Questions of Rights Raised in Deaf Man’s Murder Case : Courts: Three sign-language interpreters are working as hearing focuses on whether what defendant told police was properly translated.

The deaf murder suspect watched intently as a sign-language interpreter translated the questioning of a witness in a pretrial hearing at Van Nuys Superior Court Friday.

At one point, the defendant stopped the interpreter--and the court proceedings--and turned to another interpreter to his left. The second interpreter, who is also deaf, explained in simplified sign language what the first interpreter had just said.

Satisfied, the defendant nodded, and the proceedings resumed.

Meanwhile, several members of the audience were engaged in lively conversation. But the judge did not have to reprimand them for disrupting the goings-on because they, too, were speaking in the silent language of sign.

This is the setting for a typical murder case that is atypical in that most of the key players are deaf, including the defendant and the victim, and many of them are not proficient in standard American Sign Language. Even the judge hearing the case is hearing-impaired, although he has no trouble speaking.

Because of the lack of ASL proficiency on the part of the defendant and some of the witnesses, a deaf interpreter who can translate in simplified terms is needed. A third interpreter is also involved because the formal ASL interpreters need frequent relief from the strain. Each works about 30 minutes before being relieved.

The trial’s aim is to determine whether Val Lamar Smith, 23, of South-Central Los Angeles, murdered James E. Powell Jr., 27, of Long Beach, who was also deaf, on Jan. 10, 1992, in Van Nuys.

According to police, Smith and two deaf friends went to a Van Nuys apartment building to visit a friend when they encountered Powell, who was staying with a friend of his, Yvonne Lane, who is also deaf. Police said an argument in sign language ensued among the men, allegedly over rival gang affiliations, and Smith drew a gun and shot Powell, killing him. Smith was arrested and held without bail.

One of the other men, Howard Love, 27, pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter in exchange for a three-year prison term and a promise to testify against Smith, part of a bargain with prosecutors.

Lane is also expected to testify in sign language that she saw Smith shoot Powell.

In addition to his requiring a third interpreter, Smith’s lack of proficiency in formal American Sign Language has raised questions as to whether Smith was denied his Miranda rights to remain silent or have an attorney present when questioned by police.

Friday’s daylong hearing focused on whether what Smith said to the officers was properly translated by a private sign-language interpreter hired by police.

When asked by police whether he wished to give up his right to remain silent, the interpreter translated Smith’s response as saying he did not want to talk and “I prefer to go to court, and I want a lawyer.”

Taking that to mean that Smith wanted a lawyer only in court and not during the interrogation, police proceeded to question him. Deputy Dist. Atty. Shellie Samuels refused to say whether Smith confessed during that questioning, saying only that Smith made statements that she would like to present in court.

Defense attorney Tony Bryan argued that Smith’s statement should not be admitted into evidence, contending that Smith did not waive his right to remain silent and that police ignored his request for an attorney to be present.

Samuels argued that Smith created the ambiguity by not clearly saying what he meant. She said that the fact that police videotaped the interrogation proved that no misconduct was intended.

Judge Michael J. Farrell, who has less than 50% hearing capacity in both ears in the conversational range as a result of damage he suffered in an Army tank, said reaching a decision was difficult.

“So many things can be ambiguous, so much so in sign language,” he said. “But I would still find that he did not waive his rights and he wanted a lawyer then.”

However, Farrell made a ruling tentatively allowing Smith’s statement to be used because he found that the interrogating officer was honestly confused by what Smith had said.

“Suppression (of evidence) is to punish police who may have forced a confession,” Farrell said, adding that he did not believe that was the case in this incident. “The police did everything to make it fair.”

Farrell said he will give defense attorney Bryan one more opportunity Monday morning to change his opinion. Opening statements to the jury are scheduled for Monday afternoon.