Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Interpreting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Interpreters say language gaps can be mistaken for incompetence in New Mexico court evaluations
Summary
In a New Mexico webinar, certified interpreters warned that language deprivation and communication disfluency among deaf defendants can look like psychiatric or cognitive impairment, and urged courts to use qualified interpreter teams, pre-session briefings and ASL-accessible legal education.
A webinar for New Mexico legal and interpreting professionals on competency evaluations for deaf defendants laid out why language access, not just content, must drive assessments.
Rebecca, a sign language interpreter with a specialty certificate in mental-health interpreting, and Megan, a sign language interpreter who specializes in court and legal work, told attendees that ‘‘the form of communication is more important sometimes than the content’’ when evaluators judge whether a defendant can understand proceedings and assist counsel. They cautioned that interpreters who ‘‘clean up’’ disorganized signing can inadvertently remove diagnostic cues.
The presenters defined language deprivation as failing to acquire a fully accessible first language in childhood and said it commonly produces limited vocabulary, concrete thinking and inconsistent narratives. ‘‘Fund-of-knowledge deficits are not the same as incompetency,’’ Rebecca said, adding that many legal concepts have no standard ASL sign and that ‘‘there’s not even a sign for competency,’’ so evaluators must take extra time to explain and assess understanding.
The pair stressed that communication disfluencies—fragmented answers, nonstandard signing, missing time markers—can resemble psychiatric symptoms. ‘‘If you start seeing a lot of clarification being sought and then the end result is a beautiful English sentence, that is a red flag,’’ Rebecca said, urging evaluators to probe how an answer was produced rather than accepting polished output at face value.
On practical steps, presenters recommended team-based evaluations that pair legally experienced interpreters with mental-health–trained interpreters, plus pre-session briefings, post-session consultations, visual supports and ASL-based legal education when restoration is appropriate. They described the certified-deaf-interpreter (CDI) relay model for clients with severe language deprivation and urged courts to schedule more time for interpreted evaluations.
Responding to chat questions, the presenters identified the Qualified Mental Health Interpreter (QMHI) credential and pointed to the Mental Health Interpreting Institute (mhit.org) as a registry of credentialed interpreters. Rebecca estimated New Mexico has ‘‘five, maybe six’’ QMHI interpreters and reported the state now has one certified deaf interpreter, noting limited local availability as a practical constraint.
The presenters emphasized professional limits: interpreters provide factual observations about language (for example, missing pronouns or absent time markers) but do not diagnose or advocate for a party. ‘‘We’re not asking you to provide a personal opinion; we’re asking you to provide factual information about the language you’re seeing,’’ Rebecca said during a Q&A about impartiality.
Organizers and presenters offered slides and links to resources, and the recording will be posted to the host’s YouTube channel. Peggy, the webinar moderator, closed by announcing a series of ADA Title II trainings in June and encouraging attendees to contact local ADA coordinators for help locating qualified interpreters.
What this means for courts: evaluators should document the interpreting process (who was present, what kinds of clarification occurred), treat polished translations that follow extended clarification as a cue to investigate, and consider ASL-based remediation when language deprivation—rather than a primary psychiatric condition—explains courtroom communication problems.
