New Mexico: Courts Must Seat Jurors Who Do Not Speak English
Allahpundit has a fairly good discussion of some of the practical difficulties involved in this decision, which actually says that the New Mexico State constitution requires courts to seat jurors who do not speak Engliah.
But what leapt to my mind were the difficulties that might arise in a highly diverse area like Los Angeles. You could have a jury pool where one juror speaks Spanish, another speaks Mandarin, a third speaks Cambodian, a fourth speaks Japanese, and the other eight speak English.
A witness might be giving testimony in Spanish, translated by a court interpreter into English, translated into the above languages by the above interpreters. (Yes, the Spanish would probably have to be translated back into Spanish. Court is weird that way.) You’d have about six people talking in close proximity. It would be a wonder if anyone could hear anything.
And wouldn’t those jury deliberations be fun? Imagine the confusion as one juror makes a comment in Cambodian, it is translated into English, and then translated back into three other languages.
All nuance would be lost, discussion would be a game of telephone, rife with misunderstanding, and it would generally be a disaster.
I can see why defendants would like it. (Confusion and chaos tend to favor the defense.) But why any sensible person would willingly choose such a regime is beyond me.
Some civic duties, if not all, are best conducted by citizens able to speak a single common language. Jury duty is one of them.
I think thats great! spanish speakers live here and pay taxes probably at higher percentage of their incomes then angry old white republican tax cheats! where I live a lot businesses just pocket the sales taxes they collect. a police chief some years ago asked for a raise for his men but city said they had no money for raises after giving another tax brake to big busineses. police chief then told city council in that case collect sales tax you have been letting mostly big business pocket and their will be plenty of money for a raise. insted he was fired! google business pocketing sale taxes.
mexican-american (a07479) — 8/15/2013 @ 2:06 amIf I want to read the spics lies, I would go to one of it’s sites.
mg (31009b) — 8/15/2013 @ 2:56 am86 this m.fer.
mex-am
are you talking about mexico right? or ademocrat controlled city council correct – maybe you need to address your complaints to them
Also, why didn’t the president include amnesty in his first 2 years in office when he could have or why didn’t Clinton or lbj, or jfk, or FDR?
hint – they were racist mofo’s who didn’t give blacks the right to vote either – it was a republican senate that forced the issue in the late 50’s and early 60’s
you’re welcome
EPWJ (5028be) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:07 amled by a Booooosh BTW
EPWJ (5028be) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:08 amThe right to choose jurors is not absolute and both sides, including the government in a criminal case, are entitled to a fair trial. Society is entitled to the orderly administration of justice. Reasonable rules for jury selection can be fashioned to prevent chaos.
Not being at all facetious — I would prefer the Mexican who put in ten hours yesterday replacing my driveway with his ten words of English, over Rachel Jeantel, on a jury. Concientiousness counts and he would try to overcome the awkwardness of needing to understand the case through an interpreter. Rachel would think English be like old school.
nk (875f57) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:27 amTheir Constitution mandates this. Plus, racists.
JD (5c1832) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:34 amSure, JD, but in the Allahpundit-linked case there was no objection during voir dire so no error preserved. Not really much of a discussion of lack of English as the only reason for dismissing a juror. Contrast to a scenario where one side makes a convincing argument that the juror would not have a fair understanding of the case even with reasonable accomodation from the court. Interpreter sure, what about translated documents? I think there would be, and should be, some kind of balancing there.
nk (875f57) — 8/15/2013 @ 5:00 amHere’s the text of Article VII, Section 3:
ropelight (7ffed3) — 8/15/2013 @ 5:04 amPretty f***ing absolute standing on its own but it does not stand on its own. It has to contend with the right to jury and to due process under the U.S. Constitution and I imagine under the New Mexico constitution.
nk (875f57) — 8/15/2013 @ 5:11 amI was called for jury duty a couple of years ago, but the county, very wisely, excluded me, when I notified them that I am about half-deaf. I have a particularly difficult time with voices.
A responsible person who can’t hear and understand testimony clearly excludes himself; a wise court excludes jurors who cannot hear or understand all of the testimony clearly.
The “Justices” of the New Mexico Supreme Court ought to all have to turn in their law licenses, because they are all idiots.
The hard-of-hearing Dana (3e4784) — 8/15/2013 @ 5:32 amJe ne sais pas.
Ed from SFV (273a87) — 8/15/2013 @ 5:41 amYou’re hard of reading, too. Read ropelight’s comment 8. And the HotAir link. They upheld the conviction without much discussion because they didn’t need to, the error was waived.
nk (875f57) — 8/15/2013 @ 5:42 am“The error was waived” is important. We already have it that it’s not reversible error per se.
nk (875f57) — 8/15/2013 @ 5:45 amBut what leapt to my mind were the difficulties that might arise in a highly diverse area like Los Angeles.
One can argue that New Mexico IS a “highly diverse area”. Yes NM is largely English/Spanish languages, but NM is the home to many Native American tribes that speak largely in their own native languages, with Spanish and English as secondary/tertiary languages.
Quaoar (3c25fd) — 8/15/2013 @ 5:48 ammexicans pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes except for those claiming 40 kids and sending millions in “tax refunds” back to mexico.
I guess once they put 4 translators in the jury room we’ll be reading more exposes about the deliberations.
God! lawyers are idiots. Or, is it just after they become judges they lose their brains.
Jim (823b10) — 8/15/2013 @ 6:12 amI thought you had to be a citizen to be on a jury and to be a citizen you have to show proficiency in English. If you can’t speak English, how can you be a citizen?
When my great grand parents came to the United States, they learned English. Speaking one language unifies us as a nation.
Tanny O'Haley (ffc3bf) — 8/15/2013 @ 6:54 amTo be naturalized, under age 50, you have to speak English. Language is not a requirement for citizenship in any other instance.
nk (875f57) — 8/15/2013 @ 7:04 amSpeaking one language unifies us as a nation.
That’s what poor King George III thought too. 😉
nk (875f57) — 8/15/2013 @ 7:06 amThe United Nations does simultaneous translations with earphones.
But there’s one big problem: It’s not the exact same words.
And with less common languages, and even sometimes with common ones, errors and deliberate changes by translatoprs might not get discovered so fast.
Sammy Finkelman (97cf1c) — 8/15/2013 @ 7:17 amOnly some people are good at simultaneous translations, and I think standard is when the interpreter’s native language (sometimes people have two or three) is the language being translated INTO.
Sammy Finkelman (97cf1c) — 8/15/2013 @ 7:19 amMexican-Americans in California’s Central Valley are becoming wise to the lies of el Gnomo Maldito and his ilk. And none too soon.
Colonel Haiku (01ad4d) — 8/15/2013 @ 7:21 amWhat this means is that it up to the lawyers in each case to object or accept, but jurors cannot be rejected for cause on grounds of not being able to understand some language well enough.
Now when that clause was written, they surely were strictly limiting it to the right to serve on a jury.
Sammy Finkelman (2f5551) — 8/15/2013 @ 7:23 amwhere is teh young whelp?
Colonel Haiku (01ad4d) — 8/15/2013 @ 7:24 amrepresentin’ ABQ
eating Cocoa Puffs?
If the New Mexico constitution speaks of
they probably had in mind Indian languages, like Hopi or Navajo. And clearly also circumstances where it would make sense to use jurors who knew a certain language. I think busioness in parts of New Mexico at the time was condicted in Spanish, here they say not just English or Spanish.
Sammy Finkelman (97cf1c) — 8/15/2013 @ 7:27 amComprehention is difficult as it is, even without translation. But we also want to make sure we really have a jury of our peers.
How do they handle this in Puerto Rico?
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 8/15/2013 @ 7:56 amYou have to realize Patricia, that account comes through Machiavelli, was the David Axelrod of his day.
narciso (3fec35) — 8/15/2013 @ 8:17 amAnd how do we deal with adding other actors(the interpreters) who takes part in the jury deliberations? How are the parties assured the interpreters don’t affect deliberation by body language, impertinent comments, word choices in translations or anything else? The answer is–they’re not.
Kyle (9d9e73) — 8/15/2013 @ 8:31 am*inability to speak…
Now that probably meant when it is the only reason for excluding someone, and perhaps only that that should not be a legal disability.
Sammy Finkelman (97cf1c) — 8/15/2013 @ 8:37 amVia HotAir comment: In Ontario, Canada, where both English and French are official languages, a person has a right to a bilingual proceeding in all non-jury civil cases and in criminal cases.
During a bilingual proceeding, the judge, the Crown attorney (in criminal cases), the registrar/clerk and the court reporter/monitor are bilingual. A party in the case may address the court directly in French. Witnesses testify in the language in which they feel most comfortable and the court provides interpreters as needed.
If somone in a criminal case is entitled to a jury trial, they may ask that the trial take place before jurors who speak French.
It may be necessary to change the location of the trial to an area where there are enough French-speaking people to form a jury.
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/justiceinbothlanguages.asp
There is therefore no issue of interpreters during jury deliberations.
Sammy Finkelman (97cf1c) — 8/15/2013 @ 8:47 amWhen I served on the jury for a murder trial, two or three of the witnesses testified in Spanish with an interpreter. We as jurors were admonished that even if we understood the Spanish testimony, we had to consider the court interpreter’s translation as the definitive testimony. Imagine the problems that could cause if testimony is delivered in a less-prominent language such as Hmong or some native Central American dialect. It pretty much gives the interpreter the ability to distort testimony however he or she sees fit.
Not to mention the expense of retaining qualified interpreters for all these languages, then paying them for their time in court. Here in California we are constantly being told how the courts are overwhelmed and have nowhere near the budget that they need to manage their caseload, and it wouldn’t get any better if we had 12-person juries that needed three different translators.
JVW (23867e) — 8/15/2013 @ 9:07 amthey probably had in mind Indian languages, like Hopi or Navajo.
— The Hopi do not live in New Mexico, Sammy. Their reservation is wholly within the boundaries of Arizona.
The Icy who has been to Second Mesa (6a24fc) — 8/15/2013 @ 9:23 amFunny, I was just called for jury service Wednesday, and specifically remember during voir dire that the judge said one of the requirements of jury service was that you had to speak english. But hey, we’re just a bunch of hickbillys out here in TX anyway.
chickia (e49d32) — 8/15/2013 @ 9:25 amThis is why there is a pressing need for a Constitutional Amendment declaring the official language of the United States to be “English”!
askeptic (b8ab92) — 8/15/2013 @ 9:48 amThe federal government needs to tell state courts what they can and can’t do?
Icy (6a24fc) — 8/15/2013 @ 9:55 amComment by The hard-of-hearing Dana (3e4784) — 8/15/2013 @ 5:32 am
I just tell them that I’m an FFL, a member of the NRA, and a Vet….
Works like a charm.
Also, that I believe in Jury Nullification (I think that’s the clincher).
askeptic (b8ab92) — 8/15/2013 @ 10:04 amComment by Icy (6a24fc) — 8/15/2013 @ 9:55 am
If what they are doing is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution: Yes!
askeptic (b8ab92) — 8/15/2013 @ 10:12 amThat’s why I called for a Constitutional Amendment, not a law passed by Congress.
“where is teh young whelp?
representin’ ABQ
eating Cocoa Puffs?”
– Colonel Haiku
Not much to say, is there? It’s an unequivocal right under our state Constitution. It was read as such. Yes, there are practical difficulties – but (as I learned over and over again this summer) there are also difficulties when a party to a case doesn’t speak English. Should we not provide court interpreters to parties, or not allow parties to defend themselves in court unless they speak English, or what?
How does this mesh with “Batson challenge” case law in other states, by the way? When it comes to peremptory challenges, have courts accepted lack of English proficiency as a plausible alternative hypothesis to racial motivation?
Leviticus (6a67b8) — 8/15/2013 @ 10:18 amTanny O’Haley wrote:
I was a citizen when I couldn’t speak English. ‘Twas kind of along the lines King Edward I’s promise to the Welsh to give them a prince who spoke no English. 🙂
The English-speaking Dana (3e4784) — 8/15/2013 @ 10:24 amaskeptic: I would not object to serving on a jury if I were capable of it; it’s one of the duties of citizenship. But if I can’t hear, then I’m simply not capable of serving.
The natural-born citizen Dana (3e4784) — 8/15/2013 @ 10:28 amheh Walter White
Colonel Haiku (5348bf) — 8/15/2013 @ 10:31 amnow THERE’S a New Mexican
he was “teh Danger”
Comment by The natural-born citizen Dana (3e4784) — 8/15/2013 @ 10:28 am
I have no objections either, other than the inconvenience of not being paid while away from work.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 8/15/2013 @ 10:43 amWas actually sworn in once, but when we came back from lunch for the start of the trial, found that they parties had settled, and was excused.
If what they are doing is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution: Yes! That’s why I called for a Constitutional Amendment, not a law passed by Congress.
Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 8/15/2013 @ 10:12 am
— So what you REALLY want is for the 6th Amendment to be amended to read: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial English-speaking jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed …”
Icy (6a24fc) — 8/15/2013 @ 11:35 amCorrect?
Should we not provide court interpreters to parties, or not allow parties to defend themselves in court unless they speak English, or what?
— When you grow up, hopefully you won’t say things like this anymore.
Icy (6a24fc) — 8/15/2013 @ 11:46 amNo, Icy, what I want is that all official acts of government would be conducted, and recorded, in English. If someone does not understand/speak English, a translator would be provided for them – as it is today.
But, we have to realize that every time a statement is translated from one language to another, it opens the door to misunderstanding (BTW, still got your RESET button?). The law is no place for misunderstandings – it has become far too technical in the way it is written and applied.
I do not have any great degree of heart-burn over the provision in the NM Constitution, and it seems the court decided the matter in a rational manner.
When that Constitution was written (1912, IIRC), not everyone was literate, but they expected that you could at least speak and understand at least one of those two languages.
In an ideal world, with multiple translators, IWSTM that each set of counsels would have a translator to check on the accuracy of the others – which I seem to recall is the manner in which high-level diplomacy is conducted, each side of the dispute having their own translators.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 8/15/2013 @ 12:03 pmOf course, in a criminal trial, all the translators would have to be paid (if not provided for) by the State, since it is the State’s obligation to conduct a Fair Trial.
By then there’ll be no lawyers, Flobot will decide.
ropelight (7ffed3) — 8/15/2013 @ 12:09 pmI agree this is a bad decision but it doesn’t surprise me. Texas has a slogan that “It’s like a Whole Other Country” but, really, New Mexico is another country. The New Mexico Magazine even runs a monthly column called “One of Our 50 is Missing” that gives examples of people confusing New Nexico with other places, usually Mexico. It never seems to occur to them that it’s not just the similarity in names that confuses people. Being in New Mexico is like being in Mexico.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/15/2013 @ 12:17 pmSF: they probably had in mind Indian languages, like Hopi or Navajo.
Comment by The Icy who has been to Second Mesa (6a24fc) — 8/15/2013 @ 9:23 am
– The Hopi do not live in New Mexico, Sammy. Their reservation is wholly within the boundaries of Arizona.
Also I think Indians were not considered citizens until 1917 (unless they were taxed, which means off the reservation.)
I think maybe an explnation for that provisions is that in certain localities government business was conducted in Spanish. So what this was saying was that in places where they usually conducted business in Spanish, people who did not know it could not be excluded from the jury pool, and in place where it was conducted in English people who did not know it could not be excluded from the jury pool. We’re talking about the general right to be aon a jury. And when it says “inability to speak, read or write” the English or Spanish it means presumed inability, and there may have been other clauses in that constitution that said when an inability to soeak read or write a language excluded somebody from something.
It is important to actually try to research this and find out what they had in mind.
But I’m pretty sure it is not that there would be interpreters in every court case heard by a jury, or in any case.
Sammy Finkelman (e1ddc6) — 8/15/2013 @ 12:19 pm30. Comment by JVW (23867e) — 8/15/2013 @ 9:07 am
When I served on the jury for a murder trial, two or three of the witnesses testified in Spanish with an interpreter. We as jurors were admonished that even if we understood the Spanish testimony, we had to consider the court interpreter’s translation as the definitive testimony.
Which is of course, ridiculous, but this is said done for legal reasons.
The grounds would be:
1) The interpreters’ version of their testimony is the record of the case.
2) If something is wrong with the translation, the lawyers have a right to object.
3) They don’t want one or two or three of the jurors playing the expert.
But if one if thw witnesses had his tetsimony translated wrongly on somepoint that turns out to be key – if it’s wrong it’s wrong and if you understand what he really meant, you understand it. So they can’t really do that. But they do, to make all jurors equal and to have testimony thta an appeals court can rely on as what was given.
Sammy Finkelman (e1ddc6) — 8/15/2013 @ 12:25 pm“Being in New Mexico is like being in Mexico.”
– DRJ
Really? How so?
Not nearly as many decapitations, for starters. Far less emigration, too.
Leviticus (6a67b8) — 8/15/2013 @ 12:29 pmIt really seems to me that the section of the state constitution quoted by Ropelight is the end of the matter and that – however ridiculous the *practical* results are – the NM Constitution actually commands this outcome.
In which case the complaint shouldn’t be lodged with the court; the court is doing its job.
aphrael (814847) — 8/15/2013 @ 1:01 pmPEOPLE WHO APPLY FOR CITIZENSHIP ARE REQUIRED TO READ AND WRITE IN ENGLISH.ONLY ILLEGALS CANT READ WRITE OR SPEAK ENGLISH.
TOM DUNNE (8fdbb6) — 8/15/2013 @ 1:06 pmGiven the history of the clause, it seems to me that the original intention of those who framed and adopted it was not that Spanish-speakers would be sitting on juries in English-language trials, but that if a case was entirely between Spanish-speakers the trial would be conducted in Spanish, before a Spanish-speaking jury. I don’t think it would have occurred to them that this would be understood to require interpreters for jurors.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 8/15/2013 @ 1:14 pmPerhaps I’m being pedantic, but the clause in the NM constitution says ‘inability to speak’. It does not say ‘inability to understand [English]’.
But if NM wants to run their justice system like a social experiment, that’s on them. NM is a gorgeous state, at least.
Dustin (7ba879) — 8/15/2013 @ 1:18 pmI thought you had to be a citizen to be on a jury
Not necessarily. It’s up to the state. I don’t know whether NM requires it.
If you can’t speak English, how can you be a citizen?
Easy.
1. You could be born here.
2. You could be born abroad to citizen parents.
3. After a certain age you can be naturalized without learning English.
4. You could be living in Mexico, minding your own business, when all of a sudden a bunch of Yanquis show up and declare that this was now their country and you are now a Yanqui just like them.
Don’t forget why this clause is in the constitution in the first place; it was to protect the rights of Mexicans who were not immigrants, they never moved, the country moved under them. Nobody could tell them “if you don’t like it go back home”, they were home! They were the ones who could in all fairness tell the Yanquis “if you don’t like to respect my rights, why don’t you go home and give this place back to Mexico?”
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 8/15/2013 @ 1:27 pmBut if NM wants to run their justice system like a social experiment, that’s on them
The clause goes back way before the era of social experiments.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 8/15/2013 @ 1:36 pm1912 is the heart of the progressive movement that spawned today’s Progressives.
I would remind you of Gov. Hiram Johnson of CA and the battle of the progressives against the Southern Pacific Railroad.
There are all sorts of “social experiments” from that era:
The Women’s Temperance Movement;
The imposition of the Income Tax;
The Federal Reserve;
Schedule-1 drugs (the took coke out of Coke);
Popular election of Senators;
Suffrage.
Need I go on?
askeptic (b8ab92) — 8/15/2013 @ 1:50 pmDustin, if a person’s “inability to speak, read or write the English language” cannot disqualify him/her from serving on a jury, then would the test to determine an ‘inability to understand English’ involve measuring the response of people to commands such as “sit,” “stay,” and “roll over”?
Icy (6a24fc) — 8/15/2013 @ 1:52 pmBad Icy!
askeptic (b8ab92) — 8/15/2013 @ 2:03 pmGo to your room.
Their Constitution screws them. It is just a grand idea to have people on a jury that cannot understand what is going on in a trial, where people could be imprisoned.
JD (5c1832) — 8/15/2013 @ 2:09 pmRather than ignore their Constitution, they have mechanisms a available to amend it.
JD (5c1832) — 8/15/2013 @ 2:10 pmThis is wrong to allow someone to jury that does not speak english. Communication quality is lost during translation. And this is the United States where for you should speak english so everyone is even across the board. If you are Spanish and being charged here you should expect though to be spoken to in english or translation loss is your responsibility. How darn far do we have to go help you ? You are already favored above tax paying Americans in so many other ways. Quit the “poor me” attitude. And now put on your big boy pants.
James (3dba8a) — 8/15/2013 @ 2:47 pmComment by aphrael (814847) — 8/15/2013 @ 1:01 pm
however ridiculous the *practical* results are – the NM Constitution actually commands this outcome.
No, it can’t. This has apperently been in he New Mexico constition since 1912 – how come they haven’t been doing this all along. Did they ever?
Certain things can be ruled out just by the fact they didn’t happen.
Chief Justice Warren Berger wrote in a cnstiutionaal case regarding I think tax deduction for religious activities That “a page of history is worth a volume of logic.”
Actually that seems to come from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Maybe Warren Earl Berger said it slightly differently.
In which case the complaint shouldn’t be lodged with the court; the court is doing its job.
Sammy Finkelman (8650a4) — 8/15/2013 @ 2:57 pmI see
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1014.ZD.html
Lee v. Weisman (90-1014), 505 U.S. 577 (1992).
Whatever that language in the New Mexico constitution means it probablt does not mane what people are saying it means.’
Of course there’s been some jurisprudence about juries, and the right not to be excluded from a jury by race etc, has become the right of a defendant to have or get a chance to have people on a jury that fall into a certain demographic.
Ah – here’s what I was looking for:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0397_0664_ZC.html
Walz v. Tax Comm’n of the City of New York (No. 135) 397 U.S. 664
Sammy Finkelman (8650a4) — 8/15/2013 @ 3:05 pman election at which at least three-fourths of the electors voting in the whole state, and at least two-thirds of those voting in each county of the state, shall vote for such amendment.
I am willing to be that this provision passed with a bare majority itself. No law should ever stand that has a repeal provision greater than the margin by which it passed. It’s the mark of scoundrels.
Note: Obamacare has several such, and worse.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 8/15/2013 @ 3:07 pmRead the whole book, Sammy. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2449
nk (875f57) — 8/15/2013 @ 3:09 pmRather than ignore their Constitution, they have mechanisms a available to amend it.
You are going to get 3/4th of the people state wide, and 2/3rds in EVERY county?! Due process my ass. Seems like a job for Romer v Evans.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 8/15/2013 @ 3:10 pmDon’t forget why this clause is in the constitution in the first place; it was to protect the rights of Mexicans who were not immigrants, they never moved, the country moved under them. Nobody could tell them “if you don’t like it go back home”, they were home! They were the ones who could in all fairness tell the Yanquis “if you don’t like to respect my rights, why don’t you go home and give this place back to Mexico?”
In 1912?? The Gadsden Purchase was 1853? Sixty years is a long time to be protecting those rights. There must have been dozens of former Mexicans still living when New Mexico became a state.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 8/15/2013 @ 3:17 pmI repeat: if it is ridiculous and inconvenient to provide interpreters to potential jurors to facilitate a right to participate in the jury process, is it ridiculous and inconvenient to provide interpreters to parties to facilitate a right to due process?
Leviticus (6a67b8) — 8/15/2013 @ 3:38 pmYeah, but those Progressives were unapologetically racist. Anti-racism didn’t start to become a left-wing cause until the 1930s, and wasn’t mainstream on the left until the ’60s.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 8/15/2013 @ 3:42 pmPS: And multiculturalism didn’t rear its head until the 1970s.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 8/15/2013 @ 3:45 pmwrong, Milhouse… late ’60s.
Colonel Haiku (cf7c8c) — 8/15/2013 @ 3:47 pmif it is ridiculous and inconvenient to provide interpreters to potential jurors to facilitate a right to participate in the jury process,
It’s not a right, it’s a privilege.
Colonel Haiku (cf7c8c) — 8/15/2013 @ 3:48 pmThe clause was probably carried over from the territorial constitution.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 8/15/2013 @ 3:50 pm“It’s not a right, it’s a privilege.”
– Colonel Haiku
It’s a right in NM. I read it somewhere.
Leviticus (6a67b8) — 8/15/2013 @ 3:52 pmIt is a responsibility.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/15/2013 @ 3:54 pmAlso, the descendants of those Mexicans from 1848 and 1862 were still Spanish-speaking in 1910, and the importance of protecting their rights was clear. The framers of the 1910 constitution were concerned “that the protection given the Spanish-speaking people would not be tampered with, for native New Mexicans had the right to protest against being put in the same status as the Negro in Mississippi.”
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 8/15/2013 @ 3:58 pm, is it ridiculous and inconvenient to provide interpreters to parties to facilitate a right to due process?
Redic. If you don’t have the requisite skill set to participate in the process, the government should not be required to provide it for you. I would rather that money go to ESL classes.
JD (4f67a3) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:00 pmMilhouse, in case you haven’t been paying attention, the Dem Left is still the repository of racism in this country.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:03 pmWhere is that “anti-racism” that you talk about?
It’s a right in NM. I read it somewhere.
Comment by Leviticus
No, you’re confusing “jury service” with “to partaaay”
Colonel Haiku (cf7c8c) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:07 pm“It is a responsibility.”
– MD in Philly
It’s a right, first and foremost. You could argue that some or all rights have responsibilities that follow them, but the right comes first and stands alone – otherwise the “right” is just a conditional privilege. For instance, what exercise of responsibility serves as the prerequisite for invoking the right to due process?
Leviticus (6a67b8) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:07 pmLeviticus,
The obvious similarities are that both New Mexico and Mexico have more Hispanics than other races, and they share strong Hispanic cultures. With the exception of SE New Mexico and the Indian lands, people who live or visit New Mexico are surrounded by Hispanic arts, architecture, museums, customs, and culture. I think the history is overwhelmingly Hispanic, and I also think the New Mexican state government reflects that history and culture.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:08 pmYour robot overlords have pulled the wool over your eyes, young pup…
Colonel Haiku (cf7c8c) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:08 pm“If you don’t have the requisite skill set to participate in the process, the government should not be required to provide it for you. I would rather that money go to ESL classes.”
– JD
So the government should not provide public defenders?
Leviticus (6a67b8) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:10 pmDRJ, except in Reserve.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:11 pm“Your robot overlords have pulled the wool over your eyes, young pup…”
– Colonel Haiku
Could you be more specific?
Leviticus (6a67b8) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:13 pmBased on my reading of the New Mexico provision, New Mexico wants the Hispanic culture and language to be treated as equal to the English language and traditions. That’s a function of tradition as well as the practical reality of the Hispanic influence in New Mexico. I don’t think other languages or cultures will be afforded that same treatment either in law or practice.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:14 pm#85… yes… those two things above your nose that you’ve heard others refer to as Manson Lamps…
Colonel Haiku (cf7c8c) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:14 pmWell, thanks for your contribution to the conversation, Colonel.
Leviticus (6a67b8) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:16 pmDue process is process and process is a practical thing. If there is ever a case in New Mexico which requires one or more interpreters in the jury room, with a defendant screaming bloody murder that his federal constitutional right is being violated, the court can balance the competing interests and look for practical solutions. Sammy already pointed out the UN example with the interpreters out of sight and the various attendees wearing headphones.
nk (875f57) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:17 pmde nada…
Colonel Haiku (cf7c8c) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:17 pmnk,
I agree 100%. But it’s the constitutional provision that provides the impetus for the court to go out on that limb in the first place.
Leviticus (6a67b8) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:18 pmThe right to due process is best protected by those that have an understanding of the language said rights are written in, and should avail themselves of the opportunity to learn the language, instead of forcing the govt to spend $ to provide them assistance in overcoming their choice to not learn English.
JD (5c1832) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:18 pmI have almost no clue how juries actually deliberate. Never been on one. Is there any reason why they cannot have assigned seats with a microphone in front of each and restrain themselves from speaking over one another?
nk (875f57) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:20 pmI think this is a problem specific to states with pervasive and historical other-race cultures like New Mexico and Hawaii. What I quibble with is if this provision is used to allow service by illiterate people on juries. I prefer English as the official language but I accept that isn’t going to happen in New Mexico, absent federal legislation. However, I think it’s a very bad idea to let jurors serve who are illiterate in both Spanish and English, and I think this provision might be read to allow that.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:21 pmMaybe there are other provisions that prevent that from happening, but it doesn’t sound like it.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:24 pmYeah, that’s another thing that the court will look at, JD:
nk (875f57) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:24 pmMr. nk, why do you want to excuse Juror Number 8?
If he hasn’t been able to learn English in 50 years, he’s too stupid to decide my client’s fate, Your Honor.
Sorry, Mr. nk, the NM Constitution says that’s not a reason.
Then I’ll exercise a peremptory, your Honor.
Ok. or ….
Sorry, I can’t let you do that either under Battson et prog.
I repeat: if it is ridiculous and inconvenient to provide interpreters to potential jurors to facilitate a right to participate in the jury process, is it ridiculous and inconvenient to provide interpreters to parties to facilitate a right to due process?
Comment by Leviticus (6a67b8) — 8/15/2013 @ 3:38 pm
— And I repeat: WHEN you grow up …
Icy (6a24fc) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:25 pm“Sorry, Mr. nk, the NM Constitution says that’s not a reason.
Then I’ll exercise a peremptory, your Honor.
Ok. or ….
Sorry, I can’t let you do that either under Battson et prog.”
– nk
Yeah, that’s why I asked about Batson earlier.
Leviticus (6a67b8) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:29 pmI don’t think other languages or cultures will be afforded that same treatment either in law or practice.
Some people are more equal than others.
JD (5c1832) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:30 pmIcy,
I asked a genuine question. Do you have a genuine answer? Meet me halfway, man.
Leviticus (6a67b8) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:31 pmIt’s one thing to dislike this result but does anyone here believe New Mexicans didn’t have the right to adopt this Constitutional provision? I think they did and there are historical and cultural reasons why New Mexicans might want this provision. Hispanic culture is strong and Hispanics in New Mexico might not have assimilated as well at statehood without some accommodation of their culture.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:32 pmJD,
Citizens have rights. In NM, one of those rights is the right to serve on a jury. You don’t have to speak English to be a citizen of the United States.
I’m assuming you object to the third sentence, not the first?
Leviticus (6a67b8) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:34 pmIn Oakland, they provide translators for Ebonics.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:34 pmI mean the second, sorry.
Leviticus (6a67b8) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:34 pmThey talk an awful lot about it. And multiculturalism. Nowadays if someone wrote a clause like that it would be a very good guess that the author was a product of the radical left, Critical Legal Studies or some such nonsense. But that all begins in the 1930s. Before then the left, including the radical left, was openly racist. The Progressive movement of the time certainly made no pretense of not being racist. And multiculturalism was not even thought of. So this clause was not a “social experiment” as Dustin suggested; it was a genuine attempt to protect the rights of New Mexicans of Mexican descent.
And as I wrote earlier, I imagine the idea was that some trials (where all parties were Spanish-speaking) would be held in Spanish, with Spanish-speaking juries. I don’t think they meant that someone who is not fluent in English should not be excluded from a jury for a trial to be held in that language.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:35 pm“However, I think it’s a very bad idea to let jurors serve who are illiterate in both Spanish and English, and I think this provision might be read to allow that.”
– DRJ
This country doesn’t have a very good track record when it comes to using literacy tests as a prerequisite to the exercise of constitutional rights.
Leviticus (6a67b8) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:36 pmLooks like that MEXICAN AMERICAN aint happy with his welfare checks, you can bet he’s an OBAMA LOVER>
cookie (cf02c3) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:49 pmI don’t see why. Any test can be deliberately misused, but Congress made a huge mistake in banning literacy tests for voting. Possibly even an unconstitutional mistake, though the courts say otherwise. On the contrary, literacy tests for voting are so obviously right and proper that I think it fair to blame a lot of what’s wrong with America on their abolition.
The proper remedy for their abuse was to put an end to the abuse — not to the tests! Congress could have required that the tests be administered with rigorous fairness, either to all voters or to a portion chosen genuinely at random, and that in any one county the same test be given to all those tested. It could have appointed inspectors and judges to enforce this. It could even have vetted the tests themselves to ensure they were fair, and not deliberately designed to get a particular result. It could certainly have required that they be administered in English! But instead it chose to ban the tests, and I can’t help but suspect that this was for partisan political purposes.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:49 pmI mean, if there were evidence that driving tests were being administered in a racist manner in order to keep blacks off the roads, Congress would have to act to stop that, but it would never dream of doing so by banning the tests and requiring states to allow just anyone to drive!
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:51 pmLeviticus, I don’t think that Batson per se should extend that far but a New Mexico court may adopt its reasoning based on this particular NM Constitutional provision.
nk (875f57) — 8/15/2013 @ 5:01 pmYeah, I agree. I’m not sure how I feel about that one way or the other, though…
Leviticus (6a67b8) — 8/15/2013 @ 5:07 pmLeviticus – I think it is silly to think someone could properly execute their right to be a juror if they have not bothered to learn the language the laws are written in. Additionally, it seems silly that someone else should have to fork out money that they earned to provide you with a tool that would have been readily available.
In the interim, I hope they have to provide translators for Russian, Polish, Chinese, MSA, Farsi, Spanish, Portugese, and Dutch on the same jury panel.
JD (4f67a3) — 8/15/2013 @ 5:11 pmI’d like to go back to my earlier observation that the court did not consider it to be error per se, as it would for example if there were only eleven jurors. It means that it is a right that can be limited and that there is room for working with it and around it.
nk (875f57) — 8/15/2013 @ 5:16 pmJust a wild ass guess, but SA may be Perry. He just got booted again from Dana’s site, he’s hoppin’ mad, chewin’ his tongue and spoilin’ for trouble.
He’s a bitter quarrelsome old curmudgeon, he holds a grudge, and pretending to be someone he’s not so he can spit in the face of those who’ve rejected him has become his stock-n-trade.
ropelight (7ffed3) — 8/15/2013 @ 5:21 pmLeviticus,
It appears from this Jury Questionnaire form that New Mexico cares whether jurors are able to read and write in some language. It just doesn’t have to be English.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/15/2013 @ 5:37 pmFWIW, apparently 90% of Puerto Rico’s age-eligible population is excluded from the federal court jury pool because they don’t speak, read and write English.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/15/2013 @ 5:40 pmre: #115… dang it, that must really drain the prospective juror pool down in New Mexico… does it say anything about a full set of teeth?
Colonel Haiku (cf7c8c) — 8/15/2013 @ 5:48 pmSo, in a matter of about six weeks, the bar has dropped from not being able to read cursive to not being able to read cursive AND printing.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 8/15/2013 @ 6:16 pmPerhaps Mexico should annex New Mexico.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 8/15/2013 @ 6:18 pmThen, we’d be down to 56 states.
Since it’s a citizen’s right to be a juror, can jurors object if a defendant waives a jury trial.
What with this wonderful legal principle that it’s the juror who has the rights in the courtroom and all.
How dare the accused interfere with those jurors’ right to sit in judgement of him.
Steve57 (d3be09) — 8/15/2013 @ 6:28 pmcan jurors object if a defendant waives a jury trial.
In the federal system they can, and I imagine in some states if the statute so provides, through their governmental representative. The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial is not a right to not a jury trial.
nk (875f57) — 8/15/2013 @ 6:38 pmThe defendant’s right to a public trial is likewise not a right to a not public trial.
These kinds of things are not in place for the benefit of criminals, they are in place for the benefit of society.
nk (875f57) — 8/15/2013 @ 6:41 pmIf Mexico were to annex New Mexico, they’d be able to call it New New Mexico.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 8/15/2013 @ 6:41 pmLeviticus in teh State of Washington…
http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/22738-Leviticus-in-the-State-of-Washington.html
Colonel Haiku (cf7c8c) — 8/15/2013 @ 6:49 pmHeh!
nk (875f57) — 8/15/2013 @ 6:51 pmIf Mexico were to annex New Mexico
In New Mexico man have potato, in Mexico man do not have potato. Mexican soldier take potato from New Mexico man. Then New Mexico is like Mexico. Such is life.
nk (875f57) — 8/15/2013 @ 6:54 pmJurors can’t object if a defendant waives a jury trial.
It’s not an absolute right in federal court; the prosecution and the judge have to consent to the defendant’s request to waive a jury trial. But, again, jurors don’t have a role.
In most states the defendant has the right to waive a jury trial. New Mexico, oddly, is one of those states. At least for misdemeanor offenses. It is entirely up to the defendant if he or she wishes to have a bench trial. The defendant doesn’t need the prosecutor or the court to consent to the waiver, but can only withdraw the waiver with the court’s permission. There are several reasons why the accused my want to waive a trial by jury, such as negative pretrial publicity making it impossible to get a fair trial.
We have these rules not to benefit society but in the interest of justice. Which serves both the interests of the defendant and society at large at one and the same time.
This notion that jurors themselves have a right to be jurors does not serve justice.
Steve57 (d3be09) — 8/15/2013 @ 7:34 pmAgain, in most states you do have the right not to be tried by a jury.
Steve57 (d3be09) — 8/15/2013 @ 7:37 pmI don’t see this as a big deal unless the New Mexico courts use this provision as an excuse to allow someone who is totally illiterate to serve as a juror. This is a special rule that I view as limited to Spanish-speaking jurors in a state that is historically and culturally Hispanic.
Having said that and as charming as the Hispanic culture is, I don’t think it helps New Mexico economically or in business to identify as a primarily Hispanic state. But it helps tourism and it’s who they are, so I can live with it.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/15/2013 @ 7:45 pmIn Illinois it’s “unless the defendant requests trial by jury, the case shall be tried by the court” in the code of Criminal Procedure. It’s not a right, it’s a “it is what it is”.
nk (875f57) — 8/15/2013 @ 7:45 pmIt would also be a problem if the courts bootstrap equal protection onto this ruling and require that all languages be similarly accommodated.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/15/2013 @ 7:46 pmLeviticus:
I think an illiterate juror could be challenged for cause unless the case involved no written document and no written Charge and Verdict form.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/15/2013 @ 7:51 pmIn other words, it’s possible there could be a case that doesn’t involve any writing — especially in a traffic or a misdemeanor court. But I worry about district court cases and/or complex cases.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/15/2013 @ 7:54 pmI don’t see how it’s possible for there to be a case that doesn’t involve any writing. Even a traffic case will involve a citation and at least some notes the officer will take just in case the driver tries to fight the ticket.
Steve57 (d3be09) — 8/15/2013 @ 10:23 pmThis is what happens when time honored traditions are broken.
Everyone knows that if you don’t understand English you are supposed to ignore the summons and not get all civic minded…
New Mexico has the descendants of the Spanish conquistadors amongst it citizens. There are little towns out around Taos where spanish has been spoken as the primary language since before 1600. Travelling through there years ago, it was common to find older people living traditional subsistence farming lives and speaking only spanish. They did not identify as mexican. Their ancestors had trekked right past Mexico into new mexico.
steveg (794291) — 8/15/2013 @ 11:31 pmI can see a state making accommodations for these citizens.
Maybe some of the Texans can tell me how Texas handles the small municipalities that are snug against the border where spanish has been the language of 95% of the town since the 1700’s.
I read somewhere that it is common for town business to be conducted entirely in some local brand tex-mex spanish. what does texas do with the jury pool in those areas?
You plainly do not have a right to be on a jury, no matter what any piece of paper says, because people are refused for jury service every day.
There are conditions. Condition one is impartiality, but there are conditions to this non-“right”.
Dustin (303dca) — 8/15/2013 @ 11:44 pm“You plainly do not have a right to be on a jury, no matter what any piece of paper says, because people are refused for jury service every day.”
– Dustin
In New Mexico, you just as plainly have the right not to be excluded from the jury pool just because Spanish is your only language.
Leviticus (6a67b8) — 8/16/2013 @ 12:00 amI guess a condition to service might be a knowledge of the language of the state, or in this case the language(s) of the state.
This seems to me to be a simple accommodation to the large indigenous spanish speaking population who were sold to the USA.
Texas overthrew Mexico.
California was coerced from Mexico and gold, good ag, good timber,good ports, and good cattle land brought huge waves of english speaking americans who overwhelmed the Spaniards.
New Mexico was never very connected to Mexico or Texas. American (english speaking) citizens were originally outnumbered by spanish speaking citizens who had their own existing legal traditions which became hybridized with a western justice system. There was no huge wave of english speaking americans into New Mexico because it was and is poor in exploitable resources.
It seems like new mexico had/has more of a go along to get along system of assimilation, with a generous nod to those who didn’t or don’t feel like assimilating. That is their right as a state.
I don’t think their system should be modeled by California, Arizona or Texas, but I can see how people like mexican american might get all wet dreamy thinking about criminal trials in California conducted entirely in spanish… of course my belief is that after a time, spanish speaking jurors would likely become harder on their peers than anyone anticipated.
steveg (794291) — 8/16/2013 @ 1:20 ammeant to say “sold out” but it’d be more accurate to say new mexicans were abandoned to the US and Texas by mexico.
(i’m capitalizing Texas out of respect for DRJ.. otherwise… lower case)
steveg (794291) — 8/16/2013 @ 1:27 amHeh. Thank you for capitalizing Texas, steveg!
I don’t know how juries work in the colonias along the Texas-Mexico border. Their problems are so widespread and basic that my guess is jury duty isn’t on the radar. In general, I doubt many colonias have functioning city governments with courts or juries. I suspect the only jury pools that a colonias resident could conceivably sit on would be in the federal court, although I doubt many are eligible to serve on a federal court jury since they must be adequately proficient in English enough to complete a jury questionnaire.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/16/2013 @ 8:00 amIndividuals are also disqualified from serving on a federal jury if they can’t speak English, so New Mexico citizens who don’t speak English could serve on a city, county, or state jury but not a federal jury.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/16/2013 @ 8:09 amAccording to the New York Times’ definition, I think Leviticus is a white New Mexican.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 8/16/2013 @ 2:41 pm“Some civic duties, if not all, are best conducted by citizens able to speak a single common language. Jury duty is one of them”
The Constitution doesn’t seem to require the best, though.
pete (c770a7) — 8/16/2013 @ 8:03 pmAccording to the New York Times’ definition, I think Leviticus is a white New Mexican.
Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 8/16/2013 @ 2:41 pm
Like the Black Irish, is it?
Yoda (35b482) — 8/16/2013 @ 10:04 pmLiteracy Tests, for voting and other purposes….
The uneven application of these various tests used to qualify for voter registration, but intended in many cases to be used to disqualify minorities from voting, could have been worked around by the Congress, or even the Courts, demanding that only one test be used, the one used by the Federal Government for qualifying people for Naturalization (Citizenship).
askeptic (2bb434) — 8/17/2013 @ 7:50 amGiven how much is literally “lost in translation”, providing this sort of assistance to those who can’t speak or understand our native tongue sounds like a recipe for injustice to me.
Colonel Haiku (cc866e) — 8/17/2013 @ 9:04 amIcy, I asked a genuine question. Do you have a genuine answer? Meet me halfway, man.
Comment by Leviticus (6a67b8) — 8/15/2013 @ 4:31 pm
— The problem is this: Your question is predicated upon moving the goal posts, raising a straw-man, and making an apples-to-oranges comparison.
JD wrote, “If you don’t have the requisite skill set to participate in the process, the government should not be required to provide it for you. I would rather that money go to ESL classes.”
You responded with, “So the government should not provide public defenders?”
— THAT ^^^ is ‘moving the goal posts’. JD’s comment was on-topic on the question of restrictions for who can serve on a jury. Completely unbidden, you turned that into “What, you don’t want defendants to have their rights protected under the Sixth Amendment?”
Should we not provide court interpreters to parties, or not allow parties to defend themselves in court unless they speak English, or what?
— This is a straw-man argument. No one here suggested such a thing.
You asked: “if it is ridiculous and inconvenient to provide interpreters to potential jurors to facilitate a right to participate in the jury process, is it ridiculous and inconvenient to provide interpreters to parties to facilitate a right to due process?”
Icy (089902) — 8/17/2013 @ 10:10 am— Apples-to-oranges comparison. The fact that they’re in the same courtroom, involved in the same case, does not mean that the defendant(s) and the members of the jury are there for the same reason! The defendant is there to receive due process; the jury is there to provide it. The argument being made is that perhaps having all members of a jury conversant in English makes that process easier.
The jury is about the rights of the defendant and the potential victims, and also the contract with the people to administer justice so we don’t go all vigilante. What kind of lame brain thinks about a jurer’s “right” to sit on a jury? This is the thinking that got us so many unqualified and expensive people in the military, their “right” to work any job, vs. the military objective of making us safe.
Smarty (e49446) — 8/17/2013 @ 2:41 pmI meant potential offenders.
Smarty (e49446) — 8/17/2013 @ 2:42 pmJust a thought: don’t you have to pass tests IN ENGLISH to become a citizen? And so all people picked to be potential observers, coming from the voting roles, should be able to tell you about George Washington in English and thus generally understand the language? Does this speak to the breakdown of assimilation policies or to the number of identity thieving illegal aliens that are voting?
Smarty (e49446) — 8/17/2013 @ 2:45 pmThere is no “right” to serve on a jury. Just a right not to be excluded from a jury for discriminatory reasons. If you don’t uderstand the difference, figure it out. New Mexico’s provision is as stupid as Canada’s bizarre attempt to shut up the damn faux french in the country by trying to say everything twice.
SPQR (768505) — 8/17/2013 @ 3:01 pm“There is no “right” to serve on a jury.”
– SQR
There is in New Mexico. Referring to “the right to… sit on juries” implies that there, you know, is one.
Leviticus (6a67b8) — 8/17/2013 @ 4:45 pm“Just a thought: don’t you have to pass tests IN ENGLISH to become a citizen?”
– Smarty
Not if you are BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.
Leviticus (6a67b8) — 8/17/2013 @ 4:46 pmSo all these people have learned English just to handicap their kids, enabled by liberal idiots? If you are too lazy or stupid to learn the language of the country that you are born in, or too lazy or stupid to get an ID to vote, then it should suck to be you, not suck to be everyone else paying for it.
Smarty (e49446) — 8/17/2013 @ 5:31 pmThe New Mexico Constitution can’t create a right that conflicts with the rights of the accused guaranteed by the US Constitution.
If I were ever accused of a crime in New Mexico I would challenge this on the basis the state is violating my Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial. Per the US Constitution it’s the accused who enjoys the rights. Not the jurors. If jurors can’t understand the trial proceedings or jury deliberations without everyone playing a giant game of telephone in multiple languages then that necessarily conflicts with the rights of the accused.
What amendment in the US Constitution can anyone point to that guarantees the rights of the juror?
Steve57 (c1ba81) — 8/17/2013 @ 6:10 pmIf there is a general right to serve on a jury under New Mexico law, I don’t think it would prohibit excluding a potential juror in a particular case — such as for bias or some other reason.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/17/2013 @ 6:35 pmIOW since the rights of the accused or any litigant are protected when jurors are excluded for cause, I don’t see any conflict with the Sixth Amendment.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/17/2013 @ 6:36 pmDRJ, the article at Allahpundit’s post makes my objection nicely.
In this case the defendant tried to overturn his conviction because the man was dismissed in violation of the New Mexico constitution.
Which apparently mandates that you can’t dismiss a juror who can’t understand the proceedings without violating their state-given right to sit on a jury.
If the opposite were true, I were convicted of a crime in New Mexico because this juror couldn’t be dismissed just because he can’t understand the proceedings, How would I not have an argument that this right NM created for jurors violated my Constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment?
Steve57 (c1ba81) — 8/17/2013 @ 6:55 pmIt seems to me the New Mexico has created a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.
Dismiss a juror because he can’t understand the proceedings because he isn’t fluent or literate in English, violate the state constitution.
Don’t dismiss a juror because he can’t understand the proceedings because he isn’t fluent or literate in English, violate the US Constitution.
Steve57 (c1ba81) — 8/17/2013 @ 6:59 pmSeems to be a solution, in search of a problem,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324769704579008950507165032.html
narciso (3fec35) — 8/17/2013 @ 7:06 pmSteve57:
The court must provide an interpreter so the juror can understand the proceedings.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/17/2013 @ 7:42 pmWhat amendment in the US Constitution can anyone point to that guarantees the rights of the juror?
Comment by Steve57 (c1ba81) — 8/17/2013 @ 6:10 pm
Society decides how it will try you. Constitutional amendments limit its power to choose the method. To some degree. Excluding a juror for not speaking English? Sorry, not to that degree. Hmm?
nk (875f57) — 8/17/2013 @ 8:47 pmDRJ, I really don’t see how that changes anything. The juror can’t understand the judge when the judge explains the jury instructions, for instance. When the interpreter explains the jury instructions, the juror is not hearing the jury instructions from the judge. Instead, the juror is getting a layman’s understanding of the jury instructions from an interpreter.
How does that not impact the rights of the accused to a fair trial?
I’ve worked with interpreters and translators. The author of the original article at HotAir’s link doesn’t seem to understand there’s a difference. A translator works with the written word, taking a work in one language and converting it into another. A translator isn’t under a time constraint; if the translator doesn’t have the technical expertise to understand a subject, the translator can consult with a subject matter expert to reduce if not eliminate errors. An interpreter works with the spoken word. Interpreters have to keep up with the conversation, and only bring whatever expertise they themselves have gained through education or experience. They’ve got no one to rely on.
An interpreter can be perfectly fluent in two languages. But an interpreter also has to be proficient in the technical jargon in both languages if the interpreter is going to be the go between in, say, a meeting to discuss an engineering issue.
I’ve done bilateral military to military liaison primarily in Japan, but also in Korea and Thailand involving professional, government interpreters. From both governments. Huge misunderstandings resulted when the interpreters didn’t just have to understand the language, but the issue to be discussed. And they didn’t have the technical or military backgrounds to understand the issue itself.
I really don’t see how that would work any better in a legal environment. Are these interpreters lawyers? And if so what kind of lawyers?
We would sometimes get involved in contract disputes. For instance decades ago the USN relinquished control of the drydocks in Sasebo, Japan. But the contract stipulated that the commercial shipyard had to give priority to the USN if its vessels needed work. At least, the English version of the contract so stipulated. The shipyard took it to court which ruled the Japanese version didn’t quite state that. I don’t recall ever seeing any sort of legal agreements between the two countries that said exactly the same thing. Sometimes the differences were not minor.
On a personal note the reason I qualified for a liaison job in Japan that normally required the candidate to graduate from the Defense Language Institute is because I scored well enough on the Defense Language Proficiency test to qualify. Simply because there weren’t always enough interpreters to go around. I would use one anyway when I could. Naturally the Japanese government representatives would use their own. So I often understood how what I said changed when my interpreter repeated what I said Japanese, and how what the Japanese representative changed when their interpreter put it into English.
I mention that because this sort of thing isn’t all that unusual:
http://blog.rev.com/articles/translation/interpreter-mistake-offends-poland
Those are the interpreters and translators Presidents and Secretaries of State get. Think Hillary Clinton and her “reset” button; that didn’t translate very well, did it? What kind of interpreter is going to be provided in a New Mexico court? One you would stake your freedom on?
I honestly do not see how providing an interpreter will do anything but introduce error into a court proceeding.
Steve57 (c1ba81) — 8/17/2013 @ 9:43 pmComment by Steve57 (c1ba81) — 8/17/2013 @ 9:43 pm
I don’t recall ever seeing any sort of legal agreements between the two countries that said exactly the same thing. Sometimes the differences were not minor.
That’s why they invariably say one language is controlling.
As for jury instructions etc. In Ontario, Canada, there an be a trial where the jury speaks French and the judge and attorneys and court reporter are bilingual, so the instructions would be given in French.
This happened because of the rather new court rulings that confused the right to be on a jury with the right not to be excused for cause – with the right of a defendant to an impartial jury.
Sammy Finkelman (fa71e0) — 8/17/2013 @ 10:17 pmUmm, Sammy, one lesson I took from that Sasebo drydock dispute is that wasn’t even as cut and dried as I thought it would be.
Steve57 (c1ba81) — 8/17/2013 @ 10:33 pmThis New Mexico deal is proof that the liberals are not only interested in low information voters, but now they want low information jurors, too.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 8/19/2013 @ 10:19 amDo we really need New Mexico as a state ?
We have 56 others.
It’s not like New Mexico has the Grand Canyon, or something. Taos has some cool art galleries, but that’s not really a justification for inclusion as a United State.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 8/19/2013 @ 10:21 am56 states in total according to this eBay listing:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1999-2009-Commemorative-56-State-Quarter-Coin-Album-Holds-56-Coins-/230941356083?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35c52d7033#ht_721wt_797
The 57th “state” Barack Obama had in mind in 2008 was “Democrats’ abroad” which is not a location.
If you want a 57th quarter for your coin collection, you could use the other side of all the quarters (which is the same) or a 1998 quarter, or a Bicentennial quarter (1776-1976) minted from July 1974 till December 31, 1976.
Sammy Finkelman (0c6103) — 8/19/2013 @ 10:49 amMaybe the name “New Mexico” is confusing to some of our Spanish-speaking friends.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 8/19/2013 @ 6:08 pmPerhaps they misinterpret it to mean it is merely an extension of Mexico.
Bob Filner was at that convention and was hanging around Obama when someone used that term.
But he heard, “Democrats, a broad!” He kept shouting, “Where, where” until he was sedated.
Steve57 (c1ba81) — 8/19/2013 @ 6:45 pmIs “New Mexico” really all that much better than the old Mexico ?
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 8/21/2013 @ 4:29 pmBe honest.
Really? What on earth have liberals got to do with this? They didn’t write the New Mexico constitution.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 8/21/2013 @ 4:43 pmMilhouse,
You have zero sense of humour.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 8/21/2013 @ 4:48 pmI hope New York city doesn’t pass the same law they have 147 different languages to deal with in the city alone. Can you imagine the night mare that would be.
Phil Wells (805754) — 8/24/2013 @ 7:19 pm