BILL NUMBER: AB 618	AMENDED
	BILL TEXT

	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  MAY 27, 2011
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  MAY 10, 2011
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  MARCH 31, 2011

INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Member Furutani

                        FEBRUARY 16, 2011

   An act to add Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 68570) to
Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Government Code, relating to the courts.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   AB 618, as amended, Furutani. Court interpreters.
   Existing law requires, when a witness is incapable of
understanding the English language or expressing himself or herself
in the English language so as to be understood directly by counsel,
court, and jury, an interpreter to be sworn to interpret for him or
her. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to conduct a study of
language and interpreter use and need in court proceedings, with
commentary, and to report its findings and recommendations to the
Governor and to the Legislature every 5 years. Existing law requires
that this study serve as the basis for determining the need to
establish interpreter programs and certification and for establishing
these programs and examinations through the normal budgetary
process.
   This bill would enact the California Language Access Bill of
Rights. The bill would  state the intent of the Legislature
to clarify the circumstances in which   provide that
 a person who is unable to understand English, and who is
charged with a crime, has the right to  an exclusive
  a competent  interpreter provided by the court
 to provide exclusive and ongoing interpretation services
throughout any proceeding as required by law  . The bill would
provide that a person who is charged with a crime has a right to a
determination  by the court  of the competence of an
interpreter at any time during a proceeding if, on the basis of the
interpreter's provision of interpreter services during a criminal
proceeding,  the court determines that  there is good cause
to question whether the continued use of the interpreter in the
proceeding may prejudice the rights of  any person 
 the person charged with the crime  such that it would not
be in the interest of justice or efficiency for the interpreter to
continue. The bill would prohibit a noninterpreter staff person of
the court, or any person employed by the sheriff, probation
department, prosecutor, jail, or corrections department of the
prosecuting city or county from providing interpreter services during
a proceeding. The bill would permit the rights provided pursuant to
these provisions only to be waived expressly by the person charged if
the waiver is affirmatively shown to be intelligent and voluntary.
The bill also would set forth legislative findings and declarations
relating to ensuring an adequate supply of court interpreters without
sacrificing essential standards for certification.
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the
following:
   (a) California is one of the most linguistically diverse states in
the nation. As language diversity in California continues to
increase, there continues to be a decline in the availability of
qualified court interpreters in the state courts. As a result, the
state faces a persistent shortage of professionally certified
interpreters, which threatens the state's ability to ensure access to
justice and equality under the law for all court users, including
parties, witnesses, and victims.
   (b) Court interpreter services in criminal matters are a right --
not a privilege -- guaranteed by the United States and California
Constitutions and statutory law. These services not only assist the
defendant in a criminal matter, but also witnesses and victims,
prosecutors, defense attorneys, and law enforcement.
   (c) The consequences of not having sufficiently qualified
interpreters in the courts are well documented and can lead to costly
mistakes, not only for the parties to a proceeding resulting in
wrongful or erroneous decisions, but also the court system in terms
of delay, waste, and duplication of proceedings relating to these
avoidable errors.
   (d) Meeting the legal equivalence standard in interpreting court
proceedings is an extremely difficult task that demands a high level
of language proficiency in two languages as well as specialized
cognitive and interpreting skills. Individuals who possess the
necessary proficiency and skill level to be court interpreters are a
scarce resource. Ensuring an adequate supply of court interpreters
can and must be accomplished without sacrificing essential standards
for certification.
  SEC. 2.  Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 68570) is added to
Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Government Code, to read:

      Article 4.5.  California Language Access Bill of Rights


   68570.  This article shall be known, and may be cited, as the
California Language Access Bill of Rights. 
   68571.  (a) It is the intent of the Legislature to clarify the
circumstances in which a person who is unable to understand English,
and who is charged with a crime, has the right to an exclusive
interpreter provided by the court. 
    68571.  (a) A person who is unable to understand
English, and who is charged with a crime, has the right to a
competent interpreter provided by the court to provide exclusive and
ongoing interpretation services throughout any proceeding as required
by law. This includes a right not to share an interpreter with a
witness. The person charged with the crime is also entitled to a
separate interpreter not to be shared with a codefendant during any
trial proceeding, including jury instructions, and in any proceeding,
as required by law, at which witnesses are called and testimony is
taken. Any rights pursuant to this subdivision may be waived as
described in subdivision (d). 
   (b) A person who is charged with a crime has a right to a
determination  by the court  of the competence of an
interpreter at any time during a proceeding if, on the basis of the
interpreter's provision of interpreter services during a criminal
proceeding,  the court determines that  there is good cause
to question whether the continued use of the interpreter in the
proceeding may prejudice the rights of  any person 
 the person charged with the crime  such that it would not
be in the interest of justice or efficiency for the interpreter to
continue.
   (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, a
noninterpreter staff person of the court, or any person employed by
the sheriff, probation department, prosecutor, jail, or corrections
department of the prosecuting city or county shall not provide
interpreter services during a proceeding under this section. This
subdivision shall not be construed to negate or modify the
circumstances under which a court has the authority to appoint a
noncertified interpreter.
   (d) The rights provided by this section may only be waived
expressly by the person charged if the waiver is affirmatively shown
to be intelligent and voluntary.