## Facts

- Ana Digna Santana, a Spanish-speaking subway passenger, sued the New York City Transit Authority for injuries allegedly caused by a sudden stop of a train.
- During a jury trial, Santana testified through a court-appointed Spanish interpreter.
- Santana spoke a Puerto Rican/New York Spanish dialect incorporating English-derived terms, creating a risk of mistranslation.
- On a material point describing the stop’s severity, the interpreter translated Santana’s answer as the train stopping “as if it had bumped into something.”
- A Spanish-speaking juror familiar with Santana’s dialect believed the intended meaning was closer to “crashed,” based on the verb used and dialect usage.
- The juror sent a note requesting to speak with the judge; the judge questioned the juror in chambers with counsel, the interpreter, and a court reporter present.
- The court confirmed the juror had not discussed the issue with other jurors and instructed him not to do so.
- To address the translation concern, the court recalled Santana to clarify the testimony on the record through the interpreter.

## Issues

1. Whether the juror’s communication and independent linguistic evaluation created prejudice requiring a mistrial under CPLR 4011.
2. How a trial court should address an apparent conflict between an interpreter’s translation and a bilingual juror’s understanding while maintaining an impartial jury and a reliable record.

## Decision

- The court denied a mistrial, finding no substantial possibility of injustice that could not be cured.
- The court held the juror’s conduct was not inherently prejudicial because he did not conduct an outside investigation, introduce extrajudicial evidence, or share his views with other jurors.
- Exercising authority to regulate trial conduct, the court investigated the issue in chambers and implemented curative measures.
- The court instructed the juror to rely on the interpreter’s official translation during deliberations and to alert the court if a significant discrepancy arose.
- The court permitted clarification by recalling the witness so the intended meaning could be established on the record through the interpreter.

## Legal Principles

- Under CPLR 4011, trial courts have broad discretion to regulate trial conduct to secure a speedy and unprejudiced disposition and may take reasonable steps to address interpreter and juror-management problems.
- A mistrial should be ordered only to prevent a substantial possibility of injustice; it is generally reserved for prejudice that is inherent or not curable by instructions or corrective proceedings.
- Courts may appoint interpreters to ensure litigants and witnesses who are not fluent in English can understand and be understood as part of a fair trial.
- A bilingual juror’s language knowledge cannot substitute for evidence; the juror must remain a fact-finder and may not function as an unsworn translator or witness.
- When translation accuracy is questioned on a material point, the court may investigate and cure the problem through on-the-record clarification and limiting instructions to protect jury impartiality.

## Conclusion

The court refused to declare a mistrial after a bilingual juror reported a likely mistranslation, holding that any risk of prejudice could be cured through a controlled inquiry, limiting instructions, and on-the-record clarification of the witness’s testimony under the court’s CPLR 4011 trial-management authority.


Santana v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 132 Misc. 2d 777, 505 N.Y.S.2d 775 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1986)