Commonwealth v. Lujan
99 N.E.3d 806
Mass. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant is a native Moldovan speaker with extremely limited English and only partial, nonfluent Russian; he cannot read/write English and likely cannot read Russian.
- Police questioned defendant at the station about alleged sexual touching; a college intern (native Russian speaker, not certified, no Moldovan) served as interpreter during a ~2-hour interview.
- Miranda warnings were read in English; written Russian warnings existed but were not read aloud in Russian and there was no inquiry into defendant's primary language or literacy in Russian.
- Videotape and certified transcript showed frequent communication failures: the intern omitted, altered, added, and substituted words; asked his own questions; suggested words to the defendant; and used gestures.
- The judge found many instances where the intern led or created incriminating statements and concluded the defendant was not effectively advised of rights and that much of the statement was not the defendant’s.
- The Commonwealth appealed only voluntariness/custody issues; the court affirmed suppression on voluntariness grounds without reaching other arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant's statements were voluntary under due process | Commonwealth: statements were voluntary; burden met | Defendant: statements involuntary because language barrier and poor interpreting produced unreliable, non-self statements | Held: Not voluntary — Commonwealth failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether Miranda warnings were effective | Commonwealth: warnings sufficient / waiver was voluntary | Defendant: warnings not effectively communicated (not in primary language; intern unreliable) | Court did not decide custody/Miranda adequacy (affirmed on voluntariness) |
| Reliability/competence of interpreter | Commonwealth: intern interpretation sufficient | Defendant: intern was untrained, added/changed statements, led defendant to incriminate himself | Held: interpreter was unreliable; many translations altered or created statements; materially undermined voluntariness |
| Admissibility of statements created/attributed by interpreter | Commonwealth: admissible as defendant's statements | Defendant: many incriminating utterances were intern creations or suggested answers | Held: statements not the defendant’s; inadmissible as involuntary/unreliable evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Magee, 423 Mass. 381 (1996) (standard of review for suppression findings)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 835 (2007) (definition of voluntary statement)
- Commonwealth v. Selby, 420 Mass. 656 (1995) (totality of circumstances test for voluntariness)
- Commonwealth v. Monroe, 472 Mass. 461 (2015) (Commonwealth bears burden to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Siny Van Tran, 460 Mass. 535 (2011) (police must give Miranda in a manner defendant can understand)
- Commonwealth v. Ardon, 428 Mass. 496 (1998) (defendant may challenge interpreter accuracy to show involuntary waiver/statements)
- Commonwealth v. Sim, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 212 (1995) (use of interpreters and need for accurate rendition of Miranda warnings)
- Commonwealth v. AdonSoto, 475 Mass. 497 (2016) (interpreter qualifications and related considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Festa, 369 Mass. 419 (1976) (procedural guidelines for testimony through interpreters)