The Minnesota Supreme Court recently held in State v. Lopez-Ramos that an interpreter’s translation of a defendant’s foreign language statements during a police interrogation did not implicate the Confrontation Clause. The Lopez-Ramos court applied the language conduit theory to determine an interpreter’s translated statements were attributable to the defendant. Finally, the court concluded that because the defendant was the declarant of the statements, the statements were not hearsay.
Criminal-Law_-Incompatible-Approaches-to-Interpreters_-Translatio