Research 1
Becca Behr
ASL 2
Research Paper GLOSS
10/6/14
When someone gets arrested, they have the right to an attorney and if needed, they are allowed an interpreter. But for Steven Gonzalez and Steven Bircoll, they were not provided an interpreter during each trial.
Steven gonzalez was arrested and charged with theft and receiving stolen property charges worth $2,800. On July 22, Gonzalez went in to have his first criminal court appearance, the court did not have an interpreter available. Instead of holding off the hearing until the court found a sign language interpreter for Gonzalez, they went on with his hearing without him really understanding what was going on or what he was being charged with.
Similar incident happened with Steven Bircoll. Bircoll was arrested and charged for a
DUI. Bircoll is completely deaf in his left ear and only 10 percent hearing in his right ear. When
Bircoll was brought to the police station, he was denied his request of a sign language interpreter because he technically can still hear.
Both of these situations, both people should’ve received some kind of interpreter, whether it be one in person or via video call because they have their rights. I think even though
Bircoll can still hear a little it’s still hard for him to understand what the police are trying to say to him so he could’ve got an interpreter to confirm what the police were trying to say to him.
Both defendants, in my opinion, probably could try to either sue the court/ police station for not allowing and providing them with their rights or even try to drop their charges because they didn’t understand what they were being charged for. The judge in Gonzalez’s case
should’ve held off his trail until they found an interpreter for him. Even though these two people broke the law, they’re still people with rights and they shouldn’t be denied them.
"Public Services (State and Local Governments)."
JSTOR
. American
ASL 2
Research Paper GLOSS
10/6/14
When someone gets arrested, they have the right to an attorney and if needed, they are allowed an interpreter. But for Steven Gonzalez and Steven Bircoll, they were not provided an interpreter during each trial.
Steven gonzalez was arrested and charged with theft and receiving stolen property charges worth $2,800. On July 22, Gonzalez went in to have his first criminal court appearance, the court did not have an interpreter available. Instead of holding off the hearing until the court found a sign language interpreter for Gonzalez, they went on with his hearing without him really understanding what was going on or what he was being charged with.
Similar incident happened with Steven Bircoll. Bircoll was arrested and charged for a
DUI. Bircoll is completely deaf in his left ear and only 10 percent hearing in his right ear. When
Bircoll was brought to the police station, he was denied his request of a sign language interpreter because he technically can still hear.
Both of these situations, both people should’ve received some kind of interpreter, whether it be one in person or via video call because they have their rights. I think even though
Bircoll can still hear a little it’s still hard for him to understand what the police are trying to say to him so he could’ve got an interpreter to confirm what the police were trying to say to him.
Both defendants, in my opinion, probably could try to either sue the court/ police station for not allowing and providing them with their rights or even try to drop their charges because they didn’t understand what they were being charged for. The judge in Gonzalez’s case
should’ve held off his trail until they found an interpreter for him. Even though these two people broke the law, they’re still people with rights and they shouldn’t be denied them.
"Public Services (State and Local Governments)."
JSTOR
. American