English-speaking defendant in New York

2009In People v Niedzwiecki ( 127 Misc 2d 919 [1985]), the court found that a non-English-speaking defendant 4 must “reach a threshold point of understanding the choice presented to him, so he may at least be able to make a decision as to the course of conduct he will take.” (Id. at 921.) Unfortunately, in the present case, even though Mr. Jose Molina was able to speak and understand English, albeit with a heavy accent, Officer Sharpe arbitrarily and hastily decided not to videotape and administer the physical coordination test.

2008In People v Niedzwiecki (supra), the court found that a non-English-speaking defendant 3 must “reach a threshold point of understanding the choice presented to him, so he may at least be able to make a decision as to the course of conduct he will take.” (Niedzwiecki at 921 .) In the present case, knowing that Mr. Garcia-Cepero did not speak or understand English, no effort was made to obtain a Spanish-speaking police officer from the 43rd precinct, 45th precinct or any other police facility.

2004Negron v New York, 434 F2d 386 [2d Cir 1970] [interpreter required for non-English-speaking defendants]; People v Ramos, 26 NY2d 272 [1970] [criminal defendant who cannot understand English is entitled to appointment of an interpreter who speaks language that the defendant understands so that he may meaningfully assist in his own defense]; United States v Mosquera, 816 F Supp 168, 178 [ED NY 1993] [translation of indictment, relevant statutes, plea agreements and other documents required for non-English-speaking criminal defendants]; see also 28 USC §§ 1827 , 1828 [Judiciary and Judicial Proce

2004Negron v New York, 434 F2d 386 [2d Cir 1970] [interpreter required for non-English-speaking defendants]; People v Ramos , 26 NY2d 272 [1970] [criminal defendant who cannot understand English is entitled to appointment of an interpreter who speaks language that the defendant understands so that he may meaningfully assist in his own defense]; United States v Mosquera , 816 F Supp 168, 178 [ED NY 1993] [translation of indictment, relevant statutes, plea agreements and other documents required for non-English-speaking criminal defendants]; see also 28 USC §§ 1827 , 1828 [Judiciary and Judicial Pro

2017On the other hand, the approach adopted by the majority today: "place[s] an immense burden on defendants, especially uneducated, non-English-speaking defendants, who must (i) come to understand the right to appellate counsel, (ii) then understand that to receive appellate counsel requires papers demonstrating ***373 one's indigence and requesting the appointment of counsel, and (iii) then prepare such papers despite potential deficiencies in language and legal knowledge" ( id. at 23-24 ).

2009Arguments The defense argues that “the police department’s failure to administer a physical coordination test due to a language barrier, specifically, because the defendant spoke Spanish violated the defendant’s right to equal protection.” The defense relies on this court’s decision in People v Garcia-Cepero ( 22 Misc 3d 490 [2008]), to emphasize that “the procedure employed, that is affording both a breathalyzer and physical test to English-speaking individuals and only a breathalyzer to non-English-speaking defendants, not only differentiates between two classes but more importantly has no r

2009With such evidence so close in time to the arrest, a fact-finder can better determine whether the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt.” Finally, as to the government’s interest, “[fit is submitted that the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirements would have entailed would have been minimal, namely, the use of a Spanish language interpreter, when compared with the defendant’s due process right to a fair opportunity to combat government accusations of criminal conduct.” (See Mathews v Eldridge, 424 US 319 [1976].) On the

1999These hearings have presented a variety of issues, such as whether complete warnings were given (see, e.g., People v Pagan, 165 Misc 2d 255 [Crim Ct, Queens County 1995]), and whether the translation of the warnings for a non-English-speaking defendant was adequate (see, e.g., People v Niedzwiecki, 127 Misc 2d 919 [Crim Ct, Queens County 1985]).

1989In People v Brothers ( 50 NY2d 413, 417 ), the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the principle that delay occasioned by court congestion cannot properly be charged to the People once they have satisfied their obligation under CPL 30.30 by timely answering ready for trial.

1989While such a preconversion adjournment might appear, at first blush, to be with the "consent” and "for the benefit” of these non-English-speaking defendants, and therefore excludable under People v Worley ( 66 NY2d 523 ), this court concludes, for the reasons that follow, that the "waiver” and "estoppel” underpinnings for excludability relied on in Worley (supra) simply do not apply under the circumstances presented herein.

1989While such a preconversion adjournment might appear, at first blush, to be with the "consent” and "for the benefit” of these non-English-speaking defendants, and therefore excludable under People v Worley ( 66 NY2d 523 ), this court concludes, for the reasons that follow, that the "waiver” and "estoppel” underpinnings for excludability relied on in Worley (supra) simply do not apply under the circumstances presented herein.