The quality of translation in the trial of a Hmong man accused of raping a Hmong woman is discussed, & reasons given by the defendant's lawyer for filing an appeal to the conviction & the court's reasoning for rejecting the appeal are analyzed. Translators in the Minnesota county where the trial took place were chosen on the basis of interviews conducted by individuals who did not speak the target language. Interpreters were given a rule book on proper interpreting procedures. The appeal was based on inadequate translation, which is said to have prevented proper cross-examination & to have presented incorrect testimony. Translators were judged to be unqualified by the defense. Cultural stereotypes were also cited as sources of jury prejudice. Analysis revealed that these claims were well-founded; in addition, the court was found to be at fault for placing responsibility on the defendant to monitor the quality of translation during the trial & to prove bad interpretation. The interpreter's rule book was shown to be faulty, as it placed an emphasis on word-by-word rather than content-based translation. Legal professionals in the trial were not believed to have adequate experience or training in working with court translators. It is recommended that interpreters be trained to cope with linguistic & cultural differences, lawyers be educated on working with translators, the process for selecting & training interpreters be improved, guidelines for interpreters be revised, & the courts work with schools on the development of interpreter training programs. 18 References. J. Woods