Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!barmar
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Subject: Re: Fate of the FOIA
Message-ID: <1991Jun1.210400.24855@Think.COM>
Sender: news@Think.COM
Reply-To: barmar@think.com
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
References: <1991May31.203017.19854@Think.COM> <8aFV35w164w@cellar.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 91 21:04:00 GMT
Lines: 28

In article <8aFV35w164w@cellar.UUCP> rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) writes:
>barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>> like a problem they should be stuck with.  But what if it were a
>> court-appointed defense attorney that were prevented from excluding a
>> bilingual juror, and therefore didn't understand all the testimony; in this
>> case, the defendent's only recourse would be to try to convince another
>> court that he received an unfair trial due to the assignment of an
>> incompetent PD, right?
>I don't think I'm following your reasoning.  Just because the defense 
>attorney (or the prosecution) allows a bilingual juror to be seated doesn't 
>mean that there won't be a translator present.  The translator will still be 
>needed by the lawyers, the judge, and the other jurors.  Language ability has 
>no bearing on the competence of the defense.

How can the attorney make a case if he doesn't know precisely what the jury
is hearing?  Yes, there will be a translator present, but the lawyer will
be hearing a different translation than that which the bilingual juror is
forming internally.

Consider the old adage about eskimos having ten words for "snow".  An
eskimo witness might use one of them, and the official translation might be
"snow".  However, an eskimo juror would hear the original word, and
understand a more specific connotation than that which the attorneys hear.
-- 
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
