Court interpreters translate into high cost for Lubbock County
Scant qualified court interpreters and increased demand has translated into
higher costs for Lubbock County.
January 14, 2012
By BY LOGAN G. CARVER
AVALANCHE-JOURNAL
Scant qualified court interpreters and increased demand has translated into
higher costs for Lubbock County.
In a recent felony trial involving a deaf defendant and several deaf
witnesses, four interpreters had to be flown in from Austin for the six-day
trial.
While interpreters for criminal and civil trials have been statutorily
required for years, a 2010 U.S. Department of Justice letter recommends
interpreters be provided for all court proceedings, as well as anything
relating to those proceedings.
Couple this with a lack of licensed and certified interpreters in the area,
and Lubbock County has seen interpreter costs nearly triple in the last
year.
“Actually it’s become a huge issue because it not only involves deaf
interpreters, it also involves any sort of language interpreter as well,”
said David Slayton, director of Court Administration in Lubbock County.
It takes more than just the ability to interpret between two languages to
work in a courtroom, as state law requires certification of all court
interpreters.
Spoken-language interpreters are certified through the Texas Department of
Licensing and Regulation and American Sign Language interpreters are
certified through Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services
Office for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services or through the National
Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.
Certification for language and ASL requires extensive coursework and
examinations.
Language interpreters take a two-hour, 135-question multiple choice exam and
a three-part oral exam.
The written exam covers general language proficiency, court-related terms
and ethics and professional conduct.
The oral examination comprises sight interpretation, simultaneous
interpretation and consecutive interpretation.
For ASL certification, an applicant must complete hundreds of hours of
interpreter training and court-specific training.
The court training includes: 16 hours on criminal law process, 16 hours on
civil law process, eight hours on legal terminology and eight hours on
ethical practices for court interpreters.
Applicants must then pass a written test.
The recent trial of Rene Espinoza demonstrated the challenges that come with
providing the necessary number of interpreters.
The trial lasted significantly longer than would a similar trial without the
need for multiple interpreters.
In the Espinoza trial, the defendant and several witnesses were either deaf
or hard of hearing and required ASL interpreters.
Slayton said the number of people who needed interpreters made the Espinoza
case unusual.
One interpreter had to interpret for the court, but because the defendant
was also hearing impaired there had to be one at the counsel table so his
attorney could communicate with him.
ASL interpreters almost always work in teams, switching off at 20- to
30-minute intervals during a seven- to eight-hour court day.
“So for every one position that we need, we have to have two to cover that
period of time,” Slayton said.
If an interpreter works alone, he or she likely would need a break at least
every 90 minutes, said Randi Turner with the Office of Deaf and Hard of
Hearing Services.
The 20-30 minute stints are more common and more accurate, Turner said.
“The longer we interpret, the less competency that we would have,” she said.
They work in teams because court interpreting is particularly taxing because
of legal jargon and the rapid-fire questioning from attorneys.
Turner said it isn’t safe for a court interpreter to work without a partner,
because so much rides on the interpreter’s ability to accurately convey the
concepts of what is said.
Connie Sefcik-Kennedy, also with the Office of Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Services, said the team member who isn’t actively interpreting is watching
body language and non-manual markers of the deaf client.
Facial expressions, nods and body language are nuances a single interpreter
could potentially miss.
“They need that interpreter to back up and catch those types of
non-manuals,” Sefcik-Kennedy said. “That’s why team interpreting is really
important — because it’s challenging.”
There are only 141 certified court interpreters in Texas, so it is not
uncommon for smaller communities to have to bring ASL interpreters in from
larger metropolitan areas.
The interpreters for the Espinoza case were brought in from Austin because
there were no available certified interpreters in the Lubbock area, Slayton
said.
He said the ones who are certified are school teachers with the Lubbock
Independent School District.
During the summer, the courts can usually find local ASL interpreters, but
rarely use local interpreters during the school year, he said.
Slayton said it’s a huge issue whenever it comes up, but it is required.
“It’s also very expensive when we have to do it,” he said.
Language interpreters also have to be brought in from other areas.
There is only one Spanish-language licensed court interpreter in Lubbock
County, according to online data from the Texas Department of Licensing and
Regulation.
There are four, collectively, in Amarillo’s Randall and Potter counties, but
none in Crosby, Dawson, Floyd, Garza, Hale, Hockley, Lamb, Lynn or Terry.
Compared to 24 in Tarrant, 33 in Bexar, 32 in Travis — and even three in
McClennan — Lubbock County courts have to cast a much wider net to find a
Spanish interpreter.
And find one they must.
State law requires an interpreter be provided in criminal and civil court
proceedings, but only requires that the county foot the bill in criminal
proceedings, Slayton said.
There is no state law provision requiring counties to pay for any other
proceeding, but the U.S. Department of Justice has a different view.
As part of the Access to Justice initiative, the DOJ in 2010 issued a letter
requiring interpreters be provided in all court proceedings, at the
county’s expense, in courts receiving federal funds.
The directive states requiring a party to pay for interpreters either
subjects some individuals to a surcharge based on a party’s or witness’s
English language proficiency or discourages parties from requesting or using
a competent interpreter.
Any court receiving federal funds needs to provide interpretation free of
cost, according to the DOJ.
Interpretation must also be provided for court-managed offices and programs,
such as information counters, records rooms, filing offices, alternative
dispute resolution programs and probation and parole offices.
“You talk about a significant change in our costs,” Slayton said. “It is and
continues to increase our cost.”
Lubbock County spent nearly $63,000 in 2011 — more than three times what the
county paid for court interpreters in 2010 — and is on track to surpass last
year.
Since the beginning of the 2012 fiscal year, Oct. 1, Lubbock County has
spent roughly $23,000 on interpreters.
To comment on this story:
[email protected]
• 766-8704
[email protected]
• 766-8706
Interpretation costs (Fiscal Year Oct. 1 – Sept. 30)
2008 $12,116
2009 $11,197.33
2010 $19,780.44
2011 $62,628.96
2012 to date 22,979.39
Source: