Rights of Deaf in Court???

I have a friend, their relative is in jail for a crime that they plead guilty too. The problem is that that person was deaf and the court system didn't get the person an interpreter till the last day of trail.

Could that person still appeal just for the fact that the court system didn't provide them with an interpreter, even though they declared being guilty?

The person's parent don't want to go under the violating their rights, but can't find anything else to go by. It has been years since it happened.

If it could be a EO rule broken, which section is it in that requires interpreter? They where requesting one from day one, but gave up on the last day.

An interpreter should have been provided at ALL times during trial. If there were 5 trial dates, an interpreter should be provided at all 5 trial dates. Anytime the court system is involved with this person directly, an interpreter should be provided. That means, lawyer with this person, in court, during a conversation with the judge, during a negotiation meeting, during a settlement, etc... an interpreter should be provided.

Vampy is absolutely correct. Check with a lawyer regarding statute of limitations regarding filing a lawsuit in the matter. There is no statute of limitations for filing a formal complaint with the Dept. Of Justice, however, and I would recommend doing so no matter how long it has been.

Yes, they absolutely can appeal. One of the major requirements of competency is being able to assist in one's own defense, which does of course include being able to access all trial-related events. If the court refused to provide an interpreter after it was requested, even once, they can appeal, and it stands a good chance of success.

Not providing an interpreter is violating the court law.

Yes an appeal should be filed. There is a time line you must meet. Ask the lawyer to contact the NAD legal department. They would be able to tell him what to put in the appeal. There are cases out there that have been appealed based on the lack of an interpreter and they won. So there is precedent on the matter. Part of the law states that you must be able to participate in your defense and that is what the issue centers around.

Yes, Vampy is correct. Interpreters should be provided at all times in court. They should know the ADA Law.

I agree with everybody regarding this guy's civil rights. What bothers me the most about this whole thing is that this guy pleaded guilty to the crime and it really aggravating that the system didn't do things right. Now there's the possibility of this thing getting thrown out and a criminal will walk......