BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 618
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 18, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 618 (Furutani) - As Amended: May 10, 2011
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:7-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill seeks to codify existing constitutional, statutory and
case authority regarding the right to an interpreter when a
person who is charged with a crime lacks proficiency in English.
Specifically, this bill:
1)States legislative intent to clarify the circumstances under
which a person charged with a crime, who is unable to
understand English, has the right to an exclusive interpreter
provided by the court.
2)Provides that a person charged with a crime has a right to
determine 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, there is
good cause to question whether the continued use of the
interpreter in the proceeding may prejudice the rights of any
person such that it would not be in the interest of justice or
efficiency for the interpreter to continue.
3)Specifies that a non-interpreter staff person of the court or
any person employed by the sheriff, probation department,
prosecutor, jail or corrections department shall not provide
interpreter services.
FISCAL EFFECT
Potentially significant costs depending on how the intent
expressed in (1) above is clarified. The Judicial Council
indicates that this intent language appears because it has been
unable to reach consensus with the sponsor. The Council asserts
that an exclusive interpreter is not required for each defendant
AB 618
Page 2
in every proceeding, such as, for example, to explain the rights
of defendants and procedures followed by a traffic court before
the court begins hearing individual infraction cases. In this
case, the Council believes one interpreter can provide that
explanation to all in attendance, and then interpret for them
individually as their cases are called. The Council also
maintains that exclusive interpreters are not required for every
arraignment or preliminary hearing involving multiple
defendants. If the clarification of (1) was to require exclusive
interpreters in all of these settings, the cost for the courts
would be significant. Interpreter services currently costs the
courts $93 million annually, so only a 1% increase in these
costs would approach $1 million.
COMMENTS
Purpose . According to the author, "Current law guarantees an
interpreter for every person who appears in a criminal court and
who is limited English speaking?Unfortunately, since the legal
protections are spread throughout case law, statute and the
Constitution, individuals are often unfamiliar with their
rights. AB 618 would codify the core principles that comprise
the right to an interpreter?if this bill is adopted, it will
provide a valuable tool for individuals to advocate for their
rights while in court."
This bill is sponsored by California Federation of Interpreters.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081