People v. Gonzalez-Raymundo, 308 Mich. App. 175

Defendant (Elias Gonzalez-Raymundo) was convicted by a jury of four counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct involving his step-nephew and sentenced to concurrent terms of 5–15 years.
Defendant's primary language was Spanish and the trial proceeded without simultaneous interpretation; an interpreter was present at some pretrial hearings and at sentencing but not used during the trial itself.
Defense counsel declined simultaneous translation at trial, explaining a strategic concern that an interpreter might prejudice the jury; counsel and the prosecutor discussed the decision at sidebar but the court did not personally obtain defendant's informed waiver.
After conviction, defendant sought a remand for a Ginther hearing claiming ineffective assistance (including failure to secure an interpreter); the Court of Appeals granted the remand and the trial court held a Ginther hearing.
The trial court granted a new trial on the ground that it had erred by not ensuring a personal, informed waiver of the right to simultaneous translation under MCL 775.19a; the prosecution appealed the new-trial order.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of a new trial, holding the trial court should have secured defendant's personal, informed waiver or provided an interpreter and that the absence of simultaneous translation prejudiced defendant's ability to participate in his defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant waived right to simultaneous interpretation	Waiver by counsel's on-the-record statement and defendant's in-court acquiescence	No personal, informed waiver by defendant; counsel's statements insufficient	No waiver; court should have obtained defendant's personal, informed waiver
Whether court erred under MCL 775.19a by not appointing an interpreter	Error was not structural and any error was harmless	Court failed duty to appoint or to secure informed waiver; denial impaired presence and confrontation rights	Trial court erred in failing to secure waiver or provide an interpreter; reversal of convictions and new trial affirmed
Whether the lack of simultaneous translation is a structural error	Prosecution: non-structural; any error subject to harmless-error review	Defendant: denial deprived him of presence and ability to assist, so structural	Court did not decide structural vs nonstructural but held error was prejudicial under harmless-error review, so new trial required
Whether counsel was ineffective for not using an interpreter and for investigation failures	Prosecution contended counsel's strategy reasonable; error, if any, harmless	Defendant asserted counsel's failures deprived him of effective assistance and impacted decision whether to testify	Court declined to reach Strickland claim as moot because outcome (new trial) resolved the case

Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (defendant's lack of understanding can render him effectively absent from trial)
People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (1999) (distinguishes structural constitutional errors from those subject to harmless-error review)
People v. Cress, 468 Mich. 678 (2003) (standard of review for new-trial decisions)
People v. Cunningham, 215 Mich. App. 652 (1996) (translation lapses can affect confrontation and presence; adequacy of translation evaluated for prejudice)
People v. Sepulveda, 412 Mich. 889 (1981) (trial court must appoint an interpreter where record shows defendant lacks English ability)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
People v. Miller, 482 Mich. 540 (2008) (abuse of discretion standard explained)