Edited by Pranati Pradeep, Gabriel Hentschel, and Sofia Meinardus
Abstract
Plea bargaining resolves the vast majority of criminal prosecutions; yet defendants with limited English proficiency (LEP) frequently navigate this process without fully understanding the rights they waive. This problem persists not because the governing law fails to address it, but because the existing framework—including the Boykin comprehension requirement, Rule 11’s colloquy protections, Title VI’s language-access mandate, and the Court Interpreters Act’s competency standard—often proves insufficient at the moment when comprehension is most critical. An examination of the statutory history of federal language-access law, relevant doctrinal developments, and recent decisions readily demonstrates that the entire proceeding can unravel due to mistranslation. This Article argues that the current plea system fails to ensure waivers are “knowing, voluntary, and intelligent” for LEP defendants. The paper proposes a plea-specific interpreter-certification regime administered by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, as well as mandatory audio recordings of plea colloquies for subsequent accuracy review. These reforms provide a standardized method to satisfy constitutional comprehension requirements and reinforce that language access is a non-waivable component of federal criminal procedure.
