By Jojo Kofman
BURLINGTON, VT – The topic of Nepalese translations dominated pre-trial courtroom discussion last week in Chittenden County Superior Court, Vermont, in the case against Aita Gurung, who allegedly killed his wife with a meat cleaver in Burlington in 2017.
Gurung’s case was dismissed in 2019 by Chittenden County State Attorney Sarah George because “the state’s own expert had determined Gurung to be insane at the time of the killing,” according to news reports.
But Vermont Attorney General TJ Donovan refiled the murder charge two months later over George’s objections.
George opposed the decision and instead emphasized mentally ill people who pose public safety risks should remain in custody long-term in the Mental Health Department instead of being incarcerated.
In preparation for Gurung’s upcoming trial in October, both counsel discussed various pending motions during the pre-trial hearing.
Deputy Public Defender William David Kidney argued that to fulfill Gurung’s due process rights, vital documents involved in the upcoming trial need to be translated into Nepali.
Gurung speaks Nepali and was assisted by an interpreter throughout the entirety of the hearing.
Judge John L. Pacht stated his on-the-record concern about the burden caused by interpreting lengthy case documents. He then asked PD Kidney if it was necessary to translate the jury instructions into Nepali for Gurung.
PD Kidney responded, “Despite the burden it creates, jury instructions are a critical document which shows how a jury reaches its verdict…”
Judge Pacht stated, “My goal in this trial is to proceed as efficiently as possible given the issues with the interpreters and length.”
Stating her position, Deputy District Attorney Rosemary M. Kennedy said, “The state can’t dispute that on the face these are vital documents…it’s important that Gurung understands the criteria by which his conduct is being judged.”
However, DDA Kennedy emphasized the court’s lack of knowledge in knowing the accessibility and availability of Nepali interpreters. While admitting the importance that some documents are translated, she argued, “The state’s position is that most of the documents aren’t vital documents.”
She continued to emphasize the cost, time, and logistics required to translate all the court documents into Nepali, stating, “To require the state to translate every substantive motion…the benefit is unclear…”
Judge Pacht ultimately moved on from the topic, in acknowledgement of the arguments from both sides. 
