What is the current state of the law on the interpretation of translation at a criminal trial?

[A] defendant in a criminal proceeding is denied due process when ... the accuracy and scope of a translation at a hearing or trial is subject to grave doubt. (United States v. Cirrincione, supra, 780 F.2d at p. 634.) [T]he only cure for the unfortunate situation would have been another interpreter, one who would translate truly, competently, and effectively, each question and answer with due regard for his or her oath to do so. (People v. Starling, supra, 315 N.E.2d at p. 168.) But the court allowed the interpreter to continue translating.

Interpreting should be a tool to achieve justice. Here it was an obstacle.

I would reverse and remand for a new trial.