United States v. Jong Moon Lim, Dong Joon Ahn, Chul Ko

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the appropriate use of interpreters in the courtroom is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court
• noting that because the proceedings never lacked an interpreter, there was no need for a waiver
• holding that “a defendant whose fluency in English is so impaired that it interferes with his right to confrontation or his capacity, as a witness, to understand or respond to questions has a constitutional right to an interpreter”
• acknowledging that several circuits have held that a defendant whose fluency in English is so severely impaired that it interferes with his right to confrontation has a constitutional right to an interpreter
• noting absence of objections to translation in rejecting contention that inadequate translation interfered with defendant’s sixth amendment rights
• noting that “a defendant whose fluency in English is so impaired that it interferes with his right to confrontation or his capacity, as a witness, to understand or respond to questions has a constitutional right to an interpreter”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).