The trial court recognized Mr. Gutierrez only spoke Spanish and appointed an interpreter for him —but the interpreter was prohibited from translating evidence admitted at trial.

At trial, the State presented as part of its case recorded interviews as the evidence against Mr. Gutierrez. These recorded interviews were in English. The State placed the recordings into evidence and the recordings were played to the jury. Pursuant to an administrative order the interpreter did not translate the recordings for Mr. Gutierrez.

It has been recognized the use of an interpreter is necessary to effectuate the due process and other rights guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

This Court has not decided what degree of interpretive assistance is constitutionally required for non-English speaking defendants.

The question presented is:

Whether Petitioner was deprived of his rights to due process and confrontation under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, where the interpreter was prohibited from translating recordings played to the jury during the State's case against him?

Whether Petitioner was deprived of his rights to due process and confrontation under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, where the interpreter was prohibited from translating recordings played to the jury during the State's case against him?