CopyCited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 13, 2020 | 307 Ga. 657
...Harris contends that he could not have
knowingly and intelligently waived his rights under these
circumstances because Bell was not a qualified sign language
interpreter and that she essentially “spoke a different language.”8
Harris argues that using Bell as an interpreter violated OCGA §§
24-6-653 (b) (1) and
24-6-656.9 For these reasons, he argues that
8 The record contains no evidence establishing Bell’s professional
qualifications as a sign language interpreter....
...having to spell things out.” The video recordings of the interviews in which Bell
participated show her signing with Harris, and the trial court could draw
inferences from those interviews about whether they were able to effectively
communicate with each other.
9 OCGA §
24-6-656 provides:
Whenever a hearing impaired person shall be authorized to
20
this statement should have been suppressed.
Again, because Harris had not been formally arrested when he...
...Harris contends that Bell was not qualified to participate in this
meeting and that her efforts to facilitate communications between
22
him, his attorney, and Detective Erion violated OCGA §§
24-6-653
(b) (1) and
24-6-656, rendering his written statement involuntary
and inadmissible.
The video recording of this interview shows that Harris
initiated the interview through, and in the presence of, his defense
counsel....
...that Erion might have about the written statement.
24
Under these circumstances, Bell’s involvement in the January
14 interview was harmless. First, it appears that Harris waived the
requirements imposed by OCGA §§
24-6-653 and
24-6-656 when he
and his counsel requested this follow-up meeting and elected to
“take a stab” at the interview with Bell interpreting.10 Further, the
written statement that Harris ultimately gave was not translated
by Bell....
