## Facts

- J.D. Bell and Charles Cotton, members of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, were charged with aggravated sexual abuse occurring on the Choctaw Reservation in Mississippi.
- The indictment alleged that on October 14, 2002, Bell and Cotton sexually abused two Choctaw victims, including George Cotton, who was deaf and mute.
- The defendants were tried separately after severance; each jury convicted one defendant of one count of aggravated sexual abuse, and the district court sentenced each.
- A key witness/victim (George Cotton) could communicate only through idiosyncratic signs and sounds understood by close family.
- After a competency hearing, the district court permitted George to testify using his sister, Pauline Cotton, as an interpreter because she alone could understand his communication.
- Because Pauline spoke only Choctaw, the court used a two-step process: Pauline interpreted George into Choctaw, then a licensed interpreter translated that into English for the court and jury.
- The defense cross-examined Pauline about bias (including her stated desire that the attackers be punished) and presented another witness (Junior Cotton) to challenge the accuracy of her interpretations.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by permitting an “interested” family member (the victim’s sister) to interpret a deaf-mute witness’s testimony using a two-step interpretation process.
2. Whether the interpreter arrangement violated the Court Interpreters Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1827, due to lack of formal qualification/certification of the first-level interpreter.
3. (Cotton only) Whether limits on cross-examination violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and, if so, whether any violation required reversal.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed Bell’s conviction, rejecting all of his appellate claims.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Pauline to serve as the first-level interpreter for George’s testimony.
- The court affirmed Cotton’s conviction and sentence as well.
- As to Cotton, the court found a Confrontation Clause violation from restrictions on cross-examination but held the error harmless and therefore not grounds for reversal.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court’s decision to appoint or permit use of an interpreter is reviewed for abuse of discretion, with deference to the court’s management of testimony and assessment of practical needs.
- The Court Interpreters Act permits flexible interpreter arrangements when necessary to secure accurate, comprehensible testimony; lack of certification does not bar use of a uniquely capable interpreter in all circumstances.
- An interpreter’s relationship to a witness and interest in the outcome generally bears on credibility and weight, not automatic inadmissibility, particularly where the defense can cross-examine and present competing interpretation evidence.
- Confrontation Clause claims based on limits on cross-examination involve a constitutional inquiry (whether the restriction prevented effective exposure of bias/credibility); even if a violation occurs, a conviction may be affirmed if the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld the convictions arising from aggravated sexual abuse in Indian country, concluding that the district court acted within its discretion in using the victim’s sister as a necessary first-level interpreter for a deaf-mute witness under safeguards including cross-examination and a licensed second-level interpreter; it also held that a cross-examination restriction violated the Confrontation Clause as to Cotton but did not warrant reversal because the error was harmless.


United States v. Bell, 367 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2004)