Court interpreters’ priorities: Their health and to interpret.
August 12, 2020 § 16 Comments
Although we are still in the middle of a world-wide pandemic, I have heard from several colleagues that some courts in the United States, and elsewhere, are back in session and they are asking court interpreters to attend in-person hearings. Courts may have their reasons to reopen, but I think is a bad idea for interpreters to answer the call at this time. Covid-19 is very contagious and continues to spread all over the United States and many other countries. This is not the time to risk our health, and perhaps our future, to make the not-so-good court interpreter fees. Technology is such that courthouses can hold virtual hearings, or distance interpreting if they want to have in-person sessions. There are solutions for all judicial district budgets, from fancy distance interpreting platforms, to Zoom, to a simple over-the-phone interpretation with 3-way calling and a speaker phone. Federal courts have provided over the phone interpretation in certain court appearances for many years. Most hearings are short appearances that do not justify risking the interpreter. As for more complex evidentiary hearings and trials, just as conferences have temporarily migrated to this modality, distance interpreting can happen with a few adjustments. If in-person court interpreting is a bad idea right now, in-person interpreting at a detention center, jail or prison, is out of the question. At least in the United States, detention facilities are at the top of places where more Covid-19 cases have been detected.
Court interpreters provide services in accordance to the law and a code of ethics. Neither of them compels interpreters to put their lives at risk just to interpret for a hearing that could happen virtually. I urge you all to refuse in-person interpreting at courthouses and detention centers at this time. Advise judges, attorneys, and court administrators on the available options during the emergency. If after your explanation they insist on having interpreters appearing in person during the Covid-19 pandemic, please decline the assignment. It is obvious your life and health are not a priority for that organization; why should you put them at the top of your clients’ list?
Do not worry about the parties needing interpreting services. That is the attorney’s responsibility. Not yours.
Unfortunately, some of you will sadly agree to physically appear in court to interpret for defendants, plaintiffs, witnesses, and victims. If so, at least demand the following from the courts:
All in-person interpreting must be done with portable cordless equipment. Many courthouses already use it, and for those who do not, explain to judges and administrators this is the same equipment tour guides use. Courts should provide personal transmitters to all staff and regular independent contractor interpreters, and interpreters should take care of the transmitter and take it with them at the end of the day. If this is impossible (although these devises are very affordable) then ask the courthouse to keep them clean and safe, and separate from the receivers the parties will use. Interpreters should always have their own personal microphone (whether it is provided by the court or they purchase it on their own). Ask the receivers be kept in individual plastic baggies, and have the individual using the receiver open the bag and put the devise back in the baggie after the hearing. Never handle the receiver. Ask the court to notify all parties needing interpreting services to bring their own earphones (they can use their mobile phone’s if they are wired). The courthouse should have disposable earphones in stock for those who forgot to bring their own. Earphones are inexpensive and can be thrown away after each hearing.
Finally, interpreters should never disinfect the portable equipment. This is a dangerous chore, you do not get paid to do it, and it is not your job. Disinfecting the equipment goes against all federal and state court interpreter rules of ethics:
“Canon 7: Scope of Practice. An interpreter for a LEP participant in any legal proceeding, or for an LEP party in a court-ordered program, must provide only interpreting or translating services. The interpreter must not give legal advice, express personal opinions to individuals for whom interpreting services are being provided, or engage in other activities that may be construed to constitute a service other than interpreting or translating.” All states include this canon in their code of ethics (sometimes the number is different). Interpreting equipment should be cleaned and disinfected by the same people who clean and disinfect everything else in the courtroom.
If you are interpreting in person for an agency or for a direct private client, you must follow the same practices. The agency should assume the courthouse duties. As for your preferred direct clients who you could not talk out of an in-person appearance, use your own personal equipment. If you don’t have it, buy it. Do not borrow the courthouse’s. You do not know how clean it is. I would also add the following when dealing with direct clients using my own equipment: Have disposable latex gloves available for you and the person using the equipment. That way you may assist your direct client with the receiver unit if needed. Have spare disposable earphones available if your clients forgot to bring their own. I suggest you use the earphones you get on the plane for free and you never use because you have your own. The protocol for jail visits is: No jail visits under any circumstance. Period.
Even with equipment, maintain a safe distance between you and the person you are interpreting for. No sitting next to the client. Always use and demand others use facemasks. The sound quality is not the best, but removing the mask to interpret is too dangerous. I suggest you wear a mask that ties or has an elastic that goes around your head instead of the ones you wear on your ears. They are more comfortable and stay in place even if you are speaking,
Most judges are rational people of good moral character, but I have heard of some cases when a judge has ordered the interpreter to remove the mask, get closer to the person who needs an interpreter, and other dangerous actions. If so, try to persuade the judge, if that fails, ask for a recess and try to get the court administrator to see the situation from your viewpoint. If this does not work, or if the judge does not let you speak, or you cannot access the administrator, excuse yourself.
State you cannot fulfill your duty as a court interpreter to interpret the totality of what is being said in court because you cannot concentrate on the hearing when you know the judge is putting you in a dangerous situation. Put it on the record, and leave. If the judge does not allow you to leave the courtroom, or threatens you with a contempt order, then clearly put on the record for a second time the same explanation you already gave, and clearly state you are being ordered to interpret even though the rendition will be incomplete, that you are being held against your will, and that you are respectfully giving notice to the judge that if because of his order you get infected, you will bring legal action against the court and personally against the judge. Do not be afraid. You are not doing anything wrong.
On top of all that, I would never interpret in that Judge’s court again.
There are other things we can do as interpreters to protect ourselves in the rare case we end up in front of a judge that forces you to interpret and do things that risk your health and maybe your life.
You can file a complaint with the circuit court (if a federal case) or the court of appeals with jurisdiction over the judge. In federal cases, this is done according to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 USC §351-364) and the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Judicial Disability Proceedings.
If federal, you can send a letter describing the judge’s conduct to the Federal Judges Association (FJA) (https://www.federaljudgesassoc.org) or to the State’s judges association in local matters.
Send a letter for publication on the American Bar Association (ABA) Journal Magazine, or to the State Bar Bulletin so attorneys and others learn of the incident and apply pressure on this individual.
Contact your local non-English radio and TV stations (for Spanish speakers Telemundo, Univision and Azteca America) and suggest an investigative report on how this judge is putting those who appear before him or her, and need interpreting services, at risk during the pandemic.
You can also talk to an attorney and explore the possibility of a lawsuit against the judge and courthouse for negligence.
Finally, write a letter to that courthouse’s chief judge and court administrator informing them that, regardless of the outcome, you will never work in that courtroom again. The letter should detail everything the judge said and did, including past episodes witnessed by you. A person with such a bad attitude did other bad things before.
Court interpreters perform an essential job for the administration of justice, everyone who needs an interpreter should get one, but certain things are above the job; one of them that should always come first is our health. I now ask you to share with us your in-person court experiences, in the United States or elsewhere, during the pandemic.
Tony, as usual your points are very valid and applicable. To my knowledge, there is no-one in the courtroom or courthouses (other than the building janitor, clearly not appropriate here) who is “responsible for cleaning and disinfecting equipment”. That puts this task squarely back on the interpreter, unfortunately.
If any blog followers have suggestions on who this “designated cleaning and disinfection person” may be, in court systems, and on how to arrange for him/her to daily perform this task for interpreters, I would love to hear them.
Kathleen, thank you for your comments. I am sorry to hear that is happening at your courthouse; however, between the janitor and the interpreter, any cleaning chores (and disinfecting is closer to janitorial than interpreting) should fall on the janitor. Court safety is not an interpreter’s task. This is an issue the administration needs to solve. Not the interpreters. The only tasks that fall squarely on the interpreter are interpreting and translating.
Good afternoon Tony. Tony you bring out some very good points, as usual. That said, I have interpreted in person, in court for some hearings (only a few). However that/those courthouses have strict guidelines in place such as: one must wear a mask at all times in the courthouse.
Also when one enters the courthouse, one’s temperature is taken. Obviously if the temperature is above where it should be then one cannot proceed to the courtroom. If one’s temperature is normal then one can proceed to the courtroom. Once inside the courtroom the Interpreter can interpret but must wear his/her mask and/or face shield while interpreting. At NO time would any judge suggest or say to the Interpreter to remove his/her mask or face shield. Having said that the overwhelming majority of time we do everything via gotomeeting. In fact I would say that the few times I have gone into the courthouse has been the exception and not the rule. At least in the courthouse I have worked in so far in Iowa, all the furniture in the courtroom and the courtroom in general is cleaned much more diligently and mindfully. I am only speaking of my experience thus far. Thanks for your comments.
Alina, thank you for your comments. I am glad to hear your courthouse decided to do remote hearings as a rule. It is good that all those safety measures are observed for in-person appearances. That is a good protocol to follow, but unfortunately it does not protect you from asymptomatic individuals. I believe many courts that decided to open (even partially, like your district) are doing as you described. Please be careful when you interpret in person.
I saw remote video interpreting being done in a traffic court here in Florida, using a monitor on the podium next to the judge. Sound quality was good. Quality of interpreting was not the best but acceptable, and certainly preferable to requiring an interpreter to put his health at risk for the sake of enforcement of traffic tickets.
James, thank you for your comments. You are right.
While I agree with some of your recommendations, I cannot accept your doomsday approach. Since March 2020 I have flown over 12,000 miles on commercial planes, over 10 trips, to various federal courts in the US for in-person interpreting. We cannot live in a bubble! I am a firm believer in protective measures and I follow them to the t. Social distancing, face mask, washing your hands before entering the court and after leaving the court helped me stay safe and healthy. We must keep in mind that there are small district courts without the sophisticated equipment federal courts can afford, therefore we must adapt. Today I had a preliminary hearing in a small district court in a remote PA county. I spent over an hour with the defendant and the defense attorney interpreting for them and about 10 minutes in front of the judge. We all wore masc and stood at a reasonable distance. I am 68, in the category of „vulnerable” but this does not prevent me to go swimming to the Y, riding my bike 50 miles/day or be active. We must keep an informed balance in our daily life.
Liviu-Lee, thank you for your comments. I respect your opinion and I am glad you are doing well. What is perceived as doomsday by you is reality by many others who have been directly impacted by the pandemic. Good luck.
Some research shows that:
1.) Surgical masks and cloth coverings have openings that are many times bigger than the average size of the virus.
2.) Many people do not wear masks or cloth coverings correctly, leaving the nose exposed, and wearing them intermittently.
3.) Virus particles persist for 24+/- hours on paper products, and a few days on plastic and other surfaces.
4.) Distance of at least 15 feet is needed to avoid viral particles expelled through breathing, coughing, sneezing, etc.
5.) there are many asymptomatic and presymptomatic persons.
6.) RT-PCR tests could be inaccurate within the first 7 days after infection, giving false negatives according to Johns-Hopkins University.
7.) Survivors of COVID-19 regardless of age, often have permanent multi-organ damage.
You are playing with fire, and you are “training” our courts to believe we interpreters should do as you do.
Jose, thank you for your comments. You are right, the risk is too high.
Agree 100% – wise words 👏👏👏
Maribel, thank you for your comment.
Thank you for this blog Tony. Do you have any suggestions on how we can get facilities detaining federal inmates to allow for attorney/client interviews through remote interpreting? One of the local facilities housing federal inmates has an interview room that is literally the size of a shower stall and where some inmates have been quarantined at least twice due to exposure to the coronavirus. It is obviously unsafe to conduct interviews there in person, but the facility still won’t allow them to be conducted virtually.
Madeline, there are several districts where detention facilities are so far from the urban areas, U.S. probation officers have been conducting pre-sentence report interviews remotely for years. Many use FaceTime because it is easier to take an iPad to a client-attorney interview room than installing a computer. Interpreters have been part of this process from the beginning. Many jails already have a dedicated computer for court hearings with the defendant appearing remotely from the detention center. Before the hearing, attorneys and their in-custody clients talk in private, with the assistance of an interpreter, and before the judge and other parties go online. Both solutions, and a telephonic meeting (like Federal interpreters do in TIP cases) are solutions districts are using. Attorneys can take advantage of this infrastructure detention centers already have, and use their computers and telephones from their offices; interpreters can join them from their own office or home.
As a medical interpreter, a few weeks ago I was called to interpret for a patient suspected of having COVID 19, admitted to a floor with at least 50 COVID patients. We had been instructed to attend via remote interpreting, so we were not issued proper PEP equipment other than the infamous mask. The doctor wanted me physically at the hospital, but I decided that my health and that of my family was more important than the few dollars I make at work. They complained to our supervisor who decided to write me up. Interpreters are in the frontlines of this pandemic. The least our supervisors could do is support us. I agree with your article. We need to be very careful. Ultimately, if something happens we will be replaced. Our families won’t be able to replace us.
Francisco, thank you for bringing this to our attention. I am glad you did the right thing. We must continue to educate our clients, supervisors, colleagues, and society. Stay safe.