Non-English Speaking Citizens Have a ‘Right’ to Serve on Juries in New Mexico

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — The New Mexico Supreme Court is cautioning trial courts and lawyers that citizens who don’t speak English have the right to serve on juries.

Michael Samora’s appeal argued that his convictions should be reversed because a Bernalillo County judge excused a Spanish-speaking prospective juror who had trouble understanding English.

Say WHAT ?

For the record :

The right of any citizen of the state to vote, hold office, or sit upon juries, shall never be restricted, abridged or impaired on account of religion, race, language or color, or inability to speak, read or write the English or Spanish languages as may be otherwise provided in this Constitution; and the provisions of this section and of section one of this article shall never be amended except upon the vote of the people of this state in an election at which at least three-fourths of the electors in the whole state, and at least two-thirds of those voting in each county of the state, shall vote for such amendment.

It does say anyone can sit on a jury regardless.

I agree with the author of the article that is dangerous imagine you have been charged with a crime,and your rights by trial by jury of YOUR PEERS.

So someone who doesn't speak english 'a jury of your peers' ?

How can someone who doesn't understand the defense or prosecution or witness testimony effectively pass judgement here?

I don't get it ?

What is worse is that someone tried to use this for an appeal.

Sorry, but in this person's opinion If I am charged with a crime I want a jury that is able to understand english.

But that is just me.

The law is clear,

The law is crystal clear.

But what the hell.

Practically speaking (pardon the pun), how would this function? Would there be an interpreter? Would they be sworn in? Paid?

reply to post by neo96

I don't get it ?

For those that don't speak English a Translator will be provided.

But really I don't get it either. However, the excerpt states that no one can be restricted because of language.

reply to post by neo96


What???
Well, I'm hoping this is just a formality. Jurors get chosen and eliminated by each side, but I can see how this could be a benefit to each side choosing the jurors....

reply to post by kosmicjack


The translator would probably not be sworn in. They are Not acting as an agent on behalf of the Non-English Speaker. They are just translating.

And Yes, they will need to be paid.

America has no official language. And seeing how this is New Mexico that has a large population of mainly Spanish speaking citizens to keep non speaking citizens from juries is pretty stupid.

Language is everything in many, if not all, trials.
Even with a translator, many nuances would be lost.

And why only Spanish? Doesn't that discriminate against other non-English speakers?

What could they have been thinking :shk:

I would want my attorney to block a non-English speaker from my trial.

so glad i live in a red state

reply to post by kosmicjack


I would imagine there will be interpreters same as if a deaf person is sitting on a jury. It's every citizens obligation to sit on a jury, to be honest I didn't know non english speakers had previously been exempt. I hate jury duty, so IMO fair is fair lol.

Er not necessarily sit on a jury but report and serve if called.

reply to post by Kali74


Don't know to many people jumping at the 'opportunity' to sit in court all day long where most people try to get out of jury duty.

reply to post by neo96


Exactly, they're citizens and shouldn't be exempt from that particular burden.

Seems simple enough, if the state passed this law they should be required to provide interpreters. Have a setup like at the UN. They would only need a few multilingual people on call.

On the other hand if you've done something really heinous you might be better off if the jury has no clue what the prosecution is talking about.

Edit - Not like the big NY building just the headphones.

My mother had a stroke and it compromised her speech...many years later and lots of speech therapy and it improved significantly. Nonetheless when she got her jury summons, she knew that with her limitations she could not be the most effective juror.

The US doesn't' have any official languages as other countries do, so what would be the basis for excluding any citizen from sitting on a jury on language grounds??

Isn't jury duty part of the constitution? The one that everyone against this swears that they love and defend??

Originally posted by neo96
So someone who doesn't speak english 'a jury of your peers' ?

Is language the only way you can define who is your peer?

does the flip side apply - if you can't speak the first language of a defendant then you should not be allowed to sit on a jury that judges them?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Is language the only way you can define who is your peer?

Well considering the definition:

2a person of the same age, status, or ability as another specified person:

oxforddictionaries.com...

Considering I went through 12 years of English Classes as most Americans well that use to be that is who I consider to be a peer.

I don't care if anyone disagrees with that I stated an opinion as did everyone else as to why some people think that needs to be argued with ?

Not my problem.

Here's the key word Neo:

Citizen

That's right Neo, there are some people in this country who are here legally, and do not speak English. Do you want to know why? It's primarily because we don't have an official language, and partly because of the 1st Amendment.

With this hate thread you have officially gone over to Stormfront territory.

Originally posted by HauntWok
Here's the key word Neo:

Citizen

That's right Neo, there are some people in this country who are here legally, and do not speak English. Do you want to know why? It's primarily because we don't have an official language, and partly because of the 1st Amendment.

With this hate thread you have officially gone over to Stormfront territory.

Are you effing kidding me?

No one said jack about legal or illegal.

Then do tell me why i was forced to learn english for 12 years ?

Come now we don't have an 'official language' because of the '1st amendment'.

This is a hate thread?

Really ?

That must make this guy a 'RACIST spewing HATRED'.



Thank You for trolling one of my threads YET AGAIN.

This bill would provide a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million individuals who are in this country illegally – a pathway that includes passing a background check, learning English, paying taxes and a penalty, and then going to the back of the line behind everyone who’s playing by the rules and trying to come here legally.

Learn English

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Is language the only way you can define who is your peer?

Well considering the definition:

2a person of the same age, status, or ability as another specified person:

oxforddictionaries.com...

Considering I went through 12 years of English Classes as most Americans well that use to be that is who I consider to be a peer.

the only thing in there that I see might be applicable is abilities - in that they do not have an equal ability in English.

but then there are many things that people have different abilities in - numerical reasoning, musical ability, - pick anything....which of those would you count in this assessment of being a peer and which wouldn't you??

you didn't answer the 2nd part of my post - does the flip side apply - are you a peer of someone who speaks other/more languages than you, or otherwise has differing abilities?

I don't care if anyone disagrees with that I stated an opinion as did everyone else as to why some people think that needs to be argued with ?

equally everyone else is entitled to have their opinion about your opinion.

If you do not want people to debate your opinion then putting it on a public board was probably a bad move!!

I'm not arguing that you are not entitled to your opinion - but there are fairly obvious corollaries that seem to be to go along with the opinion that you have expressed that I think are worth exploring.

Not my problem.

you certainly expressed it as a problem in the OP, and you're busy saying that you have a problem with it in subsequent messages.