CLARENCE CEPHEUS TAYLOR, III v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Arthur, Filed Jan. 27, 2016,
Confrontation Clause – Where interpreter was used during interrogation of defendant, confrontation clause required that an interpreter (not necessarily the same one) be present at trial to provide live testimony regarding the interpretation

There’s a ton of rehashing here. If you want an overview of Crawford-era hearsay exceptions, take a read.

Of course, for some reason the opinion also relies on Justice Thomas’ concurrences… so take a read and bring some salt with you.

Also includes a review of the federal circuit split on the issue.

There are also a number of opinions provided regarding interpreters: they become less accurate after 30 minutes, they may break under the pressure of someone else being interrogated, etc.

Confrontation Clause – Crawford prohibits use of testimonial hearsay, including police interrogations

Confrontation Clause – Per Crawford, testimonial hearsay from an absent witness is generally admissible against a criminal defendant only if the declarant is unavailable, and the defendant had a prior opportunity
to cross-examine that witness.

Confrontation Clause – Interpreter – Where translation is needed in the course of an open investigation or interrogation following arrest, there is no reason why the interview cannot be recorded and/or the translation cannot be conducted by a certified translator who can be available to testify at trial (quoting the 9th circuit’s Nazemian opinion). In the Court’s words: “because the police had recorded the interrogation, another interpreter might have provided his or her own translation if Joe Smith were unavailable”

Cross-Examination – Based on facts of case, trial court was required to allow defense “brief and simple inquiry” into potential bias related to possible civil suit