hey.. court won't accepted when i write it down show paper say no. then judge decided set next month .. OmGGG lots often next month next month its make me pain in ass!
You're awesome! That's true--I've done a couple of sit-ins for court interpreting and it's quite typical to see a Deaf or Hard of Hearing just nod "yes" or "no" and expect the interpreter to voice that--definitely not acceptable.
I was going to remove this vid.. but then all our discussion would be lost. I have conferred with my mentors and will do a new post... after the holidays? Here is a question: Is a head-nod and asking "Sign?" the same as a hearing terp asking the witness/defendant "can you pls speak up?" Linguistically equivalent? Functionally equivalent?
There's something wrong if you're always right ;o)
"There is something wrong if you are always right?" That's just something people who are wrong and jealous say. I guess there is something wrong with God, or perhaps we should want the president to make mistakes because if he didn't then there would be something wrong with him. Or tell that to the kid who spent more time studing than anyone else and still doesn't get an A. Instead of saying you did your best tell them that well if you were right all the time there would be something wrong.
No one is talking about always being right. This is one issue. One issue that you have refused to accept since it was first offered that what you were doing is wrong. You have searched out people to agree with you rather than searching out the truth, looking to what others do rather than what you should do. I would love to see your post after the holidays, or is that just enough time for everyone to forget about this issue. Why don't you just go ahead and let us know what your mentors said?
I have read some of the other comments in your other logs and the only ones you accept are the ones praising you from people who don't know any better. I also saw the one where you blamed Deaf people for interpreter errors. Thought you were going to do a follow up to that? Nope you just made a smart ass comment about how the only way to solve it is to clone the good interpreters. Maybe you should stop being a smart ass and just try to improve yourself. Nah that won't happen.
Wow that was interesting...I still haven't heard back from Carla Mathers so will try my next mentor. Something I thought about today is polling the judges in my area. It would be informative to know what their perspective is on this type of court interpreter behavior. I also would love to hear what the Spanish terp sees as ethical interpreter behavior in similar circumstances. I'm also going to check out NAJIT (Nat Assn Judicial Interp./Transl.) My computer's working now so I'll post soon.
Well I believe this is my final 2 cents. I think it was great of shelllium to post about verbal comments on the witness stand. It seems that this very simple concept has been dragged out to near nausium. Good luck in the future Shelllium. I hope you continue to learn, and if you deserve it you will pass your SC:L.
Thanks for the feedback. Honestly, I didn't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers here, but just wanted to give my opinion from a stenogrpher's perspective. I think all three of us are on the exact same page and all want to respect ASL and the interpreter and the client, so not sure why there's an underlying hostile tone. We've brought up a point and see it differently. But I'm open to listening and learning, as I hope you are. I will look forward (contd)
(continuing) ... look forward to a definitive answer. But so I'm clear, in your opnion, should the interpreter just voice: "The wintess shakes his head." or "Witness nods head"? And then you're saying then the reporter or attorney can ask for clarification?
Hi peacock, I said that was my last two cents, but this is an important point so I have to take back my change and give it again. HAHA. I agree that this has gotten alittle heated, and I can not apologize for GMAG. I do respect his or her passion though. There are several courses of action the interpreter can take.
I will only address this one in particular. The interpreter can inform the witness that he or she must answer with an actual sign, only after they have informed the court that they are doing so. As a court reporter you can see the importance of this. Everything that happens, no matter how small, must be on the record. Everything that the hearing people say is already on the record, everything that the Deaf witness says will be on the record after it is interpreted.
However, any comment from the interpreter to the witness or to anyone else would not be on the record and that is not appropriate. The interpreter, if they would like to inform the witness that only signs are accepted, should simply say "Your honor, may the interpreter inform the witness that answers must be in the form of signs in order to be interpreted." Or some similar comment. Now when they infrom the witness it is on the record that they did so.
Thanks for feedback Superkdc79. I don't see any problem with that at all. Just as long as it's clarified. I guess I have just been comparing that situation to a "clarification." For example, say the witness is signing and the terp is voicing and the witness fingerspells a name and the terp doesn't catch it, so then, for clarification, the terps signs to the witness, "Sorry, can you spell that again?" It's just making sure that he or she has the accurate information [cont'd next msg]...
[Continuing] for processing into English. It's not leading or guiding an answer, you know? So I see correcting them on a nod the same way, just as a clarification. But whatever the correct method is, I'm good with it. I like your answer before and think that's a good idea ;)
Well you are right in assuming it is handled the same as a clarification. An interpreter should never clarify what a witness says without the courts permission. Again, no one understands sign and when the witness signs people expects a voiced action from the interpreter. If the interpreter signs back, hearing people do not know what is being said. If the interpreter missed something they should again say "Your honor, the interpreter would like to clarify a portion of the witnesses statement."
If it is the interpreter then he or she needs to inform the court this is happening. As you should know, the record is the most important thing and sometimes it is important to know whether or not the witness knew on their own how to answer. If the interpreter tells them then no one but the interpreter knew that. We see such a small infraction as something that can be disgarded, but we are talking about a court room. The untimate place where rules should be respected.
However, the interpreter can not say that. An interpreter speaks for and becomes many different people. When the witness is on the stand and the lawyer or judge or court reporter etc is speaking, the witness sees the interpreter as the lawyer or judge or court reporter etc. When the witness is speaking the other people in the court hear the interpreter as the witness. If the interpreter makes a comment such as "please sign" who is the source of that comment? Is it the interpreter?
So let's clarify. The point again, peacock, as grinds described was not about the willingness or unwillingness of the court to accept a nonverbal answer. It has been established that verbal answers and their role in the record is very important. As Grinds mentioned if a witness points, that is excepted and it is the lawyer or the judge who will "speak" for the record, ie. Let the record relect that the witness has pointed to the defendant.
Well, Grindsmyaslgears; Yes you are still correct, however still a bit harsh. Peacock, thank you for your comment, it's interesting to see another point of view. I see you are in an ITP, good for you. Continue to learn and although Grinds can be harsh reading is posts I see he or she tends to be spot on when it comes to feedback.
And quite frankly, it are those other people, LIKE YOU, assuming what interpreters do that makes the job more difficult. Interpreting is not just knowing how to speak two languages. There is a great deal of processing that goes into what something means. And that meaning can be different in a different envirnoment. It is the interpreters responsibility to know what to do and when to do it.
It is fast paced but it has nothing to do with form. Again you are not an interpreter, but many people make mistakes when assuming an interpreters role, the judge, the lawyer and yes even the court reporter. But again just because people think something is right doesn't mean it is.
Court reporters have some say in what is said, judges of course, but interpreters do not. You are not an interpreter and even if you work with them all the time and this is what they do it is wrong. Interpreters have a different code to follow. Shelllium is NOT right, and I hope she will admitt this herself after she speaks with her mentor.
Peacock, well unfortunatly you didn't read the entire conversation. As I stated I agree, it is common knowledge that witness should give audible answers so that you have something to type. This is precisely why when someone points a clarification is made "for the record" to indicate who has been pointed to. The problem is who is allowed to do this.
Please read the standard practice paper on RID's Website. Here is a quote from that paper. "Court interpreters may participate in limited ways in a legal proceeding, [...] the court of an error and to seek permission to ask the witness for repetition or clarification." As you can see you should be asking permission for repetition or clarification. If a head non, doesn't count as a sign then you are prompting testimony.
If it counts as a gesture which you need firm signed clarification you should still be asking permission. I am disheartened by your inability to see the logic in this. You are a teacher, you work in the legal setting, and students look up to you. Just as in court you need to hold yourself to a higher standard.
An interpreter or a court reporter does not need to ask permission for a clarification. It's part of the communication process. The pace is fast and lively and it is an accepted practice.
You are correct that an interpreter should not discuss the content. In other words, she can't say, "Are you sure about that?" Of course, that's wrong. But it is permissible to question on "form," i.e., "Was that a yes or a no?" or "Can you please sign the answer instead of nodding." That's just for clarification for the record and the court reporter.
Second, the judges in my court area know me. They trust my prompt, just like they trust the Spanish interpreter who works every day and says "could you pls speak up" to the person if too quiet to hear. Third, it's not about taking over, it's about getting interpretable input. Fourth ;o) I'm not interpreting for trials, witnesses on the stand, heavy duty cases etc... these are district court and some superior ct. cases.
All cases are important. And yes as was said before no one can control you, but you are putting out your opinion on what should be done, and I see people making comments that they are learning from you. Just because you get away with something in your area doesn't mean it's right. And just because spanish interpreters do it doesn't mean it's right. I'm only trying to look out for you. You want to become a legal interpreter. Legal intepreting requires a greater deal of professionalism.
Hello ;o) I'm used to GMAG so no hard feelings ;o) Three thoughts.... One: I've done it the other way for a long time, having the judge go over the expectations etc... sometimes very grumpy and frustrated. I basically found that a very simple one sign prompt with facial expression solved the problem with no harm done. I don't sign a whole sentence at all. One sign "sign?" with facial expression. Clients routinely self correct after that.
Shelly, I think it's tough that you are defending your behavior by saying you've "done it for a long time." So does that mean you are unable to change? Can you not see the more professional solution is to say nothing. How do you justify taking away the witness opportunity to learn?
The interpreter is not telling the witness what to say. He or is is asking for an intentional response. A headshake or a nod is not acceptable for the record, whether it's a hearing person or Deaf person. The interpreter has a duty to ask for clarification, as does the court reporter, opposing counsel, the judge. Answers are vital and headshakes and nods are not allowed, so Shellium was correct to ask for clarification.
And as far as the "it's only one sign comment" it seems like you are saying something like, I only hit them once, I only stole alittle, I broke the rules but it wasn't alot. Court is a different ball game than the rest of the situations we come across. You are not a machine in the fact that you Interpret message not just sign words, but you are a machine in that fact that you speak only when spoken too. Far too often I see interpreters through in their one cent,
You can do what you want and no one can stop you, but I see students look up to you. I think you should clarify for them, that this is not acceptable. One day someone else will do this and be in the courtroom of a judge who takes this very seriously. I again agree with GrindsMyASLGears. It is the interpreters job to interpret, and no one has told the witness how to answer. Your thought should not be on your hands. They should be in your head.
What will you do if the witness tells the judge "oh it was nothing, the interpreter just told me how to answer." or "the interpreter told me I had to sign" or "had to answer this way". GMASLG has a point that it is not your job. Suppose the witness doesn't want to answer that way, and you say you must sign and they say no. Now you say you have directed the witness to sign and they refuse. It is the judges job. Even the lawyer always asks the judge to direct the witness to answer.
Well I have to say that I think GrindsmyASLGears was alittle harsh, but correct. Shelly, You have to understand that gravity of the situation. It doesn't matter how simple or how easy it is for you to tell the witness what to do, you just can't. People don't understand sign language, but they know when converations happen. They can see when you are done, and then a dialog that took place. What would you do if the judge brings in another interpreter and asks the witness what happened?
Furthermore, if you are there it is because no one understand sign language, and signing back to a consumer on the stand give the appearance of impropriety. How can you go into a courtroom and think this is okay. To everyone else this is not okay. The judge has no idea what you are saying, and why should he believe you when say it was innocent. It is absolutely not your job to tell the Deaf consumer anything OTHER THAN WHAT IS SAID BY THE HEARING PERSON. The interpreters job is to interpret.
I am doumbfounded by your answer. The problem is it is NOT your job to ask for a response. If the person were hearing and nodded their head yes who would tell them to speak their answer? That is the same person that should tell the Deaf consumer. You are overstepping your bounds. Deaf people are self sufficient and should be told how to answer by the same people hearing people are told by. You are robbing that consumer of the experience to learn.
I am a courtroom stenographer and captioner. The record has to have an audible answer. So yes, I always ask a hearing witness to answer verbally. If not, then I have to type (witness nods) or (witness shruggs) and then the attorneys on either side could argue that the question wasn't answered. So, yes, a verbal answer is required for the record and the interpreter has to give a verbal/audible answer. So Shellium is correct to ask for a clarification.
I have to disagree on that one. When I am interpreting, I need something to interpret. If the person does not sign, I think it is appropriate for me as the court interpretet to ask for a signed response so that I can do my job. I'm not counseling them, I'm making a request for myself in order to do my job. This has come up many times and has always been understood by the court as eliciting an interpretable response. The judge can see that there was no response.
One thing I think is important. Although you are right about the court not accepting head nods or shakes as answers. It is a serious issue for you to tell the witness what to do. You must completely refrain from having private conversations with the witness.
Once again you bring forth some good examples. I hope when I grad from Criminal Justice I remember all you're teaching!!! Thanks again, excellent signing...
hey.. court won't accepted when i write it down show paper say no. then judge decided set next month .. OmGGG lots often next month next month its make me pain in ass!
growlwolf1 1 year ago
You're awesome! That's true--I've done a couple of sit-ins for court interpreting and it's quite typical to see a Deaf or Hard of Hearing just nod "yes" or "no" and expect the interpreter to voice that--definitely not acceptable.
torment90 2 years ago
You're Welcome!
GrindsmyASLGears 3 years ago
Correction POSTED!!!!
GrindsmyASLGears 3 years ago
Hey all~
I was going to remove this vid.. but then all our discussion would be lost. I have conferred with my mentors and will do a new post... after the holidays? Here is a question: Is a head-nod and asking "Sign?" the same as a hearing terp asking the witness/defendant "can you pls speak up?" Linguistically equivalent? Functionally equivalent?
There's something wrong if you're always right ;o)
~SH
Shelllium 3 years ago
"There is something wrong if you are always right?" That's just something people who are wrong and jealous say. I guess there is something wrong with God, or perhaps we should want the president to make mistakes because if he didn't then there would be something wrong with him. Or tell that to the kid who spent more time studing than anyone else and still doesn't get an A. Instead of saying you did your best tell them that well if you were right all the time there would be something wrong.
GrindsmyASLGears 3 years ago
No one is talking about always being right. This is one issue. One issue that you have refused to accept since it was first offered that what you were doing is wrong. You have searched out people to agree with you rather than searching out the truth, looking to what others do rather than what you should do. I would love to see your post after the holidays, or is that just enough time for everyone to forget about this issue. Why don't you just go ahead and let us know what your mentors said?
GrindsmyASLGears 3 years ago
I have read some of the other comments in your other logs and the only ones you accept are the ones praising you from people who don't know any better. I also saw the one where you blamed Deaf people for interpreter errors. Thought you were going to do a follow up to that? Nope you just made a smart ass comment about how the only way to solve it is to clone the good interpreters. Maybe you should stop being a smart ass and just try to improve yourself. Nah that won't happen.
GrindsmyASLGears 3 years ago
Wow that was interesting...I still haven't heard back from Carla Mathers so will try my next mentor. Something I thought about today is polling the judges in my area. It would be informative to know what their perspective is on this type of court interpreter behavior. I also would love to hear what the Spanish terp sees as ethical interpreter behavior in similar circumstances. I'm also going to check out NAJIT (Nat Assn Judicial Interp./Transl.) My computer's working now so I'll post soon.
Shelllium 3 years ago
Thanks! I'll look forward to hearing what other professionals think about this.
peacock43 3 years ago
Well I believe this is my final 2 cents. I think it was great of shelllium to post about verbal comments on the witness stand. It seems that this very simple concept has been dragged out to near nausium. Good luck in the future Shelllium. I hope you continue to learn, and if you deserve it you will pass your SC:L.
Superkdc79 3 years ago
Superkdc79 and Grindmyaslgears,
Thanks for the feedback. Honestly, I didn't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers here, but just wanted to give my opinion from a stenogrpher's perspective. I think all three of us are on the exact same page and all want to respect ASL and the interpreter and the client, so not sure why there's an underlying hostile tone. We've brought up a point and see it differently. But I'm open to listening and learning, as I hope you are. I will look forward (contd)
peacock43 3 years ago
(continuing) ... look forward to a definitive answer. But so I'm clear, in your opnion, should the interpreter just voice: "The wintess shakes his head." or "Witness nods head"? And then you're saying then the reporter or attorney can ask for clarification?
peacock43 3 years ago
Hi peacock, I said that was my last two cents, but this is an important point so I have to take back my change and give it again. HAHA. I agree that this has gotten alittle heated, and I can not apologize for GMAG. I do respect his or her passion though. There are several courses of action the interpreter can take.
Superkdc79 3 years ago
I will only address this one in particular. The interpreter can inform the witness that he or she must answer with an actual sign, only after they have informed the court that they are doing so. As a court reporter you can see the importance of this. Everything that happens, no matter how small, must be on the record. Everything that the hearing people say is already on the record, everything that the Deaf witness says will be on the record after it is interpreted.
Superkdc79 3 years ago
However, any comment from the interpreter to the witness or to anyone else would not be on the record and that is not appropriate. The interpreter, if they would like to inform the witness that only signs are accepted, should simply say "Your honor, may the interpreter inform the witness that answers must be in the form of signs in order to be interpreted." Or some similar comment. Now when they infrom the witness it is on the record that they did so.
Superkdc79 3 years ago
As I said there are many other approaches to this situation, none of them including the interpreter talking to the witness on their own.
Superkdc79 3 years ago
Thanks for feedback Superkdc79. I don't see any problem with that at all. Just as long as it's clarified. I guess I have just been comparing that situation to a "clarification." For example, say the witness is signing and the terp is voicing and the witness fingerspells a name and the terp doesn't catch it, so then, for clarification, the terps signs to the witness, "Sorry, can you spell that again?" It's just making sure that he or she has the accurate information [cont'd next msg]...
peacock43 3 years ago
[Continuing] for processing into English. It's not leading or guiding an answer, you know? So I see correcting them on a nod the same way, just as a clarification. But whatever the correct method is, I'm good with it. I like your answer before and think that's a good idea ;)
peacock43 3 years ago
Well you are right in assuming it is handled the same as a clarification. An interpreter should never clarify what a witness says without the courts permission. Again, no one understands sign and when the witness signs people expects a voiced action from the interpreter. If the interpreter signs back, hearing people do not know what is being said. If the interpreter missed something they should again say "Your honor, the interpreter would like to clarify a portion of the witnesses statement."
Superkdc79 3 years ago
If it is the interpreter then he or she needs to inform the court this is happening. As you should know, the record is the most important thing and sometimes it is important to know whether or not the witness knew on their own how to answer. If the interpreter tells them then no one but the interpreter knew that. We see such a small infraction as something that can be disgarded, but we are talking about a court room. The untimate place where rules should be respected.
Superkdc79 3 years ago
However, the interpreter can not say that. An interpreter speaks for and becomes many different people. When the witness is on the stand and the lawyer or judge or court reporter etc is speaking, the witness sees the interpreter as the lawyer or judge or court reporter etc. When the witness is speaking the other people in the court hear the interpreter as the witness. If the interpreter makes a comment such as "please sign" who is the source of that comment? Is it the interpreter?
Superkdc79 3 years ago
So let's clarify. The point again, peacock, as grinds described was not about the willingness or unwillingness of the court to accept a nonverbal answer. It has been established that verbal answers and their role in the record is very important. As Grinds mentioned if a witness points, that is excepted and it is the lawyer or the judge who will "speak" for the record, ie. Let the record relect that the witness has pointed to the defendant.
Superkdc79 3 years ago
Well, Grindsmyaslgears; Yes you are still correct, however still a bit harsh. Peacock, thank you for your comment, it's interesting to see another point of view. I see you are in an ITP, good for you. Continue to learn and although Grinds can be harsh reading is posts I see he or she tends to be spot on when it comes to feedback.
Superkdc79 3 years ago
And quite frankly, it are those other people, LIKE YOU, assuming what interpreters do that makes the job more difficult. Interpreting is not just knowing how to speak two languages. There is a great deal of processing that goes into what something means. And that meaning can be different in a different envirnoment. It is the interpreters responsibility to know what to do and when to do it.
GrindsmyASLGears 3 years ago
It is fast paced but it has nothing to do with form. Again you are not an interpreter, but many people make mistakes when assuming an interpreters role, the judge, the lawyer and yes even the court reporter. But again just because people think something is right doesn't mean it is.
GrindsmyASLGears 3 years ago
Court reporters have some say in what is said, judges of course, but interpreters do not. You are not an interpreter and even if you work with them all the time and this is what they do it is wrong. Interpreters have a different code to follow. Shelllium is NOT right, and I hope she will admitt this herself after she speaks with her mentor.
GrindsmyASLGears 3 years ago
Peacock, well unfortunatly you didn't read the entire conversation. As I stated I agree, it is common knowledge that witness should give audible answers so that you have something to type. This is precisely why when someone points a clarification is made "for the record" to indicate who has been pointed to. The problem is who is allowed to do this.
GrindsmyASLGears 3 years ago
Howdy!
I'm waiting for a response from my previous mentor, Carla Mathers, on this. Thanks for the SPP reference. I'll do a follow-up vlog soon, fear not.
SH
Shelllium 3 years ago
Shelllium,
Please read the standard practice paper on RID's Website. Here is a quote from that paper. "Court interpreters may participate in limited ways in a legal proceeding, [...] the court of an error and to seek permission to ask the witness for repetition or clarification." As you can see you should be asking permission for repetition or clarification. If a head non, doesn't count as a sign then you are prompting testimony.
Superkdc79 3 years ago
If it counts as a gesture which you need firm signed clarification you should still be asking permission. I am disheartened by your inability to see the logic in this. You are a teacher, you work in the legal setting, and students look up to you. Just as in court you need to hold yourself to a higher standard.
-S
Superkdc79 3 years ago
An interpreter or a court reporter does not need to ask permission for a clarification. It's part of the communication process. The pace is fast and lively and it is an accepted practice.
peacock43 3 years ago
Superkdc79,
The issue here is really "content" vs. "form."
You are correct that an interpreter should not discuss the content. In other words, she can't say, "Are you sure about that?" Of course, that's wrong. But it is permissible to question on "form," i.e., "Was that a yes or a no?" or "Can you please sign the answer instead of nodding." That's just for clarification for the record and the court reporter.
peacock43 3 years ago
I'll do a follow-up on best practices.
SH
Shelllium 3 years ago
Second, the judges in my court area know me. They trust my prompt, just like they trust the Spanish interpreter who works every day and says "could you pls speak up" to the person if too quiet to hear. Third, it's not about taking over, it's about getting interpretable input. Fourth ;o) I'm not interpreting for trials, witnesses on the stand, heavy duty cases etc... these are district court and some superior ct. cases.
Your faithful intepreter peer
SH
Shelllium 3 years ago
All cases are important. And yes as was said before no one can control you, but you are putting out your opinion on what should be done, and I see people making comments that they are learning from you. Just because you get away with something in your area doesn't mean it's right. And just because spanish interpreters do it doesn't mean it's right. I'm only trying to look out for you. You want to become a legal interpreter. Legal intepreting requires a greater deal of professionalism.
Superkdc79 3 years ago
Hello ;o) I'm used to GMAG so no hard feelings ;o) Three thoughts.... One: I've done it the other way for a long time, having the judge go over the expectations etc... sometimes very grumpy and frustrated. I basically found that a very simple one sign prompt with facial expression solved the problem with no harm done. I don't sign a whole sentence at all. One sign "sign?" with facial expression. Clients routinely self correct after that.
Shelllium 3 years ago
Shelly, I think it's tough that you are defending your behavior by saying you've "done it for a long time." So does that mean you are unable to change? Can you not see the more professional solution is to say nothing. How do you justify taking away the witness opportunity to learn?
Superkdc79 3 years ago
Superkdc79,
The interpreter is not telling the witness what to say. He or is is asking for an intentional response. A headshake or a nod is not acceptable for the record, whether it's a hearing person or Deaf person. The interpreter has a duty to ask for clarification, as does the court reporter, opposing counsel, the judge. Answers are vital and headshakes and nods are not allowed, so Shellium was correct to ask for clarification.
peacock43 3 years ago
And as far as the "it's only one sign comment" it seems like you are saying something like, I only hit them once, I only stole alittle, I broke the rules but it wasn't alot. Court is a different ball game than the rest of the situations we come across. You are not a machine in the fact that you Interpret message not just sign words, but you are a machine in that fact that you speak only when spoken too. Far too often I see interpreters through in their one cent,
Superkdc79 3 years ago
Then they justify it by saying it wasn't the whole two cents.
Superkdc79 3 years ago
You can do what you want and no one can stop you, but I see students look up to you. I think you should clarify for them, that this is not acceptable. One day someone else will do this and be in the courtroom of a judge who takes this very seriously. I again agree with GrindsMyASLGears. It is the interpreters job to interpret, and no one has told the witness how to answer. Your thought should not be on your hands. They should be in your head.
Superkdc79 3 years ago
What will you do if the witness tells the judge "oh it was nothing, the interpreter just told me how to answer." or "the interpreter told me I had to sign" or "had to answer this way". GMASLG has a point that it is not your job. Suppose the witness doesn't want to answer that way, and you say you must sign and they say no. Now you say you have directed the witness to sign and they refuse. It is the judges job. Even the lawyer always asks the judge to direct the witness to answer.
Superkdc79 3 years ago
Well I have to say that I think GrindsmyASLGears was alittle harsh, but correct. Shelly, You have to understand that gravity of the situation. It doesn't matter how simple or how easy it is for you to tell the witness what to do, you just can't. People don't understand sign language, but they know when converations happen. They can see when you are done, and then a dialog that took place. What would you do if the judge brings in another interpreter and asks the witness what happened?
Superkdc79 3 years ago
Furthermore, if you are there it is because no one understand sign language, and signing back to a consumer on the stand give the appearance of impropriety. How can you go into a courtroom and think this is okay. To everyone else this is not okay. The judge has no idea what you are saying, and why should he believe you when say it was innocent. It is absolutely not your job to tell the Deaf consumer anything OTHER THAN WHAT IS SAID BY THE HEARING PERSON. The interpreters job is to interpret.
GrindsmyASLGears 3 years ago
I am doumbfounded by your answer. The problem is it is NOT your job to ask for a response. If the person were hearing and nodded their head yes who would tell them to speak their answer? That is the same person that should tell the Deaf consumer. You are overstepping your bounds. Deaf people are self sufficient and should be told how to answer by the same people hearing people are told by. You are robbing that consumer of the experience to learn.
GrindsmyASLGears 3 years ago
GrindmyASLGears,
I am a courtroom stenographer and captioner. The record has to have an audible answer. So yes, I always ask a hearing witness to answer verbally. If not, then I have to type (witness nods) or (witness shruggs) and then the attorneys on either side could argue that the question wasn't answered. So, yes, a verbal answer is required for the record and the interpreter has to give a verbal/audible answer. So Shellium is correct to ask for a clarification.
peacock43 3 years ago
Cont....
I have never done any other "coaching" as interpreter. This to me is one exception. Look forward to your thoughts ;o)
SH
Shelllium 3 years ago
Hi Superkcd79 ;o)
I have to disagree on that one. When I am interpreting, I need something to interpret. If the person does not sign, I think it is appropriate for me as the court interpretet to ask for a signed response so that I can do my job. I'm not counseling them, I'm making a request for myself in order to do my job. This has come up many times and has always been understood by the court as eliciting an interpretable response. The judge can see that there was no response.
Shelllium 3 years ago
Shelly,
One thing I think is important. Although you are right about the court not accepting head nods or shakes as answers. It is a serious issue for you to tell the witness what to do. You must completely refrain from having private conversations with the witness.
Superkdc79 3 years ago
Sure, happy to share! ;o) Take care!
SH
Shelllium 3 years ago
Once again you bring forth some good examples. I hope when I grad from Criminal Justice I remember all you're teaching!!! Thanks again, excellent signing...
cdbicdb 3 years ago