BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
AB 618 (Furutani)
Hearing Date: 08/15/2011 Amended: 08/15/2011
Consultant: Jolie Onodera Policy Vote: Public Safety 4-2
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 618 would:
1) Provide that a person charged with a crime who is unable
to understand English has the right to a competent
interpreter that is not shared with another person, which
includes a witness or codefendant during any trial
proceeding, as specified;
2) Provide that a person charged with a crime and for whom
a noncertified, nonregistered interpreter has been
appointed, has a right to object to the interpreter at any
time during the proceedings that the interpreter appears to
be unqualified, and that the court shall record the
information, as specified;
3) Prohibit the court from appointing non-interpreter staff
of the court or any person employed by the sheriff,
probation department, prosecutor, jail or corrections
department to provide interpreter services; and,
4) Provide that these rights may be waived.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund
Exclusive interpreters Unknown; potentially significant costs to
General*
the courts in the millions of dollars
*Trial Court Trust Fund
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
Article I, section 14 of the California Constitution provides
that a person unable to understand English who is charged with a
crime has a right to an interpreter throughout the proceedings.
AB 618 (Furutani)
Page 1
Within the Standards of Judicial Administration, Section 18
establishes the standards for determining the need for a court
interpreter and provides that "�s]eparate interpreters may be
needed for each non-English speaking party." Judicial Council's
recommended rules, adopted effective July 1, 1979, five years
following enactment of the pertinent part of Article I, section
14, of the Constitution, do not mandate separate interpreters
for each party but rather comment that such a service "may" be
necessary.
This 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 the
proceedings. This would include a right not to share an
interpreter with a witness. This bill would state that a person
is also entitled to a separate interpreter not to be shared with
a codefendant during any trial proceedings, including jury
instructions, and in any proceeding at which witnesses are
called and testimony is taken. The bill would also provide that
these rights may be waived expressly by the person charged if
the waiver is affirmatively shown to be intelligent and
voluntary.
The courts would potentially incur significant costs to the
extent additional interpreters must be employed to meet the
requirement of exclusive interpreters for multiple defendants
and/or witnesses in any trial proceeding.
The Judicial Council indicates there were approximately 8.4
million criminal cases filed in the trial courts in 2008-09.
Although no statewide data is currently available regarding the
volume of criminal cases involving multiple defendants that
require the assistance of court-appointed interpreters, it is
likely there would be insufficient qualified interpreters
immediately available to the courts to conduct criminal
proceedings in compliance with the provisions of this bill.
Based on informal information from various courts, the
provisions of this bill could require additional interpreters at
an annual cost of approximately $100,000 per interpreter
including salary and benefits. Given the frequency of cases
involving multiple defendants in the larger trial courts, the
courts may require additional interpreters to comply with the
provisions of this bill at a cost in excess of $1 million
AB 618 (Furutani)
Page 2
annually.
Currently, it is common practice in traffic courts to explain
the rights and procedures to defendants as a collective group
prior to the commencement of proceedings. For those defendants
needing the assistance of an interpreter, typically a single
interpreter is employed to assist the defendants either by
assistive listening devices or by non-electronic oral
presentation by the interpreter. To the extent this bill
requires each defendant in a traffic court proceeding to have an
exclusive interpreter during these general briefings would incur
increased costs for additional interpreters on an ongoing basis,
likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for each court.
This bill further provides that a person charged with a crime,
and for whom a noncertified, nonregistered interpreter has been
appointed, has a right to object to the interpreter at any time
during the proceedings that the interpreter appears to be
unqualified. The court would be required to record in the minute
order or docket all information required by court rules and
other applicable laws. To the extent a court proceeding would be
prolonged could incur additional administrative costs, however,
the impact is expected to be minor. Additionally, any increased
costs would likely be offset by cost savings realized by
resolving interpreter-related issues early in the proceedings
versus incurring additional costs at appellate proceedings
and/or a new trial.
The potential costs to the courts resulting from the provisions
of this bill are unknown, but could potentially be in the
millions of dollars. Interpreter services currently cost the
courts approximately $93 million annually. The recently enacted
Budget Act of 2011 reduced ongoing funding to the Judicial
Branch budget by $350 million, which will result in reductions
in existing court staff and court room closures in various
counties. In the absence of additional funding to comply with
the provisions of this bill, courts would be required to divert
existing resources from other court obligations, resulting in
prolonged delays or the inability to complete the courts' other
constitutional and statutory responsibilities.
AB 618 (Furutani)
Page 3