Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Language Proficiency as a Matter of Law: Judicial Reasoning on Miranda Waivers by Speakers with Limited English Proficiency (LEP)

  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Judges wield enormous power in modern society and it is not surprising that scholars have long been interested in how judges think. The purpose of this article is to examine how US judges reason on language issues. To understand how courts decide on comprehension of constitutional rights by speakers with Limited English Proficiency (LEP), I analyzed 460 judicial opinions on appeals from LEP speakers, issued between 2000 and 2020. Two findings merit particular attention. Firstly, the analysis revealed that in 36% of the interrogations, LEP speakers were advised of their rights only in English. This means that two decades after the Executive Order 13166 (2000) Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, law enforcement still doesn’t have adequate resources to advise LEP speakers of their constitutional rights in their primary languages. Secondly, the analysis revealed that some courts treat second language proficiency as an all-or-none phenomenon. This approach results in linguistic discrimination against LEP speakers who cannot comprehend legal language but are denied the services of an interpreter because they can answer basic questions in English. I end the discusson with recommendations for best practices in delivery of constitutional rights.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. I thank the Bureau of Justice statisticians for their detailed response to my inquiry. Unfortunately, at the time of this writing, there was no data on the proportions of LEP speakers incarcerated in state prisons.

  2. Innocent suspects are particularly likely to waive their rights [6]. False confessions, however, are a separate area of inquiry––the focus of this article is on confessions claimed to be coerced or induced but not false.

  3. See e.g. https://www.phillypolice.com/assets/directives/D7.7-LimitedEnglishLanguageProficiency.pdf.

  4. For ABA Resolution 110 see:

    https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/commission_on_hispanic_legal_rights_responsibilities/resolution-110/.

  5. In the case of absent or unclear rationales, I assigned delivery in English to the ‘limited English’ category and delivery in the primary language or both languages to ‘inadequate translation’.

  6. Here, the category of ‘LEP appeals granted’ also includes appeals by the State denied by the courts.

  7. For analyses of the relevant case law and differing opinions on the language conduit theory, see [37,38,39].

  8. For a comparative analysis of statutes on interpreting at the arrest and interrogation stage see [41].

  9. For discussion of feigned comprehension, see ([23], p. 129); for discussion of gratuitous concurrence, i.e. affirmation in the absence of understanding, see ([16], pp. 103–108).

  10. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-new-language-access-law-enforcement-initiative.

Cases and Opinions Cited

  • Abarca v. Franchini, 16 C 2494 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2018).

  • Alvarado-Gutierrez v. State, 01-16-00756-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 5, 2017).

  • Barcenas v. State, 343 Ark. 181, 33 S.W. 3d 136 (Ark. 2000)

  • Berezyuk v. State, 282 P.3d 386 (Alaska App. 2012)

  • Bernabe v. State, 03-10-00773-CR (Tex. App. 2012) (unpublished).

  • California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981).

  • Ceja v. Adams, 1:17-cv-00291-LJO-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2018) (reversed in 2022).

  • Ceja v. Adams, 19-15317 (9th Cir. Feb. 14, 2022).

  • Commonwealth v. Adonsoto, 475 Mass. 497 (2016).

  • Commonwealth v. Bins, 465 Mass. 348 (2013).

  • Commonwealth v. Lemos, 06-412 (Mass. Cmmw. Oct. 14, 2008).

  • Commonwealth v. Vuthy Seng, 436 Mass, 537 (Mass. 2002).

  • Executive Order 13166 (2000) Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency. 65 Fed. Reg. 50,121. https://www.justice.gov/crt/executive-order-13166

  • Gomez v. California, 1:18-cv-00642-DAD-SAB-HC (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2019).

  • Gomez v. Commonwealth, 152 S.W.3d 238 (Ky. Ct. App. 2004).

  • Gonzales v. State, 354 P.3d 654 (Nev. App. 2015).

  • Guan Lee v. United States, 198 F. 596, 601 (7th Cir. 1912).

  • Mezo-Reyes v. Humphreys, No. 17-CV-452 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 11, 2019).

  • Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

  • Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986).

  • Munguia-Zarate v. State, No. 05-17-00265-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 4, 2018).

  • People v. Ceja, F067979 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2016).

  • People v. Guerrero-Jasso, G054577 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2018) (unpublished).

  • People v. Hernandez G057133 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (unpublished).

  • People v. Lopez, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op 50,708 (Sup. Ct. 2019).

  • People v. Pham, No. B220446 (Cal. Ct. App. June 29, 2011) (unpublished).

  • People v. Redgebol, 184 P3d 86 (Colo. 2008).

  • People v. Soto, 2918 N.Y. Slip Op 50,648 (Sup. Ct. 2018) (unpublished).

  • State v. Alvarado, 18-191 (R. I. 2020) (unpublished).

  • State v. A.M., 452 N.J. Super. 587 (App. Div. 2018) (unpublished, judgement reversed in 2019).

  • State v. Hindsley, 614 N.W.2d 48, 237 Wis. 2d 358, 2000 W.I. App 130 (Ct. App. 2000).

  • State v. Jenkins, 81 S.W.3d 252 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002).

  • State v. J.P.M.-S., No. A-0624-18T1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. June 19, 2020) (unpublished).

  • State v. J.V., No. A-3008-18T4 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 3, 2019) (unpublished).

  • State v. Kim, 412 N.J. Super. 260 (App. Div. 2010).

  • State v. Lunacolorado, 243 P.3d 125, 238 Or. App. 691 (Ct. App. 2010).

  • State v. Mendez-Ulloa, 525 S.W.3d 585 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

  • State v. Pham, 281 Kan. 1227, 136 P.3d 919 (2006).

  • State v. Segura, No. W2010-00952-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Sep. 18, 2012).

  • State v. Soto, 954 So. 2d 686 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007).

  • United States v. Alarcon, 95 Fed. Appx 954, 955–957 (10th Cir. 2004).

  • United States v. Al-Cholan, 610 F.3d 945 (6th Cir. 2010).

  • United States v. Antuna, No. 6: 16-86 (S.D. Tex. May 23, 2017).

  • United States v. Barry, 979 F. Supp. 2d 715 (M.D. La. 2013).

  • United States v. Charles, 722 F.3d 1319, 1320 (11th Cir. 2013).

  • United States v. Choudhry, 24 F. Supp. 3d 273 (E.D.N.Y. 2014).

  • United States v. De La Torre, No. 09-CR-0037-CVE (N.D. Okla. Apr. 20, 2009).

  • United States v. Dire, 680 F.3d 446 (4th Cir. 2012).

  • United States v. Garcia, 09-CR-330 (DLI) (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2011).

  • United States v. Garibay, 143 F 3rd 534, 536–538 (9th Cir. 1998).

  • United States v. Gaxiola-Guevara, No. 19-20049-1-JAR (D. Kan. July 22, 2020).

  • United States v. Hussain, No. 00-10363-GAO, 1:00-m-00128 (D. Mass. Jul. 17, 2001).

  • United States v. Leyva, No. 16-cr-20723 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 18, 2017).

  • United States v. LNU, 09 CR 1207 (RPP) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2010).

  • United States v. Madrid-Quesada, 403 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (D.N.M. 2019).

  • United States v. Mandujano, 03-178(2) (JRT/FLN) (D. Minn. Aug. 22, 2003).

  • United States v. Martinez, 588 F.2d 1227 (1978).

  • United States v. Martinez-Camargo, No. CR-16-02096-TUC-JAS (BGM) (D. Ariz. Jul. 26, 2017).

  • United States v. Martinez-Rubio, No. CR18-4037-LTS (N.D. Iowa Nov. 27, 2019).

  • United States v. Mazon, 454 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (D.N.M. 2020).

  • United States v. Mendez-Yoc, No. 3: 18-cr-00164 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 21, 2018).

  • United States v. Ramirez-Castillo, No. 02-40054-01-SAC (D. Kan. Jul. 23, 2002).

  • United States v. Robles-Ramirez, 93 F. Supp. 2d 762 (W.D. Tex. 2000).

  • United States v. Rodriguez, No. 1:17CR00020-002 (W.D. Va. Jun. 5, 2018).

  • United States v. Sanchez, No. 12-20008 (C.D. Ill. Sep. 6, 2013).

  • United States v. Silva-Arzeta, 602 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2010).

  • United States v. Villa-Castaneda, No. 18-5136 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2018) (unpublished).

  • United States v. Xi, No. 16-22-5 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 1, 2018).

References

  1. Ortega, Pilar, Tiffany M. Shin, and Glenn A. Martinez. 2022. Rethinking the term “Limited English Proficiency” to improve language-appropriate healthcare for all. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health 24: 799–805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-021-01257-w.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Moya, Sarah. 2022. Language barriers and cultural incompetency in the criminal legal system: the prejudicial impacts on LEP criminal defendants. Fordham Urban Law Journal 49 (2): 401–433.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Puñales-Morejón, Alicia Maria. 2021. Can you hear me now?: Contextualizing Miranda rights for Low English Proficient individuals. Harvard Latinx Law Review 24: 111–137.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2022. Federal Prisoner Statistics Collected under the First Step Act, 2022. https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/federal-prisoner-statistics-collected-under-first-step-act-2022. Accessed May 14, 2023.

  5. Domanico, Anthony, Michael Cicchini, and Lawrence White. 2012. Overcoming Miranda: A content analysis of the Miranda portion of the police interrogations. Idaho Law Review 49 (1): 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kassin, Saul, Richard Leo, Christian Meissner, Kimberly Richman, Lori Colwell, Amy-May. Leach, and Dana La Fon. 2007. Police interviewing and interrogation: a self-report survey of police practices and beliefs. Law and Human Behavior 31: 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9073-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Leo, Richard. 2008. Police Interrogation and American Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Winningham, Darby, Richard Rogers, Eric Drogin, and Sarah Velsor. 2018. Missing out on Miranda: Investigating Miranda comprehension and waiver decisions in adult inpatients. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 61: 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.07.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. LEP Resource Guide for Law Enforcement. 2023. https://www.dhs.gov/publication/lep-guide-law-enforcement. Accessed August 1, 2023.

  10. U.S. Department of Justice. 2012. Language Access Plan. 2023. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/open/legacy/2012/05/07/language-access-plan.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2023.

  11. Rogers, Richard, Kimberly Harrison, Daniel Shuman, Kenneth Sewell, and Lisa Hazelwood. 2007. An analysis of Miranda warnings and waivers: Comprehension and coverage. Law and Human Behavior 31: 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9054-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rogers, Richard, Lisa Hazelwood, Kenneth Sewell, Kimberly Harrison, and Daniel Shuman. 2008. The language of Miranda warnings in American jurisdictions: a replication and vocabulary analysis. Law and Human Behavior 32: 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9091-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Keaton, Ashley Rose. 2020. “You have the right to keep quiet”: translation inadequacies in Nevada’s Spanish Miranda warnings. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito 7 (1–2): 56–76.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rogers, Richard, Amor Correa, Lisa Hazelwood, Daniel Shuman, Raquel Hoersting, and Hayley Blackwood. 2009. Spanish translations of Miranda Warnings and the totality of the circumstances. Law and Human Behavior 33: 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9129-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rogers, Richard, Amor Correa, John Donnelly, and Eric Drogin. 2021. Protecting the rights of the accused: use of Spanish-language Miranda warnings in central Florida. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology 32 (1): 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2020.1833072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Berk-Seligson, Susan. 2009. Coerced confessions: The discourse of bilingual police interrogations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Berk-Seligson, Susan. 2016. Totality of circumstances and translating the Miranda Warnings. In Discursive constructions of consent in the legal process, ed. Susan Ehrlich, Diana Eades, and Janet Ainsworth, 241–263. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Donovan, Benjamin. 2018. Lost in translation: Colorado’s Supreme Court overlooking the requirement of a knowing and intelligent Miranda rights waiver [People v. Nguyen, 406 P.3d 836 (Colo. 2017)]. Washburn Law Journal Online 58: 34–42.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dumas, Bethany. 2020. Non-native speakers, Miranda rights, and custodial interrogation. In The discourse of police interviews, eds. Marianne Mason and Frances Rock, 227–246. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Filipović, Luna. 2022. Language and culture as sources of inequality in US police interrogations. Applied Linguistics 43 (6): 1073–1093. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amac022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pavlenko, Aneta. 2008. “I’m very not about the law part”: non-native speakers of English and the Miranda warnings. TESOL Quarterly 42 (1): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00205.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pavlenko, Aneta. 2021. Feigned incompetence: the pitfalls of evaluating Miranda comprehension in non-native speakers of English. Language and Law 8 (1): 97–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Eggington, William, and Troy Cox. 2013. Using elicited oral response testing to determine the need for an interpreter. Harvard Latino Law Review 16: 127–146.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pavlenko, Aneta, Elizabeth Hepford, and Scott Jarvis. 2019. An illusion of understanding: How native and non-native speakers of English understand (and misunderstand) their Miranda rights. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 26 (2): 181–207. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.39163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Schieffelin, Bambi, Kathryn Woolard, and Paul Kroskrity, eds. 1998. Language ideologies: Practice and theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Woolard, Kathryn, and Bambi Schieffelin. 1994. Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology 23: 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.23.100194.000415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Angermeyer, Philipp Sebastian. 2014. Monolingual ideologies and multilingual practices in small claims court: the case of Spanish-speaking arbitrators. International Journal of Multilingualism 11 (4): 430–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2014.944531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Angermeyer, Philipp Sebastian. 2015. Speak English or what? Codeswitching and interpreter use in New York city courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ainsworth, Janet. 2008. ‘You have the right to remain silent…’ but only if you ask for it just so: the role of linguistic ideology in American police interrogation and law. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 15 (1): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cho, Jinhyun. 2021. ‘That’s not how we speak’: Interpreting monolingual ideologies in courtrooms. Griffith Law Review 30 (1): 50–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2021.1932234.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  31. Eades, Diana. 2010. Sociolinguistics and the legal process. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Eades, Diana. 2012. The social consequences of language ideologies in courtroom cross-examination. Language in Society 41: 471–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Eades, Diana, Helen Fraser, and Georgina Heydon. 2023. Forensic linguistics in Australia: Origins, progress and prospects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. Ehrlich, Susan. 2016. Post-penetration rape: Coercion or freely given consent? In Discursive constructions of consent in the legal process, eds. Susan Ehrlich, Diana Eades, and Janet Ainsworth, 47–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Haviland, John. 2003. Ideologies of language: some reflections on language and US law. American Anthropologist 105 (4): 764–774. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2003.105.4.764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Salinas, Lupe, and Janelle Martinez. 2010. The right to confrontation compromised: monolingual jurists subjectively assessing the English-language abilities of Spanish-dominant accused. Journal of Gender, Social Policy, and the Law 18 (3): 543–561.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kracum, John. 2014. The validity of United States v. Nazemian following Crawford and its progeny: Do criminal defendants have the right to face their interpreters at trial? The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 104 (2): 431–456.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Neumann, Alicia. 2021. Criminal law: incompatible approaches to interpreters’ translations: protecting defendants’ right to confront––State v Lopez-Ramos 929 N.W.2D 414 (Minn. 2019). Mitchell Hamline Law Review 47 (2): 751–781.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Stevens, Sarah. 2020. Invisible touch: analyzing the language conduit theory through the lens of translation and interpreting principles. UMKC Law Review 88 (3): 771–790.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Bang, Brandon, Duane Stanton, Craig Hemmens, and Mary Stohr. 2018. Police recording of custodial interrogations: a state-by-state legal inquiry. International Journal of Police Science and Management 20 (1): 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461355717750172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Perez, Alison. 2009. Understanding Miranda: Interpreter rights during the interrogation for Spanish-speaking suspects in Iowa. The Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice 12 (3): 603–619.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Astrada, Marvin, and Scott Astrada. 2017. Law, continuity and change: revisiting the Reasonable Person within the demographic, sociocultural and political realities of the twenty-first century. Rutgers Journal of Law and Public Policy 14 (2): 196–227.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Rachlinski, Jeffrey, and Andrew Wistrich. 2017. Judging the judiciary by the numbers: empirical research on judges. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 13: 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-085032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Communication of Rights Group (CORG) (2015) Guidelines for communicating rights to non-native speakers of English in Australia, England and Wales, and the USA. https://www.aaal.org/guidelines-for-communication-rights. Accessed August 1, 2023.

  45. Ferguson, Andrew. 2012. The dialogue approach to Miranda warnings and waiver. American Criminal Law Review 49: 1437–1491.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Aneta Pavlenko

  2. Center for Multilingualism, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Aneta Pavlenko

Authors
  1. Aneta Pavlenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aneta Pavlenko.

Ethics declarations

Competing interest

No funds, grants, or other support was received for conducting this study or preparation of the manuscript.

Ethical approval

The study draws on the material in the public domain.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Nowadays, many applied linguists deem the term ‘limited English Proficiency’ (LEP) to be deficit-oriented and ethnocentric [1]. Unfortunately, the proposed alternatives, such as ‘non-English-preference’ or ‘multilingual learners’, may work in education but are too fuzzy for legal contexts. In the present work, I adopt the term LEP for two pragmatic reasons: (a) the term LEP clearly identifies the concern that some people have insufficient English skills to comprehend legal language and meaningfully assist in their own defense; (b) the term LEP is enshrined in government documents that serve as a legal framework for language access (www.lep.gov) and, as a consequence, is widely used by law enforcement, the court of law and legal scholars [2, 3].

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pavlenko, A. Language Proficiency as a Matter of Law: Judicial Reasoning on Miranda Waivers by Speakers with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). Int J Semiot Law 37, 329–357 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10037-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10037-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation