additional finding from this research is that the jurors’
own language use influences both voting preference
prior to deliberations and jury verdicts after delibera-
tions. Spanish-English bilinguals seem to be more
lenient in general than are monolingual English
speakers.Explanations of the
Impact of Language
One theoretical explanation proposed for these results
follows social identity theory. This theory postulates that
individuals are motivated to maintain a positive social
identity. In addition, it is presumed that humans have a
universal and natural tendency to categorize other
people as members of the categorizer’s in-group or
members of some other out-group. One can use a vari-
ety of strategies to maintain a positive self-image, but
important strategies relate to the way we interact with
and reward those we see as in-group or out-group mem-
bers. One can, for example, increase one’s own positive
self-image by perceiving members of one’s in-group
more favorably than members of out-groups and by dif-
ferentially rewarding those who are in-group members.
In a legal context, leniency would be expected from
those jurors who perceive themselves to be most similar
to the defendant. Spanish-speaking jurors would be
expected to perceive Spanish-speaking defendants as
more similar to themselves than would English mono-
linguals and thus would be expected to act more favor-
ably toward Spanish-speaking defendants. Similarly,
English monolingual jurors should be more lenient,
other things being equal, with English-speaking defen-
dants and more punitive with Spanish speakers. The
empirical data from the studies conducted to date do not
support this logic, however. Rather, Spanish-speaking
jurors are more lenient toward defendants in general, no
matter what the defendants’ language of testimony. In
addition, regardless of their own language use, jurors
treat Spanish-speaking defendants more leniently.
An alternative hypothesis is that jurors should be
motivated to see themselves, and be seen by others, as
different from those who are accused of crimes. Other
things being equal, they should be predisposed to con-
vict defendants to clarify the fact that they are differ-
ent from that person.
By testifying in a language other than the manda-
tory language of the proceedings (i.e., English), a
Spanish-speaking defendant also may be seen as anout-group member by allthe jurors. To serve as a
juror, an individual must be able to read and write the
English language. Therefore, by testifying in Spanish,
the defendant is demonstrating that he or she is dis-
tinctly different in this regard.
While out-group members may be treated more
punitively than in-group members, this punitive treat-
ment may not be manifest in the bilingual courtroom.
Indeed, quite the opposite may occur. The commission
of a crime is what society would define as deviant
behavior. Violations of norms result in negative sanc-
tions (e.g., convictions and imprisonment), but this also
is contingent on the observers’ (e.g., the jurors) recog-
nition that the person who violated the norms was able
to conform to the expectancies in the first place.
When they testify in Spanish, defendants may be
perceived as foreigners in a system that they do not
understand. Jurors may be sympathetic toward the
Spanish-speaking defendants because they see them
as individuals who do not understand the situation in
which they find themselves. This speculation suggests
a new line of inquiry to pursue empirically. That is, if
a defendant is seen as a “stranger” to the system,
jurors may heighten their standard for the burden of
proof and require the prosecution to justify the convic-
tion of an individual who does not completely under-
stand the consequences of his or her actions.
Community attitudes also may explain the results
of the research outcomes to date. Recall that the
impact of jurors’ language use has been shown to be
greater than that of the defendant’s language of testi-
mony. It may be that jurors’ views of the American
judicial system are critical in providing a context for
their decisions. So, for example, it may be that more
people who serve as jurors today hold more negative
attitudes regarding law enforcement and the courts
than those who served as jurors in the past, producing
a more lenient outcome for defendants.Implications for the Law
Court interpretation plays a pivotal role in the provision
of justice to linguistic minorities in the United States.
Future empirical research concerning court interpreters
and the impact of translated testimony on jurors will
provide useful information for the legal system and
allow for unbiased due process for all defendants.
It is vital that standards remain consistent concern-
ing the availability of a translator in all cases involving810 ———Translated TestimonyT-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 810