6.3 Impartiality & Neutrality

6.3 Impartiality & Neutrality

Quick Answer: Impartiality requires the interpreter to avoid conflicts of interest, bias, favoritism, and side conversations, and to refuse to express opinions on the case. The interpreter does not advise a party — even when asked directly. The correct pattern is to decline and route the question to counsel or the court. Even the appearance of partiality is a breach.

What Impartiality Requires

The canon of impartiality and neutrality requires the court interpreter to remain neutral — in fact and in appearance — throughout the proceeding and in all related interactions. The interpreter must not, by word or conduct, suggest alliance with either party, express an opinion on the case, or place himself in a position where impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

Impartiality is tested at two moments: (1) before the assignment, when the interpreter must screen for conflicts (covered in 6.5), and (2) during the assignment, when the interpreter must conduct himself so that neutrality is never compromised. This section focuses on the second.

The Appearance of Partiality

Impartiality is not only about the interpreter's actual state of mind — it is about how the interpreter's conduct appears to the parties, the court, and the public. A judge who sees the interpreter chatting warmly with the victim's family in the hallway may reasonably question the interpreter's neutrality even if the conversation was purely social. The standard is not 'was the interpreter biased?' but 'could a reasonable observer question the interpreter's neutrality?'

This is why the canon forbids not just bias but the conduct that suggests bias:

• Extended conversation with one party or one side's witnesses
• Accepting a ride, meal, or gift from a party
• Offering comfort beyond brief professional courtesy to a distressed witness
• Making eye contact or using body language that signals agreement or disagreement with testimony
• Sitting or standing closer to one side than the other

Side Conversations

Side conversations are the single most common impartiality scenario on the exam. A side conversation is any verbal exchange between the interpreter and a party, witness, attorney, or spectator that is not part of the interpreted record. The canon forbids them because anything said off-record to one party cannot be evaluated by the other side and the court.

Common side-conversation traps:

• The defendant whispers a question to the interpreter during a break; the interpreter answers in the source language
• The interpreter explains to a witness how the proceeding works 'to put her at ease'
• The interpreter and a witness share a hometown and chat about it before the witness testifies
• The interpreter, in the hallway, sympathizes with a victim's family member about the case

The correct response is the same in every case: politely decline to engage on the substance and, if the question is one the party needs answered, route it to counsel or the court.

No Opinions on the Case

The interpreter does not express an opinion — to either party, to the court, or privately — on the merits of the case, the credibility of a witness, the strength of the evidence, or the likely outcome. This applies even when the opinion is solicited ('You've seen a lot of these — what do you think?') and even when the interpreter's opinion is not based on the interpreter's role but on personal observation.

The correct response to a request for an opinion is to decline and explain that the interpreter's role does not permit offering opinions on the case. If the opinion is sought as testimony, the interpreter may be called as a witness only in narrow circumstances — but the interpreter-as-witness is a separate role from the interpreter-as-conduit and is beyond the scope of the written exam.

Physical Positioning and Demeanor

The interpreter's physical position and demeanor signal neutrality. Best practice:

The interpreter does not nod along with testimony, smile at a witness's jokes, or frown at a difficult answer. Even a small gesture can be read by the jury as the interpreter's assessment of the testimony.

'What Should I Say?'

The classic impartiality scenario: a witness or defendant, unsure how to answer, asks the interpreter, 'What should I say?' or 'How should I answer that?' The interpreter must not answer. The interpreter must not suggest. The interpreter must not even hint at the substance.

The correct response has three parts:

1. Decline: "I can't tell you what to say — I can only interpret what you say."
2. Route: "Please ask your attorney."
3. Offer to interpret: "I'll interpret your question and the attorney's answer."

This pattern preserves both impartiality (the interpreter is not shaping the testimony) and scope of practice (the interpreter is not giving legal advice). It is the answer to a large share of the scenario items in Area 3.

When the Interpreter Disagrees With the Speaker

Impartiality also means the interpreter does not act on personal disagreement with the speaker. If a speaker says something the interpreter finds offensive, false, or harmful, the interpreter renders it anyway. The interpreter's personal view of the speaker, the testimony, or the case is not part of the record and does not change the duty of accuracy. Personal disagreement is never a basis to soften, omit, or editorialize.

Summary

Impartiality is preserved by declining every out-of-role request, avoiding side conversations, expressing no opinions, and managing physical demeanor. The standard is appearance as well as fact. The pattern — decline, route to counsel, offer to interpret — is the answer to more scenario items than any other single response on the exam.