Ohio R. Superi. Ct. XX app G
Overview.
These standards are established to guide Ohio courts appointing foreign language and sign language interpreters who participate through video remote interpretation pursuant to Sup.R. 88(D), 88(E), and 89.
These standards set forth the minimum requirements and recommendations. The guiding principle for these standards is to ensure due process is preserved when using video remote interpretation. A limited English, deaf, or hard-of-hearing individual shall be able to fully participate and be afforded meaningful access, including the ability to access complete and accurate information, confer with counsel, and exercise all rights as if the individual were present in person. The best way to ensure the rights of these individuals are protected is to have the deaf or hard-of-hearing individual and the court interpreter present on-site where the proceeding takes place. However, due to public health orders, natural disasters, or scarcity of resources, courts may find it necessary to use technology.
These standards aim to identify critical infrastructure for video remote interpretation. Technological specifications remain general to allow local courts to work within their technological capacity and to guide considerations to establish a functional and effective set up.
Standard 1. Video Remote Interpretation Technological Requirements and Recommendations.
(A) General requirements
A court shall have equipment, hardware, software, and connectivity that allows for the delivery of video remote interpretation without any issues with cameras, devices, audio, pixilation, platform, links, buffering, and internet connection. A Wi-Fi connection transmits data via wireless signals, while an Ethernet connection transmits data via cable. As such, Wi-Fi connection may not be accessible or stable in some places within the courthouse. Freezing and pixilation may be more frequent. Unless it is password protected, Wi-Fi may also not be as secure as a wired connection.
(B) Device screen
The device screen shall be of sufficient size to distinguish signs, fingerspelling, facial gestures, and capture sign language communication effectively and comply with the needs of visually impaired individuals.
(C) Video camera
The video camera shall have sharp high-definition resolution, to ensure clear viewing of images.
(D) Endpoint bandwidth
For the purposes of these guidelines each user terminal shall support at least 768k video calling.
(E) Computer
(1) The computer shall meet or exceed the following specifications:
(a) Processor speed of 2 GHz;
(b) 3 GB of physical RAM;
(c) 300 GB of hard-drive memory with at least 5 GB of free hard-drive
memory;
(d) A dedicated video card;
(e) USB 2.0.
(2) The computer shall be dedicated to video remote interpretation during an interpreting event if operating a software endpoint.
(F) Quality of Service
Equipment shall have a connection to a wide-area-network circuit with quality-of-service settings that consider the potential number of concurrent video calls over the wide-area-network and the quality settings for each video call. In addition to the bandwidth reserved by quality-of-service settings, an adequate amount of bandwidth shall be available to support other operations, such as email and web traffic.
(G) Encryption
Each device or user terminal, regardless of type, such as room-based all-inclusive unit or software/computer-based, shall support encrypted transmissions, preferably using 256-bit Advanced Encryption Standard.
(H) Firewall opening
Equipment shall have the capability to safely traverse court firewalls without compromising security.
Standard 2.
Video Remote Interpretation Placement Logistics.(A) Visibility
(1) All participants, interpreters, parties, judicial officers, court personnel, and attorneys shall be completely and clearly visible on the screen.
(B) Virtual backgrounds
Sign language interpreters and deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals and witnesses shall not use virtual backgrounds. Movement on the video disrupts the stability of the virtual background and may cause the sign language to be unclear.
(C) Video feeds
(1) A total of nine visible video feeds on the screen is recommended. However, no more than nine visible video feeds should be on the screen, as the visible video feed of the sign language interpreter and the deaf or hard-of-hearing individual are reduced in size, making visibility of small hand and face movement difficult. If more than twelve visible video feeds are necessary, technology shall be used to allow the visible video feed of the sign language interpreter and the deaf or hard-of-hearing individual to remain in a stable location on the screen or to be larger than other participants.
(2) Participants may not turn their video feed off and on once the proceeding has begun. Doing so may cause movement of individual visible video feed locations on the screen and disrupt the ability to seamlessly view the foreign language interpreter, the limited English proficient person, sign language interpreter, or deaf or hard-of-hearing individual. If it is critical that a video feed be turned off and on during the proceeding, technology should be used to allow the visible video feed of the limited English speaker, foreign language interpreter, sign language interpreter, and the deaf or hard-of-hearing individual to remain in a stable location on the screen or to be larger than other participants.
(3) Participants on the device screen shall be visible from approximately the waist to the top of the head to allow the deaf or hard-of-hearing individual to read participants' facial expressions and body language.
(D) Video screens
(1) Video screens used in the courtroom should be mobile to accommodate a variety of remote interpreting configurations.
(2) When a sign language interpreter is remote and the individual, the judicial officer, court personnel, and attorneys are in the courtroom, the video screen should be placed so the deaf or hard-of-hearing individual can see both the interpreter and the judge in the same line of sight.
(3) Beware of using small tablets or phones with small screens that may not be adequate for sign language interpreting.
(E) Video camera placement
(1) Video camera placement in the courtroom shall allow for complete and clear visibility of a sign language interpreter and deaf or hard-of-hearing individual in a variety of remote interpreting configurations. Video cameras should be independent of the video screen and stationery during the proceeding.
(2) When a sign language interpreter is remote and the deaf or hard-of-hearing individual, the judicial officer, court personnel, and attorneys are in the courtroom, the video camera should be located so the deaf or hard-of-hearing individual is framed to be visible from approximately the waist to the top of the head.
(3) When a sign language interpreter and the deaf or hard-of-hearing individual are remote and the judicial officer, court personnel, and attorneys are in the courtroom, the video camera should be located so the interpreter and the deaf or hard-of-hearing individual can see the various parties in the courtroom.
(4) When the deaf or hard-of-hearing individual is remote and the judicial officer, court personnel, and attorneys are in the courtroom, the video camera in the external location should be located so the deaf or hard-of-hearing individual is clearly and completely visible to the sign language interpreter. The video camera in the courtroom should be placed so the sign language interpreter, as well as those in the courtroom who will be speaking primarily, are clearly and completely visible to the deaf or hard-of-hearing individual.
(F) Audio
(1) Audio shall allow for all to clearly hear what is being said by the interpreter, the judicial officer, court personnel, and attorney throughout the courtroom.
(2) When any participant is remote while others are in the courtroom, sound from the video screen should be amplified in some manner. Additionally, sound from the courtroom should be amplified in some manner so as to be audible to the interpreter, regardless of where the deaf or hard-of-hearing individual is in the courtroom.
(3) When all participants are remote, participants who will be using spoken language to communicate may use a microphone that is independent of the built-in microphone on the computer.
Commentary
Ideally, the screen will be placed so that the interpreter is also able to see everyone in the courtroom, save the judge. In this way, identification of who is speaking is more readily accomplished than by relying on the ability to discriminate between disembodied voices. This may require a larger screen than the minimum recommendation in this standard.
Polycom and other such platforms have video cameras that may be adjustable enough despite being somewhat stationary. Ideally, multiple video cameras would be employed to allow those who are remote to be able to clearly see all who are in the courtroom. As noted in this standard, this increases the effectiveness of the interpretation. Video cameras that are fixed to a ceiling location that record courtroom activity for safety and security purposes are not adequate to allow for effective remote sign language interpretation.
Standard 3. When Video Remote Interpretation Services May be Used.
A court may use video remote interpretation services in a case or court function or ancillary court service if all of the following apply:
(A) The court meets the minimum technological standards;
(B) The limited English proficient or deaf or hard-of-hearing individual, witness, or juror consents to the use of video remote interpretation services or the court determines the remote interpreting services are necessary for the meaningful participation of the deaf or hard-of-hearing individual, witness, or juror due to constitutional requirements, continuity of operations plan, or emergency health orders compliance;
(C) The court has the necessary video remote interpretation set up to offer services in a manner that is consistent with video, regulatory, and legal requirements;
(D) The matter is simple, routine, and brief, lasting no more than forty-five minutes;
(E) The quality of interpretation will not be compromised.
Commentary
While it is impossible to list all situations where video remote interpretation might be appropriate, the court may consider the following: initial appearances, arraignments, simple traffic hearings, uncontested name changes, uncontested guardianships, ex parte civil protection orders, and marriages. For ancillary court services, the court may consider the clerk's office, probation, intakes, and so forth. The court may identify any other instances where video remote interpretation may be suitable if the event is simple and routine.
Standard 4. When Video Remote Interpretation Should Not be Used.
A court may not use video remote interpretation services in a case or court function or ancillary court service if any of the following apply:
(A) A Supreme Court certified, provisionally qualified, registered foreign language or registered sign language interpreter is reasonably available to serve on-site;
(B) The matter can be postponed or delayed;
(C) The quality of interpretation will be compromised;
(D) The case, court function, or ancillary court service is expected to last longer than
sixty minutes;
(E) The case, court function, or ancillary court service involves prolonged witness testimony or introduces complex evidence;
(F) The deaf or hard-of-hearing individual is a child, elderly, or an unsophisticated user
of interpreter services and technology; has profound communication problems; or is perceived by the court to be mentally disabled or mentally ill;
(G) It is determined that using video remote interpretation would negatively impact access for any reason.
Standard 5.
Compliance with Applicable Laws, Rules, and Standards.
A court using video remote interpretation shall comply with all court rules and federal and state laws, regulations, and standards pertaining to use of court interpretation services.
Commentary
When appointing a video remote interpreter, the court must comply with Sup.R. 88 and 89, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Even if the interpreters are out of state, the court must ensure compliance with Ohio requirements.
Standard 6.
Provision of Case and Platform Information to Interpreter.
To allow an interpreter to work effectively, efficiently, and accurately, a court shall provide case information to the interpreter, including, but not limited to, the following:
(A) The name of the judge, magistrate, or judicial officer and the courtroom number or designation;
(B) The nature of the charges, type of hearing, case details, or category of event;
(C) Contact information of the person coordinating video remote interpretation, including the name, phone number, email address, and any other information needed to resolve technology or video platform issues;
(D) Information on the number of participants and their names, titles, or roles;
(E) Any documents that may be helpful, discussed, or viewed.
Commentary
Courts should provide general information about the case at the time of securing the service. If possible, case documents should be provided fifteen to thirty minutes prior to video remote interpretation session.
A court may want to limit the number of people on the screen. Ideally, case information and details should be shared well in advance; at least seven days if possible.
Standards 7. Video Remote Interpretation Parameters and Protocols.
Before proceeding with a case or court function or ancillary court services, a court shall ensure all of the following:
(A) The connection is stable and ready to use;
(B) The speakers and microphone are tested to ensure communication is clear and can
be accessible to participants;
(C) Lighting is appropriate and deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals are appropriately visible;
(D) If the deaf or hard-of-hearing individual is represented by counsel, counsel is equipped with a headset so private communication may occur with the deaf or hard-of-hearing individual or the attorney, deaf or hard-of-hearing individual, and interpreter can move to a cyberspace to have confidential and private communication. If the individual is deaf or hard of hearing and uses sign language, the court shall consider providing a private space so that the conversation between the deaf or hard-of-hearing individual and counsel cannot be visible to others.
(E) Participants are in place to commence the video remote event;
(F) The number of individuals on the screen is limited in order not to reduce the image of the interpreter or deaf or hard-of-hearing individual.
Standard 8. Accommodating Modes of Interpretation.
(A) General
Subject to division (B) of this standard, a court using video remote interpretation should accommodate sight translation, consecutive interpretation, or simultaneous interpretation as is necessary for proper and effective communication among the court, the parties, their representatives, and other applicable individuals.
(B) Sight translation
A court should not use sight translation with video remote interpretation unless the interpreter has access to the documents beforehand and ample time to render the document from one language into the other. If sight translation is used with video remote interpretation, the document should be short and routine.
Standard 9. Oath.
An interpreter participating through video remote interpretation shall take an oath or affirmation that the interpreter knows, understands, and will act according to the "Code of Professional Conduct for Court Interpreters and Translators," as set forth in Appendix H to these rules.
Standard 10. Coordination of Video Remote Interpretation Services.
A court using video remote interpretation may designate one individual to arrange and monitor the provision of the service to ensure its continuous and efficient operation.
Commentary
Having a coordinator arrange and monitor video remote interpretation helps ensure efficient operation and eliminate minor issues that can arise with the use of such technology. Additionally, the accumulated experience of one individual produces efficiency.
Standard 11. Training on the Use of Video Remote Interpretation.
A court using video remote interpretation shall provide training to users of the technology, relevant support staff, and other involved individuals to ensure efficient operation and the integrity in the use of the service.
Standard 12. Monitoring Video Remote Interpretation Services.
A court using video remote interpretation shall collect and analyze information regarding the performance of the service on a regular basis to evaluate the quality of the service, its benefits and limitations, and its cost-effectiveness.
Ohio. R. Superi. Ct. XX app G