ASL interpreter urges New Mexico courts to expand access to specialized deaf interpreting and training
Loading...
Summary
An ASL interpreter advising New Mexico Courts warned that limited interpreter preparation, a shortage of certified deaf interpreters and reliance on remote or ad-hoc services can distort legal meaning in high-stakes settings and urged expanded resources and advance preparation.
An ASL interpreter speaking at a New Mexico Courts webinar said courts risk serious miscommunication when deaf people do not receive appropriately trained or specialized interpreting services. The presenter described instances in which classifiers and grammar choices in American Sign Language (ASL) can change legal meaning in plea and evidence settings and urged courts to provide preparatory materials and specialist interpreters for high-stakes proceedings.
The presenter said "full access to language for deaf people only comes visually," and added that interpreters need evidence or case documents in advance so they can choose accurate classifiers and signs. "I could change something from a felony to a misdemeanor by the classifier I choose," she said, describing how visual classifiers convey size, shape and context that courts must understand.
Why it matters: In child-abuse interviews, police interviews that are recorded on video, and plea colloquies, the interpreter's choice of signs and structure can affect the record and the defendant's understanding. The presenter told attendees that courts should treat these as high-accuracy settings that often require a certified deaf interpreter working in tandem with a hearing ASL interpreter.
The presenter described three typical triggers for assigning a certified deaf interpreter: linguistic characteristics of the deaf person that limit comprehension; settings that are legally high risk (for example, child-abuse investigations); and situations in which the hearing interpreter lacks sufficient fluency. She explained tandem interpreting practice: a hearing interpreter signs questions to a deaf interpreter who then elicits the witness's signs and the hearing interpreter renders that into English for the record.
On technology and brief accommodations, the presenter said every judicial district in New Mexico is equipped with a two-keyboard quick-written-communication device commonly known as the UbiDuo, which can work well for short, noncomplex exchanges at a clerk window but is not a substitute for qualified interpreters in legal proceedings. She also noted that CART (real-time captioning) helps some deaf people who are fluent in English, but cautioned that written notes and yes/no checks can mask gaps in comprehension.
The presenter raised concerns about remote interpreting services. She said many Video Remote Services (VRS) interpreters do not require certification or legal training and that courts that permit VRS generally keep a staff or contract interpreter watching to ensure nothing is lost. She recommended courts prioritize on-site certified interpreters, deaf interpreter teams for complex cases, and better screening/training of classroom interpreters who often become the language models for deaf children.
On certification, the presenter noted that generalist interpreter certification exists but a specialty legal interpreting test was suspended in 2016 and has not been reinstated, leaving uncertainty about a standardized legal specialty credential. She pointed workshop participants to professional resources including the National Association of the Deaf and the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf for checking certification status and best-practice guidance.
The session closed with audience appreciation and an offer to follow up; the presenter provided resource links in the slides and invited court staff to contact her with questions. No formal votes or directives were taken during the webinar.
