An Act to amend 807.14 and 967.09 of the statutes; Relating to: interpreter action by telephone or live audiovisual means in civil or criminal proceedings.
AB148 would expand when courts may allow interpreters to participate remotely by telephone or live audiovisual means in Wisconsin civil and criminal cases. Under current law, remote interpretation is allowed in proceedings other than trials; this bill removes that trial exclusion, so a court could permit an interpreter to appear remotely in any civil or criminal proceeding, including trials, if requested by a party.
The bill amends two statutes: s. 807.14, governing interpreters in civil proceedings, and s. 967.09, governing interpreters in criminal proceedings. The practical effect would be to give courts broader discretion to use remote interpretation technology across the full range of proceedings, potentially affecting litigants, defendants, witnesses, interpreters, and court administration. It does not mandate remote interpretation, but authorizes it where the court permits it.
AB148 would change Wisconsin law by removing statutory language that limits remote interpreter participation to non-trial proceedings. If enacted, courts could authorize interpreters to serve by telephone or live audiovisual means even during trials in both civil and criminal cases, expanding the existing authority in ss. 807.14 and 967.09. The bill would likely affect courtroom procedure, access to interpreters, scheduling, and the use of remote technology in the judicial system, while leaving judicial discretion intact.
The available record shows no committee transcript, recorded votes, or other discussion indicating strong public debate or amendments. Based on the bill text alone, the proposal appears procedural and administrative rather than ideological, aimed at increasing flexibility in court operations. However, the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, indicating it did not advance to enactment despite being introduced with a broad bipartisan-looking list of cosponsors.
No specific points of contention are documented in the available materials. The main policy question implied by the bill is whether remote interpretation should be allowed during trials, where concerns could include accuracy, due process, witness credibility, and the ability of interpreters to effectively communicate in a live courtroom setting. Supporters would likely emphasize access, efficiency, and availability of interpreters, while opponents might worry about trial fairness or the adequacy of remote interpretation in high-stakes proceedings.