An Act to renumber 807.14; to renumber and amend 967.09; to create 807.14 (2), 885.37 (6), 885.38 (9) and 967.09 (2) of the statutes; Relating to: the use of artificial intelligence or other machine assisted translation in court proceedings and of telephone or live audiovisual interpretation in criminal trials. (FE)
SB295 would expand the use of technology in Wisconsin court interpretation and translation services. The bill authorizes courts to allow artificial intelligence or other machine-assisted translation, either instead of or alongside a human interpreter, in civil proceedings, municipal court or agency matters, administrative contested cases, and criminal proceedings. It also expressly permits the use of AI or other machine-assisted translation in criminal proceedings, which would include proceedings beyond the existing interpreter rules.
The bill also changes the rules for remote interpretation in criminal trials. Under current law, interpreters may appear by telephone or live audiovisual means in criminal proceedings other than trial on request of a party. SB295 would extend that option to criminal trials as well, allowing interpreters to participate remotely during trial proceedings. In effect, the bill broadens both the tools available for language access and the settings in which remote interpretation may be used.
SB295 would amend and create provisions in chapters 807, 885, and 967 of the Wisconsin statutes to authorize machine-assisted translation and remote interpretation in a wider range of proceedings. It would not eliminate interpreters, but would give courts discretion to use AI or other machine-assisted translation in lieu of or in addition to interpreters, and it would remove waiver requirements that currently apply in some municipal and court settings. The bill would also expand remote interpreter participation to criminal trials, affecting criminal defendants, witnesses, courts, municipal courts, agencies, and language-access providers.
The available record shows little direct debate or recorded voting activity, so there is no strong documented split in the materials provided. The bill’s framing suggests a generally practical, modernization-oriented approach focused on expanding access and flexibility in court interpretation. However, because it involves AI in legal proceedings and remote interpretation in criminal trials, it likely raises cautionary concerns about accuracy, fairness, and reliability even though those concerns are not reflected in the provided transcripts or votes.
The main potential point of contention is whether artificial intelligence or machine-assisted translation is sufficiently accurate and reliable to be used in place of, or alongside, human interpreters in court proceedings. Opponents or skeptics would likely focus on due process, confidentiality, and the risk of mistranslation in criminal matters, especially at trial. Another likely issue is the expansion of telephone or live audiovisual interpretation into criminal trials, which may prompt concerns about a defendant’s rights, the quality of communication, and the ability of courts to assess testimony effectively. Supporters would likely emphasize access, efficiency, and the practical need to address interpreter shortages.