Interpreter/Reporter/Clerk/Bailiff
Category > Interpreter/Reporter/Clerk/Bailiff
The trial court prejudicially erred by placing an armed bailiff behind defendant while he testified and in refusing to instruct the jury to disregard the bailiff.The trial court abused its discretion and violated defendant’s due process rights by authorizing a uniformed and armed deputy sheriff to stand or sit behind him during his testimony. The record did not show that defendant posed any threat to courtroom security. The trial judge informed the parties it used this procedure in all of its cases. The court further erred by denying the request for a cautionary instruction informing the jurors not to infer defendant was dangerous. The error was prejudicial where defendant’s credibility was a major factor in the trial and the presence of the guard would suggest defendant was dangerous and likely committed the charged assault.id: 21192
Introduction of extrinsic videotape into the jury room during penalty phase deliberations was improper but not prejudicial.During penalty phase deliberations, the jury viewed a videotape that was never admitted into evidence. The tape showed police interviews of three people on the day of the murders and arrests. While the jury should not have been allowed to consider the extrinsic evidence in reaching its verdict, the error was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial. The exposure to the videotape was accidental and solely the result of court staff error so there was no juror misconduct and no presumption of prejudice. There was no reasonable possibility of a different outcome absent the error.id: 21470
Clerk erroneously recorded in the minute order that defendant pled guilty to three counts when he had only pled guilty to two. Defendant pled no contest to two counts but the clerk's minutes reflected a third conviction, and the court sentenced the defendant on the third count. The oral pronouncement of judgment prevailed over the minute order and abstract of judgment were ordered corrected to reflect two counts of conviction. The sentence for the third count to which defendant did not plead no contest was stricken.id: 19385
Failure to transcribe certain discussions between counsel and the court at the capital trial was harmless where the record permitted argument as to each point.Defendant argued the court erred in failing to provide a record adequate to pursue an appeal following the death sentence where certain discussions between counsel and the court went unreported. However, in the instances cited the omissions were not prejudicial because the record was adequate to permit defendant to argue each of the points purportedly addressed in the unreported conferences.id: 12189
The fact defendant shared an interpreter with his codefendant during the reading of jury instructions did not require reversal of his conviction.Defendant was provided with his own interpreter throughout virtually all of the proceedings. Only the reading of jury instructions transpired while defendant was sharing an interpreter with his codefendant. The error in denying him an interpreter during the reading of instructions did not require a reversal of his conviction because the record was devoid of any evidence of prejudice suffered by defendant as a result of the shared interpretation of instructions.id: 12194
Trial court erred in failing to transfer the bailiff to another courtroom after his testimony and in failing to give a cautionary instruction sua sponte.The trial court did not err in permitting the bailiff to testify as to incriminatory statements made by defendant while he was being transported back to the lock up area. However, the court should have transferred the bailiff to another courtroom after his testimony. Moreover, the jury should have been instructed sua sponte not to give the bailiff's testimony any artificial weight merely because he was a bailiff.id: 15862
Prosecutor proceeding by way of a grand jury in a capital case erred by ordering the court reporter to leave the proceedings during his opening and closing statements.Penal Code section 190.9 requires that in death penalty cases a court reporter record and transcribe all proceedings. The prosecutor, proceeding by way of grand jury, ordered the court reporter to leave during his opening and closing statements. The prosecutor's intentional action resulted in the denial of a substantial right and required a dismissal of the indictment.id: 16872
Updated 3/4/2024Errors made during interpretation of interrogation were cured.Defendant moved for a mistrial based on errors committed by the interpreter during an interrogation. Despite errors, the interpretation retained its integrity and there was adequate communication during the interrogation.id: 26967
Updated 2/26/2024Any prejudice from the use of an uncertified court reporter at the preliminary hearing was cured by subsequent trial testimony.Defendant argued that the use of an unsworn, uncertified interpreter at the preliminary hearing denied him of a fair trial. However any prejudice was restricted to the preliminary hearing, and would have been cured by subsequent trial testimony.id: 26966
The trial court did not err by replacing an interpreter who was using a different tone of voice than the questioning prosecutor.Defendant argued the trial court erred by replacing his interpreter during penalty phase proceedings. The court agreed with the prosecutor that the interpreter’s tone of voice was different than the prosecutor’s when asking questions. The court also noted there were three interpreters who were constantly trading places and the jurors wouldn’t think anything of it if one was removed from the rotation.id: 24789
The defendant forfeited the issue relating to his incompetent interpreter by failing to object at trial.Defendant argued he was denied a fair trial because of translation mistakes made by his interpreter. However, the issue was forfeited on appeal due to the lack of an objection by the defense at trial.id: 24146
The trial court did not err in refusing to remove a bailiff who interfered with defense counsel’s attempt to share information with defendant’s mother and there was no attorney-client privilege violation.During trial, defendant wrote a note and gave it to defense counsel who shared the message with defendant’s mother. The courtroom bailiff told counsel that her actions were illegal. Defendant sought to have the bailiff replaced arguing that his presence made the proceedings intolerable and that he violated the attorney-client privilege. However, the trial court admonished the bailiff for undertaking this action on his own but did not err by deciding to allow him to remain. Moreover, since the record did not show the bailiff received any confidential information, his actions did not violate the attorney-client privilege. id: 20496
The departure from the standard instruction regarding mental competence was insignificant and likely a function of court reporter error.At defendant's Penal Code section 1367 competency trial, the court instructed the jury in language that, according to the reporter's transcript, differed slightly from the standard jury instruction. However, because the court was obviously reading a standard instruction, it was far more likely that the punctuation supplied by the court reporter failed to accurately reflect the meaning conveyed by the court's oral instructions than that the court misread the standard instruction. Moreover, any minor departure by the court from the language of the standard instruction was not reasonably likely to cause the jury to misunderstand its duties.id: 19014
The trial court did not abdicate its control over the readback process.The jurors requested a readback of certain testimony during guilt phase deliberations. The record did not support defendant's claim that the trial court allowed the court reporter to decide which testimony was responsive to the jurors' questions. Even if the court failed to monitor the readback of testimony as closely as it should have, any resulting error was harmless.id: 18860
Abstract of judgment must reflect the lab fee imposed under section 11372.5.The abstract of judgment failed to identify a laboratory fee imposed by the trial court pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.5, subdivision (a). The superior court clerk was directed to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the laboratory fee.id: 15859
Defendant waived his right to insist upon a certified court reporter and there was no constitutional or statutory violation in the use of electronic reporting.Defendant argued his federal rights to due process and equal protection were abridged when the trial court refused his request for a certified shorthand reporter. Defendant failed to demonstrate a violation of constitutional proportions merely because an electronic recording device was employed instead of a certified shorthand reporter. Given defendants' voluntary waiver and the absence of any demonstrable inadequacy in the record, there was no error in the use of the electronic recording device.id: 15860
Superior Court clerk must include a restitution fine and other orders in the abstract of judgment.A judgment includes a fine. The Legislature intended that the abstract of judgment summarize the judgment. Hence the abstract of judgment should identify the amount of the restitution fine. In addition, the court's mandatory order regarding DNA testing must also be reflected in the abstract of judgment.id: 15861
Failure to provide a certified interpreter is not a constitutional violation absent a showing of prejudice.California Constitution, Article 1, section 14, provides in part "a person unable to understand English who is charged with a crime has a right to an interpreter throughout the proceedings." The failure to follow the procedures regarding noncertified interpreters set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 984.2, does not, in and of itself, violate this right.id: 14992
Destruction of court reporter's notes five years after they were taken does not violate due process.Government Code section 69955 permits the court reporter to destroy notes five years after the date they were taken, upon order of the court. Defendant argued that such destruction of records violates an absent defendant's due process rights and makes an effective appeal impossible due to the lack of full and accurate trial record. However, the court refused to adopt a requirement that reporters' notes may be destroyed only in cases which a final judgment has been entered. Moreover, when transcript notes no longer exist, the proper procedure is to attempt to reconstruct the trial testimony in a settled statement. Defendant in the instant case made no showing that a settled statement was impossible to secure or would be inadequate.id: 12187
Failure to issue the remittitur in a timely fashion did not void the judgment of the court.The superior court clerk's office's tardy filing of the remittitur did not deprive the superior court of jurisdiction to act in the case and the subsequent judgment of the court was not voided.id: 12188
Granting sequential translation to a Spanish speaking defendant testifying in English rather than simultaneous translation did not deny defendant the right to an interpreter.The trial court made an interpreter available to the Spanish speaking defendant throughout the trial. The interpreter in fact assisted him throughout the proceedings. Taking the witness stand, defendant chose to speak in English. Defendant argued the trial court denied him the right to an interpreter when it impliedly prohibited simultaneous translation during his testimony. The court did allow sequential translation. There was no abuse of discretion in denying the simultaneous translation which the court determined impracticable.id: 12190
It was presumed the court reporter read back the requested testimony absent a showing to the contrary.During penalty phase deliberations the jury asked to rehear the testimony of four defense witnesses. Defendant argued the penalty verdict may be unreliable because the record did not indicate definitively that the readbacks in fact occurred. At a hearing approximately one and one-half years after the trial the judge could not recall whether the testimony was reread but stated that after receiving this request from a jury his normal practice was to have the court reporter read back the requested testimony. There is a presumption that the official duty was performed and in the absence of any showing that the readbacks did not take place, there was no error.id: 12191
Loss of the reporter's notes of certain sealed proceedings did not require that a new trial be granted.Defendants were convicted of special circumstances murder and the sentence was fixed at life without possibility of parole. During the course of the lengthy trial several confidential hearings were held on ex parte matters. The reporter's notes of these hearings were sealed and placed in the court's file. The matters included two pretrial <i>Marsden</i> motions, a request for the appointment of a lie detector expert, and dialogue concerning defenses. The Superior Court file was later lost. Defendants argued loss of the reporter's notes and the fact that their content could not later be settled by the court and counsel required reversal and a new trial. However, defendants failed to show loss of the reporter's notes of the sealed proceedings involved a substantial, consequential omission, or prejudicial error, or prevented meaningful appellate review, so as to require reversal and a new trial.id: 12192
Presence of the court reporter in the jury room was not improper where there was no evidence of deliberations during this time.During deliberations the jury asked that certain testimony be reread. The court had the reporter enter the jury room and read the requested testimony verbatim. Counsel stipulated to the procedure. The procedure was not improper where there was no evidence the jury deliberated while the court reporter was in the room.id: 12193
There is no due process violation where a sheriff's deputy testifies for the prosecution in a criminal trial and a second sheriff's deputy acts as a bailiff.Defendant argued the common affiliation of bailiff and sheriff's deputy witnesses imposes too great a burden on defense attempts to demonstrate the deputy witnesses lack of credibility. A violation of due process may occur when the same sheriff's deputy testifies for the prosecution and also acts as bailiff. However, there is no constitutional problem where the testifying deputy sheriff is not the bailiff.id: 12195
Clerk's belated filing of a remittitur did not deprive appellants of their statutory speedy trial rights.The superior court clerk's office failed to file timely remittiturs after opinions of the appellate department became final. However, the late filing of the remittiturs did not deprive appellants of their statutory speedy trial rights because Penal Code section 1382 imposes no exact time limits until the remittitur is filed. Thus, by its terms, section 1382 was not violated when the clerk belatedly filed the remittitur.id: 12023
No violation of the constitutional right to speedy trial existed where the clerk's office belatedly filed the remittitur and appellants did nothing to shorten the delay.The superior court clerk's belated filing of a remittitur did not amount to a violation of appellant's constitutional speedy trial rights. No apparent reason for the delays existed other than clerical dereliction. Moreover, the appellants did nothing to shorten the delay, they simply waited until after the remittitur was filed in the trial court.id: 12037
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245