Mendoza v. U.S.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his drug conspiracy conviction on ground that Dist. Ct. moved one of defendant’s Spanish-speaking interpreters from defense table to interpret for Spanish-speaking witness at trial, and that said failure to have interpreter during said testimony deprived him of ability to inform his counsel that said witness had been threatened by govt. agents. Defendant does not have due process right to have interpreter continuously seated at defense table or right to simultaneous interpretation of attorney-client communications, and defendant otherwise had opportunity to communicate with counsel during break to inform him of any threats made to witness. Moreover, Dist. Ct. specifically found that one interpreter was located at defense table during testimony of said Spanish-speaking witness. Ct. similarly rejected defendant’s claim to right to have all discovery translated into his native language, and his counsel otherwise testified that he reviewed voluminous discovery in case and spent six hours with defendant explaining results of his review of discovery.