Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 8.02

As amended through July 3, 2024

Rule 8.02 - Appointmen t; Applicability of Ethics Rules to Ail Interpreters

(a) Use of Certified Court Interpreter. Whenever an interpreter is required to be appointed by the court, the court shall appoint certified court interpreter who is listed on the statewide roster of interpreters established by the State Court Administrator under Rule 8.01, except as provided in Rule 8.02(b), (c), and (e). A certified court interpreter shall be presumed competent to interpret in all court proceedings. The court may, at any time, make further inquiry into the appointment of a particular certified court interpreter. By objection made at the commencement of a proceeding, or by motion made appropriately in advance of a proceeding. special circumstances which render the certified court interpreter unqualified to interpret in the proceeding must be presented to the courte. The court shall use a certified court interpreter except when no certified court interpreter is reasonably available. A certified interpreter is not reasonably available if the hearing would have to be unreasonably delayed to secure the presence of the interpreter, or if the interpreter is unwilling to provide interpreting services at the request of the court.

(b) Use of Non-Certified Court Interpreter on Statewide Roster. If no certified or employee court interpreter is reasonably available, the court shall appoint a non-certified court interpreter who is otherwise competent and is listed on the Statewide Roster established by the State Court Administrator under Rule 8.01. If the Roster includes additional information regarding an interpreter's level of experience, competency, and qualification, the court shall appoint from among the highest ranked interpreters available. In determining whether a non-certified court interpreter is competent, the court shall apply the screening standards published by the State Court Administrator.

(c)Use of Spoken Language Court Interpreter not on the Statewide Roster. Only after the court has determined that the requirements of Rule 8.02(a) and (b) cannot be met may the court appoint a spoken language interpreter who is not listed on the Statewide Roster and who is otherwise competent. In determining whether a spoken language interpreter is competent, the court shall apply the screening standards published by the State Court Administrator. The court may appoint an interpreter certified in another state.

(d) Use of Non-certified Sign Language Court Interpreter not on the Statewide Roster. Only after determining that the requirements of Rule 8.02(a) and (b) cannot be met may die court appoint a non-certified sign language interpreter(s) who is not listed on the Statewide Roster. The court must appoint an interpreters) who can establish effective communication and who meets the requirements of Rule 8.01(c). paragraphs (2) and (3).

(e) Use of Employee Court Interpreter. In recognition that certification is not available for all languages and that non-certified interpreters can nevertheless be competent andqualified to perform interpretation services for the courts, and in recognition that availability of court interpreters on a statewide basis is a critical concern, the Minnesota Judicial Branch may employ qualified and competent interpreters to perform interpreter services for the courts. Employee interpreters must have (1) satisfied all requirements in Rule 8.01(a): (2) satisfied all requirements for certification in Rule 8.05. or met the competency standards established by the State Court Administrator: and (3) been found to be qualified and competent by the Chief Judge in the judicial district of primary employment and taken the oath required by Minn. Stat. §§ 546.44. subd. 2. and 611.33. subd. 2. An employee interpreter who has taken the required oath is not required to take the oath at any subsequent court proceedings. An employee court interpreter shall be presumed competent to interpret in all court proceedings. The court may, at any time, make further inquiry into the appointment of a particular employee court interpreter. By objection made at the commencement of the proceeding, or by motion made appropriately in advance of a proceeding, special circumstances which render the employee court interpreter unqualified to interpret in the proceeding must be presented to the court.

(f) Applicability of Ethics Rules to All Interpreters. All interpreters providing court interpreting services are subject to the Code of Professional Responsibility for Interpreters in the Minnesota State Court System and Court Interpreter Program policies, without regard to whether thev are certified or on the Statewide Roster. Interpreters on the Statewide Roster are also subject to the State Court Administrator's Office Enforcement Procedures for the Code of Professional Responsibility for Court Interpreters.

Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 8.02

Added effective 1/1/1996; amended effective 1/1/1998; amended effective 7/1/2020.

Advisory Committee Comment 1997 Amendment

Rule 8.02(a) requires that courts use certified court interpreters. If certified court interpreters are not available or cannot be located, courts should next use only interpreters listed on the statewide roster maintained by the State Court Administrator. Rule 8.02 recognizes, however, that in rare circumstances it will not be possible to appoint an interpreter from the statewide roster. Non-roster interpreters and telephone interpreting services, such at AT and T's Language Lines Service, should be used only as a last resort because of the limitations of such services including the lack of a minimum orientation to the Minnesota Court System and to the requirements of court interpreting. For a detailed discussion of the issues, see Court Interpretation: Model Guides for Policy and Practice in the State Courts, chapter 8 (National Center for State Courts, 1995), a copy of which is available from the State Court Administrator's Office. To avoid unreasonable objections to a certified court interpreter in a proceeding, the rule makes a presumption that the certified court interpreter is competent. However, the rule also recognizes that there are situations when an interpreter may be competent to interpret, but not qualified. Examples of such situations include when an interpreter has a conflict of interest or the user of the interpreter services has unique demands, such as services tailored to a person with minimal language skills, that the interpreter is not as qualified to meet.

Rule 8.02(b) requires that courts make "diligent" efforts to locate a certified court interpreter before appointing a non-certified court interpreter. Because the certification process is still in an early stage and because it is important to ensure that courts use competent interpreters, courts should seek the services of certified court interpreters who are located outside the court's judicial district if none can be found within its own district. In addition, courts should consider modifying the schedule for a matter if there is difficulty locating a certified interpreter for a particular time. Because the certification program being implemented by the State Court Administrator is still new, interpreters are being certified in only certain languages at this time. The Advisory Committee recognizes that it may be some time before certification is provided for all languages used in our courts. However, the committee feels strongly that for those languages for which certification has been issued, the courts must utilize certified court interpreters to ensure that its interpreters are qualified. If a court uses non-certified court interpreters, court administrators should administer the screening standards prior to hiring an interpreter. However, the presiding judge is still primarily responsible for ensuring the competence and qualifications of the interpreter. A model voir dire to determine the competence and qualifications of an interpreter is set forth in the State Court Administrator's Best Practices Manual on Court Interpreters.