Proctor Instructions - Simultaneous Interpretation
Note: Although you are instructed to render unknown terms in the source language to maintain speed of rendition, doing so does not come without consequence. Remember that you will be penalized for using too many source terms in your interpretation. Such use of source terms will demonstrate to performance raters an inability to render appropriate terms and your overall score will be affected. Raters do not want you to sacrifice quality over speed of interpretation.
Click here to hear instructions.
The third and final part of the exam is the simultaneous interpreting component. This part of the examination is designed to test your ability to interpret accurately in the simultaneous mode. The text is recorded at approximately 140 words per minute.
During the actual examination you will use a headset to listen to the instructions and the simultaneous text. The instructions for the simultaneous are recorded in English. The exam material is also in English for you to interpret into the foreign language only. You will be able to adjust the volume, but you will not be able to stop the recording during the test. If you stumble over or forget a word, it may be best to leave it rather than lag behind.
Please begin interpreting after this brief pause.
(Proctor pauses for five seconds and begins recording.)
(The Simultaneous Interpretation document follows.)
Simultaneous Interpretation
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA
The defendant has submitted a motion before me indicating that a motion to relieve counsel was at one point explored in Department 11 but denied. The defendant further alleges that it was his perception that his attorney had disclosed privileged information to co-counsel, before the case was severed, that later led him to enter into a guilty plea. However, the Court does not know by way of transcript what, in fact, transpired. And, since the defendant’s explanation as to the behavior of the parties is not supported by the sworn statement of any witnesses, it scarcely rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence. Moreover, it appears to the Court that this all goes back to the defendant’s first request for relief of counsel, granted by the Court on September 23rd of this year.
If this Court were to believe that present counsel, Mr. Vogel, should have also been relieved, it would make sense to the Court to now allow the defendant to withdraw his plea; because if that were the case, it would be reasonable to believe that this defendant had been misled, if not coerced, into accepting a plea agreement. To do otherwise would be a denial of his right to a fair and effective defense presented at trial. But that is not the case here. Rather, I see that a very detailed examination of the defendant was conducted in a very non-threatening setting the day the plea was taken, at a point in time when the defendant had already gone through the same proceeding. He had been advised as to his rights, had expressed a desire to waive those rights in order to enter into a plea, and had later decided to renege on his admissions and plea by alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
Now, here once again on the day of sentencing, I’m hard-pressed to believe he couldn’t have expressed these issues with more specificity and in a more timely fashion. The reasons he’s giving here today are the same as those previously offered when he withdrew his plea the first time around.
What I have looked at is whether or not there is any evidence of these allegations or of a lack of voluntariness, and whether or not it was an intelligently entered plea.
The Court finds that the defendant was clearly advised as to the consequences of his plea, his rights, etc., not only once, but twice.
I further find that Mr. Vogel never had any overt or covert negotiations with co-counsel. All discussions with co-counsel and the Court are on the record, and the record reflects counsel’s continuous efforts to effectively and aggressively defend his client.
Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea is therefore denied. Court will proceed with sentencing.
