Abdulrazzak v. Fluke

1 Citing case

  1. United States v. Le

    CRIMINAL ACTION No. 09-50 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 8, 2020)   Cited 3 times
    Dismissing ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to develop factual basis of claim and without "specific allegations as to counsel's deficiency"

    The Court thus concludes Le's counsel was not deficient for failing to investigate a language barrier between Le and his interpreter at trial. See Abdulrazzak v. Fluke, No. 19-4025, 2019 WL 5964974, at *8 (D.S.D. Nov. 13, 2019) (rejecting a claim that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to request a different interpreter where the record did not support defendant's assertion of a communication difficulty); United States v. Dozal-Alvarez, No. 10-2674, 2011 WL 2670089, at *8 (D. Kan. July 7, 2011) (holding counsel was not ineffective in failing to hire an interpreter with the same dialect as defendant where defendant did not claim "that he expressed to counsel or to any of the interpreters that he had difficulty understanding or communicating with them or that he specifically misunderstood any material issue"). Also, on this second claim, Le has failed to show how the alleged language barrier prejudiced him at trial.