CITY OF MIAMI
v.
MARKO
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A defendant convicted of petty larceny in Miami municipal court appealed his conviction, challenging both his lack of access to counsel and the lack of a qualified interpreter. The circuit court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the prosecutor's dual role as both interpreter and prosecutor created an improper conflict of interest and that insufficient time existed for the defendant to secure counsel.
The conviction is reversed and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the time between arrest and trial was insufficient to afford the defendant time to seek counsel, and that a trial court should not employ a prosecuting officer as an interpreter regardless of that officer's ability, as this creates an improper conflict of interest and appearance of bias.
“the lower court did not have an interpreter other than its own city attorney who should not have acted as an interpreter and prosecutor at the same time”
Establishes the core defect: conflict of interest in allowing prosecutor to also serve as interpreter
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarko was convicted in Miami municipal court of petty larceny for stealing a $2.98 ball point pen and sentenced to 60 days in jail plus a $500 fine. M…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Interpreter cases and more on FLexlaw
Order, August 11, 1967: This is an appeal from the Miami municipal court wherein the defendant was convicted and sentenced to a term of 60 days in jail plus a $500 fine on a charge of petty larceny for having stolen a $2.98 ball point pen. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds that he was not afforded an opportunity to seek counsel and that he was not able to understand the proceedings because he did not know how to speak the English language nor did he understand it.
After hearing oral argument for the defendant and for the city and there being no transcript of record of the proceedings, the court was able to learn from counsel for the city that the lower court did not have an interpreter throughout these proceedings but instead he, as city prosecutor, interpreted as best he could for the defendant.
The premises considered, the court is under the impression that the time elapsed between the arrest and trial was not sufficient to afford defendant time to seek counsel to represent him; *107and that the lower court did not have an interpreter other than its own city attorney who should not have acted as an interpreter and prosecutor at the same time.
It is ordered and adjudged that this cause be reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Corrective order, October 30, 1967: The court’s order dated August 11, 1967 was subject to misinterpretation in that it appears' that there was an implication that the assistant city attorney who acted as interpreter was not qualified to do so.
This corrective order is intended to clarify this interpretation in that the court has no doubt as to the impartiality of the assistant city attorney, but believes as a matter of principle that a trial court should not use a prosecuting officer as an interpreter, regardless of his ability.