Posted on 08/13/2013 7:40:08 PM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi
The New Mexico Supreme Court is cautioning the state's trial courts that citizens who don't speak English have the right to serve on juries.
The court issued the admonition in a ruling that upholds an Albuquerque man's convictions for murder and other crimes in the bludgeoning death of his girlfriend and a subsequent armed robbery and stabbing.
Michael Samora's appeal argued that his convictions should be reversed because the Bernalillo County court excused a Spanish-speaking prospective juror who had trouble understanding English.
The Supreme Court says it agrees with that argument but also says Samora's defense needed to object during the trial but didn't.
The Albuquerque Journal reported that the state's Constitution "shall never be restricted, abridged or impaired on account of … (the) inability to speak, read or write the English or Spanish languages."
The ruling issued Monday tells judges and lawyers that they must use reasonable efforts to protect the rights of non-English speaking citizens to serve on juries.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
How would they understand the trial, if it’s conducted in English?
“The Supreme Court says it agrees with that argument but also says Samora’s defense needed to object during the trial but didn’t. “
-
Just saying.
sarc/
the same question I posed to these idiots at the CA DMV when the written test is given in 75 languages and the road signs are in English..
It's a freaking RIGHT to serve on a jury? How about the right of the accused to have a jury of HIS PEERS??!!
...and if , say, the jurors are non-English speaking Muslims who have only been exposed to and have practiced sharia law their entire lives.....
Click Pic for Book Website
The takeover of New Mexico by illegal aliens was a great story (Matt's best in my humble opinion) in Domestic Enemies. In the book we read of things like juries being made of Mexican nationals, and police being illegal aliens, too! It kept me up a few nights, that's for sure! Well, a few years later we are seeing this takeover in real life.
It isn't a novel anymore.
Gee, are we at the point where armed rebellion is necessary?
Hmm, if you have non-English speakers and English speakers on the same jury, then they don’t hear the same things. An interpreter might say something in Spanish that an English speaker might interpret a different way.
I was on a jury here in CA, and because the defendant and some witnesses spoke only Spanish, NONE of the jurors could speak Spanish, because we’d hear it directly and from the interpreter, while the English-only jurors would hear only the interpreter.
I guess they can just read your body language or use some personal form of profiling, whatever it is, the judgement sure seems to say that the law, investigations, evidence, lawyer arguments and even the jury deliberations of the other 11 jurors, don’t mean anything important.
I guess in time we can shorten some trials to a quick look at the defendant and a simple thumbs up or thumbs down, based on that first impression.
doesn’t matter, verdicts are decided on the basis of skin color
-----------
I'm guessing translators would translate the testimony in such a way as to not interrupt the trial, and the juror would hear it via headphones.
It’s bizarro world, I tell you, when someone who speaks NO ENGLISH would be allowed to serve as a juror in an ENGLISH ONLY trial.
The New Mexico Supreme Court is cautioning the state’s trial courts that citizens who don’t speak English have the right to serve on juries.
No they do not. If I am a defendant I have the right to a jury of my peers. My peers speak and understand ENGLISH.
Appeal due to translation bias.
It’s one thing for a translator for a witness, the prosecution/defense can ask for clarification or object. When that translation is going straight to the jury, imagine the trouble that will cause. I can easily see a defense attorney pouring over the translation after a loss and going, “wait, he used this word in translating to the juror the testimony when he should have used ‘this word’ instead.”
I don't think there is such a right. A duty maybe, if you are eligible.
Why not?
What difference does it make?
Leni
All of the jurors could speak English, but I imagine they could do the same for them during the trial.
But what about during jury deliberations? Would they allow an interpreter in there to help the jurors communicate? Has anyone other than a juror ever been allowed in the jury room during deliberations?
This seems fishy to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.