BILL NUMBER: AB 618 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 15, 2011
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 provide that 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 the proceedings .
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 the person charged with
the crime such that it would not be in the interest of justice or
efficiency for the interpreter to continue ,
and for whom a noncertified, nonregistered interpreter has been
appointed, has a right to object to the interpreter at any time
during the proceeding that the interpreter appears to be unqualified.
The bill would require the court to record specified information and
to follow all procedures required pursuant to court rule . 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) 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
the proceedings . 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 the person charged with the crime such that it would not be
in the interest of justice or efficiency for the interpreter to
continue. , and for whom a noncertified, nonregistered
interpreter has been appointed pursuant to subdivision (c) of
Section 68561, subdivision (d) of Section 68564, or
Section 71802, has a right to object to the interpreter at any time
during the proceeding that the interpreter appears to be unqualified.
The court shall record in the minute order or docket all information
required by court rule and any other applicable law. The court shall
follow all procedures required pursuant to court rule.
(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.