In this paper, the authors examine a trial in Minnesota in which the work of interpreters is itself the subject before the court. The background part of the study is divided into three sections: a review of relevant case history, a description of interpreting procedures that were in place at the time of the trial, and a summary of appellate court arguments about the quality of interpreting. The analysis section discusses a number of erroneous ideas emerging from the arguments about cross-linguistic and cross-cultural semantic equivalence. They conclude with a discussion of deficiencies in the system of courtroom interpreting and suggest some needed improvements.