Zepeda-Armenta

MEMORANDUM **

As the facts are known to the parties, we do not recite them here except as necessary to explain our decision.

Zepeda-Armenta argues that the district court improperly curtailed his cross-examination of Agent Zenteno, who served primarily as a translator during Agent Sullivan’s interrogation of Zepeda-Armenta. Zepeda-Armenta argues that because Zen-teno spoke to him directly in his native language, Zenteno, rather than Sullivan, was in the best position to show that Zepe-da-Armenta’s Miranda waiver was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary. We reject Zepeda-Armenta’s argument that a translator is a more rehable witness than the speaker who speaks through the translator. Cf. United States v. Nazemian, 948 F.2d 522, 528 (9th Cir.1991) (agent’s testimony as to defendant’s statements, which agent heard only through a translator and not from defendant directly, did not violate confrontation clause because translator was a “mere language conduit”).

Zepeda-Armenta complains that he was prejudiced because he was unable to pursue his cross-examination of Zenteno to develop his theory that Zepeda-Armenta was under the influence of heroin when he waived his Miranda rights.…