Ohio R. Superi. Ct. XX app J
Preamble.
These standards apply to courts appointing a foreign language interpreter who, pursuant to Sup.R. 88(D)(4), is participating in the case or court function through telephonic interpretation.
Due process requires courts to ensure limited English proficient individuals are able to fully participate in the proceedings of and are afforded meaningful access in case and court functions. The fundamental role of a foreign language interpreter is to provide complete and accurate interpretation services in the case or court function in order to meet these due process requirements. The best way to accomplish this, especially in complex or prolonged proceedings, is to have the foreign interpreter present on-site where the case or court function is taking place.
However, in some instances, this may prove difficult due to factors such as the interpreter's lack of proximity. In these instances telephonic interpretation may be an appropriate alternative. However, telephonic interpretation should not be used when a Supreme Court certified foreign language interpreter, provisionally qualified foreign language interpreter, or language-skilled foreign language interpreter is reasonably available to facilitate communication in person.
Furthermore, the quality and success of telephonic interpretation depend on a variety of factors. Examples include the interpreter's quality of training, the quality of the equipment used, the length of the case or court proceeding, the number of speakers, and whether reference will be made to evidence or documents to which the interpreter does not have access. These and other factors can all have a bearing on the effectiveness of the telephonic interpretation.
Ultimately, telephonic interpretation services should aim to provide the same quality of services as in-person interpretation. To this end, these standards represent recommended practices and minimum requirements to ensure the efficient and effective administration of justice and are intended to complement court rules and federal and state laws, regulations, and standards pertaining to use of court interpretation services.
Definitions.
As used in these standards, "case or court function," "consecutive interpretation," "foreign language interpreter," "limited English proficient," "provisionally qualified foreign language interpreter," "sight translation," "simultaneous interpretation," "Supreme Court certified foreign language interpreter," and "telephonic interpretation" have the same meanings as in Sup.R. 80 and "language-skilled foreign language interpreter" means a foreign language interpreter appointed by a court pursuant to Sup.R. 88(D)(3).
Standard 1. When Telephonic Interpretation May be Used.
A court may use telephonic interpretation in a case or court function if all of the following apply:
(A) A Supreme Court certified foreign language interpreter, provisionally qualified foreign language interpreter, or language-skilled foreign language interpreter is not reasonably available to serve on-site;
(B) The matter cannot be postponed or delayed;
(C) The quality of interpretation will not be compromised.
Commentary
While it is impossible to list all situations where telephonic interpretation might be appropriate, the court may consider the following: initial appearances, arraignments, simple traffic hearings, uncontested name changes, uncontested guardianships, ex parte civil protection orders, and marriages. The court may identify any other instances where telephonic interpretation may be suitable.
Standard 2. When Telephonic Interpretation Should Not be Used.
A court should not use telephonic interpretation in a case or court function if any of the following apply:
(A) A Supreme Court certified foreign language interpreter, provisionally qualified foreign language interpreter, or language-skilled foreign language interpreter is reasonably available to serve on-site;
(B) The interpretation is necessary for a proceeding that is expected to last longer than forty-five minutes, provided the interpretation may exceed forty-five minutes if the communication is clear, the proceeding is simple and routine, and the rights of the party are not compromised;
(C) The interpretation is necessary for a proceeding that involves witness testimony or introduces complex evidence;
(D) The limited English proficient party or witness is a child, is elderly, is an unsophisticated user of interpreter services, has profound speech or language problems, or is or is alleged to be mentally disabled or mentally ill;
(E) It is determined that using telephonic interpretation would negatively impact access for any reason.
Standard 3. Compliance with Applicable Laws, Rules, and Standards.
A court using telephonic interpretation shall comply with all court rules and federal and state laws, regulations, and standards pertaining to use of court interpretation services.
Standard 4. Accommodating Modes of Interpretation.
(A) General
Subject to division (B) of this standard, court using telephonic interpretation should accommodate sight translation, consecutive interpretation, or simultaneous interpretation, as is necessary for proper and effective communication between the court, the parties, and the limited English proficient speaker.
(B) Sight translation
A court should not use sight translation with telephonic interpretation unless the foreign language interpreter has access to the documents beforehand and ample time to render the document from one language into the other. If sight translation is used with telephonic interpretation, the document should be short and routine.
Standard 5. Oath.
A foreign language interpreter participating through telephonic interpretation shall take an oath or affirmation that the interpreter knows, understands, and will act according to the "Code of Professional Conduct for Court Interpreters and Translators," as set forth in Appendix H to these rules and that the interpreter will make a true translation or interpretation as required by Evid.R. 604.
Standard 6. Telephonic Interpretation Equipment.
(A) Adequacy of equipment
A court using telephonic interpretation should have adequate equipment in the courtroom and other locations where case and court functions involving the presence and participation of limited English proficient individuals take place.
(B) Quality of transmission
A court using telephonic interpretation should ensure the telephonic interpretation equipment has the capacity to deliver clear and audible transmission of voice and minimizes background noise and disruptions that might affect the quality of the interpretation.
(C) Integration into existing audio speaker system
A court using telephonic interpretation may integrate the telephonic interpretation into a courtroom's existing audio speaker system using a digital audio platform device or a simple stand-alone device with amplification.
Standard 7. Coordination of Telephonic Interpretation Services.
A court using telephonic interpretation should designate one individual to arrange and monitor the provision of the service in order to ensure continuous and efficient operation.
Commentary
Having a coordinator to arrange and monitor telephonic interpretation helps to ensure an efficient operation and eliminate minor issues that can arise with the use of telephonic interpretation. Additionally, the accumulated experience of one individual produces efficiency.
Standard 8. Training on the Use of Telephonic Interpretation Services.
A court using telephonic interpretation should provide training to users of the technology, relevant support staff, and other involved individuals in order to ensure an efficient operation and the integrity in the use of the service.
Standard 9. Monitoring Telephonic Interpretation Services.
A court using telephonic interpretation should collect and analyze information regarding the performance of the service on a regular basis in order to evaluate the quality of the service, its benefits and limitations, and its cost-effectiveness.
Ohio. R. Superi. Ct. XX app J