In Woodel v. State of Florida the Court continued to state that even if the Defendant proved all points, they still would not have found a constitutional violation had occurred as the U.S. Supreme Court has expressly held that states may prescribe relevant qualifications for their jurors and that English proficiency represents a legitimate state interest. This holds true regardless of whether or not there is a specific statutory requirement mandating that a juror be proficient in English in order to serve on a jury as lack of English proficiency constitutes a showing of hardship, extreme inconvenience or public necessity.
Finally, the Court upheld the prohibition against a foreign language interpreter assisting during jury deliberations on the ground that this would contravene the crucial state interest in protecting the sanctity of the jury deliberations, which is a necessity. ("Permitting the use of an interpreter during jury deliberations is a fundamental error" Dilorenzo v. State, 711 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
To read our legal interpretation and translation blog entry "Russian Interpreter's Poor Interpretation Causes a Halted Trial: Why Attorneys Must Learn to Differentiate Between Competent
Court Interpreters and Unqualified Individuals", click here.
