Cover not available

Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 19:1 (2017) ► pp.69–96

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

The effect of interpreting modes on witness credibility assessments

 | University of New South Wales
 | Charles Sturt University
 | University of Western Sydney
Published online: 1 June 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.19.1.04hal
Research into court interpreting has shown that interpreters can have an impact on the case in many different ways. However, the extent to which this occurs depends on several factors, including the interpreter’s competence, ethics and specialized training in court interpreting, as well as working conditions. One little explored aspect is whether use of consecutive vs. simultaneous interpreting can impact jurors’ perception of a witness or other interpreted party. This paper reports on the results of a large-scale experimental study, with a simulated trial run in different conditions, involving a total of 447 mock jurors. The aim was to identify any differences in the way jurors in Australian courts might assess the evidence of an accused called as a witness, in a monolingual hearing as well as when interpreted consecutively and simultaneously from Spanish to English. Overall, jurors’ recollection of case facts did not differ significantly for the three conditions, though it was lower for consecutive during the afternoon. Jurors also found consecutive more distracting; on the other hand, the consecutive mode was associated with significantly more favourable perception of the accused’s evidence than simultaneous interpreting or monolingual communication. Although jurors found the prosecution to be less convincing when the accused’s evidence was interpreted consecutively compared to the other proceedings, the interpretation mode made no difference to the verdict.
References (50)
Baigorri-Jalón, J. (2000/2014). From Paris to Nuremberg: The birth of conference interpreting (transl. by H. Mikkelson & B. S. Olsen). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, S. (1990/2002). The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1999). The impact of court interpreting on the coerciveness of leading questions. Forensic Linguistics 6 (1), 30–56.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boccaccini, M. T. (2002). What do we really know about witness preparation? Behavioral Sciences and the Law 20 (1/2), 161–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brodsky, S. L., Griffin, M. P. & Cramer, R. J. (2010). The witness credibility scale: An outcome measure for expert witness research. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 28 (6), 892–907. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brodsky, S. L., Neal, T. M., Cramer, R. J. & Ziemke, M. H. (2009). Credibility in the courtroom: How likeable should an expert witness be? Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online 37 (4), 525–532.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Camayd-Freixas, E. (2005). A revolution in consecutive interpretation: Digital voice recorder-assisted CI. The ATA Chronicle 34 (3), 40–46.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 (5), 752. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colin, J. & Morris, R. (1996). Interpreters and the legal process. Winchester: Waterside Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department. (1991). Access to interpreters in the Australian legal system. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conley, J. M., O’Barr, W. M. & Lind, E. A. (1978). The power of language: Presentational style in the courtroom. Duke Law Journal 61, 1375–1399.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A. & Sukel, H. L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior 20 (4), 379–394. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gaiba, F. (1998). The origins of simultaneous interpretation: The Nuremberg Trial: Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gany, F., Kapelusznik, L., Prakash, K., Gonzalez, J., Orta, L., Tseng, C.-H. & Changrani, J. (2007). The impact of medical interpretation method on time and errors. Journal of General Internal Medicine 22 (2), 319–323. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gile, D. (2001). Consecutive vs. simultaneous: Which is more accurate? The Journal of the Japan Association for Interpretation Studies 1 (1), 8–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gzour, A. (2001). Lockerbie trial. In Interpreting at international courts and tribunals. Court interpreting in the Netherlands . July 4th to 7th 2001. Minutes.
Hale, S. (2001). How are courtroom questions interpreted? An analysis of Spanish interpreters’ practices. In I. Mason (Ed.), Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome, 21–50.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2007). Community interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2011). Interpreter policies, practices and protocols in Australian courts and tribunals: A national survey. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Judicial Administration.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, S. & Stern, L. (2011). Interpreter quality and working conditions: Comparing Australian and international courts of justice. Judicial Officers Bulletin 23 (9), 75–81.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamidi, M. & Pöchhacker, F. (2007). Simultaneous consecutive interpreting: A new technique put to the test. Meta (21), 276–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hertog, E. (2002). Language as a human right: Challenges for legal interpreting. In G. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 145–157. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindsay, R. C., Wells, G. L. & O’Connor, F. J. (1989). Mock-juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. Law and Human Behavior 13 (3), 333–339. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lombardi, J. (2003). DRAC interpreting: Coming soon to a courthouse near you? Proteus 12 (2), 7–9.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lotriet, A. (2002). Can short interpreter training be effective? The South African truth and reconciliation commission experience. In E. Hung (Ed.), Teaching translation and interpreting 4: Building bridges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 81–98. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luus, C. & Wells, G. L. (1994). The malleability of eyewitness confidence: Co-witness and perseverance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology 79 (5), 714. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, A. & Ortega Herráez, J. M. (2013). From invisible machines to visible experts: Views on interpreter role and performance during the Madrid train bomb trials. In C. Schäffner, K. Kredens & Y. Fowler (Eds.), Interpreting in a changing landscape: Selected papers from Critical Link 6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 101–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mikkelson, H. (2010). Consecutive or simultaneous? An analysis of their use in the judicial setting. Across the Board. [Australian Sign Language Interpreters Association] 51, 4–7.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondak, J. J. (1990). Perceived legitimacy of Supreme Court decisions: Three functions of source credibility. Political Behavior 12 (4), 363–384. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morris, R. (1989a). Court interpretation: The trial of Ivan John Demjanjuk: A case study. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 21, 27–37.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1989b). Eichmann v. Demjanjuk. Parallèles. Cahiers de l'École de traduction et d'interprétation 111, 9–28.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1998). Justice in Jerusalem: Interpreting in Israeli legal proceedings. Meta 43 (1), 1–10. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2001). The Eichmann and Demjanjuk trials: A comparison. Paper presented at the AIIC Court Interpreting Seminar , The Hague.
O’Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Orlando, M. (2014). A study on the amenability of digital pen technology in a hybrid mode of interpreting: Consec-Simul with notes. Translation & interpreting. The international journal of translation and interpreting research 6 (2), 39–54.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ozolins, U. (2004). Survey of interpreting practitioners. Melbourne: VITS LanguageLink.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). London: Open University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Russell, D. (2003). A comparison of simultaneous and consecutive interpretation in the courtroom. International Journal of Disability, Community & Rehabilitation 2 (1). [URL] (accessed 27 June 2016).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruva, C. L. & Bryant, J. B. (2004). The impact of age, speech style, and question form on perceptions of witness credibility and trial outcome. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34 (9), 1919–1944. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, L. J. & Malandro, L. A. (1985). Courtroom communication strategies. New York: Kluwer Law Book Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stern, L. (2011). Courtroom interpreting. In K. Malmkjaer & K. Windle (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of translation studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 325–342.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2012). What can domestic courts learn from international courts and tribunals about good practice in interpreting? From the Australian war crimes prosecutions to the international criminal court. T & I Review 21, 7–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stern, L., Ozolins, U. & Hale, S. (2015). Inefficiencies of court administration despite participants’ goodwill . Journal of Judicial Administration, 25 (2), 76–95.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tabachnik, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (15)

Cited by 15 other publications

Ng, Eva N. S.
2026. Interpreting for Jurors and Defendants’ Right to a Fair Trial. In Language and Justice, ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Hale, Sandra
2025. Legal Interpreting. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Hale, Sandra, Natalie Martschuk, Jane Goodman-Delahunty & Julie Lim
2025. Juror perceptions in bilingual interpreted trials. Perspectives 33:5 ► pp. 946 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Zhefei (Florence)
2025. Interpreting-related issues in migration and refugee review hearings in Australia: a review based on judicial decisions. Perspectives ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Eades, Diana, Helen Fraser & Georgina Heydon
2023. Forensic Linguistics in Australia, DOI logo
Huang, Yuwei, Weinan Shi & Jinglin Wen
2023. Technology Challenges and Aids: The Sustainable Development of Professional Interpreters in Listening Comprehension Effectiveness and Interpreting Performance. Sustainability 15:8 ► pp. 6828 ff. DOI logo
Napier, Jemina & Sandra Hale
2023. Exploring mixed methods in interpreting research. In Introducing New Hypertexts on Interpreting (Studies) [Benjamins Translation Library, 160], ► pp. 22 ff. DOI logo
Ng, Eva
2023. The right to a fair trial and the right to interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 25:1 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Doherty, Stephen, Natalie Martschuk, Jane Goodman-Delahunty & Sandra Hale
2022. An Eye-Movement Analysis of Overt Visual Attention During Consecutive and Simultaneous Interpreting Modes in a Remotely Interpreted Investigative Interview. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Hale, Sandra, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Natalie Martschuk & Stephen Doherty
2022. The effects of mode on interpreting performance in a simulated police interview. Translation and Interpreting Studies 17:2 ► pp. 264 ff. DOI logo
Orlando, Marc
2021. L’interprétation consécutive-simultanée. À la découverte d’un mode hybride. Traduire 245 ► pp. 76 ff. DOI logo
Goodman-Delahunty, Jane, Natalie Martschuk, Sandra B. Hale & Susan E. Brandon
2020. Interpreted Police Interviews: A Review of Contemporary Research. In Advances in Psychology and Law [Advances in Psychology and Law, 5], ► pp. 83 ff. DOI logo
Rengifo, Andres F., Diba Rouzbahani & Jennifer Peirce
2020. Court Interpreters and the Political Economy of Bail in Three Arraignment Courts. Law & Policy 42:3 ► pp. 236 ff. DOI logo
Arumí, Marta & Mireia Vargas-Urpi
2018. Annotation of interpreters’ conversation management problems and strategies in a corpus of criminal proceedings in Spain. Translation and Interpreting Studies 13:3 ► pp. 421 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2026. Communication and Legal Process. In Language and Justice, ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue