United States v. Orm Hieng’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'such as which party supplied the interpreter, whether the interpreter had any motive to mislead or distort, the interpreter's qualifications and language skill, and whether actions taken subsequent to the conversation were consistent with the statements as translated.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lopez-Ramos · 59 Kan. App. 2d 70 - State v. Gutierrez-Fuentes

2. “If a court were to hold that the statement must be attributed to the interpreter, it would, under Crawford , ask whether the statement, as applied to the interpreter, was testimonial. If so, the statement could not be admitted without opportunity for confrontation of the interpreter. But if the court determines that a statement may be fairly attributed directly to the original speaker, then the court would engage in the Crawford analysis only with respect to that original speaker. Where ... that speaker is the defendant, the Sixth Amendment simply has no application because a defendant cannot complain that he was denied the opportunity to confront himself.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lopez-Ramos

3. “A defendant and an interpreter are treated as identical for testimonial purposes if the interpreter acted as a 'mere language conduit' or agent of the defendant.” Orm Hieng, 679 F.3d at 1139 (quoting United States v. Nazemian, 948 F.2d 522 , 528 (9th Cir.1991)). The factors for determining whether an interpreter is a language conduit include”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Curbelo