Legal Opinion

People v. Aguilar

California Supreme Court

Decided April 5, 1984No. Crim. 23237PublishedCited by 49 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

REYNOSO, J.

The right of a criminal defendant to an interpreter is based on the fundamental notion that no person should be subjected to a Kafkaesque trial which may result in the loss of freedom and liberty. We granted hearing in this case to determine the scope of interpreter assistance which article I, section 14 of the California Constitution requires be afforded a non-English speaking criminal defendant. The trial court properly appointed an interpreter for the accused, Marcello Mata Aguilar, after observing him and speaking with him at his arraignment. That interpreter, however,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. United States of America Ex Rel. Rogelio Nieves Negron v. The State of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1970
  3. Westminster School Dist. of Orange County v. MendezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1947
  4. People v. ChavezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
  5. People v. ReyesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by49 opinions

  1. Garcia v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2004
  2. People v. RomeroCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  3. People v. RodriguezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
  4. State v. Gonzales-MoralesWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  5. State v. Gonzales-MoralesWashington Supreme Court · 1999

44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API