How have courts dealt with errors committed by witness interpreters at trial?

incorrect or clarified. To the extent he raises for the first time on appeal errors committed by witness interpreters, he has forfeited his claim. ( People v. Romero (2008) 44 Cal.4th 386, 411, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 334, 187 P.3d 56.) In any event, he fails to show that any errors violated his rights or prejudiced him.

Finally, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for a supplemental "check" interpreter. The court denied his request because he failed to show his need for such an interpreter, but the court did permit him to tape-record the testimony of Spanish-speaking witnesses. On appeal, he argues that he needed a "check" interpreter because "[c]ounsel were in no position themselves to know when translations were full and accurate, and the issue had been a recurring one." He relies on People v. Aranda (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 230, 237, 230 Cal.Rptr. 498, which stated, "When a showing is made, at trial, that an interpreter may be biased or his skills deficient, one solution

[267 Cal.Rptr.3d 451]