Photo by Gabriel Christus/Aurora Sentinel
AURORA | Interpreter fees imposed on defendants who miss city court jury trials are going to more than double, while some city council members think the hike is discriminatory.
“I remain concerned that this increases a fee that specifically only applies to people who need interpretation,” Councilmember Alison Coombs said. “We should be looking at fees that apply to any person who fails to appear, rather than penalizing individuals based on language.”
The fee, essentially a fine, for people who fail to appear for a jury trial in Aurora’s municipal court that requires a translator will now go from $35 to $90, but the judge does have the ability to waive the fee if the individual is considered indigent or if there are extenuating circumstances, according to Candace Atkinson, Aurora court administrator.
While city officials did not cite how many cases might be impacted by the change, nor how many jury trials are affected by defendants not appearing, city officials said the annual financial impact of the proposal is only $500.
For example, if an individual gets in a car accident or needs to go to the hospital, the fee can be waived, she said.
District and county courts receive funding for their translator programs through the Office of Language Access, which is funded by the state.
“The Colorado Judicial Branch is committed to providing court users with meaningful access to the courts at no cost, regardless of the language they speak,” the state website states.
Municipal courts, on the other hand, pay for translation services from their own budget.
Aurora courts do impose a failure to appear fee of $25, and a $75 warrant fee, for all situations when an individual fails to appear for a court hearing or jury trial.
“We had one person that failed to appear for jury trial twice, and it was over $1,800 both times, because it was a special language,” Atkinson said. “So that’s why we looked at changing.”
Atkinson said some court cases can require multiple interpreters for witnesses or other people involved in the case, and that’s why some jury trial’s need for an interpreter can be so expensive.
Councilmember Crystal Murillo also said she thought it seemed like a form of discrimination.
“If we’re a customer service oriented organization, providing interpretation is part of that role,” Murillo said. “I don’t agree with charging a specific fee or an additional fee to folks who would need that, when folks who don’t show up in any other situation don’t have to pay that particular fee.”
Other council members such as Françoise Bergan, Stephanie Hancock and Danielle Jurinsky defended the change, and said that the city should not bear the cost of expensive interpreter services when defendants disregard their court dates.
“If you can’t show up for your jury trial, you should then pay for the interpreter,” Hancock said, “Whether you’re in this country or somewhere else, you have to pay if you don’t show up for your own trial.”
She said the missed appearance is “an expensive proposition” for taxpayers.
“This is not about profiting off anyone’s mishaps,” Jurinsky said. “We are only seeking to be reimbursed for those who fail to appear for their jury trial after a specialized interpreter has been provided.”
Coombs asked Atkinson where the money goes when it is collected and Atkinson said it went to the city’s general fund, which Coombs said makes it harder to distinguish if the money is used to pay back interpreter fees or if it is a way to make a profit.
Ultimately, the council approved the ordinance by a 7-3 vote, with council members Coombs, Ruben Medina, and Murillo opposed. This was the first reading at the city council meeting with one more reading before it can be approved by city council as an update to the ordinance.