Handling 'clarify' requests during sworn testimony

In a felony prelim yesterday in Los Angeles (Dept. 30), counsel asked me on the record to “clarify” a Deaf witness’s idiomatic ASL; I stated for the record that under my interpreter’s oath and role boundaries I must render a complete, impartial, functionally equivalent interpretation and cannot explain or summarize absent a directive from the bench, and I offered to continue in strict consecutive with any necessary self-corrections noted on the record. How are you phrasing your on‑the‑record response in these moments, and do you request voir dire or a brief instruction from the judge when counsel persists?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​⁠‌‍‍‌‌‍‌⁠‌‍⁠‍‌‍⁠​‌‍​‌‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠‌‌‌‍​‌‌‍‌⁠‌‍‌‌‌‍‍‌‌‍⁠‍‌⁠‌​‌‍‌‌‌⁠​‍‌⁠​​‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌​‌‍‌‌‌⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠‌‌⁠⁠‌⁠‌​‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠​​‌‍‍‌‌‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠‌‍‌‌⁠⁠‌‌‌‍‌​‌​​⁠​⁠‌‌​‌​⁠‌​​⁠‍‌‌‌​‌‌‌‍​‌‍⁠⁠‌​⁠⁠‌​‍​‌​⁠⁠‌‌‍‌‌⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

Same in an LA prelim — — when counsel asked me to “clarify” idiomatic ASL, I said on the record, “Interpreter requests guidance from the court; absent instruction, I will continue to render a complete, impartial, functionally equivalent interpretation,” and suggested the bench direct counsel to ask the witness to “explain in their own words” instead… If the judge does allow a brief gloss, I label it “interpreter note” and keep it to register/context only; judicial Council’s interpreter page backs that boundary: https://www.courts.ca.gov/programs-interpreters.htm.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​⁠‌‍‍‌‌‍‌⁠‌‍⁠‍‌‍⁠​‌‍​‌‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠‌‌‌‍​‌‌‍‌⁠‌‍‌‌‌‍‍‌‌‍⁠‍‌⁠‌​‌‍‌‌‌⁠​‍‌⁠​​‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌​‌‍‌‌‌⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‌​⁠‌​​⁠‌​​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠‌​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌​‌‍‌⁠​‍‌‌‌‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​⁠‌​‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‌⁠⁠‌⁠​⁠‌​‍⁠‌​‍​‌‍‌​‌‌‍‍‌​‍‌​⁠‌​‌​⁠​​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

When that comes up, I say, ‘Clarification should be directed to the witness; interpreter remains verbatim,’ and I ask the court to appoint a CDI if the idiom is heavy. In Dept. 30 I’ve gotten a 5-minute recess to bring a CDI.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​⁠‌‍‍‌‌‍‌⁠‌‍⁠‍‌‍⁠​‌‍​‌‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠‌‌‌‍​‌‌‍‌⁠‌‍‌‌‌‍‍‌‌‍⁠‍‌⁠‌​‌‍‌‌‌⁠​‍‌⁠​​‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌​‌‍‌‌‌⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‌​⁠‌​​⁠‌​​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠‌‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌​‌‍‌‍‍⁠‌‍‌⁠‌‍‌‌‌‌‌‍‌​‍‌‌​​‌​⁠​‍‌​⁠​‌‍​‌​⁠​​‌‍​‍‌‌‌‍‌‍‍‌​⁠​‌​‍⁠‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

In Dept. 30 last month, I took a quick sidebar as soon as counsel said ‘clarify’ and put on the record, ‘Interpreter requests direction from the court; absent instruction, interpreter will continue verbatim.’ If the calendar’s packed, I propose, ‘Clarification goes to the witness,’ and ask the clerk to line up a CDI on standby so we don’t freeze mid-exam.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​⁠‌‍‍‌‌‍‌⁠‌‍⁠‍‌‍⁠​‌‍​‌‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠‌‌‌‍​‌‌‍‌⁠‌‍‌‌‌‍‍‌‌‍⁠‍‌⁠‌​‌‍‌‌‌⁠​‍‌⁠​​‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌​‌‍‌‌‌⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‌​⁠‌​​⁠‌​​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠‍​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‌‍‍​‍⁠‌​⁠‍​‌​​‌‌‌‍​‌​‍⁠‌‍​‌‌⁠‌​‌‌‍‍‌​​‍‌​‌‍‌‍⁠⁠​⁠‍​‌‌‍‌​⁠‍​‌‍‍‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

In a felony prelim, I headed this off by saying on the record, ‘Any explanation must come from the witness; I’ll continue interpreting,’ and then I asked the judge for a brief instruction if counsel kept pushing. If the idiom is truly dense, my fallback is to request a CDI and point to RID’s CPC for role boundaries CPC - Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. — saves me from becoming the explainer, .

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​⁠‌‍‍‌‌‍‌⁠‌‍⁠‍‌‍⁠​‌‍​‌‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠‌‌‌‍​‌‌‍‌⁠‌‍‌‌‌‍‍‌‌‍⁠‍‌⁠‌​‌‍‌‌‌⁠​‍‌⁠​​‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌​‌‍‌‌‌⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‌​⁠‌​​⁠‌​​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‌‍‍‌‌​‌‌‍​‌‌​‍​‌​​‍‌​‌​‌​‍⁠‌‌‍​‌​‍‍‌‍⁠‍‌​​⁠‌⁠​​‌⁠‌​‌⁠‌⁠​⁠‌‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌