Legal Interpreting Skill Development:

You want to place the case in its proper context, which will enable you to understand its relationships to other cases more easily once you’ve read the case.

To get a good grasp of the background, ask yourself the following questions:

• From where is the case?
• When was the case decided?
• Is it a federal or state case?
  • If it is a federal case, in what circuit was it decided?
• At what level is the case?
  • Is it a district court case, circuit court case, or Supreme Court case?
• Are there any legal terms in the case that I do not understand?

You want to make sure you understand what is going on in the case. You need to have a thorough grasp of the facts of the case so that you can understand how the legal rulings apply.

To get a good grasp of the facts, ask yourself the following questions:

• Who is the plaintiff?
  • What did the plaintiff claim as his legal injury?
  • What kind of remedy was he seeking from the court?
• Who is the defendant?
  • What kind of defense did she present against the plaintiff’s claims?
• What side did the court seem to find to be more convincing?
  • Even if the court’s explanation of the facts seems relatively neutral, can you identify points at which a close question of factual interpretation went one way or the other?

This is the heart of your analysis. You want to identify the case’s holding, or the main principle for which future judges will follow or distinguish this case.

To identify the holding, ask yourself the following questions:

• Around what legal questions does the court seem to be centering its analysis?
• What legal question(s) is the key determining factor in the court’s decision about the outcome of the case?
• How does the court answer this legal question?
  • With a yes/no answer? Or with an elaborate test that it suggests for future courts to use? Something in between?
• Do the legal question(s) and answer fit together convincingly?

You want to develop an understanding of the court’s legal reasoning. The point of an opinion is for the court to explain why it has decided a case in a particular way.

To understand the legal reasoning in the case, ask yourself the following questions:

• What, at bottom, does the case really seem to be about?
• What arguments does the court use to justify its answer to the legal question you’ve identified?
• What other cases does the court cite for support?
  • Does it distinguish other cases?
• On what basis does it rely on some cases and distinguish others?

Once you have analyzed the case thoroughly, figure out how the case fits in with other cases you have read or cases you have heard about. This will help you to get a sense of how legal doctrine develops and changes over time.

To understand how the decision fits into a particular line of doctrine, ask yourself the following questions:

• In what way does this case address issues that I’ve seen or heard about before?
  • Of what cases do the facts in this case remind me?
  • Of what cases do the legal issues in this case remind me?
• To what extent does this case extend or modify legal reasoning that was employed in earlier cases?
  • Can I tell a story about the development of case law in this area that takes into account changes in legal tests over time?
• What issues does this case leave unresolved?
  • What kinds of questions do I expect to arise in the next case dealing with this doctrinal area?

• To understand how the decision impacts interpreters and Deaf people in the legal setting, ask yourself the following questions:

  • What implications of this case exist for interpreters?
    • Does it impact our practice in anyway? Perhaps how we practice within a specific context – such as a police interrogation or a hospital setting? If so, discuss.
  • How does the information discussed in this case impact the work of interpreters and/or effect their interactions with the court and Deaf consumers of legal interpreting services?
  • How does or might the decision of the court impact Deaf individuals in terms of linguistic access and/or fundamental human rights?
  • If the court decision was in favor of the Deaf individuals involved in the case, what reasoning was used?
    • Does this reasoning advance the recognition of the linguistic and/or human rights of Deaf individuals? If so, in what way?
  • If the court did not decide in favor of the Deaf individuals involved in the case, what reasoning was used?
    • Does this reasoning represent any of the faulty logic associated with institutional oppression of Deaf individuals and/or other marginalized individuals? What markers indicate that?

• This is a synopsis of the decision in your own words generated in either written English or ASL (taped). Create an accurate and concise description of the case.

  • What is the citation of the matter?
  • What is the legal issue(s) being decided by the court?
  • What are the compelling facts related to the issue?
  • What is the central position of each side of the issue (the position of the plaintiff/prosecutor and the position of the defendant) and what are the key points to their argument?
  • What is the Court’s decision?

  Attempt to identify what the court viewed as the compelling reasons for the decision that was made. Typically, this will involve some discussion of the case law that the attorneys used to support their position on the issue(s). In the court’s decision, the judge will discuss whether the court agrees that the case law cited during the trial in fact applies or not.

  Note: Case law, often used interchangeably with the term Common Law, refers to the precedents and authority set by previous court rulings, judicial decisions and administrative legal findings or rulings. Case law has particular importance in the United States. Case law in this sense means the written opinions of appellate courts deciding a point of law. When judges have to make decisions on matters of law they must follow the decisions of their predecessors and superiors. The decision cited for precedent by the attorneys representing a particular orientation to the issues must be from a court higher than the one hearing the current case. And in fact, case law is most often established by appellate courts. The use of the appeal process to review what happened in a lower court is one reason why the accuracy of the trial record – the transcript – is so important.

You can convey your summary in written English or ASL (taped). In the summary, reflect on the analysis process and respond to the following questions:

• What is your reaction to the case as a whole? How does the case and the outcome impact you as an individual – separate from your work as an interpreter? Are there experiences you have had in your life that give you a particular observation or reaction to this case? How might these observations and reactions impact your work as an interpreter? As you leave this case, what impressions do you have about the legal system, the outcome of the case, and the work of interpreters within the legal system?
• What new information about the law, legal system and/or interpreting did you learn as a result of analyzing this case?  How do you see yourself applying this information as an individual and interpreter practitioner?
• What questions still remain for you as a result of this case analysis? How can you go about finding the answers to these questions?

A group of interpreters (3-4) can be assigned this task and divide up the elements of the analysis and then work together to discuss their findings and create the final analysis to submit to the mentor.

Multiple groups can analyze the same case and then engage in a facilitated discussion to identify their similarities and differences. Everyone’s understanding of the case will be expanded by listening to the perspectives and findings of others about the same case.

One small group can present their case analysis to another small group who analyzed a different case and they can each discuss their observations and questions. Each group presents its case analysis to the other group for feedback and discussion.

Interpreters can exchange their final case analysis with one another and provide feedback to each other. In providing feedback, consider the following:

• Did the case analysis address all the required elements? Sufficiently? Why or why not? What gaps exist or what elements could have been developed more completely/thoroughly?
• What were the parts of the analysis you felt were the strongest and most impactful and why?
• What were the parts of the analysis you felt were the weakest and least impactful and why?
• What new insight did you, as the reviewer, take away from the analysis?