Criminal defendants with limited English proficiency have rights too.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

""We don't have two systems of justice in this country – one for English-speakers and another for everyone else," said Azadeh Shahshahani, Director of the National Security/Immigrants' Rights Project at the ACLU of Georgia. "The constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection apply to everyone in this country, not just to fluent English speakers."

CLICKY

[Andy9o8 2]

I'm actually a bit surprised to see this in modern times. I've worked and practiced in courts all over the country for 30 years (though not in the Deep South, aside from Florida), and it seemed that guaranteed interpreters were par for the course everywhere as a matter of right (as well as basic logic). Guess not.

I've represented a lot of non-English speaking clients in court (probably 80% Spanish; the rest, "other"). Pre-trial preparation aside, it's absolutely crucial that the client be able to follow the proceedings in court, and communicate with his attorney, in real time. That is completely impossible without interpreters.

[Kennedy 0]

While I wholeheartedly believe ESL and LEP folks should have an interpreter while in court, let's not leave out the important facts here.

She had an attorney, and THE ATTORNEY chose not to seek an interpreter for the case. This woman was not denied an interpreter, her side enver asked for one.

Of course, I understand that someone who doesn't understand the word "compelled" might have difficulty with the distinction.

From your own article:
(third paragraph)

Quote

Her own trial attorney admitted that because of her limited English skills, he could not properly communicate with her without an interpreter. However, he decided not to ask the court for an interpreter because he felt it would make the trial "take a lot longer" and make the jury "impatient."

Incopetant counsel, yes. Rights denied by the court, no.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[pirana 0]

Quote

While I wholeheartedly believe ESL and LEP folks should have an interpreter while in court, let's not leave out the important facts here.

She had an attorney, and THE ATTORNEY chose not to seek an interpreter for the case. This woman was not denied an interpreter, her side enver asked for one.

Of course, I understand that someone who doesn't understand the word "compelled" might have difficulty with the distinction.

From your own article:
(third paragraph)

Quote

Her own trial attorney admitted that because of her limited English skills, he could not properly communicate with her without an interpreter. However, he decided not to ask the court for an interpreter because he felt it would make the trial "take a lot longer" and make the jury "impatient."

Incopetant counsel, yes. Rights denied by the court, no.

And if I read that correctly; her attorney was himself provided by/affiliated with the ACLU? So is the braintrust at the ACLU going to take themselves to task? What a clusterfuck.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

While I wholeheartedly believe ESL and LEP folks should have an interpreter while in court, let's not leave out the important facts here.

She had an attorney, and THE ATTORNEY chose not to seek an interpreter for the case. This woman was not denied an interpreter, her side enver asked for one.

Of course, I understand that someone who doesn't understand the word "compelled" might have difficulty with the distinction.

From your own article:
(third paragraph)

Quote

Her own trial attorney admitted that because of her limited English skills, he could not properly communicate with her without an interpreter. However, he decided not to ask the court for an interpreter because he felt it would make the trial "take a lot longer" and make the jury "impatient."

Incopetant counsel, yes. Rights denied by the court, no.

And if I read that correctly; her attorney was himself provided by/affiliated with the ACLU? So is the braintrust at the ACLU going to take themselves to task? What a clusterfuck.

I don't think the article said that. There was a distinction between the TRIAL attorney and the appeals attorneys which were provided by the ACLU. The trial attorney was one Justin Grubbs according to a local source at the initial trial.

Regardless, the trial court should be ensuring the rights of the defendant. The defendant is the one going to jail, not the incompetent attorney.

Maybe she has a better chance than she would in Texas, where having an attorney who sleeps through your trial is apparently OK, even if it results in a death sentence.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

the trial court should be ensuring the rights of the defendant. The defendant is the one going to jail, not the incompetent attorney.

Maybe she has a better chance than she would in Texas, where having an attorney who sleeps through your trial is apparently OK, even if it results in a death sentence.

In a word: Correct.