interpreter who translated the trial proceedings for Michel’s benefit failed to communicate to Smith that Michel had voiced an intent to exercise his Fifth Amendment right to testify. Michel would have the court believe that he was linguistically incapable of conveying his intent directly to Smith. A number of state courts have recognized that “[t]here is a rebuttable presumption that an interpreter in the course of performing his official duty has acted regularly.” State v. Casipe, 5 Haw.App. 210, 686 P.2d 28, 33 (Haw.Ct.App.1984); see also, e.g., Shaha v. State, 44 Kan.App.2d 334, 236 P.3d 560, 565 (Kan.Ct. App.2010) (“Absent some contrary showing, courts presume that an interpreter exercising his or her official duties has acted properly. , 14-15, 47 S.Ct. 1, 71 L.Ed. 131 (1926) (<HOLDING>); Nibagwire v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 153, 156 (4th
holding that a state official can be held individually hable under  1983 for acts taken within the scope of his or her official duties holding that where a public official takes discretionary action that the official knows will directly benefit a financial interest that the official has concealed in violation of a state criminal law that official has deprived the public of his honest services under  1346 holding that private party can assert official immunity if it contracted with a public official to perform governmental duties recognizing a presumption of regularity that undergirds the official acts of public officers causing courts to presume that they have properly discharged their official duties holding that presumption of regularity is afforded to clerks of court performing their official duties