Volume 19, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Baigorri-Jalón, J
    (2000/2014) From Paris to Nuremberg: The birth of conference interpreting (transl. by H. Mikkelson & B. S. Olsen ). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.111
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.111 [Google Scholar]
  2. Berk-Seligson, S
    (1990/2002) The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (1999) The impact of court interpreting on the coerciveness of leading questions. Forensic Linguistics6 (1), 30–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Boccaccini, M. T
    (2002) What do we really know about witness preparation?Behavioral Sciences and the Law20 (1/2), 161–189. doi: 10.1002/bsl.472
    https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.472 [Google Scholar]
  5. 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 Law28 (6), 892–907. doi: 10.1002/bsl.917
    https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.917 [Google Scholar]
  6. 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 Online37 (4), 525–532.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Camayd-Freixas, E
    (2005) A revolution in consecutive interpretation: Digital voice recorder-assisted CI. The ATA Chronicle34 (3), 40–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chaiken, S
    (1980) Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology39 (5), 752. doi: 10.1037/0022‑3514.39.5.752
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cohen, J
    (1988) Statistical power analysis for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Colin, J. & Morris, R
    (1996) Interpreters and the legal process. Winchester: Waterside Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department
    (1991) Access to interpreters in the Australian legal system. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Conley, J. M. , O’Barr, W. M. & Lind, E. A
    (1978) The power of language: Presentational style in the courtroom. Duke Law Journal6, 1375–1399.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cooper, J. , Bennett, E. A. & Sukel, H. L
    (1996) Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions?Law and Human Behavior20 (4), 379–394. doi: 10.1007/BF01498976
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01498976 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gaiba, F
    (1998) The origins of simultaneous interpretation: The Nuremberg Trial: Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 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 Medicine22 (2), 319–323. doi: 10.1007/s11606‑007‑0361‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0361-7 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gile, D
    (2001) Consecutive vs. simultaneous: Which is more accurate?The Journal of the Japan Association for Interpretation Studies1 (1), 8–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gzour, A
    (2001) Lockerbie trial. In Interpreting at international courts and tribunals. Court interpreting in the Netherlands . July 4th to 7th 2001. Minutes.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (2004) The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.52
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.52 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2007) Community interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230593442
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230593442 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hale, S (2011) Interpreter policies, practices and protocols in Australian courts and tribunals: A national survey. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Judicial Administration.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hale, S. & Napier, J
    . (2016). “We’re just kind of there”: Working conditions and perceptions of appreciation and status in court interpreting. Target. 28 (3), 351–371. doi: 10.1075/target.28.3.01hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.28.3.01hal [Google Scholar]
  23. Hale, S. & Stern, L
    (2011) Interpreter quality and working conditions: Comparing Australian and international courts of justice. Judicial Officers Bulletin23 (9), 75–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hamidi, M. & Pöchhacker, F
    (2007) Simultaneous consecutive interpreting: A new technique put to the test. Meta (2), 276–289. doi: 10.7202/016070ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/016070ar [Google Scholar]
  25. Hertog, E
    (2002) Language as a human right: Challenges for legal interpreting. In G. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 145–157. doi: 10.1075/btl.43.15her
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.43.15her [Google Scholar]
  26. Jacobsen, B
    (2012) The significance of interpreting modes for question-answer dialogues in court interpreting. Interpreting14 (2), 217–241. doi: 10.1075/intp.14.2.05jac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.14.2.05jac [Google Scholar]
  27. Lee, J
    (2009) Conflicting views on court interpreting examined through surveys of legal professionals and court interpreters. Interpreting11 (1), 35–56. doi: 10.1075/intp.11.1.04lee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.11.1.04lee [Google Scholar]
  28. Lindsay, R. C. , Wells, G. L. & O’Connor, F. J
    (1989) Mock-juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. Law and Human Behavior13 (3), 333–339. doi: 10.1007/BF01067033
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067033 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lombardi, J
    (2003) DRAC interpreting: Coming soon to a courthouse near you?Proteus12 (2), 7–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lotriet, A
    (2002) Can short interpreter training be effective? The South African truth and reconciliation commission experience. In E. Hung (Ed.), Teaching translation and interpreting 4: Building bridges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 81–98. doi: 10.1075/btl.42
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.42 [Google Scholar]
  31. Luus, C. & Wells, G. L
    (1994) The malleability of eyewitness confidence: Co-witness and perseverance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology79 (5), 714. doi: 10.1037/0021‑9010.79.5.714
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.714 [Google Scholar]
  32. Martin, A. & Ortega Herráez, J. M
    (2013) From invisible machines to visible experts: Views on interpreter role and performance during the Madrid train bomb trials. In C. Schäffner , K. Kredens & Y. Fowler (Eds.), Interpreting in a changing landscape: Selected papers from Critical Link 6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 101–116. doi: 10.1075/btl.109.09mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.109.09mar [Google Scholar]
  33. Martin, A. & Taibi, M
    (2012) Complexities of high profile interpreting: The case of the Madrid train bomb trial. Interpreting14 (2), 145–164. doi: 10.1075/intp.14.2.02mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.14.2.02mar [Google Scholar]
  34. Mikkelson, H
    (2010) Consecutive or simultaneous? An analysis of their use in the judicial setting. Across the Board. [Australian Sign Language Interpreters Association] 5, 4–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Mondak, J. J
    (1990) Perceived legitimacy of Supreme Court decisions: Three functions of source credibility. Political Behavior12 (4), 363–384. doi: 10.1007/BF00992794
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992794 [Google Scholar]
  36. Morris, R
    (1989a) Court interpretation: The trial of Ivan John Demjanjuk: A case study. The Interpreters’ Newsletter2, 27–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (1989b) Eichmann v. Demjanjuk. Parallèles. Cahiers de l'École de traduction et d'interprétation11, 9–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (1998) Justice in Jerusalem: Interpreting in Israeli legal proceedings. Meta43 (1), 1–10. doi: 10.7202/003669ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003669ar [Google Scholar]
  39. (2001) The Eichmann and Demjanjuk trials: A comparison. Paper presented at the AIIC Court Interpreting Seminar , The Hague.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. O’Barr, W. M
    (1982) Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 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 research6 (2), 39–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Ozolins, U
    (2004) Survey of interpreting practitioners. Melbourne: VITS LanguageLink.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Pallant, J
    (2010) SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). London: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Russell, D
    (2003) A comparison of simultaneous and consecutive interpretation in the courtroom. International Journal of Disability, Community & Rehabilitation2 (1). www.ijdcr.ca/VOL02_01_CAN/articles/russell.shtml (accessed27 June 2016).
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 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 Psychology34 (9), 1919–1944. doi: 10.1111/j.1559‑1816.2004.tb02593.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02593.x [Google Scholar]
  46. Smith, L. J. & Malandro, L. A
    (1985) Courtroom communication strategies. New York: Kluwer Law Book Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Stern, L
    (2011) Courtroom interpreting. In K. Malmkjaer & K. Windle (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of translation studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 325–342.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (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 Review2, 7–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Stern, L. , Ozolins, U. & Hale, S
    (2015)  Inefficiencies of court administration despite participants’ goodwill . Journal of Judicial Administration, 25 (2), 76–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Tabachnik, B. G . & Fidell, L. S
    (2013) Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error