The Silent Injustice: Language as a Barrier to Fair Trials

Author: Ariel Kuo

Each summer when I return to Taiwan and sit across from my grandmother, I find myself nodding along, unable to truly understand what she’s saying. She only speaks Taiwanese, while I can grasp just a handful of simple phrases. I smile and respond with polite gestures, but beneath the surface, I’m lost in the conversation—disconnected from someone I care deeply about. This experience offers a glimpse into what many non-English-speaking defendants face in courtrooms across the United States. Yet, unlike my casual conversations with my grandmother, courtroom proceedings can determine a person’s freedom, future, or even life. Without skilled interpreters, these individuals are left in a system they cannot understand, stripped of their voice.

Court interpreters play an essential role in upholding justice. They break down language barriers, ensuring that defendants, witnesses, and other involved parties can participate fully in legal proceedings. But the role is also immensely demanding and often undervalued. According to PBS News (2016), certified interpreters must perform under intense pressure, expected to remain no more than six words behind a speaker, all while translating complex, unscripted legal language in real time. This includes simultaneous interpreting when English is spoken and consecutive interpreting when the defendant responds. A single misstep—an omitted legal nuance, a mistranslated term—can disrupt a trial or even result in a mistrial or appeal. “Interpreting in court requires skills, dedication and continuous learning,” said Leonor Figueroa-Feher, Interpreting Program Manager for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. “All your efforts pay off when you provide seamless communication across languages for the benefit of all parties” (United States Courts, 2017).

Despite the high level of skill required, the profession faces a steep shortage. According to San Jose Inside (2016), nearly 90% of people who attempt the certification exam fail, and those who do pass are met with low pay, overwhelming caseloads, and limited recognition, especially in high-cost-of-living areas. Even California, home to the largest court interpreter workforce in the country, has experienced a decline in staffing, with the number of court interpreter employees dropping from 799 in 2021-22 to 717 in 2023-24, highlighting the ongoing shortage (California Courts Newsroom, 2024). As interpreter Mariela Garibay described, “There’s too many people that we need to be interpreting for. We just try to do it as fast as we can. I’m working in two or three departments on the same day. I have to bounce from one to the other” (KION546, 2021).

Without qualified interpreters, non-English-speaking defendants face severe consequences. A study from the Innocence Project (2022) found that nearly 40% of Latino exonerees who falsely confessed said they “did not fully understand spoken English.” This finding highlights the struggle to understand the charges against them, courtroom procedures, or the implications of their plea. This confusion can lead to unintentional self-incrimination or acceptance of plea deals they do not fully grasp, ultimately violating their right to a fair trial. Worse yet, the inability to communicate with their attorneys prevents defendants from contributing meaningfully to their defense. Legal defense relies heavily on a defendant’s ability to share their side of the story, clarify details, or challenge accusations. Without proper communication, attorneys are left to build a defense on incomplete or inaccurate information, which increases the likelihood of wrongful convictions or harsher sentencing.

One potential solution already being implemented in some jurisdictions is remote court interpreting (Boostlingo, n.d.). By using video or phone interpretation, courts can reduce the physical strain on interpreters who would otherwise rush between courtrooms, and offer language access to rural or under-resourced areas. In fact, a pilot program conducted across three California superior courts showed promising results: 95% of judges reported that video remote interpreting (VRI) enabled effective communication, 78% of court users said they were very satisfied, and 96% found the technology easy to use (California Courts, 2019). These findings suggest that remote interpreting not only increases access but also maintains a high standard of user satisfaction, making it a viable long-term solution for modernizing and streamlining courtroom proceedings.

But technology alone isn’t enough. At the heart of the issue lies a deeper need: to value interpreters as professionals. This means offering fair compensation, manageable caseloads, and workplace respect. By improving working conditions, we not only attract more skilled interpreters, but also help restore dignity and equity in the courtroom (California Supreme Court Historical Society, 2019).

For organizations like ours that participate in court watching, it’s critical that we pay attention to not just what is said in court, but who is able to understand and participate. When a defendant nods along in silence, or when an interpreter is stretched too thin by systemic understaffing, justice is not being served. Court watchers can help hold the system accountable by documenting whether interpreters are present, how proceedings are handled when a language barrier exists, and whether all participants have access to communication.

Language should never be a barrier to justice. Yet for thousands of individuals in U.S. courtrooms each year, the lack of competent interpretation silences their voices and jeopardizes their rights. If we want to preserve the integrity of our justice system, we must invest in the people who make communication possible. Because true access to justice requires more than a seat at the table. It requires being understood.

Sources:

1. Beitsch, R. (2016, August 17). How bad translation by court interpreters can turn misunderstandings into injustice. PBS. Retrieved July 15, 2025 from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/bad-translation-by-court-interpreters-injustice

2. Chan, E. (2024, August 27). Pilot program to address court interpreters shortage. California Courts Newsroom. Retrieved July 15, 2025, from https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/pilot-program-address-court-interpreters-shortage

3. Court interpreter shortage with virtual options. Boostlingo. (n.d.). Retrieved July 15, 2025, from https://boostlingo.com/blog/court-interpreter-shortages/#elementor-toc__heading-anchor-0

4. Court interpreters deliver justice in all languages. United States Courts. (2017, August 7). Retrieved July 15, 2025, from https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judiciary-news/2017/08/10/court-interpreters-deliver-justice-all-languages#:~:text=More%20than%203%2C600%20interpreters%20are,Spanish%20interpreters%20are%20Judiciary%20employees

5. Flynn, J. (2016, June 23). Lost in translation: Interpreter shortage deprives justice in Santa Clara County courts. San Jose Inside. Retrieved July 15, 2025, from https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/investigative-reports/lost-in-translation-interpreter-shortage-deprives-justice-in-santa-clara-county-courts/#:~:text=Statistics%20on%20interpreters%20don%27t,is%20the%20underlying%20problem%20here.%E2%80%9D

6. Language access in court. California Supreme Court Historical Society. (2019). Retrieved July 15, 2025, from https://www.cschs.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Legal-Hist-v.-14-Special-Section-Speech-6.pdf#:~:text=These%20efforts%20toward%20recruitment%2C%20training%2C%20retention%2C%20and,by%20the%20Access%20Commission.%20The%20policy%20includes

7. Report to the Judicial Council. California Courts. (2019). Retrieved July 15, 2025, from https://courts.ca.gov/system/files/file/lapitf-20190122-materials-draft-vri-report.pdf

8. Sarabia, J. (2021, December 2). Court interpreters shortage impacts non-English speakers. KION546. Retrieved July 15, 2025, from https://kion546.com/news/local-news/2021/12/02/non-english-speakers-impacted-by-court-interpreters-shortage/#:~:text=The%20demand%20in%20Monterey%20County,education%20required%20and%20low%20salary

9. Selby, D. (2022, October 7). Why Latinx people are uniquely vulnerable to wrongful conviction. Innocence Project. Retrieved July 15, 2025, from https://innocenceproject.org/news/why-latinx-people-are-uniquely-vulnerable-to-wrongful-conviction/