Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:

By Washington Jr
Contributor profile | More stories

Story Views
Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Miranda Rights and Deaf Defendants: Neutral Interpreters Required?

Tuesday, September 11, 2012 13:31

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be held against you in the court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.

Simple Miranda rights, right? At least in one case, they may have been lost in translation. Gabriel Thompson, 48, was nabbed on a 25-year-old murder charge in 2010. According to the New York Post, he allegedly stabbed and killed a man that was sleeping with his girlfriend. When the hearing-impaired suspect was interrogated, a fellow police officer acted as the interpreter.

]]>
< ![CDATA[

The police interpreter, Officer Julio Vasquez, said that Thompson confessed that he confronted the victim, Miguel Lopez, after Thompson learned that he contracted a sexually translated disease from Lopez via his unfaithful girlfriend. Lopez allegedly reached behind his back, as if he were grabbing for a gun, so Thompson stabbed him one time in self-defense. Lopez was still alive when he left.

The videotaped confession has since been retranslated by experts for both the prosecution and defense. The translations, of course, differ. They also pointed out a possible Miranda violation.

Thompson asked the translator if a lawyer was coming. Vasquez didn’t pass the question on to the prosecutors. Thompson also asked if evidence was being sought to prosecute him for murder. Vasquez replied, “No”

The disagreements about the translation quality would probably qualify as the sort of factual dispute appropriate for a jury to decide. However, Vasquez’s ignoring of the possible lawyer request and his lie about the purpose of the interrogation could get the confession thrown out completely.

If that happens, prosecuting the 25-year-old case becomes incredibly difficult. Evidence disappears, experts retire, and memories fade. The case is also shining a light on the issue of police officers as interpreters. The potential for a conflict of interest is obvious. Cases of apparent misconduct, such as Vasquez’s failings, provide fuel for the debate.

Related Resources: