United States v. Manoucheka Charles
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15139
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Manoucheka Charles, a Haitian Creole speaker, was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) for knowingly using a fraudulently altered travel document; the key disputed fact was whether she knew the 1-512 form was fraudulent.
- At Miami airport, CBP interrogated Charles via an over-the-phone Creole interpreter; the government did not call the interpreter at trial.
- Three CBP officers testified; the officer who conducted the interrogation recounted in English what the interpreter told him Charles said in Creole.
- Charles had no opportunity to cross-examine the interpreter about wording or meaning of her Creole statements.
- On appeal Charles argued the admission of the officer’s testimony about the interpreter’s out-of-court English translations violated her Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights.
- The Eleventh Circuit concluded admission was a Confrontation Clause error (interpreter’s translations are testimonial and the interpreter is the declarant), but reversed relief under plain-error review because the error was not "plain" given lack of controlling precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Charles) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CBP officer’s in-court repetition of the interpreter’s English translations violated the Confrontation Clause | The interpreter’s English statements are testimonial and the interpreter (not Charles) is the declarant; Charles was denied her Sixth Amendment right to confront that declarant | Prior circuit authority treats interpreter translations as attributable to the defendant (a "language conduit"), so no confrontation violation; any error was not plain | Court: Admission was a Confrontation Clause error because interpreter’s translations are testimonial and the interpreter is the declarant, requiring confrontation; but the error was not "plain," so conviction affirmed under plain-error review |
| Whether existing circuit precedent (Alvarez/Da Silva) resolves the Confrontation question | Alvarez/Da Silva do not decide the constitutional declarant question post-Crawford and do not make the defendant the declarant for Confrontation purposes | Government argues Alvarez treats the foreign-language speaker as declarant for purposes of admissibility, so no plain error | Court: Alvarez/Da Silva address hearsay admissibility, not the Confrontation Clause; they do not foreclose the conclusion that interpreter is the declarant for Sixth Amendment purposes |
| Whether reliability or hearsay-rule analysis can substitute for confrontation | Cross-examination, not reliability or hearsay exceptions, is constitutionally required for testimonial statements | Government urged reliance on hearsay-based reliability doctrines and prior circuit practice | Court: Crawford, Melendez-Diaz, and Bullcoming reject reliability as a substitute; confrontation is the constitutional test for testimonial statements |
| Whether a testifying third party (CBP officer) can serve as an adequate surrogate for cross-examining the actual declarant (interpreter) | Charles: third-party testimony cannot substitute for confronting the declarant who made the testimonial translation | Government: officer’s testimony effectively relays the defendant’s statements; prior practice permits such testimony | Court: Bullcoming forecloses surrogate testimony for testimonial statements; the officer cannot substitute for cross-examining the interpreter |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial out-of-court statements require unavailability and prior opportunity for cross-examination)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic certifications are testimonial; confrontation required despite asserted reliability)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (a surrogate witness may not replace the declarant of testimonial evidence for Confrontation purposes)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review framework on appeal)
- United States v. Alvarez, 755 F.2d 830 (11th Cir. 1985) (admitted interpreter translations under hearsay agency/authorization principles; did not address Confrontation Clause)
- United States v. Da Silva, 725 F.2d 828 (2d Cir. 1983) (treated interpreter as agent for hearsay attribution; not a Confrontation-Clause decision)