State v. Mendoza, 181 Ariz. 472, 891 P.2d 939, 942 (Ariz.Ct.App.1995) (“[I]t is presumed that court interpreters will correctly carry out their duties and that oaths will be properly administered.”); Thomason v. Territory, 4 N.M. 154, 13 P. 223, 228 (1887) (“Acting under oath and the order of the court, the presumption should be in favor of proper action by [an interpreter], rather than against it.... If this officer of the court did or said anything prejudicial, that is a fact for the defendant to show....”). Furthermore, a limited number of federal courts have likewise recognized that, “upon a collateral attack, an ... interpreter is cloaked with the presumption of regularity, which ‘allows a court to assume that an official 475 U.S. 643, 650, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Chem. Found., Inc., 272 U.S.
holding that where the issue is one of arbitrability the federal presumption in favor of arbitration shifts to favor a court determination recognizing a strong presumption favoring arbitrability holding an entire arbitration clause is void and arbitration cannot be compelled where contract contained unconscionable clause and has a nonseverability clause recognizing a presumption of arbitrability when a contract contains an arbitration clause recognizing presumption