Subpoenaed to Testify About a Prior Interrogation
Two years ago you interpreted a 90-minute custodial interrogation of a Spanish-speaking defendant. The interrogation was audio-recorded, but 12 minutes are inaudible. The defendant now moves to suppress his statements, claiming he did not understand his rights. Defense counsel subpoenas you and your notes. Your notes are 14 pages of shorthand, symbols, and personal abbreviations, not a verbatim transcript. The prosecutor asks you to testify that your rendition was accurate; defense counsel asks what the defendant meant when he said 'no entiendo' and whether you explained the rights to him. You remember the defendant was tearful and that you clarified one word at the detective's request. You have no independent recollection of every answer.
1. What is your proper role if called to testify, and what can you testify about?
Read the worked answer
I would testify as a witness to the interpretation process, not as an advocate or a legal expert. I can testify about my qualifications, the oath I took, the mode used, any difficulties such as inaudible segments, and the steps I took to render accurately. I cannot testify to the ultimate accuracy of the recording or to the defendant's subjective understanding. The best evidence of what was said is the recording itself. I should distinguish clearly between what I remember independently and what I infer from my notes. I should not speculate about the defendant's state of mind or offer an opinion on whether the waiver was valid. Neutral, factual testimony preserves the interpreter's role.
2. How should you handle the subpoena for your notes?
Read the worked answer
I should retain the notes and produce them in response to the subpoena or court order; I must not destroy or alter them. I would explain that they are working notes with shorthand and personal abbreviations, not a verbatim record. If the court permits, I can provide a key to the abbreviations or testify about how they were used. I should not claim a privilege unless the jurisdiction provides one; instead, I would ask the court to review them in camera if confidentiality concerns arise. I would also consult my supervisor or legal counsel about the scope of the subpoena. The notes are aids to memory, not a substitute for the recording.
3. How should you answer questions about 'no entiendo' and whether you explained the rights?
Read the worked answer
If I only interpreted the rights, I should say so clearly. Explaining rights would be legal advice and outside the interpreter's role. If I clarified one word at the detective's request, I should describe exactly what I did and why, without characterizing it as an explanation of the rights. I should not speculate about what the defendant meant by 'no entiendo'; I can describe his tone and visible demeanor only if relevant and observed. If asked for an opinion about comprehension, I should decline and explain that the factfinder must determine that from the evidence. My testimony should remain factual and limited to the interpreting process.