Can an interpreter be used to communicate with counsel at trial?

36 In United States ex rel. Navarro v. Johnson, 365 F.Supp. 676 (1973), an interpreter had been appointed for the Spanish-speaking accused. There were times, however, when the interpreter was translating Spanish evidence into English for the court. The accused sought to have his conviction quashed on the ground that, during those times when the interpreter was translating for the court, he had been denied the assistance of counsel. The court declined to quash the conviction, but not on the ground that the accused was not entitled to assistance in communicating with counsel. The court’s reasons for not quashing the conviction were that the trial judge had permitted interruption of proceedings so that the accused could confer with counsel through the interpreter and that the complaint was not raised at trial.