Common use of Interpreters Clause in Contracts

Interpreters. The court may select, appoint, and set the rea- sonable compensation for an interpreter. The compensation must be paid from funds provided by law or by the government, as the court may direct. (As amended Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Nov. 20, 1972, eff. July 1, 1975; Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002.) NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1944 The power of the court to call its own witnesses, though rarely invoked, is recognized in the Federal courts, Young v. United States, 107 F.2d 490 (C.C.A. 5th); Xxxxxxxxx v. United States, 44 F.2d 45 (C.C.A. 7th). This rule provides a procedure whereby the court may, if it chooses, exercise this power in connection with expert witnesses. The rule is based, in part, on the Uniform Expert Testimony Act, drafted by the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Hand Book of the National Con- xxxxxxx of Commissioners on Uniform State La s (1937), 337; see, also, Wigmore—Evidence, 3d Ed., sec. 563; A.L.I. Code of Criminal Procedure, secs. 307–309; National Commission on Law of Observance and Enforcement— Report on Criminal Procedure, 37. Similar provisions are found in the statutes of a number of States: Wiscon- sin—Wis.Stat. (1941), sec. 357.12; Indiana—Ind.Stat.Xxx. (Xxxxx, 1933), sec. 9–1702; California—Cal.Pen.Code (Xxxxxxx, 1941), sec. 1027. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1966 AMENDMENT Subdivision (a).—The original rule is made a separate subdivision. The amendment permits the court to in- form the witness of his duties in writing since it often constitutes an unnecessary inconvenience and expense to require the witness to appear in court for such pur- pose. Subdivision (b).—This new subdivision authorizes the court to appoint and provide for the compensation of interpreters. General language is used to give discre- tion to the court to appoint interpreters in all appro- priate situations. Interpreters may be needed to inter- pret the testimony of non-English speaking witnesses or to assist non-English speaking defendants in under- standing the proceedings or in communicating with as- signed counsel. Interpreters may also be needed where a witness or a defendant is deaf. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1972 AMENDMENT Subdivision (a). This subdivision is stricken, since the subject of court-appointed expert witnesses is cov- ered in Evidence Rule 706 in detail. Subdivision (b). The provisions of subdivision (b) are retained. Although Evidence Rule 703 specifies the qualifications of interpreters and the form of oath to be administered to them, it does not cover their appoint- ment or compensation. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2002 AMENDMENT The language of Rule 28 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Criminal Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENT PROPOSED NOVEMBER 20, 1972 Amendment of this rule embraced by the order en- tered by the Supreme Court of the United States on No- vember 20, 1972, effective on the 180th day beginning after January 2, 1975, see section 3 of Pub. L. 93–595, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1959, set out as a note under sec- tion 2074 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Interpreters. The court may select, appoint, appoint an interpreter of its own selection and set may fix the rea- sonable compensation for an reasonable com- pensation of such interpreter. The compensation must Such compensa- tion shall be paid from out of funds provided by law or by the government, as the court may direct. (As amended Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Nov. 20, 1972, eff. July 1, 1975; Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002.) NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1944 Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1944 The power of the court to call its own witnesses, though rarely invoked, is recognized in the Federal courts, Young v. United States, 107 F.2d 490 (C.C.A. 5th); Xxxxxxxxx v. United States, 44 F.2d 45 (C.C.A. 7th). This rule provides a procedure whereby the court may, if it chooses, exercise this power in connection with expert witnesses. The rule is based, in part, on the Uniform Expert Testimony Act, drafted by the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Hand Book of the National Con- xxxxxxx of Commissioners on Uniform State La s Laws (1937), 337; see, also, Wigmore—Evidence, 3d Ed., sec. 563; A.L.I. Code of Criminal Procedure, secs. 307–309; National Commission on Law of Observance and Enforcement— Report on Criminal Procedure, 37. Similar provisions are found in the statutes of a number of States: Wiscon- sin—Wis.Stat. (1941), sec. 357.12; Indiana—Ind.Stat.Xxx. (Xxxxx, 1933), sec. 9–1702; California—Cal.Pen.Code (Xxxxxxx, 1941), sec. 1027. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1966 AMENDMENT Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1966 Amendment Subdivision (a).—The original rule is made a separate subdivision. The amendment permits the court to in- form the witness of his duties in writing since it often constitutes an unnecessary inconvenience and expense to require the witness to appear in court for such pur- pose. Subdivision (b).—This new subdivision authorizes the court to appoint and provide for the compensation of interpreters. General language is used to give discre- tion to the court to appoint interpreters in all appro- priate situations. Interpreters may be needed to inter- pret the testimony of non-English speaking witnesses or to assist non-English speaking defendants in under- standing the proceedings or in communicating with as- signed counsel. Interpreters may also be needed where a witness or a defendant is deaf. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1972 AMENDMENT Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1972 Amendment Subdivision (a). This subdivision is stricken, since the subject of court-appointed expert witnesses is cov- ered in Evidence Rule 706 in detail. Subdivision (b). The provisions of subdivision (b) are retained. Although Evidence Rule 703 specifies the qualifications of interpreters and the form of oath to be administered to them, it does not cover their appoint- ment or compensation. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2002 AMENDMENT The language Effective Date of Rule 28 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Criminal Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENT PROPOSED NOVEMBER Amendment Proposed November 20, 1972 Amendment of this rule embraced by the order en- tered by the Supreme Court of the United States on No- vember 20, 1972, effective on the 180th day beginning after January 2, 1975, see section 3 of Pub. L. 93–595, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1959, set out as a note under sec- tion 2074 3771 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedurethis title.

Interpreters. The court may select, appoint, appoint an interpreter of its own selection and set may fix the rea- sonable compensation for an reasonable com- pensation of such interpreter. The compensation must Such compensa- tion shall be paid from out of funds provided by law or by the government, as the court may direct. (As amended Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Nov. 20, 1972, eff. July 1, 1975; Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002.) NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1944 Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1944 The power of the court to call its own witnesses, though rarely invoked, is recognized in the Federal courts, Young v. United States, 107 F.2d 490 (C.C.A. 5th); Xxxxxxxxx v. United States, 44 F.2d 45 (C.C.A. 7th). This rule provides a procedure whereby the court may, if it chooses, exercise this power in connection with expert witnesses. The rule is based, in part, on the Uniform Expert Testimony Act, drafted by the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Hand Book of the National Con- xxxxxxx of Commissioners on Uniform State La s Laws (1937), 337; see, also, Wigmore—Evidence, 3d Ed., sec. 563; A.L.I. Code of Criminal Procedure, secs. 307–309; National Commission on Law of Observance and Enforcement— Report on Criminal Procedure, 37. Similar provisions are found in the statutes of a number of States: Wiscon- sin—Wis.Stat. (1941), sec. 357.12; Indiana—Ind.Stat.Xxx. (Xxxxx, 1933), sec. 9–1702; California—Cal.Pen.Code (Xxxxxxx, 1941), sec. 1027. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1966 AMENDMENT Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1966 Amendment Subdivision (a).—The original rule is made a separate subdivision. The amendment permits the court to in- form the witness of his duties in writing since it often constitutes an unnecessary inconvenience and expense to require the witness to appear in court for such pur- pose. Rule 29 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 92 Subdivision (b).—This new subdivision authorizes the court to appoint and provide for the compensation of interpreters. General language is used to give discre- tion to the court to appoint interpreters in all appro- priate situations. Interpreters may be needed to inter- pret the testimony of non-English speaking witnesses or to assist non-English speaking defendants in under- standing the proceedings or in communicating with as- signed counsel. Interpreters may also be needed where a witness or a defendant is deaf. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1972 AMENDMENT Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1972 Amendment Subdivision (a). This subdivision is stricken, since the subject of court-appointed expert witnesses is cov- ered in Evidence Rule 706 in detail. Subdivision (b). The provisions of subdivision (b) are retained. Although Evidence Rule 703 specifies the qualifications of interpreters and the form of oath to be administered to them, it does not cover their appoint- ment or compensation. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2002 AMENDMENT The language Effective Date of Rule 28 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Criminal Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENT PROPOSED NOVEMBER Amendment Proposed November 20, 1972 Amendment of this rule embraced by the order en- tered by the Supreme Court of the United States on No- vember 20, 1972, effective on the 180th day beginning after January 2, 1975, see section 3 of Pub. L. 93–595, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1959, set out as a note under sec- tion 2074 3771 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedurethis title.

Interpreters. The court may select, appoint, and set the rea- sonable compensation for an interpreter. The compensation must be paid from funds provided by law or by the government, as the court may direct. (As amended Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Nov. 20, 1972, eff. July 1, 1975; Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002.) NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1944 The power of the court to call its own witnesses, though rarely invoked, is recognized in the Federal courts, Young v. United States, 107 F.2d 490 (C.C.A. 5th); Xxxxxxxxx v. United States, 44 F.2d 45 (C.C.A. 7th). This rule provides a procedure whereby the court may, if it chooses, exercise this power in connection with expert witnesses. The rule is based, in part, on the Uniform Expert Testimony Act, drafted by the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Hand Book of the National Con- xxxxxxx of Commissioners on Uniform State La s (1937), Rule 29 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 106 337; see, also, Wigmore—Evidence, 3d Ed., sec. 563; A.L.I. Code of Criminal Procedure, secs. 307–309; National Commission on Law of Observance and Enforcement— Report on Criminal Procedure, 37. Similar provisions are found in the statutes of a number of States: Wiscon- sin—Wis.Stat. (1941), sec. 357.12; Indiana—Ind.Stat.Xxx. (Xxxxx, 1933), sec. 9–1702; California—Cal.Pen.Code (Xxxxxxx, 1941), sec. 1027. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1966 AMENDMENT Subdivision (a).—The original rule is made a separate subdivision. The amendment permits the court to in- form the witness of his duties in writing since it often constitutes an unnecessary inconvenience and expense to require the witness to appear in court for such pur- pose. Subdivision (b).—This new subdivision authorizes the court to appoint and provide for the compensation of interpreters. General language is used to give discre- tion to the court to appoint interpreters in all appro- priate situations. Interpreters may be needed to inter- pret the testimony of non-English speaking witnesses or to assist non-English speaking defendants in under- standing the proceedings or in communicating with as- signed counsel. Interpreters may also be needed where a witness or a defendant is deaf. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1972 AMENDMENT Subdivision (a). This subdivision is stricken, since the subject of court-appointed expert witnesses is cov- ered in Evidence Rule 706 in detail. Subdivision (b). The provisions of subdivision (b) are retained. Although Evidence Rule 703 specifies the qualifications of interpreters and the form of oath to be administered to them, it does not cover their appoint- ment or compensation. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2002 AMENDMENT The language of Rule 28 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Criminal Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENT PROPOSED NOVEMBER 20, 1972 Amendment of this rule embraced by the order en- tered by the Supreme Court of the United States on No- vember 20, 1972, effective on the 180th day beginning after January 2, 1975, see section 3 of Pub. L. 93–595, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1959, set out as a note under sec- tion 2074 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Interpreters. The court may select, appoint, appoint an interpreter of its own selection and set may fix the rea- sonable compensation for an reasonable com- pensation of such interpreter. The compensation must Such compensa- tion shall be paid from out of funds provided by law or by the government, as the court may direct. (As amended Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Nov. 20, 1972, eff. July 1, 1975; Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002.) NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1944 The power of the court to call its own witnesses, though rarely invoked, is recognized in the Federal courts, Young v. United States, 107 F.2d 490 (C.C.A. 5th); Xxxxxxxxx v. United States, 44 F.2d 45 (C.C.A. 7th). This rule provides a procedure whereby the court may, if it chooses, exercise this power in connection with expert witnesses. The rule is based, in part, on the Uniform Expert Testimony Act, drafted by the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Hand Book of the National Con- xxxxxxx of Commissioners on Uniform State La s (1937), 337; see, also, Wigmore—Evidence, 3d Ed., sec. 563; A.L.I. Code of Criminal Procedure, secs. 307–309; National Commission on Law of Observance and Enforcement— Report on Criminal Procedure, 37. Similar provisions are found in the statutes of a number of States: Wiscon- sin—Wis.Stat. (1941), sec. 357.12; Indiana—Ind.Stat.Xxx. (Xxxxx, 1933), sec. 9–1702; California—Cal.Pen.Code (Xxxxxxx, 1941), sec. 1027. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1966 AMENDMENT Subdivision (a).—The original rule is made a separate subdivision. The amendment permits the court to in- form the witness of his duties in writing since it often constitutes an unnecessary inconvenience and expense to require the witness to appear in court for such pur- pose. Subdivision (b).—This new subdivision authorizes the court to appoint and provide for the compensation of interpreters. General language is used to give discre- tion to the court to appoint interpreters in all appro- priate situations. Interpreters may be needed to inter- pret the testimony of non-English speaking witnesses or to assist non-English speaking defendants in under- standing the proceedings or in communicating with as- signed counsel. Interpreters may also be needed where a witness or a defendant is deaf. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1972 AMENDMENT Subdivision (a). This subdivision is stricken, since the subject of court-appointed expert witnesses is cov- ered in Evidence Rule 706 in detail. Subdivision (b). The provisions of subdivision (b) are retained. Although Evidence Rule 703 specifies the qualifications of interpreters and the form of oath to be administered to them, it does not cover their appoint- ment or compensation. COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2002 AMENDMENT The language of Rule 28 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Criminal Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. 29 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 94 EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENT PROPOSED NOVEMBER 20, 1972 Amendment of this rule embraced by the order en- tered by the Supreme Court of the United States on No- vember 20, 1972, effective on the 180th day beginning after January 2, 1975, see section 3 of Pub. L. 93–595, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1959, set out as a note under sec- tion 2074 3771 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedurethis title.