Yes, interpreter mistakes during Article 31 advisement can lead to complete statement suppression if errors prevented suspects from understanding their rights. Courts examine whether interpretation accurately conveyed warning substance, not just literal translation. Even minor errors affecting meaning may invalidate waivers if suspects proceeded based on misunderstanding. The government bears burden proving accurate interpretation.
Critical evaluation points include interpreter qualifications, dialect differences, and technical legal terminology translation. Certified interpreters aren’t required but competency must be demonstrated. Cultural context matters – some languages lack direct equivalents for legal concepts requiring careful explanation. Word-for-word translation may fail to convey actual meaning across cultural contexts.
Common problems include oversimplification losing crucial nuances, inability to translate military-specific terms, or interpreters adding explanatory commentary beyond actual warnings. Time pressure leading to rushed interpretation particularly undermines comprehension. Courts scrutinize whether suspects’ questions or responses suggest misunderstanding based on flawed interpretation.
Defense strategies include obtaining interpretation recordings for expert review, examining interpreter qualifications, and demonstrating specific errors affecting comprehension. Native speaker affidavits explaining translation deficiencies prove powerful. Even without proving exact errors, showing interpretation inadequacy through suspect confusion may suffice. The standard recognizes that language barriers require exceptional care ensuring genuine understanding before accepting rights waivers.