…it may be disruptive to those that are not used to hearing an interpreter in the background, but is nevertheless a right of defendants in criminal trials, and not having an interpreter may be a cause for appeal.
It is used whenever a witness is providing testimony in a language other than English…in the legal field, it is only used for witness testimony.
The three modes of interpreting are simultaneous interpreting, consecutive interpreting, and sight translation.
You can simply say “I object to the interpretation, I can clarify later during cross” and clarify anything you need to clarify during cross, NOT AT THAT MOMENT.
…an agency that translates marketing or any other document type other than exhibits has very different concerns. They will not understand the importance of adapting the terminology to the legal concepts of the US legal system.
This certificate has come to be used as a form of guarantee that the document translation is official or professional. Yet, in reality, may not be either.
The regulations or proposals established by this Certification Board, which functions as a dependency of the Supreme Court of Florida are taken very much as suggestions by the Judges and not as a rule.
Instead, what we have in the U.S. is the wild west of translation. I am not saying this disparagingly, on the contrary, I love this lack of regulation.
Telephonic interpreters are to be avoided at all costs for depositions, hearings, trials or any proceeding where there is important information being conveyed and recorded. Use telephonic on-demand interpreters for informal meetings.