Criminal defendants must have their Miranda rights precisely translated into Spanish if that is their first language, a federal appeals court affirmed Monday in overturning the marijuana and weapons convictions of an Oregon man who received an incorrect rendition.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a federal trial judge improperly refused to suppress statements Jeronimo Botello-Rosales gave to Yamhill County sheriff’s detectives after receiving the faulty Spanish warning and a proper Miranda reading in English.
“The Spanish-language warning administered to the defendant failed to reasonably convey his Miranda rights,” a three-judge panel said in an opinion first issued in April but published for the first time Monday. “The fact that the officer had previously administered correct Miranda warnings in English does not cure the constitutional infirmity, absent government clarification as to which set of warnings was correct.”
The panel said Botello-Rosales is therefore entitled to withdraw the guilty plea he entered to federal drug charges.
According to court documents, the detective doing the translating was a native Spanish speaker who gave the following translation of the familiar list of admonitions criminal defendants receive at the time of their arrests:
“You have the right to remain silence. Anything you say can be used against you in the law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and to have him present
with you during the interview. If you don’t have the money to pay for a lawyer, you have the right. One, who is free, could be given to you.”
The appeals court found that apart from shaky grammar, the part of the Miranda warning about the suspect being entitled to a court-appointed lawyer was off because the detective used the Spanish version of the word “free” that means “available, at liberty” instead of “at no cost.” More.
See: Mercury News
Subscribe to the translation news daily digest here. See more translation news.
Comments about this article
США
Local time: 21:08
английский => испанский
+ ...
The Miranda warning has been translated into Spanish so many times and printed out, that one would think they would be able to get a good translation that has stood up in court and use it.
One would think so, but still they can manage to mess things up.
США
Local time: 23:08
русский => английский
+ ...
How do you say "an available lawyer" as oppo... See more
How do you say "an available lawyer" as opposed to "a public defender', or "a free-of-charge lawyer " in Spanish, by the way? This is the only part that could have made some difference, although I do not know how significant in practice. Do these two terms ever overlap in Spanish? (free lawyer meaning both)
[Edited at 2013-07-19 07:45 GMT] ▲ Collapse
Испания
Local time: 05:08
испанский => английский
+ ...
is a lawyer who provides his/her services free of charge, which cannot be confused in Spanish with "un abogado disponible/libre" which is a lawyer who is available.
There is no way I can think of in Spanish to say "free" as in "no charge" and "available" using one and the same word.
I'm not convinced therefore that the back translation into English is very credible.
Local time: 21:08
английский => испанский
+ ...
Besides what Henry already said, it's very iffy to make a decision like this based on a back translation. If the sticky point here is the word "free", I would want to know if the detective said "gratis" (free of charge) or "libre" (available). Maybe I'm missing something, but the ambiguity exists in English.
Local time: 05:08
испанский => английский
+ ...
Or maybe the police officer giving the warning in English said "the court will appoint one for you". In this case, there is no mention of any payment or otherwise and the rendering provided in Spanish is not bad.
In either case, it was ... See more
Or maybe the police officer giving the warning in English said "the court will appoint one for you". In this case, there is no mention of any payment or otherwise and the rendering provided in Spanish is not bad.
In either case, it was held that the warning had been correctly administered in English. But people do have mouths, if the person arrested had any doubt they could have asked about the money side before waiving their right to an attorney. Or the interpreter could have checked in Spanish that the person was willing to be interviewed without a lawyer being present. There is no point in standing on ceremony in an interpreting situation... ▲ Collapse
To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:
You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »
This discussion can also be accessed via the ProZ.com forum pages.