| |
Accommodating Citizens Called to Jury Service
|
11
|
RCW 2.36.070 SHOULD BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE A PILOT PROJECT ALLOWING NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING CITIZENS TO SERVE ON A JURY WITH THE AID OF A CERTIFIED INTERPRETER.
|
Current Statutory
Disqualifications
|
Current Statutory Disqualifications:
RCW 2.36.070(4) currently bars people who do not "communicate" in English, but who are otherwise qualified as jurors, from serving on juries. This statute provides:
A person shall be competent to serve as a juror in the state of Washington unless that person:
(1) Is less than eighteen years of age;
(2) Is not a citizen of the United States;
(3) Is not a resident of the county in which he or she has been summoned to serve;
(4) Is not able to communicate in the English language; or
(5) Has been convicted of a felony and has not had his or her civil rights restored.
|
Equal Access to
the Courts
|
Reasons Why RCW 2.36.070 Should Be Changed:
As it is currently written, RCW 2.36.070(4) contradicts the policy of the State of Washington set out in RCW 2.42 and RCW 2.43 to allow for equal access to the courts for those who do not speak English. In establishing an interpreter system in Washington, the Legislature has declared:
|
State Policy to
Provide Interpreters
|
It is hereby declared to be the policy of this state to secure the rights, constitutional or otherwise, of persons, who, because of a non-English speaking cultural background, are unable to readily understand or communicate in the English language, and who consequently cannot be fully protected in legal proceedings unless qualified interpreters are available to assist them.
RCW 2.43.010.
|
No Official Language
in Washington State
|
There is no official language in the State of Washington and many members of minority communities are not fluent in English. This is especially the case in various areas in Eastern Washington where many individuals may be American citizens but are not able to communicate in English fluently. Eliminating the "English-only" requirement for jury duty recognizes that these people are equal citizens with others.
|
Deaf Jurors
|
Moreover, there is concern that the exclusion of non-English speaking jurors may affect the rights of deaf jurors to serve who must rely on a sign-language interpreter. Changing the "English-only" requirement would allow deaf jurors to continue serving on juries in Washington State in various courts. See "Proving her case: Deaf juror does duty in federal court," Morning News Tribune, August 15, 1992, and other newspaper articles, in Appendix 8.
|
More Inclusive
Jury Panels
|
Amending RCW 2.36.070(4) would lead to a more diverse jury pool, which would ultimately be more likely to arrive at the truth in any decision-making process.
|
Greater Confidence in
the Justice System
|
Non-English speaking litigants (and especially defendants) will have greater confidence in, and may more easily accept, jury verdicts rendered by a jury if one or more jurors also speaks the language of the litigant.
|
Proposed Changes
to Statute
|
Proposed Statutory Changes:
RCW 2.36.070 should be amended to read:
A person shall be competent to serve as a juror in the state of Washington if that person:
(1) Is over eighteen years of age;
(2) Is a citizen of the United States;
(3) Is a resident of the county in which he or she has been summoned to serve;
(4) Is able to communicate in the English language, or by court-approved sign language, or by The Office of the Administrator for the Courts-certified interpretation; or
(5) Has not been convicted of a felony, or, if has been convicted of a felony, has had his or her civil rights restored.
|
|
|
The above-provision allowing for jurors to serve who use court-certified interpretation (RCW 2.36.070(4)) should only take effect under the following circumstances:
- One year after the end of a two-year pilot in which non-English speaking jurors were allowed to serve on juries with the assistance of court-certified interpreters in at least two separate counties or judicial districts.
- The funding for the pilot project should be from the State. The fiscal burden of providing interpreters for jurors should not be placed on the counties.
- The above-noted amendments should be effective only if funds are available.
|
Certified Interpreter in Jury Room
|
As noted above, deaf jurors are already serving on juries with the assistance of American Sign Language interpreters. Courts that have reviewed the propriety of the presence of an interpreter in the jury room have firmly held that such a practice is appropriate.
|
Federal Court Upholds Signer in Jury Room
|
In United States v. Dempsey, 830 F.2d 1084 (10th Cir. 1987), a deaf person served on the jury, with a court appointed signer interpreting the trial proceedings and also accompanying the juror to the jury room, where she interpreted the deliberation process for the juror. The 10th Circuit upheld this practice, comparing it to providing interpreters for other participants in a case (defendants or witnesses) 830 F.2d at 1088. As for the presence of the interpreter in the jury room, the court held that the oath that the interpreter took prohibiting her from interfering with the deliberations or revealing the confidences of the jury should be sufficient to protect the deliberative process. 830 F.2d at 1090. Finally, the court held:
|
|
|
[W]e think this television-age society has become so accustomed to seeing interpreters for the deaf translating to sign political speeches, newscasts, and the like that virtually all of us have come to view such interpreters more as part of the background than as independent participants. Second, an important social policy argues against automatically foreclosing members of an important segment of our society from jury duty simply because they must take an interpreter into the jury room. Several states have supported this policy by specific legislation permitting deaf jurors to serve. [footnote omitted] A decision by this court that they must be excluded because of the interpreter's presence in the jury room, if deemed persuasive by other courts, would doom that legislation on the shoals of the federal constitution.
830 F.2d at 1091
|
The Interpreter Must
Be Certified
|
Currently, the interpreter statute makes a distinction between certified interpreters and qualified interpreters. There are some languages where there is no state certification, and each judge must determine if an interpreter is qualified on a case-by-case basis. This proposal limits interpretation in the jury room to certified interpreters only.
|
Pilot Proposed
|
The proposal should be tested in at least two counties or judicial districts for a two-year period.
In the pilot program, a check box should be included on the summons form to give the citizens the option to request a court-certified interpreter. This would give advance warning of the need for an interpreter.
The Commission anticipates objections to allowing non-English speaking jurors based on cost, logistics, and the concern that such jurors will not be readily able to determine which witnesses tell the truth, which witnesses equivocate, and which witnesses lie. A pilot project will enable the state’s legal system to gain experience with the logistics and costs of allowing such jurors. Experience will also allay the concern regarding a non-English speaker’s ability to determine the credibility of witnesses.
|
|
|
Other References:
Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English, 69 F.3d 920, 947-48 (9th Cir. 1995) (en banc) (striking down Arizona's English-only policy), vacated as moot sub. nom. Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 137 L.Ed.2d 170, 117 S. Ct. 1055 (1997).
Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 98 L.Ed. 866, 74 S. Ct. 667 (1954) (striking down exclusion of Mexican-Americans from juries).
Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 58 L.Ed.2d 579, 99 S. Ct. 664 (1979) (striking down statute that gave women automatic exemption from jury duty).
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 401, 67 L.Ed. 1042, 43 S. Ct. 625 (1923) ("The Constitution extends to all, -- to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue.").
G. Thomas Munsterman, et al., Jury Trial Innovations (1997), at 41-43 ("ADA Compliance").
|
|
|
