Guam’s language needs differ from those of the continental US — the legal system is facing a shortage of court interpreters for languages such as Chuukese, a Trukic language spoken on the islands of Chuuk.

Guam’s government webpage also states that they provide court interpreters qualified in Chamorro, Chinese, Tagalog, Palauan, Yapese, Vietnamese, Korean, Sign Language, Pohnpeian, Kosraen and Marshallese.

However, it has become increasingly difficult for Guam’s legal system to meet the growing demand for court interpreters.

Court Interpreter Shortfall Delays Cases

A lack of court interpreters in Guam is causing extended delays in cases. Five-month delays are common in cases that require a court interpreter (excepting the DWI docket, for which the Guam court has hired a full-time court interpreter). Earlier this year, hearings for murder suspect Twency Luku and DUI suspect Matias Chappan were both delayed.

Those circumstances are certainly not unusual. Public defender Jeffrey Warfield has stated that he was unable to do anything with one of his clients because the court’s Chinese interpreter was away from the island for a month. That case went on for two years, partly due to interpretation issues.

According to Josh Tenorio, director of policy, planning and community relations for the Judiciary of Guam, the court has not updated the way its interpretation services work for at least 20 years, despite the significant demographic changes that have occurred throughout the jurisdiction.

The Chuukese population in Guam increased by 40 percent between 1980 and 2000. Between 2004 and 2010, Chuukese clients formed 71 percent of the court’s translation capacity. The dramatic increase in Chuukese-speaking residents needs to be reflected in the amount of Guam’s court interpreters.

Court Interpreter Problems

There seems to be some confusion as to what — or who — is causing these problems. Ana Maria Gayle, supervisor at the Alternate Public Defender’s office, states that “there either aren’t enough interpreters or the interpreters themselves are unreliable.”

However, the court interpreters place the blame elsewhere.

According to Isabel Gawel, a Chuukese interpreter for the court, the scheduling problem lies with the lawyers. This is in part due to administrative confusion over whether the attorney or the court has priority in securing an interpreter.

There is also the issue of payment. Interpreters are paid $25 an hour, but are given only a portion of this if working less time — and time spent waiting between cases is not considered billable. To make matters worse, payments are often not received on time.

Court Interpreter Solutions

Guam is actively trying to solve this problem. The court first considered Florida’s system, where court interpreters are centralized and can be contacted through a video service.

The court has also reached out to the Ayuda Foundation, a non-profit whose ties to communities all around Micronesia may be useful in recruiting court interpreters.

However, the clearest solution seems to be what is already working — the court hired Merly Karsom, a full-time Chuukese court interpreter for DWI cases, and has noted a dynamic change. Cases which used to take up to two and a half years to process are finished within 90 days.

The court has also expedited cases by creating standardized plea agreements, translated into Chuukese.

After these successes, Guam has initiated a new court interpreter registry and an increased, more consistent salary. The registry went into effect December 2012, and the Judicial Council is reviewing a new code of conduct for court interpreters.

These improvements should mean more justice for both defendants and court interpreters in Guam.

What libel tourism cases prompted the SPEECH Act, and how will these new laws prohibit further libel tourism?

What Is Libel Tourism?

Libel tourism refers to the practice of suing a writer for libel in a jurisdiction that is more likely to rule in favor of a plaintiff. Many people associate libel tourism with the United Kingdom, where libel laws tend to be “plaintiff-friendly.”

It is more difficult to file and win a libel suit in the United States. Plaintiffs must be ready to prove what was published was not only untrue, but also published recklessly or with malicious intent. Enforcement of the First Amendment leads to US courts often ruling in favor of the defendants in libel cases.

Many American celebrities and politicians have been known to take libel cases to the United Kingdom. But one of the most oft-cited examples of libel tourism are the actions of Khalid bin Mahfouz, a wealthy Saudi Arabian who lived in Ireland.

There were many allegations that Khalid bin Mahfouz gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to terrorist groups, including al-Qaida and even Osama bin Laden himself. Several different books and articles discussed the possibility of bin Mahfouz as a terrorist financier, but by the time he died in 2009, he had filed 40 different libel suits in England — and had won many of them, resulting in the recall and destruction of thousands of books and the issue of numerous apologies by publishing houses.

How Does the SPEECH Act Fight Libel Tourism?

Inspired by the legal battles of Khalid bin Mahfouz, the Free Speech Protection Act was introduced in Congress in 2008 and then again in 2009, but failed to pass.

The latest incarnation, the SPEECH Act — which stands for “Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage” — passed unanimously in the US Senate and House of Representatives earlier this year. President Barack Obama signed it into law on August 10, 2010.

The SPEECH Act requires that all foreign libel judgments must be compliant with the First Amendment, or they will not be enforceable in the United States.

Prior to the passing of the SPEECH Act, foreign libel judgments were valid in the United States, though in 2008, New York state passed the Libel Tourism Protection Act, which allowed New York courts to claim jurisdiction over libel suits filed against New York-based authors and publishing companies. After New York’s law was passed, California, Florida and Illinois passed similar acts discouraging libel tourism.

By discouraging libel tourism and ensuring that any foreign judgments are completely valid before they can be upheld in the United States, the SPEECH Act is a boon to writers and anyone else seeking the protection and rights of the First Amendment.

The model, whose raucous behavior has landed her in court in the past, reportedly accepted uncut blood diamonds from former Liberian President Charles Taylor. Campbell has refused on several occasions to discuss the incident.

How Campbell Got Involved

In 1997, Naomi Campbell and Charles Taylor were attending a dinner at the home of South African President Nelson Mandela. Also in attendance, among others, were actress Mia Farrow and Campbell’s former agent Carole White.

According to Farrow and White, Taylor expressed interest in giving Campbell blood diamonds as a gift at dinner. Later that night, men threw pebbles at the window of the room Campbell was staying in to get her attention. She reportedly let them into the house and accepted the gift of approximately half a dozen uncut blood diamonds. According to White, she expressed disappointment that they were not cut.

Farrow said that Campbell intended to donate the diamonds to the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund; however, the charity said it has no account of ever receiving such a gift from Campbell.

War Crimes Trial

Charles Taylor is currently being tried by the UN in The Hague for war crimes committed during the Sierra Leone civil war in the 1990s.

Prosecutors allege that the former president traded weapons and ammunition for diamonds from violent rebel forces.

Blood diamonds are diamonds that are mined in a war zone and sold to finance the activities of insurgent forces. The importation and sale of blood diamonds has been banned in the US since 2001.

How To Serve a Subpoena

A subpoena is a document issued by a court to compel witness testimony or evidence.

Subpoenas are typically issued as a blank document to be filled in by the lawyer representing the party on whose behalf the testimony will be given. Once the witness is located, the subpoena is filled out, notarized and served to the witness.

Different jurisdictions have varying rules on who can serve a subpoena. In some locations, anyone can serve a subpoena to a witness. Many places require the server to be a legal adult (18 years or older).

Other jurisdictions require that a professional process server should be the party to serve a subpoena to a witness or have even more complex rules — for example, the state of Florida requires that a server file a Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena 10 days prior, so that the witness is aware and has time to object.

Naomi Campbell has repeatedly told news outlets and even Oprah that she will not talk about the incident. However, if a process server were to serve a subpoena, she would be absolutely required to testify and would be in trouble with the law if she refused.

A ban on cell phone use may seem extreme, but as technology makes it easier for people to find information anywhere at any time, mistrials are becoming increasingly common.

Jurors’ Responsibilities & Rules of Evidence

Once jurors are selected for a criminal trial, they are not allowed to search for information on the case outside of the courtroom. Jurors must reach a verdict based on only the evidence admitted in the trial.

However, smartphones allow jurors to look up several details on the case, which violate the legal system’s rules of evidence. Online maps can provide directions and estimated travel times, while medical websites can give jurors ideas about any conditions that may be part of a case.

As part of basic trial procedure, jurors are not allowed to reveal the deliberations that go on in the jury room, but social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter allow jurors to update their friends and colleagues on the process.

If a judge finds out that a member of the jury has been doing research or sharing information on the case, the juror could get thrown off the jury — or the judge may even declare a mistrial.

Al Roker’s Jury Room Scandal

While jurors’ responsibilities may seem obvious, many people are so used to being connected that they don’t even realize that what they’re sharing could amount to a mistrial.

Recently, NBC weatherman Al Roker made headlines when he reported for jury duty and posted some pictures of the courtroom to Twitter.

As you can tell from some of his tweets posted below, people responded that what he was doing might be against the law.

• 6:11 a.m. Well, it’s Thursday and after a few wxcasts, I’m off to Jury duty dowtown. But before i go, here’s TODAY”s Tweather
• 10:32 a.m. So everyone is clear, I am NOT taking pictures in the courtroom. I am in the jury lounge. So folks need to lighten up.
• 10:32 a.m. I’m not breaking laws…just trying to share the experience of jury duty. One that I think is important and everyone should take part in
• 11:04 a.m. And to be clear, no court official told me it was ok to take pictures, just that you couldn’t take pictures in the court room.
• 11:37 a.m. Heading to a courtroom. No pictures
• 3:01 p.m. Must be a slow news day. Was stalked by video-razzi from TMZ and the NY POST because I posted a pic from the jury room on Twitter.
• 3:06 p.m. Whew. Learned a lesson. No, I repeat, no court personnel told me it was ok. Going back into the courtroom, iPhone buried deep in my bag
• 6:08 a.m. Well, citizens of the United States of Twitterville, it was a fun day yesterday, with jury duty and twitpicking when I shouldn’t. Now onward

It’s obvious that Roker made an innocent mistake and didn’t know that taking pictures wasn’t allowed. If he weren’t a celebrity, there is no way this story would’ve made headlines. However, it is an excellent example of how everyone uses their cell phones without even considering the consequences.

Enacting Bans Across the Country

Many states have developed specific instructions to be issued by courtroom officials that ban cell phone use. The instructions specifically state that use of cell phones, computers or other mobile Internet-enabled devices can result in exclusion of jurors, imposition of fines and mistrials.

Lawyers and judges handling jury trials in states that have not enacted a ban on cell phone use should be encouraged to talk to potential jurors about the legal implications of using smartphones or other mobile devices in the courtroom.