Three Years Suspended, Seventy-Four Days Served
You are interpreting at sentencing for a defendant who pleaded guilty to third-degree burglary. The judge imposes: "Three years in the penitentiary, suspended; eighteen months supervised probation; credit for seventy-four days served; a five-hundred-dollar fine plus the two-hundred-dollar statutory surcharge; restitution reserved for sixty days; no contact with the co-defendant." The deputy has stepped forward. The defendant turns to you and asks, "So I'm going home today, right? Three years suspended means nothing, right?" The judge has not adjourned and is still signing the order.
1. How do you render the sentence, and what do you do with the defendant's question?
Read the worked answer
Render first, then route the question - do not answer it.
Rendering. "Suspended" is the dangerous word. A rendering that suggests the three years is erased, cancelled, or forgiven (for example, a calque built on a verb meaning "to annul") will leave the defendant believing the sentence is a nullity. The accurate concept is a sentence imposed but not executed, held over him, with probation running in its place, and exposure if he violates. Convey the imposition and the hold-back as two separate ideas.
The question. "Am I going home?" is a question about the legal effect of the sentence. You are not the source of that answer and you may not reassure him.
- Do not answer.
- Interpret the question for the court and counsel as spoken - his question is part of the record.
- Then interpret counsel's answer faithfully. If counsel's answer is vague, you do not fill the gap; you may, on the record, note that the defendant asked a specific question.
Why it matters: if the defendant later says he was told he was free and clear, the record should show exactly who said what.
2. "Credit for time served" and "restitution reserved for sixty days." Why is precision here not a stylistic nicety?
Read the worked answer
Because both phrases have downstream consequences the defendant will act on.
- Credit for seventy-four days. This is not decoration; it is arithmetic applied against custody. If you render it loosely as "time already spent" without conveying that it counts against the sentence, the defendant cannot tell whether he has 74 days of credit or merely 74 days of history. Render the number and the crediting.
- Restitution reserved for sixty days. "Reserved" is a procedural move: the issue is not decided today, it is held open, and a hearing within sixty days can add a money obligation. A rendering that sounds like "restitution was denied" or "restitution is finished" creates a false sense of closure. Convey set for later, with the time frame intact.
- The surcharge. Keep the statutory surcharge distinct from the fine; the defendant needs to know the total is 700, not 500.
Rule of thumb being tested: numbers, time frames, and procedural postures are exactly where a fluent-sounding rendition does the most damage, because the listener has no way to detect the error.
3. The "no contact with the co-defendant" term is read quickly at the end. How do you handle it, and what do you do if the defendant shrugs?
Read the worked answer
It is a court order, not a suggestion, and it must land as an order.
- Render it as mandatory and as a condition attached to this sentence - not as advice from counsel or a recommendation. Use imperative/directive force appropriate to your target language; a phrasing that sounds like "it would be better not to" is a mistranslation.
- Do not amplify. You may not add consequences the court did not state ("you'll go to jail if you call him") - that is legal advice and inventing content. If the judge stated a consequence, render that.
- If the defendant shrugs or says he'll see the co-defendant anyway: that is a statement by a party in open court. Interpret it. Do not scold, do not warn him privately, do not suppress it because it is unhelpful to him.
Why: the interpreter's duty runs to completeness and accuracy, not to the defendant's interests as the interpreter perceives them. A private warning in the hallway is exactly the kind of well-meant intervention that creates later claims of ineffective assistance and interpreter misconduct.