This research is also extremely important for people who speak English as a second language in the justice system. Although the U.S. has no official language (e.g., the English Unity Act has been repeatedly proposed for nearly 20 years, but never enacted), the system is undoubtedly English dominated (Bermann, 2006). If people do not speak English at all, they have a constitutional right to an interpreter or translator in a language which they speak (U.S. v. Mayans, 1994; U.S. ex Rel. v. NY, 1970). However, people are not guaranteed a right to interpretation or translation into their primary language, just a language which they speak (Martins v. State, 2001). Therefore, if a defendant speaks English, even if it is poor, they will likely not be given any services depending on the jurisdiction (Shepard, 2007). Moreover, Courts and legal actors, including attorneys representing these populations, have little guidance in determining proficiency. In fact, it might come down to a defendant saying they speak a language initially and then being unable to backtrack even when they do not understand legal proceedings in the language (Martins v. State, 2001).