§ 204. Determination of Need for Interpreter.
(a) Proceedings to determine need for an interpreter.—Ordinarily, the presiding judicial officer must appoint an interpreter after notice of need for an interpreter is given or a request for an interpreter is made. If, after considering the notice of need, the presiding judicial officer requires additional information in order to make the determination that the person is limited English proficient or deaf or hard of hearing, or of the appropriate language or means of communication with the interpreter, he or she may request any additional filings from the parties or conduct any proceedings he or she deems necessary including, but not limited to, conducting the voir dire for determination of need for an interpreter for persons with limited English proficiency or who are deaf or hard of hearing established by the Court Administrator. If the Appellate Court Prothonotary/District Court Administrator or his or her designee requires additional information, he or she may request additional information and may request that the presiding judicial officer conduct proceedings to determine the need for an interpreter.
(b) If, during the course of the judicial proceeding, and without regard to whether notice of need for an interpreter was given, the presiding judicial officer determines that a principal party in interest is a person with limited English proficiency or that a principal party in interest, witness, direct victim, or juror is deaf or hard of hearing and is in need of an interpreter, he or she shall give notice to the Appellate Court Prothonotary/District Court Administrator or his or her designee as provided in § 202(d) (relating to persons to notify court concerning need for interpreters).
Comment Presiding judicial officers, the Appellate Court Prothonotary/District Court Administrator, or the designees of the Appellate Court Prothonotary/District Court Administrator taking action under this section must do so in compliance with the non-discrimination provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, 28 C.F.R. § § 42.101 et seq., as well as the stated purpose of 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 44 (relating to court interpreters). See 42 Pa.C.S. § 4401 (relating to legislative findings and declaration).
Presiding judicial officers, the Appellate Court Prothonotary/District Court Administrator, or the designees of the Appellate Court Prothonotary/District Court Administrator taking action under this section must also take care not to ask questions that would violate Rules 250 through 252 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § § 12101 et seq. Specifically, persons with disabilities need not submit documentation to establish proof of their disability. Furthermore, in compliance with the ADA’s provisions on effective communication, judicial district ADA coordinators and judges must give primary consideration to the means of communication requested by the deaf or hard of hearing court user when making arrangements to accommodate that individual. For example, judges may ask a deaf or hard of hearing litigant whether they use American Sign Language, need a Certified Deaf Interpreter, or prefer CART (Communication Access Realtime Translation) in order to participate effectively in the proceeding.
Persons who request language access services should be provided with them. Subsection (a) covers the exceptional circumstance when the person notified of need for an interpreter may require additional information. This subsection permits a presiding judicial officer to acquire additional information in order to make the determination of need by way of supplemental filings, hearings, and any other means typically within the presiding judicial officer’s power in handling the particular judicial proceeding. In the case of persons with limited English proficiency, the voir dire established by the Court Administrator should be used for assessing the level of English proficiency of the individual in question. The Appellate Court Prothonotary/District Court Administrator may request additional information but is not empowered to conduct any proceedings to gather information.
Subsection (b) is intended to clarify that even if notice of the need for an interpreter is not given by one of the individuals required to give notice under § 202(a), the presiding judicial officer may sua sponte determine the need for an interpreter and thereby start the appointment process if he or she deems it appropriate to do so under these regulations.
Source The provisions of this § 204 added November 22, 2021, effective January 1, 2022, 51 Pa.B. 7415. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (349440) to (349441).
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.
This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Code full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
