In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...


Hmm, I know somebody that does interpreting for the deaf.

Of the many things she does, she translates for the deaf at trials.

Still think they don't need to be licensed?

Why? This could just as easily be taken care of the same way you get
okayed as an expert witness. I had testified many times before I got any
kind of certification. They asked about my training and experience, etc.

Witnesses aren't employees of the court, they're called by one side or the
other to bolster that side's case. Can you picture a trial where the
prosecution and the defense both get their own interpreters and offer
competing versions of what a deaf defendant signed? Sound reasonable to
you?

Where that came from I'll never know. The court decides who is an expert
witness, that is at the judge's discretion. Same with the translators.
It is the judge that decides. There is no requirement for any kind of
license, just that the translator satisfies the judge (in many cases the
presiding judge and/or designee). Generally they have some kind of
criteria such as training, experience, etc.


If it was your trial with your freedom at stake, would you want the court
reporter to be trained, certified and licensed, or just somebody who had
convinced that judge he was probably up to the job of making an accurate
record of what was said in the courtroom?
Doesn't really make any difference what I think. It is what the
judge thinks and the specific court system has decreed.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz