Research into court interpreting has shown that interpreters can have an impact on the case in many different ways. However, the extent to which this occurs depends on several factors, including the interpreter’s competence, ethics and specialized training in court interpreting, as well as working conditions. One little explored aspect is whether use of consecutive vs. simultaneous interpreting can impact jurors’ perception of a witness or other interpreted party. This paper reports on the results of a large-scale experimental study, with a simulated trial run in different conditions, involving a total of 447 mock jurors. The aim was to identify any differences in the way jurors in Australian courts might assess the evidence of an accused called as a witness, in a monolingual hearing as well as when interpreted consecutively and simultaneously from Spanish to English. Overall, jurors’ recollection of case facts did not differ significantly for the three conditions, though it was lower for consecutive during the afternoon. Jurors also found consecutive more distracting; on the other hand, the consecutive mode was associated with significantly more favourable perception of the accused’s evidence than simultaneous interpreting or monolingual communication. Although jurors found the prosecution to be less convincing when the accused’s evidence was interpreted consecutively compared to the other proceedings, the interpretation mode made no difference to the verdict.
Berk-Seligson, S. (1990/2002). The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Berk-Seligson, S. (1999). The impact of court interpreting on the coerciveness of leading questions. Forensic Linguistics 6 (1), 30–56.
Boccaccini, M. T. (2002). What do we really know about witness preparation?Behavioral Sciences and the Law 20 (1/2), 161–189.
Brodsky, S. L., Griffin, M. P. & Cramer, R. J. (2010). The witness credibility scale: An outcome measure for expert witness research. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 28 (6), 892–907.
Brodsky, S. L., Neal, T. M., Cramer, R. J. & Ziemke, M. H. (2009). Credibility in the courtroom: How likeable should an expert witness be?Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online 37 (4), 525–532.
Camayd-Freixas, E. (2005). A revolution in consecutive interpretation: Digital voice recorder-assisted CI. The ATA Chronicle 34 (3), 40–46.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 (5), 752.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Colin, J. & Morris, R. (1996). Interpreters and the legal process. Winchester: Waterside Press.
Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department. (1991). Access to interpreters in the Australian legal system. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Conley, J. M., O’Barr, W. M. & Lind, E. A. (1978). The power of language: Presentational style in the courtroom. Duke Law Journal 61, 1375–1399.
Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A. & Sukel, H. L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions?Law and Human Behavior 20 (4), 379–394.
Gaiba, F. (1998). The origins of simultaneous interpretation: The Nuremberg Trial: Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Gany, F., Kapelusznik, L., Prakash, K., Gonzalez, J., Orta, L., Tseng, C.-H. & Changrani, J. (2007). The impact of medical interpretation method on time and errors. Journal of General Internal Medicine 22 (2), 319–323.
Gile, D. (2001). Consecutive vs. simultaneous: Which is more accurate?The Journal of the Japan Association for Interpretation Studies 1 (1), 8–20.
Gzour, A. (2001). Lockerbie trial. In
Interpreting at international courts and tribunals. Court interpreting in the Netherlands
. July 4th to 7th 2001. Minutes.
Hale, S. (2001). How are courtroom questions interpreted? An analysis of Spanish interpreters’ practices. In I. Mason (Ed.), Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome, 21–50.
Hale, S. (2007). Community interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hale, S. (2011). Interpreter policies, practices and protocols in Australian courts and tribunals: A national survey. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Judicial Administration.
Hale, S. & Stern, L. (2011). Interpreter quality and working conditions: Comparing Australian and international courts of justice. Judicial Officers Bulletin 23 (9), 75–81.
Hamidi, M. & Pöchhacker, F. (2007). Simultaneous consecutive interpreting: A new technique put to the test. Meta (21), 276–289.
Lindsay, R. C., Wells, G. L. & O’Connor, F. J. (1989). Mock-juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. Law and Human Behavior 13 (3), 333–339.
Lombardi, J. (2003). DRAC interpreting: Coming soon to a courthouse near you?Proteus 12 (2), 7–9.
Luus, C. & Wells, G. L. (1994). The malleability of eyewitness confidence: Co-witness and perseverance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology 79 (5), 714.
Mikkelson, H. (2010). Consecutive or simultaneous? An analysis of their use in the judicial setting. Across the Board. [Australian Sign Language Interpreters Association] 51, 4–7.
Mondak, J. J. (1990). Perceived legitimacy of Supreme Court decisions: Three functions of source credibility. Political Behavior 12 (4), 363–384.
Morris, R. (1989a). Court interpretation: The trial of Ivan John Demjanjuk: A case study. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 21, 27–37.
Morris, R. (1989b). Eichmann v. Demjanjuk. Parallèles. Cahiers de l'École de traduction et d'interprétation 111, 9–28.
Morris, R. (1998). Justice in Jerusalem: Interpreting in Israeli legal proceedings. Meta 43 (1), 1–10.
Morris, R. (2001). The Eichmann and Demjanjuk trials: A comparison. Paper presented at the
AIIC Court Interpreting Seminar
, The Hague.
O’Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
Orlando, M. (2014). A study on the amenability of digital pen technology in a hybrid mode of interpreting: Consec-Simul with notes. Translation & interpreting. The international journal of translation and interpreting research 6 (2), 39–54.
Ozolins, U. (2004). Survey of interpreting practitioners. Melbourne: VITS LanguageLink.
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). London: Open University Press.
Russell, D. (2003). A comparison of simultaneous and consecutive interpretation in the courtroom. International Journal of Disability, Community & Rehabilitation 2 (1). [URL] (accessed 27 June 2016).
Ruva, C. L. & Bryant, J. B. (2004). The impact of age, speech style, and question form on perceptions of witness credibility and trial outcome. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34 (9), 1919–1944.
Smith, L. J. & Malandro, L. A. (1985). Courtroom communication strategies. New York: Kluwer Law Book Publishers.
Stern, L. (2011). Courtroom interpreting. In K. Malmkjaer & K. Windle (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of translation studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 325–342.
Stern, L. (2012). What can domestic courts learn from international courts and tribunals about good practice in interpreting? From the Australian war crimes prosecutions to the international criminal court. T & I Review 21, 7–30.
Stern, L., Ozolins, U. & Hale, S. (2015). Inefficiencies of court administration despite participants’ goodwill. Journal of Judicial Administration, 25 (2), 76–95.
Tabachnik, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Cited by (11)
Cited by 11 other publications
Hale, Sandra, Natalie Martschuk, Jane Goodman-Delahunty & Julie Lim
2024. Juror perceptions in bilingual interpreted trials. Perspectives► pp. 1 ff.
Eades, Diana, Helen Fraser & Georgina Heydon
2023. Forensic Linguistics in Australia,
Huang, Yuwei, Weinan Shi & Jinglin Wen
2023. Technology Challenges and Aids: The Sustainable Development of Professional Interpreters in Listening Comprehension Effectiveness and Interpreting Performance. Sustainability 15:8 ► pp. 6828 ff.
Doherty, Stephen, Natalie Martschuk, Jane Goodman-Delahunty & Sandra Hale
2022. An Eye-Movement Analysis of Overt Visual Attention During Consecutive and Simultaneous Interpreting Modes in a Remotely Interpreted Investigative Interview. Frontiers in Psychology 13
Hale, Sandra, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Natalie Martschuk & Stephen Doherty
2021. L’interprétation consécutive-simultanée. À la découverte d’un mode hybride. Traduire :245 ► pp. 76 ff.
Goodman-Delahunty, Jane, Natalie Martschuk, Sandra B. Hale & Susan E. Brandon
2020. Interpreted Police Interviews: A Review of Contemporary Research. In Advances in Psychology and Law [Advances in Psychology and Law, 5], ► pp. 83 ff.
Rengifo, Andres F., Diba Rouzbahani & Jennifer Peirce
2020. Court Interpreters and the Political Economy of Bail in Three Arraignment Courts. Law & Policy 42:3 ► pp. 236 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.