382 JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICY
BASTOUNES Do you understand what I’m saying to you
now, is that correct?
HERRERO Yes.
BASTOUNES Okay. Judge, if you want to inquire
further.
COURT Mr. Herrero, have you understood the
conversation that has taken place in the last
ten minutes or so?
HERRERO I understand a little bit.
COURT Mr. Herrero, do you have any objection to
picking the jury now without the
interpreter?
HERRERO No.
COURT Okay. All right, then we can proceed.
We’re going to try to get an interpreter.
BASTOUNES I did try earlier.
COURT We’re trying now, I put in the request.
This transcript was reviewed during an appeal by Hector
Herrero of a drug possession conviction and twenty-five year
sentence.^8 The crux of the appeal was since Herrero had a poor
understanding of the English language and was not aided by a
translator, he was effectively absent from the trial.^9 While the
appeal was not successful, it was not due to Herrero’s claims
about linguistic ability.^10 Even though the question of whether
the transcript reveals that the defendant did not understand
English sufficiently to be deemed present at the trial did not
(^8) Id. at 242–43.
(^9) Id. at 242–45.
(^10) See id. at 243–44 (“The decision to appoint an interpreter is within the
trial court’s discretion, and a conviction will be reversed only when an abuse
of the court’s discretion deprived the defendant of some basic right....
Defendant did not ask for an interpreter at any time during jury selection.
Nor did defendant raise this issue in his motion for new trial. Consequently,
the issue is waived.... Even if we were to find that this issue was not
waived, defendant would still not prevail.”).