Notice: Proposed Rule of Judicial Administration Notice: Proposed Rule of Judicial Administration August 1, 2002 Notices The Florida Rules of Judicial Administration Committee proposes an amendment to the Rules to add a rule governing the appointment of interpreters in certain cases. After reviewing the comments received in response to this publication, the Committee may submit its proposal to the Florida Supreme Court. Please send all comments to the Honorable Peter D. Webster, Chair, First District Court of Appeal, 301 S. Martin Luther King., Jr. Blvd., Tallahassee, FL 32399-1850. You may fax your comments to Judge Webster at (850) 488-7989. Your comments must be received by August 15, 2002, to ensure that they are considered by the Committee. Rule 2.073. APPOINTMENT OF INTERPRETERS FOR NON-ENGLISH-SPEAKING PERSONS (a) Criminal or Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings. In any criminal or juvenile delinquency proceeding in which a non-English-speaking person is the accused, an interpreter for the non-English-speaking person shall be appointed. In any criminal or juvenile delinquency proceeding in which a non-English-speaking person is a victim, an interpreter shall be appointed unless the court finds that the victim does not require the services of a court-appointed interpreter. (b) Other Proceedings. In all other proceedings in which a non-English-speaking person is a litigant, an interpreter for the non-English-speaking litigant shall be appointed if the court determines that the litigant’s inability to comprehend English deprives the litigant of an understanding of the court proceedings, that a fundamental interest is at stake (such as in a civil commitment, termination of parental rights, paternity, or dependency proceeding), and that no alternative to the appointment of an interpreter exists. (c) Witnesses. In any proceeding in which a non-English-speaking person is a witness, the appointment of an interpreter shall be governed by the applicable provisions of the Florida Evidence Code. (d) Compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In making determinations regarding the appointment of an interpreter, the court should ensure compliance with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (e) Qualifications of Interpreter. (1) Appointment of Interpreters when Certified or Duly Qualified Interpreters Are Available. Whenever possible, a certified or duly qualified interpreter, as defined in the Rules for Certification and Regulation of Court Interpreters, shall be appointed. (2) Appointment of Interpreters when Certified or Duly Qualified Interpreters Are Unavailable. If, after diligent search, a certified or duly qualified interpreter is not available, an interpreter who is neither certified nor duly qualified may be appointed if the judge or hearing officer presiding over the proceeding finds that: (A) good cause exists for the appointment of an interpreter who is neither certified nor duly qualified, such as the prevention of burdensome delay, the request or consent of the non-English-speaking person, or other unusual circumstance; and (B) the proposed interpreter is competent to interpret in the proceedings. (3) On the Record Objections or Waivers in Criminal and Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings. In any criminal or juvenile delinquency proceeding in which the interpreter is neither certified nor duly qualified, the court shall advise the accused, on the record, that the proposed interpreter is not certified or duly qualified pursuant to the Rules for Certification and Regulation of Court Interpreters. The accused’s objection to the appointment of a proposed interpreter, or the accused’s waiver of the appointment of a certified or duly qualified interpreter, shall also be on the record. (4) Additional on the Record Findings, Objections, and Waivers Required at Subsequent Proceedings. The appointment of an interpreter who is neither certified nor duly qualified shall be limited to a specific proceeding and shall not be extended to subsequent proceedings in a case without additional findings of good cause and qualification as required by subdivision (e)(2) of this rule, and additional compliance with the procedures for on the record objections or waivers provided for in subdivision (e)(3) of this rule. (f) Privileged Communications. Whenever a person communicates through an interpreter to any person under circumstances that would render the communication privileged and such person could not be compelled to testify as to the communication, the privilege shall also apply to the interpreter.
The Food and Drug Administration over the weekend gave emergency approval to a new approach to COVID-19 testing that combines test samples in batches rather than running them one by one, thereby speeding up the process.The FDA announced on Saturday that it had reissued an emergency use authorization to Quest Diagnostics to use its coronavirus test with pooled samples.It is the first test to be authorized for use in that way.With pooling, labs would combine parts of samples from several people and test them together.A negative result would clear everyone in the batch.On the other hand, a positive result would require each sample to be individually retested.Pooling works best with lab-run tests, which take hours, not the quicker individual tests that are used in clinics or doctor’s offices.Today, the FDA issued the first Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for sample pooling in a #COVID19 diagnostic test. https://t.co/YtHeydxH1N pic.twitter.com/WF7Im9dIXP— U.S. FDA (@US_FDA) July 18, 2020 The potential benefits of sample pooling include stretching lab supplies further, as well as reducing costs and expanding testing to millions more Americans who may unknowingly be spreading the virus.Health officials continue to say they believe that infected, asymptomatic people are largely responsible for the rising number of cases throughout the country.“It’s a really good tool. It can be used in any of a number of circumstances, including at the community level or even in schools,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, said last month at a Senate hearing.Pooling does not save time or resources when used in a COVID-19 hot spot, such as a nursing home. That is because the logistical and financial benefits of pooling only show when a small number of pools test positive.Experts recommend the technique be used when fewer than 10 percent of people are expected to test positive for the virus.