United States v. Romo-Chavez, No. 10-10424 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseDefendant, a citizen and national of Mexico, was charged with drug-related crimes. At issue was whether the Confrontation Clause or the Federal Rules of Evidence prohibited the government from introducing at trial a defendant's admissions to a police officer because the translator who facilitated them, while conversationally fluent, would not qualify as a court reporter. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that the translator, Officer Hernandez, served merely as a language conduit for defendant. Even if Officer Hernandez's translations were not properly construed as defendant's own statements, the requirements of the Confrontation Clause were satisfied by the officer's appearance at trial. The court also held that the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury to infer from the government's destruction of certain personal property that it would have yielded evidence harmful to the government where defendant conceded that there was no bad faith shown in this case. Finally, because the district court did not commit cumulative errors, defendant was denied relief and the judgment was affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.