United States v. Heriberto Gonzales, Iowa Civil Liberties Union, Amicus on Behalf Of

Citations: 339 F.3d 725; 61 Fed. R. Serv. 1462; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 16351Docket: 02-1897

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; August 11, 2003; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Heriberto Gonzales, a Mexican national, was indicted for conspiring to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine, violating 21 U.S.C. § 846 and § 841(a)(1). He pleaded guilty under a plea agreement and was sentenced to 151 months in prison. On appeal, Gonzales raised three main issues: 

1. The district court allegedly violated the Court Interpreters Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1827, by not appointing certified interpreters during court proceedings.
2. He claimed violations of his Sixth Amendment and due process rights due to the lack of written Spanish translations of key court documents.
3. Gonzales argued that his rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations were infringed when the government failed to inform him of his rights and did not notify the Mexican consulate of his arrest.

During the proceedings, interpreters were used, but none were certified. Gonzales contended that the district court did not ensure the availability of certified interpreters before appointing uncertified ones, which he argued was a violation of the Court Interpreters Act's requirements. The appeal was heard by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Gonzales did not raise the issue of interpreter certification in the district court, leading to a plain error review under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). For an error to be considered plain, it must be clear under current law and affect the defendant's substantial rights. The district court's failure to appoint a certified interpreter for Gonzales could qualify as plain error since the Court Interpreters Act mandates the use of a certified interpreter when available. This requirement serves as a safeguard for non-native English speakers during legal proceedings, ensuring competent translation.

The district court's choice to use uncertified interpreters is concerning, especially given data from the Iowa Civil Liberties Union indicating that the Southern District of Iowa employed uncertified interpreters in nearly 90% of cases in 2001, compared to only 12.8% in the District of Nebraska. The Eighth Circuit’s use of uncertified interpreters for Spanish-English translations was around 60%, significantly higher than the national average of 12%. This disregard for the Act compromises the rights of non-native English speaking defendants.

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts has established resources to assist courts in employing certified interpreters, including the National Court Interpreter Database and a Telephone Interpreting Program. These resources highlight a disconnect between the availability of certified interpreters and the district court's reliance on staff for translations, exacerbating the issue of fair representation for non-native English speakers in criminal proceedings.

Reversal of Gonzales's conviction is not warranted under plain error review as he failed to demonstrate that the district court's use of uncertified interpreters affected his substantial rights or rendered the proceedings fundamentally unfair. He did not provide evidence that his plea agreement was entered into without knowledge, voluntariness, or intelligence. The court addresses Gonzales's claim regarding the lack of written translations of court documents, noting that the absence of a constitutional right to such translations is supported by precedent. The district court's decision to provide written translations is discretionary, based on case complexity. Regarding the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Gonzales's claim of rights violation is dismissed as prior rulings establish that failure to advise a defendant of consular contact rights does not constitute a jurisdictional defect, particularly when a knowing and voluntary guilty plea has been entered. The court emphasizes the importance of adhering to the Court Interpreters Act and affirms the judgment, maintaining that the conviction stands.

The district court's appointment method for interpreters reveals a consistent failure to employ certified interpreters, specifically noted in the use of two non-certified court staff members for Spanish-English interpretations. There is no explanation in the record for this choice. Additionally, information from a telephone interview on October 23, 2002, with Ms. Marijke van der Heide, a Court Interpreter Program Specialist, indicates that other jurisdictions, like the District of Nebraska, opt to bring in qualified interpreters from outside the state rather than utilize unqualified personnel.