Prosecutors can move low-level cases against Spanish-speaking defendants to a higher court but need to produce English transcripts of some evidence, a state ddistrict judge ruled Thursday.
Moving the misdemeanor cases from Magistrate Court to District Court does not violate the defendants’ rights to equal protection or due process under the law, Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer held. However, she noted, rules in both courts require the state to produce English transcripts of lapel camera footage of interactions between police and non-English-speaking defendants, though the transcriptions don’t necessarily have to be made by a “certified” court interpreter.
The issue came before the judge after the Santa Fe Public Defender’s Office filed motions seeking to dismiss misdemeanor charges against two Spanish-speaking defendants, arguing they were losing certain rights due to what the public defender called an unwritten policy at the First Judicial District Attorney’s Office of moving cases involving Spanish speakers to the higher court in order to avoid producing a transcript of such interactions created by a certified court interpreter.
Public defender Meredith Cockman’s motion argued shifting cases to the higher court violated the rights of non-English-speaking defendants, singled them out for different treatment based on their native language, and meant they would lose their rights to an automatic appeal and trial by jury.
The District Attorney’s Office denied Cockman’s claims, asserting the state had simply moved the cases to District Court in order to get a ruling from a “court of record” — which the Magistrate Court is not — on whether interactions between police and non-English-speaking defendants, such as lapel camera footage, had to be translated by a “court-certified” interpreter.
The public defender’s office had repeatedly raised the issue in the lower court, often on “the eve of trial,” in some cases resulting in evidence being suppressed, Assistant District Attorney Shelby Bradley wrote in the state’s response to Cockman’s motion.
“The timing of such challenges prevents the State from having any meaningful opportunity to litigate the issue,” Bradley wrote.
“When such challenges are well-taken by the Magistrate Court, the result is the suppression of essential evidence and a near-certainty that the State will not prevail at trial,” Bradley added.
Sommer held a hearing in one of the cases Thursday, but said her ruling only applied to that case as she couldn’t make decisions regarding cases in front of other judges. Cockman said she’s found seven cases involving Spanish speakers which the state had moved from Magistrate Court, where misdemeanors are usually handled, to the higher court.
Deputy District Attorney Tony Long argued Thursday — and the judge agreed — that it’s within the state’s discretion to decide where the cases are heard and that the defendant’s rights are essentially the same in both courts.
Sommer ruled nothing in the law requires transcripts to be produced by a certified court interpreter and that defendants retain essentially the same rights, despite minor differences in the language of the rules in the two different courts.
However, Sommer told the District Attorney’s Office while the shifting of the cases was not an issue of equal protection, she would “encourage” prosecutors to consider the “optics … and fair play” as well which court was more “glutted” with cases when deciding where to file.
“Is the Magistrate Court any more glutted than the District Court? I think the District Court is pretty glutted,” Sommer said.
Sommer held the state does need to produce transcripts of interactions between law enforcement and non-English-speaking defendants and that lower court judges are obligated to grant continuances for that purpose if needed. She referenced a November memo from Administrative Office of the Court’s language access supervisor Freda Valdez, informing judges and other court staff that court-certified interpreters needed time to translate documents or footage before appearing in court.
“Demands on spoken and signed language interpreters to provide on-the-spot interpretations of foreign language audio and video materials have greatly increased,” Valdez wrote. She wrote of the need to “balance respect for the ethical and professional duties of interpreters with the challenges a court faces when confronted with recorded or written foreign language audio/video materials that will require on-the-spot translation during a hearing or trial.”
In an email after the hearing, District Attorney’s Office spokesperson Catherine Lynch thanked Sommer and criticized the public defender’s office. In its reply brief, the District Attorney’s Office attached affidavits from two prosecutors saying Cockman implied or stated in a phone call that prejudice was behind the office’s actions in the cases, which they said was untrue.
The [First Judicial District Attorney] rejects ad hominem attacks on our attorneys and will vigorously defend ourselves,” Lynch wrote. “In this instance, we are glad a district court judge saw through the falsehoods spread by the [Law Offices of the Public Defender].”
The ruling brought needed clarity to the issue, Cockman wrote in an email after the hearing.
“Judge Marlowe Sommer’s ruling should help all of us do better by Spanish-speaking defendants,” Cockman said in a statement. “… This ruling give us hope that prosecutors will simply provide the necessary transcripts without us having to fight so hard for them.”
“We’re here to protect people from unfair practices,” she added.