I find this is good cause for the excluded period (court)

< Previous | Next >

melasa

Senior Member
English & Spanish, USA born
I am a court Spanish interpreter.

Many times in criminal cases, defense lawyers request continuances for their clients.

Many times, when a judge accepts a continuance, they will say, “I find this good cause for the excluded period.”

Explanation of concept:
Every defendant has a right to take their case to trial within a period of 60 days if they’re in custody, and a period of 90 days if their out of custody. This is called speedy trial rights.

— El derecho para celebrar un juicio entre un periodo sin demora.

However, when a judge grants a continuance, it does not encompass and use up the days of the speedy trial priod.

It is AN EXCLUDED PERIOD. Hence, excluded from counting these days as part of the speedy trial right period.

So, by the next pre-trial hearing, or arraignment… Etc., that is when the speedy trial clock restarts again… So another full 60 or 90 days starting from THAT next hearing.

So, this “excluded period” is when the defense lawyer has time to prepare his clients case, or it gives time for the prosecutor to do whatever they need to do, send discovery to the defense lawyer, etc. etc.

Essentially, it’s time for everyone to prepare for the case, without taking away from the time of the speedy trial period

Once a judge can no longer grant continuances, the case has to be taken to trial or resolved within the speedy trial period.

Any lawyers out there, please correct me if my understanding is wrong, because understanding of this concept is critical to an accurate interpretation.

Here are some attempts:

Determino que esto es buena causa para el periodo excluido.
The goal is to interpret the concept accurately into the target language…

What would you suggest?

I am Imagine the above translation is way too literal… What do you think?

If one already has a understanding of speedy trial rights, then maybe it’s not too literal… Because one needs to understand the concept as a prerequisite…
Because, on the flipside, if you say it in English, it would be nonsensical as well… Unless the defendant has an understanding of the concept before hearing this… Interpreters can’t add or embellish either.

What would you suggest as possible interpretations/translations?

Another try:

“Yo determino que esto es una buena causa para aplazar el caso para un período excluido del plazo para celebrar un juicio entre un período sin demora“

This is just way too wordy and long, and it actually adds to the term… So, do you see the difficulty in interpreting this term? This is a mouthful while interpreting… And it embellishes a bit perhaps?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
  • Joe Esquire

    Senior Member
    Spanish Spain- English US
    Melasa,
    being a live Court interpreter carries challenges beyond the ordinary translation. As you have noted; it is a balance between translating for meaning and using terms that may not be exactly equivalent. Here are my thoughts on the above:

    1. There are 9 causes for granting an “excluded period” affecting the computation of time for trial, and the re-start periods. You may wish to get familiar with those at Washington Superior Court - Criminal Rules. (CrR 3.3).

    2. Either party may request an “excluded period“. If it is the defendant, he will likely be already familiar with the motion, since he has to sign it personally, as voluntarily waiving his constitutional rights. If it is the Prosecutor making the motion, then the understanding by the defendant may be more demanding and require more nuance. Defense counsel may also object.

    3. In your example, the judge is ruling that he found proper justification (within the rules) to grant a delay to the commencement of the trial. The time delayed is called the “excluded period”. This is not uncommon in Spanish speaking countries; there are varying degrees of constitutional /legal protections to require a prompt criminal trial; but equally, there are authorized procedural delay exceptions in regular use. So the concept is not foreign.

    4. If you want to convey that the start of the trial is being justifiably delayed: ”Dilacion justificada de la fecha de la vista del juicio” is appropriate.

    5. If you want to use the judge’s words above (closely) , as a motion ruling: “Adjudico que esta razón para aplazar el juicio permite un período de prorroga justificado.”

    Good luck,

    JE
     
    Last edited:

    melasa

    Senior Member
    English & Spanish, USA born
    Melasa,
    being a live Court interpreter carries challenges beyond the ordinary translation. As you have noted; it is a balance between translating for meaning and using terms that may not be exactly equivalent. Here are my thoughts on the above:

    1. There are 9 causes for granting an “excluded period” affecting the computation of time for trial, and the re-start periods. You may wish to get familiar with those at Washington Superior Court - Criminal Rules. (CrR 3.3).

    2. Either party may request an “excluded period“. If it is the defendant, he will likely be already familiar with the motion, since he has to sign it personally, as voluntarily waiving his constitutional rights. If it is the Prosecutor making the motion, then the understanding by the defendant may be more demanding and require more nuance. Defense counsel may also object.

    3. In your example, the judge is ruling that he found proper justification (within the rules) to grant a delay to the commencement of the trial. The time delayed is called the “excluded period”. This is not uncommon in Spanish speaking countries; there are varying degrees of constitutional /legal protections to require a prompt criminal trial; but equally, there are authorized procedural delay exceptions in regular use. So the concept is not foreign.

    4. If you want to convey that the start of the trial is being justifiably delayed: ”Dilacion justificada de la fecha de la vista del juicio” is appropriate.

    5. If you want to use the judge’s words above (closely) , as a motion ruling: “Adjudico que esta razón para aplazar el juicio permite un período de prorroga justificado.”

    Good luck,

    JE
    This syntactical arrangement seems to roll off the tongue a lot easier:

    “Adjudico que esto es una buena razón para aplazar el juicio entre un periodo de prórroga justificada“

    Please let me know what you think. For example, please let me know if there are any syntactical oddities in the formation of this phrase… Or any gender agreement errors… Etc. Thanks
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top