United States v. Martin Medina Tapia

How courts have described this case

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

• acknowledging “that the necessity for . . . an interpreter is a question of fact”
• acknowledging “that the necessity for . . . an interpreter is a question of fact”
• where defendant had benefit of interpreter at arraignment, trial court erred by failing to inquire about defendant‘s need for interpreter in later proceedings

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).