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.
(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.
(1989a) Court interpretation: The trial of Ivan John Demjanjuk: A case study. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 21, 27–37.
(1989b) Eichmann v. Demjanjuk. Parallèles. Cahiers de l'École de traduction et d'interprétation 111, 9–28.
(1998) Justice in Jerusalem: Interpreting in Israeli legal proceedings. Meta 43 (1), 1–10.
(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.
(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.
(2004) Survey of interpreting practitioners. Melbourne: VITS LanguageLink.
(2010) SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). London: Open University Press.
(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.
(2011) Courtroom interpreting. In K. Malmkjaer & K. Windle (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of translation studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 325–342.
(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.
2021. L’interprétation consécutive-simultanée. À la découverte d’un mode hybride. Traduire :245 ► pp. 76 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 22 may 2023. 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.