1. Video Mediated Legal Proceedings: the past, the present and the future
Carla M. Mathers, Esquire MARIE Center
National Symposium on
Video Interpreting
June 4-6, 2012

2. Due Process Balancing  Forum for vindication of rights;
 Perception of fairness;
 Language barriers must be remediated; &
 In person interpreter
 Remote interpreter
 Other configuration
 Efficiency versus effectiveness

3. Configurations – Video
Mediated Proceedings &

4. All parties remote &
Court
Interpreter
Deaf

5. Interpreter & Deaf Party Remote
Interpreter & Deaf Consumer
Court

6. Deaf Party Remote &
Interpreter
in court
Deaf party remote

7. Interpreter Remote
Deaf party
in court
Interpreter remote

8. The past:  Courts are slow; technology is fast &
 Telephone interpreting
 Videoconferencing
 Remote mediated proceedings

9. “There is no case law yet concerning the position of the interpreter during videoconferencing in criminal cases. In this connection, the general rule applies that the responsibility of the government is not limited to appointing an interpreter, but that it should also ensure that the interpreter and his/her interpretation are of sufficient quality.”

10. The present  European e-Justice Initiative  Witnesses  Experts
 Suspects
 Police stations
 Prisons
 Asylum & Immigration contexts

11. VRI under development in Ireland.
We specialize in medical remote interpreting.
BISVRI added 20 new clients in 2011 to the former 100 VRI clients they have.
USAVRI.com – designed to allow interpreters to work from home and build their own businesses.
TCSVRI – interpreted over 25,000 minutes in the first 6
months of a national contract.

12. VRI Pilot Projects  California Judicial Council project
 Nebraska Pilot Project
 Texas Office of Court Administration, Remote Interpreting project
 Legal Services Corporation, Technology Initiative Grant Program (TIG)
 Cameras in Court Digital Video Pilot

13. Federal guidance
 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
 Requires defendant’s presence, unless….
 Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316 (4th Cir.
2002)(videoconferencing may make it difficult to make credibility determinations and gauge demeanor).
 ABA Standards on Language Access, adopted as ABA Policy 2012.

14. “The most promising technology to advance language interpreting services is remote video interpreting services.”
White Paper on Court Interpretation: Fundamental Access to Justice. Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA). November 2007.

15. Advantages (real or perceived)
 Safer to have convicted criminal remote &
 Video retained as official record
 Enables sharing of resources
 More cost efficient
 Lack of certified interpreters

16. Currently used  Missouri  Florida  Initial appearances
 Arraignments
 Waiver of preliminary hearing
 Sentencing after guilty plea
 Proceedings not involving cross examination
 Florida
 Probation violations
 Status hearings

17. Currently used  Wisconsin  High travel vis a vis import of hearing
 No certified/qualified available for emergency or short notice
 Local interpreter discloses irreparable conflict of interest
 Walk in matters

18. Disadvantages (real or perceived)
 Two dimensional medium
 Trust lost if system inefficient
 Natural turn taking more difficult &
 More stressful because new
 Technology problems
 Macquarie University study

19. VRI Ineffective (Florida)
 Multiple pleas
 Demonstrative evidence
 Recordings or illustrations
 Deaf person has a mental illness, intellectual or cognitive disabilities
 Deaf person is a minor
 Deaf person is heavily medicated,
intoxicated or injured
 when the Deaf person has additional visual impairments.

20. VRI Ineffective (Wisconsin) &
 Certified interpreter close
 Intensive testimony/emotionally charged &
 Lengthy or contentious cross examination &
 Proceedings longer than 15 minutes
 Complicated multi-party evidentiary
hearings or trials

21. Miscellaneous considerations &
 Any time communication is difficult to
establish
 Cases involving children
 People with mental illnesses
 Unsophisticated users of interpreting services
 Deaf-blind people or
 People with profound speech or
language problems. &

22. Establishing standards &
 Who creates them?
 What do they relate to?
 Where is the Deaf perspective?
 Who makes the ultimate decision? &

23. Legal Interpreting Protocol Issues
 Privileged communications
 Oath
 Voir dire
 Recording
 Preparation (case file and access to participants)
 Admission of evidence
 Interjecting interpreter needs (bench conferences)
 Visual issues/turn taking

24. Wisconsin program  In advance:  Qualifications/conflicts of interest
 Language compatibility
 Equipment testing
 Preparatory documents
 Sound/video check
 Interpreter prepares with Deaf and attorney or clerk

25. Wisconsin program  On-site:  Voir dire for the record
 Ensure audio/video quality
 Speak clearly, slowly and one at a time
 Remind others to be quiet
 Require speakers to identify by name before speaking
 Require consecutive interpretation

26. Remote Interpreting 2024
 Where will we be?

27. Remote Interpreting 2024 &
 Where will we be working?