Sightings from the Blogosphere

• Pages: 19-20
• Date: 01 April 2025
• Published date: 01 April 2025
• Subject Matter: Civil Law

Is Google Translate

Inadmissible Hearsay?

An Irish district court ruled evidence obtained against a

criminal defendant through the use of Google Translate is

hearsay. Analyzing whether U.S. courts would reach the

same conclusion, EvidenceProf Blog’s Colin Miller reviews

Federal Rule of Evidence 801, which def‌ines hearsay as an

out-of-court statement oered to prove the truth of the

matter asserted. How are human translators treated under

the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause? The major-

ity of circuits subscribe to the “language conduit” theory, which attributes statements

by the translator to the declarant. How are machine-generated statements treated? Most

analysts believe testimony about a machine assertion is not hearsay because humans

create machines and are the true declarants of any machine statements. Opponents be-

lieve the hearsay rule and Confrontation Clause should be expanded to include machines

because human declarants are merely parroting machines’ conveyances. Miller ultimately

concludes that Google Translate translations likely would not be considered hearsay

under current U.S. law. However, all is not lost for criminal defendants, who could argue

it was not reasonable for an ocer to rely on Google Translate if there were sources for

more reliable translations. “In other words, even if a Google Translate translation isn’t

hearsay, a defendant can still claim that it is insuciently reliable to be admissible.”

© Getty Image s

Be Wary of Trash-Talking Clients

Why can a client pub licly discuss why they f‌ired a law-

yer, but a lawyer may not do the sa me? Brian Faughnan

of Faughnan on Ethic s cautions lawye rs to consider Mo del

Rule of Profession al Conduct 1.9, which ge nerally prohib its

revealing informati on relating to repres entation. Faugh nan be-

lieves a lawyer who pub licly announc ed his f‌iring of Met a as a cli-

ent violated Rule 1 .9 unless he received client pe rmission to speak

publicly beca use “a lawyer’s reasons for discontin uing a client repre -

sentation is infor mation related to the representation” a nd is therefore

conf‌idential. On the other hand, when cryptocurrency company Coinbase

publicly anno unced it would f‌ire any law f‌irms that hired a ny Biden admin -

istration lawyers , no conf‌identiality rules were i mplicated. Why ? According

to Faughnan, “[C]l ients have always had the ri ght to use whatever criteria th ey

want in deciding w ho to engage as thei r paid lawyers and, thus, they als o have the

absolute right to go ou t in front of the biggest microphon e they want and say exact-

ly what those criteria w ill be.” Just bec ause clients rarely do this publ icly doesn’t m ean

they cannot. L awyers, however, should n ot follow suit to speak o ut against thei r current

or former clien ts.

SPRING 20 25 • VOL. 50 NO. 3

19 | ABA LITIGATION SECTIO N

POSTED& NOTED

SIGHTINGS FROM TH E BLOGOSPHERE

Published in Litigation News Volu me 50, Number 3, Sprin g 2025. © 2025 by t he American Bar A ssociation. Re produced with per mission. All righ ts reserved. Thi s information or an y portion there of may not be copied or

disseminated in an y form or by any means or s tored in an electro nic database or re trieval system wi thout the express w ritten consen t of the American B ar Associatio n.