Ever had this happen to you?

During deliberations on gun case, juror asked for interpreter

Web Posted: 10/27/2006 12:17 AM CDT

Guillermo Contreras
Express-News Staff Writer
Jurors give one of two responses after deliberating guilt or innocence in a criminal case.
�Qu�? and No comprendo are not among them.

A federal judge declared a mistrial in a felon's gun possession case Thursday because one of the jurors waited too long to reveal his grasp of English was not so great.

The unnamed juror, who is bilingual but whose primary language is Spanish, asked U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez for an interpreter to help him understand the jury deliberations but was turned down.

Federal law disqualifies people from jury service if they don't understand English, and it contains no provision requiring they be provided with interpreters.

"He couldn't communicate with his fellow jurors in the jury room," Rodriguez said. "First time that's happened for me."

Under questioning by the judge Thursday, the juror initially said he understood most of what took place during the 21/2 days of trial and then said he understood all of it. The judge wasn't so sure.

Rodriguez said he declared the mistrial because he was left with few options. Assistant Federal Public Defender Alfredo Villarreal, the lawyer for the defendant, Charles Campbell, objected to the judge's suggestion of recalling an alternate juror or proceeding with 11 jurors instead of 12.

Campbell was charged with weapons possession after authorities found a gun inside a car he was in. The defense contended Campbell didn't know the weapon was inside the vehicle.

The case highlights an issue many courts are grappling with: Should the legal system make accommodations for non-English-speaking jurors?

Some legal observers say the system should because the pool of potential jurors increasingly is filled with people whose primary language is something other than English.

"I think we ought to think more strongly about being more inclusive rather than exclusive," said Michael Ariens, a law professor at St. Mary's University School of Law. "While we might think this might be an issue in San Antonio because of our proximity to the border, I believe this issue of finding folks whose primary language is something other than English is going to arise in many different parts of the United States."

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund has sought to push for more inclusion of Spanish-speaking citizens in the legal process.

Cynthia Valenzuela, national director of litigation for MALDEF, indicated the concern is if you don't have Spanish-speaking jurors and the defendant is Hispanic, jurors might not as easily identify with the defendant's cultural or ethnic traits.

"So then, are you really having a jury of your peers if Spanish-speaking jurors aren't allowed to serve on your jury?" she asked.

The federal Jury Act says a prospective juror is ineligible if the person is unable to speak English or "is unable to read, write and understand the English language with a degree of proficiency necessary to fill out a qualification form."

The rules are different for prospective jurors who are deaf or hearing impaired, which is considered a disability.

Although there have been pushes to allow non-English speakers to serve on juries, attempts in several states have fizzled. Lawmakers complain of a shortage of funding and interpreters. Texas' neighbor, New Mexico, is the only state where non-English speakers can't be excluded from serving on juries.

Judge Rodriguez said he proceeded with what he had in front of him.

Before testimony started in Campbell's trial, the juror in question had checked on his jury form that he understood English, and he made no mention of his English shortfalls when Rodriguez questioned the panel. The revelation came Thursday morning, hours after the jury already had been deliberating.

The ruling may have stopped a jury verdict in its tracks, but Campbell is not off the hook. Rodriguez ordered another trial with a new jury in 70 days.

The judge said he would ask more specific questions of potential jurors in future trials.

quote:

---

...the concern is if you don't have Spanish-speaking jurors and the defendant is Hispanic, jurors might not as easily identify with the defendant's cultural or ethnic traits.

---

How many Texans (not to mention residents of other states) are of Hispanic origin, and don't speak Spanish? So are they really saying that you have to have a Spanish-speaker on the jury just because your defendant happens to be named Jose Gonzales? Wow. I guess if I ever end up on trial I'd better hope for a German speaker (Trey Hill? ) on the jury or I'm screwed. I honestly thought that the point was to have NEUTRAL jurors, not ones who would "identify with the defendant's cultural or ethinc traits." Doesn't that sound even more like people wanting to slant the jury pool for the defense? There is a legitimate interest in transacting legal business in a common language - and having an interpreter who is only available to one juror and not all 12 (as in the case of a witness interpreter) is a scary proposition.

If "identifying with a defendant's cultural and ethnic traits" is a primary qualification for jurors, the most effective solution (in addition, of course, to putting non-English speakers on the jury) would be to provide a Latino-studies (or whatever it's called this week) professor from UT as an advisor to each jury when a Hispanic defendant is on trial. That way the jury could be advised during deliberations whether or not their verdict is ethnically and culturally correct.

And another item to add to the list of reasons why I don't work in New Mexico.

To avoid this problem we always have a Spanish speaker (usually a lawyer in the courtroom) quickly address the venire, asking for non-English speakers to please come forward. So far so good.

There should be a way to force the juror to reimburse the govt. for the expense of the trial, as well as the other jurors for lost income and wasted time.