remote court interpreting - … › cms › ...in 1989 the us judicial conference authorized a pilot...

REMOTE COURT INTERPRETING: A NECESSARY EVIL?

Marco Hanson and Michael Kagan

New Mexico Interpreters’ Conference 2014

Overview of this session ◦ What is remote interpretation?

◦ How long has it been around?

◦ Who uses it?

◦ What do experts say about it?

◦ What are the pros and cons?

◦ What is it like to interpret remotely?

◦ Sharing our insights

◦ Practical guidelines

◦ Takeaway

What is remote interpretation? ◦ Providing interpretation from a location physically separated from one or more of the

other participants in a conversation ◦  In the same room, using microphones and headsets (like a UN summit or international

conference): not technically remote interpretation and outside the scope of this presentation

◦ At distant locations (courthouse, jail, home, law office, call center)

◦ Combination arrangements with a variety of parties and locations

◦ May refer to: ◦  Spoken languages (today we will address spoken Spanish)

◦  Signed languages

◦ May be delivered by: ◦ Videoconference (ranging from smartphones to high-definition, dedicated hardware)

◦ Audio only (usually a telephone)

How long has it been around? ◦ Telephones patented by Alexander Graham Bell in 1876

◦ Primitive telephonic interpretation experiments in the 1920s at the League of Nations

◦ Simultaneous interpretation equipment (to be used on-site) developed in the 1920s and became famous at the 1945-46 Nuremburg Trial

◦ Testing of remote interpretation in the 1970s by the United Nations and European Union

◦ Australia was the first country to offer free telephonic interpreting in 1973 used first for emergency services to immigrant communities, and later expanding into other sectors.

How long has it been around? ◦ Telephonic interpretation began in the US in 1981 when a San Jose, CA policer

office and a Defense Language Institute colleague in Monterrey, CA formed a charitable organization called Language Line Services.

◦ In the mid-1980s, federal court interpreter Chandler Thompson began experimenting with telephonic interpretation as a way to reduce wasted time and expense driving across New Mexico for short hearings.

◦ In 1989 the US Judicial Conference authorized a pilot project to determine the feasibility of telephonic interpreting, and in 1994 it was approved for short, pretrial proceedings like initial appearances and arraignments.

◦ In the 1990s, increased immigration to the US and decreased long distance rates helped the commercial remote interpretation industry flourish.

Who uses it? ◦ In 2002 the Telephone Interpreting Program became available to all federal

district courts, which report 3700 sessions on average each year, at an estimated savings of $1.5 million over travel for on-site interpreters.

◦ In 2007, the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida began using its existing videoconference infrastructure (designed for remote court reporters) to provide interpretation.

◦ Now used to some degree in most states: New Mexico, Wisconsin, New Jersey, California, Nebraska, Minnesota, Texas, California, West Virginia, Colorado, New York, Nebraska, Alaska, etc.

◦ The NCSC Conference of State Court Administrators has created the first draft of a national registry for state-credentialed court interpreters to allow resource sharing remotely.

What do experts say about it?

◦ New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure

◦ National Association of Judiciary Interpreters & Translators

◦ Fundamentals of Court Interpretation, 2nd Edition

◦ U.S. Department of Justice

New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure: “Remote spoken language interpretation. Court interpreters may be appointed to serve remotely by audio or audio-video means approved by the Administrative Office of the Courts for any proceeding when a court interpreter is otherwise not reasonably available for in-person attendance in the courtroom. Electronic equipment used during the hearing shall ensure that all case participants hear all statements made by all case participants in the proceeding. If electronic equipment is not available for simultaneous interpreting, the hearing shall be conducted to allow for consecutive interpreting of each sentence. The electronic equipment that is used must permit attorney-client communications to be interpreted confidentially.”

http://www.nmcourts.gov/newface/court-interp/guidelinesandpolicies/Court_Interpreters_rules_01012013.pdf?uid=05.17.2013

National Association of Judiciary Interpreters & Translators: “Telephonic interpreting is an important component of access plans for LEP individuals when local interpreting resources are unavailable. Especially in low-demand languages for which qualified in-person interpreters are not always readily available, telephone interpreting is an invaluable service. However, telephone interpreting is not optimal for many settings, and the telephone should never be the sole means by which language services are provided. Courts and providers of legal services may rely on telephone interpreting to meet some needs, but telephone interpreting alone cannot constitute a full-scale language access plan.”

http://www.najit.org/publications/Telephone%20Interpreting.pdf

Fundamentals of Court Interpretation, 2nd Edition: “It is evident that Remote Interpreting, whether by telephone or video connection, poses many difficulties and impediments to due process. There is no doubt that Telephonic Interpreting is unregulated and performance and quality vary radically among providers of this service. In general, Telephonic Interpreting requires stricter performance and ethical standards as well as rigorous monitoring for use in any setting. Court personnel should exercise caution when choosing this option, no matter how attractive it may seem, and should meticulously follow the procedures set forth in Section 5. Above all, in-depth and ongoing training in the practice of Remote Interpretation should be provided to all interpreters who are asked to perform this task; all judges, court clerks, attorneys, bailiffs, and other in-court personnel should also be given thorough training in the proper use of Remote Interpretation.”

U.S. Department of Justice: “Remote interpreting is an appropriate and reasonable alternative in a variety of circumstances. Whether remote interpreting is a reasonable method to provide court language assistance depends on those circumstances, including, for example, whether other participants to the proceeding or program are appearing remotely, the availability of qualified in-person interpreters, the quality of the remote technology, the nature and duration of the proceeding or communication, the relative quality, and cost and delay associated with the in-person and remote interpreters.”

http://www.lep.gov/faqs/042511_Q&A_State_Courts.pdf

What are the pros? ◦ Cost savings

◦ Time savings

◦ Travel reduction

◦ Availability of distant, expert interpreters instead of local, unqualified interpreters

◦ Ability to get an interpreter outside of normal business hours and on short notice, such as for a Saturday night DWI arraignment ◦ Not having to transport prisoners or put interpreters physically

beside prisoners is safer

What are the pros? ◦ Possibility for interpreter to specialize in ways that local market

conditions would not permit on-site

◦ Allows for interpreter to work in the field full-time even when local demand isn’t high enough to support them

◦ Greater perception of impartiality by tight-knit communities who might make assumptions based on the appearance of the physical interpreter ◦ Reduces demands on the interpreter from requests for help with non-

interpreting duties ◦ Allows interpreter easier access to reference materials, such as online

searches for terminology

What are the cons?

◦ Increased stress on interpreter ◦ Possible confusion from lack of visual cues

◦ Reduced body language and facial expressions

◦ Reduced contextual information

◦ Poor electronic connections

◦ Weak volume

◦ Static

◦ Background coughing, papers rustling, murmuring, etc. ◦ Voice-activated mics that miss the first sound as they turn on

◦ Dropped calls

What are the cons?

◦ Less familiarity with local situation and protocol ◦ If only speakerphones are available, they: ◦ limit interpretation to the consecutive mode, which roughly doubles the

time required for a hearing

◦ requires interruption of speech or advanced note-taking and memory skills

◦ don’t allow for private attorney-client dialogue

◦ Getting written documents to the interpreter in advance is more complicated and often forgotten

◦ Turn-taking is harder to control without visual gestures, resulting in overlapping voices that confuse interpreter and LEP listeners

What is it like to interpret remotely?

◦ Please break into groups of three and take one envelope per group

◦ Each person takes one of the stapled packets from the envelope and keeps it until the end

◦ The packets contain scripts for three scenarios of telephonic interpretation, with instructions that assign you a different role each time (interpreter, judge, attorney, defendant, etc.)

◦ The three scenarios are color-coded: ◦ Yellow: initial appearance of a DWI suspect in custody

◦ Pink: pretrial attorney-client conference for a juvenile offender ◦ Green: pro se uncontested divorce before a judge

◦ Please arrange your seats so that the person playing the interpreter cannot see either of the other people

Sharing our insights

◦ Please discuss the issues that arose with your group until everyone finishes, including these topics: ◦ How was this different from normal, on-site interpretation? ◦ Was it mostly the same? Do most of your interpretation skills apply equally? ◦ What instructions did the interpreter have to give? ◦ What were the greatest challenges?

◦ Whole-group discussion and brainstorming

Practical guidelines (1) Guidelines for court personnel ◦ Provide adequate equipment in the courtroom and at the interpreter’s work

station. For telephonic interpretation, the interpreter should have a high-quality headset with mute button, separate dual volume control so that the interpreter can control the volumes of the different voices independently, and if possible an amplifier. In the courtroom, each party should have a headset, handset, or microphone, depending on how the interpreting service is delivered. Speaker phones are not advisable. ◦ Ensure that adequate view of all participants is possible during video

interpreting, which is required during the proceedings. Participants should be reminded to remain within the interpreter’s view and not turn their backs to the camera.

Fundamentals of Court Interpretation, 2nd Edition (Dueñas González, Vásquez, Mikkelson)

Practical guidelines (2) ◦ Provide training for all court personnel so that they are aware of the challenges of

remote interpreting and can take steps to mitigate them to any extent possible. They should also be advised to limit the use of remote interpretation to the few types of proceedings where it is feasible, and it should be made clear that in many situations remote interpreting is unacceptable on due process grounds. ◦ Do a sound check before each interpreted proceeding takes place in order to

ensure that all parties can be heard by the interpreter. ◦ Give the interpreter as much contextual information as possible about the case

(including the type of proceeding, the charges or issues to be heard, the number of participants and their respective roles). ◦ Provide documents ahead of time (by fax, email or other means) to the interpreter

for sight translation, especially those that will be referred to extensively during the proceedings.


Practical guidelines (3) Have the judge issue the following instructions and ensure all participants in the courtroom (including the judge) adhere to them:

◦ Be as quiet as possible when other participants are speaking to minimize extraneous noises such as voices murmuring in the background, sounds of shuffling papers, and slamming doors.

◦ Have each speaker identify themselves each time they speak so that the interpreter can distinguish voices.

◦ Describe any physical actions taken, such as gesturing, approaching the bench, or referring to an exhibit (this is done normally when speaking on the record).

◦ Identify clearly any document referred to during the proceedings. Remember that the interpreter does not have access to documents unless they have been sent in advance.


Practical guidelines (4) ◦ Speak clearly and at a steady pace, and always use the microphone. Do not turn your

back on the microphone when speaking. ◦ Read slowly and loudly any text from a document. The interpreter has difficulty

interpreting [someone reading from documents] under normal circumstances, much less [when attempting to do this remotely]. ◦ Speak in brief segments to aid the interpreter in providing a complete and accurate

interpretation. Be sure to stop at a natural place, such as the end of a sentence or a logical break in thought.

◦ Speak directly to the LEP speaker to avoid third-person references. ◦ Remember that the interpreter is obligated to interpret everything that is said in the

proceedings.

◦ Be patient if the interpreter requests repetitions. Be aware that multiple requests are an indication of poor audibility, and take steps to ensure that the interpreter hears everything.


Practical guidelines (5) Guidelines for interpreters ◦ Maintain equipment properly. To provide telephonic interpretation

services, the interpreter must have the capability of receiving documents and materials for sight translation, a landline for telephonic interpretation that does not have call-waiting, beeping or other features that would disrupt communication, a binaural headset, and a noise-cancelling microphone. Cell phones and cordless phones are inappropriate to use in this setting.

◦ Ensure that for video remote interpreting, there is an adequate monitor with enough bandwidth and audio capability to prevent delays or disruptions in transmission.


Practical guidelines (6) ◦ Ensure that work is being conducted in a quiet room that is free of

distractions such as ringing telephones or conversations among coworkers. ◦ Advise the judge immediately if there are any problems hearing

any participant in the proceedings so that the problem can be quickly remedied. ◦ Ask for repetitions if unable to interpret lengthy or inaudible

utterances completely and accurately. ◦ Be prepared to take notes for consecutive interpretation.


Tips for Working with Telephonic Interpreters (1-9) ◦ Tell the interpreter the context.

◦ Explain the interpreter’s role.

◦ Limit the use of gestures and facial expressions.

◦ Ensure the LEP speaker’s understanding.

◦ Pace the speech appropriately.

◦ Have sufficient time available.

◦ Offer only one question at a time.

◦ Note the interpreter’s name and ID number.

◦ Enunciate words and speak audibly.

Telephone Interpreting (Nataly Kelly)

Tips for Working with Telephonic Interpreters (10-20) ◦ Incorporate first person or direct speech.

◦ Notice and work through additional communication problems.

◦ Take turns speaking.

◦ Encourage requests for clarification.

◦ Refrain from using figures of speech and cultural references.

◦ Protect and respect the role of the interpreter.

◦ Remain present for all communication.

◦ Exercise awareness of the words you say aloud.

◦ Talk in short utterances.

◦ Eliminate vague expressions and words that have double meanings.

◦ Relieve or refresh your interpreter as needed.

Telephone Interpreting (Nataly Kelly)

Takeaway ◦ Keep informed of industry trends like the national cloud of video

remote, state-certified court interpreters, being planned by NCSC.

◦ Advocate for the value of on-site interpretation for most court purposes, using the most persuasive reasoning for your audience.

◦ Our profession continues to evolve. Add remote interpretation as a specialization on your resume to better position yourself in the market. ◦ Being alert to red flags before accepting a telephonic hearing, such as a poor

connect or clearly inexperienced users. ◦ Briefing participants at the beginning of a session on the need to speak loudly,

clearly, slowly and in turn. ◦ Being willing to say no when you as the professional believe that a given situation

calls for an on-site interpreter, and that the use of remote would jeopardize due process.

Evaluations, please!

Marco Hanson

Statewide Language Access Coordinator, Texas Office of Court Administration

[email protected]

(512) 463-5656

Michael Kagan

Official Staff Interpreter, US District Court, Albuquerque, New Mexico

[email protected]

(505) 348-2090

remote court interpreting - … › cms › ...in 1989 the us judicial conference authorized a pilot...

Documents