Is the “simultaneous for proceedings, consecutive for testimony” convention codified anywhere or just best practice? At a 9:00 a.m. arraignment last week, the judge cited Fed. R. Evid. 604 to swear me and then ordered simultaneous for everything on the record but consecutive when the LEP defendant addressed the court; wondering if that’s judicial discretion in your courthouses or a standing order.
Not codified in FRE — “604 just covers the oath” — so the simultaneous-for-proceedings/consecutive-for-testimony split is mostly best practice plus judge discretion. I usually confirm the judge’s standing preference with the courtroom deputy and keep the Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 5 (Court Interpreting) handy, with this umbrella link if needed: Federal Court Interpreters — think turn-signal rules more than speed limits.
For those ‘real-time’ remote openings, I attach one PDF with my TB test date, fingerprint clearance, and HIPAA/FERPA certs so credentialing doesn’t slow the start. Small caveat: some school portals strip attachments, so I note in the cover letter that docs are ready if they prefer no files.
1 Like
Judge-by-judge in my experience, but what helps is asking at call for permission to self-switch so I can announce interpreter requests consecutive before sworn testimony or allocutions and everyone pauses; @rjackson22, do your judges allow that?
At those 9:00 a.m. arraignments, I bring a pre-printed slip for the clerk that reads, “Interpreter may request consecutive during testimony for accuracy,” so the judge can adopt it on the record without a sidebar; it’s sped things up and made the mode switch cleaner. Small caveat: a couple judges still want me to voice the request before any LEP statement, so I follow their lead. @OP do your clerks accept pre-drafted language like that?