United States v. Orlando Vasquez Carrion

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “whenever put on notice that there may be some significant language difficulty, the court should make such a determination of need [for an interpreter]”
• holding that the trial court has wide discretion to decide whether an interpreter is necessary
• noting that the court must be put on notice of some significant language difficulty, and that protective procedures are sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements
• noting that the court must be put on notice of some significant language difficulty, and that protective procedures are sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements
• noting that “considerations of judicial economy” require that “the trial court, coming into direct contact with the defendant, be granted wide discretion in determining whether an interpreter is necessary”
• stating that the “complexity of the issues and testimony presented at trial” are factors for the trial court to consider when deciding whether an interpreter is necessary

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).