"I Ain't Never Seen Him" and "He Was Gonna Pop Him"

Render the emphasis, not the arithmetic.

• In English, the stacked negative is emphatic, not a logical double negative. She means: I had never seen him before that night - stated emphatically, in her register.
• If your target language treats double negatives as agreeing (as many do), a literal stack will read as emphatic and is fine; if it treats them as cancelling, a literal stack produces "I have seen him," which reverses her testimony. So: convey strong negation in whatever construction your variety uses for it.
• What you must not do: correct her grammar into standard speech, soften the emphasis into a neutral "I had not seen him," or add "before that night" if she did not say it - the time anchor matters, and it appears in her next sentence, not this one.

Register matters too. She is a lay witness speaking informally. Rendering her in elevated, bookish phrasing makes her sound coached or evasive on the transcript and misrepresents how she testified. Match the register; do not polish it. The same rule applies to "he come up" - render the event, not the grammar error.

Do not disambiguate. The ambiguity is the testimony.

"Pop" in this register can mean shoot, hit, or kill, and the surrounding facts (a carjacking, a waistband, her running) do not settle it. Your options:

1. Preserve the vagueness with a target-language verb that covers striking or firing at someone without committing to a weapon. Preferred - it is what the English listener heard.
2. Render literally with the slang's flavor if an equivalent colloquial verb exists that is equally indeterminate.
3. Never pick the strongest reading ("shoot") to make the story coherent, and never pick the weakest ("approach") to soften it.

If you genuinely have no target-language option that preserves the range: raise it with the court at the next pause - "Your Honor, the witness used a term that has several possible meanings in English; may counsel clarify?" You do not ask the witness privately, you do not choose a meaning, and you do not signal your doubt to the jury through tone or gesture.

Why this is hard: the interpreter's instinct is to make the testimony make sense. Here, making sense is fabrication. Note also that both parties have an interest in the term, and the record must show the same word the jury heard.

Two separate problems: quoted speech, and overlapping speech.

Quoted speech. "He like" and "I was like" are quotative markers, not the verb "to say" and not a simile. Render them as reported/represented speech in the way your language marks it - do not translate "like" as "as if" or "similar to," and do not convert her inner reaction into a statement she made out loud. "Ain't nobody got time for that" is her thought or reaction, framed by "I was like"; if you render it as an utterance to the defendant, you have changed the facts. Mark the quotation clearly and match her informality.

Overlapping speech. When the witness talks over a sustained objection:

1. Stop when the objection is made and the ruling comes; do not continue rendering a narrative the judge has cut off.
2. Do not silently discard what she said before the ruling - interpret up to the point of the interruption.
3. If the witness continues, do not chase her and do not raise your voice over the judge. Let the record show it; if the judge asks, you may state on the record, "The witness continued speaking after the ruling; I did not interpret that portion." That disclosure protects the record without you policing the courtroom.

The tested judgment: you are not the court's silence-enforcer, but you are also not free to invent or discard testimony.