15 Feb A New Approach to Interpreting Witness Testimony

If you said “Consecutive, of course,” then I disagree. And if you said “Um, simultaneous, maybe?” then I disagree even more strongly. (See, I told you it was a trick question.) What interpreters all over the country have begun doing with witness testimony is a hybrid of simultaneous and consecutive interpreting. Here, let me explain.

The Scenario

I received a question on this practice from a colleague last year, and our exchange is reproduced below (with some edits for clarity, style, and to elaborate on our quick there’s-a-judge-waiting-for-me shorthand):

Her Question:

I have a question from an interpreter in […] who will be working in federal court.  They have never interpreted in Federal Court before so they are preparing and they want to know how to do Simultaneous Interpreting of an LEP witness interrogation.  They have never heard of witness interrogation in simultaneous mode.  How often do you do this?  I imagine it is done frequently.

He is worried about talking over the witness and the reporter not being able to hear the English rendition.  I think he should cut off the witness’s mic to the courtroom so that only he can hear it, and the court will only hear the interpreter.  I told him he should think about it as a series of short simultaneous interpretations, the attorney would not start the next question until he (the interpreter) is done speaking and the same for the witness, he/she would wait to start talking until he is done talking…

My Answer:

We’ve been doing witness testimony mostly in simultaneous mode here for several years now and love it—in fact, it’s spread to our state courts because the interpreters who do both liked it so much.

The way we do it is that the witness sits on the witness stand, wearing a headset, and the Spanish>English interpreter sits next to the witness wearing his/her own headset tuned to the Spanish channel. (Depending on layout, you may need a second, usually hand-held, microphone—ideally the witness would hold this so the interpreter uses the stand mike and has both hands free.)

The English>Spanish team member sits in his/her regular spot or (ideally) at a table somewhat behind the witness stand if possible (so that consultation between teammates is easier). The attorney asks questions and the English>Spanish interpreter interprets them simultaneously, which both the Spanish>English interpreter and the witness hear through their headsets.

The witness’s entire answer is rendered back into English in consecutive mode by the Spanish>English interpreter in the usual way (note-taking, pauses, etc.)—not simultaneously.

The main advantages are (1) it’s much easier to interpret complicated lawyer-ese (especially cross-examination) in simultaneous mode than consecutive; (2) the jury/judge/court reporter aren’t distracted by the consecutive rendition of the questions into Spanish; (3) since we don’t use a separate “check” interpreter or interpreters for the defendant, this method makes it easier for the defendant (if he/she is not the witness) to hear any legal arguments that arise during testimony. It’s also faster, which is why judges love it, but I don’t consider that as much of a factor.

The main disadvantages are (1) this usually cannot be done with a witness who is very old, very young, or with mental or developmental disabilities—the same people who have trouble with headsets normally, but it’s amplified when they’re “on the spot”; (2) the teammates can’t switch off as easily and obviously both of you are working at the same time so there’s no rest period. OTOH, it’s much less tiring for both interpreters—we find that 60+ minutes is quite do-able without switching, and since federal court moves so much faster than state court, it’s rare for a witness to be on the stand longer than that (even if he/she is, you’ll probably be able to switch during objections, if the jury gets a break, etc.) Having one person do the interpretation in each direction has its plusses and minuses: each person can play to his/her strengths, but it’s easy to get stuck in a rut of always doing one or the other.

Let me know if you have any more questions! I wouldn’t have thought it would work, but now that I’ve done it, I would always prefer to do it this way given adequate circumstances (the witness’s age/personality/etc., a strong teammate, an understanding judge if you have to ask for a break, good simultaneous equipment, etc.).

Analysis

I had planned to set out the pros and cons in this article, but when researching, found that the inimitable Holly Mikkelson has already done so with much more data and analysis here: http://www.acebo.com/papers/conorsim.htm, so I won’t reinvent the wheel. I strongly encourage you to read the whole article, but for the sake of brevity, I will say that her analysis confirms my unscientific hunch: simultaneous interpreting is best for interpreting questions and legal arguments, and consecutive remains the best way to interpret witnesses’ testimony into English.

A Further Twist

However, not long ago, I interpreted in a situation with an additional challenge. The courtroom we were using was not fully equipped for interpreter use (it had equipment for the witness to hear the interpretation, but was lacking, for example, a place for the interpreters to sit), so my colleagues and I had the chance to work together with the judge’s staff and courtroom technology staff to create the “ideal” setup from our point of view and (we hoped) the judge’s.  We had planned to use the same hybrid methodology discussed above, but the witness stand was, as many are, quite small and elevated, meaning the Spanish-to-English interpreter would be forced to sit or stand in an awkward position, both looking up and positioned either behind the witness or behind the court reporter.  The use of a double microphone would be unavoidable, but even so, there was simply no way that the interpretation of the witness testimony could be done without acrobatics.

The courtroom technology specialist made what, in retrospect, was an obvious suggestion. “What if I just hook up another microphone on [the interpreters’] table?” It was a clear case of, we had been doing something because it was the way it had always been done, not necessarily because it was still the best way to do it, and it took a non-interpreter’s perspective to make us consider a new way of doing things.

We had never considered removing both interpreters from the witness stand, but the more we thought about it, the more we liked it. We would be off to the side, not perched over the court reporter’s shoulder; but everyone should be able to hear us if we used the microphone. (Of course, we had to track down a microphone with a “toggle” switch, so that it would remain off through the rest of the trial.) Because the witness would have his own microphone, we should be able to hear him clearly through our headsets. Because we would still be sitting together, each of us would have the full support of a teammate, unlike the “flying without a net” sensation we sometimes get in hybrid interpreting. In sum, it would make witness interpreting more “booth-like” and more similar to conference interpreting.

It worked better than we had anticipated. Because the interpreter table was partly blocked from the jury’s view, we noticed that the jury’s attention was completely focused on the witness. Since I was sitting at a table, rather than holding my notepad balanced on my lap, I was able to take notes more efficiently and begin my interpretation sooner than I would normally have done. The only issue we encountered was that the attorneys (who speak Spanish) were even more likely than usual to ask the next question without waiting for the witness’s answers—but since they already do so rather frequently, doing so slightly more frequently did not have a large impact on the situation.

The testimony was brief, so we only got a short taste of how the new system works, but we were happy with it, and all the feedback we got was either positive or, more commonly “Wait, was something different?” Which, of course, I take as a compliment to our unobtrusiveness.

Conclusion

Short and to the point: I hope to continue exploring this further twist on the interpretation of witness testimony. I already have discovered that, given the technology we had on hand, this technique simply cannot be used by only one interpreter working solo—controlling two microphones while taking notes is simply too confusing. (At least, for me!) And because it is necessarily more difficult for the Spanish-to-English interpreter to control the flow of testimony, I have a hunch that a strong, intuitive partnership will be necessary for complicated testimony to be interpreted smoothly: the English-to-Spanish interpreter will need to pause the witness verbally based on his/her understanding of the Spanish-to-English interpreter’s needs. So far, however, I am optimistic that this is a better system at least under some circumstances.

PS

I know that some interpreters have begun using small, hand-held recorders to record and then simultaneously interpret witness testimony, rather than using pure consecutive interpreting. I have never tried this technique myself, although I know some interpreters who have. I will look forward to hearing their experiences and evaluations. (In other words: sorry, folks, but that’s a different article.)