presented in languages other than English. The need for an interpreter was discussed with Si’s attorney. Si’s testimony was marked by imperfect English. It is a “fruitless and frustrating exercise for the appellate court to have to infer language difficulty from every faltering, repetitious bit of testimony in the record.” United States v. Carrion, 488 F.2d 12, 15 (1st Cir.1973). The determination whether a party needs an interpreter “is likely to hinge upon various factors, including the complexity of the issues and testimony presented during trial and the language ability of the defendant’s counsel.” Id. at 14. This determination is one that should be made on the record by the district court whenever the court is put on notice that there is a potential language difficulty. Id. at 15 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Osuna, 189 F.3d 1289, 1292
holding section 768201 is exception to general rule that appellate courts uphold  the trial court even if it failed to make findings on the record whenever it would be reasonable to assume that the court actually made such findings holding that notice to counsel may be waived holding that whenever put on notice that there may be some significant language difficulty the court should make such a determination of need for an interpreter holding that courts may decline to make a constitutional determination at the first stage of the qualified immunity inquiry where that determination would be based on an interpretation of uncertain state law holding that jeopardy did not attach when the judge dismissed indictment because case was not put to fact finder and court did not make determination of guilt