BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2370
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2370 (Chau)
As Amended May 13, 2014
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 9-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Wieckowski, Alejo, Chau, | | |
| |Dickinson, Garcia, | | |
| |Gorell, Maienschein, | | |
| |Muratsuchi, Stone | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Wagner | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires specified information to be stated on the
record when a non-certified or non-registered court interpreter
is used. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the judge in a court proceeding, when using a
non-certified or registered interpreter, to require the name
of the interpreter and a statement that he or she meets the
qualification requirements specified to be stated on the
record.
2)Requires the judge in a court proceeding when using a
certified or registered court reporter, to state on the
record, other things, the name of the interpreter, the status
of his or her interpreter certification, and a statement that
the interpreter's oath was administered to the interpreter, or
that he or she has an oath on file with the court, as
specified.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : The author explains the rationale for the bill as
follows:
AB 2370 establishes a procedure for courts to better
identify certified interpreters in all court
proceedings.
AB 2370
Page 2
Under current law, local courts are required to follow
procedures to identify certified v. non-certified
interpreters. Non-certified interpreters may only be
assigned when a certified interpreter is unavailable.
A certified interpreter must take an oath that he or
she will make a true interpretation of the court
proceeding with his or her best skill and judgment.
This oath is administered by a judge and a written
oath is then signed by the interpreter and put on
file. This process is known as having an "oath on
file" and provides efficiency so that a new oath does
not have to be administered during each court
proceeding. Having an 'oath on file' is also the
courts way of identifying certified interpreters v.
non-certified interpreters.
However, there is no statutory requirement for a judge
to verify the qualifications of an interpreter who
claims to be certified, or claims to have an "oath on
file." Instead, non-certified interpreters often say
they have an oath on file, thus giving a false
impression that they are certified. This results in
judges struggling to recognize when an interpreter is
actually certified and when there is a need to follow
court procedures for qualifying a non-certified
interpreter.
Ensuring that a certified interpreter has a
certification number, certification status, and badge
or photo identification would increase the accuracy of
determining whether the court proceeding has received
services from a certified interpreter or a
non-certified interpreter. AB 2370 would increase
accountability for the use of certified court
interpreters and prevents any misrepresentation of
certification by requiring a judge to direct the
certified interpreter to state, for the record, their
name and certification status, show photo
identification, identify the language that will be
interpreted and verify the filing of their oath with
the court.
AB 2370
Page 3
Existing law provides that any person who interprets in a court
proceeding using a language designated by the Judicial Council
is generally required to be a certified court interpreter for
the language used, but authorizes the court for good cause to
appoint an interpreter who is not certified or registered to be
qualified by the court under qualification procedures and
guidelines adopted by the council. Existing law requires
interpreters to establish to the court that they meet the
specified criteria, and requires the court record to show that
the interpreter is a certified interpreter or qualified as an
interpreter for good cause or for a non-designated language, as
specified.
This bill is prompted by concerns that existing requirements are
either not being followed or are not being properly
demonstrated. According to the sponsor, California Federation
of Interpreters (CFI), some persons engaged by the courts to
provide interpreter services have deceived the courts by
misrepresenting their status and qualifications. CFI contends
that this bill would increase accuracy, accountability and
supervision.
There is no known opposition to the bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0003413