairness of proceedings held in that court.
Some may raise the question of potential limitation on judges from
other districts sitting by designation in the District Court for Puerto
Rico when needed.
I do not believe this will be a serious problem It will be the respon-
sibility of the clerk of the court to place in the calendar of visiting
judges those cases in which the English language will be used
In its study, the CRS raises a question with respect to jury selec-
tions which I should discuss. The decision in United States v. Ramos
Colon, 415 F Supp 459 (1976) indicates that
Of 4,262 questionnaires recently sent to prospective jurors in Puerto Rico'
3,522, or 83 percent, indicated that the persons involved were disqualified because
of insufficient English proficiency. If this is representative of the entire population
of otherwise eligible jurors in Puerto Rico, section 4, which would prohibit the
disqualification for service as a juror of any person not proficient in English if
he is proficient in Spanish, would doubtless have the effect of causing every jury
to have perhaps a majority of jurors unable adequately to use English.
CRS also stated that
If this is true every jury trial would have to be conducted in the Spanish
language for otherwise the non-English-speaking jurors would be unable effec-
tively and intelligently to perform their duties as jurors. See, for example, Miranda
v. United States, 225 F. 2d 9, 16-17 (CAl). Thus, the permissive language of
section 3 concerning pleadings and the conduct of trials in Spanish would appear
currently to be inoperative.
This problem was discussed by the Senate Committee on the Judici-
ary by stating in the report on S. 1315 that:
The bill does not address the manner by which the district court would develop
a jury wheel for cases to be conducted in Spanish. At present, the jury wheel
would, of course, include only persons who speak English; however, mostof those
who .do speak English also speak Spanish and, therefore, would be eligible for
cases conducted in Spanish as well. The responsibility for developing methods of
juror selection is already statutorily assigned to each district court, 28 U.S. Code
1862.
Futhermore, the report also said
The District Court for Puerto Rico would be best qualified to develop a proper
procedure for the selection of jurors for such cases, and the committee does not
find it necessary to develop such procedures in this legislation.
PAGENO="0026"
22
The District Court for Puerto Rico should find a workable solution
to this problem m accordance with its needs. The court, I am sure,
has the experience and expertise to establish the mechanisms for an
adequate and~ workable jury wheel.
To conclude, I fully support and urge you to support H.R. 10228
for the following reasons:
One: The administration of justice in any community should allow
proceedings to be conducted in the language of that community,
even in a court which forms part of a Federal system of a country
where another language is the prevalent language, even more so, of
course, when we are doing this optionally, and at the discretion of the
court.
Two: Sections 3 and 4 of H.R. 10228 will improve due process and
quality of justice to litigants in Puerto Rico.
Three: If Spanish were used, the trial time in cases would be reduced
by the amount of time it takes for court interpreters to translate the
proceedmgs from Spanish to English and English to Spanish.
Four: Allowing some proceedings to be conducted in Spanish will
in no way jeopardize the rights of those parties who prefer to have
the proceedings conducted in English.
Five: If Spanish were to be allowed, those attorneys who do not
litigate in the Federal court because they do not feel their mastery
in English is good enough to allow them to represent their clients
adequately, would begin to protect their clients' interest in the most
appropriate forum, whether State or Federal, a choice they don't
have now.
Six: Once Spanish.speaking attorneys are allowed to plead in
Spanish, and try their cases in Spanish, they will go to the Federal
court in order to get the benefit of a jury trial in civil cases, which
they do not get in the Puerto Rican State courts, and to claim the
benefits of Federal rights more effectively.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, the constitutional and civil rights
of citizens of the United States, who reside in Puerto Rico, would be
better protected.
Seven: On the merits, the bill represents a positive step toward
guaranteeing a better quality of justice to litigants in Puerto Rico.
Finally, I urge you to favorably recommend the enactment of this
bill with the provisions pertaining to Puerto Rico. In the balance of
convenience, justice has much more weight than the administrative
problems suffered by those in charge of its administration.
Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Corrada, you have
made a very strong case for the provisions pertaining to Puerto Rico.
I would certainly agree with your statement that there are still tinges
of colonialism in the system. It is disturbing that the people of Puerto
Rico have to deal with a system such as that which you have described
to us today.
Do we have an estimate on how much the bill would cost?
Mr. CORRADA. I have been informed that the $2 million estimate
that has been furnished to the committee includes the cost insofar as
it pertains to the application of sections 3 and 4 in Puerto Rico.
Mr. EDWARDS. I am also sure our staff will be in touch with mem-
bers of your staff regarding more details. Do you have any questions,
counsel?
PAGENO="0027"
23
Ms. GONZALES. Yes. The only question I have concerns the posi-
tion of the Federal Bar on this issue. Could you tell us what their
position is?
Mr. CORRADA. Previously the Federal Bar in Puerto Rico, the
Federal Bar Association, which has a chapter in Puerto Rico, had
stated a position on the mandatory use in all cases of Spanish in the
Federal courts in Puerto Rico. I do not know that they have a posi-
tion on this bill as it pertains to sections 3 and 4. In other words, their
position has been traditionally in opposition to some attempts that
were made in the last Congress in a bill [H.R. 11200], which was called
a New Compact of Relationship of Puerto Rico with United States,
which was not reported out of committee, which required the manda-
tory use of Spanish and English as an exception, which was the reverse
situation from what we have here~ To that they were opposed. I have
no knowledge or information that they have any kind of a position on
the optional use of Spanish in some cases as provided in this bill.
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Butler?
Mr. BUTLER. Thank you very much. I thank the witness for his
testimony. I had a chance to peruse it before I came in, and I would
not have any questions at this time except to say that I have a fair
view of your understanding and view of this legislation. We appre-
ciate your contribution, and we will certainly keep it in mind as we
go along.
Mr. CORRADA. Mr. Chairman, if I may add one word, as you know,
the Senate passed this bill, including the provisions for Puerto Rico.
When this happened, expectations were raised there that finally after
so many years there would be some degree of equity in allowing the
optional use of Spanish in the courts. I would like to urge the chairman
not to delay action on sections 3 and 4, in other words, not to separate
the consideration of the Puerto Rican provisions from the rest of the
bill, because in my mind-and given the fact that we are supposed to
adjourn by October 7, because this is a year of congressional elec-~
tions-in my mind if that happ~ened, the chances or the opportunity of
this legislation pertaining to Puerto Rico passing in the House this
year are very, very limited.
Our great hope is that together with this entire bill, as it may be
changed by the subcommittee, that this committee will consider the
Puerto Rican situation, as did the Senate, and that the legislation
will not be killed with respect to this Congress.
I know, obviously, we will have an opportunity, if that happens, of
reintroducing it next year, but then we have to start all over again,
and mind you, if Puerto Rico stands alone in his legislation, without
the rest of the legislation, perhaps it might not be the kind of priority
that we would like it to be.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Corrada. You have made
a very persuasive argument. We listen to you with great respect and
we will work on this legislation with diligence.
Mr. CORRADA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. We will recess for 10 minutes.
[Short recess.]
Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to order. We also have
with us this morning the following witnesses from the Department of
Justice: John Huerta, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil
PAGENO="0028"
24
Rights Division; Paul Nejelski, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Office for Improvements in the Administration of Justice; and from
the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, our ~longtime friend,
Carl H. Imlay.
Gentlemen, you have time restraints and we have time restraints.
Mr. Butler and I and the staff have read your excellent statements.
We would appreciate it very much, if in a few short succinct para-
graphs, you could each explain what is the nature and thrust of the
testimony. Who would like to go first?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nejelski follows:]
STATEMENT OF PAUL NEJELSKI, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE
FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: Good morning. My name is
Paul Nejeiski. I am Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office for Im-
provements in the Administration of Justice of the Department of Justice. I am
glad to appear before this Committee this morning to support enactment of H.R.
10228 and S. 1315, the proposed "Bilingual, Hearing, and Speech Impaired In-
terpreter Act".
This bill would establish a program in the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts to regulate the provision of interpreters' services to persons who
speak only a language other than English or who are hearing or speech impaired.
The bill would also govern how and when such services would be provided. Finally,
in the District of Puerto Rico, it would allow pleadings in some cases to be written
and proceedings to be conducted in Spanish and would permit jurors who speak
only Spanish to sit in proceedings conducted only in Spanish.
John Huerta, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division,
is presenting the views of the Department of Justice on the provisions relating to
Puerto Rico since his office has worked on the development of that proposal. I
will address the interpreters' services provisions of the bill with which our office
has greater familarity. Although this presentation is divided between two offices,
I wish to emphasize that the Department of Justice fully supports all provisions
of the bill.
At present, the provision of interpreters' services is governed by the Federal
Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure. These rules give courts discretion to ap-
point interpreters in appropriate situations.
The bill makes three principal changes to present practices. First, the bill es-
tablishes standards for when the services of an interpreter must be provided in
criminal and civil actions initiated by the United States. An interpreter would be
required if a party speaks only a language other than English or suffers from a
speech or hearing impairment which would inhibit comprehension of the pro-
ceedings or communication with counsel and the presiding judicial officer.
We support this portion of the bill. It is important that all parties to a court
proceeding adequately comprehend the events that are transpiring in the court-
room and are able to adequately communicate with the officers of the court when
necessary. We believe that the standards set forth in the bill comport with the
maintenance of this minimum level of communication necessary for reasonable and
fair courtroom proceedings to be conducted.
The bill also provides for the certification of interpreters in federal court by the
Administrative Office of the United States CGurts. This proposal is in response to
complaints that interpreter services in federal courts are not consistently of
sufficiently high caliber. These complaints are dealt with at present by reviewing
the accuracy of the translation after the fact. We believe that certification of
interpreters would largely obviate the need for such post-trial review. It would
be a more effective and less costly method of assuring the necessary quality of
interpretation in federal courts.
The provision of effective interpreters' services is vitally important if the courts
are to fulfil their role of being available to resolve the disputes of all citizens.
This bill would improve public access to the federal courts by insuring that well
PAGENO="0029"
25
qualified interpreters will always be available and will be called upon whenever
there is a need for them.
The proposed legislation also recognizes the often overlooked need of hearing
and speech impaired persons for interpreters' services. As with language interpre-
tation, the bill insures that the courts will meet the standards for interpreters'
services needed in order that parties with speech or hearing impairments can fully
and fairly receive their day in court.
The third change brought about by the bill is the provision of interpreters,
services at the expense of the court for nonindigent criminal defendants and for
defendants in civil actions initiated by the United States. Discretion, however,
is reserved in the court to tax civil defendants the costs of interpretation in actions
initiated by the United States as part of the costs of the action.
Currently, interpreter's services are required to be provided by the court for in-
digent criminal defendants. Negron v. New York, 434 F.2d 386 (2d Cir., 1970).
Increasing credence is being accorded the view that the role played by the inter-
preter is so basic a part of a court proceeding that it should be a component of the
services offered to litigants as a cost of the maintenance of the court system, rather
than being a Cost of litigation borne by the parties. The bill follows this precept
except in the case of civil actions not initiated by the government, where the costof
interpreters' services would continue to be paid by the parties in such proportion
and at such time as the presiding judicial officer directs. We expect that the practi-
cal result of the foregoing would be that losing parties in most private civil litigation
will continue to pay for the costs of an interpreter, except where the appointment
is exclusively for the benefit of the court.
The Department supports the provision of interpreters' services for all criminal
defendants because it is so fundamental a part of the court process in a case in
which the defendant does not speak or understand English. We adhere to the
precept that criminal defendants must have a full and fair opportunity to defend
themselves against the charges that they face.
In the civil arena, we believe that more caution must be exercised than in crimi-
nal cases in expending tax dollars in order to provide services for private litigants.
We support the approach of the bill which insures that interpreters' services be of
high quality, but provides that civil parties are to pay for interpreters as costs of
litigation. The only exception would be for parties brought into civil litigation by
the government, who would not have to bear the costs of interpreters' services if
the court determined, in its discretion, that the government should bear those
costs.
We believe that the foregoing provisions would fairly allot the costs of interpre-
ters' services between the public treasury and those citizens who make use of our
courts. At the same time, the program established by the bill would insure that
when interpreters are used that they are of the high quality befitting the federal
courts.
For these reasons the Department of Justice supports enactment of section 2 of
this legislation. The Department of Justice defers to the Judicial Conference of the
United States as to whether sections 5-12 should be enacted.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be glad to re-
spond to any questions you or the members of the Subcommittee may have.
TESTIMONY OF PAUL NEJELSKI, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL, OFFICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ADMINISTRA-
TION OF JUSTICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ACCOMPANIED
BY JOHN M. BEAL, ATTORNEY
Mr. NEJELSKI. Mr. Chairman, I am Paul Nejelski of the Office for
Improvements in the Administration of Justice. I would be happy to
summarize my testimony rather than read it.
Mr. EDWARDS. Without objection, all of the testimony will be made
a part of the record.
Mr. NEJEL5KI. I would note that despite two representatives from
the Department of Justice, the Department endorses the whole bill.
PAGENO="0030"
26
I will be talking about primarily section 2, because our Office has the
most familiarity with that. Mr. Huerta and the Civil Rights Division
have been most involved in sections 3 and 4 on Puerto Rico.
As the Senate report on this bifi notes, this is more of an evolu-
tionary than a revolutionary bill in terms of section 2. Many of the
procedures are now in practice in the courts, and there are many
good decisions being made as a result of the discretion given to
the judges.
But we are now at a time in our history in the development of the
judiciary that there is no room for marignal or questionable cases. We
put great faith in the interpreters in our courts. Any of us who have
been, in court as counsel or as spectators have seen people whose first
language is not English. They have to use an interpreter, and after
they go through a long description in their native language, the
mterpreter gives a very short summary translation. One wonders how
much interpretation is going on or how much perhaps even testimony
by the interpreter may be taking place.
The judiciary has grown greatly in size and complexity. If the
omnibus judgeship bifi is enacted, as we all hope it will be, over 100
trial judges will be added to the judiciary. We feel it is time to come
forward with standards, with a statute, governing interpretation, not
leaving it to the discretion of the judges.
There is a need to professionalize the interpretation in the Federal
courts. This is now a matter of discretion. There is no central standard,
no control by the Administrative Office, or anyone else.
I am not suggesting there is anything illegal happening, but there
may be a tendency, I think, to accept someone who is familiar to the
court, whose credentials and whose actual interpretation may be quite
imperfect.
If I may speak from personal experience, before rejoining the
Department of Justice last year, I was the deputy court administrator
of the State of Connecticut. We put in, about 3 years ago, a program
for certification of interpreters, particularly Spanish-speaking. There
are many Puerto Ricans and others whose primary language is
Spanish there. We had six interpreters who were hired on more or
less a full-time basis. Much to our surprise, one of the six completely
failed the written test that was given, and received the grade of
below 50 on both the initial test and the retest that he asked for.
There is no way of knowing what the competence of these people
is unless it is tested. And a very imperfect way of testing it, is a
challenge after the fact through litigation, and attack of a conviction
in a criminal case or the judgment in a civil case.
To the extent that this statute provides for appointment by the
court from a panel, from a neutral source, I think it should be strongly
supported.
If I may once again draw on personal experience, I was an assistant
U.S. attorney in the district of New Jersey a number of years ago.
At that time, I litigated an expatriation case, which involved very
important rights of whether the person involved had, by joining the
Italian Navy in 1954, has his American citizenship. We put on, from
the Government, an expert witness in Italian law to explain the
selective service and other Italian laws. .
`When it came time for the defendant to testify, he had no inter-
preter. He couldn't afford an interpreter, and he used our expert
PAGENO="0031"
27
witness to help as a favor to the court. That kind of partiality, whether
seeming or real, should be discouraged. Neutral interpreters should be
encouraged.
This bill, as you know, provides for standards for the first time for
use of interpreters. There can be too little use of interpreters.. There
could also, I think, be too much use. Simultaneous translation, for
example, may not be needed and can be very costly.
The bill provides for certification of interpreters, which I think is
greatly needed, considering the size of this country and the number of
judges, the number of interpreters in use, and who will be in use in the
future. The rights of the hearing and speech impaired are recognized
for the first time. And the Government is called upon to assume a
greater financial burden, as I think it should, where it initiates a
criminal or a civil case.
I would note that the previous administration did not support this
legislation, and didn't see the need for it. This administration does see
the need for it; there is no room for doubts about second-class citizen-
ship or inferior justice for the many many non-English-speaking
citizens and residents in this country. It is an important part of the
administration's access to justice package, and we urge its passage.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. I wonder if we might identify
everybody at the table.
Mr. NEJELSKI. This is Mr. John M. Beal on my right, who is a
staff attorney in our office, who worked on the development of the bill.
Mr. IMLAY. Mr. Stafford Ritchie, my Special Assistant General
Counsel for Administration.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huerta follows:]
STATEMENT OF JOHN HUERTA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL
RIGHTS DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate this opportunity
to testify before you, on behalf of the Department of Justice, in support of those
portions of~ILR. 10228 and S. 1315 which would permit the use of Spanish in the
United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. As you may know,
United States Attorney Julio Morales Sanchez, who has been U.S. Attorney
in Puerto Rico since 1970, is scheduled to testify before you on August 9, and will
also support these provisions. He will be able to provide his views on this proposal
from the perspective of one who, for 8 years, has had responsibility for more
cases in that Court-both civil and criminal-than anyone else. My brief com-
ments today are addressed to more general considerations that I think the Sub-
committee should bear in mind as you consider this legislation.
The Department of Justice first testified in favor of a provision permitting-but
not mandating-the use of Spanish in that Court in 1974 (see testimony. of
Assistant Attorney General Pottinger before the Subcommittee on Improve-
ments in Judicial Machinery of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States
Senate, reprinted in Hearings on S. 1724, 93rd Congress, Second Session at pp.
112-124)~ Now, as then, we support those portions of H.R. 10228 and S. 1d15
which would permit Spanish to be used in judicial proceedings in the federal
court in Puerto Rico.
While the reasons suggesting consideration of a change from the current law
which requires the use of English in this court may be obvious, I think it important
to review briefly certain facts concerning the languages spoken in Puerto Rico as
a necessary predicate for your consideration of these provisions.
In Puerto Rico there is a language situation converse to that of the United
States. Although in the United States almost all persons speak English, 1970
Census statistics reveal that 57.3 percent of all Puerto Ricans over the age of
10 years old do not speak English. The 1970 Census also shows that 59.2 percent
PAGENO="0032"
28
of the women and 75.2 percent of those over 60 speak no English.1 The Census
Bureau explains that "(p)ersons were classified as able to speak English if they
reported that they could make themselves understood in English." 2 Thus, these
statistics probably understate the percentage of persons unable to comprehend,
without the aid of an interpreter, the language of something as complex as a
judicial proceeding. In addition, they undoubtedly understate the percentage
defendants in federal criminal proceedings who are unable to comprehend the
proceedings without the aid of an interpreter.
Although Spanish is the primary language of most Puerto Ricans and the only
language spoken by the majority, the law currently provides that all pleadings
and proceedings in the district court shall be conducted in English (48 U.S.C. 864
(1976)). As a necessary concomitant to this provision, another statute, 28 U.S.C.
1865(b) (2) and (3) (1976), effectively limits participation on federal juries to
those Puerto Ricans, usually of a higher educational and occupational level
than the average Puerto Rican, capable of speaking and understanding English.
The result of these statutes is to foreclose-for a large number of Puerto Rican
litigants who are also United States citizens-the ability to comprehend fully
judicial proceedings to which they may be parties and, especially in criminal pro-
ceedings, the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. In our view this is neither
the most effective nor the most appropriate way to operate the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
The district court presently provides interpreters to translate questions addressed
to and answered by Spanish-speaking witnesses, and it also provides oral simul-
taneous translation to criminal defendants. Though these practices help remedy the
problem inherent in a situation where such a large number of persons do not
speak the language of the court, they do not provide to many Puerto Ricans a
tribunal where they can readily and comfortably understand what is going on.
Further, such a substantial amount of translation results in unnecessarily drawn
out proceedings.
To remedy this problem, we favor the provisions of E[.R. 10228 and 5. 1315
which would make it possible for the district court to conduct proceedings in
Spanish and would open up petit jury service to non-English speaking Puerto
Ricans now barred from such service. Under these provisions, most Puerto Ricans
will be better able to make effective use of this court in both civil and criminal
proceedings. In addition, these changes would permit a substantial and important
group of persons to serve on federal petit juries in Puerto Rico.
The proposal should improve judicial efficiency; by eliminating the time
necessary to conduct translations, proceedings will move more quickly. As im-
portantly, this legislation will do much to effectuate the guarantees of equality of
all persons before a federal court and to insure that all persons before the court
understand the court proceedings. Indeed, fairness suggests that we~ take all
reasonable steps to insure that litigants readily understand judicial proceedings in
which they are involved.
The Congress has twice in the last 13 years recognized the importance of our
citizens not having their right to vote infringed because of certain language difficul-
ties. While these analogies from the franchise are obviously not controlling here,
they are evidence of a consistent Congressional concern for those barred from
important areas by language problems.
First, in 1965, Congress provided in section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act
(codified in 42 U.S.C. 1973b(e)) a guarantee that a person with a sixth grade
education from an Ameiican-flag school in which the predominant classroom
language was other than English could not be denied the right to vote on the
ground he was not literate in English.3
Second, in the 1975 Amendments to the Voting Rights Act, "Congress extended
the Act's strong protections to cover language minorities". Briscoe v. Bell, 432
U.S. 404, 405 (1977). Without going into detail on this aspect of them, the amend-
ments provide that state and local governments, in those places where there are
substantial numbers of language minorities, must provide both registration and
balloting materials in the foreign language used by these people.
These two sections manifest Congressional determination that the right to vote
is too basic to justify language infringements on that right.
1 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970, Detailed Characteristics,
Final Report PC(1)-D53 Puerto Rico 53-624 (1973).
2 Bureau notes, though, that "persons who could speak only a few words, such as
`Hello' and `Goodbye', were classified as unable to speak English." Id., Appendix B at
App. 8.
The details of this provision and the upholding of its constitutionality may be found
in the Supreme Court's decision in Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966).
PAGENO="0033"
29
Analogously, in its. 1974 decision in Lax v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, the Supreme
Court held that the failure of a school system to teach English to San Francisco
school children who speak only Chinese had effectively foreclosed those children
from any meaningful education. In that case all students had been provided with
the same facilities, textbooks. teachers, and cuiriculm. However, because the
Chinese students could not comprehend the language of their teachers, textbooks,
or fellow students, they were unable to use any of these material benefits. The
Court found that equal educational opportunity in fact requires more than just
equal access to the material components of an educational program; it requires
a basic ability to communicate in and comprehend the language of instruction.
thus, Lau presented the situation in which apparent equality was actually a denial
of equal educational opportunity for a non-English speaking minority.
The rationale of the Court in Lau may be equally applicable here. Equality
before the courts means more than the mere providing of all parties with the same
tangible protections and guarantees. In the view of this Administration, permitting
the use of Spanish in the federal court in Puerto Rico would be an appropriate
mea~ns of furthering the objective of~ equality.
We would, however, suggest one amendment to this proposal. We. believe that
section 4(a) of the bills should be amended to read as follows:
Sec. 4. (a) Section 1865 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
adding .the following new subsection at the end thereof:
"(c) If the United States District Court for the District of Puerto
Rico orders that a trial be conducted in the Spanish language pursuant
to section 42 of the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act, as amended
(48 U.S.C. 864), each juror shall be able to speak, read, write, and under-
stand the Spanish language with a degiee of pioficiency sufficient to
fill out satisfactorily a Spanish-language juror qualification form, but
need not meet the requirements of subsections (h)(2) and (b)(3).".
This change more clearly states the intention of the section that jurors in trials
conducted in Spanish understand that language and need not be proficient in
English. In addition, the amendment would retain the requirement of existing
law of comprehension of English for grand jury service, a requirement, the De-
partment believes to beimportant because many witnesses, particularly from in-
vestigative agencies, are fluent primarily or solely in English. Since a grand jury
considers many different cases, it is not practical to assign jurors only in cases in
which there are only Spanish-speaking witnesses.
There are, obviously, practical problems to be considered with respect to this
legislation and we understand these will he explored at subsequent hearings in
early August. Both United States Attorney Morales Sanchez and I look forward
to being with you then.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
receive any questions you or members of the Subcommittee may have.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN HUERTA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. }ITJERTA. I am John Huerta, Deputy Assistant Attorney Gen
eral, Civil Rights Division
Mr Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I would like to
present a summary of my prepared testimony. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you in reference to sections 3 and 4 of
H. R. 10228 and S. 1315. I would like to direct my comments to
Puerto Rico
We believe that Puerto Rico happens to be a very unique situation
The 1970 census statistics indicate that 57 3 percent of `ill Puerto
Ricans over the age of 10 years of age do not speak English. The 1970
census also shows that 59.2 percent of the women and 75.2 percent
of those over 60 speak no English.
The Census Bureau explains that:
Persons were classified as able to speak English if they reported that they
could make themselves understood in English. Thus, these statistics probably
understate the percentage of persons unable to compiehend, without the aid of
35-552 0 - 79 - 3
PAGENO="0034"
30
an interpreter, the language of something as complex as a judicial proceeding.
In addition, they undoubtedly understate the percentage of defendants in Federal
criminal proceedings who are able to comprehend the proceedings without the
aid of an interpreter.
I might note that in the Senate report on 5. 1315, it indicates that
75 percent of the defendants in criminal proceedings in the Federal
district courts in Puerto Rico are solely Spanish-speaking.
Although Spanish is the primary language of most Puerto Ricans,
and the only language spoken by the majority, the law currently~
provides that all pleadings and proceedings in the district court shall
be conducted in English. The district court presently provides inter-
preters to translate questions addressed to and answered by Spanish-
speaking witnesses, and it also provides oral simultaneous translations
to criminal defendants.
Mr. EDWARDS. Are proceedings in State courts conducted in Spanish?
Mr. HUERTA. Yes, all of the State courts are.
Mr. EDWARDS. Is this by State statute or under the Constitution?
Mr. HUERTA. I don't know whether it is by statute or Constitution,
but their proceedings are all in Spanish.
This gentleman here is a former assistant U.S. attorney, and a
native Puerto Rican. Perhaps he can answer that.
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, go ahead.
Mr~ CASTELLANOS. The procedures-I am Tony Castellanos. The
procedures are in Spanish in the State courts. But they are also allowed
to be conducted in English if that is in the interest of justice.
Mr. EDWARDS. Are all of the court personnel, including the judges,
bilingual?
Mr. CASTELLANOS. I would say most of them are bilingual. But I
cannot answer that categorically. There is no constitutional or legal
mandate to conduct the proceedings in Spanish, or in English.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you.
Mr. HTJERTA. This practice of providing simultaneous translation,
although it helps to remedy the problem inherent in a situation where
such a large number of persons do not speak the language of the court,
it does not provide to many Puerto Ricans a tribunal where they can
readily andcomfortably understand what is going on.
* Further, such a substantial amount of translation results in un-
necessarily drawn out proceedings~
This proposal, H.R. 10228, should improve judicial efficiency by
eliminatmg the time necessary to conduct translations; proceedings
wifi move more quickly.
This legislation will do much to effectuate the guarantees of equality
of all persons before the Federal court, and to insure all persons before
the court understand the court proceedings.
Indeed, fairness suggests we take all reasonable steps to assure that
litigants readily understand judicial proceedings in which they are
involved.
The Department would, however, suggest one amendment to this
proposal. We believe that section 4(a) of the bill should be amended
to read as follows:
SEc. 4. (a) Section 1865 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding
the following new subsection at the end thereof:
(c) If the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico orders
that a trial be conducted in the Spanish language pursuant to section 42 of the
PAGENO="0035"
Si
Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act, as amended (48 U.S. Code 864), each juror
shall be able to speak, read, write, and understand the Spanish language with a
degree of proficiency sufficient to fill out satisfactorily a Spanish-language juror
qualification form, but need not meet the requirements of subsections (b) (2)
and (b)(3).
This change more clearly states the intention of the section that
jurors in trials conducted in Spanish understand that language and
neednot be proficient in English.
In addition, the amendment would retain the requirement of exist-
ing law of comprehension of English for grand jury service, a require-
ment the Department believes to be important because many wit-
nesses, particularly from investigative agencies, are fluent primarily
or solely in English. Since a grand jury considers many different cases,
it is not practical to assign jurors only in cases in which there are only
Spanish-speaking witnesses.
There are, obviously, practical problems to be considered with
respect to this legislation, and we understand these will be explored
at subsequent hearings in early August. U.S. Attorney Morales
Sanchez will be available to you in August to answer your questions
in this regard.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to
receive any questions from you or other members of the subcommittee.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Huerta. Mr. Imlay?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Imlay follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARL H. IMLAY, GENERAL COUNSEL, ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am
Carl H. Imlay, General Counsel of the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts. The Director of the Administrative Office has asked me to express to you
his appreciation for your invitation to appear before you today. I testify today in
his behalf to express our observations and views concerning that legislation now
pending before you which would provide for the more effective utilization of inter-
preters in courts of the United States.
Congress has considered legislation generically described as providig for bilin-
gual court proceedings in several recent sessions. That proposed legislation has been
concerned with what I believe can be identified as two distinct areas of interest: (1)
The general problems which many district courts confront from time to time when
a non-English speaking person appears as a defendant in a criminal prosecution or
a party in a civil action, and (2) The special and unique problems of the United
States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Inasmuch as other witnesses
will address the special problems of the district court in Puerto Rico, I will re-
strict myself to comments on the general subject of the use of interpreters in fed-
eral courts. The bills which you have before you now address both topics. H.R.
10228, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1978); 5.. 1315, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1978). Section
2 and sections 5 through 10 concern the general use of interpreters in federal courts.
The Judicial Conference of the United States has had the opportunity to con-
sider these legislative initiatives. While the Conference recognizes that the provision
of interpretive services for non-English speaking parties and litigants is of high
importance, the Conference expressed the belief that the mechanisms already in
place deliver those services adequately to all persons who have a right to an inter-
preter at government expense. See [1974] Reports of the Proceedings of the Judi-
cial Conference of the United States 5-6. See also [1977] Reports of the Proceedings
of the Judicial Conference of the United States 50-51.
To facilitate your consideration of these bills in the context of current law, I will
develop briefly that "right" which now exists in federal courts to interpretive serv-
ices at government expense, and I will explain the mechanism within the judicial
branch to ensure that that right is protected.
Case law which develops the subject of a "right" to an interpreter is exceedingly
sparse. It seems clear, however, that there exists no absolute right to an interpreter
at~ government expense for a non-English speaking defendant in a criminal pros-
PAGENO="0036"
32
ecution. When a criminal defendant argued that he enjoyed such an absolute
right, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit responded in the
following terms:
We are aware that trying a defendant in a language he does not understand
has a Kafka-like quality, but (the defendant's) ability to remedy that situa-
tion dissipates substantially-perhaps completely-any feeling of unease. In
other words, if (the defendant) denied himself the interpreter and stands on
his right to do so, does not the issue become solely who should have paid for
one? Moreover, we doubt that (the defendant's) claimed absolute consti-
tutional right to an interpreter is stronger than the absolute right to a court-
appointed counsel; the latter is held only by the indigent, Gideon v. Wain-
wright,. 372 U.S. 335, 339-340 (1963). . . . From (the defendant's) point of
view, we think the most persuasive approach is the point made at oral argu-
ment that if the Government chooses to prosecute someone, the burden rests
upon ~it to furnish the basic apparatus for intelligible and minimally corn-
fortable proceedings, e.g., the physical accoutrements of a trial, such as a
stenographer or even the courtroom itself, neither of which is billed to the
defendant.
United States v. DeSist, 384 F.2d 889, 902-~-903 (2d Cir. 1967), aff'd, 394 U.S. 244
(1969).
Defendant Nebbia in DeSist had contended that he was denied due process, a
fair trial, and the rights of confrontation, presence at his trial, and effective as-
sistance of counsel as a consequence of the trial judge's refusal to provide him with
a court-appointed interpreter at government expense to translate the proceedings
in their entirety. DeSist, 384 F.2d at 901.
The court declined to hold that the defendant had an absolute right to a court-
appointed interpreter at government expense. The court discussed the fact that
defendant Nebbia's request for a court-appointed interpreter was specifically not
based on indigency. Indeed, he had posted $100,000 "within a few hours at an
earlier stage of the proceeding." DeSist, 384 F.2d at 901. Furthermore, defendant's
counsel had partners who spoke defendant's language, and the court concluded
that the defendant had been able to communicate with his counsel even in the
absence of a court-appointed interpreter.
The Second Circuit again had an opportunity to consider the question of a con-
stitutional right to an interpreter-this time in the context of a state prisoner's
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The prisoner had petitioned the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York for the writ. United States ex
ret. Negron v. New York, 310 F. Supp; 1304, 1307 (E.D.N.Y. 1970). At his murder
trial in state court, the prisoner-indigent and proceeding with appointed coun-
sel-neither spoke nor understood English. The district court reached the follow-
ing conclusion:
After consideration of the record below and the testimony at the habeas
corpus hearing, the court concludes that [the defendant] was, denied his Sixth
Amendment right to confrontation and that, regardless of the probabilities of
his guilt, his trial lacked the basic and fundamental fairness required by the
due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Under our system of
justice, a procedure which offends the constitutional guarantees of the accused
to a fair trial cannot be tolerated.
Negron, 310 F. Supp. at 1309.
The court of appeals agreed, concluding that the defendant could have heard no
more that a "babble of voices." United States ex ret. Negron v. New York, 434
F.2d 386, 388 (2d Cir. 1970). The court's reasoning is instructive
It is axiomatic that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to be
confronted with adverse witnesses . . . includes the right to cross-examine
those witnesses as an "essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of
fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal. . . . But the right that
was denied [this defendant] seems to us even more consequential than the
right of confrontation. Considerations of fairness, the integrity of the fact-
finding process, and the potency of our adversary system of justice forbid
that the state should prosecute a defendant who is not present at his own
trial ... unless by his conduct he waives that right. ... And it is equally
imperative that every criminal defendant-if the right to be present is to
have meaning-possess "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer
with a reasonable degree of rational understanding." . . . Otherwise, "[t]he
adjudication loses its character as reasoned interaction . . . and becomes an
invective against ~u iu~eniib1e object."
PAGENO="0037"
Negron, 434 F. 2d, at 389 (citations omitted). Accordingly, the Second Circuit felt
compelled to require that "a court, put on notice of .a defendant's severe language
difficulty, make unmistakably clear to [a defendant} that he has a right to have a
competent translator assisthim, at state expense if need by, throughout his trial."
Negron, 434 F.2d at 391 (citation omitted).
Although the Second Circuit articulated this right in the context of state pro-
ceedings, the court's rationale necessarily extends the right to federal courts also.
The right flows from the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of the assistance of counsel
and of confrontation of witnesses against him, and from his right to be present at
his trial.
The right the Second Circuit articulated flowed from the Sixth Amendment's
guarantees of the assistance of counsel and of confrontation of witnesses against
a defendant, and from the defendant's right to he present at his trial. Thus, inas-
much as the Sixth Amendment provided the foundation for the holding in Negron,
the right to an interpreter, "at state expense if need be," extends not only to
state judicial proceedings, but also to federal courts as well. As in the case of the
Sixth Amendment right to counsel, however, the right to an interpreter at govern-
ment expense extends only to indigents under current case law.
Since 1964, the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, as amended, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A
(1976) (the Act), has provided the authority and the mechanism for the furnish-
ment of representation at government expense to. defendants in criminal prosecu-
tions which the United States initiates in district courts. Congress provided in
the Act that a court shall appoint counsel at government expense for any person
charged with a felony or a misdemeanor (other than a petty offense) who is
"financially unable to obtain adequate representation." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b)
(1976). The representation which the government must furnish under the Act
includes investigative, expert, or other services necessary for an adequate defense
when the defendant is financially unable to obtain them. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)
(1976).
A non-English speaking defendant, a defendant with a hearing impairment, or
a defendant with a speech impairment clearly requires interpretive services if
if his Sixth Amendment rights are to be preserved inviolate. See DeSist, Negron.
They are necessary for an adequate defense. I am confident that any judge in our
federal district courts, when presented with a defendant who requires an inter-
preter, will authorize interpretive services under subsection (e), if the defendant
qualifies under the Act. Subsection (e) is broad enough to comprehend interpretive
services for a non-English speaking defendant, for a defendant with a hearing.
impairment, and for a defendant with a speech impairment.
Qualification under the Act involves analysis not only of the type of action
and the type of offense involved, but also the financial means of the person. A~
indicated earlier, the Act reaches all criminal prosecutions involving felonies and
misdemeanors (except petty offenses). On the subject of finances, the test is one
of "financial inability," not indigency. 18 U.S.C. §~ 3006A (a), (b), (e) (1976).
United States v. Kelly, 467 F. 2d 262, 266 (7th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S.
933, rehearing denied, 412 U.S. 923 (1973).
The Act reaches at least every defendant who enjoys a constitutional right to
appointed counsel, or to an appointed interpreter, at government expense on
account of his indigency. To the extent that it goes further and provides for repre-
sentation at government expense for a person who is "financially unable to obtain
adequate representation," but who is not indigent, the Act creates merely a
statutory right, as distinguished from providing the mechanism for the protec-
tion of a constitutional right. In the context; of the provision of interpretive
services, Congress' purpose can be viewed, in the language of the Second Circuit
in DeSist, as a determination that the government should "furnish the basic ap-
paratus for intelligible and minimally comfortable proceedings." DeSist, 384 F. 2d
at 902.
Given this history, we have considered the expense of an interpreter to be an
expense of litigation to be borne by the party requiring that service. The govern-
ment pays that expense of litigation under the Act for a criminal defendant who
is financially unable to obtain that necessary service. The Act essentially defines
the bounds of the authority of the judicial branch to pay for interpretive services
for a party or a criminal defendant.
The established rule is that the expenditure of public funds is proper only when
authorized by Congress. Reeside v. Walker, 11 How. 272, 291 (1851)~ United States
v. MacCollom, 426 317, 321 (1976) (judgment by Rehnquist, J.). Where Congress
has addressed a subject, s,hch as government payment of expenses of litigation
for private parties,and authorized expenditures where a condition is met, the clear
PAGENO="0038"
34
1mplication is that where the condition is not met, the expenditure is not au-
thorized. Botany Mills v. United States, 278 U.S. 282, 289 (1929); Passenger Corp.
v. Passengers Assn., 414 U.S. 453, 458 (1974); MacCollom, 426 U.S. at 321 (judg-
ment by Rehnquist, J.).
Ac~idingly, we at the Administrative Office are concerned with how to deal
with the expenses of interpretive services in those situations for which there is no
clear congressional guidance.
It is simple for me to state that the expense of an interpreter is an expense of
litigation to be borne by a party. In practical application,~ however, strict ad-
herence to that principle would delay and could even frustrate some criminal
proceedings. For example, at a preliminary hearing, which a magistrate or a judge
may conduct before a criminal defendant has retained counsel, the court hears
only a "babble of voices" when a non-English speaking defendant talks. Thus,
the interpreter provides services which benefit the court and the defendant
mutually. The court must arrange for an interpreter before it can even ascertain
whether a defendant will qualify for representation under the Criminal Justice
Act.
Further, there is no express provision for the furnishment of interpretive ser-
vices to a defendant charged with a minor offense, even if the defendant is indigent
or only financially unable to obtain that service. While there may be no constitu-
tional right to counsel at government expense in all minor offense prosecutions, see
Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), it is hard to conceive of a situation in
which a non-English speaking indigent criminal defendant would not be entitled
to an interpreter at government expense, even if the offense charged is only a minor
offense. Assumng the existence of such a constitutional right to an interpreter at
government expense in a minor offense prosecution, there exists no statutory
scheme to make government funds available to protect that right.
It can be argued that rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure pro-
vides that mechanism. Rule 28 provides as follows:
The court may appoint an interpreter of its own selection and may fix the
reasonable compensation of such interpreter. Such compensation shall be paid
out of funds provided by law or by the government, as the court may direct.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 28 (emphasis added).
Rule 28, of course, is only a rule of procedure. 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (1976). Its provi-
sions could not extend the availability of appropriated funds to cover an expense
not contemplated by Congress. The integral language of the rule appears to recog-
nize that fact if that payment is to be made from funds "provided by law." And
Congress has spoken only through the Criminal Justice Act to make appropriated
funds available for expenses of litigation.
Furthermore, even if Rule 28 provided a complete mechanism, the Department
of Justice has articulated the position that Rule 28 reaches only indigents. De-
Sist, 384 F.2d at 903.
Those courts in districts where substantial numbers of non-English speaking
persons reside require the day-to-day services of interpreters just to operate their
administrative services. Accordingly, the district courts nowhave approximately
twelve (12) employees classified as interpreters scattered throughout the United
States. These employees work not only in the offices of clerks of court, but they
also provide valuable services as official court reporters in court. There is no prob-
lem concerning their provision of interpretive services to defendants who qualify
for representation under the Act. However, there is some lingering doubt concern-
ing the propriety of the provision of interpretive services to defendants who do not
qualify for representation under the Act.
One of the effects of the legislation you have under consideration would be to
resolve these lingering questions "on the fringes" concerning the provision of inter-
preters. The Senate's judgment in 5. 1315 is that the government should assume
the financial responsibility to provide interpretive services in all criminal prosecu-
tions and in all civil actions initiated by the United States. In these classes of cases,
the government would assume the burden to furnish interpretive services as part
of the basic judicial apparatus for intelligible and minimally comfortable proceed-
ings. The government would assume plenary responsibility in criminal prosecu-
tions regardless of the financial status of the defendant. In civil prosecutions ini-
tiated by the United States, the government again would assume initial responsi-
bility to arrange for interpretive services. However, the court would have the
power in such civil cases, in its discretion, to apportion the expenses between or
among the parties or to tax the expenses as costs against the losing party.
PAGENO="0039"
35
S. 1315 would have no effect on purely private civil actions or civil actions in
which the United States is a defendant. In these classes of cases, the parties would
remain exclusively responsible for the provision of interpretive services.
5. 1315 also would clarify the financial responsibilities of the Department of
Justice and the Administrative Office. The Department would remain responsible
for the expenses of interpreters required for government witnesses, and the Ad-
ministrative Office would be responsible for expenses of interpreteis in all other
situations.
5. 1315 would establish uniform procedures applicable in all criminal prosecutions.
The benefit of uniformity should contribute to the more efficient functioning
of the judicial branch.
In addition, the Director of the Administrative Office would be required to estab-
lish a program to certify and qualify interpreters to serve in district courts. There
is no evidence to support the conclusion that any interpretive services in district
courts are less than adequate. As distinguished from the performance of counsel,
however, the performance of an interpreter is not subject to the same public
scrutiny. The only person who knows the accuracy of the interpreter's translation
is the interpreter. To ensure that there is no hidden problem, 5. 1315 would require
that a court utilize only the services of a certified interpreter, unless a certified
interpreter is not reasonably available.
Another benefit of this proposed legislation would be the establishment of a
program to provide "special interpretation services." We believe that this author-
ity could help to conserve judicial resources-and the resources of United States
Attorneys-by expediting multi-defendant criminal prosecutions through the pro-
vision of simultaneous interpretation.
A non-English speaking defendant always requires an interpreter at counsel
table to permit communication between the defendant and his counsel. When there
is only one defendant, the interpreter also can interpret all the court proceedings
for the defendant. The type of interpretation provided-summary, consecutive,
or simultaneous-would depend on the circumstances. H.R. 10228 would establish
consecutive as the standard. In fact, however, an interpreter may be able to pro-
vide simultaneous interpretation for his client. As the proceedings progress, the
interpreter may be able to whisper verbatim interpretations to the defendant
almost concurrently with their utterance by the speaker.
In multi-defendant prosecution, however, the collective whispering can rise to
the level of a substantial din. If the proceedings have to pause to'permit consecu-
tive interpretation-that is, a complete delivery by the speaker and a second
complete delivery by the interpreter in the other language-the length of the
trial grows dramatically.
Because of the necessity of an interpreter at counsel table, those appointments
under the Act are essential. However, if a court also can provide pure simultaneous
interpretation, every defendant can receive a simultaneous translation through
headphones. The time for the trial is reduced, or in fact, it may be possible to
reduce the number of interpreters at counsel table.
This legislation would provide the Director with authority to furnish these
special services to conserve judicial resources in addition to and distinct from the
services provided under the Act. Again, the proposed legislation would invest the
court with the power, in its discretion, to apportion the expenses between or among
the parties or to tax them as costs.
Sections 5 through 10 of the bills provide necessary changes in the current
authorities of the Director to provide for the implementation of this program,
and to permit taxation of the costs of interpreters in civil actions. Section 7 would
authorize the Director to appoint interpreters to serve in courts as needed through-
out the country. Currently, a separate appointment would be necessary in each
district to permit an interpreter to serve them. To the extent that the Director
can establish an economical centralized system to provide interpretive services,
this section would authorize him to make appointments. He would be authorized
to appoint these individuals without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, relating to classifica-
tion and the General Schedule. The authority would enable the Director to main-
tain a unified personnel system for interpreters, since interpreters the courts
appoint are not subject to these laws. To accomplish this result, section 7 would
amend section 602 of title 28, United States Code. The amended section 602 would
continue the applicability of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title
5, United States Code, to all other employees of the Administrative Office. The
section would confoim section 602 with the various provisions of title 5, United
PAGENO="0040"
86
States Code, as a result of the 1966 redocification of that title. As a consequence
of the recodification, the reference in section 602 to the "civil service laws" is
ambiguous, and the recodified provisions themselves define their applicability
to the judicial branch. Section 7 would also invest the Director with express author-
ity to delegate his functions, powers, duties and authority to implement and
to administer this program on a local level when efficiency and economy so dictate.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I stand ready to
respond to any questions the Chairman or the Members may have.
TESTIMONY OF CARL H. IMLAY, GENERAL COUNSEL, ADMINISTRA-
TIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS, ACCOMPANIED BY STAFFORD
D. ItITCHIE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL
Mr. IMLAY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we hay e
a prepared statement which we introduce in accordance with the
chairman's previously stated permission to do so. We think that this
proposed legislation as it relates to interpreters is needed in order to
clarify existing law and to insure that where needed there will be a
qualified interpreter available in every criminal case, and in every
civil case where the Government is plaintiff.
I might point out, to clarify one confusion, hopefully, that this bill
would only relate as it stands to criminal cases, and to civil cases
where the Government is the plaintiff. I believe there was some dis-
cussion about bankruptcy proceedings previously, and that is why I
mentioned our understanding in this respect.
Mr. BUTLER. Excuse me. Are you also addressing yourself to the
language barrier problem as well as the hearing problem?
Mr. IMLAY. Yes.
Mr. BUTLER. When you talk about interpreters, you are also address-
ing yourself to interpret for those people who have hearing defects?
Mr. IMLAY. Yes, that is very correct, we certainly are.
We think this legislation is very needed, not only because of lin-
guistic problems, but because of the hard of hearing problems that
continually arise.
Now in a civil case where the Government is plaintiff, the costs of
the interpreter could be taxed against the losing party at the termina-
tion of the litigation, in the judge's discretion. That is the gist of the
bill. We do not address today the complex and different issues relating
to a proposed change in the jury system of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Puerto Rico. Those matters, we understand, will be
the subject of a further hearing, in which some of the concerned judges
will be asked to testify, including the chief judge of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico, Jose Toledo.
There are certain amendments to this bill which we would like to
suggest at this time. On a separate page I list these, but let me just
briefly summarize them.
We have four amendments which would include, besides criminal
cases and cases where the United States is the plaintiff, habeas corpus
cases. We presently provide interpretive service under the Criminal
Justice Act in habeas corpus cases. So that we wouldn't want to narrow
the present practice because the United States, in one sense, is a
party to habeas corpus case. But otherwise habeas corpus cases are
very intimately related to the criminal process, and a person in a
prison who is seeking habeas corpus relief needs an interpreter no less
than the defendant in a criminal case. We offer in that respect four
PAGENO="0041"
37
amendments which would include those petitioning for a writ of habeas
corpus, and we would urge that the committee adopt them.
Mr. EDWARDS. How many petitions do you have per year now?
Mr. IMLAY. The exact number I am not sure of. As you know, the
Supreme Court has sharply curtailed the number of State habeas
corpus cases. Many of those cases have gravitated into prisoner civil
rights petitions. The number is large-I don't have our statistics here-
I will be glad to furnish that to the committee.
Mr. EDWARDS. Is it in the thousands?
Mr. IMLAY. It is in the thousands. But the interpretive service
would only be needed in a State habeas corpus case if a plenary hear-
ing were scheduled, and in most of these cases there is no plenary.
hearing. We are only talking about a fraction of the total number of
State habeas corpus cases initiated. As I say, there is presently in
18 TJ.S.C. 3006A(e) provision for other services to be furnished
criminal defendants and also petitioners in habeas corpus. We aren't
extending the law, we are just recognizing the present coverage of the
law by that amendment.
Another amendment is a technical one which involves more or less
of a clerical problem in the bill, and would merely transpose two para-
graphs. It would amend page 14 of the bill by striking lines 7 through
and including 21 in their entirety-well, to make a long story short,
it would transpose two paragraphs and keep the same basic language,
keep the same language that is now in the bill.
I will insert these amendments in the record, if I may
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, without objection they will be received.
[The suggested amendments follow:]
1. Amend line 20 on page 2 by inserting after "United States" the following:
"(including a petition for a writ of habeas corpus initiated in the name of the
United States by a relator)".
2. Amend line 10 on page 5 by inserting after "United States" the following:
"(including petitions for writs of habeas corpus initiated in the name of the
United States by relators)".
3. Amend line 8 on page 7 by inserting after "United States" the following:
"(including petitions for writs of habeas corpus initiated in the name of the
United States by relators)".
4. Amend line 14 on page 3 by striking out "a party or non-" and inserting
in lieu thereof the following: "a party, or a non-".
5. Amend page 14 by striking lines 7 throughand including 21 in their entirety
and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"(h) Notwithstanding any other law, the Director may appoint certified
interpreters in accordance with section 604(a) (15) (B) of this title without
regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of
title 5, United States Code, relating to classification and General Schedule
pay rates: Provided, however, That the compensation of any person appointed
under this subsection shall not exceed the appropriate equivalent of the
highest rate of pay payable for the highest grade established in the General
Schedule, section 5332 of title 5, United States Code.
"(c) The Director may obtain personal services as authorized by section
3109 of title 5, United States Code, at rates not to exceed the appropriate
equivalent of the highest rate of pay payable for the highest grade estab-
lished in the General Schedule, section 5332 of title 5, United States Code."
6. Amend line 13 on page 11 by striking out "16" and inserting in lieu thereof
"17".
Mr IMLAY Without duplicating the material in our prepared
statement, I would like to make several other observations that have
recently been brought to my attention by some of our district courts
as late as yesterday.
PAGENO="0042"
38
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico has brought
* to my attention an interpretation problem relating to situations where
witnesses or parties speak Indian language which has no written
form. This raises a particular problem for them, and Judge Bratton
of the district court in New Mexico asked that I bring that to your
attention. I think it is amply covered by the bill as it stands.
This is particularly troublesome to that court with respect to wit-
nesses who speak the Pueblo tongue, which has numerous different
dialects. As I interpret the bill, Indian interpreters could serve to
interpret the testimony given in these dialects, and if a certified
interpreter is not available, the services of otherwise competent in-
terpreters could be used pursuant to section 1827(e)(1), the final
clause.
Another problem that was brought to my attention yesterday by
the chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Chicago raises a question
concerning waiver of the use of an interpreter under the provisions of
section 1827(f). He pointed out that this may create an opportunity
for a party using an unscrupulous interpreter of his own. Such a
problem may be particularly acute in organized crime cases in the
Chicago area and similar cases. In other words, he fears the practice
of bringing in an interpreter who will not interpret accurately or who
has no scruples about falsifying testimony.
However, as I pointed out to him, I understand that the provisions
of section 1827(f) (1) require that the presiding judicial officer give his
approval to any waiver of a certified interpreter's services, and there-
fore, the court may control the use of noncertified interpreters under
section 1827(1) (1) and (2). This would allow a court to limit waiver
of offically certified interpreters except in cases of special necessity and
in situations where the judge has some assurance that a noncertified
interpreter will give an honest rendition of the testimony.
I might also point out that the chief judge of the U.S. district
court in Chicago also urged the broadening of section 1828 of the bill
to provide for simultaneous interpretive services in single defendant
cases as well as multidefendant cases, or, in other words, that in-
terpretation in the consecutive mode provided for in subsection
(k). essentially be eliminated as the standard interpretative
service. That, however, would obviously add greatly to the
expense of the whole interpreter program, and to the difficulty
findmg those highly qualified persons who are capable of simultaneous
interpretation. It takes a far more qualified interpreter to translate
simultaneously testimony as it is given.
Mr. EDWARDS. Is that what this bill provides?
Mr. IMLAY. That's right.
Mr. EDWARDS. Aren't yOu referring to bills from previous years?
Mr. IMLAY. That is correct. And that is what this bill will provide.
Heretofore we have had no authority to hire simultaneous interpret.ers.
We have had a great deal of difficulty, as Mr. Ritchie well knows,
having followed the situation, in certain cases where the judges have
gone ahead and hired simultaneous interpreters. In order to have a
simultaneous interpretation, usually you not only have to have the
mterpreter, you have to have booths and telephone connections, and
it is quite an elaborate process.
Mr. EDWARDS. But there is nothing in this bill that provides for
that?
PAGENO="0043"
39
Mr. IMLAY. Yes, there is.
Mr. RITCHIE. The bill does provide for simultaneous translation as
a special service, primarily in multidefendant prosecutions. We have
found through experience that if we have the option to provide simul-
taneous interpretations as an adjunct to the regular interpretive
services we provide under the Criminal Justice Act, we can expedite
those trials tremendously.
We have had a number of them up in the southern district of
New York. If you are involved with a number of defendants, and
each one has his own interpreter, the proceedings can be lengthened
substantially, when you utilize the consecutive mode of translation.
If we provide simultaneous translation, it is more expensive, granted,
but one consequence is we can conserve judicial resources, the time
of the judge, and the time of jurors in the courtroom, by shortening the
proceedings.
As I said, however, that is the exception to the general rule, since
we usually use consecutive translation.
Mr. BUTLER. How do you maintain a court transcript with simul-
taneous translation?
Mr. RITCHIE. Well, essentially the proceedings are conducted in
English, and the court reporter reports and records everything in
English. In these kind of cases where we have used simultaneous
translation, the translation has been for the benefit of non-English-
speaking defendants. We provide to them, through headphones and a
sound system, a simultaneOus translation of everything that was
stated and spoken in the courtroom in English.
Mr. BUTLER. Does a record ol a proceeding involving interpreters
include a statement or record of the interpretation?
Mr. RITCHIE. No.
Mr. BUTLER. Is the beneficiary of an interpretive proceeding en-
titled to review the proceedings on the basis of determining whether
ornot there was a fair translation?
Mr. RITCHIE. That is a very difficult question to resolve. The
proposal put fOrth in this bill would attempt to address it, by insuring
before the proceeding begins that the interpreter is qualified. Qualifi-
cation is the assurance for the benefit of the defendant that he is
receiving an accurate translation of the proceeding.
Mr. BUTLER. At the present time, there is no assurance at all?
Mr. RITCHIE. That is correct; there is none.
Mr. BUTLER. No one has ever litigated that?
Mr. RITcHIE. Well, nobody knows how accurate the interpretation
may have been except the interpreter. And he is the wrong person to
look to for an impartial assessment of his performance.
Mr. BUTLER. The best way to avoid appeals ~n this area is to make
sure there is no record of it. OK, thank you.
Mr. IMLAY. I might add in some cases the reporter-the official
reporter-will make an electronic record, but that would only pick
up those interpreters who are interpreting witness statements, it
wouldn't pick up interpretations that are privately done at counsel
table for the benefit of the defendant.
There is no way to preserve the accuracy of that. And that is one
of the reasons I pointed out that this certification procedure is very
essential and that we would, to the extent possible, want to discourage
noncertified interpreters, whose accuracy can't be tested.
PAGENO="0044"
40
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, right now you are providing interpreters in
Federal district courts and in magistrate proceedings, when necessary,
is that correct? What about in bankruptcy court?
Mr. IMLAY. There is no way the bankruptcy judge or referee in
bankruptcy can avail himself of the standard civil rule. There might
be a counterpart in the bankruptcy laws.
Mr. EDWARDS. So they aren't provided for under the rule. Do they
have trouble getting money for this? Do they currently have to ask
the district judge if they may have an interpreter?
Mr. IMLAY. They would only be available for a person who could
pay for them.
Mr. EDWARDS. Under this legislation, we would be changing the
system so that the Government is paying for them?
Mr. RITcrnE. Mr. Chairman, I think the best way to view the
change that this bill would effect is in these terms: Essentially the
judicial branch perceives of the expense of an interpreter as an ex-
pense of litigation, to be borne by the parties. The Criminal Justice
Act is a mechanism whereby the Government picks up that expense of
litigation for a financially needy person. Except for that mechanism,
when you are not involved with a person who is indigent in a criminal
case, the basic principle is that the party must bear the expense of the
interpreter, just as he must bear the expense of his own attorney.
This legislation would enact a congressional declaration that in
criminal cases and in civil cases initiated by the United States, the
Government would assume these expenses as an expense of mainte-
nance of the courts, as distinguished from expenses of litigation.
Mr. hILAY. So this wouldn't apply to bankruptcy at all, in our
understanding, Mr. Chairman. Nor would it apply to private civil
cases.
Mr. RITcrnE. It reaches only those civil cases in which. the United
States is plaintiff.
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, that is certainly a limited number of cases.
Mr. RITcrnE. Essentially right now on the criminal side, there are
gaps in the system for the provision of interpretive services because
we are operating on the basis that we can pay for interpreters in
criminal cases only when the defendant is provided representation
under the Criminal Justice Act. That means he must satisfy the test
that he is financially unable to obtain representation services himself.
Mr. EDWARDS. So you are going to pick up the tab for the richest?
Mr. RITcrnE. That is correct; this bill would have that effect. But I
suppose the countervailing argument is it would provide a uniform
system on the criminal side, at least, and simplify enormously the
administrative tasks we have.
Also I should point out that currently we have 12 employee inter-
preters in various district courts throughout the country, the most
recent one appointed was in the District Court for the Northe~n
Mariana Islands. I think that court also will have problems similar
to those the court in Puerto Rico encounters, because many of the
people of the islands do not speak English. They speak Chamorro and
Carolinian, and probably close to a majority of them do not speak
English.
Mr. BUTLER. Is Carolinian something like Georgian?
Mr. RITCHIE. I think it is a Malayo-Polynesian language.
PAGENO="0045"
41
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. I assume a lot of interpreters are used
along the American and Mexican border, is that correct?
Mr. 1RITCHIE. Yes; all 12 of the full-time interpreters are Spanish
interpreters.
Mr. EDWARDS. A lot of those cases are drug cases, I presume, and
criminal immigration cases?
Mr. IMLAY. Illegal entry cases. There are a great number of illegal
entry cases along the Mexican border, and virtually every one of those
requires an interpreter.
Mr. EDWARDS. Are all of you very comfortable with this bill? Do
you really think it is necessary?
Mr. IMLAY. We certainly exclude the Puerto Rican problem, `be-
cause that is going to be separately addressed. We think that this
bill, in its other aspects, would be very, very helpful when you con-
sider that 40 million Americans are involved and I again want to
emphasize the problem of those who are deaf and cannot understand
the spoken word in a courtroom.
Obviously there is no use of them even being there if they have no
way to interpret what is going on.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Butler?
Mr. BUTLER. I thank you very much. I have interrupted you a
couple of times, so I think I have covered most of my questions.
Laying aside the Puerto Rican question, if we pass this legislation,
are there going to be available enough interpreters to meet the demand
or is this legislation going to cause much of a change in the demand?
Mr. RITCHIE. The only problem I perceive we might encounter is
in the area of simultaneous interpretation. It is more difficult to
obtain simultaneous interpreters who are qualified to perform that
kind of service. I think there are probably enough within the United
States. It might necessitate moving them around to those districts
where we have a large problem of that nature.
Of course, there are substantial numbers of those types of inter-
preters up in New York City and many of them do work for the
United Nations.
Those type of interpreters we would use, by the way, on a contract
basis. We wouldn't have any of them on the payroll of the Govern-
ment.
But in other situations, to provide the standard consecutive mode
of translation, it might be more efficient overall in those districts
where we have substantial numbers of non-English-speaking persons,
to have full-time employees of the courts, who would be the official
interpreters.
In other words, we would expand on the number of 12 which we have
now.
Mr. BUTLER. What other languages will require a substantial num-
ber of interpreters other than Spanish?
Mr. RICHIE. Chinese, I think is one language that would be in-
volved. Indian dialects out in the Western districts would be required
also.
Mr. IMLAY. I think the Indian dialects are probably the most
troublesome other than the Spanish language problem.
Mr. BUTLER. That troubles me to begin with. What is the index
for need of an interpreter where people are marginally bilingual, one
of the languages being English?
PAGENO="0046"
42
Mr. RITCHIE. The only answer I can provide is that it is within the
sound discretion of the court to interview the individual, to ascertain
whether he would be able to understand the proceedings in English.
If he is able to understand English, the court would not appoint an
interpreter. If the judge determines that the individual could not
understand the proceedings in English, then, of course, the judge
would appoint an interpreter.
Mr. BUTLER. Does this legislation address itself to any details of
that process, or does it leave it to the Federal rules?
Mr. RITcHIE. I think it would be very difficult to articulate the
kind of test you would want to impose in that area.
Mr. BUTLER. No; the test is one of sound judicial discretion, I
believe.
Mr. RITCHIE. Yes.
Mr. BUTLER. My question is: What are the procedures under the
various circumstances? Is it an adversary proceeding, or how does the
judge decide this question, and what are the rights of the person
under those circumstances? Is this addressed by this bill?
Mr. IMLAY. It is by motion. The bill would provide that this will
be addressed by motion to the judge, and the judge will require any
showing that he thinks is necessary on the hearing on the motion.
Mr. RITCHIE. It is upon a motion of a party or upon motion of the
judge himself if he perceives, as the proceeding progresses, that there
is a problem.
Mr. BUTLER. That is any time during the proceeding?
Mr. RITcHIE. Yes. But I would anticipate that these problems
would be known at the beginning.
Mr. BUTLER. Yes. I do not know what would be the validity of the
determination of the judge who decided I wasn't zeroing in on this.
Mr. RITcHIE. Really that was intended to deal with a situation
where, after a proceeding has begun, and a non-English-speaking
witness is added to the witness list. At this point in time there would
be a need to bring in an interpreter simply to translate for that
witness.
Mr. BUTLER. Yes. I am thinking in terms of the litigant's rights.
What good are interpreters' services provided in the courtroom if
they are not provided during the time of preparation for trial?
Mr. IMLAY. We do provide that, Congressman Butler. Under the
Criminal Justice Act, we will give a defendant an interpreter so that
he can go around and interview witnesses, you know, either because
he doesn't speak the English language, or because the witnesses don't
speak English. We have sent public defenders to Japan, for example,
who had to go around and interview witnesses who spoke the Japanese
language. So that out-of-court-type defense service is already provided
under the Criminal Justice Act.
Mr. BUTLER. That is for indigent defendants, or is it for all?
Mr. IMLAY. Indigent defendants. The defendant who can pay for
it, who doesn't qualify under the Criminal Justice Act, has to pay
for his own interpreter.
And also I might point out under this bill if the Government pre-
sents its witnesses, the U.S. attorney furnishes the interpreter for the
Government's witness.
Mr. BUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I yield back the rest of
my time.
PAGENO="0047"
43
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Volkmer?
Mr. VOLKMER. I am sorry I wasn't here earlier, Mr. Chairman. I
was with Mr. Conyers' Subcommittee on White Collar Crime, which
is also very improtant.
As I understand it, the effective date of the legislation is October 1
of this year. Is that correct?
Mr. RITcHIE. Yes, that is correct; at the beginning of fiscal year
1979.
Mr. VOLKMER. At the present time the subcommittee is planning
to hold additional hearings in August. If we assume that the bill is
passed in September and signed by the President soon thereafter, is
the October 1 date a realistic date?
Mr. IMLAY. I think that would be realistic in some terms. It,
certainly wouldn't be realistic for the Pureto IRican court part of it
and we are not addressing that here today.
Mr. VOLKMER. How long will it take to find the interpreters needed
to meet the requirements of this bill?
Mr. RITCHIE. There certainly would not be certified interpreters
available on October 1. And under those circumstances the courts
would have to continue to use any interpreter who is available.
I would envision that it would take a substantial period of time,
from 6 months to a year, to begin the implementation of the certifica-
tion program throughout the country. However, as I said, I don't
think the lack of that certification program or the actual certification
of interpreters on October 1 would inhibit the continuation of the
judicial proceedings.
Mr. VOLKMER. All right. What is the present salary level for inter-
preters? What is their GS level?
Mr. RITCrnE. The employees in the courts are not under the general
schedule; they are covered by our judicial salary plan. Essentially,
however, the salaries are parallel and the salary range for a nonsuper-
visory interpreter in a district court is from $8,900 to $14,431.
Mr. VOLKMER. Where does that range apply?
Mr. RITCHIE. In the district courts.
Mr. VOLKMER. That is in any district court throughout the United
States?
Mr. RITCHIE. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. That is for nonsupervisory interpreters?
Mr. RITCHIE; That is correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. The maximum is $14,431?
Mr. RITCHIE. Yes.
Mr. VOLKMER. What does a court reporter get?
Mr. RITCHIE~ The salary of a court reporter is established by the
Judicial Conference of the United States. There are two steps in-
volved, depending upon the~ prior experience of the court reporter.
The salaries are $23,337 and $24,504.
Mr. IMLAY. But the court reporter-that is, the salary of the court
reporter-but I might explain that the court reporter-
Mr. VOLKMER. My next question was: What are the additional
fees the court reporter receives in transcriptions?
Mr. IMLAY. He is an entrepreneur for the sale of transcripts to
private parties. The Judicial Conference prescribes the amount he
can receive per page.
Mr. VOLKMER. What is that now per page?
PAGENO="0048"
44
Mr. RITcHIE. The rates are $1.50 per page for the original, 50 cents
for the first copy, and 25 cents for every copy thereafter, for regular
transcript.
Mr. VOLKMER. This question is an aside to the present discussion.
If the Chairman will indulge me, I would like to know if you perform
any review of the total income received by court reporters?
Mr. IMLAY. We have .a report that is sent in to us, as I understand
it, that reflects not only their salary, but their outside income and
that is so that the Judicial Conference can from time to time establish
the salary rate and also from time to time adjust the transcription
rates which it sets.
Mr. VOLKMER. Is there any plan to review the salary scale of your
nonsupervisory interpreters?
Mr. IMLAY. I would certainly hope they would review these,
especially if this bill were to pass. Obviously, there is going to have to
be a review because the simultaneous-
Mr. VOLKMER. You will establish a certification process?
Mr. IMLAY. Yes, not only for that, but the simultaneous inter-
preter, the U.N.-type of interpreter, is a highly skilled person who-
Mr. VOLKMER. You are not going to get very many of them to
work for the courts for $9,000.
Mr. RITCHIE. No. The standard rate for a simultaneous inter-
preter now approaches, if it doesn't exceed, $200 a day. And, in fact,
when you use a simultaneous interpreter for several weeks, you have
to pay him 7 days a week.
Mr. VOLKMER. Thank you.
Mr. RITcHIE. So it does become an expensive proposition. As I
said earlier, you have to weigh that against the considerable savings
in judicial resources that can be effected by the utilization of the
service.
Mr. VOLKMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman~
Mr. EDWARDS. Counsel.
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Imlay, you made
reference to the use of simultaneous interpretation, similar to that
used at the United Nations. I recall reading testimony during the
Senate hearings in 1973 and 1974 which was presented by an inter-
preter for one of the district courts. The interpreter testified that he
had had somebody develop a portable interpreter's kit for him which
cost approximately $150 and which he used for simultaneous interpre-
tation.
Is there any reason why a similar portable kit could not be used
rather than the more expensive U.N.-type of interpretation?
Mr. RIT0HIE. The equipment is not the major expense involved
in providing simultaneous translation. The major expense is the cost
of the personal services of the simultaneous interpreters.
On the side of the equipment, the equipment probably does range
from several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars in cost.
However, that is not the significant cost involved.
Mr. IMLAY. If you had a very large case, where there were quite a
few people at defense table and so forth, you would probably need
more elaborate equipment. I remember in the Axis Sally case, for
example, there was very elaborate equipment so the people in the
audience and the jurors could hear the translations from German into
English.
PAGENO="0049"
45
Mr. RITCHIE. Our experience does indicate the equipment will cost
more than the figure used in the 1973-74 hearings, primarily because
we use the standard-size courtroom, which is smaller now. Therefore,
you essentially have to provide a soundproof booth in which the
interpreter sits. He listens to the proceedings in English through
earphones, and speaks simultaneously into a microphone. His trans-
lation is transmitted electronically to the headphones of each
defendant.
It would be difficult to have him speaking in the same room without
proper acoustical preparations, such as a soundproof booth. Other-
wise listeners would hear no more than a "babble of sounds."
Ms. GONZALES. Does your office currently issue guidelines for use
by the district courts in their selection of interpreters?
Mr. RITcHIE. The Administrative Office has no authority now to
establish criteria for the qualifi6ation and certification of interpreters.
This is one area in which this bill would make a substantial step
forward.
Ms. GONZALES. So each court hires interpreters independently?
Mr. RITCHIE. That is correct.
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you. I have no further questions, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Starek?
Mr. STAREK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of ques-
tions. I am trying to understand how this bill would affect the current
practice of judicial discretion.
If this bill were enacted into law, would the request of a party to
the action, where it applies, that the Director of the Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts will make the determination as to whether
or not a special interpreter is necessary, or will this still be a matter for
judicial discretion?
Mr. RITCHIE. It is preserved to judicial discretion. When you speak
of a special interpreter, you take yourself out of the arena of the every-
day interpreter who is provided as a matter of course to a non-English-
speaking defendant or to a defendant with a hearing impairment or a
speech impairment. It was intended, however, that the Director of
the Administrative Office should have some discretion to set up
standards for the use of special interpretation services, meaning
simultaneous interpretations, because the costs far exceed those of
consecutive interpretation. We intend there be some kind of cost
analysis there to insure that it is worthwhile to provide simultaneous
interpretation.
Mr. STAREK. Currently you have 12 full-time interpreters on board.
You testified earlier that if this bill were enacted into law you would
have to increase that number. Do you have an estimate of how many
more you would hire?
Mr. RITcmE. I do not have an estimate of the number now. It
essentially involves an analysis of the costs to us in the various dis-
tricts of what we can call contract interpreters-those individuals
whose services are obtained under contract-to determine whether
it would be more economical to appoint full-time official court inter-
preters to provide the services in that court. And that is an analysis
which has to be made on a court-by-court basis.
Mr. STAREK. I see. But that has not been done yet?
Mr. RITCHIE. No, we don't have any figures on that at this time.
35-552 0 - 79 -
PAGENO="0050"
46
Mr. STAREK. One final question, if I may, Mr. Chairman. The
General Accounting Office conducted a study of this problem. While
their conclusion is somewhat hard to identify, I get the impression,
at any rate, that they thought that certainly the entire area was a
problem in State courts, but not so much in Federal courts.
I wonder if anyone on the panel could address that.
Mr. RITCrnE. The only comment I could offer is this: There is no
mechanism now to assess the accuracy of the translation provided
by court interpreters. If there be such a problem, it is a hidden prob-
lem. The only person you could go to to ascertain whether there is a
problem would be the interpreter and he is the wrong person to ask.
Mr. NEJELSKI. If I might supplement that, I am not even sure the
interpreter in some cases would know if he is doing a good job or not.
He may think he is terrific and, in fact, be below any standard we
would normally accept.
In terms of the relative use, I have had, as I mentioned, some
experience at the State level in Connecticut, and the interpreters were
in very heavy demand. I would note one added service that they
performed on a regular basis, in addition to the interpretation of
testimony, was that they would often help in the morning with crowd
control, with witnesses, and other people who didn't know where to go,
who only spoke Spanish. It was a very helpful matter, especially where
you have multiple courtrooms, where people can be sitting in the
wrong courtroom waiting for a case to be called that is down the hall,
causing many administrative problems.
Consequently, we found that the advantage of full-time interpreters
was more than just the translation in the court itself.
In the Federal system, usage would depend on the court. The
Southern District of New York and others might benefit from this
type of full-time service. There may be some districts that have low
numbers of people for whom English is not their language, and that
would not be needed.
Mr. STAREK. I understand that the certification problems cross
both State and Federal courts. What I am concerned about is the
number of parties who would require interpreters. I think if there
were any objections to this, they would be that we would create a whole
new office within the Administration Office of the U.S. Courts, em-
ploying numerous people on the Federal payroll without enough to do.
Is that a fair allegation?
Mr. IMLAY. I don't think that this is going to create any overhead
problems. We don't have one person that is assigned to just the prob-
lem of interpreters, to my knowledge, in the whole Administrative
Office.
* So that I would envision that the administrative problems could be
absorbed by the Administrative Office and through the clerk's offices
in the courts. They have a lot to do, and whih~ it doesn't get less
every year, I think that could be absorbed.
While I am on that subject, I might point out one thing. In addition
to the interpreters we have been talking about, many of the clerk's
offices already have Spanish-speaking deputy clerks, who do perform
various services for Spanish-speaking people who come to the court-
house and you can imagine, since a great number of our cases involve
illegal entry matters, the Mexican border matters, and so forth, that
PAGENO="0051"
47
it is essential that we have qualified people in the clerk's offices who
can talk to the Spanish-speaking parties and witnesses and others.
Even jurors are called and come to explain that they can't under-
stand the language, you know, something like that. I don't think that
this involves a great deal of administrative overhead.
Mr. STAREK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. I have a question about Puerto Rico, Mr. Huerta.
Would you say that generally the quality of justice in the State courts
is better than in the Federal district court because of this very strict
language requirement?
Mr. ETTJERTA. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I am just not competent
to answer that question. I have not practiced law in Puerto Rico.
Mr. Castellanos is a Puerto Rican lawyer and he can probably answer
that question.
Mr. CASTELLANOS. Mr. Chairman, would you repeat the question?
Mr. EDWARDS. Is the quality of justice in the State courts in some
respects superior then that in the Federal district court?
Mr. CASTELLANOS. Well, I would have to say that we have to
consider the Federal court as a complement. It is a court to protect
the interests of the U.S. Government and to protect the rights of
citizens of different States among other things. And I will say that as
a complementary court, it is basically equal to the ones we have in
the State courts; there are not big differences between one court and
another. Of course, in the Federal court we have trial by jury in civil
cases. And that is an advantage that we have in the Federal court
that we don't have in the State court.
I will say that justice is equal in both courts. But we need the
Federal court as a guarantee of certain rights that are only protected
in Federal courts and not in State courts.
But in my humble opinion there is no big difference in the quality
of justice.
Mr. VOLKMER. Will the chairman yield on that?
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.
Mr. V0LKMER. I can well remember back when we were working
on the judgeship bill talking about this problem, and it is my under-
standing that it was a serious problem. In my conversations, that was
the impression I got, the fact that it necessitated the use of inter-
preters many times. Is that correct?
Mr. CASTELLANOS. Yes, sir, in the Federal courts; yes.
Mr. VOLKMER. Is this just a fact that causes delays or did it in
any way impinge on justice in the Federal courts? Would you have
an opinion on that?
Mr. CASTELLANOS. Well, sir, I was an assistant U.S. attorney in
Puerto Rico and I can tell you that we can accelerate the disposition
of cases if the proceedings were allowed to be conducted in Spanish.
Of course, the continued use of interpreters causes on some occa-
Sions delays. And that is one of the reasons why we were anxious to
get the additional judgeships. As a matter of fact~, the interpreters are
needed and by reason of their continuous use delays are caused.
Mr. VOLKMER. Usually where they are mostly native-speaking mdi-
vmduals that are involved, the cases would move faster then, in your
opinion, without the use of the interpreter and the use of the Spanish
language?
PAGENO="0052"
48
Mr. CASTELLANOS. According to the information that I have, about
80 percent of the defendants are Spanish-speaking in criminal cases.
But I don't have the figures for the civil cases. But the cases would
move faster if we are allowed to use Spanish in the procedures before
the court.
Mr. VOLKMER. Presently, do all of the jurists, Federal judges,
speak Spanish?
Mr. CASTELLANOS. Yes, sir.
Mr. VOLKMER. They are all natives?
Mr. CASTELLANOS. Yes, sir. The U.S. attorney, the U.S. marshal,
and the clerk of the court.
Mr. VOLKMER. And the judges, all of them?
Mr. CASTELLANOS. Yes, sir, all of them.
Mr. VOLKMER. Thank you. The answer is obvious to me.
Mr~ EDWARDS. Mr. Drinan?
Mr. DRINAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all of
you for your helpful testimony. I am sorry I had to be away for a time.
There was a need for a quorum in Government Operations, where I
serve.
I am intensely interested in this subject, and I hope we can develop
all of the issues you raise here.
Mr. Chairman, I just have one observation at this time. It seems
to me it is quite imperative to have a hearing in San Juan. Thank you
very much.
Mr. VOLKMER. We are not going to wait until winter to have the
hearing, are we? We need to move on the bill.
Mr. EDWARDS. I believe there are no more questions. We thank the
witnesses very much for splendid testimony. We also thank Ms.
Champion who was kind enough to serve as our mterpreter.
[Thereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the hearing was concluded.]
PAGENO="0053"
COURT INTERPRETERS ACT
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1978
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m., in room
2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Don Edwards (chair-
man of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Edwards, Drinan, McClory, and Butler.
Also present: Helen Gonzales, assistant counsel; Roscoe B. Starek
III, associate counsel; Robert Chandler and Irene Sioude, interpret-
ers.
Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to order.
Today we continue our hearings regarding legislation which
would mandate interpreters in Federal criminal and civil proceed-
ings.
The testimony today will focus on the problems faced by the
hearing and speech impaired and by those individuals who speak
solely or primarily a language other than the English language.
The bills before this subcommittee are designed to insure that all
parties, defendants, and witnesses in Federal criminal and civil
proceedings are provided with a certified interpreter if their com-
munication or comprehension capabilities are inhibited because
English is not their primary language or because of a* hearing or
speech impairment.
Only by insuring that qualified interpreters are made available
in court proceedings to eliminate existing communication and com-
prehension barriers can we guarantee that equal justice for all
becomes a reality.
Before I introduce our first witnesses, I would like to note for our
subcommittee members and our witnesses that we are being assist-
ed by Robert Chandler, a certified interpreter for the deaf, who was
made available to us through the Gallaudet College for the Deaf. I
want to thank Mr. Chandler for assisting us today.
Our first witnesses will address the problems faced by the hear-
ing and speech impaired in Federal court proceedings. They are:
Mervin D. Garretson, immediate past president of the National
Association of the Deaf Sy DuBow, legal director, National Center
for Law and the Deaf, who is accompanied by Gary Hinkley; and
Carl Kirchner, immediate past president of the Registry of Inter-
preters for the Deaf.
Mr. Garretson, we are delighted to have you here. You may
proceed with your statement.
(49)
PAGENO="0054"
50
TESTIMONY OF MERVIN D. GARRETSON, IMMEDIATE PAST
PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF; SY
DuBOW, LEGAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW
AND THE DEAF, ACCOMPANIED BY GARY HINKLEY; AND
CARL J. KIRCHNER, IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, REGISTRY
OF INTERPRETERS FOR THE DEAF, INC.
[Mr. Garretson's statement was interpreted into spoken English
by Robert Chandler.]
Mr. GARRETSON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of
the U.S. Congress. Thank you for the opportunity to apppear before
you this morning. I want to point out that although I do have
usable speech, it is not clear to most people who are not knowledge-
able with deafness. Now I am using a reverse interpreter, which
means the interpreter is using my speech and changing it into
speech.
My name is Mervin D. Garretson. I am employed as a special
assistant to the president of Gallaudet College. I am the immediate
past president of the National Association of the Deaf, and today I
am testifying in behalf of the board of directors and the member-
ship of that association. We are a consumer organization-probably
the largest such for the deaf in the world-with 47 State associ-
ation affiliates and an aggregate membership of 18,000 deaf adults,
parents of deaf persons, professionals in the area of service to deaf
citizens, interpreters, educators and the like. But of course there
are 13 million who are not members.
I am testifying in support of the Bilingual, Hearing, and Speech
Impaired Court Interpreter Act, H.R 10228, which would provide
qualified interpreters in Federal court proceedings for persons
whose primary language is not English. There is another group of
deaf people that use ASL, American Sign Language, which is in
effect a foreign language. It has its own grammar and its own rules
and syntax and so forth.
Although I have with me and you have copies of the prepared
testimony which was prepared by staff people at the national
office, I would like your permission to depart from it.
Mr. EDWARDS. Without objection, the entire statement~ will be
made a part of the record and the gentleman may proceed.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Chairman and other members of the Congress, My name is Mervin D.
Garretson. I am employed as a special assistant to the president of Gallaudet
College. I am the immediate past president of the National Association of the Deaf
and today I am testifying in behalf of the Board of Directors and the membership of
that Association. We are a consumer organization-probably the largest such for
the deaf in the world-with 47 State Association affiliates and an aggregate mem-
bership of 18,000 deaf adults, parents of deaf persons, professionals in the area of
service to deaf citizens, interpreters, educators and the like.
I am testifying in support of the Bilingual, Hearing, and Speech Impaired Court
Interpreter Act, H.R. 10228, which would provide qualified interpreters in federal
court proceedings for persons whose primary language is not English.
I intend to be brief because we are aware that other supporters of this legislation
also will testify. Actually, is it not a sad commentary on the state of our rights as
citizens that these hearings are considered to be necessary? The rights of all citizens
are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. More than 200 years after
that fantastic document was composed, we are compelled to defend our rights to the
benefits it provides. To us, this is ironic and enigmatic.
Throughout the history of mankind, the deaf population has been largely over-
looked, or ignored, or patronized. Qur beautiful and graphically expressive language
PAGENO="0055"
51
of Signs has been suppressed-principally because of the inability of persons who
are not deaf to understand it, and/or to acquire fluency in its usage. Of all of the
hundreds of languages and dialects used throughout the world, Sign Language is the
only one which does not depend upon speech and hearing. In consequence, only
within the past decade have linguistic experts realized and accepted the fact that
heretofore they had erred in attempting to evaluate Sign Language by .the same
criteria used to evaluate spoken languages. There now is proof positive that Sign
Language has a grammar and syntax uniquely its own, and the principles upon
which it is based-once thOy are carefully examined and understood-conform to
the basics required of any other language. Well over 300 colleges and universities
now offer courses in Sign Language for foreign language credit, including some at
the doctoral level.
The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf was established and fostered in its
formative years largely through the encouragement and active support of the Na-
tional Association of the Deaf. As opportunities increase for deaf citizens in such
areas as education, employment, civk responsibility, social service programs and
other similar concerns, our "bread upon the waters" gesture toward the RID. is
returning to us with manifold benefits. Interpreting for deaf persons now is an
established and highly skilled profession.
A number of States have laws providing deaf persons with the services of quali-
fied interpreters in legal proceedings, both within and outside of courtrooms. We
strongly support H.R. 10228 for the benefits it would provide for deaf citizens as
well as for others who may have difficulty with the complexities of the English
Language.
In closing, I wish to emphasize the value of reverse interpreting skills. While I am
able to speak understandably in structured situations, I am using the services of a
reverse interpreter to call attention to two vital points: the first is that it is a
mistake ever to equate either speech skills or fluency in English with intelligence;
and the second is that the message I want to convey to you if of much more
importance than demonstrating that some of you probably could understand my
speech part of the time. Similarly, in court proceedings, the key to equal justice is
lucid communication-not speech; not English skills. The pending legislation would
help to ensure full and equal justice for more than 13 million Americans with
impaired hearing and some 35 million others who can communicate more readily
through an interpreter. We can think of no valid reasons why anyone should oppose
its favorable passage.
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to be heard in support of this
milestone legislation.
Mr. GARRETSON. I would like to give a brief rationale for the
need for sign language interpreters. When .a person loses his hear-
ing, communication avenues become exremely restricted. We are
left with several alternatives. One is through hearing aids, if you
have residual hearing, but many of us do not; we have no hearing
at all.
The second alternative is through lipreading, which is a highly
inexact science and very difficult for the average deaf person.
The third way would be through writing, and that is very cum-
bersome and slow.
Fourth is what we are doing now, through sign language. That
seems to be the quickest and most visible way for deaf people to
communicate with people who do not sign, by using interpreters.
Let me quickly show you some of the problems involved in lip-
reading. My wife happens to be a professor of lipreading at Gallau-
det College. Lip reading is an inaccurate definition. Really, it is a
speech reading. You do not read the lips, you read the speech. To
do this successfully, you have to be pretty skilled in two areas: One,
we call the physiological, and the other is the mental.
I would like to point out that the average person speaks 120
words a minute. Of these 120 words, 50 percent are visible. Of those
50 percent that are visible, three-fourths are very similar.
PAGENO="0056"
52
The eye can follow 13 syllables per second. But that is an opti-
mum. The average deaf person may catch eight movements.
Most speech sounds are very obscure and barely visible. Forty
percent of all speech is hidden. By that I mean sounds like "k," the
hard "g," the "t," the "n," are not shown on the lips. They are
hidden inside.
Many sounds are homophonous. They look alike-for example,
mat and bat. They look exactly the same on the lips.
We have identified seven groups of consonants which look exact-
ly the same on the lips. Then you have other problems like mus-
taches, beards, people with cigarettes, pipes, personal idiosyncra-
cies. Some people cover their mouth and scratch. You have dia-
lects, southern drawls, a Yankee drawl.
So what I am trying to show is it is very,, very complex, very
difficult to depend only on lipreading, especially in a court of law
where a man's life or legal rights may be involved.
For that reason, we support this law very strongly with a sign
language interpreter. The communication is clearer, unambiguous,
and I believe it will protect all hearing-impaired American citizens.
With that, I think I will stop. If later there are questions, I
would be happy to answer them. Please be assured that all 13
million deaf people in this country support very strongly this pro-
posed legislation.
Thank you very much.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Garretson, for your
interesting and helpful testimony. We appreciate it very much.
We will have testimony of Mr. DuBow, legal director for the
National Center for Law and the Deaf. You are welcome. Without
objection your full statement will be made a part of the record, and
you may proceed.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DuBow follows:]
STATEMENT OF Sy DuBow, LEGAL DIRECTOR,* NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND
THE DEAF, IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 10228
Mr. Chairman and members of the Judiciary Committee: my nome is Sy DuBow
and I am the Legal Director of the National Center for Law and the Deaf (NCLD).
NCLD is a program of Gallaudet College, the world's only liberal arts college for
hearing-impaired students. Our purpose is to provide legal services and representa-
tion for the 13.4 million hearing-impaired citizens of the United States.
I am testifying in support of the* Bilingual, Hearing and Speech Impaired Court
Interpreter Act, HR 10228, which would provide qualified interpreters for deaf
persons in federal court proceedings initiated by the United States Government.
I. THE NEED FOR SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS IN FEDERAL COURT PROCEEDINGS
Communication barriers imposed by hearing impairment face over 13.4 million
citizens of the United States.' Of those hearing impaired citizens, 1.7 million are
completely deaf and are therefore totally unable to hear or comp.rehend speech.'
Basic considerations of fairness, on which our system of justice is based, require that
when these citizens are brought into federal court they be provided with the
assistance needed to ensure meaningful participation in the judicial proceedings.
Federal judges are not presently required by statute to appoint, interpreters in
any situation.3 That they are reluctant to use the discretionary powers granted to
them has been documented numerous times, and is illustrated by the attached
affidavits.
* This testimony was prepared with the assistance of Elaine Gardner.
`J. Schein & M. Delk "The Deaf Population of the United States" 16 (1974) (National
Association of the Deaf).
21d
~Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 28; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 43(f).
PAGENO="0057"
53
The attached affidavit of Mr. Alfred Sonnenstrahl shows the difficulties this deaf
~ gentleman recently had in obtaining an interpreter in U.S. Tax Court for an appeal
of a tax audit. Mr. Sonnestrahl was told initially to bring his own interpreter. Mr.
Sonnenstrahl, a well-educated deaf person, told the court he would not appear until
the court appointed an interpreter and it was his perserverance through letter
writing that finally resulted in. the Court appointing an interpreter. Many less
persistent deaf people would have accepted the initial failure of the Tax Court to
provide an interpreter. HR 10228 would ensure that all deaf people in this situation
are provided a qualified interpreter from the onset of court proceedings without
necessitating their fighting for this right.
D. Gary Hinkley is another deaf man who very recently was denied an interpreter
in the U.S. District Court for Maryland. Mr. Hinkley contested a traffic ticket he
received from a federal police officer. When he arrived at the district court, the
court informed him that he must return with his own interpreter. Our office
represented him and requested by letter an interpreter which was denied. On his
court date, we made an oral motion for the appointment of a qualified interpreter.
The court denied, the motion for an interpreter stating that lipreading would be
satisfactory. The judge looked at Mr. Hinkley and spoke clearly, asking him orally if
he understood what was being said but, Mr. Hinkley did not understand what he
was saying. (The affidavit of Mr. Hinkley's attorney, Diane Shisk, is attached.) Our,
client has, like most deaf people, difficulty lipreading and he also was not able to
use his voice.
Qualified interpreters are an indispensable communication bridge between deaf
and hearing people. Other methods of communication for deaf `persons, such as
lipreading or the exchange of written notes, are inaccurate and inefficient especially
in court room situations.
Lipreading ("speechreading") is a haphazard means of communication for even
those deaf persons most proficient at this skill. forty to sixty percent of English
sounds are homophonous, that is, their formulation on, the lips is identical to that of
other sounds.~ `The ambiguity of lipreading is demonstrated by the sounds for "t,"
"d," "s," "z," and "n," which all look the same on the lips.~ Information collected
during the 1971 National Census of the Deaf Population indicated that 25.2 percent
pf deaf adults, twenty-five to sixty-four years of age considered their lipreading
ability as poor to nonexistent.6 "In fact even the best. speechreaders in a one-to-one
situation were found to understand only twenty six percent of what was said [and]
[m]any bright deaf individuals grasp less than five ~
Data on the reading comprehension of deaf students casts serious doubt on the
accuracy and efficacy of using written messages in a legal proceeding or conference
and on the hearing-impaired citizen's ability to understand legal documents.
According to the 1971 Annual Survey of Hearing-Impaired Children and Youth,
reading comprehension is their most difficult academic area, and the area most
severely affected by deafness. The typical sixteen-year old hearing-impaired student
`reads at a 3.8 grade level and the eighteen-year old student reads at a 4.2 grade
level. Standard reading tests show that by the time they leave school, deaf children
rarely exceed the fifth grade level.~ It has also been shown that deaf students have
difficulty comprehending printed questions.9
Real comprehension of written material often depends upon incidental learning
which comes about through day-to-day experiences such as conversations, radio, and
television. Since hearing-impaired citizens are disadvantaged in obtaining this inci-
dental learing, they may not fully comprehend the import of words. According to a
survey of hearing-impaired children, only twenty-five percent of the sixteen, `seven-
teen and eighteen years olds would be able to adequately understand a newspaper
and at best, only fifty percent of the nineteen-year old students would be able to. do
5O.'°
The extensive use of idioms in the English Language poses significant reading
problems for deaf people.11 As a result of their low comprehension level of idiomatic
M. Vernon & J. Mindel, "They Grow in Silence" 96 (1971) (National Association of the Deaf).
`Interview with James C. Woodward, Jr., Assistant Professor of English and Linguistics,
Linguistics Research Laboratory, Gallaudet College, Washington, D.C. (December 6, 1976).
6 M. Vernon & J. Mindel, supra, note 3, at 96.
J. Schein & M. Delk, supra, note 1, at 63.
`S. DiFrancesca, "Academic Achievement Test Results of a National Testing Program for
Hearing-Impaired Students" 39 (1971) (Office of Demographic Studies, Gallaudet College, Wash-
ington, D.C.). `
`K. Russell, S. Quigley, & D. Power, "Linguistics and Deaf Children" 202 (1976) (Alexander
Graham Bell Association for the Deaf).
lOC~jnley, "The Role of Idiomatic Expressions in the Reading of Deaf Children," 121 Am.
Annals of the Deaf 381 (1976).
11 Id., at 384.
PAGENO="0058"
54
expressions deaf persons have difficulty in understanding legal documents. For
example, the expression "under arrest" in the Miranda warnings would be puzzling
to many deaf people since "under" to them means "beneath."12
The difficulties many deaf persons have in understanding spoken and written
English therefore preclude their use of lipreading or written messages as adequate
means of communication. The most efficient and accurate method of communication
between the hearing and hearing-impaired communities is the use of qualified Sign
Language interpreters.
Most deaf and many hearing-impaired persons use Sign Language as their pri~
mary mode of communication. Sign language is an indisputedly quicker means of
transmitting ideas to and from a deaf person than is writing or lipreading. It is also
a more accurate and descriptive language for those deaf people who are not fluent
in written or spoken English.
In criminal cases involving an indigent person, court provision of interpreters has
been held required by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
See United States ex rel. Negron v. State of New York 310 F. Supp. 1304 (E.D.N.Y.
1970), affd. 434 F. 2d 386 (2d Cir. 1970). This constitutional mandate logically should
extend to provision of an interpreter upon arrest, so that the deaf person is able to
comprehend fully his Miranda rights. It should also encompass the provision of an
interpreter during all pretrial proceedings, and during all communication between
the accused and his attorney, to ensure the hearing-impaired defendant the effective
representation the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution has been held to guaran-
tee.
In addition to recognizing the constitutional necessity of an interpreter in crimi-
nal proceedings involving an indigent accused, HR 10228 wisely provides for inter-
preters for all defendants and witnesses needing such assistance, in any criminal or
civil proceeding initiated by the United States. As the Senate Report noted: "The
committee considers the role played by the interpreter to be so basic that it should
be part of the service offered to citizens as a cost of maintenance of the courts, and
not a cost of litigation." at p. 8.
The cost to the U.S. Government to provide interpreters will be minimal. The
Administrative Office of the United States Courts estimated that the initial cost of
implementing 5 819, the original Bill to provide interpreters for deaf persons in all
federal court proceedings, would be only $260,000. 13 The modifications made in S
819 when it was incorporated into 5 1315, i.e.,.limiting coverage to actions initiated
by the United States Government, lowers the cost estimate for this identical House
legislation.
II. H.R. 10228 WILL INSURE THE APPOINTMENT OF QUALIFIED INTERPRETERS IN FEDERAL
COURTS
Such federal legislation will serve as a model for enactment of state laws to
correct the frequent miscarriages of justice in state and local courts due to the use
of unqualified and biased interpreters or not appointing any interpreter at all.
In a rape case in Virginia involving a deaf female victim, a judge at the prelimi-
nary hearing appointed an interpreter who was not skilled at reading the signs of a
deaf person. When the prosecutor asked the deaf victim what happened, she made
the sign for forced intercourse. The interpreter, however, told the court that the
deaf victim said they made love. Not only are these two signs radically different, but
so are the legal implications in a rape case where force is the essential element. The
victim was also asked what she was wearing. When she signed "blouse," the inter-
preter said "short blouse," which tended to put the victim in a promiscuous light. At
the jury level, the National Center for Law and the Deaf found a qualified interpret-
er who, after a pretrial orientation, was readily able to understand the victim's
signs. 14
The National Center for Law and the Deaf has also been apprised of many other
court room situations in which interpreters censored information, had conflicts of
interest, or were basically incompetent. For example, we know of lower courts
appointing policemen who only know fingerspelling to be court interpreters. HR
10228 would go far to remedy these problems. Section 1827(b) established a duty on
the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts to prescribe and certify the
qualifications of persons who may serve as certified interpreters in the federal
courts. This Section also requires the Director to maintain a current list of such
interpreters.
12 Statement, December 1976, of Mary Z. Furey, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Office of Educa-
tional Technology, Gallaudet College, Washington, D.C.
13 The Bilingual, Hearing & Speech Impaired Court Interpreter Act, Senate Committee
Report, S. Doc.No. 95, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. 10 (1977).
14 Commonwealth v. Edmonds (Va. 1976).
PAGENO="0059"
55
According to the Senate Committee Report, for the certification of Sign Language
interpreters, the Director must consult with the National Registry of Interpreters
(RID), state chapters of the RID, the National Association of the Deaf and State
Associations of the deaf. We urge this Committee to endorse the Senate Committee
Report in this respect. The National Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) was
established in 1964 through support from the Vocational Rehabilitation Administra-
tion, Department of Health, Education and Welfare. RID has chapters in 46 states.
Among its other activities, RID promulgates standards and testing procedures for
the certification of interpreters, and administers these certification examinations.
The acquisition of an interpreter certified by RID or approved by the NAD or
State Associations of the Deaf, will help to remedy the current problems of miscon-
duct and incompetency outlined above. Moreover, this Bill requires the court to
dismiss an interpreter who is unable to communicate with the hearing-impaired
person. See Section 1827(e)(3). The Senate Committee Report on 5 1319 also recog-
nized that interpreters are protected by the attorney-client privilege and can not be
compelled to testify about communications made during the lawyer-client relation-
ship. Instances of interpreters being compelled to testify do happen. Two years ago
in Maryland, an interpreter was subpoeaned to testify before a grand jury about the
conversations between a deaf person charged with murder and his attorney with
relatives present. The interpreter refused to testify on the grounds of privilege and
faced the threat of jail. We are enclosing for the record a newspaper account of that
case. We urge this Committee to endorse the Senate Committee Report language on
this vital area of confidentiality.
It is important to note that HR 10228 can be used not only to benefit the many
hearing-impaired citizens who use Sign Language as their means of communication,
but also hearing-impaired people who do not know sign language but have been
trained in lipreading. In a court room situation, where the distance between people
can be great and there are many people talking, an oral interpreter can be an
important tool to help the lipreader. The oral interpreter repeats every word spoken
silently, so that the hearing-impaired person sitting next to him can lipread.
At present there exists no standardized means by which the court can quickly
secure a qualified, certified Sign Language interpreter for deaf litigants or wit-
nesses. Section 1827(a) authorized the Director of the Administrative Office of the
Courts to maintain a master list of court-certified interpreters, so that the interpret-
ers will be readily found and those employed will always be sufficiently skilled.
HR 10228 has the additional advantage of providing a model for states to look to
when promulgating their own court interpreter laws. Many states still have inad-
equate provisions for interpreters for hearing-impaired persons in their court rooms.
HR 10228 will provide an incentive to those states to pass comprehensive interpret-
er laws.
The Senate has already passed this identical Bill. The Justice Department has
indicated to the Judiciary Committee its support of HR 10228. We urge this Com-
mittee to pass favorably on HR 10228.
More than half century ago an appellate court of Alabama observed:
"In the absence of an interpreter it would be a physical impossibility for the
accused, a [deaf person], to know or to understand the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, and, as here, he could only stand by helplessly, take his
medicine, or whatever may be coming to him, without knowing or understanding,
and all this in the teeth of the mandatory constitutional rights which apply to an
unfortunate afflicted [deaf person], just as it does to every person accused of a
violation of the criminal law." Terry v. State, 105 So. 386 (1925).
The denial of interpreter services in our courts still exists today. This Committee
now has an opportunity to make federal courts accessable to all our citizens in
actions initiated by the United States.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Alfred Sonnenstrahl, hereby affirm and swear that the following statement is
true.
I am profoundly deaf and use Sign Language as my principle means of communi-
cation.
In 1975, the United States Internal Revenue Service audited my federal tax
return, and concluded that I owed backtaxes. I was provided no sign language
interpreter during this audit.
In 1976 and 1977, I appealed this decision to the IRS Board of Appeals and the
IRS Appellate Division. I requested, and was denied, interpreter services during
both of these appeals. The case was closed at both levels. It is my opinion that lack
PAGENO="0060"
56
of communication during these appeals, due to the absence of a sign language
interpreter, was the reason my case was closed at these levels.
In the fall of 1977, I petitioned the U.S. Tax Court in Boston, Massachusetts to
review my case. I was informed by the Tax Court that I could not move the Court
for a court-provided interpreter by any means short of making an appearance before
the Court on the date set for trial. The Court would appoint an interpreter at that
time, I was told, only if the judge felt that an interpreter was necessary.
This policy was unacceptable to me, for I did not feel that I could successfully
request the Court to provide an interpreter without the aid of an interpreter.
Therefore, I petitioned the judge through letter for a court-provided interpreter,
which I would need, I explained, for any appearance before the Court.
Eventually, I received a letter from the Court stating that a qualified interpreter
would be provided for me. My hearing before the U.S. Tax Court was held in the
spring of 1978 in St. Paul, Minnesota, where I had moved during the winter of 1977.
I was very satisfied with the qualifications of the court-provided interpreter and
with the efforts and fairness of the judge.
ALFRED SONNENSTRAHL.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of July, 1978.
JOYCE S. PECK,
Notary Public, NY.
My commission expires March 30, 1979.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Diana Gail Shisk, hereby affirm and swear that the following statement is true:
I am employed as a staff attorney at the National Center for Law and the Deaf.
On July 13, 1978, I represented Donald Hinkley in the U.S. District Court in
Hyattsville, Maryland, on case number P344157. Mr. Hinkley was charged with
speeding and wished to, put on a defense. Mr. Hinkley is deaf, and his primary
means of communication is Sign Language.
Mr. Hinkley came into our office on June 7, 1978 seeking representation. He
informed me that he had gone to the U.S. District Court alone on May 25, 1978, and
that the case had been postponed until he could come back with an interpreter. On
or about June 23, 1978, I telephoned the court and notified them that I would be
representing Mr. Hinkley and requested that a sign language interpreter be ap-
pointed for Mr. Hinkley. Myrequest was denied. On June 29, 1978 I wrote the court
and again requested the appointment of a sign language interpreter (see attached
letter). On approximately July 6, 1978, the clerk phoned and again denied my
request.
On July 13, 1978, Marc Charmatz, of the National Association of the Deaf Legal
Defense Fund, myself, the U.S. Attorney and Judge Burgess conferred in chambers
at length on the subject of his appointing a sign language interpreter. At this time I
made a formal request for a sign language interpreter and Judge Burgess denied my
motion. In open court, the Magistrate acknowledged that he had received a timely
and properly filed motion requesting that he appoint a qualified sign language
interpreter for Mr. Hinkley, and that he had denied the motion. The Magistrate
then proceeded to explain why he was denying the motion. The following is my best
recollection of the content of his statement.
He stated that he was denying the interpreter because he honestly believed that
deaf people from Gallaudet by means of lip reading are perfectly capable of func-
tioning without sign language interpreters and have overcome their own handicap
beautifully. He had asked me previously if Mr. Hinkley was a Gallaudet student
and I answered "no". He said he could not see spending money to pay for an
interpreter in a traffic case. He was willing to have an interpreter present, but he
would not appoint one. I told the Magistrate that Mr. Hinkley's primary means of
communication was in sign language; that I had tried to communicate with him
without using sign language and that I was convinced that he could not understand
what was being spoken by means of lip reading. The Magistrate acknowledged that
Marc Charmatz and I had previously spoken with him about the fact that we could
not even advise Mr. Hinidey to plead guilty to the offense because he would not be
able to understand the court's explanation of his rights and what effect a guilty plea
would have for him. He stated that he respected our desire to fully serve our client,
but that he would not appoint an interpreter.
At this point the Magistrate asked Mr. Hinkley orally if he understood what was
being said. The Magistrate looked at Mr. Hinkley and spoke clearly, but Mr.
PAGENO="0061"
57
Hinkley indicated that he could not understand what was being said. The Magis-
trate then stated that he was unwilling to proceed in writing because the process
was too lengthy, and that he would have the case reset before a federal district
court judge in Baltimore. Finally the Magistrate stated that he questioned whether
a person should be licensed to drive if he was unable to communicate without a sign
language interpreter.
DIANA GAIL SHISK.
Signed and sworn to before me this 26th day of July, 1978.
Notary Public.
My commission expires Feb. 29, 19
[From the w~hington Star, Aug. 26, 1976]
COURT STRIKES SUBPOENA OF INTERPRETER FOR DEAF
(By Mary Margaret Green Staff Writer)
In a major ruling for the deaf, an Anne Arundel Circuit Court judge has ruled
that an interpreter for the deaf cannot be ordered to disclose statements that a deaf
mute suspect made to his attorney.
Judge Matthew S. Evans yesterday quashed a subpoena ordering interpreter
Claire Gibson of Fallston to appear before a county grand jury in connection with a
murder investigation in which a deaf mute, David A. Barker, was the only suspect.
Evans also permanently enjoined the county state's attorney from subpoenaing Mrs.
Gibson
Sy Dubow, legal director of the National Center for Law and the Deaf of Gallau-
det College for the Deaf hailed the decision as a significant precedent which
"extends the privilege not only for the interpreter but also the parents and close
relatives to assist the counselor" of a deaf mute.
Much of the court debate over the subpoena centered on the fact that Barker's
mother and brother were present along with Mrs. Gibson when Barker met with
defense attorney Joseph Touhey.
Assistant State's Atty. Frank R. Weathersbee argued that their presence auto-
matically voided the confidential attorney-client relationship, but Touhey countered
that this was not so, because of the closeness of the blood relationship involved.
In his order, Evans indicated that close relatives may be included when their
presence "facilitates a fuller understanding for the counsel," according to Dubow.
State's Atty. Warren B. Duckett said yesterday that Barker's mother and brother
"told members of my staff what the deaf mute said (to Touhey) in sign language and
we had good reason to believe a statement of an inculpatory nature had been
made."
Testimony from the relatives, "who obviously did not want to inculpate" Baker,
would have been challenged as hearsay in court, Duckett said, because they only
heard Barker's comments through the interpreter.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Gibson, who risked a contempt of court citation and possible jail
sentence rather than appear before the grand jury, said yesterday that she "spent
several sleepness nights" when the issue first arose, "but the more people I talked
to the more I felt the decision would be in my favor.
"Friends and acquaintances, when they heard the way I felt, agreed with me that
I was merely the voice and the ears of the person I was interpreting for," she said,
adding that in more than 28 years of court-related interpreting, "I was never asked
to divulge information before. It just never occurred to me that anyone would think
to do it."
Dubrow added ~that the ruling "reaffirms the crucial point that an attorney
cannot provide adequate assistance without benefit of an interpreter and that any
communication between a deaf defendant and his lawyer is protected.
"I think it will encourage interpreters to stand up for their privilege" while
granting reassurance to deaf defendants.
He said that he did not know of any other interpretation case directly involving
the deaf, although there have been cases involving foreign language interpretation.
His office filed a court brief supporting Mrs. Gibson's position.
Duckett said yesterday that because of the informal statements made by Barker's
mother and brother, "we felt we had evidence" that would provi~le them with a
PAGENO="0062"
58
credible case against Barker. "This was a substantial issue and we felt we had an
obligation to raise it," he said.
"Under normal circumstances, if a case is discussed in the presence of a third
person, that would break the claim of an attorney-client relationship. We were
pleased to have the opportunity to participate in research on this rather unique
legal question."
The case against Barker, who had been charged on a police warrant, was dropped
when the confidentiality issue arose, Duckett said, "because we knew it would take
a long time to resolve."
If Mrs. Gibson's subpoena had been upheld, Duckett said, Barker could have been
recharged for the murder of a Baltimore barmaid since he had never stood trial and
therefore could not claim "double jeopardy."
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 1, 1976]
THE LAWYER-CLIENT PmvIUIGE
There should be no quarrel with the decision of Anne Arundel County Judge
Matthew S. Evans extending the lawyer-client privilege to cover an interpreter who
was needed to make possible communication between the two. Judge Evans recently
ruled in a case involving a deaf mute suspect in a murder case, whose conference
with his lawyer-was attended by his mother and brother as well as interpreter. The
judge indicated that although the presence of other people usually voids the confi-
dentiality of client-lawyer statements, this is not so when that presence makes
communication more meaningful.
We don't see how any conscientious judge could have ruled otherwise and we are
somewhat surprised that the issue even arose. The purpose of the lawyer-client
privilege in criminal cases is to permit a suspect to tell all to the person who will
advise him on what to do without fear that what he tells will be used to convict
him. Surely that privilege must extend to those other than lawyers whose services
are essential to make that consultation free and open.
There is no doubt that from time to time this privilege makes more difficult the
prosecution of some criminal cases. It apparently has in this case since State's
Attorney Warren B. Duckett seemed to regard as critical the interpreter's testimo-
ny, which he sought to compel before a grand jury. If so, that is unfortunate but it
is the direct result of decisions made in this country a long time ago to give suspects
the assistance of counsel in their defense-and not to allow government to convici
them on statements made in confidence to that counsel.
Mr. DuBow. Thank you Mr. Chairman and Mr. McClory.
My name is Sy DuBow and I am the legal director of the Nation-
al Center for Law and the Deaf (NCLD). NCLD is a program of
Gallaudet College, the world's only liberal arts college for hearing-
impaired students. Our purpose is to provide legal services and
representation for the 13.4 million hearing-impaired citizens of the
United States. -
I am testifying in support of the Bilingual, Hearing and Speech
Impaired Court Interpreter Act, H.R. 10228, which would provide
qualified interpreters for deaf persons in Federal court proceedings
initiated by the U.S. Government.
I. THE NEED FOR SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS IN FEDERAL COURT
PROCEEDINGS.
Communication barriers imposed by hearing impairment face
over 13.4 million citizens of the United States. Of those hearing-
impaired citizens, 1.7 million are completely deaf and are therefore
totally unable to hear or comprehend speech. Basic considerations
of fairness, on which our system of justice is based, require that
when these citizens are brought into Federal court they be pro-
vided the assistance needed to insure meaningful participation in
the judicial proceedings.
PAGENO="0063"
59
Federal judges are not presently required by statute to appoint
interpreters in any situation. That they are reluctant to use the
discretionary powers granted to them has been documented numer-
ous times, and is illustrated by the attached affidavits.
Today with me is a prime example, Mr. Gary Hinkley, one of our
clients who was denied interpreter services in the U.S. District
Court of Maryland.
At this time I would like to introduce Mr. Hinkley so he can
explain what happened to him.
[Mr. Hinkley's statement was interpreted into spoken English by
Ms. Sioude.]
Mr. HINKLEY. My name is Gary Hinkley. I live at 5024 Townsend
Way, Bladensburg, Md.
Going on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, the police stopped
me for speeding. I was ticketed. I did not pay the ticket and I went
to court.
I asked the clerk-I did not know what to do in court, and I
asked the clerk did they want to continue the case? The clerk
asked, me, "Did you bring an interpreter or lawyer?" I said, "I have
a letter for the judge, requesting an interpreter" but she said, "You
must bring a lawyer or an interpreter." I did not know what to do.
Then the clerk asked the police who stopped me and met me and
he read my letter. The police said, "70 miles per hour is 2 points
and $20," something like that. Then it was changed to 64 miles per
hour at one point and a $10 fine if you plead guilty.
I said, "I want to continue the case." The clerk said, "If you want
to postpone the date, you bring a lawyer or interpreter." I said,
"OK."
So I went to the National Center for Law and the Deaf and saw a
lawyer and brought two lawyers with me to court on July 25. We
talked some more. They asked me if we continued the case and I
said yes. They asked "Do you have any interpreter." I said, "No."
Then the lawyer was talking back and forth. Then the lawyer went
to see the judge to ask for an interpreter. They said, "Sorry, the
judge will not appoint an interpreter." I was stuck with it. I could
not understand what the judge was saying.
We came back and the lawyer asked if I would like to continue
the case, and I said, "Yes, if I have an interpreter." The judge
asked me a few questions and was speaking to me. I said, "I cannot
hear anything. You are talking; I cannot understand you."
The judge just looked at me and closed the case.
We went to a higher court and then I left and went home.
Mr. DuBow. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hinkley's case is not isolated,
but it clearly shows he needed the assistance of a qualified inter-
preter, and when the judge was speaking directly to him he could
not understand what the judge was asking him. The judge was
asking, "Do you understand me?"
Because of his inability to lipread he depends on a sign language
interpreter. .
We have an affidavit from a gentleman in Boston, Mr. Sonnen-
strahl. He had trouble obtaining an interpreter in U.S. Tax Court.
He was told by the court to bring his own interpreter. The deaf
person, Mr. Sonnenstrahl, a well-educated deaf person, told the
court he would not appear until the court appointed an interpreter,
PAGENO="0064"
60
and it was his perseverance through letter-writing that finally
resulted in the court appointing an interpreter. Many less persis-
tent deaf people would have accepted the initial failure of the Tax
Court to provide an interpreter. H.R.~ 10228 would insure that all
deaf people in this situation are provided a qualified interpreter
from the onset of court proceedings without necessitating their
fighting for this right.
Qualified interpreters are an indispensable communication
bridge between deaf and hearing people. Other methods of commu-
nication for deaf persons, such as lipreading or the exchange of
written notes, are inaccurate and inefficient, especially in court-
room situations.
Lipreading (speechreading) is a haphazard means of communica-
tion for even those deaf persons most proficient at this skill. Forty
to sixty percent of English sounds are homophonous, that is, their
formulation on the lips is identical to that of other sounds. The
ambiguity of lipreading is demonstrated by the sounds for "t," "d,"
"s," "the ," and "n," which all look the same on the lips. Informa-.
tion collected during the 1971 National Census of the Deaf Popula-
tion indicated that 25.2 percent of deaf adults 25 to 64 years of age
considered their lipreading ability as poor to nonexistent.
In fact even the best speechreaders in a 1-to-i situation were found to understand
only 26 percent of what was said [and] [m]any bright deaf individuals grasp less
than 5 percent.
Data on the reading comprehension of deaf students casts serious
doubt on the acccuracy and efficacy of using written messages in a
legal proceeding or conference and on the hearing-impaired citi-
zen's ability to understand legal documents.
According to the 1971 Annual Survey of Hearing-Impaired Chil-
dren and Youth, reading comprehension is their most difficult
academic area, and the area most severely affected by deafness.
The typical 16-year~old hearing impaired student reads at a 3.8
grade level and the 18-year-old student reads at a 4.2 grade level.
Standard reading tests show that by the time they leave school,
deaf children rarely exceed the fifth-grade reading level. It has also
been shown that deaf students have difficulty comprehending
printed questions.
Real comprehension of written material often depends upon inci-
dental learning which comes about through day-to-day experiences
such as conversations, radio, and television. Since hearing-impaired
citizens are disadvantaged in obtaining this incidental learning,
they may not fully comprehend the import of words. According to a
survey of hearing-impaired children, only 25 percent of the 16-, 17-
and 18-year-olds would be able to adequately understand a newspa-
per and at best, only 50 percent of the 19-year-old students would
be able to do so.
The extensive use of idioms in the English language poses signifi-
cant reading problems for deaf people. As a result of their low
comprehension level of idiomatic expressions deaf persons have
difficulty in understanding legal documents. For example, the ex-
pression, "under arrest" in the Miranda warnings would be puz-
zling to many deaf people since under to them means beneath.
The difficulties many deaf persons have in understanding spoken
and written English therefore preclude their use of lipreading or
PAGENO="0065"
61
written messages as adequate means of communication. The most
efficient and accurate method of communication between the hear-
ing and hearing-impaired communities is the use of qualified sign
language interpreters.
Most deaf and many hearing-impaired persons use sign language
as their primary mode of communication. Sign language is an
indisputedly quicker means of transmitting ideas to and from a
deaf person than is writing or lipreading. It is also a more accurate
and descriptive language for those deaf people who are not fluent
in written or spoken English.
In criminal cases involving an indigent person, court provision of
interpreters has been held required by the fifth and sixth amend-
ments to the U.S. Constitution. (See United States ex rel. Negron v.
State of New York 310 F. Supp. 1304 (E.D.N.Y. 1970), aff'd. 434 F.
2d 386 (2d Cir. 1970).) This constitutional mandate logically should
extend to provision of an interpreter upon arrest, so that the deaf
person is able to comprehend fully his Miranda rights. It should
also encompass the provision of an interpreter during all pretrial
proceedings, and during all communication between the accused.
and his attorney, to insure the hearing-impaired defendant the
effective representation the sixth amendment to the Constitution
has been held to guarantee.
In addition to recognizing the constitutional necessity of an inter-
preter in criminal proceedings involving an indigent accused, H.R.
10228 wisely provides for interpreters for all defendants and wit-
nesses needing such assistance, in any criminal or civil proceeding
initiated by the United States. As the Senate report noted:
The committee considers the role played by the interpreter to be so basic that it
should be part of the service offered to citizens as a cost of maintenance of the
courts and not as a cost of litigation
The cost to the U.S. Government to provide interpreters will be
minimal. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts estimated
that the initial cost of implementing 5. 819, the original bill to
provide interpreters for deaf persons in all Federal court proceed-
ings, would be only $260,000 The modifications made in 5 819
when it was incorporated into 5. 1315, that is, limiting coverage to
actions initiated by the U.S. Government, lowers the cost estimate
for this identical House legislation.
Such Federal legislation will serve as a model for enactment of
State laws to correct the frequent miscarriages of justice in State
and local courts due to the use of unqualified and biased interpret-
ers or not appointing any interpreter at all.
In a rape case in Virginia involving a deaf female victim, a judge
at the preliminary hearing appointed an interpreter who was not
skilled at reading the signs of a deaf person. When the prosecutor
asked the deaf victim what happened, she made the sign for forced
intercourse. The interpreter, however, told the court that the deaf
victim said they made love. Not only are these two signs radically
different, but so are the legal implications in a rape case where
force is the essential element. The victim was also asked what she
was wearing When she signed "blouse," the interpreter said "short
blouse," whiëh tended to put the victim in a promiscuous light. At
the jury level, the National Center for Law and the Deaf found a
35-552 0 - 79 - 5
PAGENO="0066"
62
qualified interpreter who, after a pretrial orientation with the deaf
person, was readily able to understand the victim's signs.
The National Center for Law and the Deaf has also been ap-
prised of many other courtroom situations in which interpreters
censored information, had conflicts of interest, or were basically
incompetent. For example, we know of lower courts appointing
policemen who only know fingerspelling to be court interpreters.
H.R. 10228 would go far to remedy many of these problems. For
example, section 1827(b) established a duty on the Director of the
Administrative Office of the Courts to prescribe and certify the
qualifications of persons who may serve as certified interpreters in
the Federal courts. This section also requires the director to main-
tain a current list of such interpreters.
According to the Senate committee report, for the certification of
sign language interpreters, the director must consult with the Na-
tional Registry of Interpreters (RID), State chapters of the RID, the
National Association of the Deaf and State associations of the deaf.
We urge this committee to endorse the Senate committee report in
this respect. Dr. Kirchner will describe for you the National Regis-
try for the Deaf and how they certify interpreters.
The acquisition of an interpreter certified by RID or approved by
the NAD or State associations of the deaf will help tO remedy the
current problems of misconduct and incompetency outlined above.
Moreover, this bill requires the court to dismiss an interpreter who
is unable to communicate with the hearing-impaired person. See
section 1827(e)(3). The Senate committee report on 5. 1319 also
recognized that interpreters are protected by the attorney-client
privilege and cannot be compelled to testify about communications
made during the lawyer-client relationship. Instances of interpret-
ers being compelled to testify do happen. Two years ago in Mary-
land, an interpreter was subpenaed to testify before a grand jury
about the conversations between a deaf person charged with
murder and his attorney with relatives present. The interpreter
refused to testify on the grounds of privilege and faced the threat
of jail. We are enclosing for the record a newspaper account of that
case. We urge this committee to endorse the Senate committee
report language on this vital area of confidentiality.
It is also important to note that H.R. 10228 can be used not only
to benefit the many hearing-impaired citizens who use sign lan-
guage as their means of communication, but also hearing-impaired
people who do not know sign language but have been trained in
lipreading/speechreading. In a courtroom situation, where the dis-
tance between people can be great and there are many people
talking, an oral interpreter can be an important tool to help the
lipreader. The oral interpreter repeats every word spoken silently,
so that the hearing-impaired person sitting next to him can lip-
read.
At present there exists no standardized means by which the
court can quickly secure a qualified, certified sign language inter-
preter for deaf litigants or witnesses. Section 1827( ) of this bill
authorized the director of the Administrative Office of the Courts
to maintain a master list of court-certified interpreters, so that the
interpreters will be readily found and those employed will always
be sufficiently skilled.
PAGENO="0067"
63
As we said earlier, H.R. 10228 has the additional advantage of
providing a model for States to look to when promulgating their
own court interpreter laws. Many States still have inadequate
provisions for interpreters for hearing-impaired persons in their
courtrooms. H.R. 10228 will provide an incentive to those States to
pass comprehensive interpreter laws.
The Senate has already passed this identical bill in November.
The Justice Department has indicated to the Judiciary Committee
its support of H.R. 10228. We urge this subcommittee to pass
favorably on HR. 10228.
More than a half century ago an appellate court of Alabama
observed:
In the absence of an interpreter it would be a physical impossibility for the
accused, a [deaf person], to know or to understand the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, and, as here, he could only stand by helplessly, take his
medicine, or whatever may be coming to him, without knowing or understanding,
and all this in the teeth of the mandatory constitutional rights which apply to an
unfortunate afflicted [deaf person], just as it does to every person accused of a
violation of the criminal law." Terry v. State, 105 So. 386 (1925).
The denial of interpreter services in our courts still exists today.
This committee now has an opportunity to make Federal courts
accessible to all our citizens in actions initiated by the United
States.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. You have a very sympathetic group of
people in this committee who are anxious to move the legislation.
We welcome Ms. Irene Sioude, who is also a certified interpreter
for the deaf, for coming today and being of such great help to us.
Since a vote on the floor of the House is taking place now, we
will recess for 10 minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to order. We will now
hear from Dr. Carl Kirchner, immediate past president, Registry of
Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc.
Without objection, Dr. Kirchner's statement will be made a part
of the record. We welcome you and you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF DR. KIRCHNER
Dr. KIRCHNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to extend my sincerest
thanks to you and the members of the subcommittee for the oppor-
tunity to address an issue that needs the attention and action of
our legislators-qualified interpreters in the Federal courts, in
order to guarantee "liberty and justice" to the bilingual and hear-
ing- and speech-impaired citizens of our Nation.
[The information follows:]
STATEMENT BY CARL J. KIRCHNER, IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, REGISTRY OF
INTERPRETERS FOR THE DEAF, INC.
Mr. Chairman, I want to extend my sincerest thanks to you and the members of
the Subcommittee for the opportunity to address an issue that needs the attention
and action of our legislators-qualified interpreters in the federal courts in order to
guarantee "liberty and justice" to the bilingual and hearing and speech impaired
citizens of our nation.
I am Carl Kirchner, the immediate past president of the Registry of Interpreters
for the Deaf, Inc. and a son of deaf parents. Since I was seven months of age I have
had to handle a bilingual communicate mode, Sign Language and English, in order
to effectively communicate information between my parents and me, my parents
PAGENO="0068"
64
and relatives, my parents and friends, my parents and service agencies, and my
parents and John Q. Public. I found myself, as all interpreters do, bridging a
communication gap. Bridging this communication gap does not imply, that the
hearing impaired are intellectually inferior' but does point out that English Syntax
and structure for a person who has a hearing impairment can be difficult to manage
in the spoken, read, lipread and auditory modalities since the aquisition and expres-
sion of English is based on auditory impression. Thus the critical need for a certified
manual interpreter who can function proficiently in manual interpreting either into
or from the language of signs or an oral interpreter who can accurately choose
English words with high visibility in order to transmit the message to the hearing
impaired individual. In addition, the manual or oral interpreter must understand
the speech production of the hearing impaired individual so that anyone unfamiliar
with speech of the hearing impaired would be given the precise message. Thus the
need for the existence of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf and the services
provided.
THE REGISTRY OF INTERPRETERS FOR THE DEAF
The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. was established in 1964 in order to
serve as a vehicle not only to bring together and identify interpreters for the
hearing impaired but also provide a means for beginning a process of upgrading the
skills of the interpreters so that the hearing imparied of our nation would be
guaranteed precision in the transmission of information. Currently, the Registry of
Interpreters for the Deaf membership stands at 3,847, of this number 2,025 hold
some type of certification within the Registry. There are 60 chapters in 46 states
and the District of Columbia. The organization has quintupled its membership since
1972 and tripled the number of chapters sihce that time. The organization has a
Code of Ethics that the members adhere to and enforce. I am quoting five sections of
the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf Code of Ethics which helps put into
perspective the role of the interpreter. These sections are-
Shall keep all interpreted and assignment-related information strictly confi-
dential.
Shall render a faithful interpretation, always conveying the content and
spirit of the speaker, using a communication mode most readily understood by
the persons for whom they are interpreting.
Shall not counsel, advise, or interject personal opinions.
Shall use discretion in accepting assignments with regard to skills, setting,
and the persons requesting the service.
Shall continue to develop his interpreting skills and keep abreast of develop-
ments in the field.
In order to truly serve hearing impaired individuals and service agencies, the
Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf had to establish and evaluation procedure
which would assess the skills of the interpreter in expressive and receptive commu-
nication modes. The evaluation establishes minimum standards of performance for
Certifications awarded but does not qualify the interpreter beyond the minimum
standard, e.g. good, better, best. The evaluation procedure is vital since using sign
language as a conversation mode is very different from using it in an interpreting
mode. Many people who have taken a sign language class or classes often pass
themselves off as interpreters which leave the hearing impaired individual with an
"interpreter" high in humanitarian consciousness but low in the skills needed to
perform the service at a skilled level acceptable to the hearing and hearing im-
paired consumers. Thus the emergence of the professional interpreter whose skills
are validated through objective evaluations.
THE REGISTRY OF INTERPRETERS FOR THE DEAF CERTIFICATION PROGRAM
The National Certification Program was established to identify highly qualified
interpreters so that hearing and hearing impaired individuals and agencies can be
assured of the best interpreting services possible.
The RID awards one or more of five certificates to interpreters who attain passing
scores on each section of the certification examination. Thus, the certification indi-
cates that a person has met minimal standards in interpreting skills and does not
attempt to qualify the skills beyond the minimal competency level. (See Appendix
A.)
`Mindel, Eugene D. and McCay, Vernon, "They Grown in Silence," Silver Spring, National
Association of the Deaf, 1971.
PAGENO="0069"
65
CERTIFICATION EXAMINATION-GENERAL
Expressive Reverse
Certification
awarded Interview Interpreting Translating Interpreting Translating
Overall
performance
ETC X X X
EIC X X X
CSC X X X X X
RSC X X X
X
X
X
X
Note-Evaluation is given in the skill areas identified by an X.
CERTIFICATION EXAMINATION-SPECIALIST
Interpreting and translating
Certification Legal Signed Overall
Award Interview terms vocabulary Expressive Reverse performance
LSC X ~X X X X
X
Note-Evaluation is given in the skill areas identified by an X.
Certifications issued
ETC.-Expressive Translating Certification: Ability of the interpreter to simulta-
neously translate from spoken to manual English (verbatim). The interpreter pos-
sesses very basic reverse translating competencies.
EIC.-Expressive Interpreting Certification: Ability of the interpreter to use Sign
Language. with hearing-impaired persons who possess various levels of language
competencies. The interpreter also has basic reverse interpreting competencies.
CSC.-Comprehensive Skills Certification: Includes proficiency in:
Expressive translating-(ability to simultaneously translate from spoken to
manual English-verbatim.)
Expressive interpreting-(ability to use sign language with hearing-impaired per-
sons who possess various levels of language competence.)
Reverse skills-(ability to render-manually, orally, or written-a hearing-im-
paired person's message.)
RSC.-Reverse Skills Certification: Ability to render (manually, orally, or written)
a hearing-impaired person's message.
LSC.-Legal Specialist Certification: Includes Comprehensive Skills plus special-
ized evaluation to qualify for interpreting in a variety of legal settings. This legal
certification is based on the premise that Comprehensive Skills Certification has
been awarded and that the interpreting skills competencies are maintained.
Evaluations for certification are held at the local level by an authorized Evalua-
tion Team which represents the National Certification Board. Most RID Chapters
have an Evaluation Team and schedule evaluations from time to time throughtout
the year. The Evaluation Team does not score or certify but provides the National
Certification Board with the necessary information upon which to issue a certificate.
The certification is good for 5 years as long as the interpreter keeps his/her
membership current or pays an annual certification revalidation fee.
Provisional permits issued
In order to meet the demand for certified interpreters, the RID, Inc. issues
Provisional Permits to interpreters who have a knowledge of sign language and
beginning interpreting skills. The holder of the permit serves an apprenticeship (one
year or less) prior to applying for certification. The skill competencies of an individ-
ual applying for the Provisional Permit are verified either by two certified inter-
preters or by the Director/Instructor of an established interpreter training program.
Provisional Permit-(Experience in General Interpreting).
Legal Provisional Permit-(Experience in Legal Interpreting).
In addition to the Certifications currently issued, the Oral and Educational Spe-
cialist Certification program will be developed this fall and certification implement-
ed early in 1979. The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf projects five additional
specialist certifications to be developed and implemented within the next two years
PAGENO="0070"
66
INTERPRETING IN FEDERAL COURTS
Hearing impaired individuals are no different from hearing individuals and so
find themselves in need of services and their human rights protected as well as
having the rights of others protected. However, because of the communication
handicap, the hearing impaired individual finds it extremely difficult at times to
secure needed services. It is noted by interpreters the lack of understanding by the
legal profession about deafness which often results in:
Lawyer/client interaction bog down resulting in no services to the hearing
impaired client.
Judicial proceedings at the local and state level which may get shortcircuited,
bogged down or dismissed because of the communication problems and lack of
deaf awareness.
Litigation which may never reach the federal level because of lack of under-
standing of deafness and use of interpreting services. In a sampling of 25
certified interpreters from various parts of the nation, they functioned in feder-
al court 96 times in the last 5 years in a variety of cases.
The professional interpreter
Over the years the interpreting responsibilities which were once assumed by
religious workers, educators of the hearing impaired and children of hearing im-
paired parents has now been shifted. This shift occurred due to the hearing im-
paired individuals demanding equal services and their rights as citizens when
needed and not at the convenience of the interpreter whose primary job was other
than interpreting. As interpreters became more and more in demand, an ~assessment
had to be made as to whether interpreters for the hearing impaired were amateurs
or professionals. (See Appendix B.) Appendix B was a speech delivered in 1969 for
an interpreter workshop and subsequently published in a proceedings.2 All the
strategies and recommendations for professionalism have been implemented by the
Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc.
The professional certified interpreter-
Understands what the communication barrier creates for the hearing and
hearing impaired consumer and is able to assist in tearing down the barrier.
Knows the limitations of lipreading and English Grammar.
Knows how to deal accurately with the expressive and receptive communica-
tion modes of the hearing impaired individual.
Maintains confidentiality
Provides a service to the hearing and hearing impaired consumers.
The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. is a service organization as well as
a profession requiring specialized knowledge and skill which is gained through long
intensive preparation. It requires a knowledge of the underlying history, rationale
and principles as well as the application of the skills. We are working constantly to
keep standards high and to educate the members of the profession to maintain their
knowledge and skill. As evidence of the continual effort to maintain professionalism
we therefore attach as Appendix C to this testimony, a copy of the Registry of
Interpreters for the Deaf regional directory of certified members in your area.
Based on the need to provide equality of services to the hearing impaired people,
we urge you to take affirmative action on HR 10228.
2}(jrchner, Carl J., editor, "Professional or Amateur," Los Angeles, Southern Registry of
Interpreters for the Deaf, 1969.
PAGENO="0071"
LTJ
z
SCHEMATIC OF RID, INC. EVALUATION PROCESS
* NIT LE\/TIUNTION E-$500
* STECLISTE~NI.uATIONL~~_$25oo
* CENT ICETIONNENEWEL. O-$2500
* RE-ELNLUATIQN E-$I~OO
PAGENO="0072"
68
APPENDIX B
AMATEUR OR PROFESSIONAL, W. LLOYD JOHNS, PH. D., ASSISTANT TO THE DEAN,
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, SAN FERNANDO VALLEY STATE COLLEGE
Amateur or Professional. Before this decade, we would probably not have had the
opportunity to meet in such a workshop, and seriously consider whether interpret-
ing for deaf persons could be recognized as a professional specialty. Or if we had
such a meeting, not many people would have taken us seriously.
Historically, training for interpreters was virtually nonexistent. But then, the
need for professionally trained interpreters was much more limited than today. A
new day has dawned for deaf persons, and there is increasing need for professional
interpreters.
The two categories presented in the title of this presentation offer enough facets
for differentiation on a general plane to occupy our interest and energy for more
than the time afforded. And that, even before we consider how the role of the
interpreter is to be evaluated.
TERMS DEFINED
Webster defines an "amateur" as (1) a person who does something for the pleas-
ure of it rather than for money; thus non-professional, and (2) a person who does
something more or less unskillfully.
The possible confusion becomes immediately evident. A person might be highly
skilled and effective in a given act, but identify himself as an amateur because he
does not charge for his service. The user of the service interprets the "amateur"
designation to mean "more or less unskillful," and a misunderstanding of the
quality of the service rendered is a possibility.
If a fee is introduced into this situation, does the consumer now raise his respect
of the quality of the performer? Is there truth to the cliche, "People only appreciate
what they pay for"? So what does "amateur" really mean?
"Professional", according to Webster denotes (1) a person belonging to one of the
professions, or (2) a person who makes some activity not usually followed for gain
(such as a sport) the source of his livelihood. And it should be added that a
"profession", according to Webster, is a vocation or occupation requiring advanced
training in some liberal art of science, and usually involving mental rather than
manual work, as teaching, engineering, writing, medicine, law, theology, etc.
More confusion! If a person makes his livelihood in some activity other than
accepted, or normally recognized professions, such as golf or "rock and roll music",
he might be identified as a professional according to the definition. Does this insure
a skillful performance? If not, then what is the meaning of the cliche, "He played it
like a pro!"?
Or even if the performer is a member of an accepted profession, is there assur-
ance of a "skillful performance"? So what does "professional" really mean?
From the discussion thus far, it appears that the designation "amateur" or
"professional" may have some obscure relation to skill, but according to definition is
more directly related to the livelihood of the performer, rather than his skill. The
implications of skill are more by connotation than by definition.
PROFESSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Those persons who are members of professional groups, and indeed, those who
rely upon the judgements of professional persons need some assurance that an act is
being performed skillfully. Obviously, a designation, or label does not offer much
assurance.
However, some degree of assurance and acceptance is generated if the performer
is a member of a group which meets characteristics traditionally accepted as profes-
sional requirements. Such requirements include: a specific scientific body of knowl-
edge; several years of rigorous training, usually involving some form of field experi-
ence; an attitude or value system directed toward upgrading mankind; and a strict
license and certification system for practicing members, including a system of
screening and eliminating those deemed unfit for service.
Though such professional characteristics of a group do not insure a "skillful
performance" on the part of every individual, there is much less risk involved to the
consumer when service is rendered by persons who are bona fide members of a
professional group. And this is true whether the act is performed by a neuro-
surgeon, a corporation lawyer, a college professor, or an educational interpreter for
the deaf.
PAGENO="0073"
69
What meaning does the discussion so far have for you, as an interpreter for deaf
persons? I believe there are, several areas of concern worthy of identification here,
and possible future action on your part
AREAS OF CONCERN FOR INTERPRETERS
It seems logical at this point to examine the characteristics of the Interpreters
Organization in light of some traditionally accepted criteria of professional organiza-
tions.
Scientific body of knowledge-The limited view of the layman often leads to a
classification much too narrow in concept to allow recognition of a scientific body of
knowledge for interpreters. This is evident in situations where the term "transla-
tor" is used, when in fact a much more sophisticated level of interpretation is
desired and needed.
In my opinion, it is the aspect of differentiation between translation and interpre-
tation that provides the basis for considering interpreting for deaf persons to be
considered a professional endeavor. Interpreting involves not only the understand-
ing of various levels of literacy among deaf persons and adjusting the communica-
tion style accordingly, but also the technical aspects of communication per se.
There is ample evidence to support interpreting as a combination of science, with
its unique and complex body of knowledge, and an art, with the non-recurring,
environment controlled performance aspects. The serious study of both the practical
application and conceptual elements of interpreting for deaf persons could easily
become one's life work..
Preparation and training.-It appears that the majority of interpreters are either
the children of deaf parents, or come from the ranks of social agencies such as
schools or churches. Although both sources can provide interpreters with excellent
motivation for service, and practical skill, there is usually minimum attention to
,the theoretical foundation needed for professional personnel.
I believe interpreters should organize classes and in-service sessions to provide for
a sound theoretical base to complement the practical skill already present in many
candidates serving in various volunteer roles. There are trends toward some college
programs leading to professional degrees, and this could be encouraged. Workshops
and conferences for interpreters will assist in this upgrading.
Humanitarian role.-One requisite for professional status in many organizations
is the desire of the individual to assist his client, regardless of race, color, creed, or
ability to pay. Although most people readiy agree that such a humanitarian attitude
is a vital characteristic for an interpreter, the issue, is more complex than is~
immediately evident.
Oftentimes, this human aspect overrides technical ability, and the interpreter
"with a big heart and limited skill" does more harm than good for his deaf friends.
Since much of the interpreters service is donated, the deaf client seldom complains,
even though the performance is minimal. How can we measure the dis-service done
to a deaf person in a job interview-doctor's office-lawyer's office-or classroom
because of a good-hearted, poorly skilled interpreter?
We should not overlook the human, or inter-personal side of the relationship
between the interpreter and deaf clients, but we must be careful to measure this
characteristic in its proper perspective.
Certification.-One characteristic of most recognized professions' is the ability to
recruit, screen, prepare, classify, promote, and exclude its own members.
The work of interpreters, and their conditions of employment need to be clarified,
locally and nationally, before much headway can be gained in this area, but the
needs here are all related.
How can you recruit a `person in, or screen him out until you describe what is
expected of him, and tell him what he can expect from you? And after he is selected
how can you suggest his preparation, classify his specialities, and promote him in
the profession unless you use detailed and published critieria? And in' the event, he
doesn't perform in an acceptable manner, how can he be excluded so he does not do
a dis service to his clients?
A certificate or license to practice, indicating areas of special training, should `be a
part of the certification process. This certificate should be based on training and
demonstrated skill. Local and national organizations should conduct campaigns to
enlist the cooperation of agencies hiring interpreters to hire only certificated inter-
preters.
There is ample opportunity for the non-certificated, volunteer interpreter to assist
in non-critical settings, but there should be some safeguard in the' system to insure
certificated interpreters paid a professional salary in critical or sensitive settings
PAGENO="0074"
70
Here, in my opinion, is the logical application of "amateur" and "professional" in
relation to the interpreter.
The "amateur interpreter" is a ready and willing student. He volunteers his
service. He is generally involved in the area of deafness, and derives considerable
personal pleasure and increased understanding from his activities. He enjoys being
with skilled interpreters and deaf people, and renders a valuable service to both
groups.
The "professional interpreter" has served his practical internship, either growing
up in a family where interpreting for a deaf person is a way-of-life, or experienced
intensive formal training in church or school. To that background he has added a
scientific base of communication theory and orientation to the causes and resultant
implications of deafness. He may command a professional salary for his services,
whether part-time or full-time. He is expected to become involved in professional
pursuits, donating time and energy to the development of the field of interpreting as
a profession.
STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Although I have identified some areas of concern, in a rather general way, let me
indicate some specific recommendations for your discussion and reaction:
1. There should be local, state, and national organizations, with clearly delineated
functions at each level. A generous dues system, based on potential income from
interpreting, should provide funds for professional advancement and dissemination
of pertinent information.
2. The Code of Ethics should be well publicized and enforced.
3. There should be a nationally recognized, state administered certification
system.
4. Areas of specialty should be identified, such as legal, medical, religious, and
educational. Directories should indicate special areas, and be made available to
agencies hiring interpreters.
5. The professional organization should provide for the rights and dignity of
interpreters.
6. A model or suggested training program should be developed and disseminated
on a national basis.
7. Since professional organizations are concerned with conditions of work, there
should be some provision for negotiating contracts, or major areas of concern, such
as: Obligations of interpreters, clients, agency personnel, etc.; duration of agree-
ment; salary, expenses, and allowances; substitutes; special or unique duties; wel-
fare, safety, and protection; grievances and discharge.
8. There should be provision for in-service seminars from the organization, and
participation in in-service seminars by interpreters to keep abreast of current
trends.
9. Continuous and active liaison should be maintained with organizations serving
deaf persons.
10. Interpreters should become actively involved in upgrading and controlling
their professional organization for its ultimate service to deaf persons.
SUMMARY
If we use the term "professional interpreter" to suggest that a person performs
interpretive services for part of their livelihood, we are accurate according to
definition. But if we use the term to identify a group of skilled persons, schooled in
theory, trained in practice, and respected as a humanitarian, then the professional
design leading to their development must be delineated and enforced.
There are several criteria which traditionally a group of persons is expected to
meet before they can be recognized as professionals. These criteria include working
in an area of scientific knowledge; careful and rigorous training; a humanitarian
function toward mankind; and a certification system controlled by the members.
Although meeting these criteria as a group does not insure the skillful performance
of each individual, there is considerable less risk involved when using the services of
a person selected, prepared, and certificated by a professional organization.
Interpreters should, in my opinion, develop a plan of implementation at the local,
state, and national levels (1) to study the recognized characteristics of respected
professions, (2) to determine the areas of difference between their respective prac-
tices and the recognized characteristics of professions, and (3) in priority fashion
move toward accomplishing the changes necessary to meet professional qualifica-
tions.
This task is complex and will require a great expenditure of personal effort on the
part of many interpreters, but you will be no further along tomorrow if you don't
PAGENO="0075"
71
commit yourself to action today. The deaf members of our communities are depend-
ing on you, so "play it like a pro!"
Thank you.
REFERENCES
Websters New World Dictionary, World Publishing Company: Cleveland and New
York, 1957.
Lieberman, Myron, The Future of Public Education, The University of Chicago
Press: Chicago, Illinois, 1960.
Smith, Jess M. (Editor) Workshop on Interpreting for the Deaf, Ball State Teach-
ers College: Muncie, Indiana, 1964.
Dr. KIRCHNER. I would like to highlight five areas of importance:
First of all, the language of signs, as Dr. Garretson has stated, is
a language unto itself. It has its own linguistic structure, word
syntax, and it provides comprehension-or it provides communica-
tion facility for the hearing-impaired person.
It is not English. It is a conceptual language and it takes people
who understand it to interpret and translate it.
Mr. EDWARDS. May I interrupt you? I wonder if for the benefit of
the subcommittee the interpreter could show us a few words in
sign language? It seems to me that no matter how fast you speak,
the expert interpreters are able to communicate simultaneously in
sign language. I am very impressed by their skill.
Dr. KIRCHNER. For example, when we use in American sign
language, "I will go to the store," it would be interpreted in this
way, quoting "store"-that is the sign for "store" and the sign for
"go." A person understands immediately conceptually "I will go to
the store," so this is a syntactical language in itself.
The interpreter, however, is not signing in American sign lan-
guage right now. He is signing it in pidgin English in order to relay
to the hearing-impaired members in the audience my words. So he
is translating everything I say using a sign for every word, in
essence, so that the English I am using is also English to the
audience.
Mr. EDWARDS. What is the symbol for "English"?
[Indicated.]
Dr. KIRCHNER. Dr. Garretson asked me to explain the education-
al level for the people here is rather high. This also has to be taken
into consideration in any type of interpretive position. You have
hearing-impaired people with a variety of levels of education, Eng-
lish syntax, grammar and reading skills.
The thing most important in this type concept is the fact because
a deaf person has a communication gap, it does not necessarily
imply there is an intellectual gap or intellectual inferiority. Many
people think because I do not use English I am mentally retarded
or I am intellectually deficient. This is not necessarily so. What we
are trying to point out with the use of certified interpreters is that
the deaf person has cognitive abilities and it is just a matter of
understanding the language which is used and expressing it prop-
erly in any kind of situation.
So the language of the hearing-impaired person is a key factor. It
is a key factor in understanding what the person is saying and
transmitting.
The second area I would like to highlight is that the environ-
ment plays an important part in any kind of a situation. Without
PAGENO="0076"
72
the proper lighting, without the proper distance or room arrange-
ment deaf people oftentimes find themselves at a disadvantage.
1 think of a courtroom situation where the deaf person may be
on a witness stand; the judge is speaking behind him and may miss
the conversation unless an interpreter is here. It would be difficult
for you to see what I am saying because of the distance if I could
not speak.
If the lighting is bad you get a glare in the eye and you miss
conversation because you are concentrating on squinting to see
what is going on.
In a courtroom certified interpreters are important because they
understand these problems~ and they can provide the hearing-im-
paired person with all the necessary support services to get the
communication message.
The third thing equally important are the needs of the deaf
person. In doing my own survey in contacting interpreters who
have interpreted in the Federal court system, either I found they
are oftentimes dismayed because cases do arise but oftentimes get
set aside, dismissed or whatever because the lawyer-client interac-
tion bogs down. Oftentimes a lawyer does not know how to commu-
nicate with a deaf person, does not know there are interpreters
around to bridge the gap, and therefore gets some misinformati9n
and feels it is not a case at all, whereas it is a case but the
communication is not sufficient between attorney and the deaf
person.
As interpreters are there to clarify with the lawyer their role,
the judiciary at every level does not understand the interpreter
and feels the interpreter is interfering. Again., by using certified
interpreters who understand their role in the situation we hope to
avoid any kind of confrontation between lawyer, client, interpreter,
so it makes the proceedings in any court, especial1:~ at the Federal
level, go very strongly.
The next thing of importance is that the skills have to be there.
An interpreter must have signing skills, they must have the ex-
pressive skills, which is what Bob is doing now, sending my mes-
sage expressively to the hearing-impaired, and the receptive sign-
ing skills which he had when Mr. Garretson gave his testimony
and he gave it in spoken form to yourselves and the people on the
committee.
This is a very important part of a certified interpreter's role. In
order to accurately understand what is being said so there cannot
be a misunderstanding by the judiciary in terms of what the client
is saying and in terms of anybody in the situation.
We feel that in the interpreter situation there can be a lot of
misunderstanding when you have people not certified or who have
been in the interpreting profession for a very minimal time. This is
no reflection on people who want to be humanitarians and be of
help. But sometimes a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous
thing.
We feel very strongly, there are many sign language classes in
America today and we applaud them, they are super, but because
they have taken a sign-reading class does not enable me to carry
out this kind of continuous interpreting kind of skill. This is a
different kind of skill which means you have to have a broader
PAGENO="0077"
73
base of vocabulary, a broader base of deftness and expression in
terms of linguistic capability. The skills of the interpreter play an
important part.
The RID launched a campaign back in 1972 to help consumers.
We mean not only the hearing-impaired consumers but also the
hearing consumer who has to bridge the communication gap. It is
our belief that through quality and qualified professional interpret-
ers we can do this. We set up an examination situation whereby
people who wish to be certified by the organization have to go
through an hour examination. It consists of an interview which
tells us where the person is coming from in terms of attitude, role
responsibility, professional ethics. Also, it tells us a little bit about
the person's expressive skills. Then the person takes an expressive
test much like Mr. Chandler is doing now, whereby a story is given
and the interpreter must sign it and translate it in one situation
and interpret it in another. We can then see if the person has
ability to take verbatim information and take another bit of infor-
mation and translate it in terms of grammatical syntax. The third
part of the test is where we have a film showing hearing-impaired
people and the interpreter has to interpret it back.
We have been in existence for 5 years. Three years ago, we got
into certified interpretation. We found interpreters wanting to go
into court but not being up to par. They were making various kinds
of statements which were inaccurate or were so way out of line
that either the deaf person's case was dropped or a different kind
of case resulted because of a lack of communication. We feel very
strongly in any kind of a court situation, especially at the Federal
level, we need to supply to the consumer-the judiciary in this
situation-and to the hearing-impaired client, the best possible
interpreting services. We feel the professionally qualified interpret-
er, especially those who hold our certificate, because they have
gone through a course-and if they are not available, then a certi-
fied interpreter-does justice to both the hearing-impaired person
and the agency as well.
Finally, in summing up the testimony, we feel the hearing-im-
paired people need to have their rights and need to be heard. It is
very difficult to be heard when you have not heard yourself and
try to communicate in a very "poll parrot" kind of way, and
oftentimes it becomes a mere facsimile. We feel interpreters can be
of help so that even the deaf person with very poor speech or the
individual with good speech cannot be misunderstood.
We feel very strongly there need to be sign language interpreters
and oral interpreters. You ask what is the difference? In oral, you
have to have more visibility in terms of sounds on the lips. The
oral interpreter must use a word which has higher visibility in
terms of external lip movement because, as we know, many of the
sounds are pronounced within the mouth and in the nasal cavity
and you do not hear those sounds.
Again, the oral interpreter has to be skilled.
All in all, we feel this legislation will begin to provide qualified
interpreters in the Federal court in order to guarantee liberty and
justice to the deaf persons of our Nation. So we strongly urge your
support of H.R. 10228.
Mr. EDWARDS. We thank you for your testimony.
PAGENO="0078"
74
I will now recognize the ranking minority member, Mr. McClory.
Mr. MCCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a few questions. For one thing, I am curious to know, if
there are an adequate number of qualified interpreters today to
serve the needs in Federal courts from the certified list?
Dr. KIRCHNER. At this point there are 2,200 certified interpreters
in the United States. What we have done, we have worked very
closely with the State of California this past year because of the
new State law which requires that an interpreter in the State
system must have legal certification in order to interpret. We went
with the local interpreting organizations in California and put on
some short-term workshops on a weekend and gave what we called
provisional interpreting certificates based on the fact the interpret-
er had one certificate, but we raised their consciousness in terms of
court interpreting. We are able to certify at this time 45 people,
which brings the total to 65 in the legal area. We can do this
rather quickly with our going around the United States and bridg-
ing the gap.
We would.. encourage there be more workshops happening. There
is one at California University beginning next week to certify more
legal interpreters. I understand 50 persons are signed up to take
the course.
Mr. MCCLORY. I judge the interpreters who would be interpreting
for the benefit of the deaf and those with impaired hearing would
be freelance people. They would be on call. They would be paid
when they provide a service, and when they are not called as court
interpreters, they might be in the field of education or employed
elsewhere.
However, I am concerned that this might develop into a new
body of public employees with all the implications which are in-
volved as far as a new group of civil servants.
Do you envision this as just the beginning of a program which
would grow into that, or do you feel the certification of interpreters
and their being subject to call at this rather modest cost and great
convenience would nevertheless be a stable, relatively efficient,
answer as far as the U.S. courts are concerned?
Dr. KIRCHNER. I feel the interpreters will continue pretty much
as they are now, as a group of people who are on call to provide a
service. We strongly encourage as an organization, if there is a
high demand, that is 4 to 5 hours a day of interpreting service, that
an agency go ahead and hire a full-time person because they would
be saving money in costs.
But when it is a sporadic situation, maybe today and not again
for another 5 days, we as an organization would maintain the same
structure we have now. We have a directory, and if the person is
available and has the qualifications we will call on them to fulfill
the interpreting assignment. That is why I say we need roughly
over 10,000 interpreters in the United States-not 10,000 full time,
but 10,000 who are on call and are able to go and meet a demand.
Most interpreters do it as a part-time job. Many times they have
other kinds of employment. We recognize the fact we could never
maintain a family on an interpreter's salary at this point. Many
interpreters are often the housewives who do it as a way of making
extra financial income.
PAGENO="0079"
75
Mr. MCCLORY. We are talking here about interpreters in the
Federal courts. You have indicated that they already have a
system for interpreters in California. Most of the litigation in
which deaf people are involved is of course in State and municipal
courts.
What do you envision as a program for interpreters for deaf
people in all the other courts?
Dr. KIRCHNER. I guess I would make the same response, in that
we would maintain a certified list in every State and the RID
chapter or National Association for the Deaf would maintain a
directory and call and say we need an interpreter at this time and
place.
Mr. MCCLORY. You would hope to get State legislation which
would be patterned after the Federal legislation?
Dr. KIRCHNER. Most definitely.
Mr. MCCLORY. Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Butler.
Mr. BUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to the panel
for being late, but I do have some questions if I may.
What exactly is the National Association of the Deaf?
Mr. GARRETSON. The National Association of the Deaf as I said
awhile ago is the largest consumer organization in this country and
maybe in the world of deaf people. We are really a federation of
State agencies.
Right now we have 47 States organized. Probably it is a little like
the NAACP, National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People. This organization has its home office in Silver Spring, Md.
We have a staff of about 33 full-time workers and our whole thrust
is to improve the lot of deaf people in various areas, economic,
social, educational and so forth.
Mr. BUTLER. Thank you.
With reference to deaf persons, as opposed to those who are
hearing-impaired, what percentage of both deaf and hearing im-
paired use the sign language?
Mr. GARRETSON. We do not have actual figures. We know there
are about 13½ million hearing-impaired people in this country. By
hearing impaired, we mean both deaf and hard-of-hearing.
Of this group of 13½ million, 6 million are bilaterally deaf,
which means pretty pronouncedly deaf.
We have about 2 million who have total deafness, and I would
say of those 2 million, maybe 90 percent use sign language.
There are many other people who lost their hearing late in life
who do not sign and some who are raised in a strict oral situation
and depend heavily on lipreading. I do not have the exact percent-
age, but those who are not fluent in the use of sign language rely
on the lipreading or nothing.
Mr. GARRETSON. They rely primarily on lipreading and writing.
But with lipreading, it is a one-to-one thing. If they were in a large
room such as this they would not be able to lipread. They would
have to have an interpreter who could give them a close picture of
- what is said. You cannot see the lips from where I am sitting.
Mr. BUTLER. How would you draw the line between those who
are hearing-impaired to some degree and require an interpreter,
PAGENO="0080"
76
and those who are hearing-impaired but do not require an inter-
preter?
Mr. GARRETSON. It would have to be a guess, but I feel almost all
hearing-impaired people need an interpreter, especially in court
situations.
For example, my wife has a 50 decibel hearing loss, which means
she is hard of hearing. She can use a telephone, she can talk to
people on a 1-to-i basis, without problems. But in a large room, she
has difficulty. When we go to the movies, she misses a lot, and if
she were in court where her life or legal rights were in jeopardy,
she would never depend on her hearing and lipreading.
Dr. KIRCHNER. I would like to add to that. I would feel very
strongly in stating that every hearing-impaired person would need
an interpreter .111 a judicial proceeding because of the fact that
spoken English is very difficult to see. It is not visible on the lips
and because of all the variables of the person who talks through
his teeth, of a person with a mustache or beard, of a person who
may be talking and turning their face continually moving from
side to side, of a person who may be unconsciously wiping his face
while they are talking, and you are missing what is being said. The
hearing-impaired person, even if they are oral, needs some kind of
visual reinforcement to make sure the words which are being said,
they clearly get. If they do not have high visibility for the speech
production they are missing a lot. Then they begin to guess.
If you think of the words "mat," "pat," and "bat," they all look
alike on the lips, and when you cannot hear the sounds, you cannot
tell what is being said, so. I would have to guess whether the man
was talking about a bat that Pat used to hit someone, for example.
Mr. MCCLORY. Will the gentleman yield? You used a word "polly
parrot." What does that mean?
Dr. KIRCHNER. Polly parrot, in terms of--
Mr. MCCLORY. Polly parrot?
Dr. KIRCHNER. Right. Many times for a deaf person it is defini-
tion only. They cannot hear the sound and therefore can only
observe what you are saying. Therefore, it is a word we use many
times. It is a polly parrot situation.
Mr. MCCLORY. Thank you.
Mr. BUTLER. We will still have the problem, it seems to me, when
a person is hearing-impaired and an interpreter is necessary. Do
you think a hearing-impaired person is qualified to make necessary
judgment to waive his rights to an interpreter; or do you think we
should make this mandatory?
Mr. DuBow. I think it is included in the bill that the deaf person
must be apprised of his right to an interpreter and the implications
of waiving that right must be explained to him clearly.
There will be a problem with some deaf people with very low
language skills, but again the deaf person is in the best position to
know if he needs an interpreter or not.
I think it will be clear to the court that proceedings cannot go on
without the use of a qualified interpreter, but the bill does provide
for explaining the waiving of appointment of an interpreter.
Mr. BUTLER. As to the training, how long and how expensive is it
to train a person with adequate hearing to be an interpreter?
PAGENO="0081"
77
Dr. KIRCHNER. It depends, and I open with that statement only
because, for example, some interpreters grow up being children of
deaf parents, so a lot of the training comes from the homes, so
there is no cost.
Mr. BUTLER. I am talking about recruiting people who want to
make a living in a profession about to open up. How much time
would a person have to invest in order to develop a skill that he
can market?
Dr. KIRCHNER. We now estimate it would take a year if the
person is involved continually. We have sign language classes, but
for a person to develop the skills an interpreter has and needs we
feel it takes at least a year. We have seen people do it in a year
and others 3 or 4 years depending on their interest and skill level
they bring to the training.
At this time we do not have an extensive training program. We
have the National Interpreter Training Consortium, but this hap-
pens because a person gets interested in sign language then feels
they would like to become an interpreter and they go and seek out
an interpreter training program, begins to develop close contact
with the deaf community and develops conversation skills.
I pointed out earlier, we now have the legal training program.
We have had four sessions over the past 2 years whereby the
interpreters have come for a 2- to 3-week period of time to train
and get briefed on all kinds of courtroom procedures. That is a very
short-term function, but they get more skill in order to function
effectively.
Mr. BUTLER. Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Can you make a case for requiring such interpret-
ers in Federal district courts? Do you have a record of injustices
which have been imposed on hearing-impaired people as a result of
not having this legislation? Have rights been violated? Has due
process been denied? Can you furnish the subcommittee with exam-
ples where not having this legislation will result in great hardship?
Mr. DUB0W. We have tried to submit to you two examples, the
one of Mr. Hinkley--
Mr. EDWARDS. That was in a Federal district court?
Mr. DUBOW. No, that was in Federal court. It was a criminal
charge before a Federal magistrate. The other case was a tax case
in Boston. We have those two cases with affidavits.
Mr. EDWARDS. If you could find additional examples in other
parts of the country, it would be helpful.
Dr. KIRCHNER. I would like to make the comment, in talking
with interpreters in securing this information they state many
times the case has not gotten to the Federal level only because of
the fact at the lower level there was a misunderstanding between
the court and the interpreter's ability to function well.
I think we can find some more, but the difficulty is there are a
lot of injustices we will never know about because we are seeking
at the Federal level.
Mr. EDWARDS. Information from the State and local levels would
be helpful, also.
Ms. Gonzales.
Ms. GONZALES. I have a technical question. The legislation before
the subcommittee provides for manual or oral interpreters. An
35-552 0 - 79 - 6
PAGENO="0082"
78
amendment has been suggested to us by deaf persons and organiza-
tions which would change that wording to oral and manual inter-
preters. The basis for such an amendment is that many individuals
are not able to read sign language and we should, therefore, em-
phasize in the legislation that it will be necessary to provide inter-
preters not only for deaf individuals who use sign language but
also for those deaf persons who instead use lip reading.
Have you any comments regarding such an amendment?
Mr. DuBow. The bill says including bilingual, manual, and oral.
Ms. GONZALES. You think the current language in the legislation
is sufficient?
Mr. DuBow. Yes.
Ms. GONZALES. Is the testing, which your organization performs,
done on a regional or statewide basis?
Dr. KIRCHNER. For general testing it is done on a State basis; for
the legal, that is on a local basis.
Ms. GONZALES. Is this testing done by people who have already
been certified as interpreters?
Dr. KIRCHNER. Yes, by a panel of five people, two interpreters
who have been certified and three deaf people who have been
certified. We feel we need the consumer to recognize the skill of
the interpreter.
Ms. GONZALES. The legislation right now requires that the inter-
pretation be provided in the consecutive mode. Most of the sign
language interpretation provided today seems to be in the simulta-
neous mode. Are sign language interpretations in judicial proceed-
ings also provided in the simultaneous mode?
Dr. KIRCHNER. Based on the fact that it is at the level of the deaf
person's comprehension in terms of understanding either English
or ASL, that has to be addressed, if the deaf person understands
more in terms of American Sign Language rather than in a sign
English mode you will not be doing consecutive word-for-word
translating. You would need to take the ideas and put them in a
conceptual frame for the deaf client. This has created some ques-
tions oftentimes in the judiciary because the judge will say, "I want
it signed exactly as I say it." Then we need the lawyer involved to
say, "You have to recognize we are now moving from English to a
different language and in this movement you cannot give, for the
deaf person to understand, a signed English interpretation."
So it is taking an education in terms of educating not only the
interpreters, the deaf consumers, but other consumers to under-
stand this. That is why we all spoke strongly that American Sign
Language is a different language.
Ms. GONZALES. I want to assure that the language in the legisla-
tion is sufficient in all cases. If I understand your testimony cor-
rectly, it is your response that it is sufficient?
Dr. KIRCHNER. Yes.
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Starek.
Mr. STAREK. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. We thank the witnesses for their testimony.
Mr. EDWARDS. Our next witness is Paulette Harary, the presi-
dent of the Court Interpreters Association of New York, who will
PAGENO="0083"
79
provide us with some insight based on her years of experience as a
translator in Federal court.
We will recess for 10 minutes for a vote in the House and as soon
as we get back, you can begin.
[Recess.]
Mr. BUTLER [presiding]. Ms. Harary, Mr. Edwards will be back in
a moment. In the meantime, he asked that you proceed with your
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF PAULETTE HARARY, PRESIDENT, COURT
INTERPRETERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK
Ms. HARARY. Good morning ladies and gentlemen.
I am honored to be called before this Committee on the Judici-
ary. I am committed to my chosen profession as an interpreter. As
such, I welcome this opportunity to testify to my experiences and
recommendations before the legislative branch of our Government.
I clearly recognize that it is the intent of the Committee on the
Judiciary to find the most satisfactory means by which interpretive
services can be provided for the non-English speaking defendant
and the deaf before trial courts throughout the United States.
I will address myself to the following items. These items are
designed to provide this committee with a comprehensive under-
standing of the position of the interpreter in trial courts.
One. The way in which I attained my present positions;
Two. Considerations in the specialized field of court interpreting;
Three. Examination and certification of court interpreters.
Grandfather clause awarded to those with successful performance;
Four. The role of the courtroom interpreter;
Five. Professional development and in-service training; and
Six. Ongoing supervision and evaluation.
DISCUSSION
Item 1. The way in which I attained my present positions: There
are many persons who present themselves as interpreters to the
courts. These persons have credentials that range from basic native
or acquired language skills to the highly experienced interpreter
specializing in courtroom procedure and legal terminology.
The present system of selecting interpreters often involves the
expedient or accepting that person who presents himself, speaks
the particular foreign language and best meets the immediate
needs of the court-interrogation, deposition, debriefing, tape tran-
scribing, attorney-client discussions, et cetera.
As the need arises I appear before the court to interpret either
for the court, the jury or a defendant. There are a number of per
diem interpreters and court staff that provide interpretive services.
After a brief trial period, I am called regularly by the court to
provide interpretive services. Usually, because of the lack of experi-
enced interpreters, a handful of interpreters must service the var-
ious trial courts' needs. All too often, because qualifying examina-
tion or certification does not exist, significant delays attend the
proceedings.
Item 2. Consideration in the specialized field of court interpret-
ing: Recognize, if you will, that extensive training and preparation
PAGENO="0084"
80
are mandatory for the interpreter to function in the courtroOm.
Courtroom procedure and legal terminology must be mastered. The
interpreter must practice an honest code of ethical behavior. The
interpreter must become a mimic and an actor so as to convey to
the court the emotion, mood, and attitude of a defendant or wit-
ness, as well as to correctly interpret his responses.
I bring your attention to the sterile, detached simultaneous inter-
preting as accomplished by the United Nations interpreters. The
specific skills inherent in the performance of a court interpreter
require different training and experience, along with ongoing su-
pervision and evaluation. I submit that there are presently func-
tioning interpreters who can neither serve the needs of the court,
the defense, or the prosecution. I contend that the court interpreter
should be a professionally prepared officer who must take responsi-
bility for his work and who must function at the highest levels of
competence. It must be equally clear that all too often due to
professional staff limitations the court is unable to supervise or
fully evaluate the interpreter.
Item 3. Examination and certification: I believe that it is neces-
sary to construct a test instrument that will measure proficiency of
language skills, courtroom procedure, terminology, and finally per-
formance. Such an examination will help to certify or qualify per-
sonnel to service the variety of courtroom needs. We must also
consider as qualified, those experienced and practicing interpreters
who have qualified as experts in court. This endorsement must be
given freely, without hesitation or reservation. This would grandfa-
ther-in eminently successful interpreters. These interpreters would
then form the nucleus of a resource pool of qualified and generally
available personnel.
Item 4. The role of the courtroom interpreter: It is necessary to
understand the base of my experiences and credentials. I confer
with associate interpreters in other courthouses throughout the
country. I attend professional seminars, lectures, and conferences
on a national level. I am currently involved in attempting to incor-
porate an association of court interpreters in New York State. I
subscribe to professional journals and literature. I am consultant to
an interpreters' training institute. I am associated with an inter-
preters' agency for noncourtroom assignments. This then affords
me the perspective and styles of operation of courtroom procedure
on a national level.
It must be perfectly clear that the interpreter must be considered
a professional court officer. He is unbiased and can assume any
assigned role in the courtroom. It is necessary to point out that he
can represent both the prosecution and the defense.
Item 5. Professional development: Of necessity, I must be a free-
lance agent providing interpretive services for Federal and State
courts. I also accept employment in commercial and industrial
fields as an interpreter as opportunities present themselves.
I am involved with a placement agency and training institute.
This enables me to endorse personnel that are trained and super-
vised by me.
I find that ongoing training and development of personnel is
necessary. As I work closely with interpreters who I recommend
for assignments so too must the court provide for dialog between
PAGENO="0085"
81
all court officers-including interpreters. Mock trials, video self-
analysis, clarification of procedures and ongoing inservice training
are absolute essentials.
Item 6. Ongoing supervision: There are jurisdictions in our coun-
try that are making excellent strides toward supervising the inter-
preter on the job. At present the interpreter is almost immune to
his inability. Most categories of professional jobs carry with them
the responsibility of creditable performance. So, too, must the in-
terpreter be accountable to ongoing supervision and evaluation.
The following evaluative criteria are essential with reasonable
supervision.
1. Proficiency: (1) Proficiency in interpreting procedures; (2) In-
terprets without undue interruption; (3) ~Knowledge of legal termi-
nology and court procedures; (4) Clarity of speech (English and
foreign language); (5) Accuracy of interpretation.
General Attitude: (1) Objective in all stages of proceedings; (2)
Impartial relationship to witness; (3) Punctuality in attending
court; (4) Cooperative with court and court attaches; (5) Ethical
conduct code practices; (6) Discreet with public contacts; (7) Client-
attorney confidentiality; and (8) Appropriate attire.
Ladies and gentlemen of this Committee on the Judiciary, the
need for this bill is now. The need to comprehensively provide for
bilingual proceedings can no longer be delayed.
Thank you for inviting me to participate in these proceedings.
I will make myself available for questions or further comment
after this hearing.
Have a nice day.
Mr. EDWARDS [presiding]. Thank you very much, Ms. Harary.
Mr. Butler.
Mr. BUTLER. I thank you for your testimony. It is very well-
organized and I think quite helpful to us.
Let us get right to the point. We have a person who possesses a
degree of foreign language skill which enables him or her to func-
tion as an interpreter in a conversational situation outside the
environs of the legal proceedings. He wants to become a courtroom
interpreter. What is necessary for that person to do so, as far as
you know?
Ms. HARARY. There is only one State which offers training for
interpreters. That is in Monterey, Calif., Monterey Institute, which
offers a master's degree in interpreting. Others have tried other
training programs. Court interpreting training is not available.
That is one of the reasons I involve myself in trying to start up an
Interpreters' Institute in the State of New York.
Mr. BUTLER. Whose responsibility is it in the educational world
to take on this job? Is it the bar associations', the law schools', the
colleges' themselves? Where do you think this professional training
ought to be placed?
Ms. HARARY. Five years ago I began my own research in develop-
ing a career opportunity program in court interpreting. To achieve
this aim, I would have to develop a graduate curriculum and be
prepared to teach in college.
My personal vigor and enthusiasm launched me on the path to
investigate and develop a curriculum for colleges. However, I soon
realized that the colleges were generally not prepared to deal with
PAGENO="0086"
82
a new scope and sequence curriculum. I would personally rise to
the challenge and develop my own language institute. I would
therefore be developing a curriculum for my institute with a highly
specialized staff and which would be supervised by myself.
We will need a staff of bilingual personnel. Master teachers to
teach teachers, people involved in the legal terminology, colloquial-
isms as well as people who had lived in other countries must
comprise the staff.
The mood, inflection, the tone are essential to interpreting.
Mr. BUTLER. So you need a drama consultant?
Ms. HARARY. Yes, speech pathologists-all types of personnel.
Mr. BUTLER. I suppose if this legislation becomes law, the
demand will become substantially greater. Do you agree with that?
Ms. HARARY. Yes.
Mr. BUTLER. Where is the well from which we will draw?
Ms. HARARY. I have been in contact with professors at Monterey
Institute and the superior court in Los Angeles. We are exchanging
information. The California State courts at present have developed
a training and testing program for interpreters. We consult with
each other so as to improve our professional perspectives. If the
courts there can do it, we can do it here.
Mr. BUTLER. Here being the remaining 49 states?
Ms. HARARY. That is right.
Mr. BUTLER. I appreciate the work you have done. It is certainly
useful. I am disappointed that some colleges or educational institu-
tions have not risen to this responsibility. It seems to me that we
could create problems. When people say they are interpreters, we
will have to take their word for it because an immediate determi-
nation of competence is simply unavailable. Yet if we are going to
start requiring examinations or certification, then we will be able
to eliminate some of the unqualified. Perhaps at that threshold
time, we will have difficulty replacing them. Assuming you meet
your own high standards; you could be working rather hard.
Ms. HARARY. Please allow me to comment on that. I attended a
conference in California about a month and a half ago. I met with
many representatives from U.S. courts and people involved in
training programs, and also representatives from various colleges
from around the United States. Many of the colleges have asked to
meet with me in devising certain, perhaps, standards for teaching
court interpreting in their colleges.
I am involved in dialog with personnel from Montclair State
College, N.J. who are also interested in instituting a court inter-
preters' program. I think many States will take their example. I
will be meeting with NYU and other colleges to institute training
programs as well as in the courts.
Mr. BUTLER. Thank you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Do you believe that certification is necessary?
Ms. HARARY. Yes; I do.
Mr. EDWARDS. National certification?
Ms. HARARY. Yes; I do.
Mr. EDWARDS. Who would be the certifying agency?
Ms. HARARY. I really do not know how to answer that. I have
given this some thought, but not enough. If you would like me to
PAGENO="0087"
83
develop a response, I would be glad to consult with the Govern-
ment and develop reasonable and workable solutions.
Mr. EDWARDS. Perhaps you can drop us a line. We would appreci-
ate further thought on that issue. We generally do not like nation-
al certifications. States are competent to do that kind of work, and
it seems to me that a national certification process would be unnec-
essarily expensive. It also could tend to be very bureaucratic.
How do you prevent this certification process from being used, by
those in charge, to make sure that only those individuals who have
already been found to be qualified and are currently practicing in
the Federal courts are certified?
Ms. HARARY. When you say those who have already been quali-
fied, you mean with the same type of certification, or--
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, as you know doctors have resisted many
certifications because they do not want too many individuals in the
profession. To some extent other professionals do the same thing.
They resist newcomers in order not to increase competition.
Ms. HARARY. The only thoughts I have had along those lines as
far as certification is concerned is I thought perhaps there might
be some sort of civil service test. There used to be a civil service
test in New York. The last one I got hold of was a civil service test
dated 1945, but I know there must be some kind of certification
which could be given to interpreters on a national level where they
would have some credibility as a professional.
Mr. EDWARDS. I might ask Ms. Gonzales, who recently worked
with the California legislature, how they handle it there.
Ms. GONZALES. I am not sure how California intends to handle
their newly enacted legislation. I believe the State judicial council
is currently trying to decide how to certify individuals.
Mr. EDWARDS. I think it would be helpful to find out how Califor-
nia intends to handle its certification procedure.
Ms. HARARY. Since I am involved with public defender, CJA, and
all, there is a great need for interpreters, and they are just not
there. It has come to a point where it is very visible to all the
institutes that the interpreters are just not there.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Starek.
Mr. STAREK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If this legislation goes
into effect, the need, will greatly increase for interpreters, yet you
are concerned about eliminating the unqualified ones. I am curious
if you have suggestions as to how we will meet the need for an
increased number or interpreters once this bill goes into effect?
Ms. HARARY. Well, if the courts were to go along with the idea-
and I am going to meet with a few of the judges in some of the
courts where I work now-I am hoping to get some kind of enforce-
ment sheet printed up-we already have it written up-whereby
interpreters would get endorsements from judges, drug enforce-
ment agencies, whoever they work with, indicating what their
experiences have been, thereby bringing in the grandfather clause
I mentioned whereby they will be qualified interpreters, but they
will be qualified by judges and others with whom they have
worked. They will because of their experience and endorsement
have certification.
Mr. STAREK. You work in New York, where there is a great need
for language interpretation. Have you encountered situations
PAGENO="0088"
84
where you thought there was a need for an interpreter and the
judge denied the request?~
Ms. HARARY. I have, never seen in the 5 years that I am working
in the Federal courts a case where a witness was denied an inter-
preter. But of course I have seen many cases where the interpreter
was totally inadequate and the testimony just went on and on and
the interpreters sitting at the defense table did not at all interpret
to the defendant.
I had a case where it was just the contrary, in a State court. I
was sitting next to the defendant and as the testimony went on
and the defense attorney was speaking to the judge, I started to
translate, because I feel anything that goes on in the courtroom
which anybody understanding English understands the defendant
must understand. The court bailiff kept shushing me and finally
the judge said, "Miss Harary, please be quiet until I tell you it is
all right to speak."
Mr. EDWARDS. Ms. Gonzales.
Ms. GONZALES. First, I want to commend you for the efforts you
are making to improve the competence of interpreters serving in
the court system.
Would you agree that if a judge is not fluent in the particular
language being translated in the courtroom, then that judge is not
qualified to say that an interpreter has done a good job?
Ms. HARARY. If an interpreter were to work only once with a
judge, perhaps the judge would not be able to determine the compe-
tency. But if a judge has been working with an interpreter on five,
six, or seven occasions, he can tell by the reaction of the defendant
or the answers given if the testimony or the interpretation is
correct, and if they understand the questions and are asking. the
questions as propounded.
Ms. GONZALES. But, there is no guarantee the questions being
interpreted are those being asked?
Ms. HARARY. There is no guarantee. But in my experience, there
has been another interpreter in the court who might be working
with the defense and might advise the defense, or whoever it might
be, as to the competency.
Mr. EDWARDS. In what language are you proficient?
Ms. HARARY. Spanish, Portuguese, Yiddish, and a little English.
Mr. EDWARDS. I am sure you do well in all those languages, and
you are marvelously proficient in English.
There is a vote on the floor so we will adjourn at this time.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to
reconvene upon the call of the Chair.]
PAGENO="0089"
COURT INTERPRETERS ACT
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 9, 1978
HoUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room
2226, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Don Edwards
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Edwards, Volkmer, Butler, and McClory.
Also present: Helen Gonzales, assistant counsel, and Roscoe B.
Starek III, associate counsel.
Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will be in order.
Today we conclude this series of hearings regarding legislation
designed to insure that all parties, defendents, and witnesses in Federal
criminal and civil proceedings, are guaranteed due process of law.
The bills before this subcommittee would require the appointment of
certified court interpreters under certain circumstances in Federal
proceedings and would permit the use of Spanish in the District Court
of Puerto Rico.
The hearings today will focus on provisions of the legislation per-
taining to the district court for Puerto Rico.
We are honored to have with us today three distinguished judges
including two from the district court for Puerto Rico and the U.S.
attorney from Puerto Rico.
Our colleague, the Honorable Baltasar Corrada will introduce our
witnesses at this time.
We certainly welcome you.
TESTIIAONY OF THE HON. BALTASAR CORRADA, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS PROM TIlE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO
RICO
Mr. CORRADA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, before I do that I would like to make a request.
The Governor of Puerto Rico, the Honorable Carlos Romero-
Barcelo had expressed interest in being here today and testifying
before the subcommittee. However, very urgent and pressing matters
in Puerto Rico have not allowed him to appear here personally today.
However, Governor Romero sent his written testimony to my
office and asked me to introduce his testimony in the record of these
hearings, and I respectfully request that his statement consisting of
six pages be made a part of the record of these proceedings.
(85)
PAGENO="0090"
S6
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. We appreciate receiving
the testimony of His Excellency, the Governor, and, without objec-
tion, it will be made a part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, GOVERNOR OF PUERTO Rico
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Carlos Romero-
Barcelo. I am Governor of Puerto Rico, elected to a four year term on Novem-
ber 2, 1976.
I thank you for extending me this opportunity to present testimony concerning
Sections 3 and 4 of H.R. 10228, the Bilingual Court Act.
I wish to begin by saying that I am in basic agreement with the testimony
presented before this Subcommittee on July 19, 1978 by my good friend the
Honorable Baltasar Corrada, Resident Commissioner for Puerto Rico. My
purpose today, therefore, is to enter that concurrence into the record, along with
my personal views as to why I believe the provisions in question merit your
support.
As each of you is aware, there are two contending schools of thought in Puerto
Rico concerning the direction in which our island's governmental institutions
should be steered.
On the one hand, there are the advocates of independence and the advocates
of Puerto Rico's free association with the United States in a context of maximum
local autonomy.
On the other hand, there are the advocates of statehood, whose goal is to see
a community of more than three million United States citizens achieve the full
range of rights and responsibilities which today is denied to our people unless
they move away from Puerto Rico to one of the fifty existing states.
Like the Resident Commissioner, I am an advocate of statehood. I believe
deeply in the capacity of the Puerto Rican people to help shape the destiny of our
nation as first class citizens.
I have no illusions about the cultural difference which set Puerto Ricans apart
from most other American citizens. But I am also aware of our people's many
contributions to the evolution of American life since that day in 1898 when the
Stars and Stripes was first hoisted above our island.
By every available measure, including the results of all our local elections for
many years past, more than ninety percent of the Puerto Rican people favor
permanent union between our island and the nation of which we are citizens.
Support for both independence and for autonomic association has steadily di-
minished over the past quarter-century.
But as ever-greater numbers of Puerto Ricans contemplate the prospect of
becoming first-class American citizens, an important question arises: in order to
become fully enfranchised United States citizens, must we surrender our identity
and heritage as Puerto Ricans?
Under the U.S. Constitution, the answer must clearly be "no".
The Constitution does not distinguish between ethnic groups, between races,
between geographic regions, between tastes in food or music or lifestyle.
Instead, the Constitution endeavors to guarantee to each American citizen
the fullest possible opportunity to participate peacefully in our democratic
system of government.
Trial by jury is an important part of that system.
In his testimony of July 19th, Resident Commissioner Corrada described the
present prohibition on the use of Spanish as an official language for the conduct
of Federal District Court proceedings in Puerto Rico as a "vestige of colonialism."
In a sense he is right, but, as I shall explain, I believe the other points he raised
were even more fundamental.
Easily the most glaring vestiges of colonialism still to be found in Puerto Rico
pertain to our lack of participation in the process by which officials of the Federal
executive and legislative branches are elected: the fact that we have no votes on
the floor of the House, no votes on the floor of the Senate, and no electoral votes
for President and Vice-President.
Where the Judicial branch of the Federal government is concerned, we are
technically treated as equals with our fellow American citizens in other parts of
the nation. We do, in other words, have equal access to the Federal courts.
But this equality in the Federal court structure is indeed only technical. In
practice, as the Resident Commissioner pointed out so well, there are serious
flaws in the present system.
PAGENO="0091"
87
To my mind, what should concern this Subcommittee is not so much the
language question per se as the fact that the present arrangement denies a majority
of the Puerto Rican population any opportunity to serve on Federal juries, and
consequently denies defendants the right to trial by a jury of their peers.
If the only issue involved were the incongruity of obliging Puerto Rican
judges, attorneys, litigants and jurors to conduct the business of the Federal
District Court in their second language, then I might be persuaded to look with
sympathy on the argument that allowing Spanish language Federal trials in
Puerto Rico would place an excessive administrative burden on the Federal court
system as a whole, and thereby constitute an unnecessary and unduly expensive
exception to general practice throughout the nation.
But the convenience of the parties involved is by no means the key issue.
What is really at stake is the essence of the jury selection process in a free society,
and the implications thereof for plaintiffs and defendants alike.
There is no doubt that the present English language requirement in the Federal
District Court for Puerto Rico guarantees that juries there will be totally un-
representative of the community as a whole.
Those of us who believe in full Puerto Rican participation in the American
system of government are deeply committed to extending the opportunity for
such participation to every Puerto Rican capable of exercising it in a responsible
manner.
We are also committed to the expansion and intensification of the teaching of
English-as well as Spanish-in Puerto Rico's public schools. We want our society
to become fully bilingual.
But we recognize that it will be many years before a substantial majority of our
population will be comprised of persons sufficiently fluent in two languages to be
capable of serving on an English language jury.
Accordingly, we feel it is extremely important that the option of holding Federal
trials in Spanish in Puerto Rico be available, in order that our Federal District
Court be able to dispense that high standard of justice which can be achieved
only when the largest possible percentage of the adult population is eligible to
serve on juries.
It was to this principle that I was referring a moment ago when I invoked the
spirit of the U.S. Constitution.
At first glance, the idea of advocating the use of Spanish as an official language
in Puerto Rico's Federal District Court might appear to represent a step away
from closer ties between the American citizens of Puerto Rico and those of the
fifty states.
In practice, however, I submit that it will have precisely the opposite effect:
it will bring us closer together, by broadening participation in an institution of
government-the jury trial-which is fundamentalto our common political heritage
as United States citizens. It will provide a firmer foundation for the future evolu-
tion of Puerto Rican participation in Ajnerican public life.
This is the context in which I invite this Subcommittee to consider Sections 3
and 4 of H.R. 10228. What we have before us is an affirmation of American prin-
ciples of government, and of the extension of their applicability to encompass the
greatest possible number of American citizens. The Bilingual Court Act, in its
present form, will reinforce the foundations of our democracy, and thus make our
nation both stronger and freer.
Thank you very much.
Mr. CORRADA. I would also like to make a similar request on behalf
of the Honorable Miguel Gimenez Muñoz, the Secretary of Justice for the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, who has also sent written testimony to
be submitted at these hearings and has asked me to do so on his behalf
for the record.
[The statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. MIGUEL A. GIMENEZ Mu&oz, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
PUERTO Rico
Dear gentlemen, My name is Miguel A. Giménez Mufioz, Attorney General of
Puerto Rico, and I appear before you today to state the Justice Department's
position in relation to bill of law H.R. 10129 which provides for the use of the
Spanish language in the Federal District Court of Puerto Rico.
PAGENO="0092"
Puerto Rico, during the 80 years of mutually beneficial relationship with the
United States, has managed to retain its cultural identity, while at the same time
accepting its share of rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. Such
rights, encompass the abifity to understand and actively participate and contribute
in any judicial proceeding such person might be made part of. In the case before
us, the approval of H. R. 10129, which provides for the use of the Spanish language
in the Puerto Rico Federal District Court, is such, that it transcends any technical
inconveniences which may arise out of the implementation of the Spanish language
in the Puerto Rico Federal Court.
In order to adequately assess such a proposal, I deem necessary a brief expose of
Puerto Rico's culturaj situation.
Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States in 1898 as a result of the Spanish-
American War. Upon that happening, Puerto Rico, a totally Spanish speaking
country began a long process of assimilation. During the subsequent years, Puerto
Rico's political as well as educational institutions developed in such a way that
English became an important factor in every aspect of the Puertorrican way of
life, but fortunately, the Spanish language, one of the most important elements in
our culture, remained as the principal mode of expression in Puerto Rico.
Although a large segme~.t of our people are bilingual, the country as a whole
utilizes Spanish as the prevailing language. As a result of this, the Puertorrican
state courts conduct their business in Spanish, thus giving the pai ties before it
the opportunity to clearly understand processes which affect these people in
the light of the reality that Puerto Rico, although composed of American citizens
is a Spanish speaking country.
The bifi presented to your consideration, H.R. 10129, contains not only a
recognition of Puerto Rico's right to preserve its cultural identity, but in addition,
and equally important, it grants American citizens the constitutional right to
understand and actively participate in the judicial proceedings which might
affect their interests.
At the present moment, the Puerto Rico Federal Court is composed of three
judges, all of whom are native Puertorricans, and are perfectly qualified to con-
duct hearings in Spanish as well as English. These three judges' native, language is
Spanish, for which it would be more of a relief to conduct the hearings in Spanish
than a burden, thus assisting the judges in their functions, as well as most of its
employees who are also bilingual.
The majority of the lawyers in Puerto Rico, and that composes well over a 95 %
of the total of members to the bar, are native Puertorricans whose main language
is Spanish. Any lawyer who at the present is required to take his claim to the
federal court to seek relief, must litigate in English. This results in an impediment
to iccal lawyers when appearing before Federal Court, and as a result only a small
group of lawyers are able to appear before said court, not because English speaking
lawyers are better qualified, but because many lawyers feel that their clients are
entitled to the best type of representation, and their inability to master the English
language properly will hinder them in providing their clients their professional
services. As a result of this, only a handfull of local lawyers are able to take
their cases to the federal court.
The problems encountered are not only limited to the number of lawyers able
to litigate in English in the Federal Court, other matters of far greater importance
are to be considered and these, which bear constitutional implications are the
principal arguments in favor of the adoption of this proposed amendment.
As I have stated previously, the vast majority of the people in Puerto Rico
speak Spanish as their native language. Cases brought up before the court mostly
relate to matters pertaining to local residents whose case comes to the Federal
Court because of special statutes such as Section 1983 or in the case of criminal
violations, mostly Puertorrican residents which have violated Federal Crime
Statutes. This, of course, in addition to the fact that most of these attorneys which
represent local or foreign clients are Puertorrcian.
When this matter is analyzed from the constitutional point of view, there are
various substantial arguments which can be sustained. First, any defendant in a
criminal prosecution is entitled to fully understand, actively participate and
contribute to his defense in his trial. At present, when a defendant is not able to
understand English, a court interpreter is provided. Nevertheless, such an inter-
preter is not able to produce simultaneous translations, but is only able to trans-
late phrases after fully pronounced by the speaker. In addition, any of the counsel's
arguments with the judge are not translated, thus, the defendant misses out on
extremely important aspects of his trial.
Although it has been sustained by other people, specifically Puerto Rico's
Federal District Couit's Chief Judge, Hon. José V. Toledo, that the use of the
PAGENO="0093"
89
Spanish language in the Federal Court should be limited to criminal eases only,
there is no reason for which such a necessary innovation should be limited to the
criminal area exclusively.
Notwithstanding the fact that in a criminal prosecution the defendant's liberty
is at stake, there is no valid reason for which there should be a distinction between
personal property rights, which would be the object of litigation in most civil
cases, and the right to a fair criminal trial. In these types of cases, we will find
that the same elements present in a criminal prosectuion would be pi esent in a
civil case.
Most of the witnesses brought for questioning in a trial will also speak Spanish.
The judge will still be a native Puertorrican, the court's personnel, including all
members who actively participate in a trial are Puertorrican, and the jury will
also be composed of mostly Puertorricans whose understanding of the Spanish
language greatly outweighs their mastery of the English language. As Judge Toledo
stated in his appearance before the Committee, alternate jury wheels could be
effectively implemented in order to provide English speaking jurors for English
trials where both parties and the judge agree upon the use of English for those
non-Spanish speaking parties.
As stated by Judge Toledo, the utilization of Spanish in the Federal Court
would provide for a more ample selection of jurors, who would not be required
to master English proficiently. This argument points to the fact that the jury
selected by counsels from the jury wheel may not constitute a group of his peers
because only English speaking jurors are selected, and of these, only those who
master the language enough so as to fully understand the proceedings are allowed
to enter the jury wheel. Because of various sociological and educational reasons,
these jurors may not he necessarily the defendant's peers, thus providing another
argument of fundamental importance in favor of using Spanish in Federal Courts.
Although the technical implications of this proposal should be the object of
consideration, they should not constitute an obstacle when considering the
practical implementation of Spanish in the courts. Although elements to be
taken into consideration such as transcripts upon appeals to the District Court
of Appeals and their translation are important, such matters can be dealt with
in a reasonably fast and efficient manner providing that adequate personnel be
assigned to these functions, since the costs of these, at least in civil cases will be
incurred by the appellant.
Puertorricans, as citizens of the United States have the right to enjoy the
benefits of fair judicial proceedings responding to their needs. Puertorricans, as
Am'ericans citizens should be allowed to receive such benefits which aid in the
preservation of their cultural background and language. The approval of this
bill will not only provide for the needs of the Puertorrican community, but will
also aid in the preservation of the Puertorrican culture while at the same time
granting recognition to the need of Government to respond to the particular
needs of a~ large segment of the citizenship. It is for these reasons that I urge
you to approve the passage of this bill which in the long run, will result in a better
working relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico, and the growth
in respect and admiration between the two.
Mr. CORRADA. Both testimonies, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
underscore, fully support the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of H.R.
10228.
Now, I have the great pleasure, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, of introducing to you not only distinguished and emi-
nent jurists from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Court of Appeals, but par-
ticularly with respect to the two judges from Puerto Rico, my personal
friends and colleagues for many years, for whom I have the highest
respect.
Although there might be discrepancies and disagreements in terms
of how we envision these bills, I have great consideration an~ respect
for all of them, and I am sure that their testimony will help tkis sub-
committee in its work.
I am very pleased to introduce Chief Judge Jose V. Toledo of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico; Judge Juan R.
Torruella of the U.S. District Court of Puerto Rico; and the Honorable
Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
PAGENO="0094"
90
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, and would all three of the
witnesses please come to the witness table?
Mr. CORRADA. Mr.~ Chairman, I would also like to recognize the
presence here of another witness who will testify later, the U.S. attor-
ney for the U.S. District Court in Puerto Rico, the Honorable Julio
Morales Sanchez.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you.
Incidentally, Judge Coffin was a Member of the House of Repre-
sentatives from 1957 through 1960, at which time he joined the John
F. Kennedy administration as Deputy Administrator for AID. He
was appointed to the first circuit court by President Johnson in 1965.
It is indeed a pleasure to have not only the distinguished judges from
Puerto Rico with us today but also the Chief Judge, Frank Coffin.
We have read the exellent testimony of all three witnesses and with-
out objection, all of the statements will be made a part of the record.
[The statements follow:]
STATEMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE FRANK M. COFFIN OF THE U.S. COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to convey the views of the Judicial
Council of the First Circuit concerning the bills pending before you bearing the
descriptive title, "Bilingual, Hearing, and Speech Impaired Court Interpreter
Act". S. 1315, H.R. 10228, and H.R. 12003. Our interest stems partly from the
fact that the district of Puerto Rico is a major source of appeals heard by us,
rising from 13 percent of our total in 1970 to 27 percent in 1977 and currently
running at 31 percent for the first six months of 1978.1 We also are charged, as a
judicial council, with general oversight of judicial administration in Puerto Rico.
We support the district's efforts to meet its needs for added support personnel,
additional judgeships, visiting judges, and new facilities.
We have for the past four years been concerned with the problems posed in
trying to reconcile a nationwide, English-speaking federal court system with the
cultural values of a community which is largely Spanish speaking. In 1975 our
Council commissioned a Boston lawyer with competence in Spanish, Ms. Susan
Garsh, to conduct a preliminary study of problems to be considered if Spanish
were permitted to be used in the Puerto Rico district court. I sent a copy of this
study to you, Mr. Chairman, under date of September 3, 1975. To my knowledge
this is the only such attempt to focus in detail on the nature and magnitude of
problems inherent in any conversion to bilingualism. I would add that if the
Department of Justice has taken a position on this matter, we in the First Circuit
have no knowledge of it. No representative of the Department has consulted with
us, asked our views, communicated its views, or conducted, so far as we are aware,
any kind of study. If there is one thing I can say with absolute and unqualified
conviction it is that the kind of study done so long ago by Ms. Garsh must now
be done with the kind of depth and authority that only adequately funded pro-
fessionals can bring to such a task.
I urge this on you with the recognition that this proposed legislation is complex
in a unique way. It is an attempt to achieve a more harmonious relationship
between two quite different value systems: the desire of those brought up. in a
Spanish culture to have their language used in the important matters of their
1 Recent figures from our clerk's office, not necessarily identical with Administrative Office statistics
ndicate the following:
Calendar year
Total
appeals in
1st circuit
Appeals
from Puerto
Rico
Criminal
Civil
Admin.
istrative
1975
493
113
22
86
5
1976
575
102
29
78
5
1977
569
153
34
116
3
1978 (1st 6 mo)
304
93
5
88
PAGENO="0095"
lives; and the administration of justice within a federal court system which is
based on the precise use of words in cases, statutes, rules and regulations in
English and staffed, other than in Puerto Rico, with supporting personnel and
judges who use only English. The language value system is highly charged, emotion-
ally and politically. The justice value system implicates qualities both ethical and
intellectual. The former can be accommodated by the simple fiat of Congress:
let Spanish be used in court. The latter is subjected to novel burdens only at great
risk. The legislation has as its unarticulated premise the proposition that justice
is advanced when a person, fluent in a tongue other than English, can present his
cause or defense in his own language. The danger is that Congress may order this
to be done without realizing the practical problems involved, or the investment
(which some might deem disproportionate) in space, facilities, supporting per-
sonnel, and additional judges who will be needed if bilingualism, thought to be a
step forward, is not to wind up being several steps back in terms of waiting time
for litigants, access to both the trial and appellate courts, and the quality of justice
dispensed. The fact that the Senate enacted S. 1315 without hearings or debate,
catching individual judges, our circuit council, the Judicial Conference, and bar
associations by surprise shows how far we are from recognizing the delicacy and
danger of combining cultural reform and institutional change.
Perhaps in large part because of this casual, wholly political approach to the
exclusion of any interest in the substantive question of the quality of justice, we
face the prospect of bilingualism with much less confidence than four years ago.
We feel compelled to note at the outset two facts which members of this com-
mittee might resent as obvious, were we not to say that we have encountered
proponents of the use of Spanish in the Puerto Rico federal court who were in
complete ignorance of them. The first fact is that the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico possesses its own "state" court system, comprising a highly sophisticated
network of courts of general and specialized trial jurisdiction and a well respected
Supreme Court, under highly regarded aggressive and innovative leadership.
Most ordinary litigation, civil and criminal, occurs there. This is a much larger
system than the federal district court. The latter sits only in San Juan, and has
three district judges (soon to be seven), whereas the local court has hundreds of
judges sitting in all the towns and cities of Puerto Rico. The only language
allowed in the local courts is Spanish.
Our second observation is that in the Puerto Rico district court .at present,
any litigant who does not comprehend English is afforded the services of an
interpreter sitting by his side and translating into Spanish all of the proceedings.
The regular United States district judges in Puerto Rico are effectively bilingual,
as are many Puerto Rican citizens. The district judges sometimes use Spanish
for informal, off-the-record conferences, but all formal proceedings are in English
and the numerous court dockets and records are kept in English.
IMPACT ON THE TRIAL JUDGE
My first substantive remarks concern the enormity of the change to a two
language system and its impact on the trial judge. I suspect that most people, in
thinking about the legislation, have in mind a person accused of crime who
understands no English. Making that person feel more comfortable, reducing the
feeling of helplessness and hopelessness, is appealing. But the majority of cases
are not simple factual criminal cases. They are cases arising out of a complex
network of statutes or regulations which are written in English and have received
their gloss of interpretations from judges who have expressed their minutely
nuanced views in English. The rules of procedure, criminal and civil, are not only
in English hut their application is documented in hundreds, thousands of English
language decisions. In many cases the record will in large part be that of an
administrative agency, kept entirely in English. I mention but shall not dwell
upon the fact that visiting judges will be unavailable to assist or that non-Spanish
speaking prosecutors and other personnel from stateside agencies will be precluded
from participation. I point here only to the burden on the trial judge.
It seems to me indisputable that the help he receives from counsel will be rather
seriously diminished as they give him their impressions in Spanish of the statutes,
regulations, rules of procedure, and case law precedents of what is undoubtedly the
most complex body of law in the world, the United States Code and the cases
interpreting it. Nor is it a light burden to require all decisions to be in~ the two
languages, when one considers that a decision frequently covers issues concerning
jurisdiction, standing, procedural rules, indispensable parties, mootness, pendent
questions, as well as the careful distinguishing of authorities bearing on the merits.
PAGENO="0096"
While there will be some saving in interpreters' time in cases where the parties
and witnesses are all Spanish speaking, I suspect that the burden on the trial
judge, at least in a complicated case, will be increased in managing the trial, and in
coming to and in formulating his decision.
One of my colleagues has eloquently phrased his apprehension:
"Where a court, like a federal court, is a specialized body dealing almost entirely
in the laws of an English-speaking society, and where it is necessary for that court
to operate as part of a court-system which is exclusively English-speaking, serious
problems are raised by introduction of another language. To cripple the federal
court in San Juan to the point that it loses its ability to function would be too high
a price to pay for the advantages of Spanish."
IMPACT ON THE DISTRICT COURT
To this qualitative burden on the trial judge, there is the quantitative burden on
the entire district court. The court is already in the throes of a traumatic meta-
morphosis, having grown from a one judge court when I came to the bench in 1965
to a seven judge court (assuming passage of the omnibus judgeship bill). In 1965 a
total of 688 civil and criminal cases was filed in Puerto Rico; in 1977 the number
was 2143-a fivefold increase in cases. If diversity jurisdiction remains, there is no
doubt that the advent of Spanish in the federal court will see a significant siphon-
ing off of cases from the Commonwealth's local court system. The prospect of
obtaining a jury trial and consequently higher damages in federal court has been
estimated in the Garsh report to result in an increase in filings of from 100 to 400
percent, i.e., of from 1600 to 6000 additional cases. Even if the maximum should
be halved, this increase would require from four to seven more judges and would
make the district court of Puerto Rico much larger than that of Massachusetts,
which has twice the population. If diversity jurisdiction is abolished, the siphoning
off effect of being able to have a jury trial in Spanish will still draw many cases
where there is both state and federal jurisdiction. Damage suits against Common-
wealth officials under 42 IJ.S.C. § 1983 are an example; I cannot imagine a plain-
tiff taking his case to a judge in Superior Court when he could have a jury trial in
federal court. It is ironic to contemplate the end result of a concern that an over-
bearing English speaking nation not stamp out the critical strains of local Spanish
culture and tradition: the presence of an inflated federal district court drawing
cases away from a dominantly civil law court system of steadily increasing
competence.
JURY PROBLEMS
The jury provisions of this legislation pose a set of problems, ranging from
constitutional issues to administrative questions. As the Judicial Conference
Committee on the Operation of Jury System has noted, the presence of two Sepa-
rate master and qualified jury wheels, for use in drawing English-speaking and
Spanish-speaking juries raises the question whether a litigant's right to a fair
cross section of the community has been sufficiently respected.
BURDENING APPEALS
Apart from the questions relating to the increased demands on trial judges and
the expected increase in litigation in the district court, there are problems affecting
the appellate process. The first arises from the expectation that in many cases
there will he a change from the Spanish-speaking trial attorney to the English-
speaking appellate attorney. This may well occasion delay if not result in increased
costs. Even if adequate numbers of skilled reporters and translators are obtained,
the increased costs of preparing a record on appeal are ominous.
The first cost is that of time since, according to a Puerto Rico translator cited
in the Garsh report, a translator working on an easy transcript is able to translate
7 pages a day. This estimate was increased to 8.3, 12.5, and 14.6 pages per day by
Washington translation services. A typist doing an ordinary transcript in English
at the rate of perhaps 8 to 10 pages an hour can do 80 pages a day. We therefore
face the unpleasant fact that to turn out a two day, 200 page transcript of a crim-
inal trial conducted in English, a maximum of three days' typing would be required
while the record of a trial of similar length in Spanish would require-in addition to
this period 2-a further period of from 13 days (at 14.6 pages per day) to 28 days
(at 7 pages per day). See generally Garsh Report, pp. 10-15. The bottom line is
2 "It is apparently impossible to locate a translator-court reporter or a person who could
listen to Spanish testimony and simultaneously prepare a stenotype tape in English."
Garsh Report, p. 1~.
PAGENO="0097"
that it is likely that the preparation of a translated record for appeal would take
from four to ten times as long as at present.
Not only is the prospect of delay in obtaining English translations of transcripts
foreboding, but so, not surprisingly, is the prospect of increased costs. As of 1974
the cost of a page of certified translation was from $6.00 to $7.00, over four times
the cost of an original page of transcript in English. (A.O. Bulletin 491, Supp. No.
5.) In other words, an appeal involving a thousand page transcript would cost
either a party or the United States $6,000 to $7,000 in addition to ordinary costs.
A final observation about appeals. Federal district courts such as that in San
Juan, have extensive powers. Many of the cases are not small individual actions
but major disputes involving municipalities, federal agencies, unions and busi-
nesses. A district judge can enjoin local legislatures and officials and can shut
down institutions and order certain action from entire communities. He can
impose severe penalties, including vast sums of monetary damages, on the United
States government itself and its officials. To guard against the abuse of such
powers by an individual district judge, courts of appeals have been established
with the power to issue stays and various types of emergency orders in connection
with their supervision of the district courts. If proceedings in Puerto Rico are
conducted in Spanish, it will be impossible for litigants to receive even preliminary
relief in the court of appeals until the necessary papers are translated. Usually
the necessary papers will include transcripts of lower court proceedings, some of
which have hundreds or even thousands of page plus numerous exhibits. Assum-
ing, as the Garsh report indicates, that a skilled translator can translate perhaps
seven to ten pages of transcript a day, we must be prepared to envisage cases
where it will be months before any form of meaningful appellate review or super-
vision even at the preliminary stage can be exercised by a United States court
of appeals. The Congress must ask itself whether it wishes this kind of unchecked
power to be delivered into the hands of any group of individual trial judges, no
matter how able. Put another way, if the Puerto Rico district court can use
Spanish, it may well become isolated from the system of which it is a part.
PROBLEMS OF SUPPLY OF PERSONNEL, SPACE, FACILITIES
Having dealt with the burden on judges, the court, juries, and on appeals, we
now come to the bedrock issues dealing with logistics-the provision of sufficient
space, equipment, money, and trained personnel to make a bilingual court in a
sophisticated metropolitan society viable. We begin with space. The fact is that
both the Judicial Council and the district court have for the past several years
been trying to correct the inadequacy of planning that brought about the "new"
courthouse in San Juan. It was obsolete before it was completed, utterly failing
to anticipate that at its completion there would be seven district judges rather
than three. Space to accommodate the additional supporting staff of court report-
ers, clerical personnel, jury offices, electronic recording machine operators,
translators-interpreters, and extra magistrates and judges necessary to achieve a
court able to function effectively and efficiently in two languages is not to be
found in the existing courthouse structures.
In addition to space is the need for highly skilled personnel. These are virtually
non-existent. Court reporters, particularly those qualified to record in Spanish,
are difficult to find. (Garsh Report, p. 25). There are no training facilities in
Puerto Rico. It is doubtful that reporters in the Commonwealth courts (if indeed
it were deemed wise to attempt to lure them away) would meet federal standards.
Skilled translators and interpreters are equally rare. Testing of several applicants,
noted in the Garsh Report at p. 16, yielded no likely candidate. The clerk of the
court thought, in 1975, that it might take six months to find only three well
qualified translators. Id., p. 17. Pay differentials are one big stumbling block:
interpreters and translators in the federal court system are apparently paid no
higher a salary than GS-6, whereas similar personnel in the State Department,
Secret Service, FBI, and IRS are paid at rates as high as GS-9, 10, and 11-and
GS-14 for simultaneous translators. (Garsh report, p. 17)
Mr. Chairman, the bland title given the bills on bilingual court legislation
conceals an issue of deep political appeal. For decades Puerto Rico has been, as
it still is, struggling with the task of identifying its future. A spin-off of that
struggle is the proposal that Spanish be used in federal court. Some sponsor the
idea because it is a step toward greater autonomy and separateness; others sponsor
it because it may satisfy cultural aspirations while preserving a traditional federal
institution.
Our Judicial Council is concerned with the humble, rock bottom problem
of administering justice with a reasonable degree of competence, without excessive
35-552 0 - 79 - 7
PAGENO="0098"
94
cost or delay. The district court and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have
both been growing at such a pace that we have not yet reached the stage where
we have had enough judges and other personnel to do a quality job without
pressing continually for outside help. Even so, the backlogs persist. To introduce
into this still fragile situation a demand which would tax even the most adequately
staffed and experienced court without thoughtful and detailed planning and sus-
tained generous funding would he to make a cruel charade of the idea of enlisting
the court system in the cause of social and cultural reform.
STATEMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE JOSE. V. TOLEDO OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO,
San Juan, Puerto Rico, August 3, 1978.
Hon. DON EDWARDS,
Chariman, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN. As requested, included herewith are Copies of the state-
ment which I wifi give at the hearings scheduled by the Subcommittee which
you preside on H.R. 10228 and 5. 1315.
I hope that said copies arrive in your office by Monday, August 7, 1978, in
order to comply with the requirement that the statements be filed at least 48
hours before the deponent's scheduled appearance.
Sincerely,
JOSE V. TOLEDO,
Chief Judge.
Enclosures.
My name is Jose V. Toledo and I am Chief Judge of the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico. I appear before you today to give my views
in relation to bill No. S. 1315 equivalent to H.R. 10228 and H.R. 12003 presently
before your consideration. Specifically, I will address myself to sections 3 and 4 of
said Senate bifi dealing exclusively with proceedings before the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
On February 5, 1974, I appeared before the Senate Subcommittee on Improve-
ments of Judicial Machinery to testify in support of the Bilingual Courts Act as it
was then drafted. At that time I stated, and I quote:
"... I am referring specially to defendants in criminal cases who in most cases
are able to understand the proceedings being conducted against them only through
the words of an interpreter."
Thus I am already on the record, having endorsed more than four years ago
the use of Spanish in criminal proceedings in Federal Courts for those defendants
unable to understand English. However, I feel that Senate Bill 1315 being presently
considered by this subcommittee goes beyond the limited circumstances envisioned
in 1974, and the impact of such proposed legislation on the Federal District Court
of Puerto Rico is of great concern to me.
My official position is that the provisions of 5. 1315 enabling the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico to conduct proceedings in the
Spanish language should be limited to criminal proceedings only.
As I stated in my. appearance in 1974, I feel that due process for criminal de-
fendants is best guaranteed by conducting the proceedings in Spanish when it so
happens that Spanish is the language best understood by the defendants. Lest I be
misunderstood, let me state for the record that I have not concluded that the due
process clause of the Federal Constitution mandates that criminal proceedings be
conducted in the vernacular language of the defendant. I am merely stating my
conviction, as a lawyer and as a judge, that the due process clause is best imple-
mented by making the criminal proceedings more meaningful to the defendants
by conducting them in their vernacular tongue when that is possible within the
Federal judicial system.
At the present moment I can not shy away from my duty to alert Congress of
the practical problems that these bills may cause to the entire Federal judicial
system.
Section 3 of the proposed Senate bill reads in part as follows:
initial pleadings in the United States District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico may be ified in either the Spanish or English language and all further
proceedings shall be in the English language, unless upon application of a party or
PAGENO="0099"
upon its own option, the court, in the interest of justice, orders that further
proceedings or any part thereof, shall be conducted in the Spanish language .. ."
Senate bill 1315 does not limit its provisions to criminal cases. Moreover, it
does not define the term "Interest of Justice". Perhaps the congressional intention
in including this undefined term is to grant the court ample discretion in deciding
in which circumstances it will conduct proceedings in Spanish. But if this is the
case, why provide that in all cases, at the apparent option of the party, the initial
pleading may he either in English or Spanish? Did Congress mean to include prag-
matic considerations within the concept of "Interest of Justice"? Can the court, "in
the Interest of Justice" consider whether it is prepared to handle the additional
clerical burden of receiving documents in two languages at the option of the filing
party, or the need to have translations automatically done when the initial
pleadings are filed in Spanish? It is most desirable to obtain legislative guidelines
as to which elements ought to be considered when determining whether "in the
Interest of Justice" the proceedings are to be conducted in Spanish.
Then again, in civil cases how "just" should "justice" be? Should the court
lend its "bilingual" ears to the foreign party, represented by english speaking
counsel and order that proceedings be in English or should the court find that
justice is best served by allowing the proceedings in Spanish thus favoring the
Spanish speaking party, or the Spanish speaking attorney? In regard to civil
litigation there should be a clear statement as to the congressional intent in a
statute such as the present one. Except in a few cases, there is no right of access
to the federal courts for general civil matters. As a matter of fact it had been my
previous understanding that it was the intention of Congress, within the constitu-
tional limits imposed by article III, to limit the jurisdiction of federal district
courts in civil cases in general and to bolster the role of the State courts system as
effective instruments in imparting justice in our society.
All of those present here today who are conversant with legal terms and the
operation of the different court systems know that jurisdiction is not a matter
exclusively defined by statutes. There are other, perhaps "nonjuridical" elements,
that shape the desirability of one court over the other and which make them a more
desirable arena for litigants. Forum-shopping is a much abhorred practice in the
Federal judicial system. However, I feel that in regard to the Federal District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico, Senate Bill 1315 will actually promote such
practice of forum shopping in civil cases.
It is in the calendar of civil cases where the language to be used poses a problem
close enough to constitute a threat to the efficient operation of our court. It is a
fact demonstrable by available statistics that our regular civil case load, as a court
conducting all proceedings in English, is steadily increasing in alarming propor-
tions. In fact, the Omnibus Judgeship Bill pending final approval by this Congress
deals only with actual case load contemplating an "English-speaking" court. The
statistical projections reveal that by the year 1981, under actual conditions, (that
is, even if we still were exclusively an English-speaking court), the proposed court
of seven judges will be overburdened by the ever increasing case load.
Again referring to the civil docket of the court, when one considers the fact that
there is no right to jury trials in civil cases in Puerto Rico, that local judges in-
variably issue judgments granting comparatively lower amounts of money as
compensation, and having in mind the tremendous backlog existing in the trial
courts of Puerto Rico, it is quite possible that a great proportion of these cases
may be filed in our Federal District Court increasing our case load to unmanage-
able proportions once the English language ceases to be a barrier.
In addition, the latest statistics reported to us by the office of the court ad-
ministration of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico reveal that in fiscal year 1973-
1974, 74,005 civil cases were filed in the superior courts of Puerto Rico and that,
out of those, 13,116 were potential diversity jurisdiction cases. As expressed by
the chief justice of the supreme court of Puerto Rico, the State courts' case load
has sharply increased, and proportionally, we would expect a like increase in what
we have termed "potential diversity jurisdiction cases".
I feel that if the Spanish language were to be applied to criminal proceedings
only, the case load of our court would not be affected to any great degree in view
of the fact that the number of criminal cases to be filed depends exclusively on the
Justice Department and the United States Attorney and I do not think that
language is the criterion which determines the filing of such cases. Moreover, were
the bill limited to criminal proceedings only, the term "Interest of Justice" be-
comes judicially manageable because of the dictates of the due process clause,
which serves as a clear guideline pointing to the goal of making the proceedings
meaningful to the defendant.
Logically, as it is to be expected, the time consumed in each case will necessarhy
increase, due to the delay caused by the translation, either written (for pleadings
PAGENO="0100"
96
to be considered by our court of appeals) or oral (for proceedings in which the
Government is represented by an English speaking attorney, as is sometimes the
case).
The use of the Spanish language wifi encourage more lawyers in Puerto Rico to
practice before our court. That is indeed a most desirable result. However, if
that is to be the case and we are to have attorneys from all over the island filing
cases in our court, it is only fair that we open courthouses in equi-distant geo-
graphical areas with additional clerical personnel. That means an additional in-
crease in judges and their corresponding judicial staffs beyond those contemplated
by the pending omnibus judgeship bill. Otherwise, the San Juan Court will be
unwisely congested and would not conform to the standards of the judicial con-
ference as to the goals to be attained for the best operating conditions of the
Federal district courts throughout the nation.
To be completely honest with the members of this committee, and at the risk
of being blunt, I am most worried, if not frightened, by the possible lack of funds
and of judicial and parajudicial personnel to adequately implement this bill. As
Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico in
charge of its administrative affairs, it is my duty to exhaust every possible alter-
native in order to keep our court on its feet. Our goal is not merely to maintain
the present conditions against the everrising tide of greater case loads. It is my
duty, and indeed my plan of action and my daily agenda, to see that our court
betters itself every day both in matters relating to internal administration as
well as in the quality of the work performed by us, the judges sitting there. I do
not want to see Senate bill 1315 become an obstacle in our efforts to improve
working conditions. Rather, we want to further host a reasonable environment in
which justice becomes the primary concern of the judges. I do not think that
inefficiency, haste, burdensome case loads, and overbearing calendars can lead to
sound judicial decisions, well founded opinions and wise sentences. Nor am I
happy with the idea of seeing my role, as well as that of my colleagues, turned
into one of mass-manufacturers of "decisions".
Several suggestions have been made with the intended purpose of eliminating
any objections of pragmatic nature to the implementation of the bill. It has been
suggested that the United Nation's system of simultaneous translation offers a
viable model, but studies within the First Circuit indicate that translators with
that kind of skill are very scarce, work very short hours, are paid extremely high
salaries, and could not be assembled in sufficient numbers to provide daily services
to our court. Moreover, there is another caveat which nobody has mentioned
up to this date which worries me more than any other consideration of an "ad-
ministrative" nature. Bilingualism within the Federal judicial context poses a
problem not easily solved by reference to non-judicial circumstances, such as the
United Nations' translation system which I just mentioned. Judicial proceedings
are not parliamentary in nature, they are governed by specific rules sanctioned by
the United States Supreme Court after congressional enactment. The fact that
some of the rules have been deemed procedural in nature, rather than constituting
"substantive" rights, does not detract from the reality that said rules are to be
monitored by the presiding judge, and it is his ministerial duty to see that they
are complied with. In some circumstances non-compliance with procedural rules
can alter the outcome of the cases. To be more specific, I am referring myself,
for example, to the translation to be had in the trial of a criminal case. Even when
the best translators available are hired, it seems to me that the judge will have to
listen to the translation offered, either for the record in the event the case is
appealed to the court of appeals, or to the defendant when the court decides
that "in the interest of justice" the defendant should receive a translation into
Spanish from the proceedings conducted in English. It is quite possible, and it
has been my personal experience sitting in a criminal case, that a crucial word,.
although correctly translated in a literary sense, is erroneously translated as to
its legal and applicable sense.
In a criminal trial where the nuances of the languages involved are not observed
and a word is not translated into the term correctly conveying its legal sense,
either to the defendant or for the record, a mistrial is quite possible according
to the rules of criminal procedure. Thus, in order to obviate this type of dangerous
situation it is the duty of the presiding judge to monitor, more or less actively,
the translation of the proceedings. Even when not all erroneous translations will
rise to the level of a mistrial, if we are to continue our efforts to preside over fair
proceedings, we will have to take on the additional burden or worrying over the
nature of the translation.
PAGENO="0101"
That is why the simultaneous translation system of the United Nations men-
tioned before, might not meet all the necessary judicial requirements. In such a
system neither the speaker nor the presiding party is aware of the translations
taking place. It does not afford the guarantee of allowing the judge to observe
the translations from time to time and to make pertinent interjections to correct
any dubious term or to instruct the jury as to the correct meaning of any word
used during the proceedings, directing them to disregard any other possible mean-
ing which could have detrimental connotations for either party in the suit.
At the present moment the Federal District Court for the District of Puerto
Rico uses a one-way translation system in all criminal cases where the defendant
does not understand English. The proceedings are conducted in English and these
are translated into Spanish for the benefit of the defendant. This is done directly
to the defendant, either in a low voice or through earphones. However, the judge
is aware of the translation taking place, he can observe the reactions both of the
defendant and of the translator and can halt the proceedings when a difficult term
comes up or when the defendant seems unsatisfied with the translation. Also, the
translator can gesture for "time out" so as to translate a lengthy sentence, or
request that the court reporter read back something which was missed.
The testimony of Spanish speaking witnesses and/or parties is also translated
into English for the Record. In this case, after the statement is offered in Spanish,
sentence by sentence, it is translated out loud into English for the court reporter
to take down. Again, the translator has the option of halting the witness when
offering a long or complex sentence so as to accurately put into the record the
English version of his testimony. Many a time has the judge clarified the record
when such translations could possibly lead the court of appeals to error.
Other potential problems that ought to be considered when enacting Senate bill
1315 is the need to make sure that appeals to the Appellate Federal courts will not
be so delayed by the need for translation of the record once transcribed so as to
jeopardize the litigants' rights to appeal, especially in emergency situations such as
an appeal for a lower bail in a criminal case, an interlocutory injunction, or others.
Another problem which should be considered in regard to the proposed legislation
is the ability of non-English lawyers, which could not be denied access to practice
in said bilingual court, to follow and ably use and expound Federal case law. The
bill should not operate to the detriment of litigants' requests for a good legal
representation and our court's expectations of being able to rely on the quality of
the counsel appearing before it. In such an event our court would have to take on
the burdensome and delicate task of evaluating the attorneys in order to assure
that the parties are at least reasonably represented by competent counsel. That
would turn us into a bar of examiners, and I do not think that Federal judges
should be requested to pass on the attorneys' competence to represent their
clients. This would be a task very different from the disciplinary powers that the
court has, and which it exercises in a very few number of extraordinary cases in
which attorneys have not complied with the court's orders.
Honorable members of this committee, I urge you to review Senate bill 1315 as
it is now drafted, and to limit its provisions for bilingual proceedings in the United
States District court for the District of Puerto Rico to criminal cases only. I also
suggest that if such a revision is not feasible within the present session, that
Senate bill 1315, H.R. 10228 and H.R. 12003, be extricated from the rest of the
accompanying bills and to altogether postpone the enactment of the same, until a
more detailed study be made of the practical problems posed.
Some of you might ask me whether my position, as stated here today, is one
based strictly on considerations of an administrative nature. If I were in your
shoes I would pose the following question: Assume for the sake of argument that
Congress will provide all necessary judges, personnel, facilities, as well as an
efficient system of translation so that all objections of a practical nature are
obliterated, would you then have any objections to Senate bill 1315?
To this question my answer is: Gentlemen, my official and personal position is
that 5. 1315 ultimately presents a question of policy in regard to Puerto Rico,
which is to be determined by the United States Congress. To the extent that this,
matter presents a question of partisan politics in Puerto Rico, I can not give you
my personal opinion. I am here in my capacity as Chief Judge of the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. And it is precisely in that capacity
in which I have always considered any matters relating to the operation and status
of that court. However, as a student of the Federal constitutional as well as judicial
policy, 1 urge you to consider the possibility that this bill has the effect of further
opening the doors of a Federal district court to private litigation which should
properly be before the State courts, in this case, the courts of the Commonwealth
PAGENO="0102"
98
of Puerto Rico. I also invite you to ponder on whether it is the intention of Congress
to estrange this, a Federal district court, from the rest of the Federal judicial system,
and whether this would be consonant with the mandates of the Federal Constitution.
For the moment, I only request from this honorable committee to refrain from
transforming the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico into a
tower of Babel in which the soft, but strong voice of justice is overpowered by the
confusion of a thousand tongues. Let me instead invite you to build, step by step,
a humble stair to make our goals of efficient justice reachable. At this moment,
bilingual proceedings in criminal cases only seems to be a strong foundation upon
which to build the rising road to our goals.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JUAN R. TORRUELLA, JUDGE, U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for the oppor-
tunity of being heard on the subject of H.R. 10228 and 5. 1315.
My remarks will be limited to Sections 4 and 5 thereof.
It is my opinion that these proposals, although undoubtedly well-intentioned,
will not only cause irreparable harm to the United States District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico, but will also be impossible to implement and subject to
serious constitutional challenge.
It goes without saying that no court of justice worthy of such denomination
can operate under a system wherein a criminal defendant is unaware of the nature
of the proceedings against him or is unable to intelligently aid in the defense of
his case. If the system used presently in Puerto Rico were defective in any such
sense, I could not in good conscience oppose corrective measures. But such is not
the case. The present system of simultaneous translation is eminently fair and
fully meets the requirements of due process. This is not a theoretical statement'
but one based on observation through 20 years of actve practice of law in the
district court in Puerto Rico, both as a lawyer and as a judge. I challenge the
bringing forth of facts demonstrative of the failure of our pre :ent system.
In contrast, our District Court, as part of the federal judiciary system, has a
consistent, unchallenged and universally recognized record of nearly 80 years of
effective contribution to the administration of justice in Puerto Rico. Notwith-
standing severe manpower limitations throughout its history, our Court has
performed as a viable and integrated part of that system.
In the year ending on June 30, 1977 each Judge in our Court terminated an
average of 641 cases, compared to the National average of 384 cases per Judge.
As of December 31, 1977, there were 2142 civil and 213 criminal cases filed before
our Court, an average of 714 per Judge, which is well above the National average
of 411 cases per Judge. Our Judges averaged 50 full trials per year of both civil
and criminal cases, which again exceeded the National average. In the First
Circuit, appeals from our D strict constituted 26.7 percent of the appeals from the
District Courts and 20.6 percent of all appeals to the Court of Appeal . I will not
further burden the Committee with statistics which I am sure are available to
you, and I apologize for what sounds like self-praise. The purpose is otherwise.
These solid facts show beyond any doubt that the present system has worked
and continues to work with efficiency while providing an adequate forum for the
litigation of Federal controversies.
Furthermore, challenges to both the translation system and the jury system
have been consistently struck down by the Courts.
United States v. De Jesiis Boria, 518 F. 2d 368, 371 (C.A 1, 1975).
Miranda v. United States, 255 F. 2d 9, 13-17 (C.A. 1, 1958).
Carpintero v. United States, 398 F. 2d 488, 490 (C.A. 1, 1968).
United States v. Ramos Colon, 415 F. Supp. 459 (D.C.P.R., 1976).
United States v. Valentine, 288 F. Supp. 957 (D.C.P.R., 1968).
United States v. Mirabal C'arriiin, 140 F. Supp. 226 (D.C.P.R., 1956).
In United States v. Valentine, supra, former Chief Judge Hiram R. Cancio,
who was joined in his opinion by Senior Judge J. B. Fernándaz-Badillo, stated as
follows:
"It does not follow. . `.that because proceedings in local courts are conducted in
Spanish, proceedings in this court must also be conducted in that language.
This court is not a local court of Puerto Rico. Rather, it is a United States district
court, part of the federal judicial system, litigating cases arising under the Con-
stitution and laws of the United States or by reason of diversity of state citizen-
ship. Hence, the very reasoning which led the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
PAGENO="0103"
~99
to conclude that proceedings in the Commonwealth court need be conducted only
in Spanish applies in reverse to justify conducting proceedings in this court in
English. Just as Spanish is `the language of the Puerto Rican people' (People v.
Superior Court, supra), the United States has from the time of its independence
been an English-speaking nation. Although the American population has in-
cluded occasional enclaves of foreign-speaking peoples, there has never been any
tradition of official bilingualism, such as prevails in countries like Canada, Belgium,
Switzerland or India. The past history of the United States discloses no more
than occasional minor and temporary accommodations to the language pre-
ferences of foreign speaking peoples where they comprised a substantial segment
of the original population of newly acquired area. But no Continental American
court, federal or state, has ever conducted its proceedings in any language other
than English. Thus, while it was proper for Congress to recognize from the begin-
ning Puerto Rico's uniqueness among newly acquired territories, and not force
English here as the official local language (as it could have done before Common-
wealth status was agreed upon), it is equally proper that this court, being a
federal rather than a local court, conduct its proceedings in the English rather than
the Spanish language. As the Commonwealth Supreme Court recognized, the
language requirements of §~ 864 and 867 [48 U.S.C.] `are in agreement with
and in line with the tradition that the judicial proceedings throughout the whole
federal jurisdiction be conducted in the English language.'
"Indeed, it is difficult to conceive how this court could remain a viable part of
the federal judicial system if proceedings here were conducted in Spanish. The
basic civil function of the federal distriet court `in offering an opportunity to
non-residents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence' . . . would
be conpromised and unreasonably restricted here, were litigants forced, in order
to avail themselves of the facilities of this court, to litigate through interpreters
in a language other than English. Similarly, this court's function as to forum in
this district for the vindication of federal criminal laws and the resolution of civil
controversies to which the United States is a party would be compromised were the
Attorney General of the United States unable to appear here personally on the
Government's behalf unless he were conversant with Spanish, and were he limited
by similar considerations in designating a member of his staff to appear. There
would also be an anomalous limitation, unique within the federal system on judges
from other districts who could sit here by designation when needed. Moreover,
the statutes which this court applies are (except in those instances where Com-
monwealth or foreign statutes are at issue) written in English. The consequent
necessity of phrasing an indictment or civil complaint in Spanish upon the basis
of a statute written in English would manifestly lend itself to the strong possibility
of injustice throngh distortion of meaning in translation. Similar possibilities of
injustice would arise on appeal, where the entire record would have to be trans-
lated back into English. Finally, this Court, would be effectively insulated from
the body of law developed throughout the rest of the federal system, since the
opinions of all the other federal courts and the legislative histories of all federal
enactments are published only in English.
"These considerations are not counterbalanced by any prejudice to litigants
arising from the English language requirements. There is no real risk of litigants
being tried by juries unable to understand the evidence since if any venirement
lacks sufficient facility with English to render competent jury service, they can
be and are eliminated on voir dire. . . . While some of the criminal defendants
here are tried in a language they do not understand, the problem is not unique
to this district; the situation arises in other districts as well, although concededly
not to the same extent as it does here. A defendant's right to a fair trial, however,
is personal not collective; a non-English speaking defendant could not he thought
to be the less prejudiced if he is tried in a district where few defendants are in the
same situation than if he is tried in a district where many are. It is thus no more
of a constitutional violation to try non-English speaking def~ndants in English
in this court than to try other non-English speaking defendants in English in any
other Federal district court." 288 F. Supp. at 963-965 (citations and footnotes
omitted).
An analysis of the proposed legislation should cover three different aspects:
constitutional, policy and practical. For obvious reasons, the possible issues
raised by the constitutional and policy aspects shall only be briefly mentioned.
However, I will cover in detail the practical questions which I foresee.
1. Possible constitutional issues raised by this legislation:
a. Is there an official constitutional language of the United States which by
implication is mandatory in the proceedings of any of its branches of government?
PAGENO="0104"
100
b. What is the nature of the District Court for the District of Puerto Rico? See
United States v. Ramos Colon, supra. If it is an Article III court, is Congress
not required to treat it in the same uniform manner as the rest of the Federal
judicial system? If it is an Article III court, can Congress impose on the judges of
the District of Puerto Rico requirements for holding office which are different
from (in fact higher than) the judges of other District Courts? Even if it is not an
Article III court, considering the life tenure provisions of the District of Puerto
Rico judges, can the requirements for holding office of the present judges be varied?
c. Does the creation of separate petit and grand jury wheels for Spanish speaking
and non-Spanish speaking groups meet due process and equal protection require-
ments? What cases would be indictable by the Spanish grand jury, and which
would be indictable by the English grand jury? Would it depend on the witnesses,
the type of crime, the possible outcome, the United States Attorney's preference,
etc.?
2. Under the heading of Policy questions the following come to mind:
a. Does the establishment of non-English as the official language in .a formal
proceeding of the United States create a valid precedent in terms of other courts,
instrumentalities and agencies of the United States? Can not the same arguments
for the use of non-English in a District Court be equally applicable to appeallate
proceedings before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or to legislative or
executive proceedings? Should not the laws of the United States be enacted and
published in non-English also?
b. Would the other geographical areas within the jurisdiction of the United
States where there are substantial non-English speaking populations be subject to
this same type of differential legislation?
3. Practical problems:
The use of Spanish in substitution for English as an official language in the
United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico would effectively
eliminate this Court as a part of the Federal judicial system.
If Spanish were substituted for English, the case load would multiply to such
an extent that even with the proposed increase to seven district judges, the in-
dividual judges will be totally ineffective. This would be brought about not only
because of the tremendously increased case load which is foreseen, but because
this legislation would bring about a duplication in the routine work of the judge,
even, without a single additional case being filed. I am referring specifically to the
provision in Section 3 to the effect that the written orders and decisions of the
court shall be in both Spanish and English. Even today with only three district
judges, there are literally hundreds of orders that issue daily, ranging in length
from a brief word or two to tens of pages long. The disastrous consequences of thib
proposal in terms of wasted manpower and the fomentation of bureaucracy can
not be fathomed. And quite obviously, having translators would only alleviate
some of the extra work of the judges, who in any event have to check the work of
the translators.
As previously indicated, the United States District Court for Puerto Rico has
one of the highest case loads per judge in the federal court system. The foui new
judgeships %which are being created to alleviate this situation would be rendered
obsolete before the Omnibus Bill is passed. Not only would further additional
judges be required, but the new Courthouse Building, now obsolete, would be
totally inoperable.
It is difficult to visualize what work tools would be available to the judges of
the District of Puerto Rico. All of the texts and authorities available in the
Federal field, commencing with the statute books, the various authoritative
works, the decisions, jury instructions, etc., are in the English language. How
this might be overcome on a workable day-to-day manner without causing inter-
minable delay, is impossible to foresee.
The cost of appeals, as well as the time required to complete an appeal would
be substantially increased. It becomes a relatively simple matter to. have to
translate some exhibits from Spanish to English, as is the case in the typical
appeal today, compared to the enormous burden of having to translate a full
record of a trial. Appeals from Puerto Rico, which today take longer to complete
than those of the other District Courts in this Circuit, would be even further
delayed if the proposed bill is enacted.
In a related vein, two sets of Court Reporters would have to be employed, one
for Spanish and one for English, as we are unaware of the existence of any bilingual
reports. In fact, the reporting machines for the two languages are different.
This move will effectively isolate the District Court for Puerto Rico from the
rest of the Federal judiciary. We would no longer be in consonance with the rest
of the uniform system. I am not preaching uniformity for its own sake. We would
PAGENO="0105"
101
be removed from any help we might be able to receive from being part of this
system in the way of visiting judges, logistic support, and much of the practical
help that can be given by the Administrative Office, etc.
Several of the important agencies that practice before us would face difficult
logistic problems. For example, excluding consideration of the black lung-cases,
the volume of Social Security litigation in our District is the highest in the Nation.
In the year ending December 31, 1977, 679 Social Security cases were filed in our
Court. That constitutes 31.6 percent of the total number of civil cases commenced
last year. Because of this enormous volume, our Social Security cases are all
briefed by Justice Department Attorneys in the Continent. At present, delays of
six to nine months in filing briefs are not uncommon. If reliance would have to be
placed in the San Juan United States Attorney's Office because of their knowledge
of Spanish, the volume of work added to that already overburdened staff would
bring about interminable delay and would cause a travesty of justice.
Some very active members of our Bar would be in effect disbarred, and the
English speaking residents of Puerto Rico, of which there are a substantial number,
would he further discriminated against. The Commonwealth courts have already
barred all litigation except in Spanish and they refuse to provide any translators
for non-Spanish speaking parties. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has discon-
tinued translation into English of its decisions, a practice which was in effect for
over sixty years.
I have heard unsupported arguments to the effect that this legislation will make
this District Court of Puerto Rico more accessible to 1)0th the Bar and to the
public. Statistics clearly show that this Court is anything but inaccessible to the
public. Our case load has grown from 668 filings in 1950, 703 filings in 1960, 1205
filings in 1970, to 2355 filings in 1977. The membership in our Bar has grown in a
proportionate manner. For example, in 1950 there were 30 admissions to the local
bar (a mandatory bar) and 24 admissions to the Federal Bar. This parallel growth
continued in the following decades. In 1960 there were 97 admissions to the local
bar and 70 admissions to the federal bar. In 1970, 464 admissions to the local bar
and 114 to the federal bar. Last year with 388 admissions to the local bar there
were 197 admissions to the federal bar. Interestingly, in the present year, there
have been 138 admitted to the local bar and 99 admitted to the federal bor.
Statistics show that in excess of 50% of the attorneys admitted to practice in
Puerto Rico are also admitted to the Federal Bar. See Appendix B. Although I do
not have final figures, I believe this compares favorably with the situation in other
districts. Furthermore, the records of the Court show that geographically, mem-
bers of the federal bar are found throughout the entire Island.
It has also been my experience that the composition of our jury panels follows
a similar pattern in terms of both occupational and geographical distribution.
By way of an example, the last panel used by me in a criminal trial, contained
members from 19 different municipalities from around the Island with occupa-
tions as diverse as factory workers, taxi drivers, social workers, electrician, clerk,
engineer, truck driver, receptionist and housewife. See Appendix C. This particular
panel was randomly selected and from my experience I opine that its composition
may be considered as representative of jury panels in our Court.
There are sundry other problems raised by this legislation but I will not further
belabor this Committee. I can not however, leave without emphasizing as strongly
as I possibly can, that in my opinion, the passage of the proposed bill would bring
about disastrous consequences to our Court. I am proud to have been a part of an
institution which has accomplished much for the People of Puerto Rico and which
is looked upon by our People as a symbol of Justice. This has not sat well with
some small segments of our society. These persons have without success sought
the elimination of the Federal Court from Puerto Rico. I am sorry to say that the
end result of the present legislation, although inadvertent, may be to bring about
indirectly what has not been accomplished directly.
APPENDIX A
ADMISSION OF ATTORNEYS TO LOCAL AND FEDERAL BARS
Year
Local court
Federal court
1950
30
24
1960
1970
1977
As of July 30, 1978
97
464
388
138
70
114
197
99
PAGENO="0106"
102
APPENDIX C
CoMPosITIoN OF JURY PANEL CALLED ON JULY 14, 1978
Hometown:
Rio Piedras
Lajas
Rio Piedras
Adjuntas
Bayamón
Mayaguez
Ponce
Luquillo
Humacao
Bayamón
Humacao
San Germdn
San Juan
Carolina
Carolina
Cayey
Toa Baja
Arroyo
Bayamón
San Juan
Toa Baja
San Juan
Bayamón
Carolina
Humacao.
Barceloneta
San Juan
Rio Grande
Carolina
Dorado
Rio Piedras
San Juan
San Juan
Ponce
Trujillo Alto
Rio Piedras
San Juan
Utuado
Bayamón
Occupation
Housewife.
Clerk.
Factory worker.
Carpenter.
Social worker in commonwealth
agency.
Social worker in commonwealth
agency.
Mechanical engineer.
Secretary.
Government employee.
Factory worker.
Electrician.
Truck driver.
Housewife.
Mail handler.
Accounting clerk.
Electrician.
Retired from Armed Forces.
Factory foreman.
Security guard.
Retired Federal employee.
Secretary.
Housewife.
Receptionist.
Tax analyst.
Clerk-typist.
Construction worker.
Store manager.
Taxi driver.
Racetrack pool agent.
Taxi driver.
Store manager.
Factory worker.
Engineering manager.
Pharmacist assistant.
Travel agent.
Accountant.
Secretary.
Factory worker.
Truck driver.
APPENDIX B
ADMISSIONS
Local bar
(mandatory)
Federal bar
1950-60
559
305
1960-70
1970-77
1978
1,747
2,031
138
754
1,250
99
Total
4,475
2,408
Note: Percentage of attorneys being admitted to local and Federal bars: 53.8.
PAGENO="0107"
103
TESTIMONY OF HON. PRANK M. COFFIN, CHIEF JUDGE, U.S. COURT
OF APPEALS, PORTLAND, MAINE; HON. JOSE V. TOLEDO, CHIEF
JUDGE, U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO
RICO; HON. JUAN R. TORRUELLA, JUDGE, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
Judge COFFIN. If you wish, Mr. Chairman, I will lead off and more
or less set the stage.
I have skimmed the written comments of my brothers and feel
that they complement each other quite nicely, so I will not read to
you what you have already read but I will summarize and give
emphasis to several points.
Our interest, speaking now for my colleagues on the circuit court
who are also, as you know, the Judicial Council of the First Circuit,
in this legislation stems from two sources.
First of all, referring to our interest as a court, the appeals from
Puerto Rico have increased steadily over the past 10 years. Judge
Torruella's statement refers to this also, but Puerto Rican appeals
have risen from 13 percent of our total appeals 8 years ago to as high
a percentage as 31 percent at the present time.
Bear in mind that Massachusetts as a district has twice as many
people as Puerto Rico.
Our second source of interest is as a Judicial Council. We are
charged with general oversight of judicial administration in Puerto
Rico, and I think as Chief Judge Toledo would testify, the two
of us are constantly in touch with each other about the needs of that
court for personnel, for additional judges, visiting judges, and new
facilities.
Our concern in this legislation is about 4 years old. We have been
concerned since 1974 with the problems of trying to reconcile two
things, a nationwide English speaking Federal court system with a
community which is largely Spanish speaking.
Three years ago we commissioned a study by a young lawyer in
Boston, Miss Susan Garsh, who went over to Puerto Rico and com-
piled a report, a copy of which I sent you, Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago.
That report is not by an expert, it is not by a foundation. It is not
current. However, it is the only thing of that sort that exists.
I understand only through hearsay that the Department of Justice
is interested in passing this legislation at this time. If it has taken a
position on this matter it is news to us. No member of the Department
of Justice has ever communicated to us, asked our views, or as far as
I know conducted any kind of a study.
There is only one thing I can say without qualification in this testi-
mony and that is that the kind of study done so long ago by Miss
Garsh must be done currently with the kind of expertise and authority
that only adequately funded experts in the field can bring to such a
task, for it's a new task.
It is not like appropriating additional money for housing or for
schooling. It's in terms of the job to be done; we have never done it,
and I am candid in saying that I am not confident, as confident today
PAGENO="0108"
104
as I was 4 years ago that we can do it well; that is, that we can make
Spanish available without cheapening and diluting the quality of
justice being administered.
My members on the Judicial Council who agree with what I have
submitted to you wholeheartedly are thoroughly sympathetic with the
desire of those who are brought up in a Spanish culture and who are
most comfortable in Spanish to have important affairs in their lives
settled in the language with which they are most familiar.
But, at the same time, we realize the immense sophistication of the
Federal system of laws, statutes, and regulations which is the chief
part of our grist in Puerto Rico.
Now what I will now try to communicate is a series of problem
areas to which we have paid far too little concern. I am not just in-
dulging in sour grapes when I say we should do more to understand
these problems and how they may best be dealt with, nor am I trying
to use as a delaying tactic the frequently resorted to advice that some-
thing needs to be studied.
I know perfectly well that many things are studied to death. But
this is a unique proposal as to which we as a country have had no ex-
perience. Some other countries have had experience. I think we would
do well to see what that experience has been in England, in Canada,
Switzerland, and undoubtedly some other countries.
But the fact remains that all of the things that we are going to talk
about were rather cavalierly brushed aside when this bill got annexed
to the bilingual courts legislation in the Senate, without, so far as I
know, any hearings or debate.
Certainly the individual judges, and we as a Council and the Judicial
Conference, were caught wholly by surprise.
I would say, and this need not be said to any of you behind your
committee bench, but many who are uncritically enthusiastic about
enacting this special legislation right now are ignorant of two basic
facts.
One is that we do have a very good court system in Puerto Rico. My
two brothers sitting with me are not the only judges in the Common-
wealth. The Commonwealth court system is a highly sophisticated
system based largely or to a considerable extent on civil law. But also
applying, of course, Federal constitutional principles.
Their system consists of local judges and superior court judges and a
Supreme Court. The building housing the San Juan division of the
superior court is a modern building in San Juan, that is far more sophis-
ticated than anything the district of Massachusetts has, using equip-
ment that is far more sophisticated than any of our district judges in
my circuit uses. Their court system is under the leadership of Chief
Justice Jose Trias-Monge, and is increasing in its efficiency.
Many who are for this legislation feel that what we are discussing is
the proposal of bringing a court that speaks Spanish to Puerto Ricans.
This Commonwealth court system I have talked about is, of course,
entirely Spanish speaking. It is not English at all.
Our second observation which you know but many others don't
know, is that every litigant and every witness who is unable to corn-
municate in English has an interpreter.
I have listed five problem areas and I will not speak in any detail
about them, but just indicate the kind of problem each area involves.
PAGENO="0109"
105
The first problem area is the impact on the judge himself. If it is true
that there are lawyers who are prevented from going into Federal
Court today because they do not feel at home in English, to the extent
that is true, then if they may try a case in Spanish in Federal Court
there will be an influx of lawyers who are not as well equipped to under-
stand statutes, regulations, case law, the nuances which make dealing
in Federal law a highly intricate business.
The judge presiding over cases with lawyers not at home in English
will have a rather large load put upon him.
A second area is the impact on the court. As my colleagues will tell
you, this court in Puerto Rico has mushroomed from a court of one
article I judge, when I came on our court, 13 years ago, to three
article III judges. In the current legislation, which we are hoping will
eventually emerge there will be four additional judges, so going from
one nontenured judge to seven tenured judges in the course of a little
over a decade shows the extent to which this institution has grown.
The number of cases since 1965 has quintupled. The Garsh report
estimates that if Spanish is applied to both civil and criminal cases in
the Federal court, the growth of litigation there will increase between
100 and 400 percent.
Even if we cut her maximum estimate in half, my extrapolation
from her report is that we would need from four to seven more judges,
in which case the district of Puerto Rico would have, with half the pop-
ulation of Massachusetts, 150 percent or 50 percent more judges than
the district of Massachusetts. This may not be bad, but my point, Mr.
Chairman, is that as you consider this legislation, bear in mind that
you must be willing and able to sell to the floor the fact that we need a
much richer density of judges and other personnel in a bilingual court
than we do in other courts.
My third area is the problem of having two jury wheels, and I
won't talk about the constitutional problem.
We already have a problem, as you know, of people contending that
we don't have a fair cross section because some people don't speak
Spanish.
Judge Torruella in his testimony is going to speak from his personal
experience. All I can say is the Jury Committee of the Judicial Con-
ference which has given some attention to this problem has raised
the question as to whether it would be constitutional to limit one jury
panel to English cases and another jury panel to non-English cases.
A fourth problem area and one I can speak about with some feeling
is the problem of appeals.
If this legislation were to be passed, we would find pretty surely
that there would frequently be changes in counsel, that is, that
Spanish-speaking counsel would appear at the trial level and English-
speaking counsel at the appellate level. Moreover, the time and cost
of translating transcripts is a ponderable difficulty that deserves your
attention.
I have put the figures in my statement. But as you will see there,
a 2-day trial might be transcribed at the present time by a court
reporter from English to English in 3 days. At a rate of 8 to 10 pages
a day for translation from Spanish to English, you would go from
3 days to a minimum of 16, maximum of 31 days to get a transcript
in English.
PAGENO="0110"
106
The cost of the transcript would, we say, probably quadruple,
assuming at the moment that a page of transcript costs for an original
about $1.50 for a court reporter doing it in English, but the cost of
getting a page transcribed is $6 to $7. So a 1,000-page transcript of a
criminal trial is $7,000, in addition to what it would cost in any event.
We have a question as to who would pay that. This is something that
the committee or a study should consider, under what circumstances
should the Government pay for this, under what circumstances should
private individuals?
Finally, in terms of appeals, in addition to cost and time and change
of counsel, a good part of our business is considering emergency
matters, that is, stays pending appeal, injunctions pending appeal,
requests for bail pending appeal.
Mr. EDWARDS. Do you have magistrates there?
Judge COFFIN. We have magistrates.
Mr. EDWARDS. How many do you have?
Judge TOLEDO. Two.
Mr.. EDWARDS. Thank you.
Judge COFFIN. For us to rule on these matters before the appeal is
heard. In the normal course we need to have transcripts and this would
delay us.
Mr. MCCLORY. How many magistrates are there in Puerto Rico?
Judge COFFIN. Two, I think we hope for a third.
Judge TOLEDO. We hope for a third but we don't have him yet.
Judge COFFIN. Finally, in addition to the problems for the trial
judges, the impact on the court and the jury problems, the problems
with appeals, we have the basic gut problem of logistics, personnel,
and space.
My statement covers this. I will merely say on this that Judge
Toledo and Judge Torruella and Judge Pesquera also have con-
cerned ourselves for the past several years with our building problem
in Puerto Rico.
We have a brand new building that was built for the three judges.
Unfortunately, we are soon to have seven judges. That building has
been idle for a year. It is going to be idle for a lot longer time until we
have it restructured to take care of the enlarged personnel which we
contemplate having onboard at the moment.
But the problems of getting trained translators, trained reporters,
problems of getting additional space and equipment, are things that
should go into the calculus as we consider seriously affording Spanish
to litigants in this court.
I would just want to conclude by saying, as I said on the last page
of my statement, that this is an issue of tremendous attractiveness,
it is an issue of tremendous political appeal. Some of the supporters of
this bill at the present time support it because they think it's a step
toward greater autonomy and separateness.
Others support it because they feel it will satisfy the cultural
aspirations, but within the traditional framework of the Federal-State
relationship.
We are, of course, not concerned with that. That is your ultimate
decision, but we are concerned with the basic problem of providing
justice with as much competence as we can muster without excessive
cost and delay.
PAGENO="0111"
107
TESTIMONY OF HON. )~OSE V. TOLEDO
This court has been a source of great concern to me and my Council.
We have worked hard with Judge Toledo getting visiting judges in
just as much as we could, but still it is cursed with one of the greatest
backlogs in the country and one of the greatest incremental expansion
rates of any court in the country.
It is in a sense a fragile court and, therefore, we urge you to go
forward into this field with as much delicacy and prudence and
wisdom as any committee in this House is ever called upon to use.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Judge Coffin.
I believe we will withhold questioning the witnesses until all three
have had an opportunity to make their statements.
Judge Toledo, we welcome you.
Judge Toledo is the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico.
Proceed, sir.
Judge TOLEDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, Congressman Corrada.
The reason why I asked Judge Coffin to speak first is because I felt
he was going to cover most of the points I was going to cover; there-
fore, I am just going to mention some other areas.
I would like to state for the record what my official position is.
I believe that this question ultimately presents a question of policy
in regards to Puerto Rico, which is to be determined by the U.S.
Congress.
To the extent that this matter presents a question of partisan
politics in Puerto Rico, I cannot give you my personal opinion.
As I stated in my appearance back in 1974 before the Senate sub-
committee, I feel that due process for criminal defendants is best
guaranteed by conducting the proceedings in Spanish when it so
happens that Spanish is the language best understood by the del end-
ant, but I don't want to be misunderstood.
Let me state for the record that I have not concluded that due
process, the due process clause of the Federal Constitution, mandates
that criminal proceedings be conducted in the vernacular language of
the defendant.
I am merely stating my conviction as a lawyer and as a judge that
the due process clause is best implemented by making the criminal
proceedings more meaningful to the defendants by conducting them
in their language, their tongue, when that is possible within the
Federal judicial system.
Nevertheless, I must present to the subcommittee some practical
froblems that these bills may cause for the entire Federal judicial
system.
Most of them have been mentioned by Chief Judge Coffin.
I am worried over and above the ones mentioned by Judge Coffin,
that Senate bill 1315 does not limit its provisions to criminal cases.
I think this bill should be limited to criminal cases if the committee
feels that it can overcome all of the practical problems that this bill
presents.
PAGENO="0112"
108
Furthermore, I believe that the bill does not properly define the
term "interest of justice," which is the term used in the bill which
allows the judge to make a determination whether to allow, the case
to continue in English or in Spanish.
Yet, it is provided in this bill that in all cases, at the apparent
option of the party, the initial pleadings may be either in English or
Spanish. I ask the subcommittee, did the Congress mean including
pragmatic consideration within the concept of interest of justice?
Can the court in the interest of justice consider whether it is pre-
pared to handle the additional clerical burden of receiving documents
in two languages at the option of the filing party? Or the need to have
translations automatically done when the initial pleadings are filed
in Spanish?
I think it is most desirable to obtain legislative guidelines as to which
elements ought to be considered when determining whether in the
interest of justice, and I quote:
"The proceedings are to be conducted in Spanish."
Then there is a problem of the civil cases. We have statistics from
the Commonwealth superior court to the effect that approximately
13,000 cases filed in that court are prospective diversity cases that
could be filed in our court.
I get scared when I think that 13,000 cases now filed in the Superior
Court of Puerto Rico may be ified in our court, and I know what that
would do to our calendar and to our judges and to our whole judicial
and para-judicial personnel.
I am not saying that I feel that 13,000 cases will be filed in our
court, but these 13,000 cases qualify to be filed in our court. I am
talking about statistics back in 1974 which are the latest that we
have. I don't know how high those statistics are right now.
I am also worried about the translation portion. It seems to me that
the bill is dealing with the type of translation that is now used in the
United Nations. I am not certain that this is the best type of trans-
lation that we can use in the court. One of the reasons for that is that
many times you may translate literally one word from English to
Spanish and it may be correct literally, but not in a legal sense.
If you use the United Nations system, there wouldn't be any way for
the judge who presides over the trial to be able to correct the trans-
latiOn, because this will be going directly from the translator to the
defendant or to the witness or to whoever it is going to. But the judge
will not be listening to it as we do now.
Now, every translation is done in open court, in a loud manner,
where both the defendant, counsel, witness, jury and the judge is
hearing it, and there are many times when we have to stop the pro-
ceedings to correct a translation and get all of the parties together as
to which is the correct translation of a term or a sentence.
Of course, there is the problem of costs, which I believe Judge
Coffin already covered, and I believe that is a grave problem, and
also the question as to how many judges this court would need if all
of these 12,000, 13,000, or 14,000 cases were filed in our court.
I believe my statement goes in detail into all of these problems,
Mr. Chairman, which includes appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit. I can just imagine a 6-week trial that has been
tried in Spanish, the transcript of that case will take at least 3 months,
PAGENO="0113"
109
and I can just imagine again the translators translating that record
for the benefit of the court of appeals.
Not only that, I cannot guarantee the court of appeals that that
translation is a correct one because I have not monitored it.
We have, as Judge Coffin stated, many cases where we have in-
junctions, bail, interlocutory injunctions and in general emergency
situations that have to be appealed to the court of appeals. I can just
imagine the court of appeals having to wait for the translation of the
transcript in order to deal with the problem at hand.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
that if all these problems cannot be solved before the enactment of
this bill that sections 3 and 4 be extricated from the rest of the ac-
companying bills and to altogether postpone the enactment, and at
the same time a more detailed study be made of the practical problems
posed.
I repeat, my official and personal position is that this section ulti-
mately presents a question of policy in regards to Puerto Rico which
is only to be determined by the U.S. Congress.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Judge Toledo.
We welcome now Judge Torruella.
You may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF JUDGE JUAN B. TORRUELLA
Judge TORRUELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Juan Torruella, and I am U.S. district court judge for
the district of Puerto Rico.
I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity of being
heard on this matter.
My remarks will be limited only to sections 4 and 5.
I am sorry to say that I oppose this legislation because I know that
this is legislation which is dear to our Congressman Corrada, and I am
afraid that my position may be misinterpreted, but I think this legis-
lation presents some fundamental issues and may involve whether
the district court of Puerto Rico will continue to be a viable part of
the Federal judiciary.
It is my opinion that these proposals, although without any doubt
well intentioned, will cause irreparable harm to the U.S. District
Court for Puerto Rico, will be impossible to implement, and are sub-
ject to or may be subject, I should say, to serious constitutional
challenge.
It goes without saying that no court of justice worthy of such a
denomination can operate under a system wherein a criminal defend-
ant is unaware of the nature of the proceedings against him or is unable
to intelligently aid in the defense of his case.
If the system we presently use in Puerto Rico were defective in any
such sense, I could not in good conscience oppose this proposal.
But I believe this is not the case. The present system of translation
that we use in the District Court of Puerto Rico is eminently fair and
fully meets all of the requirements of due process.
This is not a theoretical statement, but one based on observation
through 20 years of practice of law as an attorney and as a judge in the
35-552 0 - 79 - 8
PAGENO="0114"
110
District Court of Puerto Rico. I have not seen any facts, and I em-
phasize "facts" that lead me to believe otherwise.
In contrast to this, our district court as part of the Federal judicial
system has consistently been recognized with a record of 80 years of
service in contributing to the administration of justice in Puerto Rico.
Notwithstanding severe manpower limitations throughout out history,
our court has performed as a viable and integrated part of the Federal
judiciary.
Although I am sure you are familiar with some of these statistics
I am going to quote, I think they are important in considering this
subject.
In the year ending on June 30, 1977, each judge in our court termi-
nated an average of 641. cases, compared to the national average of
384 cases per judge. As of December 31, 1977, there were 2,142 civil
and 213 criminal cases filed before our court, an average of 714 per
judge, which is well above the national average of 411 cases per judge.
Our judges averaged 50 full trials per year of both civil and criminal
cases, which again exceeded the national average. In the first circuit,
appeals from our district constituted 26.7 percent of the appeals from
the district courts and 20.6 percent of all appeals to the court
of appeals.
I am not trying to gain praise for our district, but I am trying to
show to this committee facts that I believe show beyond any doubt
that the present system that we have in the District Court of Puerto
Rico works and has worked and will continue to work efficiently, and
will continue to provide an adequate forum for the litigation of Federal
controversies in the District of Puerto Rico.
Furthermore, we have on numerous occasions had challenges to our
system, both as regarding the jury composition and as to the manner in
which the language is used in the court, and they have consistently
been sustained by the various courts before which this matter has been
raised. I cite these in my written statement, and I don't believe there is
any need to burden the committee with going into that subject.
I believe an analysis of the proposed legislation should cover three
different aspects: constitutional, policy, and practical. I will not go into
detail on the issues raised under the constitutional and policy aspects. I
will just briefly mention what I believe are some questions which
should be looked into.
On the constitutional area, I think one of the things that might be
studied is whether there is an official constitutional language of the
United States which by implication is mandatory in the proceedings of
any of its branches of Government.
Mr. EDWARDS. If I might interrupt, Judge Torruella, we have a vote
on the floor of the House, and we will recess for 10 minutes.
[A short recess was taken.]
Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to order, and Judge
Torruella, you may continue.
Judge TORRUELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was pointing out some of the questions that come to my mind in
the area of constitutional matters that are raised by this legislation.
I would like to repeat briefly the first one I mentioned which was
whether there is an official constitutional language of the United
States which by implication is mandatory in the proceedings of any of
its branches of Government.
PAGENO="0115"
111
Secondly, what is the nature of the District Court of Puerto Rico.
This is something which perhaps has some relevance to this legisla-
tion. If the District Court of Puerto Rico is an article III court, is
Congress not required to treat it in the same uniform manner as the
rest of the Federal judicial system?
If it is an article III court, can Congress impose on the judges of
the District of Puerto Rico requirements for holding office which are
different from-in fact, higher than-the judges of other district
courts?
Even if it is not an article III court, considering the life tenure
provisions of the district of Puerto Rico judges, can the requirements
for holding office of the present judges be varied?
Does the creation of separate petit and grand jury wheels for
Spanish-speaking and non-Spanish-speaking groups meet due process
and equal protection requirements?
What cases would be indictable by the Spanish grand jury, and
which would be indictable by the English grand jury?
Would it depend on the witnesses, the type of crime, the possible
outcome, the U.S. attorney's preference, et cetera?
Under the heading of "Policy Questions," the following come to
mind:
Does the establishment of non-English as the official language in a
formal proceeding of the United States create a valid precedent in
terms of other courts, instrumentalities, and agencies of the United
States?
Cannot the same arguments for the use of non-English in a district
court be equally applicable to appellate proceedings before the court
of appeals or the Supreme Court, or to legislative or executive pro-
ceedings?
Should not the laws of the United States be enacted and published
in non-English also?
Would the other geographical areas within the jurisdiction of the
United States where there are substantial non-English-speaking
populations be subject to this same type of differential legislation?
I would like to go into the practical problems that I think are raised
by this legislation.
Succinctly, I believe that the use of Spanish in substitution for
English as an official language in the United States District Court for
the District of Puerto Rico would effectively eliminate this court as
a part of the Federal judicial system.
If Spanish were substituted for English, the caseload would multiply
to such an extent that even with the proposed increase to seven
district judges, the individual judges will be totally i1neffective.
This would be brought about not only because of the tremendously
increased caseload which is foreseen, but because this legislation would
bring about a duplication in the routine work of the judge, even with-
out a single additional case being filed.
I am referring specifically to the provision in section 3 to the effect
that the written orders and decisions of the court shall be in both
Spanish and English. Even today with only three district judges,
there are literally hundreds of orders that issue daily ranging in
length from a brief word or two, to tens of pages long.
The disastrous consequences of this proposal in terms of wasted
manpower and the fomentation of bureaucracy cannot be fathomed.
PAGENO="0116"
112
And, quite obviously, having translators would only alleviate some of
the extra work of the judges, who in any event have to check the
work of the translators.
As previously indicated, the U.S. District Court for Puerto Rico
has one of the highest caseloads per judge in the Federal court system.
I think it has been pointed out by other witnesses and I will not go
into it in any detail, but even with the new judges that are contem-
plated in the omnibus bill, if this legislation is passed we would not
have enough judges and not only that, but the new courthouse which,
as has just been indicated, is already obsolete, would be totally
inoperable.
One of the areas I think from a practical standpoint worries me
the most in terms of this legislation, are the work tools that are
available to a Federal judge, which would not be available or would
be available at great difficulty to use in the District Court of Puerto
Rico if this legislation is passed.
In the first place, startrng with the laws of the United States, the
are all published in English, the cases of both the district, the appe -
late, and Supreme Court, they are all in English. All of the various
texts published by the experts, all of the work tools which are provided
to us by the administrative office such as jury instructions, the bench
book, et cetera, all of them are published in English.
Now, I am not going to sit here and tell this committee that it is
impossible to translate all of these either at one time or as they are
printed, et cetera.
But, I am saying that unless this were done, if it were required of
us to do it on a piecemeal basis as we went along, not only would it
require a tremendous amount of time but in any event they would not
beofficial translations and would present additional and interminable
work for the judges on a day-to-day basis and, I emphasize again,
without the ffling of one single additional case, because of this
legislation.
The cost of appeals and the additional time required has already
been more than adequately covered, so I will not dwell on this in any
further length.
Another area that very much preoccupies me is I feel this legislation
will effectively isolate our district from the rest of the Federal ~u.
diciary. To begin with, we would no longer be in consonance with
the rest of the uniform system.
We are, in effect, being treated differently, the District Court of
Puerto Rico is being singled out by this legislation as being treated in
a different manner than the rest of the Federal judiciary. I am not
preaching uniformity for uniformity's sake; it has very practical
implications.
We can forget about any aid from visiting judges. I am not going to
sit here and say there are no bilingual judges in other courts because
I happen to know at least two in the District of Texas.
I think one in Texas and one in New Mexico, and I am sure there
are more than the ones I am familiar with but, of course, these judges
have their own districts to take care of and as a matter of policy the
only judges that are assigned usually to our court are judges usually
from our district, from our circuit or judges who are senior judges ô~r
do not have the type of caseload ~ve haye.
PAGENO="0117"
iir~
So for all practical purposes, we wc'iil»= be without the very useful aid
I believe of these visiting judges who have led us in the past in trying
to reduce our caseload.
Logistic support from the various agencies that aid the courts,
including the administrative office, I think would be greatly curtailed
because of the factors I have already indicated.
Several of the important agencies that practice before us would
face difficult logistic problems.
For example, excluding consideration of the black lung cases, the
volume of social security litigation in our district is the highest in the
Nation.
In the year ending December 31, 1977, 679 social security cases
were filed in our court. That constitutes 3 1~6 percent of the total
number of civil cases commenced last yê~ar~ Because of this enormous
volume, our social security cases are all briefed by Justice Department
attorneys in the continent.
At present, delays of 6 to9 mqnths in filing briefs are not uncommon~
If reliance would have to be. p1~aced on the San Juan U.S. Attorney's
Office because of their knbwledge of Spanish, the volume of work
added to that already overburdened staff would bringabout intermin~.
able delay and would cause a travesty~o~. justice.
Some very active members of our bar would be in effect disbarred,
and the English-speaking residents of Puerto Rico, of which there
are a substantial number, would be further discriminated against.
The Commonwealth courts have already barred all litigation `~except
in Spanish.
This was not the law or practice until, I think, a decision was
entered somewhere around 10 years ago, I am not exactly sure, and
the~y do not provide any translation for non-Spanish-speaking parties.
The Supreme Court of-. Puerto RicO has discontinued translation
into English of its decisions, a practice which was in effect for over
60 years.
I haye heard unsupported arguments tO~the effect that this legisla..
tion will make this District Court of Puerto Rico more accessible to
both the bar and to the public. Statistics clearly show that this court
is anything but inaccessible to the public.
~Our caseload has grown from 668 filings in 1950, 703 filings in 1960,
1,205 filings in 1970, to 2,355 fflings in 1977.
Our indications are this year will be even higher.
The membership in our bar-I am talking about the district of
the Puerto Rico bar-has grown in a proportionate manner.
I don't have the last figures, but I have several figures 1 believe
are~fairly accurate.
For example, in 1950 there were 30 admissions to the Puerto Rico,
a mandatory bar; in other words, to practice law in Puerto Rico
you have to belong to the local bar association, and there were 24
admissions to the Federal bar.
This parallel growth continued in the following decades. In 1960
there were 97 admissions to the local bar and 70 admissions to the
Federal bar. In 1970, 464 admissions to the local bar and 114 to the
Federal bar.
Last year with 388 admissions to the local bar there were 197 ad..
missions to the Federal bar. Interestingly, in the present year, there
PAGENO="0118"
114
have been 138 admitted to the local bar and 99 admitted to the
Federal bar.
Statistics show that in excess of 50 percent of the attorneys ad-
mitted to practice in Puerto Rico are also admitted to the Federal
bar. I don't have the final figures. I have made an effort to find how
this compares with the other districts in our circuit, for example.
I cannot quote official figures because I don't have them, but
from talking to the different districts on this it is my impression,
I intend to follow up on this and perhaps submit these figures to the
committee, it is my impression that membership vis-a-vis the local
Puerto Rico district is higher or at least as high as the other districts
in the first circuit and it would seem to me this would lead to the con-
clusion that there has been no discouragement for any reason an
certainly not by reason of the language of the members of our bar.
I would also like to point out that our records in the district cOurt
show that geographically the members of the Federal bar are found
throughout the entire island. In other words, not limited to one specific
area.
It has also been my experience that the* composition of our jury
panels follow a similar pattern in terms of both occupational and geo-
graphical distribution. By way of example, I just picked that last
criminal case I had, and it contained members of 19 different manici-
palities from around the island of Puerto Rico with occupations as
diverse as factory workers, taxi drivers, social workers, electrician,
clerk, engineer, truck driver, receptionist and housewife.
I have appendix C which has complete information on this matter.
I might say I have conducted these surveys periodically, because at
different times I have corresponded with the circuit court on this
matter and with other members of the judiciary in Puerto Rico.
Frankly, when I became a judge I was a little disturbed by this
in particular as I had no facts really to go on, so I was particularly
attentive in both picking juries and in picking the big panels we do
periodically, and I was particularly attentive in inquiring as to what
the distribution was both in terms of geography and in terms of
occupation.
I can only say that I have been very pleasantly surprised because
I think our juries fully meet geographical and occupational distribu-
tion in Puerto Rico.
I don't really know the reason, except I think sociologically, and
this is certainly not my field, so I am only guessing, I believe there
has been such an amount of mobility in Puerto Rico between Puerto
Rico and the mainland, in addition to the fact a lot of people have
been exposed to the service, we have a lot more people in Puerto Rico
that qualify as bilingual than we think or that the statistics might
show.
There are many other problems that are raised by this legislation.
I think most of them are covered in my statement, and I will not be-
labor this committee any further, except that I would like to say that
I very strongly believe that the passage of this bill, particularly in the
way in which it is phrased, will have very serious, and I am afraid,
disastrous consequences to our district court.
I think it has been emphasized by both Judge Coffin and Judge
Toledo that no study has been made. It could very well be that a
PAGENO="0119"
115
scientific study could prove me to be incorrect, and if I were incorrect
I would certainly have no qualms about retracting my position.
But even the unscientific, let's call it, studies that I have seen do
not show to me the system we have in Puerto Rico is defective to any
extent, and this type of legislation can have such an impact on our
court that it would seem to me that this study is absolutely imperative
before any position is taken on it.
Furthermore, I would like to point out something I am sure is
obvious to the committee. If this legislation passes in its present state,
and it is later discovered it was a mistake, it is a mistake that cannot
be corrected because I cannot think of anything that would cause more
turmoil both in and out of our court in Puerto Rico than having this
legislation passed and then having later legislation retracting this
type of a procedure.
So, my statement is to the effect that I urge this committee very
strongly to study this matter very carefully, and I thank you very
much for allowing me to be heard.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Judge.
The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Volkmer.
Mr. VOLKMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am sorry I was not here at the very outset. Under the present
system that is used in the Federal court system, what is the procedure
which is used in a criminal case if you have a Spanish-speaking-only
defendant?
Judge TOLEDO. At this time we have, if the witness testifies in
Spanish, the translator will sit right next to him and will translate to
him the question that is posed in English, translate it to Spanish.
The witness will answer the question in Spanish and then the trans-
lator will translate into English for the record.
Mr. VOLKMER. Just a moment now. I have a witness and he is
Spanish speaking.
Judge TOLEDO. That is right. The U.S. attorney or defense counsel
will ask the question in English.
Mr. VOLKMER. Right. I have a defendant that is Spanish speaking
only.
Judge TOLEDO. That is correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. And I am representing him. The attorney speaks
only English.
Judge TOLEDO. That is correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. OK. Now, I have asked a question in English. The
witness is to respond in Spanish, SO the question first has to be inter-
preted to the witness.
Judge TOLEDO. That is correct. The question of the attorney iS
translated to the witness.
Mr. VOLKMER. What happens next?
Judge TOLEDO. The witness answers in Spanish and the interpreter
translates into English for the record, actually for the record, because
the defendant understoood his answer in Spanish. This has the ~d-
vantage that the judge is present, listens to the translation, both ways,
and if there is anything wrong in the translation, he can correct it or at
least may try to get the attorneys to agree on a correction.
Mr. VOLKMER. What happens if the witness is English speaking?
Judge TOLEDO. Then the question is asked in English and there is
no translation. I am sorry, there is translation.
PAGENO="0120"
116
Mr. VOLKMER. There better be.
Judge TOLEDO. For the benefit of the defendant, and then he
answers in English and then he translates.
Mr. VOLKMER. So if someone other than the witness-
Judge TOLEDO. For the benefit of the defendant.
Mr. VOLKMER. So, if either the witness or the defendant is Spanish
speaking only. there has to be a translation?
Judge TOLEDO. That is correct, sir.
Mr. VOLKMER. Does that slow down the trials?
Judge TOLEDO. I would say it does, about 30 to 35 percent.
Mr. VOLKMER. When a jury is being empaneled, what happens if a
potential juror speaks only Spanish?
Judge TOLEDO. He is disqualified.
Mr. VOLKMER. Such persons are disqualified automatically?
Judge TOLEDO.. Yes, sir, because right now-
Mr. VOLKMER. Automatically?
Judge TOLEDO (continuing). Right now the law requires that all of
the trials be held in English, and it is required that the juror be able
to read, write, and understand the English language.
Mr. VOLKMER. Do you know the percentage or numerical number
of persons of adult age in Puerto Rico that speak only Spanish?
Judge TOLEDO. I don't think our experience-
Mr. VOLKMER. In other words, these are the people that are actually
disqualified. According to information supplied by the Library of
Congress, in the case of the United States v. Ramos Colon, decided in
1976, some 80 percent of all prospective jurors in Puerto Rico were
said to be disqualified under this provision.
Is that correct, 80 percent?
Judge TOLEDO. I don't think so.
Judge TORRUELLA. I don't think so.
Judge TOLEDO. I think the official statistics we have is something
like 47 or 43 percent of the population are bilingual in the sense of the
law.
Mr. VOLKMER. All right. Setting aside potential constitutional prob-
lems for the moment, would you, once again, list the practical problems
which would arise if a criminal case were conducted in Spanish.
Judge TOLEDO. The only problem would be if, for example, it's a
civil rights violation, the Justice Department normally send a special-
ized attorney from Washington. He would be English speaking.
Mr. VOLKMER. We can get that changed. What else?
Judge TOLEDO. I don't see too many problems in the criminal side.
Mr. VOLKMER. We're assuming in these cases, of course, that the
defendant is Spanish speaking.
Judge TOLEDO. As I said, I don't see too many problems in the crim-
inal side. I stated that in my presentation.
Mr. VOLKMER. Now, if the defendant is English speaking only, what
problems would arise?
Judge TOLEDO. Then you have a little different problem.
Mr. VOLKMER. Then we have the problem of interpretation. But we
are doing that right now in the reverse.
Judge TOLEDO. Right, but then you would need two different jury
wheels, one for Spanish speaking only and one for English speaking.
You would need two jury wheels definitely.
PAGENO="0121"
117
Mr. VOLKMER. Do we really need two jury wheels or just a larger
panel?
Judge TOLEDO. Larger panels, you could call instead of 40 jurors
that we call now to pick 12, we would have to call around 100, and I
can imagine the expense.
Mr. VOLKMER. Or 75 or 80?
Judge TOLEDO. It's a question of expense then.
Mr. VOLKMER. Judge, when we discussed the judgeship bill, I took
the position I did because for the small amount of money that this
country pays to provide justice, in proportion to what we pay for
everything else, I thought we could afford a little more money to
achieve better justice.
I feel the same way about the issue now before us. If we have to
come up with a little more money to have more interpreters and more
jurors and to pay for translations of transcripts at a rate of $7,000,
if that is necessary, I think I at least am willing to pay it if we can
then insure better justice for Spanish-speaking defendants in criminal
cases.
Judge TOLEDO. That is what I say in page 14 of my presentation.
It's a question of policy. Congress must decide.
Mr. VOLKMER. Yes; Congress must decide that. My next question,
which I direct to Judge Coffin, concerns the problems which arise
because of the length of time needed to translate transcripts, par-
ticularly when immediate remedies are requested of the court of
appeals. It bothers me that, according to information we have, we
can only translate 7 to 14 pages in a day.
Judge COFFIN. That's right. That is our information.
Mr. VOLK1~IER. That is the information we received before.
Judge COFFIN. Although-
Mr. VOLKMER. And yet we have-
Judge COFFIN. I will come back to say this should be checked and
updated.
Mr. VOLKMER. I agree. I think we should check that out. I am not
an interpreter and I don't know what it takes to translate transcripts.
Judge COFFIN. In the Garsh report the estimates is not only based
on her research in Puerto Rico but on checking the several Berlitz
translation offices and other offices here, where the estimate would
range from 8 to 14 pages.
Mr. VOLKMER. I notice that there are approximately 28 criminal
cases pending now, is that right?
Judge TOLEDO. Appeals to the court of appeals?
Mr. VOLKMER. No. Where did I find that?
Judge TOLEDO. It could not be 28.
Mr. VOLKMER. This information is from Judge Coffin, regarding
cases which are on appeal. The information indicates that 5 criminal
cases were appealed in 1978 and in 1977 there were 34 cases appealed.
Judge Coffin, assuming these figures are correct, would the translation
process actually delay the final opinion that much?
Judge COFFIN. Yes, oh, yes, I think so.
We have a problem now getting transcripts, and our record is not
as good as I would like to see in terms of acting on a Puerto Rico
criminal appeal. In a substantial case, say a multiparty drug con-
spiracy, it is not unusual to have a trial be a week long or 2 weeks. So
PAGENO="0122"
118
that this would add, I think I agree with Judge Toledo, it would add
several months to the time required to get the record before us in a
manner where we could absorb it.
Mr. VOLKMER. Two or three months?
Judge COFFIN. Depending on the length of the trial. That is what I
say m my statement.
Mr. VOLKMER. I agree that it would depend on the length of the
record.
Judge COFFIN. Yes.
Judge TOLEDO. I think there is one more problem.
You need a Spanish-speaking court reporter.
Mr. VOLKMER. I won't argue with that. Surely we can train those.
We have enough people in Puerto Rico that are intelligent, surely.
Judge COFFIN. The Garsh report, at least its data shows that such
personnel, Spanish-trained court reporters or translators, are scarcer
than hen's teeth, and you would also have to change the pay whichwe
are paying them.
As I point out in my statement in writing, although I didn't say it
orally, the pay rate in the court system for translators was several
grades lower than it is for the Secret Service or the IRS.
Mr. VOLKMER. If the chairman will indulge me just a minute.
There is a statement here, at page 11, "Delays of 6 to 9 months in
filing briefs is not uncommon." That is in the social security cases;
is that correct?
Judge TORRUELLA. That is definitely correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. What is the cause of that?
Judge TORRUELLA. I think the large volume of cases. An additional
problem, for example, the usual cases filed, it is really an appeal from
the decision of the administrative agency. Many times they are mdi-
gents, and we have to assign an attorney, and the attorney has to
meet with the petitioner.
They have to then seek the records of the cases which many times
have already been sent to the Baltimore office. By the time that is
gotten, time goes by. Then, as I say, a .tremendous amount of volume
of work, and I don't think they have a sufficient staff handling this
matter.
Mr. VOLKMER. The Justice Department attorneys are usually
English speaking in the social security cases?
Judge TORRUELLA. Yes.
Judge TOLEDO. All the briefs are prepared in the New York region
where I understand they have seven attorneys, of which four are
dedicated to the Puerto Rican District. They prepare all of the briefs
there.
Mr. VOLKMER. I would like to clarify something I think you have
already stated. Are all of the judges bilingual?
Judge TOLEDO. Yes, sir.
Mr. VOLKMER. Federal judges in Puerto Rico are bilingual?
Judge TOLEDO. Yes, sir, they are.
Mr. VOLKMER. So that is not a problem.
There is another issue that concerns me besides the appeal process.
There is a State court system in Puerto Rico which, as you say, is
conducted in Spanish.
Judge TOLEDO. That is correct, sir.
Mr. VOLKMER. And the system operates satisfactorily?
PAGENO="0123"
119
Judge TOLEDO. I would say so; yes, sir.
Mr. VOLKMER. Personally, I would like to reach a point somewhere
where we could say that the 43, or whatever percentage of the popula-
tion of Puerto Rico who are now denied the opportunity to sit as
jurors in a Federal case, would have that opportunity. I feel very
strongly that the defendant in a criminal case should have the oppor-
tunity to have the case tried in his language, and I think that that is
the basic purpose of this bill. In the rest of the 50 States, if you have
a defendant who speaks a language other than English, then we can
provide him with simultaneous interpretation.
Judge TOLEDO. That is correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. Yes, Judge?
Judge CoFFIN. I don't disagree with that. It's a matter of values,
but two comments I would make, and I think both go to the need for
further deliberation:
One, I share your view that we ought to be willing to spend more
money for justice, if it takes more money, but you are not going to be
able to say on the floor how much more this will take or even make
a rough cut at it at the moment.
Secondly, that it's a matter of priorities and there is no better place
to assess the country's needs in the justice field than on your com-
mittee and subcommittee. But we cannot appoint counsel for indigent
people in civil rights cases, for example. Of course, we do under the
Criminal Justice Act, but in some of those civil rights cases, litigants
will come to me and it's pathetic, because -they will have a good case,
but they are just not entitled, we are not able to pay for the public
funds for counsel to represent them. Now, that is a need.
Again, we have the same problem of what is this country willing
to spend to have a better justice system?
Mr. VOLKMER. We do have a system for that. Maybe we better
ask why the people in Puerto Rico are not receiving legal aid?
Judge COFFIN. No; I am not talking about that. They do have a
legal aid service to the extent that the Legal Aid Society can represent
them. But they are usually not able to attend to all of the civil rights
cases that we have.
Judge TORRUELLA. I would like to make a comment, if I may, be-
cause it's a thought that had come to me and partly because of a deci-
sion I quote in my statement, the decision by former Chief Judge
Cancio, and he mentions the fact that from a philosophical-he does
not use those words, but this is as I interpret it-from a philosophical
standpoint it seems to me that the Spanish-speaking defendant in the
district court of Puerto Rico is not in any different position than a
Spanish-speaking defendant who is tried in the district court of, say,
New York or wherever they would be tried.
In both cases he should, if you are arguing that from a philosophical
standpoint, he should be able to be tried in his language, then it
equally applies to other district courts, not just the district of Puerto
Rico.
Mr. VOLKMER. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I know I am taking more
than my alloted time, but I would like to ask one more question.
If we kept the present system changing only the prohibition against
going on a jury panel for individuals who speak only Spanish then
where are you?
PAGENO="0124"
120
Judge TORRUELLA. Are you asking me, sir?
Mr. VOLKMER. Yes; Judge. I ask that question because we don't
have that prohibition anyplace else that I know of.
Judge TORRTJELLA. I think that raises other problems. That is why I
limited it to that issue and didn't cover the area of the jury.
Mr. VOLKMER. If we are going to say the law should be uniform
throughout, I think that would really ignore a situation in Puerto Rico
that is different. My home state of Missouri doesn't have that many
people that speak only a language other than English as you have in
Puerto Rico.
Judge TORRUELLA. That is true. I don't think there can be any
question the district of Puerto Rico is in that position no other district
is in. Are there not other jurisdictions that have a similar problem or
close to it?
Mr. V0LKMER. I am sure there are areas, like in the chairman's home
State, where you have problems and in New York you probably have
some problems also. That is what this bill is directed toward.
Judge TORRUELLA. Texas, Florida.
Mr. VOLKMER. I don't know of any other place where a juror is
automatically disqualified because he cannot speak English.
Judge TORRUELLA. They actually don't say that, they say that is
a qualification so they are excluded in the inverse, really. But the
point is what is required by at least the decisions I have read and
I think this is not only by the decisions in the statutes, I think it's
also by the Constitution, what is required is not statistical equivalents
but no one is excluded systematically for some invalid reason, and. I
don't think requiring, at least that is what the decisions say, requiring
English has been at least held up to now not to be an invalid require-
ment.
Mr. EDWARDS. The second bell has rung and we must recess for
10 minutes, after which we will reconvene.
[A short recess was taken.]
Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to order.
Again, we apologize for the delay, and I recognize the distinguished
gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Volkmer.
Mr. VOLIcMER. I have one final question. But first I want to thank
the committee for their indulgence. What are the dates on which the
jury panels go into effect?
Judge TOLEDO. I don't quite understand the question.
Mr. VOLKMER. The jury panels that you use, do you pick them on
an annual basis, twice a year, three times, four times?
Judge TOLEDO. I think it's something like four times a year. We
have a large pool of I believe 75,000 names, and as needed they are
called, and we have what we call a special impaneling session which
I just had one Monday morning.
Mr. VOLKMER. Now, that panel which was picked just this Monday
morning-
Judge TOLEDO. That is correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. How long wifi that be used?
Judge TOLEDO. Each juror will serve 30 days. I can tell you out of
100 possible members of the panel, 3 were disqualified for lack of
knowledge of English, and I believe 4 or 5 were disqualified for other
reasons.
Mr. VOLKMER. Wifi you pick another panel 30 days from now?
PAGENO="0125"
121
Judge TOLEDO. I would say in about 90 days we will be picking
another panel.
Mr. VOLKMER. Then would you pick another one 90 days after that?
Judge TOLEDO. That is correct, sir.
Mr. VOLKMER. So, somewhere around the first week in November
another panel would be picked?
Judge TOLEDO. More or less.
Mr. VOLKMER. And every 3 months thereafter?
Judge TOLEDO. That is correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Congressman Corrada?
Mr. CORRADA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do appreciate very much your giving me the opportunity to ask
a few questions.
First of all, I would like to make a statement. As you probably
know, in Puerto Rico as in any other community, there are different
political ideologies, different political parties. Of course, politics are
the most frequent pasttime in our island, even more so perhaps than
here in the mainland.
But if there has been an issue where all political parties and ideolo-
gists have had a consensus, it is this issue. There is no justification
whatsoever for the requirement in the U.S. District Court in Puerto
Rico that English be the mandatory language in that court.
All of us in Puerto Rico who favor statehood, as I do and as the
Governor of Puerto Rico does, believe that we can become a
State of the Union without having to relinquish our Spanish language
and our particular cultural values and traditions.
Those who support the status quo for the Commonwealth lan-
guage, like my predecessor here in Congress, have supported similar
bills in previous years. The two major parties in Puerto Rico have
been in office for the last 40 years, Mr. Chairman, and both fully
agiee that this reform should be undertaken. It is not only I who
make this statement but also the chief judge of the Supreme Court
of Puerto Rico.
The Honorable Judge Trias-Monge recently wrote a letter to the
chairman pointing out that this bill has the support of all of the
major political forces in Puerto Rico.
It is with a sense of disappointment that I can see that a number
of problems have been pointed out here today. Surely there will be
administrative problems any time a reform is to be made. But, when
there is an entire community of Spanish-speaking people, who are
American citizens, requesting a reform for years and years-and this
is not a new matter, this is a matter that has been before the United
States Congress before-it is about time that we start moving to
overcome some of the difficulties and inconveniences that I am sure
the judges will have in Puerto Rico.
But there is no greater inconvenience than the inconvenience now
suffered by the people of Puerto Rico in the Federal district Court.
The inconvenience to those who have to administer that justice
should yield to the paramount principle that quality of justice must
be provided in our island.
With that statement I would like to ask a few questions of some of
the witnesses.
PAGENO="0126"
122
In the Honorable Judge Coffin's testimony, we haye a statement
that in 1975 there were 22 criminal cases appealed to the court of
appeals. In 1976, 29 cases were appealed; in 1977, 34 cases were
appealed.
During the first 6 months of this year, 5 criminal cases have been
appealed. I cannot believe that this relatively small number of cases
that go to the court of appeals, which may constitute, as you correctly
say, 30 or 31 percent of the entire criminal docket of your court.
Judge COFFIN. I was referring to the civil and criminal, the total.
Mr. CORRADA. Right. I can't believe that the fact there might
have to be translation from a Spanish record to an English record in
these small number of cases should be the reason for requiring that
all cases that are tried in the district court be translated at the time
the trial is being held.
I would like to ask this question of Judge Toledo.
Isn't it so that under the current system you are required to provide
translation for all criminal proceedings in your court regardless of
whether or not they end on appeal?
Judge TOLEDO. I would say about 90 percent of the cases that are
tried.
Mr. CORRADA. Require translation?
Judge TOLEDO. That is correct.
Mr. CORRADA. And they require translation because the people are
Spanish speaking?
Judge TOLEDO. Either the witnesses don't speak English or the
defendant doesn't speak English.
Mr. CORRADA. Right; 90 percent of the cases.
Now, how many criminal cases were filed in your court in the year
1977?
Judge TOLEDO. I don't have the exact figures. It would be something
like 200.
Mr. CORRADA. 200 cases?
Judge TOLEDO. Over 200.
Mr. CORRADA. 200 cases were ified of which 34 were appealed to
the court of appeals.
Now, how many cases were tried?
Judge TOLEDO. I don't have that figure. But I would say between
about 20 and 25 percent of all of the criminal cases were tried. I think
this is normal. This is the normal percentage.
Mr. CORRADA. Now, of those 34 cases that were appealed, 10 per-
cent, or approximately 10 percent, were tried in English?
Judge TOLEDO. That is correct, had an English-speaking defendant
and English-speaking witnesses.
Mr. CORRADA. So that stifi lowers the figure in terms of the cases
that would require translation.
Now, in the case of the civil cases, I believe there were 1,938 filings
in 1977.
Judge TOLEDO. That is correct.
Mr. CORRADA. And for that same year there were 116 appeals,
which is about 7 or 8 percent.
Judge TOLEDO. More or less.
Mr. CORRADA. Of the fflings, not necessarily of the* cases that were
tried.
PAGENO="0127"
123
Now, what is the percentage approximately, if you can state them,
of the civil cases that are tried in English, because all of the parties
understand English and, therefore, do not require translation.
Judge TOLEDO. It's a very difficult question to answer, but roughly
I would say 50 percent of the cases tried.
Mr. CORRADA. So that would mean then approximately out of the
116 cases that were appealed perhaps as many as 50 percent were
tried in English and did not require translation.
Judge TOLEDO. Yes.
Would you agree with that, Judge Torruella?
Judge TORRUELLA. I just don't see this as so clear-cut because there
are very few cases in which you have a situation in which no one speaks
English or no one speaks Spanish.
What usually happens in both ciyil and criminal cases is that you
might have a defendant, for example, that does not speak or does not
understand English, and you provide translation for him but you may
have a witness who understands English and does not~require trans-
lation for the questions but may require a translation for the answers.
Mr. CORRADA. I understand.
Judge TORRUELLA. And all sorts of combinations. You may have a
defendant that understands English but the witnesses are the ones that
have this problem.
Mr. CORRADA. But, for instance, in the criminal cases you would
say that about 90 percent of the cases require translation because
either the defendant or witness are not able to communicate or under-
stand the testimony?
Judge TOLEDO. Either 90 or 95 percent.
Mr. CORRADA. In the civil cases that percentage would be definitely
lower.
Judge TORRUELLA. I would disagree with those figures; I think
they are higher in the sense there are very few cases in which, especially,
1 would say in general there are very few cases in which a translator
is not required at some point either for a witness or for a party.
Mr. EDWARDS. I am sorry, we must recess for 10 minutes.
{A short recess was taken.}
Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to order. Since we are
starting to run our of time and we have other obligations this after-
noon, we are going to have to limit Congressman Corrada to another
5 or 10 minutes.
Mr. CORRADA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. We have another witness and must allow adequate
time for him.
Mr. CORRADA. With respect to social security cases that were
mentioned here before, isn't it a fact that these cases are really ad-
ministrative review cases where the administrative record is reviewed
and the cases mainly are briefed by the parties in writing and perhaps
there might be oral argument in the case?
Is that correct?
Judge TORRUELLA. Yes; that is true. They are mostly administrative,
basically administrative review, but it seems to me the same principle
applies. There are people that don't speak English. Most of them,
I would say, and the same principle would apply, they should be
following the logical extension, that they should also be entitled in
those proceedings.
PAGENO="0128"
124
Mr. CORRADA. But insofar as. the court itself is concerned, the
proceedings would consist of the filing of written briefs and oral
arguments. Additionally, of course, rather simple arrangements could
be made so that if one of the parties does not understand English, the
brief be filed by the parties in both languages, and if there is oral
argument, that there be an interpreter if the party does not under-
stand Spanish.
What I am saying is that these are rather simplified cases in that
sense.
Judge TORRUELLA. My point in this area was not that it's impos-
sible to do. I think it is possible tO do. I think it's just going to be a
tremendous burden on both the court and the U.S. attorney's office.
Mr. CORRADA. Right. Now, in the case of interlocutory injunctions
or preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders or cases of
an emergency nature, I am sure that if I were the judge I could tell
the parties that if they wanted to have a record ready for appeal
that they should stipulate before the proceeding started, that these
emergency proceedings be undertaken in a more expeditious manner.
Perhaps the parties would stipulate that the proceedings be in
English if the proceedings are of an injunctive nature. These problenis
could be overcome if there is a determination to solve them.
Judge TORRUELLA. Usually when you get to the litigation stage,
especially in an injunction proceeding which is something that is alive,
in the sense of being very imminent, there is not too much good will
between the parties.
Mr. CORRADA. There may not be too much good will but both .parties
are very interested in having a prompt decision and on that basis they
probably would agree.
Judge TORRUELLA. Yes; definitely. Except that the party that ex-
pects the injunction against him might not be or I should say the party
that expects the injunction might not be willing to have a situation of
facilitating it to the other party.
Mr. CORRADA. I would like to address this question to Judge Toledo.
Under the language contained in the bill and given the fact that we
are referring here to a bill that provides for the optional use of Spanish,
at the discretion of the court and when it is in the "interest of justice,"
if you are not given the administrative resources that you feel are re-
quired or are necessary to be able to fully implement this reform,
wouldn't you agree that you would have in your own hands the instru-
ments to resolve the administrative problem by merely deciding that
you will not be able to hear as many cases in Spanish as you would
like to hear in view of the limited resources?
Judge TOLEDO. Then I take it the law would not become effective.
Mr. CORRADA. If they don't give you the means.
Judge TOLEDO. Then it would become a cosmetic coverup.
Mr. CORRADA. No; you could implement it-
Judge TOLEDO. In fact, we would not be able to put it in effect.
Mr. CORRADA [continuing]. You could implement it in a reasonable
period of transition as resources are made available and developed.
Judge TOLEDO. I would agree.
Judge COFFIN. We might not agree. The court of appeals might
not agree. That is, we have many civil cases involving welfare, and the
State's or the municipality's defense for not doing something is that
they don't have the administrative resources to do it. The Supreme
Court has held in that context a lack of resources is not an excuse.
PAGENO="0129"
125
Mr. CORRADA. But you are speaking, Judge Coffin, of constitutional
and civil rights.
Judge COFFIN. Which I think would apply here.
Mr. CORRADA. Now, what kind of right would we be creating
under this legislation given the fact that it provides only for the
optional use of Spanish, under certain circumstances, at the dis-
cretion of the court?
Judge CoFFIN. No. The question before the court would be, what
did Congress have in mind when it used words "in the interest of
justice."? Did it have in mind such a thing as lack of administrative
resources or did it not?
I think Judge Toledo's point was this was something, as you work
on the legislation, that you should clarify.
Judge TOLEDO. We need guidelines.
Mr. EDWARDS. The time of the gentleman has expired, and I am
afraid as much as the subcommittee would like to continue the inter-
rogation, we do have a problem with time.
We thank the witnesses very much.
We probably will be in touch with the witnesses, at a later time,
for further information. Your testimony today has been immensely
helpful to the subcommittee.
Judge COFFIN. We appreciate your interest and what we think are
the very good questions of all of those participating.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. It's nice to see you again.
Our last witness today is Mr. Julio Morales Sanchez, U.S. attorney
for the District of Puerto Rico.
Mr. Morales, we welcome you, and without objection, your full
statement will be made a part of the record, and you may proceed.
[The statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF JULIO MORALES SANCHEZ, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF
PUERTO RICO
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., August 8, 1978.
Hon. PETER W. R0DIN0, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: My name is Julio Morales Sanchez, and I have been
the United States Attorney for the District of Puerto Rico since August 19, 1970.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify upon the kind invitation of your Com-
mittee in support of those portions of H.R. 10228 and 5. 1315 (Sections 3 and 4)
which would permit the use of the Spanish language in the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
As has been stated before in relation to this proposed law, in Puerto Rico
there is a language situation converse to that of the United States. The best
way to illustrate this fact is to suppose for a moment that, through an enforceable
decree, all the courts in the United States of America shall henceforth use the
Spanish language as the official language to litigate all matters under its con-
sideration. If this fact is considered in the light of all the constitutional guarantees
that recognize the Supreme Court of our land, all citizens would wish to preserve
the fundamental rights of due process, in the form of the rights to confrontation
and counsel in a way that at least assures that such citizens fully understand the
proceedings in court and that the selection of a representative cross section of
the peers to serve as jurors fully understand the proceedings in which justice iv
to be administered. Most certainly, the great majority of the citizens in North
America would exert all efforts and exhaust all avenues available to succeed in
securing the right to litigate their affairs in their mother tongue, the English
language. Such an example brings us to the realities of the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico today. Although the Spanish language is the mother tongue of all
Puerto Ricans and the only language spoken by the vast majority of our citizens,
35-552 0 - 79 - 9
PAGENO="0130"
126
the law currently provides that all pleadings and proceedings in the District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico shall be conducted in English (48 USC 864
(1976)). I agree with my brother colleague John Hueita, from the Department of
Justice 1 that such statute, and its supplements, 28 USC 1865(h) (2) and (3),
1976, effectively limit participation on federal juries to those Puerto Ricans,
usually of a higher educational and occupational level than the average Puerto
Rican, capable of speaking and understanding English. The net result of this
fact is to foreclose the right to tiial by jury of their peers.
To illustrate this point, in the natural year of 1976, my office presented 128
cases to the grand jury where a true bill was returned. Of these, 27 cases were
heard on their merits by the Honorable District Court for the District of Puerto
Rico. It is worthy to state that in 25 of these cases heard by the Court, the de-
fendants petitioned and were granted the use of an official court interpreter based
upon the determination that the defendants could not understand the proceedings
in the English language. This figure constitutes approximately 95 percent of all
criminal cases heard in the District Court of Puerto Rico in 1976.
In the natural year of 1977, my office presented 183 cases to the grand jury
where a true bill was returned. Of these, 30 cases were heard on their merits by
the Honorable District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Again, 26 defendants
petitioned the Court and were granted the services of an official court interpreter
based on the determination of their lack of knowledge to follow the proceedings
in the English language. This shows the importance of the applicability of such
a statute as the one under consideration by this Committee.
There are administrative problems which will arise upon the approval of this
law and its applicabifity in the District of Puerto Rico. I defer to the pertinent
judicial officers to comment upon them. But I have to confess that as a Puerto
Rican citizen, a practicing attorney and a federal officer of the court, the imple-
mentation of this law will undoubtedly offer a natural and most effective way of
administering justice in the District of Puerto Rico by updating the historical
circumstances of the United States/Puerto Rico association and allowing approx-
imately 3.5 million United States citizens to pursue their constitutional guarantees
in their mother tongue, thus granting the quality of fairness and a more meaningful
accommodation of our great constitutional precepts to be enjoyed by all, as was
intended originally by the Founders of the Republic without distinction of our
formal education or intellectual sophistication.
In relation to the enactment of Sections 5 through 12 of this project of law, I
wish to address this Committee to the following legal commentaries:
1. Interpreters for the Defense: Due Process for the Non-English-Speaking
Defendant. William B. C. Chang and Manuel Araujo, California Law Review,
Vol. 63, pages 801-823, May, 1975.
2. Non-English-Speaking Persons in the Criminal Justice System: Current
State of the Law. Alan J. Cronheim and Andrew H. Schwartz, Cornell Law
Review, Vol. 61, pages 289-311, January, 1976.
3. No Comprendo: The Non-English Speaking Defendant and the Criminal
Process. Joan Bainbridge Safford, The Journal of Criminal Law and Crimi-
nology, Vol. 68, pages 15-30, March, 1977.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on H.R. 10228 in relation to
its applicability to the District of Puerto Rico, and stand ready to be of any
assistance.
Cordially.
Juxio MORALES SANCHEZ,
U.S. Attorney.
TESTIMONY OF fliLlO MORALES SANCHEZ, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. MORALES. Thank you, sir.
Good morning.
My name is Julio Morales Sanchez, and I have been the U.S.
attorney for the District of Puerto Rico for the last 8 years, almost up
to today.
1 Testimony by the Honorable John Huerta, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Rights Division, before the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Civil and Con-
stitutional Rights, concerning HR. 10228, on July 19, 1978.
PAGENO="0131"
127
As you may have seen, Your Honor, my statement is rather brief
and it has been brief for the specific reason that I have endeavored to
research practically all that I have been able to, that has been able to
come into my hands relative to previous testiomony here or before the
Senate, namely, the persons who have worked in the Department of
Justice during the last 5 or 6 years, and I fully agree with those.
My only participation, I hope, my only possible participation in
relation to further illuminating this committee would be to the statis-
tics of the last 2 years of the number of criminal cases that have been
heard, and the number of defendants that have requested the use of
translators because of their inability to defend themselves in the
English language.
I would also like to mention the fact that 5 years ago the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts decided a case by the name of Commonwealth
of Massachusetts v. Ol'ivo in which one of the basic reasons for the court
to disallow use of other languages in the legal process was the fact that
it was held that the United States was not a multilingual community.
I think that since then we have had reason enough to believe other-
wise. The fact that we are here, I think, establishes the paramount
necessity to consider the United States of America, at least insofar as
the law is concerned and its applicabilities, a multilingual nation.
As I have suggested in my testimony, let us think for a moment
that a decree is approved in the U.S. mainland whereby the Spanish
language would be used to litigate cases in court.
I must imagine that the basic reaction of all citizens would be, well,
how do I secure myself of understanding the proceedings.
Last, I would refer myself to a comment made by a Federal judge in
1922, a judge by the name of Hamilton who came to sit in Puerto
Rico. He didn't make too many friends, but he said one thing that has
tremendous actuality to date.
He was writing to the then Office of Insular Affairs, proposing a
program whereby Puerto Rico would become more active within the
Federal gravitational forces at that time.
I think that as the seventh postulate he says that we should endeavor
to bring the Constitution of the United States to every home in
Puerto Rico. I think that this bill, 10228 is the first step to fully
bring the Constitution of the United States to every Puerto Rican
home in the form of their mother tongue, Spanish.
With that I thank the committee for their kindness to allow me
to come here, and I submit myself to your discretion.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Morales, your testimony then is that you would
recommend that the whole bill be enacted?
Mr. MORALES. I would fully support it. Of course, I make the
distinction at the start of my written presentation that I am only
speaking as to sections 3 and 4. As to the other sections, I have taken
the liberty to address the committee to three law journal articles
which I gather bear on that point.
Mr. EDWARDS. Do you think that in Federal criminal cases, in the
Federal District Court in Puerto Rico, Spanish-speaking defendants
are being denied due process?
Mr. MORALES. I may not go as far as saying that they are being
denied due process, Your Honor. I do not think that the problem is
PAGENO="0132"
128
deep enough to reach the due process stage. But I do believe that this
is a problem of fairness and have a recognition of tremendous limita-
tions that a person has just by the fact that you have to seek justice
in a language which is foreign to you.
I fully support four cases that have been decided in the District
of Puerto Rico relative to the due process problem, and I gather that
other persons in the Department of Justice have testified as to those
cases.
I do not think it is a matter of due process. I think it is a matter
of the recognition of a whole community which is being deprived of
one of their most intimate aspirations, which is to understand the
criminal charges that the State propounds toward them and all of
its implications.
I must imagine even the most scrupulous translator cannot trans-
late the full impact of a question propounded in a different language.
I think we can all be aware of the fact that there is a tremendous
emotional loss when we translate from one language to another, even
taking into consideration the most ideal circumstances, which cer-
tainly are very hard to find, that a translator would captivate the
emotional sense of a whole culture, which is the manifestation of a
language.
Mr. EDWARDS. Do you have many bank robbery cases in your
jurisdiction?
Mr. MORALES. We have our share; yes, sir.
Mr. EDWARDS. In the Federal district court?
Mr. Morales. Yes, sir.
Mr. EDWARDS. What percentage of your criminal cases, would you
say are bank robbery cases?
Mr. MORALES. It varies. Our experience in bank robbery cases has
started in 1971 with a big case, and it has varied from 1971 to 1974,
and I may be exposing myself to a little error, but I would say it
could have been 10 or 15 percent of our criminal calendar.
The year 1976 was very, very slow in bank robberies. Last year it
was rather active. This year I just don't have the statistics, but it is
somehow poignant the fact in 1976 almost 96 percent of all defendants
requested that proceedings be translated.
Mr. EDWARDS. In addition to the criminal cases, you would like to
see civil cases in the Federal district court conducted in Spanish also?
Mr. MORALES. Oh, yes. I believe that we must cater to four centuries
of history which in no way are contradictory to either our constitu-
tional mandates or otherwise imposing on any one of the parties here,
be it the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States of America,
any stresses which would in any way affect negatively our relation-
ships or the country.
I think it would be a most gracious recognition on the part of the
Anglo-Saxon tradition to formulate a law which recognizes our past
history, which I believe all Puerto Ricans are very proud of, and the
willingness of the greater community of the United States to recognize
an ethnic reality.
Mr. EDWARDS. Congressman Corrada?
Mr. CORRADA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to commend the U.S. attorney, Mr. Morales Sanchez,
for his statement and his remarks, and I would like also to associate
myself with those remarks.
PAGENO="0133"
129
I would like to ask you this question. Wouldn't there be an expedi-
tious disposition of criminal cases if in the 90 percent of cases where
you now require interpreters for the entire proceeding, you would
instead conduct those cases in Spanish and then only translate those
cases which are appealed?
Mr. MORALES. Yes. As Chief Judge Toledo stated a moment ago, I
would concur with him, and even go further.
I think that the time factor in any criminal case whereby extensive
translation is necessary, takes at least one-third more of the court time
to try the case, and not only is it more expeditious, I think it is more
comfortable, for all parties, the judge, the prosecutor, and the defense.
I think they have to spend less energy in terms of following a parallel
line of linguistics, if I may say so. We are really trying a case in two
languages.
Mr. CORRADA. All cases are tried in two languages regardless of
whether they are appealed or not?
Mr. MORALES. Of course.
Mr. CORRADA. I see that in the first 6 months of this year, there have
only been 5 criminal cases appealed from the District court of Puerto
Rico to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Still, some of the cases that were appealed, even the most com-
plicated ones, were conducted in English?
Mr. MORALES. That is correct.
Mr. CORRADA. Do you see any constitutional infirmity or serious
constitutional question in sections 3 and 4 of this legislation?
Mr. MORALES. I have read your statement to this committee, and I
fully agree with ~it. I don't see any constitutional infirmities being
raised just because we would be depriving anybody of their right to
have a trial in English or Spanish.
Mr. CORRADA. Now, we have seen statistics, based on the 1970
census, that as many as 57 percent of those who were interviewed knew
how to read and write Spanish and understood Spanish but didn't
understand English to the point of being qualified for jury service.
Mr. MORALES. Fully conversant.
Mr. CORRADA. How could potential problems resulting in the im-
paneling of people who know only Spanish or know only English be
resolved?
Mr. MORALES. Your Honor, as I was listening to the question-and-
answer session prior to my deposition here, it strikes me that at this
moment we are actually selecting jurors who are bilingual.
I do not think, if I am addressing correctly your question, your
question is, will there be any problems in selecting two rolls of jurors
whereby one would have the possibility of having cases in Spanish
and the other one in English; is that the gist of your question, sir?
Mr. CORRADA. Yes. Whether any complications could be overcome
in terms of having people eligible for jury service who are only con-
versant in Spanish?
Mr. MORALES. My suggestion would be to continue the same jury
management we have now in our court with the only extra work of
identifying each jury which comes to the Federal court as only fully
conversant in one language or fully conversant in both languages.
I do not think we would be so limited as to completely preclude other
people who just could be conversant in English by establishing a fully
conversant in Spanish role, because all of the people who are now
PAGENO="0134"
130
qualifying for the English language jury participation, of course,
know Spanish.
Mr. EDWARDS. Would the gentleman yield at that point?
Mr. CORRADA. I certainly will yield.
Mr. EDWARDS. It would seem to me that that jury selection system
would get the wealthy and the privileged people on the list and that
it would not be wholly representative of our society.
Do you agree?
Mr. MORALES. I would tend to concur with you, Your Honor, yes,
sir; that is correct.
Mr. CORRADA. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
I have no further questions.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Starek?
Mr. STAREK. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EDWARDS. Ms. Gonzales?
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have only one or two questions.
Mr. MORALES. I hope I have the answers.
Ms. GONZALES. One objection that has been raised is that under
this bill some attorneys, who are primarily or solely Spanish-speaking,
would be practicing in the Federal courts, even though they may not
be able to research Federal precedents since all of the relevant cases
and books, etc., are in the English language.
Is this a valid objection?
Mr. MORALES. I must confess, first of all, I do not have the
privilege of having read any scientific research on this. I would only
refer myself to my emperical experience. My experience has been that
all law schools in Puerto Rico, which provide the vast majority of
attorneys in Puerto Rico hold their subject in Spanish and English.
Some years ago about 40 to 50 percent of the faculty were visiting
professors from the United States who were fully conversant only in
English. The textbooks we use are basically English written textbooks
in most of our major aspects of the law.
I am positively sure all lawyers in Puerto Rico have read the case
of Miranda against Arizona. However, I have never found that the
Miranda case has been translated from English to Spanish.
In addition, all the Federal reporting systems come to Puerto Rico
only in the English language and, as far as I have seen, attorneys
who are not fully fluent in the language can still understand what a
case is about.
I would say that the research of a case is done in the solemnity of a
library. You do not have to address the court or speak the language
in order to do the research. I am at a loss when I am confronted with
that hypothetical question, my lady.
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you.
So you do see the difference between being able to adequately research
and cite cases for precedence and being able to fluently converse in the
language?
Mr. MORALES. Yes, I work under the supposition it is being done at
this moment, and it has been done since I became an attorney. This is
as far back as I can go.
Ms. GONZALES. Would you say that Federal cases are also looked at,
in many instances, by State attorneys since they also rely on Federal
precedents?
PAGENO="0135"
131
Mr. MORALES. Oh, yes, very much so.
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you.
I have one last question which relates to the suggested amendment
by the Department of Justice regarding the empaneling of jurors. They
suggested that we retain the English only requirement for grand
juries but proceed to allow the use of the Spanish language by petit
jurors.
Do you have any comment on that amendment
Mr. MORALES. Yes; as a matter of fact, I was ~aciously consulted
by the Department of Justice officials when this question was pro-
pounded for the first time and thought about.
I am fully supporting it because now we go back again to the con-
verse proposition. About 90 percent of the participants in grand jury
testimony are English speaking officers who belong to the different law
enforcement agencies as they are usually the persons who go before
the grand jury to testify.
In that aspect, it is maybe as in any other grand jury within the
Nation. English would be the vehicle of communication in most
cases.
Ms. GONZALES. Thank you very much.
Mr. EDWARDS. Are English materials, including, ballots, translated
into Spanish in Puerto Rico?
Mr. MORALES. As far as I can recall, yes, sir.
Mr. EDWARDS. I ask that question because this subcommittee is
the author of the bill that requires some election materials in the
United States to be translated into different languages in the event
the area is impacted by foreign language residents who are U.S.
citizens.
Mr. MORALES. I am aware of that, sir.
Mr. EDWARDS. What about the bankruptcy courts in Puerto Rico;
are proceedings there conducted in Spanish or are they conducted
in English?
Mr. MORALES. Sometimes; I would say that the bankruptcy pro-
ceedings in Puerto Rico usually take into consideration the flexibility
needed in order to conduct its proceedings. Sometimes the attorneys
appearing to argue a motion would be English-speaking attorneys,
and I would presume that the hearing would be conducted in English.
Otherwise, I have heard some proceedings in Spanish, although I
understand that now a record is kept and it may vary. I would yield
to Chief Judge Toledo to further answer that question.
Mr. EDWARDS. Are the records kept, Judge, in Spanish or English
in bankruptcy proceedings?
Judge TOLEDO. We have a recording machine. It depends on who
the attorney is. If all the attorneys speak English, than the hearing
will be held in English.
If all the attorneys speak Spanish, it will be held in Spanish.
Mr. EDWARDS. Do you have a lot of bankruptcy cases in Puerto
Rico?
Judge TOLEDO. Yes; a tremendous load. We just got a second
judge.
Mr. EDWARDS. Do you have many appeals?
Judge TOLEDO. Yes, sir, and they all go in English, the whole
record. The opinion is written in English.
PAGENO="0136"
132
Mr. MORALES. We are very fertile in bankruptcy.
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much.
If there are no further questions, we thank you, Mr. Morales,
very much, for your testimony.
Mr. MORALES. Thank you, Your Honor.
Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Subcommittee on Civil and Con-
stitutional Rights adjourned.]
PAGENO="0137"
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX 1
U.S. DISTRICT COURT,
DISTRICT OF COLORADO,
Denver, Cob., July 7, 1978.
Hon. DON EDWARDS,
Chairman, Subcoicmittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: I regret to inform you that I am unable to attend the hearings con-
ducted by the House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights on July 19,
1978 regarding H.R. 10228. However, I would appreciate it if you would keep
me advised of developments concerning the enactment of H.R. 10228 as it con-
cerns an area of great interest to me.
Please find enclosed 50 copies of a statement I have prepared for the Sub-
committee in support of the enactment of H.R. 10228. I hope it will be of as-
sistance to the Subcommittee.
Yours very truly,
Judge SHERMAN G. FINESILVER.
STATEMENT OF HON. SHERMAN G. FINESILVER, U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLORADO
In my view, H.R. 10228 is necessary legislation and I respectfully suggest en-
actment of the bill. While I feel that those aspects of the bill relating to bilin-
guality are important, of greater concern to me are those provisions which speak
to the problems of individuals with physical communicative impairments, i.e.,
the speech and hearing impaired.
Effective communication of one's own ideas and accurate receipt of another's
is too frequently taken as granted in any setting, legal or otherwise. In twenty-
three years of experience on the bench in both federal and state courts, I have on
countless occasions observed and become concerned over our human ability to
miscommunicate ideas. More often than not, the reasons for an inability to achieve
a meeting of the minds rest on a set of faulty assumptions as to effectiveness which
are adopted by the communicators themselves. Abhorrence of such assumptions
proliferates where an individual who seeks to communicate and to receive com-
munication is burdened with an impairment of one or both of the two major senses.
Responsibility for the protection of an individual's legal rights rests in the first
instance with the individual himself. A physical incapacity, however, ought never
impede an individual's ability in any legal setting to express that information which
will enable him to discharge his personal obligation to the protection of his legal
rights. Inaccessability to an interpreter in such an instance is both a denial of due
process of law in a criminal context as well as a denial of equal access to the courts
in.a civil setting. Certainly the guarantees within the Fifth and Fourteenth Amend-
ments to the United States Constitution were not intended to he wholly without
meaning as applied to communicatively impaired individuals.
Moreover, where an individual who is burdened with a comlnunicative dis-
ability is either voluntarily or involuntarily placed within the legal system, a
penalty is in effect being levied under color of law on that individual. This is es-
pecially true where no efficacious means are provided to enable that individual
to overcome what is clearly a surmountable barrier. The Sixth Amendment to
the United States Constitution guarantees a defendant the effective assistance of
counsel, notice as to the nature and cause of criminal charges and the right of con-
frontation. Absent aid of competent interpretation, these constitutional safe-
guards are not only abridged as applied to persons with communicative impair-
ments, but they are forceless in impact as well.
In pertinent part, I find attributes of the bill to be impressive. The following
provisions I view as being particularly cogent as they relate to the aforementioned
issues.
(a) A cadre of qualified interpreters which has not heretofore been available for
use in United States courts will now be automatically utilized upon motion of a
communicatively impaired individual or the court.
(133)
PAGENO="0138"
134
(b) Concern over the competence of interpreters will summarily abate in light
of the promulgation of standards for their certification. This aspect of the bill is
particularly critical to the utility of the interpreters program itself; the avail-
ability of interpreters would be a useless and even detrimental service if the
competence of interpreters was such that it acted as an obstacle, rather than a
conduit for communication.
(c) The interpreters program will now be available both in civil and criminal
actions in all United States courts.
(d) The interpreters program will equalize the right of access to the courts and
the privilege of citizen participation in the legal system between communicatively
impaired individuals and those not so burdened. Moreover, a full realization of
rights arising under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution will be forthcoming to communicatively impaired individuals.
(e) The cost of interpreters will, in most instances be free of charge to com-
municatively impaired persons. This provision of the bill will not only verve to
lift barriers previously operating against such an individual's legal interests, but
will create incentives for his autonomous entry as a full participant into other roles
in United States courtrooms as well.
H.R. 10228 is an exemplary piece of legislation and I wholeheartedly support
its enactment because it comprehensively and effectively restores fundamental
constitutional rights and privileges to communicatively impaired individuals in
United States courts.
ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL ASSOCIATION FOR THE DEAF, INC.,
Washington, D.C., July 28, 1978.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS,
COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIARY,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
GENTLEMEN: We are delighted to have the opportunity to offer testimony
on this Bill which is intended to assure that the rights of hearing impaired persons
are maintained and protected during proceedings in United States courts. Fifteen
copies of our remarks are attached.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. FELLENDORF, ED. D.,
Executive Director.
Attachments.
STATEMENT BY GEORGE W. FELLENDORF, ED. D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL ASSOCIATION FOR THE DEAF, INC.
Mr. Chairm~n, and members of the Subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen, I
am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of this bill because I
represent a voluntary organization whose membership includes teachers, parents
of hearing impaired children, and a number hearing impaired individuals as well.
Our membership of 7,000 dues-paying members come from all over the nation
and includes persons from all walks of life and socio-economic status. As you well
know, hearing loss is no respecter of persons, hence our area of concern is for
families with hearing impaired and youth from low and high economic levels,
from English-speaking and non-English-speaking backgrounds and from all
levels of educational background.
H.R. 10228 speaks to the needs of virtually all of our membership and for this
reason we endorse its purposes and content and have only a few constructive
comments to make as your Subcommittee considers it at this time.
Page 2 Line 15
Delete or and substitute and such that the line reads: "oral and manual
interpreters for the hearing impaired and * * *"
Rationale.-While Congressman Richmond has correctly estimated in his
statement of July 19, 1978, the total number of hearing impaired persons in the
United States as between 15 and 20 million, he has incorrectly identified this
large population as "deaf." In fact, the number of deaf persons in the United
States is closer to 500,000 (Schein and Delk, 1974), and of this number there is
no clear approximation of those who in fact can use and understand the language
of signs.
By far the greater number of the hearing impaired population is hard of hearing
and as such is not knowledgeable nor proficient in the language of signs. These
PAGENO="0139"
135
individuals use either hearing aids, lipreading or a combination of both to facilitate
receptive communication with hearing persons or others with impaired hearing.
It is these individuals who require careful repetition of the words spoken by
judge, counsel, or witnesses for maximum understanding of the proceedings.
This procedure is known as oral interpreting.
In furtherance of the understanding of the problems of the hearing impaired,
one must point out that it is not only incorrect, but denigrating to state that for
this population their primary language is not English. As a matter of fact, for
virtually all of this population, their mother tongue is spoken English and it is
only in reception of their English that they are deficient.
Nothing in the above remarks should be interpreted as evidencing anything
but profound support of this l~ill to provide manual interpreters for those citizens
who need such help in courtroom proceedings. On the contrary, the Alexander
Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, Inc. enthusiastically endorses the provi-
sion of manual interpreters. But we feel equally strongly that the provision of
oral interpreters will be necessary to assure the far greater number of hearing
impaired cif~izens their rights in the United States courts.
It may interest the Committee to learn that only recently has the need for oral
interpreters begun to be recognized by professionals and others. The Alexander
Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, Inc. has consistently provided oral inter-
preters for its adult deaf members in order to insure their full participation in
board of c1~lrectors meetings, in professional meetings and in those types of large
group gatherings where similar assistance is important. Our experience is that
with such assistance these deaf persons can participate through the use of lip-
reading, or speechreading as it is called today, and thus be contributing members
of the discussion in much the same way as do their hearing peers.
The question of the visibility of certain speech sounds is a complex question of
context, training, and vocabulary of the hearing impaired persons. There is
little question that tens of thousands of hearing impaired individuals, including
many senior citizens are actively utilizing speechreading on a daily basis for
augmenting their hearing reception and that a smaller but significant number of
profoundly deaf individuals are relying exclusively upon speechreading for all of
their receptive communication. Some of these latter individuals have earned
graduate degrees using this form of receptive communication. The viability of
this technique for transmitting information to a large number of hearing im-
paired persons therefore, has been clearly demonstrated.
In furtherance of this commitment to speechreading and oral interpreting, the
A. G. Bell Association for the Deaf is sponsoring a pilot workshop on October 27,
28, 1978 here in Washington to review guidelines which are now being developed
for oral interpreting for the hearing impaired. This effort, which is being funded
entirely by the Bell Association, is intended to advance the cause and the tech-
niques of oral interpreting can be expected to reinforce the proposed change in
HR 10228 which specifies that oral and manual interpreters will be provided in
United States courts in the future. Training sessions, video taping of expert oral
interpreters at work and in-depth discussions between oral interpreters and the
hearing impaired whom they are serving will be the primary focus of this pilot
workshop. We invite the Subcommittee to designate a staff member to attend as
an observer if this is considered appropriate.
Thenk you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity to share our thoughts
and recommendations with you on the crucial matter of protecting the rights of
hearing impaired citizens in our courts.
REFERENCES
Schein and Delk, The Deaf Population of the United States. Silver Spring. Na-
tional Association of the Deaf. 1974.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD R. ROYBAL IN SUPPORT OF BILINGUAL COURTS
LEGISLATION
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the other distinguished members of
this Subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to testify in support of legisla-
tion designed to provide adequate bilingual assistance in the Federal courts.
While I realize that the subject of these hearings is H.R. 10228, I would like to
direct the Subcommittee's attention to my own bill on this subject-H.R. 1996,
the Bilingual Courts Act.
PAGENO="0140"
136
My bill provides that a judge shall order the use of equipment and facilities for
recording and simultaneous language translation of the court proceedings when
ever a party to the proceeding requests their use and the judge determines either
that a party to the proceeding does not speak or understand English with reason-
able facility or that there may be testimony from a witness who does not speak or
understand English. Moreover, the bill specifies that the proceedings shall be re-
corded verbatim in addition to any stenographic transcript that may be kept.
My bill also provides that the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts is to prescribe, determine and certify the qualifications of interpreters and
transcribers, set appropriate compensation schedules, and provide appropriate
equipment and facilities for recording and simultaneous language translation of
proceedings.
Finally, in addition to providing a procedure for compensating the interpreter
the bill designates that its provisions shall apply to parties in civil and criminal
proceedings, bankruptcy adjudications, and in every proceeding before a U.S.
Magistrate. By extending the bill to civil proceedings, it is my intention, Mr.
Chairman, to ensure that participants in habeas corpus and immigration cases
will be cognizant of the judicial action which will affect their lives.
The need for this type of legislation is beyond dispute. There are today millions
of people in this country who do not understand or speak English fluently. Some
members of this group do not speak English at all; others speak only broken
English. Both groups share a common bond in that neither can comprehend a
judicial proceeding or effectively participate in it. The need for this type of legisla-
tion has been obvious since at least 1970, when the Civil Rights Commission
report entitled Mexican-Americans and the Administration of Justice in the South-
west concluded that the language barrier and cultural differences of the Spanish-
Speaking had severely handicapped them at every stage of the judicial process,
from the arrest to the trial, and even when seeking parole.
The legal support for my bill and the bill before the Subcommittee is no less
compelling. Since the landmark case of Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court
has time and again held that in order to ensure fairness and participation of the
accused in his trial, it was necessary for the court to provide him with the basic
tools to adequately present his case. The "due process" clauses of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments, the Constitutional right to confront your accusers,
and the Constitutional right to counsel, all to some degree or another mandate
the passage of this type of legislation.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let us remember the old refrain that justice delayed
is justice denied. I urge you and the Subcommittee to act with all due haste to
favorably report this desperately-needed legislation.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DENNIS DECONCINI
I appreciate the opportunity to appear this morning before the Subcommittee
on Constitutional and Civil Rights to testify on the court interpretors bill. This
bill was developed to meet the perceived needs for higher quality and more avail-
able interpretors services in our Federal courts. It attempts to ensure that all
participants in our Federal courts will be able to meaningfully take part in court
proceedings by assuring that if the participant does not speak or understand
English, or has a hearing or speech impairment, that he will have access to qualifie d
interpretors. The proposals contained in this legislation are certainly not~ novel
or revolutionary for the right of parties to have interpretation services exists in
the present law.
In the United States today, there are approximately five million people who
experience difficulty with the English language. Estimates cover a broad range
concerning the number of hearing and speech impaired individuals who may need
to avail themselves of a court interpretor to meaningfully participate and under-
stand criminal court proceedings. I recognize that through the promulgation of
rules and guidelines, great strides have been made to ensure that certain classes
of individuals are assured access to a court interpretor. However, while lauding
these efforts, the time has come to provide by statute for the availability and
access to qualified interpretors for a broader spectrum of people than present
law allows.
It is very difficult to tell exactly what the scope of the problem addressed by
this bill is. Empirical data on the number of people who are effectively denied
their day in court becaus~ of some handicap such as speech or hearing impairment
PAGENO="0141"
137
or who do not speak the English language simply is not available or accountable.
However, although I cannot point to specific figures, in my conversations with
various groups representing the handicapped, it has become clear to me that there
have been many instances where people simply have been intimidated by the
prospects of not being able to understand the proceedings in our Federal courts
and therefore shy away from the courts and do not exercise various rights they
may have.
In a time when we are becoming more and more sensitive to the needs of our
handicapped and non-English-speaking citizens, it is a shame that in a truly
crucial area such as adequate interpretive services in our courts we are still
lagging behind what we could provide.
Once we determine that interpreters are necessary we must insure that they are
of high quality. Today interpreters are obtained from many and varied sources,
often in the absence of minimum qualification standards for their selection.
Once selected, there appear to be no established procedures for assessing their
effectiveness.
Courts generally consider the quality of interpretation as adequate unless
complaints are made. Generally, individuals interviewed and heard from at the
Senate hearings believed that the quality of interpretive services provided was
adequate. The lack of selection standards found at many courts does not neces-
sarily mean that interpreters used by these courts were unqualified. However,
many individuals acknowledged that the quality of service varied considerably
among interpreters. The absence of selection standards, the lack of procedures to
monitor and detect translation errors, and the practice of some courts to "make
due" with bilingual volunteers provide little assurance that accurate translation
will be rendered. The courts should strive to provide assurances that translations
are accurate, because, if the translations are inaccurate, they will hinder rather
than help understand the proceedings. Thus, there is a need for courts at every
level to develop, at least, some rudimentary criteria for selecting interpreters, and
some level of basic training in court procedure to prevent prejudicial error and
protect the integrity of the judicial process. Such need is most critical in trials
involving serious criminal offenses.
The Bilingual, Hearing and Speech Impaired Court Interpreters Act provides
for the creation of a program in our Federal courts to insure that qualified inter-
preters are available to all parties needing their assistance. The bill creates two
new sections in title 28 of the United States Code which set out the circumstances
when interpreters will be provided and spell out what special interpretation
services will be available. I urge the subcommittee to expeditiously consider this
legislation. As the sponsor of S. 1315, I am not wedded to each and every provision
in the bill, but I do feel that the needs the bill is designed to meet are critical and
can be met without great difficulty or cost. I would like to again thank the sub-
committee for inviting me to appear today.
APPENDIX 2
RESPONSE TO CONGRESSMAN DON EDWARDS-BY PAULETTE HARARY, COURT
INTERPRETER, FREEHOLD, N.J.
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
The need for able, creditable interpreters to function in the United States
Courthouses has already been determined. What is immediately necessary is a
reliable testing and certification program for interpreters.
This program should have broad participation of all Federal courts. The follow-
ing outline attempts to develop such a program.
A. Selection of examiners.
B. Formulation of a test.
C. The test.
D. Examination within the individual courthouses.
A. SELECTION OF EXAMINERS
l.a. The United States would be divided into twelve regions. Each region would
select one examiner to participate in the development of the examination format
and test materials.
1.b. This Committee would have a schedule and tasks to he accomplished in
the development of an examination.
PAGENO="0142"
138
i.e. The Government Printing Office, a reputable testing firm and a coordinator
will act as advisors and assist the R.E.C. and will announce the dates and condi-
tions of the tests.
i.d. The final format would be given to a District Chief Judge.
2.a. The District Chief Judges may suggest or comment upon the format or
questions.
2.b. The District Chief Judge of each courthouse will select a chief interpreter
and an assistant who will act as examiners and evaluate the test results. Those
interpreters shall be deemed certified.
B. FORMULATION OF THE TEST
The Regional Examination Committee will request examination questions from
each Courthouse, in accordance with provisions established in section A herein.
(The categories of questions will be determined by the Regional Examination
Committee).
Each courthouse, based upon experience and dialogue with interpreters as well
as Assistant United States Attorneys, will submit questions in each category.
The Regional Examination Committee will construct tests from the submitted
samplings.
There should be minimal involvement of government agencies (Civil Service
Commission) in the preparation, scoring of the tests and the promulgation of lists
of certified interpreters.
C. THE TEST
The formulat~d test, which would eventually be given in each courthouse,
would have major parts.
Part I
A multiple choice written would be machine scorable. This part of the examina-
tion would be composed of legal terminology, ethical practices, courtroom pro-
cedure, English vocabulatry, correct usage and comprehension.
This section would also require the candidate to translate several passages
from English into the foreign language and back into English.
Part II
This would be an oral interview section administered by two interpreter-
examiners. The material would deal with consecutive translations from a prepared
cassette text. The material to be interpreted would be from English to the foreign
language and from the foreign language to English.
The examiners would use criteria for satisfactory performance. based upon
suggestions from a Regional Examination Committee that was designated and
appointed by the courts.
Part III
This part would use a closed circuit prepared videotape. The candidate would
be expected to interact with a witness or a defendant. The responses would be
recorded on a cassette. It must be clearly understood that a rating scale and
reasons for failure must be established. In the case of failure of any part of the
examination, the candidate may inqiure as to his immediate reasons for failure.
The cassette would present unbiased and documentary proof of failure.
The candidate will not he invited to either part II or III unless he is successful
with the preceding part. Each part will serve the purpose of screening and
elimination.
Training programs and in-service supervision shall be made available to those
applicants who have failed or performed below established standards.
D. EXAMINATIONS WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL COURTHOUSE
1. The Regional Examination Committee will develop the official rules and
conditions for testing within the individual courthouse.
2. The Chief Examiner in each district courthouse will be given detailed pro-
cedural instructions for testing.
3. Funds, will have to be allocated for the chief examiners and assistants in
each district courthouse.
4. The courthouse, a school or a local facility may be used for the examination.
PAGENO="0143"
139
TAALS
The
American
Association of
Language
Specialists
Suite 9
1000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel: (202) 298-6500
YEARBOOK 1978
PAGENO="0144"
140
CONTENTS
The American Association of Language
Specialists (TAALS) iv
Council and Honorary Members vi
Secretariat vii
International Organizations, Governmental
Agencies, and Universities Employing
TAALS Members on their Staffs viii
Working Languages of TAALS Members x
TAALS Professional Code for Language
Specialists 1
Appendix to the Professional Code for
Language Specialists 3
Alphabetical List of Members 8
Geographical List of Members: Register of
Professional Domiciles 55
PAGENO="0145"
141
THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LANGUAGE SPECIALISTS
(TAALS)
TAALS is the professional association in the Americas that repre-
sents language specialists working at the international level, either in
conferences or in permanent organizations, and determines their qualifi-
cations and standards.
Founded in Washington in 1957, the Association today has a mem-
bership of 215 interpreters and translators. They are based in twelve
countries of the Western Hemisphere-Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile,
Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Peru, the United States,
Uruguay, Venezuela-and in Europe and Japan as well. Over 40
of them are permanently employed by international organizations, gov-
ernmental agencies and universities; the others work on a free-lance
basis.
The Association vouches for the language competence of its indi-
vidual members through the rating system used in the present Yearbook.
The TAALS standards, both of professional ethics and working
conditions, are binding on its members everywhere. All qualified
conference-level language specialists are eligible for membership. Ap-
plications are accepted up to 1 October, and new members are admitted
by a two-thirds majority at the annual General Assembly.
v
35-552 0 - 79 - 10
PAGENO="0146"
142
COUNCIL
Officers
President . Lisa Valyiova
Vice President Beatriz Elsa Cogliati
Vice President E. Norman McMiIIan
Treasurer Judy Reisman-Toof
Members
Edward Bourgoin Brigitta M. Richman
Raül Gáler Dora Sorell
Erika R. Konuk Fernando van Reigersberg
Jeannine Lateiner Hortensia von Bredow
HONORARY PRESIDENTS
Fernando Morales-Macedo H. Marc Moyens
Claude Badoux Vladimir Pojidaeff
(d. 1969) (d. 1973)
HONORARY MEMBERS
Edmund S. Glenn Stefan H. Horn
Georges Kaminker
(d. 1969)
vi
PAGENO="0147"
143
SECRETARIAT
Executive Secretary Idette Johnson Swetye
Assistant Secretaries
Washington Ursula Weide
Latin America Ann E. Bennaton
Membership Imogen Robles de Connor
Yearbook Editor Fernando Morales-Macedo
Address all correspondence to:
THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
LI~NGUAGE SPECIALISTS (TAALS)
Suite 9
1000 Connecticut Avenue, NW.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel: (202) 298-6500
vu
PAGENO="0148"
144
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES,
AND UNIVERSITIES EMPLOYING TAALS MEMBERS ON THEIR
STAFFS
International Organizations
CIAT
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical Colombia
ECLA
Economic Commission for Latin America Santiago
IADB
Inter-American Defense Board Washington
IADC
Inter-American Defense College Washington
ICAO
International Civil Aviation
Organization Montreal
ICITO/GATT
Interim Commission for the
International Trade Organization/General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Geneva
1DB
Inter-American Development Bank Washington
IMF
International Monetary Fund Washington
INTELSAT
International Telecommunications
Satellite Organization Washington
OAS
Organization of American States Washington
PAHO/WHO
Pan American Health Organization/
World Health Organization Washington
UN
United Nations New York
World Bank Washington
viii
PAGENO="0149"
145
Governmental Agencies
Argentina
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Buenos Aires
Canada
Parliament Ottawa
Secretary of State Ottawa
United States of America
Department of Energy (DOE) Washington
Department of State (USDS) Washington
Peace Corps Tunis
Universities
City University of New York Bronx, N.Y.
Cornell University Ithaca, N.Y.
El Colegio de Mexico Mexico City
Georgetown University Washington
Johns Hopkins University Washington
Lewis & Clark College Portland, Oregon
McGill University Montreal
New York State University
at Potsdam Potsdam, N.Y.
Sophia University Tokyo
PAGENO="0150"
146
WORKING LANGUAGES OF TAALS MEMBERS
Arabic Hebrew Portuguese (Por)
Czech Hungarian Rumanian
Dutch Italian (It) Russian (Ru)
English (Eng) Japanese (Jap) Serbo-Croatian
French (Fr) Polish Spanish (Spa)
German (Ger) Yiddish
INTERPRETERS are rated according to the following language
classifications:
A - Principal active language(s) into which they interpret and which
they speak as a native.
B - Other active language(s) into which they interpret.
B* - Other active language(s) into which they interpret consecutively
only.
C -Language(s) from which they interpret regardless of difficulties of
terminology or idiom.
Comparable standards are applied to the language classifications of
TRANSLATORS.
x
PAGENO="0151"
147
THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LANGUAGE SPECIALISTS
(TAALS)
TAALS PROFESSIONAL CODE FOR LANGUAGE SPECIALISTS
I. AIM AND SCOPE
Article 1
(a) This Code sets forth rules of professional conduct for members of the*
Association.
(b) The purpose of the Code is to ensure professional standards and thereby to
encourage the broadest use of language specialists by all who need such
services.
(c) Candidates for admission take it upon themselves to observe the Professional
Code in its entirety and likewise all other rules and regulations of TAALS.
(d) Members who infringe the Code or who otherwise engage in conduct manifestly
injurious to the professional reputation of language specialists may be subject
to expulsion from the Association or other penalties the procedures for which
are outlined in the Bylaws.
II. CODE OF ETHICS
Article 2
(a) Members of the Association shall be subject to strict professional secrecy. This
applies to all information gained while acting in a professional capacity.
(b) No member shall derive personal profit or advantage from any confidential
information acquired while acting in a professional capacity.
Article 3
(a) Members of the Association shall refrain from accepting engagements they do
not feel qualified to undertake. Acceptance shall be regarded as guaranteeing a
high professional standard.
(b) The moral guarantee given by TAALS members under paragraph (a) above
also covers the quality of the services rendered by nonmembers who have been
engaged on the recommendation of TAALS members.
Article 4
(a) Members shall refuse any employment or position which might prejudice the
dignity of the profession or conflict with the observance of professional secrecy.
(b) Members shall refrain from any activities which could bring discredit on the
profession, including all forms of personal publicity.
Article 5
(a) Members of the Association pledge their unfailing support to their colleagues
and to the profession as a whole.
(b) Any difficulty of a professional nature arising between two or more members
may be referred to the Council for arbitration.
Ill. WORKING CONDITIONS-GENERAL
Article 6
Members of the Association shall refuse to work under conditions not in
accordance with those laid down by the Association. (See Appendix.)
PAGENO="0152"
148
IV. CONFERENCE ENGAGEMENTS
Article 7
(a) Members of the Association shall accept a conference engagement only when
they are aware of the exact conditions of this engagement and have made sure
that their identity and conditions of payment are known to the conference*;
when applicable, the Letter of Appointment shall be used in the form drawn up
by the Association.
(b) All contracts and payments shall be direct from the conference to the language
specialist.
(c) In the case of organizations without a permanent language services structure,
services shall be organized by, and language specialists recruited upon the
recommendation of, a recognized professional language specialist.
(d) Members shall perform no other conference duties than those for which they
are contracted.
Article 8
(a) Each member shall declare one professional domicile. No member may have
more than one professional domicile at the same time.
(b) A change in domicile may be effected upon prior written notification to the
Executive Secretary. No member shall be permitted to change professional
domicile more often than once every six (6) months.
Article 9
Members of the Association may request to be released from a conference
engagement only if they are able to:
(a) Give sufficient notice;
(b) Show good cause; and
(c) Propose a substitute acceptable to the conference organizer.
Article 10
(a) A scale of suggested minimum fees is kept by the Association.
(b) The fees are based on a daily rate. A full day's fee shall be payable for each day
or fraction thereof covered by the conference engagement.
(c) Fees are quoted in U.S. dollars or their equivalent. The fees shall be
transferable to the language specialist's country of domicile.
(d) Members of the Association engaged to work in the same capacity on the same
team shall be paid at the same rate.
Article 11
(a) Fees shall be due for the entire period covered by the conference engagement,
including Sundays and other nonworking days.
(b) Fees shall be payable in full without deduction of any commission.
Article 12
Members of the Association may give their services free of charge, provided
they pay their own travel and subsistence expenses. (The Council may
occasionally waive this provision.)
Article 13
Allowances and Fees for Travel Days
(a) Conference engagements away from the place of domicile shall entitle
members of the Association to payment of a subsistence allowance (per diem)
for each day of absence from the place of domicile and, in addition, a fee for
each day required to be spent in travel.
*~~Conference~~ is understood to mean the original organizer; any intermediaries are specifically
excluded.
2
PAGENO="0153"
149
(b) The amounts referred to in (a) above shall be due in full for each day or fraction
thereof. Members may, however, agree to payment of two-thirds of the
subsistence allowance in the form of full board and lodging.
Article 14
Travel
The mode of travel from domicile to conference, or between consecutive
engagements, depends on the practice then current and customary. Members
may contact the Association to ascertain the current practice for any given
arrangements, and the Association may from time to time publish such
practices. In no case, however, may members travel in a mode inferior to that
contracted for by the sponsoring organization without the Association's prior
consent. (This provision is to be read in conjunction with Article 4 of the
Appendix to the Code.)
APPENDIX TO THE PROFESSIONAL CODE FOR LANGUAGE SPECIALISTS
Article I
Duration of Appointments
All contracts shall specify the exact duration of the appointment and contain a cancell-
ation clause providing for the reimbursement of all substantiated expenses and for the
payment of: The total remuneration due if the contract or part thereof is canceled or
the meeting Is terminated sooner than its final date.
Exception: Organizations which are members of the United Nations family. The cancell-
ation clause in effect for these organizations will be as follows:
(a) 50 percent of the total remuneration due If the contract or part thereof is canceled
more than 30 days before Its effective date;
(b) The total remuneration due If the contract or part thereof is canceled less than 30
days before its effective date or terminated sooner than its final date.
The above paragraphs shall not be operative if the language specialist Is offered
equivalent employment for the period In question either by the organization can-
celing the contract or by a third party, or If the reasons for the termination are of a
disciplinary character.
Article 2
Subsistence Allowance (per diem)
The rate of subsistence allowance (per diem) shall be no less than that specified
by the United Nations scale of per diem for staff in grades P-3 to P-5.
Article 3
Loss-of-Earning Allowance
Whenever applicable, the allowance payable for the first day spent traveling on
the outward and return journey shall be half the suggested minimum fee and all
additional travel days shall be payable at the full suggested minimum fee.
Article 4
Air Travel
The language specialist may accept economy-class travel accommodations
provided his contract includes days of rest at standard fees and, where
applicable, per diem, depending on travel time from downtown air terminal to
downtown air terminal. Payments in respect of rest days shall be additional to
payments in respect of travel days (see Article 3 above).
Travel Time No. Rest Days due
9 to 16 hours One
16to21 hours Two
21 hours or more Three
Moreover, the contract shall provide for 10 kilos excess baggage allowance in
excoss of the economy class allowance.
.3
PAGENO="0154"
150
WORKING CONDITIONS FOR INTERPRETERS
1. General:
In the interest of ensuring professional standards, members of the Association
shall:
(a) Satisfy themselves that they can see and hear properly;
(b) Warn that simultaneous interpretation without booth may reduce the quality of
interpreting below minimum standards;
(c) Endeavor to ensure that interpreting teams are made up in such a way as to
avoid regular use of relays.
2. Number of interpreters:
(a) Interpreters shall not work alone with no possibility of relief*.
(b) A minimum of two interpreters per language is required, except for bilingual
conferences, in which case a team of three interpreters s acceptable in certain
circumstances.
(c) Exceptionally and for short bilingual meetings not exceeding one half-day or
one evening, a team of two bilingual interpreters is acceptable.
3. Scale of suggested fees in the Americas:
A list of the suggested minimum daily fees applicable to intergovernmental,
governmental, and nongovernmental organizations in the Americas shall be
published on January 1 of each year and whenever a fee has been changed.
4 Whispered interpretation:
Whispered interpretation is considered to be from one or two languages into
another language, for a maximum of two delegates with or without consecutive
interpretation from the latter language: three interpreters at the fees laid down in
the list mentioned in Paragraph 3 above.
5. Briefing.
(a) A briefing period of two full days on full pay during which half a day may be a
working period shall be provided in the case of all technical and scientific
conferences.
(b) The above briefing period may be replaced by an equivalent period of study at
home on full pay if the necessary documents are made available for that
purpose.
6. Recording:
Interpretation is provided solely forthe benefit of the audience. No recording, for
whatever purpose, including by members of the audience, may be made
without prior consent of the interpreters concerned, who may claim appropriate
compensation for such use.
7. Other fees:
In the case of conferences held outside the Americas, the suggested minimum
fees shall be those of the International Association of Conference Interpreters
(AIIC).
*ln exceptional circumstances, and in the mode of consecutive interpretation, an interpreter
may work alone; in such cases he shall be paid double the suggested minimum fee.
4
PAGENO="0155"
151
WORKING CONDITIONS FOR TRANSLATORS
A. GENERAL
1. In the interest of ensuring professional standards, members of the Association
shall endeavor to see that the following conditions prevail in all working
situations:
Facilities and Working Area
2. The facilities and physical working area provided for translators shall be
adequate to permit the production of translations of proper quality. Either
dictation equipment or a typewriter in good condition (electric if the translator so
prefers) shall be provided for each translator on duty. If translations are to be
dictated, an experienced conference typist with proper knowledge of the target
language shall also be available. The working area shall be adequately illumi-
nated and ventilated, and reasonable quiet and privacy shall be ensured.
Translators shall not be required to share their working area with any distracting
activities.
Time Allowed for Work
3. Translators shall be allowed sufficient time to complete their work, having
regard to the nature and length of the text.
Condition of Text to be Translated
4. The material to be translated shall be typewritten or typeset and legible in all
respects. A short handwritten text may be accepted in special circumstances,
but only if the translator has first satisfied himself that he can read it with no
difficulty or possibility of misunderstanding.
Reference Material
5. Translators shall have ready access to the dictionaries they need and,
whenever possible, to documents and information (including marked-up
copies) required for proper understanding of the text to be translated and
production of a good translation.
B. CONFERENCES
6. Members of the Association shall ensure that, in addition to the foregoing
general conditions, the following specific conditions with respect to conferences
are observed:
Hours of Work
7. The normal working day shall be eight hours. Shift work shall be agreed upon in
advance.
Composition of Translation Teams
8. When a conference engages two or more translators to work simultaneously
into the same target language, at least one of them shall be accorded the title
and duties of "Reviewer" or "Reviser" and paid at an agreed higher rate. A
conference may also engage a team composed exclusively of experienced
reviewers/revisers.
5
PAGENO="0156"
152
Working Languages
9. A translator shall not be required to work into languages other than those in
which he has an A classification.
Documentation
10. In addition to the reference material mentioned in para. 5 above, background
documentation for the conference (special glossaries, reports of previous
meetings, documents under consideration, etc.) shall be made available for
ready reference.
C. SCALES OF SUGGESTED FEES
11. A scale of suggested minimum daily fees for conference engagements in the
Americas shall be published on January 1 of each year and whenever a fee has
been changed.
12. The Association shall also publish each year and whenever necessary a scale
of suggested minimum fees for non-conference free-lance translation work,
which is usually remunerated on a word-count basis.
13. For both conference and non-conference translation work performed outside
the Americas, the suggested minimum fees shall be those of the Association, or
those of the local professional association of translators, whichever are higher.
D. COPYRIGHT
14. It is understood that translators are entitled to the same protection in respect of
their translations as is accorded to authors under international copyright
conventions. The translator may, however, voluntarily waive these rights.
15. Where the author(s) of a report, document or article are named, the translator(s)
of that publication should be accorded equal mention.
6
PAGENO="0157"
153
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS
PAGENO="0158"
ACOSTA, Mrs. Magdalena Urquidi de
Apartment 716
4200 Cathedral Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20016
Tel.: (202) 686-0581
*ADELO Dr. Abdallah Samuel
Suite 401
320 Galisteo Street
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
Home: (505) 983-9285
Office: (505) 988-8905
Co AGOSTINI, Mrs. Yvette
1, chemin du Champ-des-Noyers
Grand-Lancy
CH-1 212 Genève, SWITZERLAND
Tel.: (022) 43-3594
ALARCf~N, Mr. Sergio M.
CDA Rincón de Tlacopac 61
Tlacopac San Angel
Mexico 20, D.F., MEXICO
Tel.: (905) 550-4713
ANDERSON, Mrs. Tina
214 Kemah Road
Ridgewood, New Jersey 07450
Tel.: (201) 444-0815
*Associate Member
A Interpreter
A Translator
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
C
C
B
B
A
A
A
A
C
Interpreter
Translator
Interpreter
Translator
Reviewer
Translator
Washington
Gulf Companies Santa Fe
Geneva
Mexico City
New York
A
A
B
A
C
B
B
B*
C
C
A
C
C
C
A
Interpreter
PAGENO="0159"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
APRIL, Mrs. Julia Georgetown Washington C C C A Interpreter
3901 Cathedral Avenue, NW. University C C C A Translator
Washington, D.C. 20016
Home: (202) 362-2426
Office: (813) 733-7400
(from June to August)
ARIAS AROSEMENA de OBALDIA Panama City B B A Interpreter
Mrs. Teresita
Calle 6a., #50,
Altos del Golf, PANAMA
or
Apartado Postal 7261
Panama 5, PANAMA
c.o Tel.: 26-0045
*ARJONA Miss Etilvia Monterey Monterey Translator
4083 Sunset Lane Institute
Pebble Beach, California 93953
Home: 408) 625-2639
Office: 408) 649-3113 x67
Correspondence:
P.O. Box 1978
Monterey, California 93940
AVITAHL, Mrs. Ursula Milwaukee C C A C Interpreter
4425 North Maryland Avenue C C A C Translator
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53211
Tel.: (414) 964-9261
*Associate Member
PAGENO="0160"
NAME AND ADDRESS
AYERS, Mrs. Lana H.
Apartment 401
66, Pacific Avenue
Toronto M6P2P4
Ontario, CANADA
Tel.: (416) 762-8993
BAER, Mrs. Marilyn
903 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10021
Tel.: (212) 861-8357
~ BARBAJOSA, ~r. Alejandro
Rio Guadalquivir 48-5
Cuauhtémoc
Mexico 5, D.F., MEXICO
Home: (915) 563-89-11
Messages: (915) 525-34-27
BARBER, John H.
109 Oakley Road
Cambridge, Maryland 21613
Tel.: (301) 228-7045
BARNABE; Mrs. Marta Llovet de
Yamandü Rodriguez 1326
Carrasco
Montevideo, URUGUAY
A
C
A
C
Interpreter
Interpreter
A C A Interpreter
B C A Translator
A B Interpreter
C A C C A Interpreter
C A C C A Translator
PAGENO="0161"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
BAYO, Mrs. Ilma Niederheitmann Guatemala City A C C A Interpreter
18 CalIe No. 3-75 A C C A Translator
Zona 14
Guatemala, GUATEMALA
Tel.: 68-2746
BELCHER, Ms. ManIa Rio de Janeiro B C .~. Interpreter
Amcongen Translator
Rio de Janeiro, BRAZIL
APO New York 09676
BELISLE, Ms. Estelle Washington A B C Interpreter
-~ 2710 Jefferson Drive Translator
Alexandria, Virginia 22303
Tel.: (703) 960-3395
BELLAGAMBA, Mrs. Maria Carolina CIAT Panama City A C C A Interpreter
do CIAT A C C A Translator
Apartado 215
Panama 1, PANAMA
Home: 26-7227
Office: 64-3766/64-0437
Cables: CIAT PANAMA
BENNATON, Ms. Ann E. ` Guatemala City A C B* A Interpreter
Apartado Postal 1739 A C A Translator
Guatemala, GUATEMALA
Home: 42122
Office: 20564
Cables: BENST GUATEMALA
PAGENO="0162"
BLONDEAU, Mrs. Simone
Apartado 1746
Lima 100, PERU
Messages: 40-6685
Cables: SIBLOND, LIMA
BOERO, Mr. RaüI
Maldonaldo 1565
Montevideo, URUGUAY
Tel.: 49-5741
Interpreter
Translator
Précis-writer
Translator
Reviewer
BERMUDEZ, Mrs. Raquel A. de
Arenales 2566, 1°-C
Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Tel.: 82-6770
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
Interpreter
Translator
Buenos Aires
Lima
Buenos Aires
Buenos Aires
C
C
A
A
C
C
A
A
C
C
A
A
A
C
A
A
B
C
A
A
B
BONNY, Mr. Paul L.
Calle Alberto Williams 1772
Hurlingham
1686 Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Tel.: 655-1154
Interpreter
Translator
C
PAGENO="0163"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
BORST, Mr. Konrad Reutlingen C C A B* Interpreter
Araustr, 26 B C A B Translator
D-741 Reutlingen
GERMANY, Federal Republic of
BOURGOIN, Mr. Edward World Bank Washington A C C C Translator
2001 Rockwood Road Reviewer
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Home: (301) 587-4979
Office: (202) 676-1799
BOWEN, Mr. David Georgetown Vienna A C C Interpreter
do Hedwig Bloksberg University (1 May- A C C Translator
Sinaerstrasse 2815 31 October)
A 1~1O Vienna, AUSTRIA Washington
628 South 25th Street November-
Arlington, Virginia 22202 0 April)
Home: (703) OT 4-7494
Office: (202) 625-4301
BOWEN, Dr. Margareta Georgetown Vienna C B A Interpreter
do Hedwig Bloksberg University (16 Apr-14 C B A ranslator
Singerstrasse 2815 Oct 1978) Reviewer
A 1010 Vienna, AUSTRIA Washington
628 South 25th Street (15 Oct-15 April)
Arlington, Virginia 22202
Home: (703) OT 4-7494
Office: (202) 625-4301
Correspondence:
School of Languages and Linguistics
Georgetown University
36th and N Streets, NW.
Washington, D.C. 20057
PAGENO="0164"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
BRUNS-THEPAUT, Mrs. Hélène World Bank Washington B A B Interpreter
4824 Alton Place, N.W. B A Translator
Washington, D.C. 20016
Home: (202) 363-5808
Office: (202) 676-1517
BUEND1A, Mrs.. Maria Teresa Baltimore B C A Interpreter
13 Hollybranch Court
Baltimore 21057
Tel.: (301) 592-8075
~ BURRELL-SAHL, Mrs. Helga INTELSAT Washington B C C A Interpreter
11607 Karen Drive B C C A Translator
Potomac, Maryland 20854
Home: (301) 299-3938
Office: (202) 488-2506
CALDERON, Mrs. Margarita D. de Buenos Aires A C C A Translator
Olazãbal 3110, 4°-13 Reviewer
1428 Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Messages: 792-6982
CARDOSO, Mr. Pablo ICIT/GATT Geneva B C C A Interpreter
Case postale 105 B C C A Translator
CH-1217 Meyrin 1, SWITZERLAND Reviewer
Home: (Geneva) 82-8625
Office: (Geneva) 34-6011 x 2068
PAGENO="0165"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
CARVALHO, Mr. J. Ribamar A. de OAS Washington C C A C Translator
3726 South 12th Street Reviewer
Arlington, Virginia 22204
Home: (703) 521-7396
Office: (202) 331-1010
CHARRO, Mr. Fernando INTELSAT Washington B B C A Translator
12 Arthur Drive West Reviewer
Oxon Hill, Maryland 20021
Home: (301) 567-3858
Office: (202) 488-2434
-~ CHISMAN, Ms. Anna OAS Washington A C C B Translator
725 South Fairfax Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Tel.: (703) 548-3316
CINTRA-ESKENAZI, Mrs. Elizabeth IADB/IADC Washington B C A C Interpreter
4040 N. 41 Street
Arlington, Virginia 22207
Tel.: (703) 536-1792
*COCKE Philip St.G., IV Washington A A C Interpreter
Cot. USAR (Ret.) A A C Translator
Rappahannock Academy
Virginia 22538
Tel.: (703) 742-3504
*Associate Member
PAGENO="0166"
NAME AND ADDRESS
~
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OThER LANGUAGES
COGLIATI, Mrs. Beatriz Elsa Buenos Aires C C A A Interpreter
Billinghurst 2402, 1°-B C C C A A Translator
1425 Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Tel.: 80-2130
CONNOR, Mrs. Imogen INTELSAT Washington A C C A Interpreter
Apartment 1112 A C C A Translator
205 Yoakum Parkway Reviewer
Alexandria, Virginia 22304
Home: (703) 823-2466
Office: (202) 488-2433
CONSUEGRA, Mr. Ulises Washington B C A Translator
0 10202 Greenock Road
Silver Spring, Maryland 20901
Tel.: (301) 593-0233
CORVINGTON, Ms. Monique New York A C Interpreter
Apartment 2
330 East 72nd Street
New York, New York 10021
Home: (212) 861-9686
Office: (212) PL 4-1 234 x 5060
COULTER, Dr. Harris L. Washington A C C Interpreter
5104 Wehawken Road A C C C Translator
Washington, D.C. 20016 Hungarian: C
Tel.: (301) 229-2764 Serbo-Croatian: C
PAGENO="0167"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
CRESPO, Miss Carmen IADB/IADC Washington C C A Interpreter
Apartment 517 B C A Translator
1718 P Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Home: (202) 667-5527
Office: (202) 387-0186
DE LA MAZA, Lic. Rose CAVE ECLA Santiago B C C A Translator
Américo Vespucio Sur 931, Ap. 301
Santiago, CHILE
Tel.: 48-3535 (Home)
Office: 48-50-51 Ext. 360
-L DE LA SERNA-BRACHMAN, Mrs. Dolores New York C B* A Interpreter
~-1 160 Clinton Street C B A Translator
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Tel.: (212) 596-9482 or -2991
DE LA VEGA, Miss Maria Isabel Bogota C B C A Interpreter
Carrera 6a, No. 67-63
Bogota, COLOMBIA
Tel.: 49-3449
DELANNOY, Mrs. Françoise World Bank Washington B A C Translator
4630 Yuma Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20016
Home: (202) 244-8204
Office: (202) 676-1512
PAGENO="0168"
NAME AND ADDRESS
~
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
DESBONNET, Mrs. Erika
See KATZ-SUCHY, Mrs. E.
DIEGUEZ, Mr. lsmael S. INTELSAT Washington B C C A ranslator
5407 41st Street, N.W. leviewer
Washington, D.C. 20008
Home: (202) 362-3280
Office: (202) 488-2432
DONNELLY, Mrs. LUcia Washington A C A B Interpreter
6215 Goldsboro Road A C A B ranslator
Bethesda, Maryland 20034
Tel.: (301) 22~-4093
DOUGALL, Ms. Susie Buenos Aires A C C A nterpreter
Las Heras 2645, 9~-A
Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Tel.: 80-7558
Messages: 71 -8807
DOVE, Mrs. Dolores OAS Washington A C C A Interpreter
3601 Connecticut Avenue, NW. A C C A ranslator
Washington, D.C. 20008
Home: (202) 362-3944
Office: (202) 381-8701
DuVIVIER, Mrs. Michèle UN New York A C C nterpreter
45 Charles Street
New York, New York 10014
Home: (212) 255-6932
Office: (212) PL 4-1 234 x 5060
PAGENO="0169"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
DYKSTRA, Miss Jennifer Canadian Govt. Ottawa A C B* Interpreter
Apartment 1705 A C C C Translator
10 Driveway
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1C7 CANADA
Home: (613) 234-1647
Office: (613) 997-2551
ERREA DE TARABAL, Mrs. Yvonne Montevideo C A C A Interpreter
Eduardo Acevedo 1494 C A C A Translator
Montevideo, URUGUAY
Home: 40-0430
Office: 91-2791 or -2792
FABLING DE GOMEZ
see: GOMEZ, Mrs. Joan FABLING de
FAGAN, Mr. Theodore Palo Alto A C C C A Interpreter
1042 Paradise Way
Palo Alto, California 94306
Tel.: (415) 493-7319
FARFAN, Mrs. Maria Elvira UN New York B C C A Interpreter
P.O. Box 20
Grand Central Post Office
New York, N.Y. 10017
(212) PL4-1 234
FERNANDEZ-MOUJAN, Mrs. Sheila S. de Buenos Aires A C A Interpreter
Avenida del Libertador 2677, 8°-B A C A Translator
1425-Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Home: 71-7998
Office: 46-8967 or -9216
PAGENO="0170"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
FERRUA, Pietro Lewis and Portland C A A B C Interpreter
Dept. of Foreign Lang. Clark College C B A B C Translator
Lewis & Clark College
Portland, Ore. 97219
Tel.: (503) 244-6161
FISCHER, Mrs. Margarita Bogota A C A Interpreter
Carrera 3-A, No. 57-84
Bogota, COLOMBIA
Tel.: 35-3192
FISHKIN, Mrs. Madeleine INTELSAT Washington B* A C Interpreter
r~ 5012 Dodson Drive B A C Translator
~ Annandale, Virginia 22003
Home: (703) 354-2362
Office: (202) 488-2378
FOLCH, Mrs. Simone Mexico City C A B Interpreter
Rio Amazonas 57-201
Mexico 5, D.F., MEXICO
Tel.: (905) 535-6466
FOURNIER-LLUHI, Mrs. Solange Mexico City C A C C Interpreter
Cerrada Ia Perpetua 20-9
San José Insurgentes
Mexico 19, D.F., MEXICO
Tel.: (905) 524-0417
PAGENO="0171"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
FRANCOEUR, Ms. Andrée Montreal C A C Interpreter
Apartment 3 C A C Translator
5324 Papineau
Montréal 177, P.O., CANADA
Tel.: (514) 521-6304
FRENCH, Mrs. Elena Washington B A C C Interpreter
4417 0 Street, N.W. B A C C ranslator
Washington, D.C. 20007
Tel.: (202) 338-3593
GALAN, Mrs. Elsa P. de Buenos Aires B A A Translator
Sucre 2998, 8°-A Reviewer
Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
GALER, Mr. RaUl UN New York B C A Interpreter
Apartment B B C A Translator
144-12 Village Road Editor
Jamaica, New York 11435 Précis-writer
Home: (212) 969-3841
Office: (212) 754-6487
PAGENO="0172"
NAME AND ADDRESS
GALLARDO, Miss C. Rita
Apartment 902
1255 New Hampshire Avenue, NW.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Home: (202) 785-0955
Office: (202) 676-1517
GARC1A-LANDA, Mr. Mariano
ha rue Copernic-Bte 2
B-1180
Brussels, BELGIUM
~ GARRIDO, Miss Olga
2601 Woodley Place, NW.
Washington, D.C. 20008
Home: 202 332-4819
Office: 202 387-0314
GAUTIER, Mr. Max A.
12201 River Road
Potomac, Maryland 20854
Tel.: (301) 299-3346
(301) 299-2049
GLEBOFF, Mr. Nicolas
350 Central Park West
New York, New York 10025
Home: (212) AC 2-4847
Office: (212) PL 4-1 234 x 888
Translator
Reviewer
C C A Translator
C A Interpreter
C A
C A
C C
B
B
B C C
C C C
C
C A
A B
Interpreter
Translator
B
Interpreter
PAGENO="0173"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
GOMEZ, Mrs. Barbara Mexico City A C C B* Interpreter
Liverpool 149-102 A C C B Translator
Mexico 6, OF., MEXICO Reviewer
Tel.: (905) 514-0764 or 533-3825 Editor
Précis-writer
GOMEZ, Mrs. Joan FABLING DE Panama City A C A Interpreter
a/c Familia Noriega B C A Translator
Apartado 4828
Panama 5, PANAMA
Tel.: 23-9411
GOMEZ DE SILVA, Mr. Guido UN New York C C C A Interpreter
r~ 333 E 30th Street
O~ Apartment 1 6-L
New York, New York 10016
Home: (212) 889-2863
Office: (212) PL 4-754-6492
GONZALEZ, Miss Annabella New York A C B Interpreter
Apartment 1-H
333 East 49th Street
New York, New York 10017
Tel.: (212) 751-8932
Messages: (212) 840-1234
GRABIA, Mrs. Wanda Buenos Aires A C B Interpreter
Santa Fe 1424 Polish: C
Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Tel.: 44-4024
PAGENO="0174"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
GREIG, Miss Barbara Washington A C C Interpreter
Apartment 201 A C C Translator
2619 42nd Street, NW.
Washington, D.C. 20007
Tel.: (202) 338-8627
GUTIERREZ-SUAREZ, Mrs. Emma E. de Mexico City A C C A Interpreter
Cerro del Dios del Hacha 25 A C C A Translator
Coyoac~n
Mexico 21, D.F., MEXICO
Tel.: (905) 554-1416
GUTTERO, Ms. Genevieve Buenos Aires C B C A Interpreter
~ Mansilla 2568 C B C A Translator
Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Tel.: 82-2085
HANSON, Mrs. Yolanda Washington A C A Interpreter
2801 New Mexico Avenue, N.W. A C C C B Translator
Washington, D.C. 20007
Tel.: (202) 338-0987
HARWAY, Mrs. Monique Washington B A Interpreter
3518 Williamsburg Lane, N.W. B A Translator
Washington, D.C. 20008
Tel.: (202) 362-9443
HENCHOZ STEFANOVICH, Mrs. Annie Mexico City B* A B Interpreter
Mexico 5, D.F., MEXICO
Kepler 143-901
Tel.: 531-6.38
PAGENO="0175"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
*HERVAS Mr. Anthony J. USDS Washington A C C A Interpreter
2547 North Vernon Street
Arlington, Virginia 22207
Home: (703) 522-1975
Office: (202) 632-3492
HODGKINSON, Mrs. Miriam Washington B C A Interpreter
2407 North Vernon Street
Arlington, Virginia 22207
Tel.: (703) 528-0102
HOLMES, Mrs. Tamara Washington A C A Interpreter
ro 301 South Carolina Avenue, SE. A C A Translator
~" Washington, D.C. 20003
Tel.: (202) 544-1644
HOROWITZ, Mr. Doron Toronto A B C Interpreter
425 Palmerston Blvd. Hebrew B
Toronto, Ontario Yiddish C
M6G-2N7, CANADA
Tel.: (416) 534-1726
HOWARD, Mrs. Elena R. UN New York A C C A Interpreter
Apartment 1-9 A C C A Translator
510 East 23rd Street
New York, New York 10010
Home: (212) 475-2763
Office: (212) 754-6487
*Associate Member
PAGENO="0176"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
HUFFMAN, Dr. Sanda M. Cornell Ithaca B B C Interpreter
520 Chestnut Street University Rumanian: A
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tel.: (607) 272-6049
HUTCHINSON, Mrs. Inge Dayton B C A Interpreter
309 Towerview Road B C A Translator
Dayton, Ohio 45429
Tel.: (513) 434-3491
JAMES, Mrs. Ruth Buenos Aires A C C C A Interpreter
~ Casilla de Correo 2080 A C C C A Translator
Correo Central
Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Tel.: 797-9709
Messages: 783-1475
Cables: TRANSLAJAMES BAIRES
JAQUITH, Mrs. Mary H. New York C C A Interpreter
173 Hillside Avenue
Mount Vernon, New York 10553
Tel.: (914) 668-2284
KAISER, Mrs. Anafu M. Middletown B A Interpreter
191 Deepdale Drive
Middletown, New Jersey 07748
Tel.: (201) 671-1835
PAGENO="0177"
KATZ-SUCHY, Mrs. Erika
52 Appletree Lane
Roslyn Heights, New York 11577
Tel.: (516) 621-3530
KAUFMAN, Mrs. Marina
180 Sullivan Street
New York, New York 10012
Tel.: (212) OR 3-3336
Messages: (212)582-5900
KIRILOFF, Mr. Nikita
r~ 27 Best Way
-J Kanata/Ottawa
Ontario, K2K 1C5 CANADA
Home: (613) 592-4321
Office: (613) 995-6128
KOMATSU, Mr. Tatsuya
7-16-Chome, Mihiradai
Nerima-ku
Tokyo 177, JAPAN
Home: (03) 921-5595
Office: (03) 582-4224
KONUK, Mrs. Erika R.
6510 Fairlawn Drive
McLean, Virginia 22101
Home: (703) 893-5614
C Interpreter
C Translator
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
C
A
A
New York
New York
Canadian Govt. Ottawa
Tokyo
Washington
A B*
C A
C B C
B
B A
B A
Interpreter
Polish: B
Interpreter
Interpreter
Interpreter
A
PAGENO="0178"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
KRAFFT, Mr. Remco New York B A C Interpreter
304 East 81st Street Dutch: C
New York, New York 10028
Tel.: (212) 535-2694
KRAKOWSKY, Mrs. Barbara San Francisco B A C A Interpreter
898 24th Avenue Rumanian: B
San Francisco, California 94121
Home: (415) 387-0784
Office: (415) 387-6192
KURSELL, Mrs. Lily R. de Madrid A C C C B Interpreter
Av. Dr. Arce 28 A C C C B Translator
Madrid 2, SPAIN
Tel.: 458-6980
LABRADA, Mr. Emilio B. OAS Washington A C C A Translator
7476 Jayhawk Reviewer
Annandale, Virginia 22003
Tel.: (703) 256-1398
LACHOW, Miss Valentina Washington A C C Interpreter
do Mrs. B. Simon
Apartment 1417
4601 North Park Avenue
Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015
Tel.: (301) 986-1542
PAGENO="0179"
LAMON, Miss Françoise A.
332, rue Lecourbe
75015 Paris, FRANCE
Home: 250-5306
Secretariat: 250-4814
LATEINER, Mrs. Jeannine de BRY
Suite 12-K
6040 Boulevard East
West New York, New Jersey 07093
Tel.: (201) 869-5112
Cable: LATINTER WESTNEWYORKNJ
~ LATTER, Mrs. Natalie
Building One, Apartment 1411
203 Yoakum Parkway
Alexandria, Virginia 22304
Tel.: (703) 370-1225
LEDAN, Mr. Emmanuel D.
6720 Luzon Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20012
Home: 202) RA 6-2805
Office: 202) 477-3258
LEWIS, Miss Edina
13 Talbot House
98 St. Martin's Lane
London WC 2, ENGLAND
Tel.: (01) 836-7072 or (01) 405-8657
ranslator
Reviewer
IES AND
NGUAGES
NAME AND ADDRESS
B*
C
A
A
B* Interpreter
C Translator
B
B
A
A
C
C
C
Interpreter
Translator
A
A
MF
C A
C A
Interpreter
Translator
C
A
I.
C
C
C
A
C
ranslator
ditor
Précis-writer
PAGENO="0180"
LEWIS BONACCORSI, Mrs. Elvira
942 Youngsford Road
Gladwyne, Pennsylvania 19035
Tel.: (215) 649-0122
LOBBE, Mr. Robert C.
5116 Wehawken Road
Washington, D.C. 20016
Tel.: (301) 229-2178
Ca. LOPEZ-SCHQTT SANBORN, Mrs. Eliana
~ Apartment 6-G
345 East 52nd Street
New York, New York 10022
Home: (212) 371-1649
Office: (212) 754-6492
LUKIANOFF, Dr. Basil
15 Hillside Street
Danbury Connecticut 06810
Tel.: (203) 743-4884
MACEDO DE CAMPS, Mrs. Laura
Apto. 3
Rambla Republica del Peru 1089, Piso lo
Tel.: 799863
Interpreter
Translator
Translator
Reviewer
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POW
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
UN
Philadelphia
Washington
New York
Danbury
Montevideo
A
A
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
B
B
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
Interpreter
Interpreter
Translator
Serbo-Croatian: A
Translator
PAGENO="0181"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
McCALL, Mrs. Joelle Washington C A C Interpreter
1200 N Nash St.
Arlington, Virginia, 22209
Tel.: (703) 243-3544
McMILLAN, Mr. E. Norman World Bank Washington A C C C C Translator
Apartment 1009, The Savoy Reviewer
1101 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Editor
Washington, D.C. 20037 Dutch: C
Home: (202) 659-2390
Office: (202) 676-1799
MAGEE, Mr. Richard A. INTELSAT Washington B A C Translator
(A) 2205 Lofty Heights Place
Reston, Virginia 22091
Home: (703) 620-3256
Office: (202) 554-6428
*MANGRAVITE, Miss Nina Guadalajara A C Interpreter
Lacandones 330
FracciOn Monrraz
Guadalajara 6, Jalisco, MEXICO
Tel.: 16-9759
MARCONDES, Mrs. Haydee M. Washington B C A C Interpreter
Apartment 208 . B C A C Translator
4101 Cathedral Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20016
Tel.: (202) 362-7065
Messages: (202) 966-4100
*Associate Member
PAGENO="0182"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION 1
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER IT 1 JAP POR
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
MARCUSE, Mrs. Gisela USDS Washington B A Interpreter
6611 Sixteenth Street, N.W. B A C Translator
Washington, D.C. 20012
Home: (202) 726-3736
Office: (202) 632-8917
MARDONES, Mr. Raoul Santiago C C C A Interpreter
Casilla 150.62
Correo 11
Santiago, CHILE
Tel.: 26-7642
MARQUEZ, Mrs. Viviane Brachet de Mexico City C A Interpreter
Varsovia 22-bis-502 C A Translator
Mexico 6. D.F., MEXICO
Home: (905) 514-0688
Office: (905) 568-6033 Ext 231
MARTIN, Ms. Nataly DOE Washington A A C Interpreter
3509 McKinley Street, N.W. A A C Translator
Washington, D.C. 20015
Home: 202 244-3361
Office: 202 376-4799
MASSIEU, Jorge Montreal B* C A Interpreter
4099 Isabella
Montreal, P.O., H3T 1N5 CANADA
PAGENO="0183"
NAME AND ADDRESS
DRGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
MATSUO, Dr. Kazuyuki Sophia Tokyo B A Interpreter
4-7-47 Zushi University
Zushi-shi
Kanagawa 249, JAPAN
MAYER, Ms. Beatrice M. Mexico City A A Interpreter
Patricio Sanz 748-5
Mexico 12, D.F., MEXICO
Tel.: (905) 523-16-75
M~LERAS, Mr. Simon ICAO Montreal C A B* Interpreter
144 Lockhart Avenue C A B Translator
c~ Montréal 304, P.O., CANADA
~-" Home: (514) 731-5755
Office: (514) UN 6-2551 x 270
MERTVAGOS, Mr. Constantine New York A B B A C Interpreter
8308 Britton Avenue A B B C A C ranslator
Elmhurst, New York 11373
Tel.: (212) 426-8142
MEZA, Mrs. Barbara DB Washington A C C C ranslator
Apartment 806 Reviewer
1325 18th Street, NW. erminologist
Washington, DC. 20036
PAGENO="0184"
NAME AND ADDRESS
MICHEL, Mr. M. Brooks
10561 NE 2 Place
Miami Shores, Florida 33138
Tel.: (305) 758-1391
MIGONE, Mr. RaóI
Azcuenaga 1038, 70 Piso F
Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Tel.: 83-79-60, 83-06-12
CaIIao 1442
Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Tel.: 44-05-32
0)
MORALES-MACEDO, Mr. Fernando
Apartment 1804
3800 North Fairfax Drive
Arlington, Virginia 22203
Home: (703) 524-4573
Office: (202) 676-1522
MORAYTA, Mrs. Italia de
Cascada 206
Pedregal de San Angel
M~xico 20, D.F., MEXICO
Tel.: (905) 568-0003
568-4732
Office: 548-1119
550-0170
A
C
C
B Interpreter
C
A
World Bank
Interpreter
Translator
B
C
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
Interpreter
Translator
Reviewer
Terminologist
A
A
C
C
C
C
A
A
Interpreter
Translator
Reviewer
Editor
Precis-writer
PAGENO="0185"
NAME AND ADDRESS
~
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
~ER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
MORRISON, Ms. Jeannette UN New York A C C Interpreter
Apartment 12-E A C C Polish: C
310 West 72nd Street Translator
New York, New York 10023 Polish: C
Home: (212) 724-2079
Office: (212) PL 4-1 234 x 5060
MOYENS, Mr. H. Marc Vorld Bank Vashington B A C nterpretec
2109 Paul Spring Road B A C ranslator
Alexandria, Virginia 22307 eviewer
Home: (703) 765-9283
Office: (202) 676-1497
~ MUF~OZ-CARRASCO, Mr. Manuel Washington B C A ranslator
4952 Eskridge Terrace, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20016
Home: (202) 244-8493
Office: (202) 296-1345
MURAMATSU, Mr. Masumi Yokohama A A Interpreter
186-32, Nishi-Shiba
Kanazawa-ku
236 Yokohama, JAPAN
Home: (045) 783-1711
Office: (03) 582-4224
Cables: SIMULCONFER TOKYO
NARGANES, Mr. Aurelio 1DB Washington A C C A nterpreter
630 South St. Asaph Street A C C A ranslator
Alexandria, Virginia 22307
Tel.: (202) 634-8395
PAGENO="0186"
NEDELCOVIC, Mr. Bosco
6001 North 18th Street
Arlington, Virginia 22205
Home: (703) 536-7710
Office: (202) 693-8023
NEGRI-BELTRAN, Ms. Maria
Guatemala 4721, 7~-14
Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Home: 71-7945
Office: 41 -91 99 x Traducciones
~ ORAM, Mrs. Mary C.
0 Apartment 605W
4201 Cathedral Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20016
Home: (202) 244-5119
Office: (202) 634-8395
ORGLMEISTER, Ms. E. Ingrid
Rua da lndependência 79, Ap. 11
04721 Säo Paulo, SP, BRAZIL
Home: (011) 429-2522
Office: (011) 240-8512
PAXSON, Mrs. Liliane
841 Jacon Way
Pacific Palisades, California 90272
Tel.: (213) 454-2045
Pacific
Palisades
B Interpreter
C Translator
NAME AND ADDRESS
DRGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DDMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
PDR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
IADB/IADC
Argentine
Govt.
1DB
A
A
A
Washington
Buenos Aires
Washington
Sao Paulo
Interpreter
Serbo-Croatian: B*
Translator
Serbo-Croatian: B
Translator
B*
B
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
B
A
C
A
A
B
B
B
B
C
C
A
A
A
C
Interpreter
Interpreter
Translator
PAGENO="0187"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESS1ONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
PERVUSHIN, Dr. Nicolas McGill Montreal C B C A C Interpreter
5647 Durcoher Avenue University C B C A C Translator
Montreal, P.O., H2V 3Y3 CANADA Reviewer
Tel.: (514) 277-9125
RAMLER, Miss MOnica Bogota B B C A Interpreter
Carrera 4, No. 74A-26 B B C A Translator
Bogota, COLOMBIA
Tel.: 35-0141
c~ RANDLE, Mrs. Anne Buenos Aires A C C B Interpreter
Isabel La Catolica 2055 A C C B Translator
(1686) Hurlingham
Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Tel.: 655-1526
RASO, Dr. Gianni Montevideo C A B Interpreter
Pedro Berro 1087, Ap. 504 -
Montevideo, URUGUAY
Home: 298188
Office: 986145
RATINOFF, Mrs. Gloria Washington B C A Interpreter
8209 Beech Tree Road
Bethesda, Maryland 20034
Tel.: (301) 365-0643
PAGENO="0188"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OThER LANGUAGES
REISMAN-TOOF, Mrs. Judy World Bank Washington A C C C Translator
1608 R Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
Home: (202) 234-7726
Office: (202) 676-1483
RICHMAN, Mrs. Brigitta M. Washington B A Interpreter
10339 Watkins Mill Drive B A Translator
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20760 Dutch: C
Tel.: (301) 869-1029
I.
CA) RINGLER, Ms. Suzanne Brussels B A C Interpreter
~ ha rue Copernic Bte 2
B-1180
Brussels, BELGIUM
RIVAS, Mrs. Isabel de Bogota B C A Interpreter
Diagonal 73 B C C A Translator
No. 1-01 Int. 3
Bogota, D.E. 2
COLOMBIA
Tel.: 557550
ROCHA, Ms. Nancy Los Angeles A C A Interpreter
3395 Knoll Drive
Los Angeles
California 90068
Tel.: (213) 876-4666
PAGENO="0189"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
RODITI, Mr. Edouard H. Paris A A B C C C Interpreter
Apartment 3163 A A B C C C Translator
Tour Ravenne
130, boulevard Masséna
Paris 75013, FRANCE
Tel.: 583-0227
RODR1GUEZ, Mr. Ceferino INTELSAT Washington B B A Translator
8417 Stone Gate Drive
Annandale, Virginia 22003
Home: (703) 323-0462
Office: (202) 488-2428
~ RODR)GUEZ, Mrs. Evelyn de Caracas A C C A Interpreter
Apartado 68434
Altamira
Caracas, VENEZUELA
Tel.: 32-1 250
Cables: ROGUEZ CARACAS
RODRiGUEZ, Dr. Pablo OAS Washington B C C A Interpreter
1619 30th Street, N.W. B C C A Translator
Washington, D.C. 20007
Home: (202) 965-1694
Office: (202) 381-8611
RODRiGUEZ, Ms. Ronnie Caracas A C A Interpreter
Apartado 68434
Altamira
Caracas, VENEZUELA
Tel.: 32-2553
Cables: ROGUEZ CARACAS
PAGENO="0190"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ROHEN Y GALVEZ, Mr. Gustavo A.
do Staub
17 rue Cavour
CH-1 203
Genève, SWITZERLAND
Tel.: (022) 44-9837
ROJO, Mrs. Estela de
do Coronel Federico Lorca
Carlos Anthnez 2155
42708 Santiago, CHILE
Tel.: 654-8166
o ROSSIGNOL, Mrs. Janick
Quinta Tania, Calle 10
Los Corales, Caraballeda
VENEZUELA
Tel.: (031) 91-007
RUBINSTEIN, Ms. Nina
127 West 96th Street
New York, New York 10025
Tel.: (212) 666-1786
RUCKHAUS, Miss Karin
Apartado 61811
Caracas, VENEZUELA
Tel.: 77-0008
Cable Address
PLASQUIM, CARACAS
B Interpreter
B Translator
C C C
C C C
B C
B C
A
A
C A
C C A Interpreter
C C A Translator
A Interpreter
A Translator
C
C
B
B
I.
B
A
Interpreter
B
A
Interpreter
PAGENO="0191"
SAAVEDRA, Mr. Carmelo
4519 Traymore Street
Bethesda, Maryland 20014
Home: (301) 530-5394
Office: (202) 676-1519
SAGASTI, Mrs. Elsa H.
Apartment 1207
2030 North Adams Street
Arlington, Virginia 22201
Home: (703) 527-2449
Office: (202) 387-0314
SAITO, Mr. Yoshihiro
1280 21st Street, NW.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel.: (202) 659-8849
SALINAS-ZEPEDA, Mr. Máximo
4417 Airlie Way
Annandale, Virginia 22003
Home: (703) 941-7769
Office: (202) 381-8615
SAVARY, Mrs. Jennifer
145 Fourth Avenue
New York, New York 10003
Tel.: (212) 982-8112
Washington B C
A C
Translator
Reviewer
Editor
C Translator
Reviewer
Editor
Précis-writer
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
Washington
B C
World Bank
IADB/IADC
OAS
A
A
A
C
B
C
C
Interpreter
Translator
Interpreter
A Interpreter
A
Washington
Washington
New York
B
C
A C
PAGENO="0192"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
SAXON-FORTI, Mrs. Anna New York B* C A B* Interpreter
Apartment 11-B B C A B Translator
395 Riverside Drive
New York, New York 10025
Tel.: (212) 865-0183
SCALA, Ms. Lucia Susana Geneva C B A Interpreter
a.b.s. Mme et Melle Elguera
Route de Meyrin 12-C
Geneve, SWITZERLAND
SCHIAVO, Mr. Stënio A. IADB/IADC Washington C C A B Interpreter
8809 Gallant Green Drive A C A B Translator
McLean, Virginia 22101
Home: (703) 893-2152
Office: (202) 387-7878
SCHLUCKBIER. Ms. Nedra Lima A B Interpreter
Casilla 4892
Miraflores, Lima, PERU
Tel.: 47-57-39
SELO-FRALIN, Ms. Marylou New York B C B C Interpreter
Apartment 21 N (from Aug. 15 Translator
15 West 72 Street to Feb. 14) Dutch A
New York, N.Y., 10023
Home: (212) 877-0232
Office: (212) 686-7600
PAGENO="0193"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
SELO-FRALIN, Ms. Marylou
Jan Willem Amsterdam
Brouwersplein 29 (from Feb. 15
Amsterdam to Aug. 14)
THE NETHERLANDS
Tel.: (020) 72 71 42
Answering Office: (020) 46 12 11
SHANKEN, Ms. Flora San Francisco B C C A Interpreter
195 Santa Rosa B C C A Translator
Sausalito, Ca. 94965
I.
SHERRIT, Mr. Ralph Lima A A Interpreter
~ Casilla 799 A A Translator
~ Lima 100, PERU
Tel.: 22-0571
Cables: BELEN LIMA
SHIOMA Ms Kazuko New York B A
19 East 82nd Street
New York, N.Y. 10028
SIERRA Mr Anthony D USDS Washington A C A Interpreter
Box 145-D A C A Translator
Owings, Maryland 20836 Reviewer
Home: (301) 855-7654
Office (202) 632 3476
PAGENO="0194"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OThER LANGUAGES
SILHANKOVA, Mrs. Liselotte New York B C A Interpreter
205 East 89th Street Czech: A
New York, New York 10028 B C A Translator
Tel.: (212) 534-0009 Czech: A
SIMON, Mrs. Barbara Washington C C C A Interpreter
4601 N. Park Avenue, Apt. 1417 Translator
Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015
Tel.: (301) 986-1542
SISTO, Mrs. Betty Mexico City A C B Translator
Meseta 200 Reviewer
~ Jardines del Pedregal
~ Mexico 20, D.F., MEXICO
Tel.: (905) 568-1038
SIWAC, Mr. Georges S. Paris B A Interpreter
4, avenue Maréchal de Lattre B A Translator
F-78170 La Celle-St. Cloud, FRANCE
Home: 969-3305
Office: (01) 574-9696
SORELL, Mrs. Dora Montreal A C A C Interpreter
Apartment 805 A C A C Translator
1212 Pine Avenue West
Montréal, P.O. H3G 1A9 CANADA
Tel.: (514) 842-1074
STEFANOVICH, see HENCHOZ Mrs. Anni
PAGENO="0195"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
STUSSI, Mr. Pericles PAHO/WHO Washington B C A C Interpreter
7001 East Avenue B C A C Translator
Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015
Home: (301) 656-6138
Office: (202) 331-4401
SWETYE,Mrs~ ldette Johnson New York A C C Interpreter
Apartment 8-F
319 East 24th Street
New York, New York 10010
Tel.: (212) 684-0847
TABARLY, Mr. Pierre INTELSAT Washington B A Translator
31 Cullinan Drive Reviewer
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20760.
Home: (301) 869-8330
Office: (202) 488-2389
TALLON, Mrs. Cybele Gomes Rio de Janeiro B C C A B Interpreter
Rua Gasfao Bahiana 496, Ap. 1310 B C C A B Translator
Lagoa
Rio de Janeiro, BRAZIL
Tel.: 227-1040
TAMURA, Mr. ~adahiko Conyngham B A Interpreter
7 Surrey Lane
Canyngham, Pennsylvania 18219
Tel.: (717) 788-2461
PAGENO="0196"
NAME AND ADDRESS ORGANIZATION PROFESSIONAL ENG FR GER ~ SPECIALTIES AND
TELL, Mrs. Beatjiz Toronto B C A Interpreter
GONZALEZ-COSIO DE
816 Daley Court
Missesanga, Ontario
L5Y-1E6, CANADA
Tel.: (416) 822-7045
TRENNER, Miss Simone Montreal B* A C C Interpreter
Apartment 1801 B A C C Translator
625 Milton Street
Montreal, P.O., H2X 1W7 CANADA
Tel.: (514) 843-6142
~ TUNIK, Dr. Galina USD5 Washington A C A Interpreter
2033 F Street, N.W. A C A Translator
Washington, D.C. 20006
Home: (202) 638-2970
Office: (202) 632-7752
URQUIAGA, Mr. Hector C. Lima A C A Interpreter
Edificlo DIez Canesco 434, Depto. 302 A C A Translator
Miraflores Lima, PERU
Tel.: 25-9590
Correspondence:
Casilla 5002
Miraflores-Lima 18, PERU
*Associate Member
PAGENO="0197"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
URQUIDI. Ms. Marjory Mattingly Washington A C B Translator
1802 Corcoran St. N.W. Editor
Washington, D.C. 20009
Tel.: 667-7781
VALDIVIA-MENOOZA, Ms. Lidia Geneva B C A Interpreter
1, route de Sauverny, Ap. 63 B C A Translator
Versoix
CH-1 290 Genève, SWITZERLAND
Tel.: 55-3359
VALEUR, Mr. Michel IADB/IADC Washington B A B C nterpreter
~ 3705 So. George Mason Dr. A A B C ranslator
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
Home: (703) 379-4165
Office: (202) 387-7878
VALYIOVA, Miss Lisa New York A C B Interpreter
Apartment 3-R Czech: B
225 East 57th Street A C B Translator
New York, New York 10022 Czech: B
Tel.: (212) PL 1-4668
VAN AMERINGEN, Ms. Josée oronto B A nterpreter
32 Elm Ridge Drive
Toronto, Ontario M6B 1A3 CANADA
Home: (416) 789-5677
Office: (416) 787-6783
PAGENO="0198"
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
O~A~,~J2~S
*VAN BEUSEKOM, Mrs. Glare Geneva A C Interpreter
En Chatillon Dutch: C
Crans-sur-Celigny
CH-1299 Vaud, SWITZERLAND
Tel.: (022) 76-2875
VAN REIGERSBERG, Mr. Fernando A. INTELSAT Washington A C C C A Interpreter
6957 Duncraig Ct. A C C C A Translator
McLean, Virginia 22101
Home: 703) 356-7294
Office: 202) 488-2370
VAN REIGERSBERG, Mrs. Stephanie A. USDS Washington A C C Interpreter
~ 6957 Duncraig Ct. A C C C C Translator
McLean, Virginia 22101
Home: (703) 356-7294
Office: (202) 632-8916
VASCONCELLOS, Ms. Muriel PAHO/WHO Washington A B C Translator
1802 Corcoran Street, N.W. Reviewer
Washington, D.C. 20009 Editor
Home: (202) 667-7781 Terminologist
Office: (202) 331-4404
Messages:
Tel.: (703) 869-2680
*Associate Member
PAGENO="0199"
VENTURINI, Ms. Carmen
Apartment 904
4601 North Park Avenue
Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015
Home: (301) 656-3810
Office: (202) 676-1519
VILA, Miss MOnica
2122 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
Tel.: (202) 223-1388
VITALI, Mrs. Maria Inés MORENO DE
Avenida España 2880, Apto. 301
~ Montevideo, URUGUAY
Tel.: 79-8024
Cables: FRAVIT MONTEVIDEO
Correspondence:
Casilla de Correo 1198
Montevideo, URUGUAY
VON BREDOW, Mrs. Hortensia C
3809 Dade Drive C
Annandale, Virginia 22003
Tel.: (703) 941-4121
WEIDE, Ms. UrsuI~ Washington C
601 Four Mile Road, Apt. 327 (Sept 1 to C
Alexandria, Virginia 22305 Feb 28)
Tel.: (703) 683-4122
do M. VELLUE~T Paris
9 Rue de Nesle (March 1-
75006 PARIS August 31)
Tel.: 326-8104
World Bank
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
~
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Washington
Washington
Montevideo
Washington
B
B
B
B
A
A
B
A
B
A
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Interpreter
Translator
Reviewer
Interpreter
Translator
Reviewer
Interpreter
Translator
Interpreter
Translator
Interpreter
Translator
A
A
PAGENO="0200"
WESTMAN, Mr. Donald R.
Colchester Hall
143 Garth Road
Scarsdale, New York 10583
Tel.: (914) SC3-0917
WICHMANN, Ms. lngeborg
Apartment 920
1884 Columbia Road, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
Tel.: (202) 462-8408
~ WOLFOWITZ, Ms. Danielle
0 Calle Dakota 26-302
Nápoles
Mexico 18, D.F., MEXICO
Home: (905) 523-7544
Office: (905) 761-3325
*WRIGHT Miss Norah, A. B.
Cosme Beccar 123
San Isidro
1642 Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Home: 743-4619
Office: 30-2121 and 30-1855
*Associate Member
C Interpreter
C Translator
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
DOMICILE
ENG
FR
GER
IT
JAP
POR
RU
SPA
SPECIALTIES AND
OTHER LANGUAGES
C
A
A
New York
Washington
Mexico City
Buenos Aires
A
A
B
B
C
A
C
C
C
C
A
C
Radio
Nacional
Interpreter
Translator
Reviewer
Interpreter
Translator
B
C
C
PAGENO="0201"
NAME AND ADDRESS
WUST, Mr. Klaus
Apartment 4-S
350 Bleeker Street
New York, New York 10014
Tel.: (212) 675-7215
Also:
P.O. Box 98
Edinburg, Virginia 22824
Tel.: (703) 459-4598
WUST, Ms. Monique Fong
Apartment 4-S
350 Bleeker Street
New York, New York 10014
Tel.: (212) 675-7215
Also:
P.O. Box 98
Edinburg, Virginia 22824
Tel.: (703) 459-4598
ZOGHBY, Mrs. Olga M.
cI Peace Corps
American Embassy
Tunis, TUNISIA
ZOGHBY, Dr. Samir M.
Peace Corps
American Embassy
Tunis, TUNISIA
Home: 285-607
Office: 283-200
B
A
C
C
A
A
Interpreter
Translator
Reviewer
B A
A A
B
B
A
A
Peace Corps
C Interpreter
C Translator
Reviewer
C C Interpreter
C C Translator
Translator
Arabic: C
A
B
PAGENO="0202"
Cii
r')
NAME AND ADDRESS
ORGANIZATION
PROFESSIONAL
IT
JAP
POR
SPECIALTIES AND
ZUBCOV DE GRIMALDI, Mrs. Esther Silvi
Rio de Janeiro
B
C
A
Interpreter
Avenida Borges de Medeiros 83, Ap. 201
ZC-72
Rio de Janeiro, BRAZIL
Tel.: 227-4465 or 267-1903
PAGENO="0203"
01
c~)
CANDIDATE FOR ACTIVE MEMBERSHIP
LENNON, Ms. Eleanor
64 Walnut Avenue
Takoma Park, Maryland 20012
Tel.: (301) 891-2719
Office: (202) 541-5816
Languages: Eng, Fr, Spa (Interpreter)
Professional domicile: Washington
PAGENO="0204"
200
GEOGRAPHICAL LIST OF MEMBERS:
REGISTER OF PROFESSIONAL DOMICILES
The following list gives the cities in which TAALS members are
working, based on information received in the secretariat as of January
1977. Members who move are expected to report their new domicile to
TAALS no later than by the time they first start working there and may
not normally claim another domicile until six months later at the earliest.
PAGENO="0205"
201
ARGENTINA
Buenos Aires BARNABE, Marta Llovet de
BERMUDEZ, Raquel A. de
BOERO, Rai~il
BONNY, Paul L.
CALDERON, Margarita D. de
COGLIATI, Beatriz Elsa
DOUGALL, Susie
FERNANDEZ-MOUJAN, Sheila S. de
GALAN, Elsa P. de
GRABIA,W~nda
GUTTERO, Genevieve
JAMES, Ruth
MIGONE, Ra~I
NEGRI-BELTRAN, Maria
RANDLE, Ann~
*WRIGHT Norah
AUSTRIA
Vienna BOWEN, DAVID May 1 -Oct ~31
BOWEN, Margareta `Apr 16-Oct 14
BELGIUM
Brussels GARCIA-LANDA Mariano
RINGLER, Suzanne
BRAZIL
Rio de Janeiro BELCHER. ManIa
TALLON, Cybele Gomes
ZUBCOV DEGRIMALDI, Esther Silvia
S~o Paulo ORGLMEISTER, E. Ingrid
CANADA
Montreal FRANCOEUR, Andrée
MASSIEU, Jorge
MELERAS, ~mon
PERVUSHIN, Nicolas
SORELL, Dora
TRENNER, Simone
Ottawa DYKSTRA, Jennifer
KIRILOFF, Nikita
Toronto AYERS, Lana H.
HOROWITZ, Doron
TELL Beatriz
VAN AMERINGEN Josee
CHILE
Santiago DE LA MAZA, Rose Cave
*Associate Member
56
PAGENO="0206"
202
MARDONES, Raoul
ROJO, Estela de
COLOMBIA
Bogota DE LA VEGA, Maria Isabel
FISCHER, Margarita
RAMLER, Monica
RIVAS, Isabel de
ENGLAND
London LEWIS, Edina
FRANCE
Paris LAMON, Franc9is A.
RODITI, Edouard
SIWAC, Georges S.
WEIDE, Ursula
GERMANY
Federal Republic
Stuttgart BORST, Konrad
GUATEMALA
Guatemala City BAYO, Ilma Niederheitmann
BENNATON, Ann E.
JAPAN
Tokyo KOMATSU, Tatsuya
MATSUO, Kazuyuki
Yokohama MURAMATSU, Masumi
MEXICO
Guadalajara *MANGRAVITE Nina
Mexico City ` ALARCÔN, Sergio M.
BARBAJOSA, Alejandro
FOLCH, Simone
FOURNIER-LLUHI, Solange
GOMEZ, Barbara
GUTIERREZ-SUAREZ, Emma E. de
MARQUEZ, Viviane Brachet de
MAYER, Beatrice M.
MORAVIA, ltalia de
SISTO, Betty
STEFANOVICH, Annie Henchoz
WOLFOWITZ, Danielle
*Associate Member
57
PAGENO="0207"
NETHERLANDS
Amsterdam
PANAMA
Panama City
PERU
Lima
SPAIN
Madrid
SWITZERLAND
Geneva
TUNISIA
Tunis
UNITED STATES
Conyngham (Pa.)
Danbury (Conn.)
Dayton (Ohio)
Ithaca (N.Y.)
Los Angeles
Miami (Florida)
Middletown (N.J.)
Milwaukee
Monterey (Calif.)
New York
SELO-FRALIN, Marylou-Feb. 15-Aug. 14.
ARIAS AROSEMENA de OBALDIA, Teresita
BELLAGAMBA, Maria Carolina
GOMEZ, Joan FABLING de
BLONDEAU, Simone
SCHLUCKBIER, Nedra
SHERRIT, Ralph
URQUIAGA, Hector C.
KURSELL, Lily de
AGOSTINI, Yvette
CARDOSO, Pablo
ROHEN Y GALVEZ, Gustavo A.
SCALA, Lucia Susana
VALD'IVA-MENDOZA, Lidia
VAN BEUSEKOM, Clare
ZOGHBY, Olga M.
ZOGHBY, Samir M.
TAMURA, Sadahiko
LUKIANOFF, Basil
HUTCHINSON, Inge
HUFFMAN, Sandra M.
PAXSON, Liliane
ROCHA, Nancy
MICHEL, M. Brooks
KAISER, Anafu Murano
AVITAHL, Ursula
*ARJONA Etilvia
ANDERSON, Tina
BAER, Marilyn
CORVINGTON, Monique
DE LA SERNA-BRACHMAN, Dolores
DuVIVIER, Michéle
203
*Associate Member
58
PAGENO="0208"
204
FARFAN, Maria-Eluira
GALER, RaáI
GLEBOFF, Nicolas
GOMEZ DE SILVA, Guido
GONZALEZ, Annabella
HOWARD, Elena R.
JAQUITH, Mary H.
KATZ-SUCHY, Erika
KAUFMAN, Marina
KRAFFT, Remco
LATEINER, Jeannine de Bry
LOPEZ-SCHOTT SAN BORN, Eliana
MERTVAGOS, Constantine
MORRISON, Jeannette
RUBINSTEIN, Nina
SAVARY, Jennifer
SAXON-FORTI. Anna
SELO-FRALIN, Marylou-Aug. 1 5-Feb. 14
SHIOMI, Kazuko
SILHANKOVA, Liselotte
SWETYE, Idette
VALYIOVA, Lisa
WESTMAN, Donald R.
WUST, Klaus
WUST, Monique Fong
Palo Alto (Calif.) FAGAN, Ted
Philadelphia LEWIS BONACCORSI, Elvira
Portland FERRUA, Pietro
San Francisco KRAKOWSKY, Barbara
SHANKEN, Flora
Santa Fe (N.M.) *ADELO Abdallah Samuel
Washington ACOSTA, Magdalena Urquidi de
APRIL. Julia
BARBER, John H.
BELISLE, Estelle
BOURGOIN, Edward
BOWEN, David ~ Nov 1 -Apr 30
BOWEN. Margareta ~ Oct 15-Apr 15
BRUNS-THEPAUT, Hélène
BURRELL-SAHL, Helga
CARVALHO, J. Ribamar A. de
CHARRO. Fernando
CHISMAN, Anna
CINTRA-ESKENAZI , Elizabeth
COCKE, Philip St.G., IV
CONNOR, Imogen
CONSUEGRA, Ulises
* COULTER, Harris L.
*Associate Member
59
PAGENO="0209"
205
CRESPO, Carmen
DELANNOY, Françoise
DIEGUEZ, Ismael S.
DONNELLY, Lucia
DOVE, Dolores
FISHKIN, Madeleine
FRENCH, Elena
GALLARDO, C. Rita
GARRIDO, Olga
GAUTIER Max A
GREIG, Barbara
HANSON, Yolanda (as of 1 Oct 1977).
HARWAY, Monique
*HERVAS, Anthony J.
HODGKINSON, Miriam
HOLMES, Tamara
KONUK, Erika R~
LABRADA, Emilio
LACHOW, Valentina
LATTER, Natalie
LEDAN, Emmanuel D.
LOBBE, Robert C.
McCALL, Joelle
McMILLAN, E. Norman
MAGEE, Richard A.
MARCONDES, Haydée M.
MARCUSE, Gisela
MARTIN, Nataly
MEZA, Barbara de
MORALES-MACEDO, Fernando
MOYENS, H. Marc
MUf~lOZ-CARRASCO, Manuel
NARGANES, Aurelio
NEDELCOVIC, Bosco
ORAM, Mary C.
RATINOFF, Gloria
REISMAN-TOOF, Judy
RICHMAN, Brigitta M.
RODRIGUEZ, Ceferino
RODR'IGUEZ, Pablo
SAAVERDRA, Carmelo
SAGASTI, Elsa H.
SAITO, Yoshihiro
SALINAS-ZEPEDA, Máximo
SCHIAVO, Stênio A.
*SIERRA Anthony D.
SIMON, Barbara
STUSSI, Pericles
TABARLY, Pierre
TUNIK, Galina
URQUIDI, Marjory Mattingly
*Associate Member
60
35-552 0 - 79 -
PAGENO="0210"
206
VALEUR, Michel
VAN REIGERSBERG, Fernando S.
VAN REIGERSBERG, Stephanie R.
VASCONCELLOS, Muriel
VENTURINI, Carmen
VILA, Monica
VON BREDOW, Hortensia
WEIDE, Ursula
WICHMANN, lngeborg
URUGUAY
Montevideo ERREA DE TARABAL, Yvonne
MACEDO de CAMPS, Laura
RASO, Gianni
VITALI, Maria Inés MORENO de
VENEZUELA
Caracas RODR'IGUEZ, Evelyn de
RODRIGUEZ, Ronnie
ROSSIGNOL, Janick
RUCKHAUS~ Karin
Candidate for Active Membership
Washington LENNON, Eleanor
61
PAGENO="0211"
207
PRINCIPLES, GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS PROPOSED FOR R.I.D., INC., ACCREDI-
TATION OF INTERPRETER TRAINING PROGRAMS BY R.I.D., INC.
I. INTRODUCTION
Communication with other individuals is a vital aspect in the life of every human
being. Recently, new public legislation and changing societal attitudes are allow-
ing hearing imparied individuals a greater participation in a society that has long
excluded them from its affairs. The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc.,
as an organization committed to quality interpreting for the hearing impaired,
has been instrumental in supporting and promoting these changes.
The RID, Inc. was established in 1964 for the purpose of maintaining a registry
of interpreters and encouraging the professionalization of heretofore untrained
individuals. The certification of interpreters by RID, Inc. was established in 1972
in order to identify persons having achieved a minimum skill level necessary to
meet the communication needs of hearing impaired individuals.
With the ever increasing demand for interpreters possessing professional levels
of skill, the need for providing educational training has become paramount.
In order to maintain standards and uniformity in the development of programs
around the nation, the RID, Inc. is committed to providing guidelines for ac-
creditation purposes which uphold the quality of interpreting services to hearing
people, thus providing an opportunity to participate in the affairs of society.
The educational process therefore must provide both an understanding of
hearing impaired people and their community, the diversity of language used by
hearing impaired people, and the fluent skills necessary to communicate and
interpret effectively.
This document has been prepared to give a formal statement of the principles,
guidelines, and standards that would pertain to such accreditation. The docu-
ment is organized under four subtopics; pertinent definitions and clarifications,
minimal requirements for those institutions hosting interpreter training programs,
minimal requirements for interpreter training programs, and minimal require-
ments for graduates from interpreter training programs.
II. DEFINITIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS
A. It is important to clarify 1) that certain deaf consumers of interpreting
services prefer an oral interpreter; 2) that most deaf persons prefer a simultaneous
interpreter, i.e., an interpreter who mouths what is being said by a talker while
also using sign language and/or fingerspelling; 3) that a certain amount of inter-
preting that occurs for some deaf persons is strictly manual; and, 4) that interpret-
ing for certain deaf/blind individuals may include a tactile component.
B. It is also important to distinguish between translating and interpreting as
these may be done by a qualified interpreter.
In translating, the interpreter presents the thoughts and words of the speaker
verbatim to the deaf person using the language of signs and/or fingerspelling
and/or speech. In interpreting, the interpreter may depart from the exact words
of the speaker and paraphrase, define, and/or explain what the speaker is saying
using the language of signs and/or fingerspelling and/or speech and/or other means
of communication. In the case of many deaf adults, translating is what is pre-
ferred; in. the case of deaf children and deaf youth, interpreting needs to be done
quite liberally, keeping the language level of the individuals in mind.
C. The RID defines an interpreter as "an individual who qualifies for one of
the RID certifications described below or who hold a provisional permit from
RID and who adheres to the established code of ethics of RID."
1. Expressive Translating Certification (ETC) is awarded by RID to an inter-
preter who possesses very basic reverse translating competencies and is able to
translate verbatim and simultaneously from spoken to manual English.
2. Expressive Interpreting Certification (EIC) is awarded by RID to an inter-
preter who possesses very basic reverse interpreting compentencies and is able
to use sign language with hearing impaired persons who possess various levels of
language competencies.
3. Oral Specialist Certification(OSC) will be awarded by RID to interpreters
who meet qualifications to be specified before 1978 is over by a committee of oral
interpreters and deaf adults who prefer to use the services of oral interpreters.
Members of this committee will be named by The Alexander Graham Bell Associ-
ation for the Deaf (AGBAD) and the National Technical Institute for the Deaf
(NTID) with endorsement by RID, but such membership will not be restricted
PAGENO="0212"
208
to persons from AGBAD and NTID. Meanwhile, the accepted definition of oral
interpreting is "interpreting which includes the use of gesture, facial expression
and natural, clear mouth movement to communicate to deaf persons"; and the
accepted definition of the oral method is "the use of spoken English to communicate
to deaf and hearing persons."
4. Reverse Skills Certification (RSC) is awarded by RID to an interpreter who
is able to render manually and/or orally and/or in writing the messages of a
hearing impaired person.
5. C'omprehensive Skills Certification (C'SC) is currently awarded by RID to an
interpreter who has greater proficiency in expressive translating, expressive
interpreting and reverse skills than those for ETC, EIC, and RSC as described in
1, 2, and 4 above. When the qualifications for Oral Specialist Certification (OSC)
become specified, a higher level of oral interpreting proficiency will also have to
be met by an interpreter who is awarded Comprehensive Skills Certification
(CSC) by RID.
6. Legal Specialist Certification (LSC) is awarded by RID to an interpreter who
holds the CSC, who qualifies for interpreting in a variety of legal settings, and who
can demonstrate that the required interpreting competencies are maintained.
7. Master Comprehensive Skills Certification (MCSC) is currently awarded by
RID to an interpreter who has held the CSC for a minimum of 4 years and who,
through re-evaluation, if found to have maintained the levels of proficiency re-
quired for CSC.
D. The RID defines deaf/blind interpreting as "interpreting which includes some
form of tactile or visual communication or a combination of both which are ap-
propriate for deaf persons with vision impairments."
E. The RID defines minimal language communication as "using home signs,
gestures, pantomime, mime, or any visual mode (drawing pictures, etc.) which
communicates information to the individual and using a communication strategy
that the individual understands."
F. It is also important to point out that interpreting settings are diverse and
that they include settings which are for legal, educational, religious, entertainment,
medical, rehabilitation, social work, and mass media purposes. The future may
find additional certifications specified by RID for particular settings as has al-
ready been done for legal settings.
III. MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HOST INSTITUTIONS
A variety of postsecondary institutions exists for the hosting of programs for
training simultaneous and/or oral interpreters for the hearing impaired. It includes
four year colleges and universities, two year community or junior colleges, and
technical schools, For any such institution to be granted accreditation by RID
for its simultaneous and/or oral interpreter training program, it must meet the
minimal requirements specified in this section.
A. The host institution must be accredited by its respective regional accrediting
body.
B. The host institution must demonstrate commitment to providing educational
and employment opportunities to qualified handicapped individuals through com-
pliance with the rules and regulations of Sections 503 and 504 of the Vocational
Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
C. The goals of the host institution must be consistent with the goals and in-
terests of the program for training simultaneous and/or oral interpreters.
D. The host institution must provide a "climate" of openness, acceptance, and
flexibility for the challenges presented by the program for training simultaneous
and/or oral interpreters.
D., The host institution must provide a "climate" of openness, acceptance, and
flexibility for the challenges presented by the program for training simultaneous
and/or oral interpreters.
E. The host institution must demonstrate a financial commitment to the con-
tinuation of its simultaneous and/or oral interpreter training program.
F. The host institution must have available a variety of resources which sup-
port a program for training simultaneous and/or oral interpreters. These resources
should include:
1. A range of support courses from which a training program for simultaneous
and/or oral interpreters can draw;
2. A capability for interdepartmental cooperation and coordination, e.g.,
cross registration in different program offerings of the institution;
PAGENO="0213"
209
3. A flexibility that allows adding or changing special course offerings as needed
for the program for training simultaneous and/or oral interpreters;
4. A capability of creating new staff responsibilities and of adding and training
new staff as the needs of the training program dictates;
5. A capability of providing short-term, non-credit or credited continuing
education courses for the interpreters and potential interpreters in the community;
6. A library capability for providing professional hooks, periodicals, journals,
and materials on deafness and the range of achievement of deaf and hard of hear-
ing individuals to the staff and students involved in the program for training
simultaneous and/or oral interpreters;
7. A capability of providing audio-visual media, particularly videotape equip-
ment for production of training tapes and self-monitoring possibilities.
G. The host institution must have available a variety of resources within the
community served by the institution to support the program for training simul-
taneous and/or oral interpreters. These resources should include:
1. Community agencies and organizations which augment the training program;
2. Potential adjunct staff members and consultants, including oral and manual
deaf and hard of hearing individuals;
3. Employment opportunities for graduates of the program;
4. An active community of deaf persons with whom the trainees can identify
socially, recreationally, and culturally; in the training of oral interpreters, op-
portunity to interrelate with oral deaf adults must be provided;
5. Suitable practicum sites for the trainees.
IV. MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROGRAM TO TRAIN SIMULTANEOUS AND/OR
ORAL INTERPRETERS
Any program designed for the training of simultaneous .and/or oral interpreters
should meet the minimal requirements specified in this section.
A. The curriculum must demonstrate that it is designed to prepare the trainees
to meet one or more of the RID certifications;
B. The admissions policy must be consistent with that of the host institution
and yet be flexible enough to accommodate various levels of competence at or
above the minimum requirements for entry;
C. The program must include a job placement component;
D. The program must be an independent subsection of an appropriate depart-
ment of the host institution;
E. The program must demonstrate that its graduates, whether they be oral or
simultaneous interpreters, are able to achieve the levels of competence outlined
in section V below.
F. Accreditation. requirements with respect to personnel for long-term pro-
grams for training simultaneous and/or oral interpreters are as follows:
1. Minimally, the staff for the program should be three full-time persons or the
equivalent, of which one must be deaf; if the training program includes an emphasis
on the training of oral interpreters, the deaf person involved should be capable
of operating as an oral deaf adult;
2. The director of any program for training simultaneous interpreters should
hold a master's degree, preferably in a professional area related to deafness, and
RID's Comprehensive Skills Certification; if the degree held by the individual
is not related to deafness, substantial experience in dealing with the deaf should
be evident; and the director must assume administrative responsibilities for the
program, including developing liaisons with the deaf community and pertinent
government agencies; if the program is restricted to the training of oral inter-
preters, the director should hold a master's degree and RID's Oral Specialist
Certification;
3. The trainer/instructor ratio should be no larger than 10:1; each instructor
should hold a bachelor's degree or the equivalent, a S.I. G~N. Certificate, and
RID's Comprehensive Skills Certification for the training of simultaneous in-
terpreters or RID's Oral Specialist Certification if only oral interpreters are being
trained; in addition, each instructor should have a teaching history of no less
than 540 hours without supervision or 270 hours under supervision of a person
who holds a S.1. G.N. Certificate and RID's CSC; the instructors should assume
the traditional teaching responsibilities associated with lectures, laboratories,
advisement, and materials and resource development;
4. A media specialist should be assigned to the training program on a full time
or part time basis, depending on need;
PAGENO="0214"
I
210
5. Clerical staff should have sign language competency unless the training pro-
gram is designed to train oral interpreters only;
6. Part time instructors and/or resource personnel must demonstrate compe-
tencies in their respective fields and might serve as guest lecturers, reaction
panelists, or practicum aides.
G. Accreditation requirements with respect to personnel for short term pro-
grams for training simultaneous and/or oral interpreters are as follows:
1. Minimally, in the case of a program for training simultaneous interpreters
the program should have a full-time coordinator who holds a bachelor's degree
or equivalent experience, who holds RID's Comprehensive Skills Certification
and a S.I. G.N. certificate, and who has a minimum of three years of experience
with deaf persons; in the case of a program designed to train oral interpreters
only, the coordinator should meet these same requirements except that RID's
Oral Specialist Certification would be the only required certification;
2. The coordinator should plan and schedule short term training programs;
develop appropriate liaisons with program sponsors and consultants; and be
responsible for advertising and recruitment, budget management, skills assessment,
and teaching;
3. Additional instructors or part-time staff persons should meet the same re-
quirements specified in section IV. F. above.
V. MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GRADUATES FROM PROGRAMS FOR TRAINING
SIMULTANEOUS AND/OR ORAL INTERPRETERS
Certain specifications with respect to skills, attitudes, and knowledge of gradu-
ates from interpreter training programs will be stressed as a part of the RID
accreditation process. This section is devoted to those specifications.
A. Skills
1. All certifiable graduates from programs for training simultaneous and/or oral
interpreters will demonstrate the following competencies: (a) An ability to arrange
appropriate interpersonal environmental conditions (e.g., lighting, seating, and
mechanics) in response to one-to-one or group situations; (b) An ability to effectively
transmit the style, mood, and intent of the communicators; (c) An ability to apply
appropriate auditory and visual memory techniques as they apply to interpreting
and translating; (d) An ability to use appropriate signing and/or public speaking
techniques as they apply to interpreting and translating; (e) An ability to use the
existing variety of telecommunication devices; (f) An ability to select the appropri-
ate language and/or communication system for given situations (NOTE: for oral
interpreters this would include the ability to select a level of English syntax and
vocabulary which is appropriate for the skill level of the speechreader);
2. All certifiable graduates from a program designed to train oral interpreters
will also demonstrate an ability to rephrase sentences, retaining their original
meaning, for higher visibility in speechreading;
3. All certifiable graduates from a program designed to train simultaneous
interpreters will also demonstrate the following competéncies :~ (a) An ability to
use conversational ASL; (b) An ability to use conversational manually coded
English; (c) An ability to translate a message from one mode (spoken/manual)
to another (manual/spoken or spoken/spoken) in a quasi-simultaneous manner;
(d) An ability to interpret from one language (ASL or English) to another (Eng-
lish or ASL) consecutively; (e) An ability to select the appropriate level of English
syntax and vocabulary as it applies to interpreting for deaf children, deaf youth,
or deaf adults.
B. Attitudes
1. All certifiable graduates from programs for training simultaneous and/or
oral interpreters will demonstrate the following attitudes: (a) A continuing in-
terest in and evidence of developing and upgrading their professional compe-
tencies; (b) An interest in and evidence of performing their functions in accordance
with national, state, and local guidelines, regulations, and ethics; (c) A recognition
of their personal performance strengths, weaknesses and limitations; (d) An
interest in and evidence of fostering healthy interpersonal relationships.
2. All certifiable graduates form a program designed to train oral interpreters
will also demonstrate the following attitudes: (a) A strong support to pertinent
professional organizations with special interest in promoting speech, speechread-
ing and use of residual hearing; (b) a high interest in and evidence of relating to
hearing impaired individuals of various ages and interests in the community who
PAGENO="0215"
211
rely on speechreading, with or without the supplement of hearing, as their pri-
mary mode of communication; (c) A strong willingness to work with speech-
readers manifesting a variety of levels of competency.
3. All certifiable graduates from a program designed to train simultaneous
interpreters will also demonstrate the following attitudes: (a) A strong support to
pertinent professional organizations related to deafness, interpreting, sign lan-
guage, or oralism; (b) A strong interest in and involvement with the national and
local deaf communities; (c) A strong willingness to work with a variety of sign
language or other communicative strategies such as gestures and the oral method.
C. Knowledge
1. All certifiable graduates from programs for training simulta.eous and/or ora1
interpreters will know about the following: (a) The principles of communicative
and interpersonal dynamics; (b) The principles of interpreting and translating;
(c) The respective roles of interpreters and translators; (d) The psycho-social
aspects of issues related to deafness; (e) Situational processes and protocol; (f)
Professional organizational activities, certificates, publications and educational
and work environments related to hearing impaired (deaf and hard of hearing)
children, youth, and adults; (g) Hearing aids and their usage; (h) Audiology,
speech pathology, and various etiologies of deafness; (i) The variety of telecom-
munication devices; (j) Current trends and issues in education of the hearing
impaired (deaf and hard of hearing).
2. All, certifiable graduates from a program designed to train oral interpreters
will also know about the following: (a) Existing formal systems of lip~eading
(speechreading) instruction; (b) Homophemes (look-alike words) and words with
low visibility and howto rephrase for added comprehension; (c) The broad range
of responsive behavior among individuals with hearing loss of varying degrees;
(d) Integration of hearing impaired children in regular classes, theory and practice,
and integration and assimilation as processes.
3. All certifiable graduates from a program designed to train simultaneous
interpreters will also know about the following: (a) The linguistics of ASL and
English; (b) The history of the development of manual/visual language.
PAGENO="0216"
212
REGISTRY OF INTERPRETERS FOR THE DEAF, INC.
[RIDI
LA~
REGIONAL DIRECTORY:
Interpreting Information
State Chapters and Officers
State Interpreting Laws
Certified Interpreters
REGION IV
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
January, 1978
The publication of Regional Directories was made
possible by funding from the Office for Handicapped
Individuals - No. SA-69ll-75
Office of Human Development
Of ficè of the Secretary
U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare
PAGENO="0217"
213
FOREWARD
The R.I.D., Inc. Regional Directory has been
designed to provide information on interpreting
services and certified interpreters for Agencies
and Individuals who serve the hearing-impaired.
The Directory provides not only a ready reference
for certified interpreters but also answers often
asked questions about interpreting services.
The R.I.D. is most appreciative to the Office
for Handicapped Individuals (Office of Human
Development - Office of the Secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare) for assistance in making
this regional directory available.
James Stangarone
President
PAGENO="0218"
214
TABLE OF CONTENTS
General Information
Organization 1
Organizational Structure 2
Code of Ethics 3
Certification Program 5
Additional Facts 9
Specific Information
Interpreting Services 10
RID Chapters/State Interpreting Laws/
Certified Interpreters:
Alabama 16
Florida 20
Georgia 28
Kentucky 34
38
North Carolina 42
South Carolina 48
Tennessee 54
PAGENO="0219"
215
GENERAL INFORNATION
Organization
The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf
was established in 1964 through support from the
Vocational Rehabilitation Administration Depart-
ment of Health, Education and Welfare. In Octo-
ber, 1972, the R.I.D. was incorporated pursuant
to the General Non-Profit Corporation Law of the
State of California within the meaning of Section
501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
The Organization is governed by a Board of
Directors. Current Board of Directors are:
James Stangarone ~- (New York RID) Presi-
dent & Coordinator of
Publications
Betty Edwards - (Florida RID) Secretary &
Liaison Representative with
other Organizations
Roy Holcomb - (NORCRID) Treasurer
Agnes Foret (Michigan RID) Chairperson of
the National Review Board &
Archivist
Will Madsen - (Potomac RID) Coordinator for
International Affairs
Evelyn Zola - (Wisconsin RID) Chairperson
of the National Certification
Board
A national office is maintained in Washington,
D. C. on the campus of Gallaudet College. Mrs.
Edna Kahl is the Secretary/Bookkeeper. All
correspondence should be addressed to the RID,
Inc., P.O. Box 1339, Washington, D. C. 20013.
Phone messages can be directed to the office by
calling (202) 447-0511 (voice or TTY).
I
PAGENO="0220"
216
Organizational Structure
The RID, Inc. has chapters in 46 states,
the District of Columbia, the trust Territory
of Guam and 2 chapters in Canada. The local
chapters are the life-blood of the Organiza-
tion and carry-out the common goals related
to interpreters and interpreting.
The national office is the facilitating
agent and maintains a low-profile in order to
maintain a proper perspective on interpreting.
Code of Ethics
Preamble
Recognizing the unique position of an
interpreter in the life of a deaf person,
the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf
sets forth the following principles of
ethical behavior which will protect both
the deaf person and the interpreter in a
profession that exists to serve those with
a communication handicap.
In the pursuit of this profession in a
democratic society it is recognized that
through the medium of interpreters, deaf
persons can be granted equality with hearing
persons in the matter of their right of
communication.
It is further recognized that the basic
system for self-regulation governing the
professional conduct of the interpreter is
the same as that governing the ethical con-
duct of any business or profession with the
addition of stronger emphasis on the high
ethical characteristics of the interpreter's
role in helping an oftentime misunderstood
group of people.
2
PAGENO="0221"
217
The standards of ethical practice set forth
below encourage the highest standards of conduct
and outline basic principles for. the guidance of
the interpreters.
Code of Ethics
1 The interpreter shall be a person of
high moral character, honest, con~
scientious, trustworthy and of emotional
maturity. He shall. guard `confidential
information and not betray confidences
which have been entrusted to him,
2. The interpreter shall maintain an im-
partial attitude during the course of
his interpreting avoiding interjecting
his own views unless he is asked to do.
so by a party involved.
3. The interpreter shall interpret faith-
fully and to the best of his ability,
always conveying the thought, intent
and spirit of the speaker. He shall
remember the limits of his particular
function and not go beyond his responsi-
bility.
4. The interpreter shall recognize his own
level of proficiency, and nse discretion
in accepting assignments, seeking for
the assistance of other interpreters
when necessary.
5, The interpreter shall adopt a conservative
manner of dress upholding the dignity of
the profession and not . drawing undue
attention to himself.
3
PAGENO="0222"
218
6. The interpreter shalluse discretion in
the matter of accepting compensation for
services and be willing to provide ser-
vices in situations where funds are not
available. Arrangements should be made
on a professional basis for adequate
remuneration in court cases comparable
to that provided for interpretersof
foreign languages.
7. The interpreter shall never encourage
deaf persons to seek legal or other
decisions in their favor merely because
the interpreter is sympathetic to the
handicap of deafness.~
8. In the case of legal interpreting, the -
interpreter shall inform the court when
the level of literacy of the deaf person
involved is such that literal interpre-
tation is not possible and the interpre-
ter is having to grossly paraphrase and
restate both whatis saidtothedeaf
personand what he is sayingtothe
court. . .
9. The interpreter shall attempt to recog-
nize the various typesof assistance
needed by the deaf and do hjs:best to
meet the particular need. Those who do
not understand the language of signs may
require assistance through written~
communication. Those who tinderstand
manual communication may be assisted by
means of traüslating (rerideringthe~
original presentation verbatim) , or' in-
terpreting . (paraphrasing, defining,.
explaining, or making known the will of
the speaker without regard to the
original language used).
4
PAGENO="0223"
219
10. Recognizing his need for professional
improvement, the interpreter will join
with professional colleagues for the
purpose of sharing new knowledge and
developments, to seek to understand
the implications of deafness and the
deaf person's particular needs, broaden
his education and knowledge of life,
and develop both his expressive and his
receptive skills in interpreting and.
translating.
11. The interpreter shall seek to uphold
the dignity and purity of the language
of signs. He shall also maintain a
readiness to learn and to accept new
signs, if these are necessary to under-
standing.
12. The interpreter shall take the responsi-
bility of educating the public regarding
the deaf whenever possible recognizing
that many misunderstandings arise
because of the general lack of public
knowledge in the area of deafness and
communication with the deaf.
Certification Program
The National Certification Program was estab-
lished to identify highly qualified interpreters
so that hearing and hearing impaired individuals
and agencies can be assured of the best inter-
preting services possible.
The RID awards one or more of five certificates
to interpreters who attain passing scores on each
section of the certification examination. Thus,
the certification indicates that a person has
met minimal standards in interpreting skills
5
PAGENO="0224"
220
and does not attempt to qualify the skills
beyond the minimal competency level.
General
INT = Interview
Cl)
Cl) ~
~
H ~4
~ Cl)
(I)
Cl)
El = Expressive Interpreting
ET = Expressive Translating
RI = Reverse Interpreting
RT = Reverse Translating
OP = Overall Performance
S~ Voc. = Signed Vocabulary
L. T. = Legal Terms
Ex. Skills = Expressive Interpreting
and Translating
Res. Skills = Reverse Interpreting
and Translating
Certification Examination
(Evaluation is given in the skill areas
identified by an X).
Certification
Awarded
H
Z H H *H H
H r~ r~ ~ C
ETC
X
X
X
X
EIC
X
X
X
CSC
X
X
X
X
X
X
RSC
X
X
X
X
.
Specialist
H
Certification
Awarded
H
`-~
~
~
~
0
~;.
*
Cl)
LSC
6
PAGENO="0225"
221
Certjfications issued:
ETC - Expressive Translating Certification
Ability of the interpreter to simul-
taneously translate from spoken to
manual English (verbatim). The inter-
preter possesses very basic reverse
translating competencies.
EIC - Expressive Interpreting Certification
Ability of the interpreter to use Sign
Language with hearing-impaired persons
who possess various levels of language
competencies. The interpreter also has
basic reverse interpreting competencies.
CSC - Comprehensive Skills Certification
Includes proficiency in:
Expressive Translating - (ability to
simultaneously translate from spoken
to manual English - verbatim.)
Expressive Interpreting - (ability to
use sign language with hearing-impaired
persons who possess various levels of
language competence.)
Reverse Skills - (ability to render -
manually, orally, or written - a hearing-
impaired person's message.)
RSC - Reverse Skills Certification
Ability to render (manually, orally, or
written) a hearing-impaired person's
message.
LSC - Legal ~pecialist Certification
Includes Comprehensive Skills plus special-
ized evaluation to qualify for interpreting
in a variety of legal settings. This legal
certification is based on the premise that
Comprehensive Skills Certification has been
awarded and that the interpreting skills
cQmpeteflcies are maintained.
7
35-552 0 - 79 - 15
PAGENO="0226"
222
Evaluationc for certification are held at'the
local level by an authorized Evaluation Team
which represents the National Certification Board.
Most RID Chapters have an Evaluation Team
and schedule evaluations from time to time
throughout the year. The Evaluation Team
does not score or certify but provides the
National Certification Board with the
necessary information upon which to issue
a certificate.
The certification is good for 5 years as
long as the interpreter keeps his/her member-
ship current or pays an annual *certification
revalidation fee.
Provisional Permits issued:
In order to meet the demand for certified
interpreters, the RID, Inc. issues Provision-
al Permits to interpreters who have a know-
ledge of sign language and beginning inter~-
preting skills. The holder of the permit
serves an apprenticeship (one year or less)
prior to applying for certification. The
skill competencies of an individual applying
for the Provisional Permit are verified either
by two certified interpreters or. by the
Director/Instructor of an established inter-
preter training program.
Provisional Permit - (Experience in
General interpreting)
Legal Provisional Permit - (Experience
in Legal interpreting)
8
PAGENO="0227"
223
Additional Facts
The National RID Office in conjunction
with one of its local chapters hosts a
biennial convention. This is done to enable
interpreters to come together to renew and
review their competencies in keeping with
the signs of the times. In addition, local
chapters have a variety of meetings to assist
interpreters in their professional growth and
development.
The Interprenews, a quarterly publication
provides a vehicle for interpreters to
keep abreast of activities in the field.
Statistics
Membership --- 3,341
Chapters 60 in 46 states and the
District of Columbia.
Certificates Awarded to 12/3l/77---1,540
Single Certification:
Comprehensive Skills Certificate - 586
Expressive Translating Certificate - 72
Expressive Interpreting Certificate - 105
Reverse Skills Certificate - 381
Combined Certifications:
ETC EIC --- 277
ETC - EIC - RSC 29
ETC-RSC--~-4
EIC~-RSC----~l9
Legal Certification --- 67
Provisional Permits --- 55
9
PAGENO="0228"
224
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
Interpretip~g Services
WHO IS AN INTERPRETER?
An interpreter is an individUal who:
* possesses skill in the language of
signs and finger~spelling
can convey a hearing person's
message to a deaf person
can convey a deaf person's message
to a hearing person
WHERE ARE INTERPRETING SERVICES UTILIZED?
An interpreter works in a variety of
settings:
legal medical
social work religious
educational cultural
vocational mass media
rehabilitation conference
etc.
WHY DOES A DEAF PERSON NEED AN INTERPRETER?
A deaf person may need an interpreter because
of:
* difficulties with speech
lipreading problems
* limited knowledge of English language
* desires for community services which
are often closed to him/her
10
PAGENO="0229"
225
WHAT IS TRANSLATING?. INTERPRETING?
In translating, the thoughts and words.of the
speaker are presented verbatim to the deaf
person using the language of signs, finger-
spelling, and. speech.
In interpreting, the interpreter may depart
from the exact words of the speaker and para-
phrase, define, and/or explain what the
speaker is saying using the language of signs,
fingerspelling, speech, and/or other means of
conununicat ion.
WIlD DOES THE INTERPRETER SERVE?
The Hearing-Impaired Community:
* A deaf person who uses various means
of communication
* A deaf person who is oral
* A deaf-blind person
The Public:
A person that is unable to communicate
with a deaf individual
Agency personnel that is unable to
communicate with a deaf individual
WHAT IS THE REIMBURSEMENT FOR INTERPRETING
SERVICES?
Interpreters are to be paid for the service
rendered. As in any professional brganization,
many hours of volunteer service is given by the
members. However, since interpreters often
take off from work, need to arrange for baby-
11
PAGENO="0230"
226
sitting services, travel great distances to
provide the service and are saddled with
lunch and parking fees, etc., just reimburse-
ment must be considered.
Since the RID is often asked to quote fees
for interpreters for deaf people, the following
Suggested Fee Schedule was developed by the
RID Executive Board and was approved by a vote
of RID members. It should be noted that fees
vary according to type of assignment and inter-
preter's certification. The fees outlined
below are suggestions; the RID and memter
interpreters recognize that each interpreting
situation is different and that adjustments
in fees may be made.
SUGGESTED FEE SCHEDULE
(Revised 1973)
Interpreters Holding R.I.D. Certification:
CSC: Comprehensive Skills Certificate
RSC: Reverse Skills Certificate
ETC: Expressive Translating Certificate
EIC: Expressive Interpreting Certificate
Interpreters Not Holding R.I.D. Certifi-
cation:
NCI: Non Certified Interpreter
1. OCCASIONAL Interpreting Assignments
a. CSC and RSC: Minimum three hours per
"call".
ETC AND EIC: Minimum two hours per
"call".
12
PAGENO="0231"
227
b. CSC and RSC: $11.25 to $15.00 per hour,
according to experience/qualifications.
ETC and/or EIC: $10.00 per hour.
NCI: Minimum of $5.00 to $7.50 per hour.
c. CSC and RSC: Maximum $75.00 for
"full day" assignments.
ETC and/or EIC: Maximum $50.00 for
"full day" assignments.
No more than six hours actual inter-
preting time.
2. CONFERENCES of Two or More Days Duration
a. CSC and RSC: $75.00 per day; $375.00
per 5-day week.
ETC and EIC: $50.00 per day; $250.00
per 5-day week.
PLUS
b. Travel expenses and per diem at
prevailing agency rate.
3. CONTRACT Interpretin~g
a. 15 hours or less per week on regular
assignment basis.
b. CSC and RSC: $11.75 to $15.00 per hour
according to experience/qualifications.
ETC and/or EIC: $10.00 per hour.
13
PAGENO="0232"
228
4. FULL TINE Interpreting
a. 4 hours daily or twenty hours weekly
per 5-day week.
b. CSC and RSC: $260.00 per week.
ETC AND EIC: $200.00 per week.
PLUS
c. Fringe benefits or salary commensurate
to that of other professional staff
within the agency.
HOW ARE CERTIFIED RID MEMBERS IDENTIFIED?
The National RID Office issues a blue member-
ship card which identifies that the member is
in good standing for the current fiscal year.
An additional card is issued which shows the
certification that a member holds.
In identifying certified members, both cards
should be shown by the member upon request.
HOW NAY INTERPRETERS BE CONTACTED?
Interpreting services may be obtained in
the following ways by:
contacting your local RID Chapter office
given in this book (jf identified).
contacting your RID Chapter President.
contacting one of the interpreters
listed in this book directly.
contacting the National RID Office.
14
PAGENO="0233"
229
* Contacting a referral agency serving the
deaf community. (Within the past 2 years
a number of referral agencies have been
established..)
HOW NAY MORE INFORMATION ON INTERPRETING
SERVICES BE OBTAINED?
The local RID Chapter is the first contact
for additional information. If the local
chapter cannot fulfill the needs, then contact
the National RID Office.
CERTIFIED INTERPRETERS
The following pages of this Directory only
includes those current members who are certi-
fied by the National RID Certification Board.
There are other RID members not yet certified
living in the region. Their names are only
published in the general RID Directory.
* R.I.D. CHAPTERS.
There may be states listed that have an
official chapter but no certified members
at this time, as well as states listed who
have certified members but no official
chapter at this time.
15
PAGENO="0234"
230
ALABANA CHAPTER
Alabama Registi~y of Interpreters for the Deaf
(ALRID)
Home Office: Harvey Williams
Co-ordinator.
1608 13th Avenue, S. #201
Birmingham, Alabama 35205
President
David Williams
Rt. #1 - New Haven Drive
Gadsden, Alabama 35901
Km (205) 442-2179
Wk (205) 546-6752
Vice President
Connie Barnes
P.O. Box 105
Talladega, Alabama 35160
Km (205) 362-7242
Wk (205) 362-2771
Secretary
Peggy Terrell
31 Lakeside Drive
Childresburg, Alabama 35044
Km (205) 378-3621
Treasurer
Earl Birdwell
P.O. Box 457
Talladega, Alabama 35160
16
PAGENO="0235"
231
ALABAMA
Alabama State Interpreter Law
Scope: Court may appoint interpreter for deaf
party or witness in civil or criminal
proceeding.
Payment: By state.
Qualificatiofls Interpreter must be adept and
fluent in sign language and
must be approved by Alabama
Association for the Deaf.
Statute Alabama Code 75436 ; 4A~446
Alabama Rules of Civil Proceeding 43(f)
17
PAGENO="0236"
232
BARNES, Connie B.
CSC-LSC~
P.O. Box 105
Talladega, AL 35160
(H) (205) 362-7242
BINGHAM, Mary Lou
CSC - LSC
P.O. Box 283
Talladega, AL 35160
(W) (205) 362-1050
BOWMAN, Donald Carl
RSC
108 Hickory Lane
Talladega, AL 35160
(H) (205) 362-5104 (Ti?)
(W) (205) 362-1300
CHAPPELL, Gloria P.
RSC
106 Henry
Talladega, AL 35160
(H) (205) 362-4669
DAVIS, Carole E.
CSC
988 Ryecroft Road
Pelham, AL 35124
(H) (205) 663-0199
DUNLAVY, Marilyn Sue
CSC
3 Ranger Road
Spanish Fort, AL 36527
(H) (205) 626-9816
ERNEST, Ethel Gay
ETC
705 Kasserine Pass
Mobile, AL 36609
(H) (205) 661-7798
(W) (205) 343-2266
GEORGE, Rebecca Diane
P.P.
2008 48th St E. #13
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
(H) (205) 556-5628
(W) (205) 759-5711
GILLIAM, Judith M.
RSC
Rt #2, Box 59
Talladega, AL 35160
(H) (205) 362-1415 (Ti?)
(W) (205) 362-9558
GROVE, Marie Horn
CSC
4306 Stein Avenue
Mobile, AL 36608
(H) (205) 342-8186
HACKNEY, Deborah Jaiie
CSC
P.O. Box 457
Talladega, AL 35160
(H) (205) 362-1267
ALABAMA
18
PAGENO="0237"
233
ALABAMA (Cont.)
HOFFMEYER, Dennis B.
ETC
5332 Wilhelm Drive
Mobile, AL 36618
(W) (205) 690-8378
JOHNSON, Charles H. Jr.
CSC
730 Glendwood Road
Talladega, AL 35160
(H) (205) 362-3752
(W) (205) 362-8753
MILLS, Bettina Emma
CSC
Rt #1, Box 240
Talladega, AL 35160
(H) (205) 362-1397
(W) (205) 362-8753
NOBLIN, Sue Walker
CSC
1649 3rd Street, N.W.
Birmingham, AL 35215
PACE, Winnie B.
ETC - EIC
1026 5. Bell Street
Dothan, AL 36301
(H) (205) 793-2962 (TTY)
(W) (205) 793-1800
ROBERTSON, Ann
CSC
1212 Forest Dale Drive
Mobile, AL 36608
SHEETS, Patricia M.
CSC
4104 Churchill Drive
Birmingham, AL 35213
TATE, Olen
RSC
Rt #3, Box 302
Talladega, AL 35160
(H) (205) 362-7327
TERRELL, Peggy A.
CSC
31 Lakeside Drive
Childersburg, AL 35044
(H) (205) 378-3621
WILLIAMS, Harvey
CSC - LSC
225 Mamie Lane
Birmingham, AL 35215
(H) (205) 853-4675
WOOD, Hazel P.
RSC
108 Willowbrook Drive
Talladega, AL 35160
(H) (205) 362-6225 (TTY)
(W) (205) 362-8753
19
PAGENO="0238"
234
FLORIDA CHAPTER
Florida Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf
Home Office: P.O. Box 5615
Clearwater, Florida 33518
President
Shirley A. Herald
7707 DeLeuil Avenue
Tampa, Florida 33610
Hm (813) 626-3904
First Vice President
Robert Thomson
17 Marilyn Avenue
St. Augustine, Florida 32084
Hm (904) 824-4119 TTY/Voice
Wk (904) 824-1654 (Voice)
Secretaiy
Alvez H. Mason
307 Asturias St.
St. Augustine, Florida 32084
Hm (904) 824-3411
Treasurer
Dorothy A. Ringheisen
5027 6th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33707
Mm (813) 347-8500
20
PAGENO="0239"
235
FLORIDA
Florida State Interpreter Law
Scope: Interpreter must be appointed for deaf
witness in:
1. grand jury proceeding
2. criminal action
3. civil action
Payment: Not stated.
Qualification!~ Interpreter must be qualified
by knowledge, skill, experience,
training or education.
Statute: Florida Statutes Annotated
90.606 ; ~905.l5.
21
PAGENO="0240"
236
ALTOM, Grady
Cs C
520 NE 29th St., #2
Miami, FL 33137
ASHTON, Glenna
RSC
5321 NW 16th Court
Lauderhill, FL 33313
BOWMAN, Susan P.
CSC
3609 16th Street
Tampa, FL 33605
(H) (813) 244-5034
CLARK, Mary Beth
EIC
2825 Mayer Street
Orlando, FL 32806
(H) (414) 725-6254
CORRICK, Josephine L.
CSC - LSC
2960 Beauclerc Road
Jacksonville, FL 32217
(H) (904) 733-7702
(W) (904) 721-2097
CRITTENDEN, Jerry Dr.
ETC - ETC
University of Sourthern
Florida, Dept of Commun-
icology
Tampa, FL 33620
(H) (813) 974-2006
DAULTON, Arnold L.
RSC
Lake Rouse, So #4-E
875 East Camino Real
Boca Raton, FL 33432
(H) (305) 391-5363
DRAKE, Donna
RSC
16 A Williams Street
St. Augustine, FL 32084
DUNSTALL, Carol G. Dr.
ETC - ETC
211 Lawn Way
Miami Springs, FL 33166
(H) (305) 887-5388
EDWARDS, Betty H.
CSC - LSC
1010 S. Hercules Ave.
Clearwater, FL 33516
(H) (813) 446-8290 (TTY)
(W) (813) 442-9967
FINNEGAN, Joseph P. Jr.
CSC
1500 Shore Drive
St. Augustine, FL 32084
(H) (904) 824-1654
FLORIDA
22
PAGENO="0241"
237
FINNEGAN, Margaret
cSc
1500 ShOre Drive
St. Augustine, FL 32084
(H) (904) 797-3849
(W) (904) 829-6481
PLINK, Sheila
EIC
89-20 NW 8th St #415
Miami, FL 33172
FREELAND, Nancy
GALLIMORE, Ray H.
RSC
479 Arricola Avenue
St. Augustine, FL 32084
(H) (904) 824-5368
(W) (904) 824-1654
GARLAND, Mary F.
ETC-EIC
Rt. 5, Box 9K
St.
(H)
HALSTEAD, Sammie R.
ETC-EIC
13321-B Gouvernor's Dr.
Tampa, FL 33618
(H) (813) 961-5640
(W) (813) 974-2006
HAM~VXJND, Betty J.
cSc
2690 Drew St., #428
Clearwater, FL 33519
(H) (813) 898-1273
HERALD, Shirley A.
CSC - LSC
7707 DeLeuil Avenue
Tampa, FL 33610
(H) (813) 626-3904
HILL, Marion 0.
EIC
53 Carrera Street
St. Augustine, FL 32084
(H) (904) 824-1746
(W) (904) 824-2804
FLORIDA (Cont.)
CSC
1975 Sandra Drive
Clearwater, FL 33516
(H) (813) 441-9216
Augustine, FL 32084
(904) 829-2686
23
35-552 0 - 79 - 16
PAGENO="0242"
238
FLORIDA (Cont.)
KALIN, Jeffrey
ETC - EIC
4708 Ocean Boulevard
Sarasota, FL 33581
KING, Warren B.
RSC
2750 W. Golf Bl.
Pompano Beach, FL 33067
LEITSON, David K.
ETC-ETC
805 E. University Ave.
Gainesville, FL 32601
LEITSON, Mark
CSC-LSC
713 W. Pensacola
P.O. Box 20103
Tallahassee, FL 32304
MASON, Alvez H.
ETC - ETC
307 Asturias St.
St. Augustine, FL 32084
(H) (904) 824-3411
MCCLURE, William J.
CSC
82½ Water Street V
St. Augustine, FL 32084
(H) (904) 824-1654
MILLIKAN, Elizabeth,D.
ETC - CSC
2218 Winnetka Court
Orlando, FL 32808
(H) (414) 293-9113
(W) (414) 855-5880 X75
OTTO, Hetty
ETC - ETC
1112 Gulf Oak Drive V
Tarpon Springs, FL 33589
POTWINE, Patricia V
CSC V
P.O. Box 555
Port Orange, FL 32019
(H) (904) 767-6574
PRITCHARD, Alva Dean
RSC
5671 Graywood Road
Jacksonville, FL 32207
PROKES, Linda L.
CSC
606 Asturias
St. Augustine, FL 32084
(H) (904) 824-2014
(W) (904) 824-1654 X266
RANDALL, Kenneth D.
CSC V
109 B Arricola
St. Augustine, FL 32084
(H) (904) 829-5410
(W) (904) 824-1654 X303
V24
PAGENO="0243"
239
FLORIDA (Cont.)
REIDELBERGER, Anne
ETC - EIC - RSC
446 Conradi St., #320-A
Tallahassee, FL 32304
RICHMOND, Virginia S.
CSC
17 Newcomb
St. Augustine, FL 32084
(H) (904) 829-8927
RINGHEISEN, Dorothy A.
CSC- LSC
5027-6th Avenue, S.
St. Petersburg, FL 33707
(H) (813) 347-8500
RISLEY, Dee A.
CSC
2007 6th Ave., S.W.
Largo, FL 33540
(H) (813) 581-2759
ROBISON, Aggie K.
CSC
9940 7th Way, #203
St. Petersburg, FL~33702
(H) (813) 576-0608
SERA, Barbara
csc
532 Bluff View Drive
Belleair Bluffs, FL 33540
(H) (813) 584-5038
SLATER, Rita
RSC
43 Fullerwood Drive
St. Augustine, FL 32084
(H) (904) 824-5034
(W) (904) 824-1654
SMITh, Ruth J.
RSC
7910 Saint Vincent St.
Tampa, FL 33614
SPENCER, Desda
csc
310-22nd Avenue, North
St. Petersburg, FL 33704
(H) (813) 898-6075
TAYLOR, H. Virginia
RSC
7713 DeLeuil Avenue
Tampa, FL 33610
(H) (813) 626-5734
TAYLOR, JoAnn
CSC
108 E. 122nd Ave.,
Tampa, FL 33612
#C-206
ThOMSON, Robert J.
RSC
17 Marilyn Avenue
St. Augustine, FL 32084
(Fl) (904) 824-4119
(W) (904) 824-1654
25
PAGENO="0244"
240
FLORIDA (Cont.)
TOWNSEND, William H.
RSC
10843-101st Avenue, N.
Largo, FL 33542
(H) (813) 392-0344 (TTY)
VON DOLTEI~EN, Susan B.
RSC
Florida School for
the Deaf and Blind
St. Augustine, FL 32084
WESTMJRELAND, Pat
CSC
Florida School for
the Deaf and Blind
St. Augustine, FL 32084
(H) (704) 829-5026 (TTY)
(W) (704) 824-1654 (TTY)
YOUNG, Roland F.
CSC
1040 Main St., #127
Dunedin, FL 33528
(H) (813) 734-1129
(W) (813) 546-0011 X4l3
26
PAGENO="0245"
241
GEORGIA CHAPTER
Georgia Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf
Home Office: 250 Georgia Avenue S.E.
Room 211
Atlanta, Georgia 30312
Charlene Lavine, Coordinator
President
Tarn Rutchinson, Jr.
3547 Old Chamblee-Tucker Rd.
Doraville, Georgia 30340
Wk (404) 394-9313
Vice President
Richard Dirst
Atlanta Area School for the Deaf
890 N. Indian Creek Drive
Clarkston, Georgia 30021
Jim (404) 296-7101 TTY/Voice
Wk (404) 524-2862 TTY/Voice
Secretary
Tom Lawrie
5261 Vivid Drive
Stone Nountain, Georgia 30083
Hin (404) 656-2643
Wk (404) 524-2862
Treasurer
Audrey B. Walsh
1863 Cameo Court
Tucker, Georgia 30084
Hm (404) 939 6081
28
PAGENO="0246"
242
GEORGIA
Georgia State Interpreter Law
Scope: Interpreter must be appointed for deaf
party or witness in any
1. grand jury proceeding
2. criminal proceeding
3. civil proceeding
4. administrative proceeding
5 pre-trial interrogation
of deaf criminal defendant.
Payment: By the county in which proceeding occurs.
Qualifications: Interpreter must be either certi-
fied by National RID or Georgia
RID When certified interpreter
is unavailable, appointing author-
ity must determine his qualifica-
tions.
Statute: Georgia Code Annotated~99 4001 - 4006.
29
PAGENO="0247"
243
ADAMS, Barbara A.
ETC - EIC
P. 0. Box 569
Cave Spring, GA 30124
(H) (404) 424-6289
BAKER, Brenda Joyce
ETC
404 Kendrick Ave. S.E.
Atlanta, GA 30315
(H) (404) 627-7904
BAKER, Jerry
CSC
1025 Seville Drive
Clarkston, GA 30021
(H) (404) 296-4021
(W) (404) 455-0404
BEARDEN, Carter E.
RSC
1350 Spring St., N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30309
(H) (404) 873-5672
BEVILLE, Brenda
CSC
529 Eve Street
Augusta, GA 30904
(H) (404) 733-9529
(W) (404) 738-3541
BRENNER, Debra C.
CSC
818 Springdale Rd.
Atlanta, GA 30306
GEORGIA
CANTRELL, Byron D.
RSC
488 Stonemont Drive
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(H) (404)
(W) (404) 296-7101
CAROLLO, Angela
CSC
512 Scott Blvd.
Decatur, GA 30030
(H) (404) 373-4916
(W) (404) 296-7101
CHAPMAN, Peggy
CSC
1509 Burton Avenue
Macon, GA 31204
(H) (912) 743-6234
COOK, Martha A.
ETC - EIC - RSC
1038 Te.xel Lane
Clarkston, GA 30021
COVEY, Shirley Ann
ETC
1710 Gillionville Rd.
Albany, GA 31705
(H) (912) 439-0258
(W) (912) 435-0485
30
PAGENO="0248"
244
GEORGIA (Cont.)
DIRST, Richard D.
cSc
1060 Mariners Drive
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(H) (404) 296-9727
DOUGHTY, Dennis
CSC
2448 Shorter Avenue
Rome, GA 30161
(H) (404) 232-2872
GALLOWAY, Jewel Boyer
CSC
1217 Wood Valley Rd.
Augusta, GA 30906
(H) (404) 736-0675
CEORGE, Mary W.
ETC - EIC
Box 302
Cave Spring, GA 30124
GIBSON, Joy
RSC
~ox 251
Cave Spring, GA 30124
COODRICH, Martha
CSC
274 Pinetree Circle
Decatur, GA 30030
(H) (404) 299-2192
GROTH, John William Jr.
RSC
P. 0. Box 529
Cave Spring, GA 30124
(H) (404) 777-8529 (TTY)
RAYMAN, Margaret
CSC
1406 E. 51st
Savannah, GA 31404
HOPSON, Julia
CSC
1006-C Whitesville St.
LaGrange, GA 30240
HORNIBROOK, Nancy -
CSC
2991 Lowrance Drive
Decatur, GA 30033
(H) (404) 296-9143
HIJCKEBA, Wilber C.
CSC
5979 Brookdale Lane, S.W.
Mableton, GA 30059
HUTCHINSON, Tam S. Jr.
CSC
3547-K Old Chamblee-
Tucker Road
Doraville, GA 30340
(H) (404) 934-1313
31
PAGENO="0249"
245
KELLY-JONES, Nancy
RSC
4350 Langdon Drive
Decatur, GA 30035
GEORGIA (Cont.)
KERR, Barbara
CSC
280 Northern Avenue 35-J
Avondale Estates, GA 30002
LAVINE, Charlene
CSC - LSC
1400-H Southland Vista Ct.
Atlanta, GA 30329
(H) (404) 321-5790
(W) (404) 524-2862
LAWRIE, Thomas J.
CsC
5261 Vivid Drive
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(W) (404) 656-2643
LESTER, Mary Rosalie
EIC
4883 Evans Drive
P. 0. Box 1013
Forest Park, GA 30050
(H) (404) 363-1296
MC DONALD, Doris I.
CSC
P. 0. Box 363
Cave Spring, GA 30124
NEWSOM, Ruth M.
ETC-EIC-RSC
1444 Oak Grove Road
Decatur, GA 30033
(H) (404) 634-3450
POPE, Jeanette
ETC - EIC
Rt. #2 Steadman
Tallapoosa, GA 30176
REID, Hal
ETC - EIC
Rt. #1, Raintree Village
Silver Creek, GA 30173
RINALDI, Anna Maria
RSC
687 Martin Road
Stone Mountain, GA 30082
(W) (404) 296-7101 TTY
NEAL, William C.
RSC
2677 Warwick Circle, NE
Atlanta, GA 30345
ROSE, Rosanne F.
ETC - EIC
312 Robinhood Road
Rome, GA 30161
32
PAGENO="0250"
246
GEORGIA (Cont.)
SERRITT, Janice A. WILLIAMS, Linda M.
RSC ETC - EIC
P. 0. Box 507 4392 Rustic Wood Drive
Cave Spring, GA 30124 Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(H) (404) 288-7981
SHULTZ, Shirley
CSC WHITE, Ellie C.
1146 Villa Dr., N.E. #3 CSC
Atlanta, GA 30306 875 Brookfield Pkwy.
(H) (404) 876-1620 Roswell, GA 30075
(H) (404) 993-5593
STEELE, Janie N.
RSC
P. 0. Box 104
Cave Spring, GA 30124
(H) (404) 777-8592
(W) (404) 777-3586
WARE, Sarah F.
RSC
P. 0. Box 184
Cave Spring, GA 30124
WHITWORTH, J. H.
CSC
Box26
Cave Spring, GA 30124
WHITWORTH, Shirley
CSC
Box 26
Cave Spring, GA 30124
33
PAGENO="0251"
247
KENTUCKY CHAPTER
Kentucky Registry of Interpreters
for the Deaf
President
Maxine Browne
675 Maple Tree Lane
Erlanger, Kentucky 41018
Mm (606) 371 6288
Wk (606) 292 2720
Vice President
Norma Lewis
1605 Gardiner Lane
Louisville, Kentucky 40205
Mm (502) 267-1078
Secretary
JOyce S. Wildier
2042 Tulip Drive
Bowling Green, Kentucky 42101
Mm (502) 781-3569
Wk (502) 745-2695
Treasurer
Kent Mann
RoUte 1 Perryville Road
Danville, Kentucky 40422
Mm (606) 236-6047
Wk (606) 236-5132
34
PAGENO="0252"
248
KENTUCKY
Kentucky State Interpreter Law
Scope: Interpreter must be appointed for deaf
parties or witnesses:
1. At all stages of criminal, juvenile
or mental inquest cases
2. At administrative agency proccedings
3. At pre-trial interrogation of deaf
criminal defendant.
Interpreter ~ be appointed in civil
cases.
Payment: State pays for interpreter in criminal,
juvenile and mental inquest cases and
administrative hearings. In civil
cases, court determines whether losing
party or state pays.
~alifications: Appointing authority must make
a preliminary determination that
interpreter can readily coinmuni-
cate with and from state sentences
of deaf person. Kentucky RID or
School for the Deaf can recommend
qualified interpreters.
Statute: Kentucky Revised St atut.e
28-65 2 thru 658
35
PAGENO="0253"
249
KENTUCKY
BROWNE, Maxine Jo
CSC
675 ~Maple Tree Lane
danger, KY 41018
(H) (606) 371-6288
(W) (606) 292-2720
COBB, Margaret Ann
ETC - EIC
512 N. 3rd Street
Danville, KY 40422
(H) (606) 236-1390
(W) (606) 236-5132
DOMINGUE, Rita
CSC
Box 54 Star Route
Coal Good, KY 40818
(H) (606) 573-1279
GIBSON, William S.
ETC-EIC
111½ Maple Avenue
Danville, KY 40422
LEWIS, Norma D.
CSC
1605 Gardener Lane
Louisville, KY 40205
(II) (502) 267-1078
MC CHORD, Iona~
RSC
615 Boonesboro Ave.
Lexington, KY 40508
MC CHORD, Winfield Jr.
CSC
do Kentucky School for
the Deaf
S. Second Street
Danville, KY 40422
(H) (606) 236-5132 X250
MIDDLETON, Mildred L.
RSC
Kentucky School for the
Deaf
Danville, KY 40422
MOSLEY, Carrie Julia
ETC-EIC
315 High Street
Danville, KY 40422
(H) (606) 236-2271
PELTIER, Edward Frieland
ETC - EIC
P. 0. Box 27
Danville, KY 40422
(H) (.606) 236-6040
(W) (606) 236-5132
36
PAGENO="0254"
250
KENTUCKY .(Cont.)
RYAN, Thomas
RSC
1707 Richmond Drive
Louisville, KY 40205
(H) (502) 451-4708
(W) (502) 587-6851
SCHAFER, Sandr~a Lee
ETC-EIC
3418 Minnich Avenue
Paducah, KY 42001
SOWDERS, Tillie
ETC - EIC
521 E. Main Street
Danville, .KY 40422
STALLARD, Edith Dot
CSC
699 East Drive
Danville, KY 40422
(H) (606) 236-7189
(W) (606) 236-6411
TERPENING, David Scott
ETC- EIC
Rt. #1, Box 175-C
London, KY 40741
(W) (606) 864-9422
37
TERPENING, Lois Ann
ETC-EIC
Rt. #1, Boxl75-C
London, KY 40741
(W) (606) 864-9422
TIFFANY, John T.
CSC
Kentucky School for the
Deaf.
S. Second Street
Danville, KY 40422
(H) (606) 236-6422
TIMS, Elna
ETC - EIC
658 Monticello Blvd.
LexIngton, KY 40503
(H) (606) 222-0469
(W) (606) 227-9121 X281
WARD, Virginia.M.
RSC
407 Meadow Lane
Danville, KY 40422
(H) (606) 236-7429 (TTY)
(W) (606) 236-5132
ZIRNHELD, Rita Hester
ETC-EIC.
Rt. #1, Old Lexington Rd.
Danville, KY 40422
(H) (606) 625-5318
PAGENO="0255"
251
MISSISSIPPI CHAPTER
Mississippi Registry of Interpreters
for the Deaf
President
Gil Magee
1253 Eastover Drive
Jackson, Mississippi 39211
Em (601) 372-8193
Vice-President
Don Fairman
3752 Camifla Dr.
Jackson, Mississippi 39212
Mm (601) 373-9161
Wk (601) 373-9161
Secretary-Treasurer
Billie Chisholm
1567 Westhaven Blvd.
Jackson, Mississippi 39209
Mm (601) 922-8988
Wk (601) 922-8161
38
PAGENO="0256"
252
MISSISS IPPI
Mississippi State Interpreter Law
Scope: Interpreter must be appointed for deaf
party or witness in "any legal proceed-
ing of any nature" including administra-
tive proceedings.
Payment: If deaf person is plaintiff he pays.
If deaf person is defendant, fee is
treated as other court costs.
If deaf person is non-party witness,
~fee is paid by the party calling the
witness.
Qualifications: Interpreter must be "qualified".
Statute: Mississippi Code Annotatedfl3-l-16.
39
PAGENO="0257"
253
MISSISSIPPI
ALEXANDER, Alma L.
CSC
1253 Eastover Drive
Jackson, MS 39211
(H) (601) 366-4813
(W) (601) 366-0315
BRIGHTWELL, Thomas R.
ETC - EIC
342 Northside Circle
Jackson, MS 39206
(H) (601) 366-6365
(W) (601) 366-0317
cHISHOLM, Billie Carol
EIC
1567 Westhaven Blvd.
Jackson, MS 39209
(H) (601) 922-8988
(W) (601) 922-8161
Sister Mary
COLEMAN,
EIC
620 Pass Road
Gulfport, MS 39501
(H) (601) 863-2159
COLLIER, Margaret K.
CSC
1525 Lyncrest
Jackson, MS 39202
(H) (601) 355-3222
DONNINO, Patricia Kay
CSC
Wilemon Place, #E7, Rt #3
Aberdeen, MS 39730
(H) (601) 369-6461
(W) (601) 369-9379
FAIRMAN, Donald W.
EIC
3752 Camilla Drive
Jackson, MS 39212
(H) (601) 373-9161
(W) (601) 373-9161
FAIRMAN, Lois M.
CSC
3752 Camilla Drive
Jackson, MS 39212
(H) (601) 373-9161
HARDIN,Phyilis M.
EIC
311 Foxboro
Jackson, MS 39211
(H) (601) 956-8170
40
KEARNS, Thomas N.
CSC
1260 Winnrose Court
Jackson, MS 39211
(H) (601) 956-4378
(W) (601) 366-0315
35-552 .0 -~79 - 17
PAGENO="0258"
254
MISSISSIPPI (Cont.)
MAGEE, Gilbert R.
EIC
Mississippi School
for the Deaf
1253 Eastover Drive
Jackson, MS 39211
(H) (601) 876-4976
PALMER, Howard 0.
RSC
P.O. Box 4446
Jackson, MS 39216
41
PAGENO="0259"
255
NORTH CAROLINA CHAPTER
North Carolina Registry of Interpreters
for the Deaf
President
Nikki Simpson
North Carolina School for the Deaf
Morganton, North Carolina 28655
Wk (704) 433-2951
Vice President
Sharon Clouser
309 S. Beaumont Avenue
Burlington, North Carolina 27215
Hm (919) 226-1472
Wk (919) 227-2771
Secretary
Deborah Drummond
Frank Vance Rd.
Rt. #9 Box 306-G
Charlotte, North Carolina 29008
Km (704) 727-0955
Treasurer
Jona D. Maiorano
2922 Forest Park Dr.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28209
Hm (704) 377-4866
Wk (704) 373-6764
42
PAGENO="0260"
256
NORTR CAROLINA
North Carolina State Interpreter Law
*Scope: Any court legal proceedings of any
nature, court appoints interpreter
for deaf party or witness.
Payment: By county in criminal and mental
conmiitinent cases. Civil cases
treated as court cost.
Qualifications: Must be qualified.
Statute: North Carolina Statute 8A-l.
43
PAGENO="0261"
257
NORTh CAROLINA
ARMSTRONG, Julia W.
CSC
207 Henredon Road
Morganton, NC 28655
(H) (704) 437-9484
CANADY, Wayne C.
CSC
601 Tiffany Circle
Garner, NC 28301
CLOUSER, Sharon
ETC - EIC
309 S. Beaumont Avenue
Burlington, NC 27215
DAVIDSON, Ann
RSC
3921-F Valley Court
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
(H) (919) 768-4379
(W) (919) 724-3621
DICKSON, C. Lyon
RSC
123 Minor Street
Brevard, NC 28712
(H) (704) 884-4664
DRUMMOND, Deborah
csc.
Frank Vance Road
Rt #.9, Box 306-C
Charlotte, NC 29008
(H) (704) 727-0955
ELKINS, Earl F.
CSC
P.O. Box 2774
Winston-Salem, NC 27102
(H) (919) 722-2403
EVANS, Ruth D.
EIC
College Station
P.O. Box 5563
Raleigh, NC, 27605
FLEMING, Dorothy Ann
ETC-EIC
121 W. Vandalia Road
Greensboro, NC 27406
(H) (919) 272-6660
(W) (919) 621-0481
CLOVER, Richard 0. Jr.
RSC
7120 Belew Creek Road
Belew Creek, NC 27009
(W) (919) 724-2621
GRAINGER, Shirley C;
EIC
1404 Abbey Place, #1
Charlotte, NC 28209
* HEAFNER, Jane E.
CSC
North Carolina School
for the Deaf
Morganton, NC 28655
44
PAGENO="0262"
258
NORTh CAROLINA (Cont.)
HILL, Doris R.
CSC
7514 Nations Ford Rd.
Charlotte, NC 28210
(H) (704) 523-2466
(W) (704) 373-6621/6556
LEWIS, Patricia H.
ETC - EIC - RSC
2224 Cambridge Drive
High Point, NC 27260
LOWELL, Neil
ETC - EIC
410 Northridge St.
Greensboro, NC 27403
(H) (919) 292-5754
(W) (919) 379-5271
MAIORANO, Jona D.
ETC - EIC
2922 Forest Park Dr.
Charlotte, NC 28209
(H) (.704) 377-4866
(W) (704) 373-6764
MCKENZIE, Robert
RSC
219 E. Boulevard.
Box 3896
Charlotte, NC 28208
MCLAUGHLIN, Joan
ETC - EIC
403 Stansberry Circle
Boone, NC 28607
(H) (704) 264-0569
MILLEN, James Dennis Jr.
ETC - EIC
1022 Sandlin Place #H
Raleigh, NC 29550
(H) (803) 332-4307
(W) (803) 332-1351
PEACE, William. H.
RSC
P.O. Box 26053
Raleigh, NC 27611
(W) (919) 733-5920
REEVES, Marjorie
CSC
Rt #1, Morgan Chapel
Columbus, NC 28722
(H) (704) 894-3289
Village
RIDLEY, Kathleen M.
CSC
5709-8 Cedars East Court
Charlotte, NC 28212
(H) (704) 535-3962
RODRIGUEZ, Veronica B.
CSC
4010 Chandworth
Charlotte, NC 28210
ROSS, Freda M.
csc
15 Jeorgia St, NW
Concord, NC 28025
(H) (704) 786-6001
45
PAGENO="0263"
259
NORTH CAROLINA (Cont.)
SANDEFUR, Ruth A.
RSC
540 Ashley Circle
Charlotte, NC 28208
TULLOS, Olouse
EIC - RSC
400 Lenoir Street
Morganton, NC 28655
(H) (704) 437-2332
(W) (704) 328-1741 X278
WHITESELL, Kathlenna Mae
CSC
Rt. 12, Box 129
Morganton, NC 28655
46
PAGENO="0264"
260
SOUTH CAROLINA CHAPTER
South Carolina Registry of Interpreters
for the Deaf
President
Barbara S. Garrison
110 Virginia Circle
Anderson, South Carolina 29621
Hm (803) 225-5840
Wk (803) 224-6391
Vice President
Paula Thomas
522 Olde Bridge Ct.
Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464
Secretary
Phyllis T. Petty
Rt #11-148 Wedgewood Drive
Spartanburg, South Carolina 29302
Assistant Secretary
Sandra S. Grimble
F-l Kampus Kourt
Greenville, South Carolina 29609
Km (803) 244-5950
Treasurer
Larry M. Baker
623 Watermark Place
Columbia, South Carolina 29210
Wk (803) 758-7991
48
PAGENO="0265"
261
SOUTH CAROLINA
South Carolina State Interpreter Law
Scope: Court ~ appoint interpreter for deaf
party or witness to any criminal or
civil legal proceeding.
Payment: By state.
Qualifications: Interpreter must be approved
by either South Carolina or
National RID.
Statute: South Carolina Code~lO-l2l1
49
PAGENO="0266"
262
SOUTh CAROLINA
ALESSI, Cheryl L.
RSC
214 Seven Oaks Lane
Spartanburg, SC 29301
(H) (803) 576-3392 (TTY)
BARNES, Nelda Kressin
RS C
3150 Longbow Drive
Spartanburg, SC 29302
~R) (803). 573-9503
BRANRAN, Deryl
CSC
910 Cherokee Road
Florence, SC 29501
BRANT, William Alton
CSC
Rt #5, Box 326
Columbia, SC 29203
(H) (803) 754-6982
BRENER, Robert A.
CS C
149 Stribling Circle #B
Spartanburg, SC 29301
(a) (803) 576-0376
(W) (803) 585-7711
CANDLER, Margie
EIC
220 S. Chateàu Drive
Greenville, SC 29607
(H) (803) 427-6172
CHAINEY, Earl Sullivan
EIC
203 Lakeland Drive
Conway, SC
(H) (803) 248-5176
(W) (803) 347-3949
CHAIR, Debbra L.
CS C
3025 Appleby Lane
Columbia, SC 29206
(a) (803) 788-8430
(W) (803) 758-7991
COLSON, Millie
CSC
1323 Coosaw Drive
Charleston, SC 29407
(H) (803) 556-2211
COLTRANE, Robert E. Sr.
ETC - EIC - RSC
36 Charlotte Street
Charleston, SC 29403
(H) (803) 723-8227
(W) (803) 577-6516
CRAIG, Peggy Ann
RSC
8 Columbia Circle
Greenville, SC 29607
CRAIN, Stephen 0.
CSC
601 Norwood St.
Spartanburg, SC 29302
(W) (803) 242-6862
50
PAGENO="0267"
263
SOUTH CAROLINA (Cont.)
CULPEPPER, Harry Estes
RS C
P.O. Box 472
Belton, SC 29627
(H) (803) 338-5834 TTY/Voic
DOWLING, Patrick J.
ETC-EIC-RSC
147 Hilibrook Drive
Spartanburg, SC 29302
EPPS, Kitty
RSC
113 Longmeadow Road
Taylors, SC 29687
(H) (803) 268-0572
ERWIN, Brenda Jeanne
RSC
707 East Durst Avenue
Greenwood, SC 29646
GARRISON, Barbara S.
ETC - EIC
110 Virginia Circle
Anderson, SC 29621
(H) (803) 225-5840
(W) (803) 224-6391
GODFREY, Paul W.
ETC - EIC
1613 Edgehill Road
Columbia, SC 29204
(a) (803) 782-1343
(W) (803) 758-7991
HARRELSON, Larry M.
EIC
P.O. Box 4945
Columbia, SC 29204
(H) (803) 758-3664
HELMS, Timothy C.~
ETC - EIC
Rt #1 - 302 Pecan Hill Dr.
Simpsonville, SC 29681
(H) (803) 963-6168
(W) (803) 299-0610
MADDOX, Helen B.
RSC
P.O. Box 486
Taylors, SC 29687
(H) (803) 244-7523 (TTY)
MATHEWS, Jorie E.
EIC
C-2 Fox Fire Apts.
Greenville, SC 29611
~) (803) 264-4031
(W) (803) 235-2581 x481
MILLER, Alice
RSC
Box 421
Cleveland, SC 29635
MONTGOMERY, Juliet C.
RSC
101 Ross Cannon
York, SC 29745
(H) (803) 684-3366
(W) (803) 684-4201
51
PAGENO="0268"
264
SOUTH CAROLINA (Cont.)
MULLINAY, Barbara Susan
ETC - EIC - RSC
1 Murray Hill Drive
Charleston, SC 29407
(H) (803) 256-4447
(W) (803) 771-3612
NAGEL, D'Wan
ETC - EIC
717 Cartwright Drive
Charleston, SC 29407
(H) (803) 766-1840
(W) (803) 744-8207
PACK, Judy D.
ETC - EIC
640 Perrin Drive
Spartanburg, SC 29302
(II) (803) 579-4566
(W) (803) 585-7711 x212
PETTY, PhyllisT.
CSC
Rt #11, 148 Gedgewood
Spartanburg, SC 29302
POLLOCK, Iva H.
RSC
1410 Heather Dr.
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
PORTER, Barbara S.
CSC
P.O. Box 956
Ballentine, SC 29002
(H) (803) 781-4640
PORTER, Van Clinton
csc
P.O. Box 956
Ballentine, SC 29002
(H) (803) 781-4640
(TTY/ Voice)
REECE, Brenda H.
ETC - EIC
9 Borden Circle
Greenville, SC 29611
(H) (803) 246-3260
(W) (803) 246-3051
SAUNDERS, Margaret
CSC
358 Lynwood Drive
Charleston, SC 29407
(H) (803) 766-8066
SCHIFFIANO, Anthony F.
RSC
623 Watermark Place
Columbia, SC 29210
SHEALEY, Brenda B.
ETC - EIC
Rt. #6 Box 7
Boiling Springs Rd.
Spartanburg, SC 29303
SMITH, Joyce S..
CSC
Rt #6, Box 550
Easley,SC ~
(H) (803) 859-5547
52
PAGENO="0269"
265
SOUT}1 CAROLINA (Cont.)
ST. JOHN, Jerry C.
cSc
3431 Bronte Road
Columbia, SC 29210
(H) (803) 772-1855
(W) (803) 765-0030
SUMEREL, Jerry J.
cSC
114 Skyland
Easley, SC 29640
(H). (803) 859-8850
WINSTEAD, Gladys H.
RSC
383 Betsey Road
Charleston, SC 29407
(a) (803) 556~-2248
WOOD, Pricilla C.
ETC - EIC
203 Lakeland Drive
7~ Earl Chainey
Conway, SC 29526
(a) (803) 248-5176
53
PAGENO="0270"
266
TENNESSEE CHAPTER
Tennessee Registry of Interpreters
for the Deaf
President
Betty W. Steed
4890 Welchshire Avenue
Memphis, Tennessee 38117
Hm (901) 683-6615
Vice President
Adelle Scates
Rt. #3, Moran Road
Franklin, Tennessee 37064
(615) 297-5875
Secretary/Treasurer
Betty Krone
2018 Linden Avenue
Memphis, Tennessee 38104
Hm (901) 278-9587
Wk (901) 685-0461
54
PAGENO="0271"
267
TENNESSEE
Tennessee State Interpreter Law
Scope: Interpreter must be appointed for deaf
party or witness in:
1. criminal trials
2. civil trials
3. grand jury proceedings
4. administrative agency proceedings
5. pre-trial interrogation of deaf
criminal defendant.
Payment: By appointing authority
Qualifications: Interpreter must be certified by
National RID, if available.
Interpreter with Legal Skills
Certificate should first be sought.
Appointing authority and deaf person
must first determine that interpreter
can readily communicate with and
interpret the statements of and
proceedings to the deaf person.
Statute: Tennessee Code Annotated~24-lO8
55
PAGENO="0272"
268
TENNESSEE
ALEXANDER, Elaine
ETC~- EIC
2224 Hillsboro Heights
Knoxville, TN 37920
BAKER, Connie Denise
ETC - EIC
Rt #2 Gann Rd.
Chattanooga, TN 37343
(H) (615) 870-4861
BALES, Joel D.
ETC - EIC
Box 886
Knaxville, TN 37901
~R) (615) 577-2215
~W) (615) 577-7581
BASSETT, J. Tonya
ETC - EIC
Rt #8, Box 7
Knoxville, TN 37914
(H) (615) 524-1374
(W) (615) 637-1070
BATTLE, Betty
RSC
809 Goldfinch Avenue
Knoxville, TN 37920
BRASWELL, Brenda S.
CSC
Rt #31, Northshore Dr.
Knoxville, TN 37922
(H) (615) 690-6540
BTJRKS, Mary Lee
RSC
852 Creston
Memphis, TN 38127
(a) (901) 358-8055
(W) (901) 454-2285
CHILDRESS, Susan M.
CSC
Knoxville Area of Com-
munication Center for
the Deaf
139 Woodlawn Pike,
Knoxville, TN 37920
(W) (615) 577-4419 (TTY)
DAVENPORT, Cora
EIC
3401 Granny White Pike
Nashville, TN 37204
(H) (615) 297-2265
DUNCAN, Helen K.
ETC - EIC
5408 Pinecrest Road
Knoxville, TN 37912
(H) (615) 689-5773
(W) (615) 522-2881
GRACHIS, M. Lala S.
CSC
4227 Coster Rd, #17
Knoxville, TN 37912
(H) (615) 573-0421
56
PAGENO="0273"
269
TENNESSEE (Cont.)
GREGORY, James G.
RSC
1932 Newton Avenue
Knoxville,, TN 37920
(a) (615) 573-3043 TTY/Vc
GRIFFIN, Marie
.cSc
1505 Wales Ave. #11
P.O. Box 1255
Knoxville, TN 37901
(H) (615) 982-6252
(W) (615) 983-7440
HALL, Dorris B.
EIC
222 Masters Rd, E
Hixson, TN `37343
(H) (615) 842-5666
HARRIS, Howard R.
CSC
1109 Wingfield
Memphis, TN 38122
(a) (901) 323-6671
(W) (901) 683-2881
HESS, Catherine L.
ETC - EIC
1815 Vero Beach Ave.
Chattanooga, TN 37412
35-552 0 - 79 - 18
JONES, Timothy W.
CSC
1543-T Coleman Road
Knoxville, TN 37914
(H) (615) 577-1977
(W) (615) 546-6228
57
HILL, Joel E.
CSC
2901 Boright Aye, NE
Knoxville, TN 37917
(H) (615) 523-8782
HOBB, Georgia R.
CSC
605 Clearview
Nashville, TN 37205
(H) (615) 269-5356
(W) (615.) 297-2864
HOLLADAY, Mary A.
ETC - ETC
4724 Timberhill Drive
Nashville, TN 37211
(H) (615) 833-1205
(W) (615) 889-2260 X5l
HULL, Elizabeth S.
RSC
902 Apple Valley Road
Madison, TN 37115
(ii) (615) 868-7227
JONES, Patricia C.
CSC
616 Lichen Lane
Knoxville, TN 37910
(H) (615) 573-1602
(W) (615) 573-8321
HAYS, Beverly Sue
RSC
P.O. Box 886
Tenn. School for the Deaf
Knoxville, TN 37901.
PAGENO="0274"
270
TENNESSEE (Cont.)
LAWSON, Betty M.
RSC
709 Barclay Drive
Knoxville, TN 37920
(H) (615) 573-9238 (TTY)
(W) (615) 577-7581
LEE, L. Elizabeth
p.p.
613 Vance Drive
Bristol, TN 37620
(H) (615) 764-7079
(W) (703) 660-8181
LOYD, Annie H.
CSC
613 Clematis Drive
Nashville, TN 37205
(H) (615) 352-4925
MAXFIELD, J. Doreen
TI'
6030 Sunbeam Lane #115
Knoxville, TN 37920
(H) (615) 577-8111
(W) (615) 577-7581
MCDANIEL, Elsie Jean
RSC
901 Rexdale Drive
Nashville, TN 37217
(H) (615) 255-6737
(W) (615) 741-4506
MEDDERS, Carol D.
CSC~
436 East Redbud Rd #15
Knoxville, TN 37920
(il) (615) 577-3282
~W) (615) 577-7581
MOODY, Mark E.
ETC - ETC - RSC
6713 Treusdale Road
Knoxville, TN 37921
(H) (615) 588-5253
MOWL, Gary E.
RSC
709 Barclay Drive
Knoxville, TN 37920
(H) (615) 573-9238 (TTY)
(W) (615) 577-7581
OGLE, Carolyn J.
ETC - ETC
7625 Konda Drive
Knoxville, TN 37920
OSBORNE, Terry E.
CS C
1101 Valley Ave.
Knoxville, TN 37920
(H) (615) 577-6469
PACTO, Rosita N.
RS C
534 So. Seminole Dr.
Chattanooga, TN 37412
(H) (615) 629-0703
(W) (615) 267-1842
58
PAGENO="0275"
271
TENNESSEE (Cont.)
PENDLEY, Mary Jane
CSC
3621 Cline Road
Chattanooga, TN 37412
(H) (615) 867-7775
REIMAN, John W.
CSC
University of Tennessee
Box 8705
Knoxville, TN 37916
(H) (615) 974-2321
(W) (615) 524-4900
SANDERS, Michael
ETC - EIC
2521 Kingston Park
Knoxville, TN 37919
(H) (615) 984-3499
(W) (615) 637-1070
SCATES, Adeile L.
EIC
Rt #3, Moran Road
Franklin, TN 37064
~E) (615) 297-5875
~W) (615) 329-2126
SEALE, Emily (.
ETC EIC
3404 Sprucewood Rd.
Knoxville, TN 37921
~R) (615) 522-6949
SEALE, Jerry M.
*CSC
3404 Sprucewood Rd.
Knoxville, TN. 37921
(H) (615) 522-6949
(W) (615) 546-9661
SKILES, Judy Winn
ETC
1109 Albany St.
Chattanooga, TN 37405
(H) (615) 756-5848
(W) (615) 265-4451
SMITE, Sue
EEC
3011 Romewood Dr.
Memphis, TN 38128
~H) (901) 386-1493
STEED, Betty W.
CSC
4890 Welchshire Avenue
Memphis, TN 38117
(H) (901) 683-6615
STORY, Julia
EIC
5217 Hickory Hollow Rd,
Knoxville, TN 37919
(H) (615) 588-1160
TERR.ELL, Artie A.
EIC
359 Fairway Dr.
Clarksville, TN. 37040
(H) (615) 647-3724
THOMPSON, Donald V.
CSC
411 DOgwood Drive
Maryville,.TN 37801
(H) (615) 984-4925
59
PAGENO="0276"
272
TENNESSEE (Cont.)
TIPTON, Theresa
ETC - EIC - RSC
8355 S. Graham
Memphis, TN 38111
WALKER, Carol K.
ETC - EIC
Rt #12
Naryville, TN 37801
(ii) (615) 982-5988
(W) (615) 588-3546
WALLER, J. Wayne Dr.
CSC
3610 Sevier Heights Rd.
Knoxville, TN 37920
(H) (615) 573-3271
(W) (615) 974-3220
WAYNICK, Nora S.
CSC
515 Dunailie Drive
Nashville, TN 37217
(H) (615) 832-4667
WILLIAMS, Carolyn M.
ETC
1931 Maplewood Drive
Knoxville, TN 37920
(H) (615) 573-6534
(W) (615) 577-8611
WOODRICK, William E.
CSC
6208 Apache Trail
Knoxville, TN 37920
(H) (615) 573-5256
YOUNG, Irma Kleeb
CSC - LSC
229 Geronimo Road
Knoxville, TN 37922
(H) (615) 966-9862
(W) (615) 983-7440
60
PAGENO="0277"
273
REGISTRY OF INTERPRETERS FOR THE DEAF, INC.
RID
Inc
REGIONAL DIRECTORY:
Interpreting Information
State Chapters and Officers
State Interpreting Laws
Certified Interpreters
REGION V
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,
Wisconsin
January, 1978
The publication of Regional Directories was made
possible by funding from the Office for Handicapped
Individuals - No. SA-6911-75
Off ice of Human Development
Office of the Secretary
U.S. Dept. of Health. Education and Welfare
PAGENO="0278"
274
FOREWARD
The R.I.D., Inc. Regional Directory has been
designed to provide information on interpreting
services and certified interpreters for Agencies
and Individuals who serve the hearing-impaired.
The Directory provides not only a ready reference
for certified interpreters but also answers often
asked questions about interpreting services.
The R.I.D. is most appreciative to the Office
for Handicapped Individuals (Office of Human
Development - Office of the Secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare) for assistance in making
this regional directory available.
James Stangarone
President
PAGENO="0279"
275
TABLE OF CONTENTS
General Information
Organization 1
Organizational Structure 2
Code of Ethics 3
Certification Program 5
Additional Facts 9
Specific Information
Interpreting Services 10
RID Chapters/State Interpreting Laws/
Certified Interpreters:
Illinois 16
Indiana 26
Michigan 32
Minnesota 38
Ohio 48
Wisconsin
PAGENO="0280"
276
GENERAL INFORNATION
Organization
The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf
was established in 1964 through support from the
Vocational Rehabilitation Administration Depart-
ment of Health, Education and Welfare. In Octo-
ber, 1972, the R.I.D. was incorporated pursuant
to the General Non~-Profit Corporation Law of the
State of California within the meaning of Section
501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
The Organization is governed by a Board of
Directors. Current Board of Directors are:
James Stangarone (New York RID) Presi-
dent & Coordinator of
Publications
Betty Edwards - (Florida RID) Secretary &
Liaison Representative with
other Organizations
Roy Holcomb - (NORCRID) Treasurer
Agnes Foret (Michigan RID) Chairperson of
the National Review Board &
Archivist
Will Madsen (Potomac RID) Coordinator for
International Affairs
Evelyn Zola - (Wisconsin RID) Chairperson
of the National Certification
Board
A national office is maintained in Washington,
D. C. on the campus of Gallaudet College. Mrs.
Edna Kahi is the Secretary/Bookkeeper. All
correspondence should be addressed to the RID,
Inc., P.O. Box 1339, Washington, D. C. 20013.
Phone messages can be directed to the office by
calling (202) 447-0511 (voice or TTY).
I
PAGENO="0281"
27.
ganizational Structure
The RID, Inc. has chapters in 46 states,
the District of Columbia, the trust Territory
of Guam and 2 chapters in Canada. The local
chapters are the life-blood of the Organiza-
tion and carry-out the common goals related
to interpreters and interpreting.
The national office is the facilitating
agent and maintains a low-profile in order to
maintain a proper perspective on interpreting.
Code of Ethics
Preamble
Recognizing the unique position of an
interpreter in the life of a deaf person,
the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf
sets forth the following principles of
ethical behavior which will protect both
the deaf person and the interpreter in a
profession that exists to serve those with
a communication handicap.
In the pursuit of this profession in a
democratic society it is recognized that
through the medium of interpreters, deaf
persons can. be granted equality with hearing
persons in the matter of their right of
communication.
It is further recognized that the basic
system for self-regulation governing the
professional conduct of the interpreter is
the same as that governing the ethical con-
duct of any business or profession with the
addition of stronger emphasis on the high
ethical characteristics of the interpreter's
role in helping an oftentime misunderstood
group of people.
2
PAGENO="0282"
278
The standards of ethical practice set forth
below encourage the highest standards of conduct
and outline basic principles for the guidance of
the interpreters.
Code of Ethics
1. The interpreter shall be a person of
high moral character, honest, con-
scientious, trustworthy and of emotional
maturity. He shall guard confidential
information and not betray confidences
which have been entrusted to him.
2. The interpreter shall maintain an im-
partial attitude during the course of
his interpreting avoiding interj ecting
his own views unless he is asked to do
so by a party involved.
3. The interpreter shall interpret faith-
fully and to the best of his ability,
always conveying the thought, intent
and spirit of the speaker. He shall
remember the limits of his particular
function and not go beyond his responsi-
bility.
4. The interpreter shall recognize his own
level of proficiency and -use discretion
in accepting assignments, seeking for
the assistance of other interpreters
when necessary.
5, The interpreter shall adopt a conservative
manner of dress upholding the dignity of
the profession and not drawing undue
attention to himself.
3
PAGENO="0283"
279
6. The interpreter shall use discretion in
the matter of accepting compensation for
services and be willing to provide ser-
vices in situations where funds are not
available. Arrangements should be made
on a professional basis for adequate
remuneration in court cases comparable
to that provided for interpreters of
foreign languages.
7. The interpreter shall never encourage
deaf persons to seek legal or other
decisions in their favor merely because
the interpreter is sympathetic to the
handicap of deafness.
8. In the case of legal interpreting, the
interpreter shall inform the court when
the level of literacy of the deaf person
involved is such that literal interpre-
tation is not possible and the interpre-
ter is having to grossly paraphrase and
restate both what is said to the deaf
person and what he is saying to the
court.
9. The interpreter shall attempt to recog-
nize the various types of assistance
needed by the deaf and do his best to
meet the particular need, Those who do
not understand the language of signs may
require assistance through written
communication. Those who understand
manual communication may be assisted by
means of translating (rendering the *
original presentation verbatim), or in-
terpreting (paraphrasing, defining,
explaining, or making known the will of.
the speaker without regard to the
original language used).
4
PAGENO="0284"
280
10. Recognizing his need for professional
improvement, the interpreter will join
with professional colleagues for the
purpose of sharing new knowledge and
developments, to seek to understand
the implications of deafness and the
deaf person's particular needs, broaden
his education and knowledge of life,
and develop both his expressive and his
receptive skills in interpreting and
translating.
11. The interpreter shall seek to uphold
the digtiity and purity of the language
of signs. He shall also maintain a
readiness to learn and to accept new
signs, if these are necessary to under-
standing.
12. The interpreter shall take the responsi-
bility of educating the public regarding
the deaf whenever possible recognizing
that many misunderstandings arise
because of the general lack of public
knowledge in the area of deafness and
communication with the deaf.
Certification Program
The National Certification Program was estab-
lished to identify highly qualified interpreters
so that hearing and hearing impaired individuals
and agencies can be assured of the best inter-
preting services possible.
The RID awards one or more of five certificates
to interpreters who attain passing scores on each
section of the certification examination. Thus,
the certification indicates that a person has
met minimal standards in interpreting skills
5
PAGENO="0285"
281
and does not attempt to qualify the skills
beyond the minimal competency level.
Certification Examination
(Evaluation is given in
identified by an X).
General
Certification ~ H H
Awarded H ~
H H P~
C
INT = Interview
El = Expressive Interpreting
ET = Expressive Translating
RI = Reverse Interpreting
RT =. Reverse Translating
OP = Overall Performance
S. Voc. = Signed Vocabulary
L. T. = Legal Terms
Ex. Skills = Expressive Interpreting
and Translating
Res. Skills = Reverse Interpreting
and Translating
the skill areas
ETC -
X
X
X
X
EIC
X
X
X
X
CSC
X
X
X
X
X
X
RSC
X
X
X
X
Cl) Cl)
Cl)
~
H
~pecialist H
~ 0 Cl)
.
Certification ~ ~
Awarded : ~ ~
6
PAGENO="0286"
282
Certifications Issued;
ETC - Expressive Translating Certification
Ability of the interpreter to simul-
taneously translate from spoken to
manual English (verbatim). The inter-
preter possesses very basic reverse
translating competencies.
EIC - Expressive Interpreting Certification
Ability of the interpreter to use Sign
Language with hearing-impaired persons
who possessvarious levels of language
competencies. The interpreter also has
basic reverse interpreting competencies.
CSC - Comprehensive Skills Certification
Includes proficiency in:
Expressive Translating - (ability to
simultaneously translate from spoken
to manual English - verbatim.)
Expressive Interpreting - (ability to
use sign language with hearing-impaired
persons who possess various levels of
language competence.)
Reverse Skills - (ability to render -
manually, orally, or written - a hearing-
impaired person's message.)
RSC - Reverse Skills Certification
Ability to render (manually, orally, or
written) a hearing-impaired person's
message.
LSC - Legal ~pecialist Certification
Includes Comprehensive Skills plus special-
ized evaluation to qualify for interpreting
in a variety of legal settings. This legal
certification is based on the premise that
Comprehensive Skills Certification has been
awarded and that the interpreting skills
competencies are maintained.
7
PAGENO="0287"
283
Evaluationc for certification are held at the
local level by an authorized Evaluation Team
which represents the `National Certification Board.
Most RID Chapters have an Evaluation Team
and schedule evaluations from time to time
throughout the year. The' Evaluation Team
does not score or certify but provides the
National Certification Board with the
necessary information upon which to issue
a certificate.
The certification is good for 5 years as
long as the interpreter keeps his/her member-
ship current or pays an annual certification
revalidation fee.
Provisional Permits issued:
In order to meet the demand for certified
interpreters, the RID, Inc. issues Provision-
al Permits to interpreters who have a know-
ledge of sign language and beginning inter-
preting skills. The holder of the permit
serves an apprenticeship (one year or less)
prior to applying for certification. The
skill competencies of an individual applying
for the Provisional Permit are verified either
by two certified interpreters or. by the
Director/Instructor of an established inter-
preter training program.
Provisional Permit - (Experience in
General interpreting)
Legal Provisional Permit - (Experience
in Legal interpreting)
8
PAGENO="0288"
284
Additional Facts
The National RID Office in conjunction
with one of its local chapters hosts a
biennial convention. This is done to enable
interpreters to come together to renew and
review their competencies in keeping with
the signs of the times. In addition, local
chapters have a variety of meetings to assist
interpreters in their professional growth and
development.
The Interprenews, a quarterly publication
provides a vehicle for interpreters to
keep abreast of activities in the field.
Statistics
Membership --- 3,341
Chapters --- 60 in 46 states and the
District of Columbia
Certificates Awarded to 12/3l/77----1,540
Single Certification:
Comprehensive~ Skills Certificate - 586
Expressive Translating Certificate - 72
Expressive Interpreting Certificate - 105
Reverse Skills Certificate - 381
Combined Certifications:
ETC EIC --- 277
ETC - EIC - RSC --~ 29
ETC-RSC--~-4
EIC RSC --- 19
Legal Certification --- 67
Provisional Permits --.- 55
9
PAGENO="0289"
285
SPECIFIC INFORMATION
Interpreting Services
WHO IS AN INTERPRETER?
An interpreter is an individual who:
* possesses skill in the language of
signs and finger~-spe11ing
* can convey a hearing person's
message to a deaf person
* can convey a deaf person's message
to a hearing person
WHERE ARE INTERPRETING SERVICES UTILIZED?
An interpreter works in a variety of
settings:
legal medical
social work religious
educational cultural
vocational mass media
rehabilitation conference
etc.
WHY DOES A DEAF PERSON NEED AN INTERPRETER?
A deaf person may need an interpreter because
of:
difficulties with speech
* lipreading problems
limited knowledge of English language
desires for community services which
are often closed to him/her
10
35-552 0 - 79 - 19
PAGENO="0290"
286
WHAT IS TRANSLATING9. INTERPRETING?
In translating, the thoughts and words of the
speaker are presented verbatim to the deaf
person using the language of signs, finger-
spelling, and speech.
In interpreting, the interpreter may depart
from the exact words of the speaker and para-
phrase, define, and/or explain what the
speaker is saying using the language of signs,
fingerspelling, speech, and/or other means of
communication.
WHO DOES THE INTERPRETER SERVE?
* The Hearing-Impaired Community:
* A deaf person who uses various means
of communication
* A deaf person who is oral
* A deaf-blind person
* The Public:
A person that is unable to communicate
with a deaf individual
Agency personnel that is unable to
communicate with a deaf individual
WHAT IS THE REIMBURSEMENT FOR INTERPRETING
SERVICES?
Interpreters are to be paid for the service
rendered. As in any professional organization,
many hours of volunteer service is given by the
members. However, since interpreters often
take off from work, need to arrange for baby-
11
PAGENO="0291"
287
sitting services, travel great distances to
provide the service and are saddled with
lunch and parking fees, etc., just reimburse-
ment must be considered.
Since the RID is often asked to quote fees
for interpreters for deaf people, the following
Suggested Fee Schedule was developed by the
RID Executive Board and was approved by a vote
of RID members. It should be noted that fees
vary according to type of assignment and inter-
preter's certification. The fees outlined
below are suggestions; the RID and member
interpreters recognize that each interpreting
situation is different and that adjustments
in fees may be made.
SUGGESTED FEE SCHEDULE
(Revised 1973)
Interpreters Holding R.I.D. Certification:
CSC: Comprehensive Skills Certificate
RSC: Reverse Skills Certificate
ETC: Expressive Translating Certificate
EIC: Expressive Interpreting Certificate
Interpreters Not Holding R.I.D. Certifi-
cation:
NCI: Non Certified Interpreter
1. OCCASIONAL Interpreting Assignments
a. CSC and RSC: Minimum three hours per
"call".
ETC AND EIC: Minimum two hours per
"call".
12
PAGENO="0292"
288
b. CSC and RSC: $11.25 to $15.00 per hour,
according to experience/qualifications.
ETC and/or EIC: $10.00 per hour.
NCI: Minimum of $5.00 to $7.50 per hour.
c. CSC and RSC: Maximum $75.00 for
"full day" assignments.
ETC and/or EIC: Maximum $50.00 for
"full day" assignments.
No more than six hours actual inter-
preting time.
2. CONFERENCES of Two or More Days Duration
a. CSC and RSC: $75.00 per day; $375.00
per 5-day week. S
ETC and EIC: $50.00 per day; $250.00
per 5-day week. S
PLUS
b. Travel expenses and per diem at
prevailing agency rate.
3. CONTRACT Interpreti~g
a. 15 hours or less per week on regular
assignment basis.
b. CSC and RSC: $11.75 to $15.00 per hour
according to experience/qualifications.
ETC and/or EIC: $10.00 per hour.
13
PAGENO="0293"
28~ -
4. FULL TINE Interpreting
a. 4 hours daily or twenty hours weekly
per 5-day week.
b. CSC and RSC: $260.00 per week.
ETC AND EIC: $200.00 per week.
PLUS
c. Fringe benefits or salary commensurate
to that of other professional staff
within the agency.
HOW ARE CERTIFIED RID NEMBERS IDENTIFIED?
The National RID Office issues a blue member-
ship card which identifies that the member is
in good standing for the current fiscal year.
An additional card is issued which shows the
certification that a member holds.
In identifying certified members, both cards
should be shown by the member upon request.
HOW NAY INTERPRETERS BE CONTACTED?
Interpreting services may be obtained in
the following ways by:
* contacting your local RID chapter office
given in this book (if identified).
* contacting your RID Chapter President.
* contacting one of the interpreters
listed in this book directly.
contacting the National RID Office.
14
PAGENO="0294"
290
Contacting a referral agency serving the
deaf community. (Within the past 2 years
a number of referral agencies have been
established.)
HOW MAY MORE INFORNATIONON INTERPRETING
SERVICES BE OBTAINED?
The local RID Chapter is the first contact
for additional information. If the local
chapter cannot fulfill the needs, then contact
the National RID Office.
CERTIFIED INTERPRETERS
The following pages of this Directory only
includes those current members who are certi-
fied by the National RID Certification Board.
There are other RID members not yet certified
living in the region. Their names are only
published in the general RID Directory.
R.I.D. CHAPTERS
There may be states listed that have an
official chapter but no certified members
at this time, as well as states listed who
have certified members but no official
chapter at this time.
15
PAGENO="0295"
291
ILLINOIS CHAPTER
Illinois Registry of Interpret~
for the Deaf
President
Ray St. Aubin
South Metropolitan Association
250 W. Sibley
Dolton, Illinois 60419
Wk (312) 841-7800
President Elect
Chris Hunter
222 Willow Road
Streamwood, Illinois 60103
Hm (312) 289-7348
Wk (312) 397-7600 TTY
(312) 397-3000 Voice
Correspondence Secretary
Janice Ofman
Chicago Catholic Assoc. for the Deaf
1025 West Fry Street
Chicago, Illinois 60622
Hm (312) 477-3988
Wk (312) 243-8611
Recording Secretar~y
Nancy Twigg
2327 N. Alpine Road
Rockford, Illinois 61107
Hm (312) 398-0047
Treasurer
John Peterson
449 Normal Road
DeKalb, Illinois 60115
TIm (815) 756-1330
Wk (815) 756-2131
16
PAGENO="0296"
292 S
ILLINOIS
Illinois State Interpreter Law
Scope: Court must appoint interpreter for deaf
party or witness in "any legal proceed-
ing of any nature."
Payment: By county in which proceeding is held.
Qualifications: Interpreter must be "qualified".
Statutes: Illinois Annotated Statutes
385165-11 thru 13; 51f47;
51 f48. 01
17
PAGENO="0297"
293
ILLINOIS
ALBERT, Ellen B.
ETC
65 Hinman Avenue #15
Evanston, IL 60202
(H) (312) 864-1129
(W) (312) 729-5620
ALVAREZ, Cristine
CSC
521 N. Iowa Street
Villa Park, IL 60181
(H) (312) 279-3688 (TTY)
(W) (312) 466-4811 X215
ANDERSON, Debra L.
CSC
1449 W. Cullom Ave.
Chicago, IL 60613
(H) (312) 549-6763
ANDERSON, Gloria
ETC
712 N. Avenue
Aurora, IL 60505
(H) (312) 898-0914
(W) (312) 859-1066
AUBRY, Kathrine S.
CSC
12 Collins Place
Jacksonville, IL 62650
(H) (217) 245-2256
BABB, Mary
RSC
901 Lanore St.'
Urbana, IL 61801
(H) (217) 344-4509
BRICK, Carolyn
RSC
655 5. Diamond
Jacksonville, IL 62650
BUS, Nancy Ann
EIC
5156 W. Cullom Avenue
Chicago, IL 60641
(a) (312) 286-2913
(W) (312) 882-8210
CALLAN, Joan C.
ETC - EIC
107 W. Oakley Dr. N.
Westmont, IL 60559
~ (312) 920-0043
(~) (312) 654-2188
CAIRNS, Carol S.
CSC
590 N. First Avenüe~
Coal City, IL 60416
(H) (815) 634-8828
(W) (815) 725-7133 X675
CHAMPAGNEY, Henry
EIC
302 Richards Street
Geneva, IL 60134
#102
18
PAGENO="0298"
294
ILLINOIS (Cont.)
CORLETT,
CSC
Liz B.
446 S. Oak Street
Chebanse, ~IL 60922
(H) (815) 697-2678
Couch, Lloyd E. (Rev.)
ETC - ETC
RR #3, Box 85K
Carlinville, IL 62626
(H) (217) 854-2467
CROWE, Betty A.
RSC
4523 N. Wolcott #3B
Chicago, IL 60640
(H) (312) 272=4823 (TTY)
DAVIS, John B.
RSC
9501 N. Tripp
Skokie, IL 60076
(H) (312) 676-1888 (TTY)
(W) (312) 793-3040
DINKINES, Flora
ETC
1528 E. 86th Place
Chicago, IL 60619
(H) (312) 731-8029
(W) (312) 996-4609
DUKES, Ellen
RSC
2104 George St.
Rolling Meadows,, IL 60008
(H) (312) 383-6031
DUNN, Maureen M.
ETC
11313 5. St. Louis
Chicago, IL 60655
(H) (312) 779-7193
EKLUND, Charles R. (Rev)
CSC
761 E. So Broadway #B
Lombard, IL 60148
FIGGINS, Marilyn R.
ETC
183 S. Maple St.
Elgin, IL 60120
~H) (312) 741-5325
(W) (312) 695-1344
GANTZ, Susan
ETC - ETC
1327 W. Sherwin
Chicago, IL 60626
(H) (312) 764-4158
(W) (312) 463-1884
GERSTEIN, Marlene
CSC
264 Dennison Road
Hoffman Estates, IL 60172
(H) (312) 885-8103
GOOD,, Deborah
EIC
1007 W. Staughton
Urbana, IL 60801
19
PAGENO="0299"
295
ILLINOIS (Cont.)
GRACEFFA, Mary E.
ETC
4095 Tullocks Woods Trail
Rockford, IL 61103
(H) (815) 963-7204
GRAINGER, Carol Ann
ETC
1613 Dresser Road
DeKaib, IL 60115
GRIFFITHS, Cindy
ETC - ETC
307 Circle Drive E
Prospect Heights, IL 60070
(H) (312) 392-4082
HALL, Thelma M.
ETC
1049 Cheekwood Court
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007
(H) (312) 956-0320
HARRIS, Vicky G.
ETC - EIC
6000 Oakwood #3B
Lisle, IL 60532
(H) (312) 963-7227
(W) (312) 654-2188
HUDSON, Mary Lou
ETC - ETC
74 Shirlwin
Granite City, IL 62040
(H) (618) 797-0293
HUNTER, Christopher
RSC
222 Willow Road
Streamwood, IL 60103
(H) (312) 289-7348 (TTY)
(W) (312) 397-7600 (TTY)
JACKOWSKI, Joanne
CSC
2460 Leslie Lane
Hanover Park, IL 60103
(H) (312) 289-6756
(W) (312) 397-3000 X267
JONES, Mickey
CSC
10 Greenbriar Dr. Apt #1B
Jacksonville, IL 62650
(H) (217) 328-1069
KENNEDY, D.S.
RSC
8632 Frontage Road
Morton Grove, IL 60053
(H) (312) 405-5664
KING, Cynthia M.
ETC
2101 West White St. #118
Champaign, IL 61820
KLINE, Lorraine F.
CSC
123 Pine Street
Jacksonville, IL 62650
20
PAGENO="0300"
296
ILLINOIS (Cont.)
KUSH, Kathleen G.
RSC
8002 S. Sawyer Road
Darien, IL 60559
(H) (312) 887-9472
LUCAFO, Rosemarie
CSC - LSC
514 Berkeley Road
Riverside, IL 60546
(H) (312) 447-4617
MAIERHOFER, Charles
CSC
516 N. Lancaster Ave.
Aurora, IL 60506
MAIERHOFER, Jennie L.
CSC
516 N. Lancaster Ave.
Aurora, IL 60506
MATHER, Robert J.
RSC
1043 Pleasant Street
Oak Park, IL 60302
(H) (312) 848-7263
MATHER, Sue M.
RSC
1043 Pleasant St.
Oak Park,, IL 60302
(H) (312) 848-7261
MAYBERRY,
CSC
Rachel I.
Frances Searle Bldg
2299 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60201
(H) (312) 465-6861
(W) (312) 492-3161
MCGRATH, Susan Jane
P.P.
12600 S. Vincennes
Blue Island, IL 60406
(H) (312) 389-4764
MCSWEENEY, Joan
P.P.
625 N. Edgewood
LaGrange Park, IL 60525
(H) (312) 482-8545
(W) (312) 887-1730 X64
NOLINE, Grace
EIC
4 S. 768 Pinehurst Dr.
Naperville, IL 60540
MOTYKA, Mark M.
CSC
5157 5. Moody Avenue
Chicago, IL 60638
MULCRONE, Mary F.
CSC - LSC
6334 North Wayne Avenue
Chicago, IL 60660
(H) (312) 761-4262
(W) (312) 332-6850
21
PAGENO="0301"
297
ILLINOIS (Cont.)
MUNRO, Catherine
CSC
313 MacArthur Drive
Mt. Prospect, IL 60056
(H) (312) 255-1177
MYERS, Laurel Jean
CSC
7720 Deer #2C
Woodridge, IL 60515
(H) (312) 969-1396
(W) (312) 641-8230
NELSON, Arlene W.
RSC
2 Winthrop Terrace
Jacksonville, IL 62650
NELSON, Diana Helene
CSC
1403 Juneway
Round Lake Beach, IL 60073
(H) (312) 546-7927
NICKERSON, Eric
ETC-EIC
903 N. Golf Cul-de-Sac
Des Plaines, IL 60016
(H) (312) 296-8516
OFMAN, Janice
CSC
Chicago Cath. Assoc. for
1025 West Pry St. the Deaf
Chicago, IL 60622
(ii) (312) 477-3988
(W) (312) 243-8611
PETERSON, John Gordon
CSC
449 Normal Road
DeKalb, IL 60115
(H) (815) 756-2131
PIDCOCK, Barry D.
CSC
1081 S. Diamond
Jacksonville, IL 62650
(H) (217) 243-1737
PRUSSIAN, Nancy Ellen
ETC
1825 N. Lincoln Plaza
#2204
Chicago, IL 60614
(H) (312) 944-0110
(W) (312) 397-3000 X267
RACI, Donald B.
CSC
800 S. Spring Rd.
Elmhurst, IL 60126
(H) (312) 833-1573
(W) (312) 887-1730
RACI, Laurel M.
RSC
4329 W. 99th Place
Oak Lawn, IL 60453
(H) (217) 423-7190
22
PAGENO="0302"
298
ILLINOIS (Cont.)
REEDER, Ruth
ETC - ETC
1000 E. Washington, #4
Bloomington, IL 61701
(H) (309) 829-3647 (TTY)
(W) (309) 438-2431
ROYER, Marilyn Ann
CSC
446 S. Oak Street
Chebanse, IL 60922
(H) (815) 697-2678
SADDLER, Cecelia E.
RSC
8901 5. Wallace
Chicago, IL 60620
(H) (312) 873-8093
(W) (312) 886-2620
SCHAFER, Gertrude R.
CSC
2418 W. N. Shore Ave.
Chicago, IL 60645
(H) (312) 465-8982
(W) (312) 793-3040
SCHLESINGER, Judith Amy
ETC
134 N. California
Mundelein, IL 60060
(H) (312) 949-5899
SElLER, Peter J.
RSC
1215 Townley Drive
Bloomington, IL 61701
(H) (309) 663-5287
(W) (309) 436-6788
SENDELBAUGH, Joseph
CSC
106 Terrace Drive
DeKalb, IL 60115
(H) (815) 753-1076
SHEPARD, Davida Shapiro
LIC
7070 N. Sheridan Road
Chicago, IL 60626
(H) (312) 465-2364
(W) (312) 744-5780
SIEGEL, Barbara
ETC - EIC
8 So. 242 Northgate Way #6
Sonners Grove, IL 60515
STANFIELD, Kathleen
ETC - ETC
205 S. Prairie
Jacksonville, IL 62650
(H) (217) 243-6026
(W) (217) 245-5141 X251
23
PAGENO="0303"
299
ILLINOIS (Cont.)
ST. AUBIN, Raymond J.
EIC
2716 Tennyson Place
Hazel Crest, IL 60429
STROM, Jerry E.
RSC
716 W. Braeside Drive
Arlington Heights, IL 60004
(W) (312) 392-9282 (Voice)
(W) (312) 392-1409 (TTY)
TACCONA, Rita A.
EIC - RSC
1213 N. 20th Avenue
Melrose Park, IL 60160
(H) (312) 865-7691
TEPLINSKY, Susan Lynne
CSC
9108 Ballard Rd. l-E
Des Plaines, IL 60016
(H) (312) 297-2108
(W) (312) 982-6000 x6131
THOMPSON, Dorothy Marie
ETC - ETC
60 E. 32nd Street
701 Carmen Hall
Chicago, IL 60616
(H) (312) 842-0047
RSC
905 South Yale
Villa Park, IL 60181
(H) (312) 279-9247
TURNEY, Gail E.
ETC-EIC
1097 Merril
Winnetka, IL 60093
(H) (312) 446-2369
(W) (312) 259-8500
TWIGG, Nancy J.
CSC
23-27 N. Alpine Road
Rockford, IL 61107
(H) (815) 398-0047
VAN DE GRAAF, Patricia
CSC
440 Sheridan Road
Glencoe, IL 60022
(H) (312) 835-4687
WARSHAWSKY, Celia
RSC
5036 Conrad Street
Skokie, IL 60076
(H) (312) 676-4892
WARSHAWSKY, Leonard
RSC
5036 Conrad Street
Skokie, IL 60076
(H) (312) 676-4892
TRAPANI, Carol Ann
24
PAGENO="0304"
300
ILLINOIS (Cont.)
WINCENCIAK, Sue
ETC-EIC
594 Normal Road
DeKalb, IL 60115
(H) (815) 756-5072
(W) (815) 753-1076
WOLF, Harvey
CSC
1091 Kent Ave.
Highland Park, IL 60035
(H) (312) 432-2495
ZACH, Miriam S.
p.p.
6 West Chicago Ave. #6
Chicago, IL 60610
(H) (312) 943-7585
(W) (312) 275-2422
25
PAGENO="0305"
301
INDIANA CHAPTER
Indiana Registry of Interpreters
for the Deaf
President
Diane M. Hazel
1501 N. Downey Ave.
Indianapolis, Indiana 46219
Jim (317) 357-8192
Wk (317) 924-3274
Vice President
John W. Blaylock Jr.
P.O. Box 3143
Evansville, Indiana 47731
Jim (317) 476-5469
Secretary
Mary Rath
1800 N. Meridan - Rin. 400
Indianapolis, Indiana 46402
Jim (317) 253-5035
Treasurer
Marvin Marshall
61 Wilson Drive
Cannel, Indiana 46032
Wk (317) 924-4374 TTY
26
35-552 0 - 79 - 20
PAGENO="0306"
302
INDIANA
Indiana State Interpreter Law
Scope: Deaf party or witness to civil, criminal,
or administrative proceeding has right
to interpreter.
Payment: Determined by appointing authority
except that an acquitted criminal
defendant shall not be required
to pay.
QualificatiOfl! Appointing authority may inquire
into qualifications of inter-
preter.
Statutes: Indiana Statutes Annotated
j3-l-23-2l; ~4-22-l-22.5;
~34-l-l4-3; f35-1-30-4;
~35-l-8-2.
Indiana Rules of Trial Proceeding
43 (F).
27
PAGENO="0307"
303
BARNETT, David L.
RSC
5151 Haveford
Indianapolis, IN 46705
(W) (317) 924-4374
BASS, Jerry L.
csc
951 E. Southern Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46203
(H) (317) 783-1946
BATES, Harry L.
ETC - ETC
6043 E. Lowell Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46219
(H) (317) 356-0653
(W) (317) 261-1245
BLAYLOCK, John W. Jr.
RS C
P.O. Box 3143
Evansville, IN 47731
(a) (812) 476-5469
BROWN, Marion A.
CSC
1200 E. 42nd Street
Indianapolis, IN 46205
(W) (317) 924-4374 X80
CARLSTRAND, Glenn S.
CSC
4636 Commonwealth Rd
Indianapolis, IN 46220
(W) (317) 924-4374
CARPENTER, Alverna Kay
CSC
Rural Rt #2 Box 110
Shipshewana, IN 46565
(H) (219) 768-4300
(W) (219) 768-4156
CARPENTER, Susan
ETC -. ETC
4985 Fairmont Drive
Evansville, IN 47715
(H) (812) 477-0855
(W) (812) 476-5444
CORNWELL, Amy Prather
CSC
RR #9, Box 6B
Bloomington, IN 47401
(H) (812) 825-9978
(W) (812) 332-9372 (TTY)
CRITCHFIELD, Barry
ETC - ETC
P.O. Box 20122
Indianapolis, IN 46220
(H) (317) 253-0751
(W) (317) 924-3251
DUBIE, Pamela Ann
ETC - EIC
3617 Powhatan Terrace
Michigan City, IN 46360
(H) (219) 874-8477
(W) (219) 879-8211 X276
INDIANA
28
PAGENO="0308"
304
INDIANA (Cont.)
HAZEL, Diane Marie
CSC - LSC
10106 Carroilton
Indianapolis, IN 46219
(H) (317) 844-6860
HODOCK, Irene H.
RSC
1102 E. Kessler Blvd.
Indianapolis, IN 46220
(H) (317) 251-2190 (TTY)
(W) (317) 924-4374
HOOTEN, Eileen Marie
ETC - EIC
RR #1, Box 230
Danville, IN 46122
(H) (317) 839-0818
(W) (317) 637-5511
HOUK, Judith C.
CSC
5494 N. Drexel
Indianapolis, IN 46220
(H) (317) 257-0123
(W) (317) 924-4374
JACOBS, Carl E.
RSC
3425 Roseway Drive
Indianapolis, IN 46226
KELLOGG, Robert C.
CSC
RR #3, Box 320F
Martinsville, IN 46151
(H) (317) 924-4374
KESSLER, Daphne Ann
ETC - EIC - RSC
3333 5. US 35
Laporte, IN 46350.
(H) (219) 362-5474
KOVATCH, Robert A.
CSC
321 E. 45th St.
Indianapolis, IN 46205
(H) (317) 257-8200
(W) (317) 924-4374
MANSHIP, Patricia M.
ETC-EIC
RR #2, Box 489
Plainfield, IN 46168
(H) (317) 839-4809
MARSHALL, Carlyle E.
ETC - EIC - RSC
61 Wilson Drive
Carmel, IN 46032
(H) (317) 464-0285
MARSHALL, Marvin
RSC
61 Wilson Drive
Carmel, IN 46032
(H) (317) 846-9310
29
PAGENO="0309"
305
INDIANA (Cont.)
MCKINNEY, Nancy Helen
ETC - EIC
Rt. #1 Box 318A
Evansville, IN 47712
(H) (812) 985-3510
MARSHALL, Teresa Ann
RSC
61 Wilson Drive
Carmel, IN 46032
(H) (317) 846-9310
MASSEY, Leslie J.
RSC
3912 N. Audubon Road
Indianapolis, IN 46226
(H) (317) 545-4603
PARKIN, Orpha
CSC - LSC
13 Sleepy Hollow Lane
Carmel, IN 46032
(H) (317) 846-9263
PERRY, George K. Jr.
csc
6002 Beaumont Drive
Ft. Wayne, IN 46825
(H) (219) 484-5867
PRATHER, Richard W.
CSC
1718 Whittier Park Dr.
Valparaiso, IN 46383
(H) (219) 462-2071
(W) (219) 464-4871
RATH, Mary F.
RSC
1800 N. Meridan Rm 400
Indianapolis, IN 46402
(H) (317) 253-5035
(W) (317) 633-6784
REINOEHL, Betty Jo
CSC
54605 Elm Road
Mishawaka, IN 46544
(H) (219) 259-2034
RHODES, Albert W.
RSC
2134 N. Alabama
Indianapolis, IN 46208
SLASOR, Doug S.
RSC
918 Mohawk Hills Dr. #A-C
Carmel, IN 46032
(W) (317) 633-7406
STANFILL, Lester C.
RSC
7530 Mohawk Lane
Indianapolis, IN 46260
(H) (317) 255-6317
THOMPSON, Evelyn Ann
CSC
1809 Hawthorne Drive
Plainfield, IN 46168
(H) (317) 839-3006
30
PAGENO="0310"
306
INDIANA (Cont.)
WASTELUND, Doris
cSc
.116 Barton Avenue
Terre Haute, IN 47803
YODER, Myron
ETC-EIC
Rt. #1 Box 373
Middlebury, IN 46540
(H) (219) 885-0653
31
PAGENO="0311"
307
MICHIGAN CHAPTER
Michigan Registry of Interpreters
for the Deaf
President
El Marie Kirby
183 W. Battle Creek
Galesburg, Michigan 49053
Hin (616) 665-7594
Vice President
Kenneth Rust
24000 Dante
Oak Park, Michigan 48237
Wk (313) 591-1200 TTY/Voice
Secretary
Doris Gutierrez
6031 Marsh Road, Rt. #1
Shelbyville, Michigan 49344
Hm (616) 664-4539
Wk (616) 664-4461
Treasurer
Agnes Foret
5520 Meadowbrook
Detroit, Michigan 48239
Hm (313) 532-1121
32
PAGENO="0312"
308
MICHIGAN
Michigan State Interpreter Law
Scope: Court must appoint interpreter for deaf
witness or defendant in criminal
proceeding.
Payment: By county in which proceeding is held.
Qualifications: Interpreter must be "qualified".
Statutes: ~775.l9 and 775.19a.
33~
PAGENO="0313"
309
ANDERSON, Lester
ETC
2863 Northville Dr. NE
Grand Rapids, MI 49505
BOOTH, May B.
CSC
12074 Stahelin Ave.
Detroit, MI 48228
(H) (313) 835-9772
CLARK, Bill
EIC
4341 Bristoiwood
Flint, MI 48507
(H) (313) 238-8566
(W) (313) 238-4052
COUSINS, Patricia A.
EIC
39374 Dillingham
Westland, MI 48185
(H) ~l3) 729-1429
DENNISON, Aralyn D.
CSC - LSC
1359 Washington Ave.
Flint, MI 48503
(H) (313) 732-1792
DOWNING, Anne
EIC
14214 Eastview Dr.,
Fenton, MI 48430
(H) (313) 629-0476
(W) (313) 238-4621
Lot 1/3
MICHIGAN
EVANS, Sandra L.
RSC
3002 Dearborn St.
Flint, MI 48507
(H) (313) 742-2048 TTY
(W) (313) 238-4621 X35
FERRERO,
CSC
Monalee Edna
2845
Troy, MI 48084
(H) (313) 689-1577
(W) (313) 549-5660
FORET, Agnes T.
CSC - LSC
15520 Meadowbrook
Detroit, MI 48239
(H) (313) 532-1121 (TTY)
(W) (313) 577-4820
FOWLER, Edna M.
EIC
2107 Casaloma Court
Flint, MI 48504
GERNAIN, Ardyce Jean.
RSC
8377 West Long Lake Dr.
Kalamazoo, MI 49002
(H) (616) 323-0771
(W) (616) 383-1913
34
PAGENO="0314"
310
MICHIGAN (Cont.)
GOLER, Veta Diane
ETC - EIC
5197 Merriman Road
Jackson, MI 49201
GROSSBATJER, Bonnie Jean*
CSC
4580 McDowell Road
Lapeer, MI 48446
(H) (313) 664-8736
GUTIERREZ, Doris
ETC - EIC
6031 Marsh Rd., Rt. 1
Shelbyville, MI 49344
(H) (616) 664-4539
(W) (616) 664-4461
HELLER, Karen
ETC - EIC
6406 Maplebrook Lane
Flint, MI 48507
(H) (313) 239-3653
(W) (313) 762-0397
HYNES, Gloria
CSC
8639 Tamarack Drive
Brighton, MI 48116
(H) (313) 227-7920
(W) (313) 341-1353
JACKS, Winifred Joy
EIC
17210 Helington
Allen Park, MI 48101
JOHNSON, Margaret P.
ETC-EIC
5100 Buckingham
Detroit, MI 48224
(H) (313) 885-6895
JONES, Edna
ETC - EIC.
36970 5. Huron Road
New Boston, MI 48164
(H) (313) 753-9323
LAIKIND, David
ETC - EIC
960 North Sashabaw Rd.
Ortonville, MI 48462
LIBKA, Jeanine Baird
P.P.
3430 Devilane
Burton, MI 48429
(H) (313) 767-0017
(W) (313) 762-0396
35
PAGENO="0315"
311
MICHIGAN (Cont.)
MAIR, Frank J.
RSC
30330 Whittier
Madison Heights, MI 48071
(H) (313) 583-9487
MEGINLEY, Martha
ETC - EIC
10975 64th Ave. #9
Allendale, MI 49401
(H) (616) 382-1557
MELDRUM, Michael W.
ETC
39792 Greenview Apt #8
Plymouth, MI 48170
(H) (313) 453-8246
(W) (313) 425-8000
MERRILL, Delphine J.
CSC
17260 Delaware
Redford, MI 48240
(H) (313) 537-3068
(W) (313) 533~5444
MILLER, Betty Lou
ETC
352 Shadbolt
Lake Orion, MI 48035
(H) (313) 693-2436
MORRISON, Mary Agnes
ETC - ETC
612 E. Grove Street
Midland, MI 48640
(H) (517) 835-4935
NEISCH, Waldemar (Rev.)
ETC - ETC
5049 Wishingwell Drive
Flint, MI 48507
(H) (313) 694-5944
(W) (313) 767-2158
OLIASZ, Ingie M.
RSC
18931 Pierson
Detroit, MI 48219
(H) (313) 537-1082
PETROWSKE, Mildred J.
RSC
24354 Dale
E. Detroit, MI 48021
(H) (313) 771-3317
(W) (313) 577-4820
POSS, Bert E.
RSC
1661 Miller Road
Flint, MI 48503
(H) (313) 235-7308
ROSENBERGER, Rose M.
ETC - EIC
6332 W. Wilson Road
Clio, MI 48420
36
PAGENO="0316"
312
MICHIGAN (Cont.)
RUST, Kenneth 0.
CSC
24000 Dante
Oak Park, Michigan
(W) (313) 591-1200
SAMPLES, Ruby E.
RSC
2731 Refield Road
Niles, MI 49120
(H) (616) 683-3448
TERRY, Linda Lee
ETC - EIC
3490 E. Pierson Rd #G
Flint, MI 48506
(H) (313) 736-7236
(W) (313) 762-0396
TIMMONS, Marlene
ETC - EIC
2623 Parkview Avenue
Kalamazoo, MI 49008
(H) (616) 342-4754
WATSON, Howard M.
RSC
27600 Franklin Rd Apt 701
Southfield, MI 48034
(H) (313) 356-7245
WELLS, Mary Ann
CSC
734 Lawnview Ct
Rochester, MI 48063
(H) (313) 652-4808
WHITE, Ellie Carper
CSC
4102 Arbor Drive
Midland, MI 48640
WILLIAMS, Douglas N.
ETC
1210 Donaldson Street
Flint, MI 48504
(H) (313) 235-0386
(W) (313) 767-7630
48237
TTY/V
37
PAGENO="0317"
313
MINNESOTA CHAPTER
Minnesota Registry of Interpreters
for the Deaf
Rome Office: St. Paul TVI
235 Marshall Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
President
Rev. Dave Flack
910 Elliot Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404
Hm (612) 866-3511
Wk (612) 332-4716
President Elect
Becky Carlson
St. Paul TVI
235 Marshall Ave.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
Wk (612) 221-1342
Era (612) 644-1236
Secret~y~
Gloria Reisman
3115 Fremont Avenue So.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55408
Hm (612) 825-5611
Treasurer
Louise Hayden
840 N. Hazel St. #102
St. Paul, Minnesota 55119
Hm (612) 739-4090
Wk (612) 221-1341
38
PAGENO="0318"
314
MINNESOTA
Minnesota State Interpreter Law
Scope: Interpreter must be appointed for deaf
party or witness in:
1. Mental commitment proceedings and
mental health examination connected
with the proceedings
2. Civil action
3. Criminal action
4. Administrative agency proceedings
5. Proceedings preliminary to any
action in which deaf person may
be confined or penally sanctioned,
including coroner's inquest and
grand jury proceeding
6. Pre-trial interrogation of deaf
criminal defendant
Payment: By appointing authority.
Qualifications: Interpreter must be readily
- able to communicate with and
translate statements of and
translate proceedings to the
deaf person.
Statutes: Minnesota Statutes Annotated
5253.053; 546.42; 546.43;
611.30 thru 611.34.
39
PAGENO="0319"
315
MINNESOTA
ALLEN, Gordon L.
RSC
2223-19th Avenue NE
Minneapolis, MN 55418
(H) (612) 789-0019
ALLEN, June
CSC
592-36 1/2 Ave., NE
Minneapolis, MN 55418
(H) (612) 781-0908
(W) (612) 221-2718
ALLEN, Myrtle N.
RSC
2223-19th Avenue NE
Minneapolis, MN 55418
(H) (612) 789-0019
ARNOLD, Sue A.
ETC - EIC - RSC
1829 1st Street, SW
Rochester, MN 55901
(H) (612) 289-4617
BECKMAN, Sandra J.
P.P.
2703 9th Lane, N.
Amoka, MN 55303
(H) (612) 427-2392
(W) (612) 427-1880
BEY, TeeTee
P.P.
3816 Elliot Ave., S.
Minneapolis, MN 55407
BLAESER, Jolynn Marie
CSC
1095 Livingston
W. St. Paul, MN 55118
(H) (612) 457-5724
(W) (612) 227-9121
BLANCHARD, Sandra Kay
P.P.
2421 *E. Co. Road, F
White Bear Lake, MN 55110
(H) (612) 429-4688
BRASEL, Melvin H.
CSC
Minnesota School for the
Deaf
Faribault, MN 55021
(H) (507) 334-6411
BRIDGES, Paul M.
ETC
6912 Oliver Avenue, S.
Richfield, MN 55423
BRODOWY, Diana
CsC
1828 Lake Lane
Arden Hills, MN 55112
(H) (612) 633-6272
(W) (612) 871-2222
BROWN, Rebecca Ellen
P.p.
3029 Holmes Ave., S. #3
Minneapolis, MN 55408
(H) (612) 823-2998
40
PAGENO="0320"
316
MINNESOTA (Cont.)
CARLSON, Rebecca
csc
1864 Arona Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55113
(H) (612) 644-1236
(W) (612) 221-1342
CROWE, Shirley E.
CSC
Division of Voc Rehab
1821 University Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55104
(H) (612) 644-7553
(W) (612) 646-7841
CULNANE, Janice
ETC - EIC
6737 Harriet Ave., S.
Minneapolis, MN 55423
(H) (612) 869-3674
DAUGAARD, Joyce Sue
CSC
626 4th Avenue, NW
Faribault, MN 55821
(H) (507) 334-7947
(W) (507) 334-6411 X394
DEMENT, Nyna Sue
CSC
1155 South Willow
Faribault, MN 55021
(H) (507) 334-3225
(W) (507) 334-6411 X370
DINGMAN, Sue Ellen
ETC-EIC
520 Ravine
Faribault, MN 55021
(H) (507) 334-6221
(W) (507) 334-6411 X478
ELERT, Leslie Ann
RSC
6208 Schaefer Cr.
Minneapolis, MN 55436
EDMOND, Nancy Ann
ETC - EIC
325 22nd Ave. N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55418
(11) (612) 788-8989
FEELY, Katherine Mary
RSC
1435 Juliet Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55105
(H) (612) 698-4037
FLACK, J. Uavid, (Rev.)
CSC ~
76O~.i:pirst Ave., S.
Richfield, MN 55423
(H) (612) 866-3511
(W) (612) 332-3491 X268
FRANK, Sheryl Ann
ETC - EIC
1509 Elliot Avenue, S.
Minneapolis, MN 55404
(H) (612) 339-4187
(W) (612) 347-4201
41
PAGENO="0321"
317
MINNESOTA (Cont.)
GABRIELSON, Pamela
csc
1763 Thomas Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55104
(W) (612) 227-9121
GEMLO, Sandra J.
P.P.
1055 Englewood Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55104
(H) (612) 488-0759
(W) (612) 221-1300
GERSHONE, Janet Paper
P.P.
3825 Ewing Avenue, S.
Minneapolis, MN 55410
(H) (612) 291-3358
(W) (612) 920-4659
GODDARD, Harry A.
RSC
2448 Oxford Street
Roseville, MN 55113
(H) (612) 483-1506
(W) (612) 646-7841
GUSTAFSON, Mary
EIC
525 S.W. 5th St.
Chisholm, MN 55719
(H) (218) 254-3618
(W) (218) 741-4772
42
HANSON, Molly Jo
ETC - EIC
709 8th Ave. S.E. #8
Minneapolis, MN 55414
(H) (612) 331-2867
HANSON, Ruth Ann
CSC
20 W. Belvidere St.
St. Paul, MN 55107
(H) (612) 225-4238
(W) (612) 221-2714
HARTMAN, Jill Allyn
CSC
3220 Girard Aye, 5 #203
Minneapolis, MN 55408
(H) (612) 822-8601
(W) (612) 296-3472
HASTINGS, Ivan E.
EIC
4428 W. 58th St.
Edina, MN 55424
HUBENETTE, Shirley
CSC
2637 Alabama Aye, S.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
JONES, James D.
RSC
527 E. Morton Street
St. Paul, MN 55107
(H) (612) 224-6355
35-552 0 - 79 - 21
PAGENO="0322"
318
MINNESOTA (Cont.)
KOLLER, Rebecca Ann
ETC - EIC
883 Lowell Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55113
(H) (612) 674-7663
(IV) (612) 227-9121,
KROISS, Mary Nell
ETC
1844 N. Hamline
Roseville, MN 55113
(H) (612) 645-6737
(IV) (612) 221-1337
LABARRE, Alice Simonson
CSC
1620 Alameda Street
St. Paul, MN 55117
(H) (612) 488-9874
(W) (612) 227-9121 X28l
LANGLOIS, Frederick M.
CSC
713 Ravine St.
Faribault, MN 55021
(H) (507) 334-3667
(W) (507) 334-6411
LATZ, Leo
RSC
1223 Upton Avenue, N
Minneapolis, MN 55411
(H) (612) 529-7909
LATZ, Rubin Steven
ETC-EIC
2924 Farwell Ave.
Minneapolis, MN 55411
(H) (612) 588-6205
(W) (612) 221-1337
MAGNAN, Cecile
RSC
7207 Fremont Avenue, N
Minneapolis, MN 55430
(H) (612) 561-6237
MAIETTA, Jeanne Marie
csc
992 Lydia Drive (Summer)
Roseville, MN 55113
MARONDE, Sandra C.
CSC
1316 Adams, NE
Minneapolis, MN 55413
(H) (612) 781-3017
MATHEWS, John P.
RSC
934 7th Avenue, SW
Faribault, MN 55021
(H) (507) 332-8810
(IV) (507) 334-6411 X359
MATHEWS, Paula B.
RSC
934 7th Avenue, SW
Faribault, MN 55021
(H) (507) 332-8810
(W) (507) 334-6411 X469
X28l
43
PAGENO="0323"
MCCREADY, JaNahne J.
RSC
10413.6th Street, NE
Blame, MN 55434
(H) (612) 757-1646
(W) (612) 221-1342
NEYER, Virginia A.
ETC~-EIC
786 E. Rose Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55106
(Ii) (612) 776-3177
(1W) (612) 221-1300
MOE, Kathleen E.
RSC
1211 East 6th Street
Duluth, MN 55803
(H) (218) 728-3042
MORGAN, Susan M.
CSC
2417-33 Avenue, S
Minneapolis, MN 55406
(W) (612) 221-1337
NETZLOFP, Diane M.
ETC~-EIC
905 Westminster #103
St. Paul, MN 55101
(R) (612) 774-0549
(W) (612) 770-2351 x338
OVRE, Paula A.
ETC - EIC
1030 Atlantic #6
St. Paul, MN 55106.
()1) (612) 774-2529.
(W) (612) 227-9121 x281
PATRYKUS, Dinah L.
ETC - EIC
4515 Oakland Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55407
(H) (612) 822-3004
(W) (612) 861-4533
PERDUE, Vicky S.
ETC-EIC
414 No. 19th Ave.
East Duluth, MN.55812
(a) (218) 728-1740
PERRY, Rev Killion J
CSC
7150 Clayton Ave. E.
Inver Grove .Rgts., MN 55075
(II) (1612) 455-0772
(W) (612) 647-5320
319
MINNESOTA (Cont.)
PAULSON, Shirley D.
ETC-EIC
5460 7th St, NW
Fridley, MN 55421
44
PAGENO="0324"
320
MINNESOTA (Cont.)
POST, Eldon (Rev.)
CSC
532 5. Snelling Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55116
(W) (612) 698-4614
POTTER, Kathy
RSC
RR1 Box 73K
Morristown, MN 55O52~
(H) (507) 334-5008
RANZINGER, Linda M.
CSC
2488 Lydia Avenue
Roseville, MN 55113
(H) (612) 633-2295
(W) (612) 871-2402
SANDS, Jean Victoria
CSC
1604 Berkeley Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55105
(H) (612) 699-3039
SCHROEDER, Alma
CSC
9 East 25th St, #17
Minneapolis, MN 55404
(H) (612) 822-6321
(W) (612) 227-9121 X281
SILVERN, Cathy L.
ETC
3024 Bryant Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55408
(H) (612) 825-5445
(W) (612) 871-1153
SMITH, John W.
RSC
9 East 25th St., #17
Minneapolis, MN 55404
(H) (612) 822-6321
SNOUFFER, Julie Anne
EIC
1718 Lincoln Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55105
(H) (612) 699-8793
(W) (612) 690-1545
SADOWSKY, Kathy A.
P.P.
2677 Scotland Ct, #302
St. Paul, MN 55112
(H) (612) 786-0204
(W) (612) 222-0311
SONNENSTRAI-IL, Alfred
RSC
700 F. 8th Street
St. Paul, MN 55106
(H) (612) 483-4846 (TTY)
(W) (612) 771-5576 (Voice)
PLETT, Sharon
ETC-EIC
910 Elliot Avenue, S
Minneapolis, MN 55404
ROBSON, John F.
ETC - EIC
913 E. 39th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55406
45
PAGENO="0325"
321
MINNESOTA (Cont.)
STEWART, Deborah J.
ETC
4354 Rustic Place
Shoreview, MN 55112
(H) (612) 484-8162
(W) (612) 227-9121
SWANSON, Patricia Ann
RSC
4227 Yosemite Avenue, S
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
(H) (612) 929-3298
ThIERS, Chris
EIC
1861 Randolph #5
St. Paul, MN 55105
(H) (612) 699-9844
(W) (612) 690-1545
THOMPSON, Richard F.
EIC - RSC
P.O. Box 83
Faribault, MN 55021
(H) (507) 334-4348
TRORESON, Amy J.
ETC - EIC - RSC
800 Almac Drive
Proctor, NN 55910
VETTER, Carol E.
CSC
112 Larpenteur Ave., W
St. Paul, MN 55117
(H) (612) 487-1367
(W) (612) 332-4716
VIGESAA, Valerie
CSC
Rt. #2
Kenyon, MN 55946
(H) (612) 332-7264
(W). (612) 334-6411 X429
WITEBSKY, JudyE.
ETC - EIC
10705 Union Terrace Way
Plymouth, MN 55441
(H) (612) 546-1658
YOUNG, Betty L.
EIC
3924 Randall Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55416
YOUNG, Jeanette
P.P.
4429 Portland Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55407
(H) (612) 933-0555
(W) (612) 822-4500
ZUHN, Donald (Rev.)
ETC
Rt #11, Box 75
Brainerd, MN 56401.
(H) (218) 829-0416'
46
PAGENO="0326"
322
OHIO CHAPTER
Ohio Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf
President
Ben Medlin
1 Earhart Place
Kettering, Ohio 45420
Tim (513) 253-8787
President Elect
Rev. John K. Sederwall
131 Morningside Drive
Akron, Ohio 44303
Hm (216) 376-1688
Wk (216) 836-5530
First Vice President
Edith Jones
5809 Zoar Road
Morrow, Ohio 45152
Tim (513) 899-2938 TTY/Voice
Second Vice President
Winnie Bateson
1964 Palesades Drive
Dayton, Ohio 45414
Hm (513) 561-4368 TTY/Voice
Wk (513) 561-6678
Secretary
Dorothy Jackson
P.O. Box 8134
Akron, Ohio 44320
Urn (216) 633-1080
Treasurer
Doris Miller
416 Lewiston Road
Kettering, Ohio 45420
Tim (513) 293-9716 TTY/Voice
48
PAGENO="0327"
323
OHIO
Ohio State Interpreter Law
Scqpe: Court must appoint interpreter for deaf
party or witness to civil or criminal
legal proceeding.
Payment: By losing party in civil case.
By county t.reasury in criminal case
and grand jury proceeding.
Qualifications: Interpreter must be "qualified".
Statutes: Baldwin's Ohio Revised Code Annotated
.51903.19; 2301.12; 2301.14;
2311.14; 2335.05 thru 2335.09.
49
PAGENO="0328"
324
ADKINSON, Jean B.
CsC
1530 Hillside Drive
Dayton, OH 45432
(H) (513) 429-1203
(W) (513) 274-8047
BERGQUIST, Karlton
RSC
3250 Chaucer Drive
Columbus, OH 43221
(H) (614) 457-5474
CAMPBELL, Mary Caroline
CSC
401 Monroe Avenue
Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44221
(H) (216) 929-2467
CHAMBERS, Donna
ETC-EIC
4472 Sandy Lane
Columbus, OH 43224
(H) (614) 268-4871
DAULTON, Frances E.
EIC
4339 Eileen Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45209
(H) (513) 531-5647
DAULTON, Jody Lee
ETC-EIC
4757 Almont Drive
Columbus, Ohio 43229
(II) (614) 888-3955
DUNING, LeRoy
RSC
97 E. Orchard Avenue
Lebanon, OH 45036
ENGLE, Margaret Ann
ETC - EIC
RR#l - Box 100-C
Williamsburg, OH 45176
(W) (513) 921-6236
GILLESPIE, Nellie
CSC
828 Hartford Street
Worthington, OH 43085
(H) (614) 846-5785
GOODYEAR, Connie J.
CSC
3325 E. 7th Avenue #23'
Columbus, OH 43219
(H) (614) 231-0118
(W) (614) 221-6743
OHIO
DOBECKI, Janet Sue
BATESON, Winnie E. CSC - LSC
CSC - LSC 922-~L Chatham Lane
3604 Church Street ColUmbus, OH 43221
Cincinnati, OH 45244 (H) (614) 451-5964
(H) (513) 561-4368(Voice/TTY (W) (614) 221-6743 X24l
(W) (513) 561-6678
,50
PAGENO="0329"
325
HERING, Betty Marie
ETC
6685 Skinner Street
Branch Hill, OH 45108
(H) (513) 683-4780
HOLT, Richard
CSC
125 Chestnut
Leetonia, OH 44431
(H) (216) 427-6601
(W) (216) 242-7355
HUTCHISON, Freeda Mae
CSC
6030 Layne Hills Court
Englewood, OH 45322
(H) (513) 835-5073
INBODY, Jay M.
CSC
257 W. Pacemont
Columbus, OH 43202
(H) (614) 262-3586
(W) (614) 221-6743
JAHN, Darlene Z.
CSC
775 Timberman Road
Columbus, OH 43212
(H) (614) 291-9598
(W) (614) 221-6743 X34l
JONES, Edith Ann
csc
3572 Glengary Lane
Cincinnati, OH 45236
(H) (513) 791-0889
OHIO (Cont.)
KENNEDY, Everett J.
RSC
330 Acton Road
Columbus, OH 43214
LANKENAU, Robert 0.
RSC
1575 Redwood Avenue
Akron, OH 44301
(H) (216) 773-1535
LATIMER, Nancy Lynn
ETC - EIC
349 Elliott Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45215
(H) (513) 948-1682
LEBER, Donald E. (Rev.)
EIC
360 Morse Road
Columbus, OH 43214
(W) (614) 885-3362
MANCINI, Linda
CSC
1561 Pinecone, NW
North Canton, OH 44720
MEDLIN, Ben H.
RSC
1 Earhart Place
Kettering, OH 45420
(H) (513) 253-8787
51
PAGENO="0330"
326
OHIO (Cont.)
MEDLIN, Ruth
RSC
1 Earhart Place
Kettering, OH 45420
(H) (513) 253-8787
MILLER, Doris J.
C5C
416 Lewiston Road
Dayton, OH 45429
(H) (513) 293-9716
MOORE, Marguerite
C5C
650 Farrington Drive
Worthington, OH 43085
(H) (614) 885-8431
MORGAN, Loren M.
CSC-LSC
419 Probasca City
Cincinnati, OH 45220
(H) (513) 961-4193
(W) (513) 253-2lO6
MYERS, Barbara
CSC
2444 Olentangy Drive
Akron, OH 44313
(H) (214) 867-4123
NOBLE, Ginger
CSC
199~ S. Balch St.
Akron, OH 44302
PARKER, Evelyn V.
CSC
2707 Rockledge Trail
Dayton, OH 45430
(H) (513) 426-4938
PLASTER, William K.
EIC
220 William H. Taft Rd
Cincinnati, OH 45219
(W) (513) 751-1066
PROK, Myron (Rev.)
CSC
2085 Wascana Avenue
Lakewood, OH 44107
(H) (216) 228-0776
PROK, Shirley
CSC
2085 Wascana Avenue
Lakewood, OH 44107
(H) (216) 228-0776
(W) (216) 252-1222
REISING, Darlyne J.
ETC-EIC
14111 Triskett
Cleveland, OH 44111
ROSE, Susan
ETC.- E1C
1O8B E. Woodruff Ave.
Columbus, OH 43201
(H) (614) 291-9073
52
PAGENO="0331"
327
OHIO(Cont.)
SCHERER, Margo J.
CsC
1055-A Merrimar Circle
N. Columbus, OH 43220
(H) (614) 457-9421
(W) (614) 221-6743 X241
SCHNECK, Jim
CSC
2245 Lincoln Way, W
Massillon, OH 44646
(H) (216) 837-9724
(W) (same as above)
SEDERWALL, John K. (Rev.)
CSC-LSC
131 Morningside Drive
Akron, OH 44303
(H) (216) 376-1688
(W) (216) 836-5530
SHAFFER, Shirley M.
CSC
5805 Roche Drive #B
Columbus, OH 43229
(H) (614) 733-3220
(W) (614) 923-0434
SLAGLE, Joann C.
CSC
1561 Lexdale Court
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068
(H) (614) 864-7590
(W) (614) 294-5571
* SMITH, Bruce Alan
CSC
3704 W Siebenthaler
Dayton, OH 45406
(H) (513) 275-4127
(W) (513) 276-2107
TURNER, Karen Dixon
CSC - LSC
The University of Akron
Dept of Speech Pathology
and Audiology
Akron, OH 44325
(W) (216) 375-7883
VEGAS, Dorothy Gene
RSC
910 Nome Avenue
Akron, OH 44320
(H) (216) 836-3612
WEBER, Sue Ellen
RSC
1304 7th Street
Ironton, OH 45638
53
PAGENO="0332"
328
WISCONSIN CHAPTER
Wisconsin Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf
President
Michael Cinati
1414 E Warnimont
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53207
Bin (414) 282-0834
First Vice President
David Watson
Route 1
Winneconne, Wisconsin 54986
Bin (414) 582-4412
Second Vice President
Diane Currie
2805 Stein Street #204
Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54701
Wk (714) 834-0058
Secretary
Margaret James
230 Lazy Acre Road
Wausau, Wisconsin 54401
Treasurer
Vincent Abaravich
3051 S. 50th St.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53219
Bin (414) 543_852l:TTY/VOicè
54
PAGENO="0333"
329
WISCONSIN
Wisconsin State Interpreter Law
Scope: Interpreter must be appointed:
1. For deaf criminal defendant at
trial or examination
2. For deaf party at administrative
agency proceeding
Payment: By appointing authority if deaf
person is unable to pay.
Qualifications: Interpreter must be "competent".
Statutes: Wisconsin Statutes Annotated
559.77; 885.37; 906.04; 879.41;
885.05.
55
PAGENO="0334"
330
ANDREWS, Chris Ann
ETC - ETC
8307 W. Oklahoma Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53219
(H) (414) 543-2429
(W) (414) 544-8735
AUMOCK, Norma Louise
ETC - ETC
5411 Tonyawatha Trail
Monona, WI 53716
(H) (608) 222-5953
BRADEN, Jeffrey P.
ETC - ETC.
Beloit College Box 2261
Beloit, WI 53511
(H) (414) 354-4975
(W) (608) 365-3391 X484
BRASEL, Kenneth E.
CSC
Rt #4, Box 579
3140 S. Shore Drive
Delavan, WI 53115
(H) (414) 728-2879
(W) (414) 728-6477
BUSBY, Howard R.
RSC
UW-Mi iwaukee
Dept. of Exc. Ed. End.
Milwaukee, WI 53201
(H) (414) 963-5746
WISCONSIN
CHURCH, Sandra Lea
ETC - ETC
716 Capman Street
Milton, WT 53563
(H) (608) 868-3741
#677
CTNATL, Michael E.
ETC - ETC
1414 E. Warnimont #18
Milwaukee, WI 53207
(H) (414) 282-0834
COLLINS, Eleanor
CSC
1505 Monroe Avenue
Racine, WI 53405
(H) (414) 633-0531
CONWAY, P. Miller
EIC
3050 N. Summit Ave.
Milwaukee, WI 53211
(H) (414) 332-6882
(W) (414) 744-6047
CORDANJO; Jean
RSC
520 Parish Street
Delavan, WI 53115
CORDANO, Waldo T.
RSC
520 Parish Street
Delavan, WI 53115
56
PAGENO="0335"
331
WISCONSIN (Cont.)
CURRIE, Diane Dee
ETC - EIC
811 Pine Crest
Mosinee, WI 54455
(H) (715) 693-6857
DALSKY, Judith A.
ETC-EIC
156 Ethel Street
Wausau, WI 54401
(H) (715) 842-2649
(W) (same as above)
DARON, Lucille
EIC
3306 Meadow Lane
Manitowoc, WI 54220
(H) (414) 682-1911
(W) (414) 684-4421
DICKER, Eve
CSC
208 E. Fairy Chasm Rd
Milwaukee, WI 53217
(H) (414) 352-3125
(W) (414) 475-8521
DICKER, Leo
csc
208 E. Fairy Chasm Rd
Milwaukee, WI 53217
(H) (414) 352-3125
DUESTERBECK, Evelyn M.
ETC - EIC
135 Fremont Street
Delavan, WI 53115
(H) (414) 728-5051
FELTON, Christine Ann
CSC
3034 Anderberg Drive
Madison, WI 53713
(H) (608) 221-2658
(W) (608) 222-1255
GAETER, Linda Cheryl
P.P.
Rt. #1, Box 243
Osceola, WI 54020
(H) (715) 294-3625
GREGG, Janet Lynn
CSC
357 Broad Street
Menasha, WI 54952
HALVORSEN, Leslie
ETC
P.O. Box 15th St.
Manitowoc, WI 54220
(H) (414) 682-4188
(W) (414) 682-4663 X43
HART, Barbara J.
CSC
1328 E. Wisconsin St.
Delavan, WI 53115
HYATT, Rocklin Jay
EIC
2733 No. 34th
Milwaukee, WI 53210
(if) (414) 445-4330
57
PAGENO="0336"
332
WISCONSIN (Cont.)
JAMES, Margaret
ETC - ETC
230 Lazy Acre Road
Wausau, WI 54401
JESCHKE, John N.
ETC-EIC
710 A. E. Chambers
Milwaukee, WI 53212
JOHNSTON, Ellen Marie
ETC
9281 S. 51st Street
Franklin, WI 53132
(H) (414) 421-6724
KIESOW, Jim R.
ETC
1409 5. Broadway
Menomonie, WI 53269
(H) (715) 962-4095
KOSCHE, Martin G. (Rev.)
ETC
116 Walnut Street
Delavan, WI 53115
(H) (414) 728-5980
KUGLITSCH, Marianna
RSC
3010 Harriman Lane
Madison, WI 53713
LANGLEY, Julie Lou
ETC - ETC - RSC
3025' Aspen Court
Eau Claire, WI 54701
MAY, Harriet A.
CSC
l02S. Maple Street
Oconomowoc, WI 53066
(H) (608) 567-0428
(W) (608) 222-1255
MCLAUGHLIN, Ellen
ETC
4422 N. Oakland #10
Shorewood, WI 53211
(H) (414) 332-6594
MEIXNER, Michael Conrad
ETC - ETC
1905 Kropf Avenue
Madison, WI 53704
(H) (608) 249-3714
(W) (608) 849-4372
MILLER, Hedy L.
CSC - LSC
2773 N. 34th St.
Milwaukee, WI 53210
(H) (414) 445-4330
MISA, Sandra Kay
CSC
2310 Allied Drive #1
Madison, WI 53711
58
PAGENO="0337"
333
WISCONSIN (Cont.)
MYHRE, Doris P.
CSC
3120 W. State Street
Milwaukee, WI 53208
(H) (414) 344-4786
(W) (414) 344-3400
O'CONNELL, Patricia Ann
LIC - RSC
Rt# 3
Two Rivers, WI 54241
(H) (414) 755-2468
OLSON, Lucille M.
CSC
130 5. Third Street
Delavan, WI 53115
(H) (414) 728-5258
OSTRANDER, Pauline G.
CSC
2722 N. Stowell
Milwaukee, WI 53212
(H) (414) 962-7059
(W) (414) 278-6750
PATTERSON, Beth Marie
CSC
105 5. 3rd Avenue
Wausau, WI 54401
(H) (715) 748-2150
PICKELL, Herb
RSC
1313 Tompkins Drive
Madison, WI 53716
(H) (608) 221-3680
(W) (608) 266-8083
PRANCE, Danette Jo
EIC
Rt #7,, Box 214
Merrill, WI 54452
RAPPOLD, Beverly L.
EIC - RSC
610 Washington Street
Delavan, WI 53115
(H) (414) 728-5744
ROEDER, Marilyn Jean
CSC
613 South 4th Avenue
Wausau, WI 54401
(H) (715) 842-8450
(W) (715) 675-3331
SCOTT, Judith Grace
ETC - EIC
3501 N. Summit Avenue
Shorewood, WI 53211
(H) (414) 332-9207
SHAW, Darlene Jean
ETC - RSC
3910 S. 68th St.
Milwaukee, WI 53220
(H) (414) 271-0137
(W) (414) 271-0141
59
PAGENO="0338"
334
WISCONSIN (Cont.)
SHEPPARD, Susan
ETC-ETC
3900 5. Calhoun Road
New Berlin, WI 53151
(H) (414) 782-8284
SHIPMAN, John S.
CSC
309 W. Walworth Ave.
Delavan, WI 53115
SHJPMAN, Norma C.
ETC-RSC
309 W. Walworth Ave.
Delavan, WI 53115
SULLIVAN, Belle Mae
CSC
608 W. Main
Sparta, WI 54656
(H) (608) 269-2832
TESKE, Thomasine D.
ETC - ETC
6730 W. English Meadows
Greenfield, WI 53220
(H) (414) 282-3447
THORSSEN, Laurie E.
ETC-EIC-RSC
Box 114
Solon Springs, WI 54873
(H) (715) 378-4466
VOSS, Patricia
RSC
Rt #1, Box 45
Columbus, WI 53925
WALSVIK, Charlotte
CSC
2234 E. Johnson
Madison, WI 53704
(H) (608) 241-4996
WATSON, David
RSC
Rt #1, Piacenza
Winneconne, WI 54986
YUNK, Annie L.
ETC - ETC
102 1/2 Short St.
Wausau, WI 54401
(H) (715) 842-9201
ZOLA, Evelyn
RSC
2877 N. 50th Street
Milwaukee, WI 53210
60
PAGENO="0339"
335
HACKENSACK NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER,
BERGEN COUNTY COMMUNiTY ACTION PROGRAM, INC.,
Hackensacic, N.J.
Representative DONALD EDWARDS,
House Judiciary Committee,
House Annex 1,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. EDWARDS: Thank you for taking the time to send me a letter regard-
ing Hearings for Court Interpreters.
I am pleased to know that through my information Mrs. Paulette Harary of
New York was able to attend and make a presentation to the Panel.
Unfortunately, perhaps due to mail problems, the letter you sent was received
too late to warrant my making the trip to Washington.
I am enclosing my statement concerning the Court Interpreters in the State
of New Jersey, as I see it.
Thanking you for your consideration. If it is at all possible I would greatly
appreciate receiving copies of the transcripts of the Hearing regarding Bilingual
Court Interpreters.
Sincerely,
VIRGINIA O'BRIEN,
Translator Interpreter.
VOB: Enclosure.
STATEMENT TO HOUSE JUDICIARY
August 21, 1978.
In one Federal case with several co-defendants I noticed a team of Court
Steongraphers who were relieved every half hour. This should be made available
to Court Interpreters involved in complex multiple co-defendant trials.
The knowledge of the "muffling" device available in Utah would also be of great
benefit in Courts throughout the United States as it would enable an Interpreter
to give accurate "Consecutive Interpretation" without distracting Counsel or the
Court.
In closing I will state that the role of an "Interpreter" within the State of New
Jersey is only now becoming recognized as "specialized" in some areas.
Many who practice actively lack specialized training in Court Room etiquette;
legal terminology in BOTH languages; understanding of the "Mechanics" of
Interpreting in the Court of Law.
The Senate passed Court Interpreters Bilingual Bill and the House Bill 10228
with its provisions for testing, training and certification of all who interpret can
only serve to eliminate .those who are unwilling to polish up on their skills or add
to them (myself included.)
I hope that the House Bill 10228 does pass and will eventually provide for
qualified Interpreters to all who need their services and expertise.
Submitted August 21, 1978. Virginia O'Brien, Interpreter, Full Time; Bergen
County C.A.P. Spanish Bureau, Free-lance Interpreter Part Time.
STATEMENT CONCERNING INTERPRETERS' (BILINGUAL) SITUATION IN THE STATE
OF NEW JERSEY BY VIRGINIA O'BRIEN
During the past three years I have actively participated in Federal District
Superior and Municipal Courts throughout the State of New Jersey.
There have been many situations Where it would have been far more realistic
to have provided an Interpreter for each of the parties, as well as an Interpreter
solely for the colloquy between Attorneys and Judges.
In one Federal case it was sorely evident that the United States Attorneys
were very wary of the Interpreter who had been sent to replace another Interpre-
ter. It is in instances such as these, specifically, that a qualified Interpreter would
be better able to function in his/her role with credentials, i.e., Identification Card,
Name Tag, etc., perhaps provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts,
rather than the most likely, Voir Dire and subsequent doubts of opposing parties.
It would be most beneficial to be recognized as an-Interperter-who is, in fact,
Impartial, recognized as such, and simply be allowe~1 tu do one's job.
My experience has also shown the need for recognition, by the Judges and
Lawyers, of the fact that Interpreters also need the opportunity to rest or be
relieved. This is of tantamount importance in those cases where a mistrial could
result from error (actual or implied).
PAGENO="0340"
r
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE
ARNOLD CONSTABLE BUILDING
209 EAST STATE STREET
TRENTON, N.J. 08625
NOTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY
CONGRATULATIONS! You have just øassed a New
Jersey Civil Service examination. Our standards are high,
`so you can be justly proud of your achievement, After
previous hsts, if any, are used and those ahead of you on
`this list are coOsidered for appointment, you will be noti-
fied where and when to appear for an employment inter-
view. The list you are on stays in effect until the date.
Shown below.
If you wish a copy of our brochure Showing what happens
`after your name is placed on an eligible liSt, write to us re-
guesting our "Congratulations Brochure."
Within 20 da9s from date of this notice you may inspect
your test papers from 9:00 to 12:00 and 1:30 to 4:00
Monday thru Friday, legal holidays excepted, at Civil
`Service office - Arnold Constable Building, Front &
Montgomery Streets, Trenton, N.J. Only one inspection iS
permitted, Bring thiS card.
INTERPRETER BI IN SF & ENG
TITLE
~C3OO9 ______________
SYMBOL
* 1/2~/78 ____________
EXAM DATE NOTICE DATE
* I 88.ooo~~ 2/22/81
RANK. FINAL AVERAGE . LIST EXPIRES
CHIEF EXAMINER AND SECRETARY
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE
CS-136~REV. 11/73 .
FIRST-CLASS MAIL
U.S. POSTAGE PAID
POST CARD RATE
PERMIT 136
Bergen Co
JURISDICTION
2/lc/78
o~i~ viRc':lcIA. M
120 HACKENSACI'~ STREET
EAST RUTHERFORD N J
L 07073
PAGENO="0341"
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF C1VIL SERVICE
ARNOLD CONSTABLE BUILDING
209 EAST STATE STREET
TRENTON. N.J. 08625
NOTiFICATION OF ELIGIBiliTY
ICONGRATULATIONS! You have just passed a New
~Jersey Civil Service examination. Our standards are high,
*~so you can be justly proud of your achievement. After
previous liSts, 1 any, are used and those ahead of you on
Ithis list are considered for appointment, you will be noti-
fieci where and when to appear for an employment inter-
view. The list you are on stays in effect until the date
shown below.
If you wish a copy of our brochure showing what happens
after your name iS placed on an eligible list, write to us re-
questing our Congratulations Brochure."
Within 20 days `mm date of this notice you may inspect
your test papers from 9 :00 to 12 :00 and 1:30 to 4 :00
Monday thru Friday, legal. holidays excepted, at Civil
Service office Arnold Constable Building, Front &
)Montqomery Streets, Trenton, N.J. Only one inspection iS
permitted. Bring this card.
I1\TERPRETEP ~I IN SP + ENG
ITITLE
C2427 ~FRCER Cfl-STI~TF
SYMBOL JURISDICTION
7/20/77 ____________
EXAM DATE NOTICE DATE
S .NCNVET 93.500 8/31/R~
RANK FINAL AVERAGE LIST EXPIRES
CHIEF EXAMINER AND SECRETARY
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE~
CS-1~SREV. 11/13
FIRST-CLASS MAIL
U.S. POSTAGE PAID
~I POST CARD RATE
PERMIT 136
LEN VIRGINIA
120 HAC)(ENSACI( ST
E RUTHERFORD NJ
L
O7O?3~j
A
PAGENO="0342"
338
PAGENO="0343"
339
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D.C., August 15, 1978.
Hon. DON EDWARDS,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I regret that I was unable to appear before your Sub-
committee to urge favorable and expeditious action on H.R. 10228, the House
counterpart of 5 1315 the Bilingual, Hearing and Speech Impaired Interpreters
Act. As author of 5. 819, the Interpreters for the Hearing Impaired Act, as well as
cosponsor of 5. 1315 and its predecessorS. 565, I appreciate the opportunity at this
time to communicate to the Subcommittee my strong support for this legislation.
In recent years, Congress has considered a variety of proposals to insure equal
access for all Americans to our federal courts. Proposals dealing with increasing
the number of federal district and appellate judges, standing to sue, attorneys fees
in federal civil rights cases and suits against federal, local and state governments
for constitutional violations by their employees, have been among the "access"
issues to be debated in this and earlier Congresses. These are important proposals.
They deserve our full and careful consideration. But, other less publicized "access"
bills deserve similar attention. One of these is the Bilingual, Hearing and Speech
Impaired Interpreters Act. Certainly, this important proposal must be an integral
component of our legislative "access" agenda.
Today, the phrase "equal access to justice" has little meaning for millions of
Americans. Unable to speak or understand English, or suffering from a hearing
or speech impairment, these persons find themselves incapable of participating
effectively in federal court proceedings. To these individuals, our existing statu-
tory and constitutional rights, as well as those additional guarantees set forth
in pending proposals, are of little comfort. In the absence of statutory assurances
that they will be provided qualified interpreters, they are effectively denied
"access to justice". To them, access to qualified interpreters is "access to justice".
It is to these individuals that H.R. 10228/5. 1315 is addressed.
H.R. 10228 is an important step in our effort to provide effective interpretive
services in our federal courts. At the heart of this bill is the recognition that
Rules 28 (f) and 43 of the Federal Civil and Criminal Rules of Procedure respec-
tively, have been inadequate in insuring such services in the past. Rather than
continuing the discretionary appointment provisions found in the Rules, H.R.
10228 would require the appointment of interpreters in civil and criminal cases
initiated by the United States where it is determined that a person involved in
the proceedings speaks a language other than English or suffers from a hearing
or speech impairment which would inhibit his or her comprehension of the pro-
ceedings. Not only would this provision broaden the availability of interpreters
but-unlike the present rules-it would also provide uniform standards for
such appointments.
Equally significant, the proposal would go far toward insuring the availability
of qualified, competent interpreters. First, the bill places on the shoulders of the
Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts the responsi-
bility to prescribe, determine and certify the qualifications of those seeking to be
certified as interpreters in the federal courts. Furthermore, each district court
is directed to maintain a compliation of certified interpreters. Both of these
changes represent distinct improvements over the existing rules.
As you know, H.R. 10228 is a consolidation of my bill, 5. 819, the Interpreters
for the Hearing Impaired Act, and the original version of S. 1315. I originally
introduced 5. 819 because of my concern that S. 565, the predecessor to 5. 1315,
PAGENO="0344"
340
did not adequately protect the interests of the hearing-impaired, as opposed to
non-English speakers who did not suffer physical impediments to their hearing.
For example, S. 565 would have limited the appointment of interpreters to in-
dividuals who did not speak and understand the English language. Thus the bill
would have excluded from its coverage a totally deaf person who could speak
English, but could not understand it. By specifically providing that it will cover
hearing and speech-impaired individuals, 5. 1315 clearly brings these physically
handicapped persons within the purview of the bill. 1 am pleased that the bill
now before the Subcommittee, while not incorporating all of the key provisions
of 5. 819, includes this important language, as well as others.
I am convinced that the enactment of S. 1315/H.R. 10228 will provide for
meaningful access to our federal courts for millions of Americans. In addition,
this proposal will hopefully serve as a model for similar laws in the states. In
this regard, I am pleased that my own State of Maryland has been in the fore-
front of those jurisdictions which have enacted legislation for the appointment of
interpreters for hearing-impaired individuals in state court proceedings.
Thank you once again for giving me the opportunity to share with the Sub-
committee my views on S. 1315/H.R. 10228.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, Jr.,
U.S. Senator.
THE ASSEMBLY, STATE OF NEW YORK,
Albany, August 11, 1978.
Hon. DON EDWARDS,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights,
U.S. House, House Annex No. 1,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN EDWARDS: I am writing to you as Chairman of the New
York State Assembly Committee on Judiciary to express my support for Congress-
man Fred Richmond's bill, H.R. 10228, entitled the "Bilingual, Hearing, and
Speech-Impaired Court Interpreter's Act".
This bill represents a necessary attempt to expand the protections of due
process of law to some 40 million Americans who, because of language or hearing
handicaps, may not otherwise enjoy a fair trial.
In New York State, Article XII of the Judiciary Law, whose various sections
date in some cases to the latter decades of the nineteenth century, fills the needs
of these particular litigants. New York State, as is overwhelmingly evidenced in
Mr. Richmond's own district, is richly endowed with peoples of many origins
with a high incidence of the use of a language other than English as the primary
tongue. Protection from injustice born of a lack of understanding of court pro-
ceedings is a fixed obligation of our State's constitutional law. It is an obligation
that should be shouldered by our federal judiciary.
One of the Richmond bill's vital proposals is the required certification of
interpreters. As testimony before you has revealed, the means to provide for such
certification do exist. Clearly, the use of interpreters in a court of law without
control over their selection would be unacceptable. In New York State, inte'-
preters are officials of the county courts sworn to their duty by constitutional
oath and are in this way overseen in the performance of their offices.
I urge you to give your fullest consideration to this bill and call for its speedy
adoption into law. By so doing, you would do great service to all language and
hearing handicapped litigants in our federal courts to the betterment of all
Americans and our system of justice.
Yours truly,
ARTHUR J. COOPERMAN, Chairman.
PAGENO="0345"
341
U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS,
Washington, D.C., August ~1, 1978.
Hon. DON EDWARDS,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, House Annex Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CHAIRMAN EDWARDS: The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is pleased
to have this opportunity to comment on H.R. 10228, a companion bill to S. 1315,
which passed the Senate earlier in the 95th Congress. If enacted, H.R. 10228,
entitled the "Bilingual, Hearing and Speech Impaired Court Interpreter Act" will
extend the underlying principles of our judicial system to those individuals who
are not fluent in English, and will provide non-English speaking persons the oppor-
tunity to fully participate in our federal court proceedings. In addition, this bill
represents a positive response to the problems the physically handicapped have
encountered in the courts.
The Commission on Civil Rights has been concerned with the need for bilin-
gualism in education, legal proceedings, and more recently in voting. Commission
reports on these subjects include the six volume Mexican American Education
Studies series,'Mexican Americans and the Administration of Justice in the South-
west (1970), A Better Chance to Learn: Bilingual Bicultural Education (1975) and
Puerto Ricans in the Continental United States: An Uncertain Future (1976). Sev-
eral of the State Advisory Committees to the Commission have looked at various
aspects of the issue including the May 1974 report of our Illinois Committee
"Bilingual Bicultural Education: A Privilege or A Right?" and the 1976 report of
the California State Advisory Committee, "Administration of Bilingual Programs,
Si o No?"
Most numerous among those who do not speak English in the United States
are Hispanic Americans. In its 1970 Supplementary Report on Persons of Spanish
Ancestry, the Bureau of the Census reported 8,000,000 persons whose mother
tongue is Spanish. Many children of Hispanic parents attend schools where the
language of instruction is English. In February, 1974, this Commission released
a study on the education of Mexican Americans in the five Southwestern States
which indicates that the ability of many of these children to function in English
remains limited.2
Other groups are similarly disadvantaged when dealing with English speakind
administrators of justice. During our Southwest Indian Hearings we learneg
that many Native Americans in the Southwest have great difficulty in coping
with a law enforcement system which operates primarily in English. Similar
language problems were uncovered when members of the Chinese, Japanese,
Korean, Filipino and Semoan communities testified before the California State
Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1973.~ These
Americans are not being treated fairly before the law, for they can understand
neither the law nor its process in a justice system which functions almost ex-
clusively in English.
H.R. 10228 establishes new guidelines for obtaining interpreters in our Federal
courts while maintaining a needed flexibility in promulgating those guidelines.
The bill has the following salutary provisions:
It acknowledges the basic right of translation in civil and criminal cases, but
permits the exercise of judicial discretion in ordering complete, simultaneous
translation in certain civil and criminal cases.
Requires that a waiver of interpretive aid be expressly made, and thus prevent
a defendant's silence, or his/her attorney's failure to make timely objections from
being construed as a waiver. As proposed by H.R. 10228 waiver motions by a
defendant must be approved by the presiding judicial officer, following consulta-
tion with counsel. These safeguards, fully reflected on the trial record for the
purposes of appellate review, will eliminate needless litigation.
The bill makes provision for the apportionment of court interpreter costs in
civil proceedings among the parties or allowed as costs in the litigation. This
permits judicial flexibility in resolving the issue of who should bear the additonal
costs in the myriad types of civil litigation likely to come before Federal courts,
1 Ethnic Isolation of Mexican Americans in the Public Schools in The Southwest, April 1971; The Unfinished
Education, October 1971; The Excluded Student, May 1972; Inecuality in School Financing; The Role of Law,
August 1972; Teachers and Studenls, March 1973; Toward Quality Education for MexicanAmericans, February
1974.
2 See also: Lau v. Nichols 349. 414 U.S. 563 (1974). 2,856 students of Chinese ancestry in the San Francisco
public school system did not speak English, and only 1,000 of those children were receiving supplemental
courses in English.
3 American & Pacific Peoples. A Case of Mistaken Identity-A report of the Califorma Advisory
Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Feb. 1975).
35-552 0 - 79 - 22
PAGENO="0346"
342
and to equitably resolve cases involving indigent persons and those able to afford
the cost of an interpreter.
Yet, there are several distinguishing provisions of this bill which, in our view,
make it a significant improvement over the Bilingual Courts bills introduced
during the 93rd and 94th Congress. First, while all the aforementioned bills have
proposed aid to individuals who could not fully comprehend court proceedings in
English, H.R. 10228 extends the aid of interpreters to individuals who have
hearing/speech impairments. We firmly believe that the same policy considerations
that compel the aid of an interpreter for a non-English speaking litigant should
also hold true for an individual who is physically handicapped with a hearing
or speech impairment. Second, this bill would amend the Puerto Rican Federal
Relations Act and add language permitting initial pleadings in the District Court
of Puerto Rico to be in Spanish or English. All further proceedings would be
conducted in English unless the court ordered them to be conducted in Spanish.
Third, H.R. 10228 would amend Title 28 by adding § 1869a, which provides that
a person may not be disqualified from jury service on any federal jury in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico due to inability to speak, read, write and under-
stand English if that person is able to speak, read, write and understand Spanish.
That is, by enabling Spanish-speaking jurors who do not speak English to sit on
cases where the proceedings are conducted in Spanish, juries in the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico will be more "representative" since the majority of the populace
does not speak English. Present Federal law requires that proceedings in the
Federal District Court in Puerto Rico be conducted only in English and, similarily
that "oniy persons able to understand English may serve as jurors." Thus, present
federal statutes not only require that all proceedings in Federal Court be conducted
in a langugage which is foreign to over half the people in the judicial district, but
also elminates half the population from possible service on juries in Federal court
cases. This prevents a cross-section of the general population from serving on
jury panels, a situation which runs counter to the policy of the Jury Selection ands
Service Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-270) which states: "all litigants in Federal court
entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to . . . juries selected at random
from a fair cross-section of the community" (SlOl, 28 U.S.C. 1861).
While .the Commission supports H.R. 10228, there are, nonetheless, areas of
concern which we have with respect to the bill. First, it is not celar from the
language of the bill whether interpreters are provided at the time of the arraign-
ment in criminal cases. In our view, failure to provide interpretive aid at the
time of arraignment and thereafter raises serious constitutional questions, e.g.
whether the defendant fully understands the nature and extent of the charges
against him and knowingly waives any constitutional right to remain silent or to
be represented by counsel. As the Commission on Civil Rights pointed out in the
1970 report Mexican Americans and the Administration of Justice in the Southwest:
"Many Mexican American defendants who have some knowledge of English
lack sufficient proficiency to understand fully the nature of the charges or pro-
ceedings against them. These defendants cannot plead intelligently, advise
their lawyers with respect to the facts, fully understand the testimony of witnesses
against them, or otherwise adequately prepare or assist in their own defense.~"
In our view then, f or an individual accused of a crime, who does not speak
the language of the court, procedural and constitutional safeguards are reduced
to mere trappings.
Indeed, the constitutional protections with respect to interpretive assistance
may arguably extend to the time the Miranda warnings are given. Admittedly,
there is little case law on the right of a defendant to an interpreter in a criminal
case, but relevant cases seem to permit the right of an interpreter to defendants
who cannot effectively communicate with counsel and who lack the financial
resources to hire an interpreter.5 While the thrust of the cited cases provides the
policy underpinnings of this bill, it is nontheless unclear from the language of the
bill as to when interpreters are required and will be provided.
Second, this bill does not require that any proceeding utilizing bilingual inter-
pretation be recorded in addition to any stenographic transcript. Further, it is
not clear whether H.R. 10228 authorizes the presiding judicial officer to order a
recordirg at his/her discretion. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is cognizant
4 "Mexican Americans and the Administration of rustice in the Southwest", A report of the U.S. Com-
mission on Civil Rights (1970) at 69.
United States ex rel. Negron v. State of New York, 310 F. Supp. 1304 (1970) afl'd 434 F. 2d 386 (1970); U.S.
v. Desist, 384 F. 2d 889, afi'd 394 U.S. 244 (1968).
PAGENO="0347"
343
of the standards outlined in the bill for the certification of interpreters, but
ineffective and/or erroneous translation is possible nonetheless. If that should
occur, however rare it may be, the fact of the matter is that appellate review would
be difficult, if not impossible, absent a record of the translation. Moreover in the
absence of recording, how can the accuracy of an interpreter be measured? ólearly,
accuracy of translation is a wholly separate issue from the qualifications of
interpreters.
The Commission does not take the position that electronic recording of testi-
mony should be mandatory-admittedly it would not be necessary in many cases
and thus unjustifiably expensive. It would seem preferable to expressly leave to
the Judge's discretion those instances when recording is either (1) necessary or
(2) when the recording can serve to verify portions of testimony. While cost and
frivolous appeals are valid considerations for not including recordation in the
bill's provisions, on balance, this Commission feels that granting this discretion
to the bench and the importance of accuracy of translation outweighs these con-
cerns. Conceivably at stake is the freedom of an individual, which is paramount
to cost considerations and court convenience. At the very least, we would hope
the hearing record on H.R. 10228 is clarified to reflect that recordings can be
utilized if the court believes it is warranted. In addition, we urge amendment of
H.R. 10228 to require presiding judicial officers to order recordings as a. method
of verifying the accuracy of interpreted testimony.
The Commission strongly supports H.R. 10228 as a progressive -measure which
will assure all Americans full access to our judicial system-despite whatever
language, speech or hearing impairments individuals may have. Although there
have been earlier bills concerning bilingual aid in the Federal court system, this
is the first bill that has extended this type of significant aid to physically handi-
capped individuals. This reflects a growing awareness of American minorities who
have been kept for so long outside the mainstream of American life. Again, the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights would like to thank you for the opportunity
to submit this statement for the hearing record.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM T. WHITE, Jr.,
Acting Staff Director.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., August 2, 1978.
Hon. DON EDWARDS,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights,
House Committee on Judiciary,
Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR DON: During today's Subcommittee hearings on H.R. 10288, the Bilin-
gual, Hearing and Speech Impaired Court Interpreter's Act, the testimony of one
witness may have confused some important issues pertaining to certification of
interpreters.
Ms. Harary did not clearly indicate that her association of court interpreters is
exclusively a bilingual interpreter organization, and that it neither represents nor
maintains contacts with manual or oral interpreters for the deaf. In addition,
Ms. Harary's testimony did not clearly state whether her bilingual interpreter's
association was a local, state or national organization.
The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf has 2200 holders of Comprehensive
Skills Certificates nationwide, all of whom are capable of courtroom interpretation.
However, bilingual court interpreters do not have similar standards for certifying
interpreters nor a nationwide court interpreter association with state chapters
certifying courtroom interpreters.
I consider it essential that the Subcommittee retain provisions in the bill re-
quiring the judicial officer to consult with the local chapter of interpreters for the
deaf to ensure that a skilled, certified interpreter is available in the courtroom.
I strongly urge my colleagues on the Subcommittee to retain this established
standard for selecting qualified interpreters for the speech and hearing impaired.
All good wishes.
Yours sincerely,
FRED RICHMOND.
PAGENO="0348"
344
REGISTRY OF INTERPRETERS FOR THE DEAF, INC.,
Washington, D.C., August 4, 1978.
Hon. DON EDWARDS,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights,
House Committee on Judiciary, Rayburn Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE EDWARDS: I have been given a copy of the testimony of
Paulette Harary of 124 Tilton Drive, Freehold, New Jersey, that was given to the
Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights on HR. 10228 on Wednesday,
August 2, 1978. I feel compelled to address statements made in her testimony and
in the questions and answers that followed in order to clarify what I perceive
could confuse statements made by me as an interpreter for hearing-impaired
individuals in testimony given by me on August 2, 1978.
GENERAL STATEMENTS
Paulette Harary is a foreign language interpreter and not an interpreter for the
hearing-impaired. Sign language is classified as a language, in fact the 3rd most
used foreign language in the United States. However, it is a language using a
different mobility than spoken foreign languages. Very Specialized skills (not
required of the spoken foreign language interpreter) must he had by an individual
serving the function for hearing-impaired as an interpreter of American Sign
Language or translator of Signed English. Unless a foreign language interpreter
has acquired sign language skifis this individual cannot speak on behalf of the
interpreters for the hearing-impaired.
Paulette Harary has made sweeping statements about interpreters which could
be interpreted to include the interpreters for hearing-impaired individuals. How-
ever, it must be noted that the problems that hearing-impaired individuals and the
interpreters for the hearing-impaired individuals face are based on linguistic
limitations due to a hearing defect. These problems are far more complex than
those of translating from one spoken language to another for a client who has
basic linguistic competency.
The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. has found it necessary to develop
a Certification Program for the Legal Interpreter in order to objectively insure
that the individual prosesses the necessary interpreting skills. The Certification
Program is a way the interpreters of the hearing-impaired have of upgrading
themselves in order to he of service to both the hearing-impaired and hearing
clients.
The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. does not choose to provide
testimony of the foreign language interpreters since we are not familiar with the
problems they face and would not want to make erroneous statements regarding
their needs.
TESTIMONY PRESENTED
TESTIMONY OF PAIJLETTE HARARY
P. 1-Interpretive services can be provided for the non-English speaking
defendant and the deaf mute before trial courts.
The term "deaf-mute" is never used by any interpreter for hearing-impaired
individuals. It is insulting as well as scientifically incorrect. Hearing-impaired
individuals strongly dislike the term and it is not used in the profession. Such a
statement, on the part of Ms. Harary indicates the lack of knowledge or even
awareness, in the field of deafness.
P. 2-Examination and certification of court interpreters. Grandfather clause
awarded to those with successful performance.
The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. would never consider a grand-
father clause as a vehicle to certify a court room interpreter for hearing-impaired
individuals since this provides no objective way of truly assessing an individuals
skills. We feel that an objective examination and certification is necessary and
must be done under the supervision of a National Organization to insure con-
sistency in performance nationwide.
P. 3-All too often because qualifying examination or certification does not
exist significant delays attend the proceedings.
The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. has a general certification process
that has been in existence since 1972 and the Legal Certification process since
1975. As interpreters are certified and present their credentials on demand there
is no significant delay to the consumers, he they hearing or hearing-impaired.
PAGENO="0349"
345
P. 4-That is necessary to construct a test instrument that will measure
proficiency of language skills.
The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. has constructed a test instrument
to objectively measure the skill of the interpreter for the hearing-impaired in-
dividuals. For detailed information, kindly refer to my original testimony,
pp. 4, 5, 6.
P. 5, 6, 7-Role of interpreter, professional development ongoing supervision.
The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. has built all of this into its
Code of Ethics and Certification. (IF. appendices C-pg. 2, 3, 4, 5, of original
testimony).
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS RELATED TO Ms. HARARY'S TESTIMONY
P. 64-AME 1141-1145.
In reference to training for hearing-impaired interpreters there are now 28
programs where interpreters can go to get training from a non-degree level to a
bachelors. Seventeen states now have some official and formal type of program
to train individuals to meet the needs of the hearing-impaired, either with sign
language or oral interpreting. The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. has
proposed Principles, Guidelines and Standard for the Accreditation of Interpreters
Training Programs which I have enclosed.
P. 66 and 67-AME 1187-1199.
With the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. certification for the inter-
preters for the hearing-impaired individuals competence of the interpreter is
immediately determined by the certification held, thus not placing the consumers
at a disadvantage. The evaluation process does eliminate unqualified interpreters
which is to the benefit of the consumers.
P. 68-AME 1220.
The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. already has a National Certifica-
tion Program for those interpreters who wish to function in the courts and has
issued certificates to those interpreters who have met minimum standards, there-
fore, it would not be a cost effective measure to have another agency duplicate for
interpreters for the hearing impaired what is already in existence.
P. 68 and 69-AME 1227-1235.
I do not agree with the statement that State Agencies in the Case of the inter-
preters for the hearing-impaired individuals are not qualified to deal with certifi-
cation at this time. It is appalling to see how little awareness there is for the needs
of the handicapped in general. To saddle an inexperienced agency with a certifica-
tion process that is foreign to them, would perpetuate the injustice that the hear-
ing-impaired are struggling to rectify in #R10228.
In the case of certification of oral and sign language interpreters for hearing-
impaired understands, there is no certification expense to any level of government
since the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. does this as a matter of its
professional commitment to the hearing-impaired community. The certification
program is not bureaucratic, but rather democratic in nature since the hearing-
impaired consumers and interpreters sit on the evaluation panels that assess the
skills of a candidate for certification.
The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. is not in the business of limiting
the number of certified interpreters but in business to assess the skills of a seasoned
or neophyte interpreter so that the consumers receive the best interpreting
services possible. The need for certified interpreters continues to grow as hearing-
impaired individuals expand their involvement in society.
P. 69-AME 1242-1249.
A Civil Service evaluation procedure for interpreters for hearing-impaired
individuals would be a costly system to set up since audio and film production
would be necessary to develop objective evaluations. The Registry of Inter-
preters for the Deaf, Inc. has a certification process that has been developed by
the National office and thus maintains a National standard.
P. 70-AME 1268-1270.
Congress would not have to be involved as the Registry of Interpreters for the
Deaf, Inc. acceptsthe responsibility to supply oral and sign language interpreters
for nearing-imDaired individuals in every state.
P. 71-AME 1271-1282.
In regard to endorsements the Board of the Registry of Internreters for the
Deaf, Inc. feels that an objective evaluation by a group of individuals is far
superior to any subjective endorsement.
P. 73-AME 1313-1318.
PAGENO="0350"
346
In all due respect to the judiciary, one who is not familiar with the problems
of deafness cannot often, even tell if the interpretation is correct by just the
response. That is why an objective evaluation is necessary to assess the skills before
the interpreter for a hearing-impaired individual begins an assignment.
I strongly encourage the Subcommittee to retain provisions in the bill requiring
the judicial offices to consult with the local chapters of the Registry of Interpreters
for the Deaf, Inc. to insure that a skilled certified interpreter for hearing-impaired
individuals is available in the courtroom.
Furthermore, the guarentee of justice in the judical process at the federal level
and the retention of the established standards for selecting qualified interpreters
for hearing-impaired individuals through the certification process established by
the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. is essential to insuring nationwide
consistency.
Again, my sincerest thanks for permitting me to provide input to the Subcom-
mittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights.
Sincerely yours,
CARL J. KIRCHNER,
Immediate Past President
of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. CHATOFF
* * * [O]ur final goal is not simply to reduce caseloads or merely make our~
courts run more smoothly. Our goal is, and must be, to provide access to justice
to all our people. Judicial reform-if it is to deserve our support-must preserve
the courts, particularly the federal judiciary, as the forum where fundamental
rights will be protected and the promise of equal justice under the law will be
redeemed. Vice President Walter F. Mondale, 123 Congressional Record 5 15022,
15023, September 15, 1977.
My name is Michael Chatoff. I am a member of the Bar of the State of New York~
and a senior editor for the West Publishing Company. I am totally deaf.
These comments are directed towards those provisions of the Bilingual, Hearing
and Speech Impaired Court Interpreter Act that deal with the communications
problems of hearing and speech impaired individuals (hereinafter, hearing impaired
individuals). However, much that I wifi say pertains to non-English-speaking
individuals as well. Indeed, one recent California case that I will cite deals with a
non-English-speaking individual.
I think it is clear beyond any shadow of a doubt that a defendant in a criminal
proceeding who cannot speak and/or understand spoken English because of a
physical impairment is entitled to that assistance that will conform to due process
of law; enable him to truly confront the witnesses against him; and permit him to
confer with counsel. In other words, to participate in a meaningful way in his own
defense. (Terry v. State, 21 Ala. App. 100, 102 So. 386 (1925); United States ex rel.
Negron v. State of New York, 434 F. 2nd 386 (Second Circuit, 1970).)
Insofar as civil proceedings are concerned, the basic issues presented deal with
fairness and access to the courts of this country, although I have little doubt
that the principles mandating the appointment of an interpreter for a hearing
impaired individual in criminal proceedings apply in civil proceedings as well.
The Fifth Amendment prohibits the denial of "~` * * property, without due
process of law." In the final analysis, all civil proceedings deal with property.
It is axiomatic that one who cannot hear cannot understand verbal language.
Disputes that cannot be settled out of court, must be resolved by resort to the
judicial process. If an individual cannot resort to the judicial process, then he is
being denied a right available to other people. If a hearing impaired individual
cannot bring suit against a neighbor for the removal of an encroachment on his
property solely because of the communications problems he will encounter in a
court of law, then his denial of access to the courts will result in the loss of his
property. If a hearing impaired individual cannot bring suit against the seller
of a defective product, then he has suffered a diminution in his property, because
he paid for a product that is partially or completely worthless.
The best estimate is that there are more than 13 million hearing impaired in-
dividuals in this country (The Deaf Population in the United States, Jerome D.
Schein and Marcus T. Delk), although others have estimated the figure to be as
high as 20 million. Few such individuals have ventured into Federal court, be-
cause, in their eyes, by failing to make provision for their communications needs,
the Federal judicial structure has indicated to them that they are not wanted
and they are very good at taking a hint.
PAGENO="0351"
Insofar as hearing impaired individuals are concerned, section 43(f) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is, at best, a paper tiger. Although the Advisory
Committee states that it is intended to provide discretionary authority to appoint
an interpreter for a deaf person, by its terms, as implemented by Rule 604 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence, it cannot possibly do so. Fewer than one half of all
hearing impaired individuals rely upon sign language for communications purposes.
Of course, there can be no suggestion of translation with regard to other forms of
communication relied upon by hearing impaired individuals, e.g., residual hearing
used in conjunction with lipreading; and transcription. Nor does one translate
into sign language. Sign language is not a language but a mode of communication
by which individuals who cannot hear spoken English converse in English by
means of manual movement. One interprets into a mode of communication. It
comes as no surprise to me that extensive research has not revealed a single
citation dealing with the appointment of an interpreter for a hearing impaired
individual under section 43(f).
Five years ago, Congress enacted the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.
§ 701 et seq. Section 504 of that Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, provides for the termination
of funding to recipients of Federal financial assistance that discriminate against
otherwise qualified handicapped individuals. Just as Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 established a procedure to enforce the preexisting right of individuals
to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in
programs and activities supported by Federal funds, so too, section 504 merely
establishes a procedure to enforce the preexisting prohibition against discrimina-
tion against otherwise qualified handicapped individuals in programs and activ-
ities receiving Federal financial assistance. Actions brought under section 504 to
date affected and actions that will be brought under section 504 in the future will
affect the rights and livelihoods of millions of handicapped individuals. But how
can a hearing impaired individual assert his rights under section 504 if he cannot
communicate in court. Without enactment of this legislation, section 504 will
represent nothing more than an empty promise to those 13 million individuals
who suffer from hearing impairments.
To date, there have been three cases brought by hearing impaired individuals
under section 504; Barnes v. Converse College, 436 F. Supp. 635 (SDSC, 1977);
Crawford v. University of North Carolina, 440 F. Supp. 1047 (DNCC, 1977); and
Davis v. Southeastern Community College, 574 Fed. 2d 1158 (Fourth Circuit, 1978).
Two of those cases dealt with the need for interpreters in institutions of higher
education in order to further the education and employment opportunities of the
plaintiffs; the other case dealt with the right of a hearing impaired individual to
practice the profession of her choice.
In the three cases, the National Center for Law and the Deaf, Legal Defense
Fund, represented the plaintiffs and presumably supplied them with the necessary
interpreter services, at the district court level, to enable them to participate in the
prosecution of their cases. But the Legal Defense Fund has limited financial
resources; even if it is in existence today, which is problematical, it can represent
no more than two or three clients a year. Without the enactment of this legisla-
tion, those hearing impaired individuals not fortunate enough to retain the Legal
Defense Fund would be denied access to the Federal court system, the establish-
ment that has been "on the cutting edge of the fight for social justice in our
nation." ibid. 5. 15023.
In recent years, Congress has enacted several laws to protect the rights of con-
sumers, e.g., the Consumer Product Safety Act, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty-
Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, and the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act. However, hearing impaired individuals have not been able to, and
will not be able to, assert their rights under those laws if they are not provided
access to the Federal judicial system.
Certainly, it cannot be assumed that without specific statutory direction,
judges, even of the most enlightened courts, will assure the provision of the neces-
sary services to enable individuals who suffer from communications disabilities
to participate in judicial proceedings that threaten to deprive them of life, liberty,
or property. See, for example, Jara v. Municipal Court for the San Antonio Judicial
District, 145 Cal. Reptr. 847, 578 P. 2d 94 (1978). Further, a statutory enactment,
and the rules and regulations that implement that enactment, must be as specific
as possible to make it difficult for judges to resort to superficial and tortured
interpretations in order to deny their responsibilities thereunder. See, for example,
Matter of Chatoff v. Public Service Commission of the State of New York, 60 A.D.
2d 700,400 N.Y.S. 2d 390 Third Department, 1977).
PAGENO="0352"
348
The judicial system provides court houses, judges, bailiffs, lighting, micio-
phones, etc.-in fact, everything that is needed to provide access to justice to
individuals who converse in spoken English. If we are to have a judicial system
that is accessible to all, that system must provide the means of access to justice
to individuals who cannot converse in spoken English. A person should be granted
or denied access to justice based upon the merits or demerits of his claim, not
because of his ability or inability to converse in a particular mode of communica-
tion.
The Administrative Office of the United States Courts estimate the initial cost
of 5. 819, the precursor of those provisions of 5. 1315 dealing with hearing impaired
individuals, to be $260,000. (Senate Report No. 95-569, page 10). However, recent
Congressional actions may reduce that small amount even further. Irrespective
of the enactment of H~R. 10228-5. 1315, in criminal proceedings, the Federal
Government would have to provide interpreter services to hearing impaired indi-
viduals at its own expense. This legislation would grant the court discretionary
authority to have the cost of interpreter services taxed as costs in civil actions.
Also, this legislation would direct the clerk of each district court to establish a
procedure for the certification of competent interpreters and to compile and keep
current lists of those certified interpreters. (That is the heart of the bill; without
that provision, more often than not, the requirement that a qualified interpreter
be appointed would be meaningless, because none could be located.) Earlier in
this Session of Congress, the Senate Committee on Human Resources reported
5. 2600, proposed Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental
Disabilities Amendments of 1978. Part B of Title IV of that bill would authorize
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to establish programs to train
and certify interpreters to meet the communications needs of hearing impaired
individuals throughout the country. The companion House bill, H.R. 12467, which
has already been passed, contains no such provision. However, all of the Floor
Managers of that bill cosponsored a bill, H.R. 11856, similar to Part B of Title
IV of S. 2600, so it seems likely that conferees will accept the Senate provision
when a conference is formed later in this Session.
The programs established under H.R. 12467-5. 2600 could provide the certifi-
cation procedure necessary to implement those provisions of the Bilingual, Hear-
ing and Speech Impaired Court Interpreter Act dealing with hearing impaired
individuals, and the lists that must be prepared by the clerks of the various dis-
trict courts could be prepared by or in cooperation with the directors of those
programs.
Needless to say, I support H.R. 10228-5. 1315 enthusiastically; although I do
have some misgivings about the bill as passed by the Senate. Eighty-five to ninety
percent of the bill is excellent; however, the provisions of the bill providing relief
to hearing impaired individuals lost a great deal of their vitality during the process
of merging S. 819, as introduced by Senator Mathias, a proposed Interpreters for
the Hearing Impaired Act, and 5. 1315, as introduced, a proposed Bilingual Courts
Act. I am attaching hereto comments I submitted to the Senate Subcommittee
on Improvements in Judicial Machinery concerning specific provisions of the bill.
Also, attached hereto is an article published in the New York Supplement in
August 1976, which served as the impetus for the introduction of 5. 819 by
Senator Mathias in February 1977.
PAGENO="0353"
`349
~...4r1icfe 0/ S~pecia/ inlereôt
The Deaf Individual in a Legal Setting
by
MICHAEL A. CHATOFF*
Almost 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson said: "Equal and exact jus-
tice to all men * * * These principles form the bright constellation
which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolu-
tion. and reformation." This country has taken great strides to guarantee
that equal justice is assured to all individuals-but much remains to be
done. Legally, deaf individuals are among the truly disenfranchised. It is
axiomatic that one who cannot hear, cannot understand legal proceedings.
Lipreading is a very imprecise science-even in an ideal situation an adept
lipreader can understand no more than 40 to 50 percent of words spoken.
on the lips, but a courtroom proceeding is far from an ideal situation-
different people speak in rapid succession so that a person attempting to
read the speakers' lips must swivel his head as if he were at a tennis match.
Further, the tone of some communications can be gleaned from the gestures
of the speaker, but frequently a deaf individual will find it difficult to
determine who the speaker is at any one time. Also, it should be noted that
many deaf individuals have little or no usable speech-because the develop-
ment of speech requires that an individual hear his own voice as well as
the voices of others.
Clearly, in a criminal proceeding, a deaf individual cannot confront
(in the Constitutional sense) the witnesses against him or consult with or
assist counsel-unless his deafness is compensated for in some way. An
interpreter should be appointed for him as a matter of right. A qualified
interpreter can interpret the proceedings into sign language (fewer than
one half of the deaf individuals in this country know sign language, because
most schools for the deaf and many educators of the deaf are opposed to
teaching deaf students any form `of manual communication), transcribe
them, or use any other technique designed to convey the meaning of the
proceedings to the deaf individual and to convey the testimony of the deaf
individual to the court. True, the simultaneous transcription of the pro-
ceedings will slow the legal process, but the alternative will be to deny the
defendant, solely because of his deafness, the Constitutional rights that are
his due. It would be ludicrous for the Federal Government or a State
Government to place in jeopardy the life, liberty, or property of a deaf
* Mr. Chatoff is a member of the Bar of the State of New York and a legal editor
with West Publishing Company.
385 N.Y.S.2d No.4 19
PAGENO="0354"
`.350
DEAF INDIVIDUALS AND THE LAW
individual and then to deny that individual the right to defend himself,
solely because of a physical disability that can be compensated for. See
Mothershead v. King, 112 F.2d 1004 (Eighth Circuit, 1940); and Ralph
`v. State, 124 Ga. 81, 52S.E. 298 (1905).
In a far-sighted opinion, fifty years ago a State judge noted the prob-
lems of a deaf defendant in a criminal proceeding : "In the absence of an
interpreter it would be a physical impossibility for the accused, a deaf-mute,
to know or to understand the nature and cause of the accusation against
him, and, as here, he could only stand by helplessly, take his medicine, or
whatever may be coming to him, without knowing or understanding, and
all this in the teeth of the mandatory constitutional rights which apply to
an unfortunate deaf-mute, just as it (sic) does to every person accused of a
violation of the criminal law ~ * ~ Mere confrontation would be use-
less ~ ~ * bordering upon the farcical, if the accused could not hear
or understand the testimony." Terry v. State, 21 Ala.App. 100, 105 So.
386 (1925).
To date, more than thirty States' have enacted laws providing for the
appointment of an interpreter for a deaf defendant in a criminal proceed-
ing. Although those laws represent a substantial beginning, the Federal
Government and almost two-fifths of the States have no statutory provi-
sions to protect the rights of a deaf defendant. Further, not one of the
existing State statutes is even arguably adequate, for one or more of the
following reasons. They:
1. Provide for the translation of the proceedings into sign language
only (thereby denying a deaf individual who does not know sign
* language his Constitutional rights, for that reason alone; Cf.
Ferrell v. State, 479 S.W.2d 916 (Texas Crim.App., 1972));
2. Require a deaf individual to request affirmatively the assistance
of an interpreter (an unlikely occurrence inasmuch as most deaf
individuals are unfamiliar with the law);
3. Fail to provide for the appointment of an interpreter at critical
stages in the criminal process that precede trial, i. e., arraignment,
line-up (essential steps at which accused individuals are supposed
to be accorded all Constitutional rights);
4. Fail to provide for Governmental payment for the services of an
interpreter (thereby requiring a deaf individual, who more often
than not is a low-income individual, to pay for such services, to
assure him rights due him under the Federal and State Constitu-
tions; See Myers v. County of Cook, 34 Ill.2d 541, 216 N.E.2d 803
(1966)); or
1 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
20
PAGENO="0355"
351k
DEAF INDIVIDUALS AND THE LAW
5. Fail to provide for the certification and registration of interpre-
ters for deaf individuals (thereby making it all but impossible for
judges, except in large municipalities, to locate a qualified inter-
preter).
Although there are some similarities in the legal problems experienced
by deaf individuals and by mentally incompetent individuals and individuals
who speak a language other than English, the problems of individuals in
the three groups differ considerably and any attempt to assure the rights
of more than one group in one piece of legislation will result most assured
ly in the denial of rights to all concerned Except in rare instances a physi
cal disability, such as deafness, can be compensated for if the necessary ef-
fort is made. Although I do not profess to know or understand all the
problems of mentally incompetent individuals it is my belief that little
can be done in a legal setting to compensate for a mental deficiency Of
course, the problems of an individual who is unable to speak a particular
language can in no way be compared with the problems of an individual who
has lost one of the two major senses.
The right of a deaf individual to an interpreter in a criminal proceed
ing would appear to be irrefutable. Several of the above-referred to State
statutes provide for the appointment of an interpreter for a deaf individual
in a civil proceeding as well The Constitutional right of a deaf individual
to the appointment of an interpreter in a civil proceeding remains un
clear, although the case of Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 91 S.Ct. 780,
28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971) and the decisions following hold that an individual
cannot be denied "access to the courts" in civil matters.. Inasmuch as a
deaf individual who has not been provided with an interpreter will be shut
out of the courtroom as surely as if the doors had been locked and the key
thrown away, he may well. be denied the "access to the courts" that is his
Constitutional right.
Helen Keller stated on several occasions that deafness is a more severe
disability than blindness because of the difficulty it creates in communica-
tions between individuals. However, it is not my purpose to pit the deaf
against the blind-each reader can decide for himself which disability he
considers the more severe But either or even both can be lived with if
others who are in a position to do so take the necessary steps to compen-
sate for that disability; As a matter of humaneness alone, individuals
capable of assuring deaf individuals an opportunity to understand proceed-
ings that threaten to deprive them of their freedom ought to seize the op-
portunity But the problem is more than one of humaneness it seems
incontestable that any legal system that seeks to deprive an individual of
his liberty must accord him the chance to defend himself.
The following is a model bill to provide interpreters in criminal and
civil proceedings in United States District Courts for hearing impaired de-
fendants, parties, and witnesses. Much of the bill is derived from S. 565,
a proposed Bilingual Courts Act, passed by the U. S. Senate on July 14,1975.
21
PAGENO="0356"
352
DEAF INDIVIDUALS AND THE LAW
Interpreters for the Hearing Impaired Act
PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING HEARING IMPAIRED
INDIVIDUALS
Sec. 2. (a) Chapter 119 of Title 28, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end thereof the following new section:
§ 1827. Proceedings involving the hearing impaired
(a) (1) In any criminal action, whenever the judge determines, on his
own motion or on the motion of a party to the proceedings, that (A) the
defendant, because of hearing impairment, does not speak or understand
the English language with a facility sufficient for him to comprehend
either the proceedings or the testimony, or (B) in the course of such pro-
ceedings, testimony may be presented by any person who because of hear-
ing impairment does not speak or understand the English language, the
court in all further proceedings in that action, including arraignment,
hearings, and trial, shall order that (1) the proceedings be conveyed to
that party or witness in a language or other mode of communication that
he understands and (2) the testimony of that party or witness be inter-
preted into English for the court by an interpreter in accordance with the
provisions of subsection (b) of this section.
(2) In any civil action, whenever the judge determines on his own
motion or on .the motion of a party to the proceedings, that (A) a party,
because of hearing impairment, does not speak or understand the English
language with a facility sufficient for him to comprehend either the pro-
ceedings or the testimony, or (B) in the course of the proceedings, testi-
mony may be presented by any person who because of hearing impairment
does not speak or understand the English language, in all further proceed-
ings in that action, including hearings and trial, the court shall order that
(1) the proceedings be conveyed to that party or witness in a language or
other mode of communication that he understands and (2) the testimony
of that party or witness be interpreted into English for the court by an
interpreter in accordance with the provisions of subsection (b) of this
section.
(3) In any criminal or civil action, the judge, on his own motion or
on the motion of a party to the proceedings, may order all or any part of
the testimony of the hearing impaired individual and the interpretation
thereof to be electronically recorded (visually) for use in verification of
the official transcript of the proceedings.
(4) The defendant in any criminal action, or a party in any civil ac-
tion, who is entitled to an interpretation under this section, may waive
the interpretation in whole or in part; the waiver must be expressly made
by the defendant or party upon the record and approved by his attorney
(if he be a defendant) and by the judge. An interpreter shall be used to
explain the nature and effect of the waiver to the hearing impaired defend-
ant or party.
(5) The term "judge" as used in this section shall include a `United
States magistrate, a hearing examiner, and a referee in bankruptcy.
22
PAGENO="0357"
353
DEAF INDIVIDUALS AND THE LAW
(b) (1) The district court in each judicial district shall maintain on
file in the office of the clerk of the court a list of all persons in that dis-
trict who have been certified as interpreters for the hearing impaired by
the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts un-
der section 604(a) (12) of this title.
(2) In any action where the services of an interpreter are required
to be utilized under this section, the court shall obtain the services of a
certified interpreter from within that judicial district, except that, where
there are no certified interpreters in that judicial district, the court, with
the assistance of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts,
shall determine the availability of and utilize the services of certified in-
terpreters from a nearby district. When no certified interpreter is avail-
able from a nearby district, the court shall obtain the services of an other-
wise competent interpreter. If the interpreter appointed by the court is.
unable to communicate effectively with the defendant, party, or witness,
as the case may be, the court shall dismiss such interpreter and appoint
another interpreter.
(c) The analysis of chapter 118 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new item:
§ 1827. Proceedings involving the hearing impaired
FACILITIES AND PERSONNEL FOR PROCEEDINGS
INVOLVING THE HEARING IMPAIRED
Sec. 3. Section 604(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended-
(1) by redesignating paragraph (12) as paragraph (13); and
(2) by inserting immediately below paragraph (11) the following
new paragraph:
(12) Under section 1827 of this title, (A) prescribe, determine, and
certify the qualifications of persons who may serve as certified interpre-
ters in proceedings involving the hearing impaired and in so doing: shall
consider the education, training,and experience of those persons; (B) main-
tain an updated list of all interpreters certified by him, and report annually
on the frequency of requests for, and the use and effectiveness of inter-
preters in proceedings involving the hearing impaired; -(C) provide, or
make readily available to each district court, appropriate equipment and
facilities for the interpretation of proceedings involving the hearing im-
paired; (D) prescribe, from time to time, a schedule of reasonable fees
for services rendered by such interpreters and in those districts where the
Director considers it advisable based on the need for interpreters for the
hearing impaired, authorize the employment by the court of such certified
full-time or part-time interpreters; and (E) pay out of moneys appropri-
ated to the judiciary for the conduct of proceedings involving the hear-
ing impaired the amount of interpreters' fees or costs of recording which
may accrue in a particular proceeding, unless the court, in its discretion,
directs that all or part of those fees or costs incurred in a civil proceeding
in which the interpreter is utilized pursuant to section 1827(a) (2) of this
title be apportioned between the parties or allowed as costs in the action.
23
PAGENO="0358"
354
DEAF INDIVIDUALS AND THE LAW
APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 4. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Fed-
eral judiciary such sums as may be necessary to carry out the amendments
made by this Act.
EFFECTIVE DATE
Sec. 5. The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on Octo-
ber 1, 197
Rules 28 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 43(f) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 604 of the Federal Rules of Evidence
should be amended to conform to the provisions of the Interpreters for the
Hearing Impaired Act.
24
PAGENO="0359"
APPENDIX 3
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., October 17, 1978.
Hon. DON EDWARDS,
Chairman, Civil and Constitutional Rights Subcommittee,
Judiciary Committee,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed please find copy of the translations made by
CRS of the letters from Mr. Pierre E. Vivoni, Public Defender of the United
States for the District of Puerto Rico, dated June 16, 1978 and of the letter from
José H. Picó, Esq., dated July 27, 1977, supporting and endorsing the use of the
Spanish in the Federal District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
Please include them in the record for the hearings of H.R. 10228.
Cordially,
BALTASAR CORRADA,
Member of Congress.
Enclosures.
THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE,
Washington, D.C., June 16, 1918.
[Translation-Spanishl
DEAR COMMISSIONER: Our office has received from the Office of Court Adminis-
tration in Washington (?) a copy of Senate bill 1315, according to which Spanish
would be allowed in the Federal Court in Puerto Rico.
Through means of this letter I would like to state to you my unconditional
support for this bill which would be a very meaningful step in justice for our people.
In the area of criminal law, which is what our office deals with, I believe that it
would have no parallel for the true exercising of the rights and guarantee that
every accused person must have in a penal process and which our constitution
guarantees.
Knowing the upward movement and the sense of justice that you have always
displayed throughout your career as an excellent public servant, I am sure that
you will support the bill as far as your office will allow.
I want you to know, therefore, the personal and official opinion of one of the
persons affected by the approval or non-approval of such a measure.
PIERRE E. VIv0NI,
Public Defender of the United States,
for the District of Puerto Rico.
Translated by Deanna Hammond, Language Services Section, October 12, 1978.
(355)
PAGENO="0360"
356
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
- SAN JUAN. PUERTO RiCO 00904
PIERRE E. VIVONI TEL~PH0NE (609) 722-1361
P. 0. Box 3832
16 de junio de .1978 -
Hon. Baltazar Corrada del Rio
Comisionado Residente en Washington
Cgmara de Represent~antes
Congreso de los EstadosjJnidos de Anigrica
Washington, D. C. 20515.
Estinado sedor Comisionado:
Nuestra oficina ha r~cibido desde la Oficina de Adainistraci6n
de los Tribunales en.Washington copia del proyecto S 1315, por virtud
del cual el espafiol podria uaarse en el Tribunal Federal en*
Puerto Rico.
I
Quiero por la presente manifestarle mi apoyo incondicional para
esta disposici6n que serla un Paso de gran sentido de justicia para
nuestro pueblo. En la inateria de derecho criminal, que es la que
nuestra oficina trata, creo que no tendria paralelo para el verdadero
ejercicio de los derechos y garantias que debe gozar todo acusado en
Un proceso penal y que consagra.nuestra constituci6n.
Conociendola vertical trayectoria y sentido de justicia que su
sefioria a trav6s de su carrera de excelente servidor piiblico siempre
ha desplegado, estoy seguro qua apoyar~ hasta donde las facultades de
su cargo le permitan el referido proyecto.
Quhro por este radio qua conozca la opinidn personal yoficial
de mu cargo como una de las personas afectadas con la aprobacidn o
no aprobacidn de seaejante medida.
Cordialmante
E.
- Defen or 6 ico de los
Estados Unidos para el
Distrito de Puerto Rico
ada .
PAGENO="0361"
357
,~ The Library of Congress
°~ Congressional Research Service
d~ Washington, D.C. 20540
[Document 2J
Dear Balta:
I have read the tentative draft of the bill that you
are thinking of placing before the House of Representatives
with the purpose of allowing processes before Federal District
Courts to be in Spanish whenever the interest of justice so
requires and which you so generously sent me for my comments
and recommendations, with your letter of July 11, 1977.
I have also been examining the documents that you sent
me ~iith it on Bilingual Court Proceedings, the reports on
Senate bills 565. and l721~ as well as the interesting article
from California La~i Review, Vol 63, p. 762, "Interpreters for
the Defense: Due Process for the Non~nglish-Speaking Defendant,"
by William B.C. Chang and.Manuel U.Araujo. I also had the
opportunity to talk with several people about this matter.
Although the~e obviously exist)difficulties that would
have to be overcome with respect to the adoption of the
Spanish language in procedures before U.S. District Courts,
such as the terminology, the jury, the visiting judges, the
language of the officials of the court, the shorthand recorders
and the language of other persons in these procedures before
the court, I feel, that in criminal cases, the need that
not knowing English presents for the accused who only knows
Spanish has to be the first priority, and that it must be
imposed above all those considerations -- not the least of
which is the cost which can be involved with the adoption of
this measure. In U.S. cx rel Negr6n vs. New York 310 Federal
Supplement l301~ (EDNY), aff'd, 1431~ F. 2d. 386 (2d. Cir.,
1970), it was recognized that in order to grant Negr6n his
rights to confrontation it was necessary, under the circum-
stances that he~provided with a simultaneous translation of what
was being said so that he could communicate with his lawyer
and allow him to effectively counterinterrogate those withesses
who were speaking English in order to be able to prove their
credibility, memory and precision of observation in light of
the version of the facts given by Negr6n.
It must be recognized, as said in the report on the
bilingual judicial proceedings that accompanied Bill 565
of the Senate, on pg. 6, that in Puerto Rico Spanish is the
first language and that the majority of the Puerto Ricans,
although taught English as a compulsory secondary langiage in
the Puerto Rican school system, where Spanish is the official
language of instruction, in accordance with the 1970 census,
PAGENO="0362"
358
57.3 per cent of the Puerto Ricans over the age of 10 do
not speak English; in addition, as a result, a substantial
nunber of the accused in crininal cases in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico are persons who do not
speak English; and also that in civil cases nany parties
and witnesses do not speak Spanish.
At the sane tine, it nust be recognized that Spanish is
the nother language of 83 per cent of the PUerto Ricans
residing in the U.S.; and that the statistics fron the census
show that 30 per cent of the Puerto Ricans above the age of
10 cannot write and read the English language (pg. 5 of the
report).
In addition, it~ nust be realized that a representative of
the Instituto de Gerencia de Cortes testified, that there are
8 nillion people of Spanish-speaking origin in the Southeast
and far West andthat approxin~te1y 1t7 per cent cannot easily
read and write English.; *and that, in addition, there is a
nunber of people of Cuban antecedence localized in Florida
and other states and they have difficulties with the language.
(pgs. 5 and 6 of the sane report).
And, if we also consider that,fin accordance with pg. 5
of that report, that the 1970 Census indicated 1,518,000 people
of Puerto Rican origin living in the U.S., we have to conclude
that, in effect, the problen is a serious one, which greatly
affects a group of. Spanish-speaking people who would not have
the advantage of understanding procedures in an English-speaking
court.
In the article on `~Court Interpreters," fron the California
Law Review, it is said that the requirenents of equal protection
fron the laws and due process of law nake nandatory a constitu-
tonal right to interpreters who will carry out the tasks for
the accused who do not speak English (pg. 8olt). (I believe,
that even with an interpreter, the accused cannot understand
with absolute precision all of the proceedings that are carried
out against hin, in particular the argunents of the lawyers.)
Saying that Spanish was the language to be used in the
judicial procedures followed in the tribunals of the Connon-
wealth of PUerto Rico, the Honorable Suprene Court of Fuerto
Rico, through the voice of then Judge don Luis Negr6n Fernandez,
in the case of Pueblo vs. Tribunal Superior, 92 DPR 596, pgs.
6ot~ to 606:
PAGENO="0363"
359
The determining factor with respeôt to use
of language in judicial procedures followed
in the Commonwealth of PUerto Rico does not
arise from the Law of Feb. 21, 1902 (1~) which
Rout invoked in support of: his position that
the trial be held in English because he
didn't know Spanish. (5) It comes from the
fact that the means of expression of our people
is Spanish and that is a reality that cannot
be changed by any Law. (6) Spanish is the
language in which judicial matter~iave been
conducted in more than 15,000 cases (criminal)
and more than 32,000 civil cases in 1963-Sit by the
Superior Courts and in more than 220,000 criminal
cases (in~luding l~45,000 traffic) and more than
28,000 civil cases resolved during the same period
in the District Court. The determining factor
establishes the need~ that the trial of anyone
accused combine those ingredients of due process
of law, impartial judgment and just judgment,
effective defense and equal justice which are
guaranteed in the constitution and laws, regardless
of th? language used in the procedures. The
citize~n has, among other1s, the right to be
informed of the nature of the charge against him
and to confront the witnesses, in addition to having
the right to communicate with his lawyer during
the procedings, for which understanding what is
happening during the trial is essential. If the
accused does not knowthe language being followed
in the procedings, it is imperative, by natural
reason spelled out by guarantees in the constitution
concerning the due process of law, of just trial
of effective defense and equal justice, that
measures be facilitated so that he cam understand
and be aware of the steps of the trial in which
his *freedom can be at stake. Among those means is
the designation of translators to put into his
language what is produced in the courtin a
language other than that of the accused.
(6) The Law of Federal Relations in its Art. 1t2 provides that
the allegations and procedures in the District Court of the
United States for Puerto Rico will be in the English language;
and in Art. 141t establishes as~ one of the requirements that must
be filled by the person who serves on the jury in said Court,
that he "have a sufficient knowledge of the English language
to be able to serve duly as.a jurist." These requirements are in
harmony and preserve the tradition that judicial procedings be
conducted in the English language throughout all of the federal
jurisdiction.
PAGENO="0364"
360
In what refers to judicial procedures in the
courts, the law of February 21, 1902, by saying
that "the Spanish and English languages will be
used indiscriminately" can only have directive
range cf RCA Communications vs. Registrador, 79
DPR 77 (1956) and does not confer the right of
option, neither to the accused nor to his lawyer,
to choose thelanguage in which the proceedings
must be conducted. It is up to the judges, not
the lawyers, to decide the direction of the
procedings in the court and the adoption of
measures that will guarantee the accused a trial.
Spanish being the language of the Puerto Ricans,
judicial procedures in our courts must be followed
in Spanish, but the ~judges will take those
measures which may turn out to be necessary so
that, in protection of the rights of amy accused
who does not know our language well enough, he and
of course his lawyer will have the right to am
effectively informed defense, by means of trans-
latore or another effective means, informed of all
that happens in the tri'l and so that the records
thus show this to be the case."
I consider those words of the Hon. Judge Negr6n Fernandez
to be wise ones and illustrative of this material which is
of interest to us.
in summary then, although I am aware of the serious
difficulties that the adoption of Spanish in district court
procedings may bring, I believe that that must be considered
of less importance than the right of the accused to understand
the procedings that are being held against him. (Although I
feel that the parties in the civil procedings must also have
the meed for that knowledge, it seems to me that it is not
as important, as in the case of an accused.) Therefore, I
understand that all obstaclesmust be overcome, or the
attempt to do so made, to achieve the adoption of the bill
that you are proposing, and that it deserves from persons of
Spanish-speaking origin - evemthose of us who know and
understand the English language - the greatest desire and
endorsement so that your proposal will be adopted.
Cordially,
Jos~ H. Pic6
PAGENO="0365"
361
BUFETE Y NOTARIA
LcDO. JOSE I-i PICO
* (LAW OFFICES)
27 de julio de 1977
Hon. Baltasar Corrada del Rio
Comisionado Residente de P. ~R.
en Estados Unidos de Am~rica
House of Representatives
1319 Longworth House Office B1dg.~
Washington, D. C. 20515
Re: N/E: 25-210-77
Estimado Balta:
He leidoel "tentative draft" del proyecto de Ley que
estas considerando radicar ante ~a Camara de Representantes
de los Estados Unidos, con el prop6sito de disponer que los
procedimientos ante los Tribunales Federales de Distrito
sean en espaflol cuando el inter~s de la Justicia lo requie-
ra, y que tan bondadosamente me referiste, para mis comen-
tarios y recomendaciones, con tu carta del 11 de julio de
1977.
He estado examinamdo tambi~n los documentos que con
me enviaste, sobre "Bilingual Court Proceedings", los inf or-
mes sobre los proyectos del Senado 56~ y 1724, asi como el
interesante articulo del California Law Review, Vol. 63..
762, "Thterpreters for the Defense~ Due Process for the Non-
English-Speaking Defendant", por William B. C. Chang y Ma-
* nuel U. Araujo. Tambien tuve la Oportunidad de conversar
con variaspersonas sobre esteasunto.
Aunque, obviamente, existen dificultades que habrIa
*que veneer en cuanto a la adopci6n del idioma espafiol en
los procedimientos ante los Tribunales de Distrito de los
Bstados Umidos, tales como la apelaci6n, el jurado, los jue-
ces visitantes, el idioma de los funcionarios del Tribunal,
los taquigrafos reporters y el idioma de otras personas en
esos procedimientos ante el Tribunal, considero, que en ca-
SOS criminales, la necesidad que representa para el acusado
que no conozca el ingl6s, y que solamente conozca el espaulol,
* * tiene que ser la primera prioridad, y que debe imponerse so-
* bre todas esas consideraciones-no la menor de las cuales re-.
presenta el costo que.pueda conllevar la adopci6n de esta
medida. En U. S. exrel Negr6n vs. New York 310 Federal
PAGENO="0366"
362
Hon. Baltasar Corrada del RIo 27 de julio de 1977
Supplement 1304 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 234 F. 2d. 3~6 (2d, Cir.,.
1970), se reconoci6 que de manera que se le pudiera reconocer
a Negr6n sus derechos a confrontación, era necesario, bajo
las circunstancias, que sele proveyera a 61 una traducci6n
simul~ánea de lo que estaba siendo dicho para que el pudiera
comuflJ~Carse con su abogado y permitirle a 6ste efectivamente
contrainterrogar aquellos testigos que hablaran ingl6s para
poder comprobar su credibilidad, su memoria, y su precisi6n
de observaci6n, a lá luz de la versi6n de los hechos por Ne-
gr6n.
Debe considerarse, como se expone en el Informe sobre los
procedimientos judiciales bi1ing~ies que a~ompafl6 al proyecto
565 del Senado, a 1a p6gina 6, que en Puerto Rico el espafiol es
el lenguaje prinario y que la mayorIa de los puertorriqueflos,
aunque se ensefia ingl6s como un lenguaje compülsorio secundarlo
en el ~isterpa de esci~ielas de.Tuerto Rico donde el espafi~1 es el
Lenguaje oficial de Lnstrucclon, cte acueDdo ai. Censo cte J.970,
57.3% de los puertorriqueflos sobre la edad de 10 auios nolhablan
ingl6s; adem6s de que, como resultado de ello, un sustancial
mimero de los acusados en casos criminales en el Tribunal de DIs-
trito de los Es~ados Uñidos para el Distrito de Puerto Rico, son
personas de hab~a no inglesa; y q~fe, tanbi6n, en los casos civi-
les muchas partes y testigos no hablan espaflol.
Igualmente debe considerarse tarnbi6n2 que el espafiol es
la~engua madre c~el 83% de los pi~ertorriquenos residiendo On los
Estados tJnidos; y que las estadisticas del Censo indican que el
30% de los puertorriquefios sobre la edad delO aflos no pueden
leer y escrihir el lenguaje ingl6s (pág~ 5 de ese mismo informe).
Adem6s, debe tenerse presente que un representante del Ins-
tituto de.Gerencia de Cortes testificó que hay 8 millones de per-
sonas de origen de habla espafiola en el Suresbey el lejano Oes-
te y que aproxinadamente 47% no pueden fácilmente hablar y escri-
bir el ingl6s; y que, en adici6n, hay un ni~mero de personas de an-
tecedencia cubana localizadas en Florida y otros estados, que tie-
nendificultades de lenguaje (págs, 5 y 6 de dicho propio informe).
~ si consideranos adem6s, que de acuerdo a Ia propia p6g. 2
5 de dicho informe1 el Censo de 1970 seflalaba a 1,518.000 perso-
nas de antecendencia puertorriquefia residiendo en los Estados Uni-
dos, tenemos que concluir, que, efectivamente, el problema es uno
profundo, que afecta grandemente a un nutrido grupo de personas
de habla espafiola que no tendrlan la ventaja de entender los pro-
cedimientos en una Corte de habla inglesa. 2
El citado artlculo sobre "Court Interpreters", del Calif or-
nia Law Review, supra, argumenta que los requisitos de igual pro-
teccion de las leyes y debido procedimiento de Ley hacen mandato-
rio un derecho constitucional a int6rpretes que realicen dichas
PAGENO="0367"
363
Hon. Baltasar Corrada del Rio 27: de Julio de 1977
tareas para acusados que no hablen ing1~s (p~g. ~04). (Yo pienso,
que áun con un int~rprete:,, el acusado no puede entender con to-
da precisi6n todos los procedimientos que se llevan a cabo en su
contra, en particular los argumentos de los abogados.)
Deciciendo que el espafiol era el idioma a emplearse en los
procedimeintos Judiciales seguidos en los tribunales del Estado
Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, ha expresado el Honorable Tribu-
nal Supremo de Puerto Rico, por voz del entonces Juez Presidente,
don Luis Negrón Fernandez, en el caso de Pueblo vs. Tribunal S~-
perior, 92 DPR 596, a las p~ginas 604 a la 606:
"El factor deterininante en cuanto al idiorna a em-
plearse en los procedimientos judiciales seguidos
en lostribunales del Estado Libre AsoOiado*de
Puer~o~Rico no surge de la Ley de 21 de febrero de
l902'-4) que invocó el letrado Rout en apoyo de su
petici6n de que el proceso se ven~~ar~ en ingl6s
porqüe ~l no dominaba el espafiol. Surge del
hecho ~ie que el medio de,expresi6n de nuestro
(4) La Sec. 1 de la referida Ley de 21 de fe-
brero de 1902 (1 L.P.R.A. sec. 51) dispone:
"En todos los tribunales de esta isla y en todas
las oficinas pdblicas, se emplearán indistinta-
mente los idiomas inglés y espafiol; y cuando sea
necesario, se har~n traducciones e interpretacio-
hes orales de un idioma al otro, de modo que las
partes interesadas puedan comprender cualquier
procedimient~o comunicación en dichos idiomas".
(5) El abogado Robert H. Rout fue admitido por
este Tribunal, mediante mociân y sin examen bajo
las dispociiones de la antigua Regla ~ (b) de
nuestro Reglamento, al ejercicio de la abogacia
en Puerto Rico. Prest6 su juramento en espafiol
el 31 de enero de 1959. En la declaraci6n jura-
da en apoyo de su moci6n expuso que residia en
Puerto Rico desde el lro. de febrero de l95~ y que
tenia la intenci6n de continuar residienclo aqui
con su familia.
PAGENO="0368"
364
Hon. Baltasar Corrada del RIo 27 de julio de 1977
pueblo es el. espafthl y esa es una realidad que
no puede ser cambiada por ninguna Ley (6). El
espafiol es el idioma en el que se han seguido
los tr~.mites judiciales en rn~s de 15,000 casos
criminales y en xn~s de 32,000 casos civiles re-
sueltos en el aflo 1963-64 por el Tribunal Supe-
rior y en más de 220,000 casos crininales (in-
cluyendo 145,000 de transito) y m~s de 2~,000
*casos civiles resuhitos en el mismo periodo por
el Tribunal de Distrito. El factor determinan-
te lo establece la necesidad de que el proceso
de todo acusado reuna aquellos ingredientes del
debido proceso de ley, de juicio imparcial y
justo, de defensa efe~tiya y de igual justicia
que legarantizan la~Constituci6n y las leyes,
no importa en que idiona se conduzcan los pro-
cedimientos. Para ello el ciudadano tiene, en-
*tre btros, el derecho a ser informado de la na-
turaleza del cargo que se le imputa y de con-
frontarse con los testigos de cargo, aparte de
tener derecho a comunica~se durante el proceso
con su abogado, para lo cual es indispensable
que entienda lo que ocurre en el juicio. Si el
acusädo no conoce la lengua en que se siguen los
procedimientos, imperativo es, por la raz6n na-
tural que fundamenta las garafltias c'onstitucio-
nales del debido proceso deley, de juicio jus-
to, de defensa efectiva y de igual justicia, que
se le faciliten los medios para que pueda en-
tender y estar al tanto de los tr~mites del pro-
ceso en el cual su libertad puede estar en jue-
go. Entre esos nedios est~ la designaci6n de
traductorespara poner en su idioma lo que en
idiona distinto al del acusado se produzca en
corte.
(6) La Ley de Relaciones Federales en su Art.
42 provee que las alegaciones y procedimientos
en la Corte de Distrito de los Estados Unidos
para Puerto Rico se harán en el idiona ingl4s;
y en su Art. 44 establece como uno de los requi-
sitos que ha de llenar la persona que haya. de
servir de jurado en dicha Corte, el que "tenga
suficiente conocimiento del idiona ing1~s pam
poder servir de jurado debidamente." Estos re-
quisitos est~n en armenIa y conservan la tradi-
ciôn de que los procedimientos judiciales se con-
duzcan en el idioma ingl&s a trav6s de toda la
jurisdicción federal.
PAGENO="0369"
365
Hon. Baltasar Corrada del RIo 27 de julio de 1977
En lo que concierne a los tr~mites judiciales
en los tribunales, la ley de 21 de febrero de
1902, al disponer que "se emplearán indistin-
tamente los idiomas ingl6s y espauiol" s6lo
puede tener alcanCe directivo, cf RCA Communi-
cations vs. RegistradOr, 79 DPR 77 (1956) y no
confiere un derecho de opci6n, ni al acusado
ni a su abogado, para elegir el idioma en que
se deba ventilar el proceso. Corresponde a
los jueces, no a los abogados, la dirección de
los procedimientos en el tribunal y la adop-
ci6n de medidas que garanticen un juicio a los
acusados.. Siendo el espaftol el idioma de los
puertorriquefioS, los procedimientos judiciales
en nuestros tribunal~s deben seguirse en espa-~
fbi, pero los jueces. tomar~n anquellas medidas
que resulten necesarias para que, en protecci6fl
de los derechos de cualquier acusado que no co-
nozca suficientemente nuestro idioma, se manten-
ga a ~ste-y desde luego a su abogado por ser
eli.o parte de su derecho a una defensa efectiva-
infor.~iado, por medio de;traductores 0 de otro
modo eficaz, de todo lo1que transcurra en el pro-
ceso, y para que asl lo revele el record"..
Considero sabias esas palabras del Hon. Juez Negrón Fern&ndez,
y significativamente ilustradoras en esta materia que nos ocupa.
Resumiendo pues, aunque estoy consciente de las serias difi-
cültades que puede conllevar la adopci6n del espafbol en los pro-
cedimientos de las cortes de distrito creo que ello debe ceder an-
te el derecho del acusado a entender ~os procedimientos que se yen-
tilen en su contra. (Aunque considero que las partes en los proce-
dimientos civiles tambi6n deben tener la necesidad de ese conoci-
miento, me parece que no es tan patent e,. como en el caso de un
acusado). Por ello, entieñd-o que deben tratar de vencerse todos
los obstáculos, para lograr la adopción del proyecto que til propo-
nes, y que merece de las personas de origen de habla hispana-adn.
aquellos qüe conocemos y entendemos el idionaingl6s tambi6n-el
mejor deseo y endoso para que asl pueda ser adoptada tu propuesta.
Cordi~lmente,
JHP/mma
PAGENO="0370"
366
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., September 11, 1978.
Hon. DON EDWARDS,
Chairman, Civil and C'onstitutional Rights Subcommittee,
Judiciary Committee,
Rayburn, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed please find copy of the statement of the Puerto
Rico Civil Rights Commission regarding the bill H.R. 10129, "The Bilingual
Court Act". I will appreciate its inclusion on the record for the hearings on this
bill.
I believe the Chairman of the Commission should be called as a witness when
the Subcommittee goes to Puerto Rico for the next round of hearings.
Cordially,
BALTASAR CORRADA,
Member of Congress.
Enclosure.
STATEMENT OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF
PUERTO RICO WITH REGARD TO SENATE BILL 1315, WHICH WOULD ENACT
THE "BILINGUAL, HEARING AND SPEECH IMPAIRED COURT INTERPRETER ACT"
OF THE UNITED STATES
Senate Bill 1315 (H.R. 10129, November 29, 1977) pretends to provide more
effectively for the use of interpreters in the courts of the United States, a bill, if
approved, may be cited as the "Bilingual, Hearing, and Speech Imparied Court
Interpreter Act". Sections 3 and 4 of the aforementioned bill, provides, respec-
tively, that the initial pleadings in the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico
may be filed in either the Spanish or English language and all further pleadings
and proceedings shall be in the English language, unless upon application of a
party or upon its own option, the court, in the interest of justice, orders that the
further pleadings or proceedings, or any part thereof, shall be conducted in the
Spanish language; the written orders and decisions of the court shall be in both
the Spanish and English languages; if an appeal is taken of a trial or proceeding
conducted in whole or in part in the Spanish language, the record or necessary
portions of it, shall be translated into the English language; the cost of the trans-
lation shall be paid by the district court or by the parties, as the judge may direct;
all appellate documents shall be in the English language; and, that no person
shall be disqualified for service on a grand or petit jury summoned in the Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico solely because such person is unable to speak, read, write,
and understand the English language if such person is able to speak, read, write
and understand the Spanish language.
The Civil Rights Commission of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico fully en-
dorses the particulars of said bill, specially those aspects which pertain to the uni-
que language situation of the community which serves the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
There is no need to ascertain further that Puerto Rico is almost totally a Spanish
language community, and 98 percent of the persons who reside in Puerto Rico has
Spanish as its vernacular language. An average command and understanding of
the English language, in spite of educational efforts toward the teaching and
learning of English in the Commonwealth public school system as well as in the
private schools, is not a reality in our Island as a day-to-day vehicle of expression
or understanding, and much less as we confront the complexities of any judicial
proceeding, be it criminal or civil.
We anticipate that with the approval of the bill two main objectives could be
attained:
1. Criminal and civil proceedings will become more meaningful to the parties,
particularly in criminal prosecutions, and the public. Judicial proceedings are not
only the professional responsibility of judges, court personnel or attorneys, it is
also the drama where the parties or accused, the witnesses, the jury, and the
public, deposit the trust for the affirmation of law and the realization of justice.
The fundamental rights of life, liberty and property with the specific or par-
ticular constitutional or statutory guarantees which concretized them and which
PAGENO="0371"
367
may be at stake at any criminal or civil proceeding, requires for the parties a
meaningful understanding and readiness to react to what may happen in court.
Also, the failure to understand the English language by the majority of the people
of Puerto Rico, in a context of a federal court which rests its proceedings in English
only, though it offers at present the service of interpreters or translators, contrib-
utes to develop and reaffirm a sense of alienation from the possibilities of seeking
federal jurisdiction, with regard to the numerous federal legislation which pro-
tects and guarantees important rights and possibilities for the welfare of the poeple
eligible.
2. Grand and petit juries will represent a more real cross section of Puerto Rico.
Language in the context of court proceedings should serve the values of mean-
ingful understanding and faithful apprehension of what it is plead, said, read or
decided with regard to the case. We anticipate that an expertly done interpreta-
tion or translation could remedy the apparent disabilities and apprehensions of
some. The courts as an institution of judges and attorneys would not be isolated
from the body of law developed throughout the rest of the federal system. The
language reality of Puerto Rico together with the political and juridical conditions
which relate our Island with the United States, has required to our judges-since
1953, Puerto Ricans and a majority of the attorneys-who have Spanish as a
vernacular language-to understand the English language and we cannot antici-
pate that such professional necessity will vary with the approval of this bill.
Any lawyer who decides to practice in the Federal District Court for Puerto
Rico-no matter which language he uses at the forum-cannot avoid the profes-
sional responsibility of needing veils nolis to understand the English language not
only as a vehicle of forum expression but as a necessary instrument of juridical
research and professional knowledge. The case of the lawyers is not a right to be
preserved for them but what should be the professional qualifications to render
the service which is expected of them as experts in law finding and litigation. In a
related vein we should add that there is a universal rule of interpretation of law-
and of functioning in accordance with it-that in case of discrepancy between
different language texts of a statute, the text of origin must prevail or shall be
given preference; the same principle should operate with regard to the pleadings,
orders, decisions, case law, and declarations of witnesses. See: Article 13 of the
Puerto Rico Civil Code, 1930; Title 31 of the Puerto Rico Laws Annotated. Section
13, for an example of this principle, annexed. (It should be known that there is an
official translation of the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico-Laws of
Puerto Rico Annotated-and the decisions of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court-
(Puerto Rico Reports)). The quality of interpretations and translations should be
dealt in the typical manner of any adveisary proceeding: through argue objections
or explicit or tacit admissions, by the party or his lawyer.
We see the amendments of this bill not as something which will detract or result
in a denial of equal protection of the laws or of due process for those only English-
speaking persons who may be a party in a civil or criminal proceeding. It is not
to procure or result in reverse discrimination against sole English-speaking parties
or accused that the bill is directed, but to procure effective equality of treatment
and participation to every party as justice and reason may realistically permit.
Cfr., within different contexts, U.S. ex rel Negron v. New York, 434 F. 2d 386
(1970): to avoid the "total incomprehension as the trial proceeded", and, Lau
v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), as to the practicalities of what should be a mean-
ingful education. For only English-speaking parties or party, proceedings must
be conducted or court incidents revealed in the only language which has meaning
for him, and which has been the practice until the present, and all pleadings and
proceedings, inclusive the jury, should be adjusted to attend this English-speaking
party reality. The same equal treatment and opportunity to appreciate and parti-
cipate in the judicial process, within the Spanish-speaking party context, should
be the aspect which will satisfy the apporval of this Bill. And lastly, we want to
emphasize that the jury selection should not be conditioned as is presently, which
normatively dictates a general disqualification for such service because of inability
to understand the English language, but that does not signify that any juror is
particularly qualified to adjudicate facts from a language that such juror does
not understand.
Because of these general considerations, the Civil Rights Commission of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico endoreses the approval of Bill-Senate 1315
(ll.R. 10129).
PAGENO="0372"
368
SAN JUAN LEGAL SERVICES INC.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, November ~9 1978.
Hon. DON EDWARDS,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, House Committee on the
Judiciary, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
HON CONGRESSMAN EDWARDS: I most respectfully submit to YOU my state-
ment endorsing H.R. 13950 and personally and on behalf of my people wish to
thank you for your support of this measure.
I have taken the liberty of sending a copy of my statement and of this letter to
my Congressman, Mr. Corrada.
I look forward to having the pleasure and honor of meeting you sometime in the
future and am at your service.
I remain
Cordially yours,
MIGUEL E. HERRERO FRANK, Esq.
STATEMENT OF MIGUEL E. HERRERO FRANK
Mr. Chairman and members of the sub-committee:
M name is Miguel E. Herrero Frank. I am a Puerto Rican attorney and Execu-
tive Director of San Juan Legal Services, Inc.
I thank the sub-committee for the opportunity to present this statement on
H.R. 13950 and the use of the Spanish language in The Federal District Court of
Puerto Rico.
I wish to state, first of all, that I support H.R. 13950. I extend this support in
my personal capacity as an attorney admitted to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico since January 1957, and in my official capacity as The
Executive Director of a federally funded entity that is responsible for the provision
of legal services to over a quarter million U.S. citizens in the city of San Juan.
I believe that I can also speak for the more than two million poor, loyal U.S.
citizens in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico that constitute the eligible indigent
clientele of legal services programs in Puerto Rico. To these humble United
States citizens living in Puerto Rico, H.R. 13950 represents a step towards making
Federal Judical due process more meaningful.
The use of Spanish in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico is
warranted by every conceivable criteria.
In the U.S. District Court for Puerto Rico, we find Courts presided by Puerto
Rican Judges, with Puerto Rican U.S. Attorneys, with Puerto Rican defense
attorney or attorneys for the parties with Puerto Rican U.S. Marshalls, Puerto
Rican Clerks, Puerto Rican clients or defendants, Puerto Rican witnesses and
Puerto Rican juries.
The conduct of proceedings in English in such a setting represents an anomality
that can only be explained in terms of the traditional historical development.
In the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico the bulk of the population do not speak
English. The 1970 U.S. Census figures indicated that over half of the populations
of Puerto Rico of over the age of 10 did not speak English. With respect to my
experience as Executive Director of San Juan Legal Services I would say that over
three quarters of our clientele are not able to communicate in English and would
certainly be unable to comprehend a judicial proceeding conducted in English.
In so far as the rest of Puerto Rico, outside of the city of San Juan is concerned,
my impression is that an even larger proportion of the legal services clientele
population is unable to comprehend a judicial proceeding.carried out in English.
In criminal proceedings before the U.S. District Court of Puerto Rico, the vast
majority of the defendants are Puerto Ricans unable to understand English. The
U.S. Attorney for the District of Puerto Rico has, I believe, already provided you
with data indicating that in 90 to 95 percent of the criminal cases heard on their
merits, after return of a true bill by the grand jury, an official court interpreter
was granted because the defendants could not understand the proceedings in the
English language. Typically, the poor are among those unable to understand the
proceedings in English.
The use of more than one language in a court system, in one or another manner
has been successfully employed in Canada, Switzerland, India, Belgium, Yugo-
slavia and in other communist states. I understand that Parliament has authorized
the use of Welsh in the courts of Wales. In Spain there is presently a movement
PAGENO="0373"
369
towards granting Basques, Catalans and other regional groups full use of their
language in all governmental affairs. The current trend all over the world is
towards giving linguistic minorities the right to the use of their vernacular in
governmental affairs, including Courts.
All of these schemes used in the different countries of the world present adminis-
trative problems not unlike those that will be presented by the use of the Spanish
language in the U.S. District Court for Puerto Rico. They are part of the price
that must be met if we are to move towards the implementation of a policy of
maximum equality towards the three million Spanish speaking people of Puerto
Rico. I most respectfully differ from the very distinguished and esteemed Judges
of our Federal Court that have raised administrative objections to the implementa-
tion. My belief is that the burdens imposed by the proposed measure are a small
price to pay. The problem is not one of economics or of administrative convenience
but one of national policy.
The problems presented by the proposed use of Spanish in the U.S. District
Court for Puerto Rico are fundamentally Administrative ones. Judges Toledo
and Torruellas have both presented to this committee thoughtful statements
raising these problems in some detail. Their concerns about these administrative
problems should he carefully considered in so far as they imply that there must be
a budgetary commitment to allocate adequate resources to assure the success of
this measure and to assure that no problems will arise due to lack of funding or of
the administrative flexibility necessary to implement the Spanish language Court.
In Chief Judge Toledo the U.S. District Court for Puerto Rico has one of the
really great Federal District Judges and a man of outstanding leadership and
administrative skills. We are most fortunate in having him, at this moment, to
implement this legislation.
Among the arguments I have heard on this matter are those dealing with
alleged problems of translations of Spanish proceedings into English, for appeals.
I believe the opposite is true. At the present time, the District Court in Puerto
Rico uses interpreters that simultaneously translate into English. Though I
believe that the present system is fair, it seems to me that a system of Spanish
language trials with translations from the written record will produce a better
record for appeal than the present one of simultaneous translations by inter-
preters. The reasons for this are obvious. Interpreters in simultaneous translations
have difficulties and are under pressure to get on with the proceedings. Transla-
tors working in the unhurried environment of their privacy can produce better
translations. There are, of course, situations where interpreters will have to be
used even if the trial is in Spanish. But this does not present problems that are
any different than those we now have.
Arguments have been presented suggesting that, in the use of Spanish, serious
problems will arise in dealing with pleadings and citations and use of the law.
In point of fact these problems are no different than those with which the Com-
monwealth of Puerto Rico Courts have dealt with during the past 80 years. In
the Commonwealth jurisdiction, Courts routinely deal with United States Con-
stitutional questions, statutes, regulations and Federal cases in hearings and in
pleadings submitted by attorneys and in Court decisions. Bilingualism in Common-
wealth judicial activities has been a practice, as a matter of necessity, since our
whole judicial and political system is grounded on Federal (i.e. English language)
authority. The system works well and I do not know of any attorney (or judge)
in Puerto Rico that finds it particularly difficult to work in this system. On the
contrary, it is the natural environment under which we all work and we ~re all
the better for it. We have, in Puerto Rico, a Bar with a vision and grasp of the
two greatest legal systems of the world and with an ability to research into the
two languages that possess the greatest and most voluminous juridical literature
in the world.
Federal Courts (including the United States Supreme Court) have been acting
on appeals from Puerto Rico Court Decisions (in their English translated versions
of the Spanish originals) for three quarters of a century. Federal Courts routinely
cite Puerto Rico Commonwealth cases (in their English translation) as authority.
I suggest that a few years after the approval of H.R. 13950 we will find that
the use of the Spanish language in Federal Court will be accepted by all of us as a
natural thing and we may all be wondering why it wasn't done years ago.
Lest we forget, fifty years ago judges and attorneys were supposed to know
their latin and we still toss around our res gesta and res ipsa loquitur. My point
PAGENO="0374"
370
is: the law has grown from many different language sources and attorneys ~nd
judges have historically been very adept at dealing with language problems. In-
deed, lawyers all over the world, are the experts in dealing with problems of lan-
guage and accomplish remarkable things in handling language and translating
concepts from one language and legal system into another. In this context, the
use of Spanish in the U.S. District Court is really no problem.
Questions have been raised as to an official constitutional language of the United
States (English) which by implication is mandatory in the proceedings of the
Federal District Courts. I do not know of any authority to sustain such a position.
In point of fact the very existence of any and all federal courts-other than the
Supreme Court of the United States-is grounded on Congressional Authority.
Article III, Section I of the Constitution of the United States. S
In considering this matter it again came to my mind that the U.S. Constitution,
and the Congress and Judiciary created under it, are remarkable institutions.
There appear to be no limits to the innovative, creative, new things that can be
done under our structure of government. This is one of them.
H.R. 13950 is a proposal of great importance and its approval will bring honor
to the Congress of the United States. I endorse this legislation and urge Congress
to approve it.
TESTIMONY OF HON. MIGUEL A. GIM~NEZ Muf~oz, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
PUERTO Rico
Dear Gentlemen: My name is Miguel A. Giménez Mufloz, Attorney General
of Puerto Rico, and I appear before you today to state the Justice Department's
position in relation to bill of law H.R. 10129 which provides for the use of the
Spanish language in the Federal District Court of Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rico, during the 80 years of mutually beneficial relationship with the
United States, has managed to retain its cultural identity, while at the same time
accepting its share of rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. Such
rights, encompass the ability to understand and actively participate and contribute
in any judicial proceeding such person might be made part of. In the case before
us, the approval of H.R. 10129, which provides for the use of the Spanish language
in the Puerto Rico Federal District Court, is such, that it transcends any technical
inconveniences which may arise out of the implementation of the Spanish language
in the Puerto Rico Federal Court.
In order to adequately assess such a proposal, I deem necessary a brief expose
of Puerto Rico's cultural situation.
Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States in 1898 as a result of the
S Spanish-American War. Upon that happening, Puerto Rico, a totally Spanish speak-
ing country began a long process of assimilation. During the subsequent years,
Puerto Rico's political as well as educational institutions developed in such a way
that English became an important factor in every aspect of the Puertorrican way
life, but fortunately, the Spanish language, one of the most important elements
in our culture remained as the principal mode of expression in Puerto Rico.
Although a large segment of our people are bilingual, the country as a whole
utilizes Spanish as the prevailing language. As a result of this, the Puertorrican
state courts conduct their business in Spanish, thus giving the parties before it the
opportunity to clearly understand processes which affect these people in the light
of the reality that Puerto Rico, although composed of American citizens is a
Spanish speaking country.
The bill presented to your consideration, #H.R. 10129, contains not only a recog-
nition of Puerto Rico's right to preserve its cultural identity, but in addition, and
equally important, it grants American citizens the constitutional right to under-
stand and actively participate in the judicial proceedings which might affect their
interests.
At the present moment, the Puerto Rico Federal Court is composed of three
judges, all of whom are native Puertorricans, and are perfectly qualified to con-
duct hearings in Spanish as well as English. These three judges' native language
is Spanish, for which it would be more of a relief to conduct the hearings in
Spanish than a burden, thus assisting the judges in their functions, as well as
most of its employees who are also bilingual.
PAGENO="0375"
371
The majority of the lawyers in Puerto Rico, and that composes well over a
95 percent of the total of members to the bar, are native Puertorricans whose main
language is Spanish. Any lawyer who at the present is required to take his claim
to the federal court to seek relief, must litigate in English. This results in an
impediment for local lawyers when appearing before Federal Court, and as a
result only a small group of lawyers are able to appear before said court, not
because English speaking lawyers are better quolified, but because many lawyers
feel that their clients are entitled to the best type of representation, and their
inability to master the English language properly will hinder them in providing
their clients their professional services. As a result of this, only a handfull of
local lawyers are able to take their cases to the federal court.
The problems encountered are not only limited to the number of lawyers able
to litigate in English in the Federal Court, other matters of far greater importance
are to be considered and these, which bear constitutional implications are the
principal arguments in favor of the adoption of this porposed amendment.
As I have stated previously, the vast majority of the people in Puerto Rico
speak Spanish as their native language. Cases brought up before the court mostly
relate to matters pertaining to local residents whose case come to the Federal Court
because of special statutes such as Section 1983 or in the case or criminal viola-
tions, mostly Puertorrican residents which have violated Federal Crime Statutes.
This of course, in addition to the fact that most of these attorneys which represent
local or foreign clients are Puertorrican.
When this matter is analyzed from the constitutional point of view, there are
various substantial arguments which can be sustained. First, any defendant in a
criminal prosecution is entitled to fully understand, actively participate and
contribute to his defense in his trial. At present, when a defendant is not able to
understand English, a court interpreter is provided. Nevertheless, such an
interpreter is not able to produce simultaneous translations, but is only able to
translate phrases after fully pronounced by the speaker. In addition, any of the
counsels' arguments with the judge are not translated, thus, the defendant
misses out on extremely important aspects of his trial.
Afthough it has been sustained by other people, specifically Puerto Rico's
Federal District Court's Chief Judge, Hon. José V. Toledo, that the use of the
Spanish language in the Federal Court should be limited to criminal cases only,
there is no reason for which such a necessary innovation should be limited to the
criminal area exclusively.
Not withstanding the fact that in a criminal prosecution the defendant's liberty
is at stake, there is no valid reason for which there should be a distinction between
personal property rights, which would he the object of litigation in most civil cases,
and the right to a fair criminal trial. In these types of cases, we will find that the
same elements present in a criminal prosecution would be present in a civil case.
Most of the witnesses brought for questioning in a trial will also speak Spanish.
The judge will still be a native Puertorrican, the court's personnel, including all
members who actively participate in a trial are Puertorrican, and the jury will also
he composed of mostly Puertorricans whose understanding of the Spanish language
greatly outweighs their mastery of the English language. As Judge Toledo stated in
his appearance before the Committee, alternate jury wheels could be effectively
implemented in order to provide English speaking jurors for English trials where
both parties and the judge agree upon the use of English for those non-Spanish
speaking parties.
As stated by Judge Toledo, the utilization of Spanish in the Federal Court would
provide for a more ample selection of jurors, who would not be required to master
English proficiently. This argument points to the fact that the jury selected by
counsels from the jury wheel may not constitute a group of his peers because only
English speaking jurors are selected, and of these, only those who master the
language enough so as to fully understand the proceedings are allowed to enter the
jury wheel. Because of various sociological and educational reasons, these jurors
may not be necessarily the defendant's peers, thus providing another argument of
fundamental importance in favor of using Spanish in Federal Courts.
Although the technical implications of this proposal should be the object of
consideration, they should not constitute an obstacle when considering the prac-
tical implementation of Spanish in the courts. Although elements to be taken into
PAGENO="0376"
372
consideration such as transcripts upon appeals to the District Court of Appeals
and their translation are important, such matters can be dealt with in a reason-
ably fast and effi,cipnt manner providing that adequate personnel be assigned to
these functions, since the costs of these, at least in civil cases will be incurred by
the appellant.
Puertorricans, as citizens of the United States have the right to enjoy the
benefits of fair judicial proceedings responding to their needs. Puertorricans, as
American citizens should be allowed to receive such benefits which aid in the
preservation of their cultural background and language. The approval of this bill
will not only provide for the needs of the Puertorrican community, but will also
aid in the preservation of the Puertorrican culture while at the same time granting
recognition to the need of Government to respond to the particular needs of a
large segment of the citizenship. It is for these reasons that I urge you to approve
the passage of this bill which in the long run, will result in a better working rela-
tionship between the United States and Puerto Rico, and the growth in respect
and admiration between the two.
0