In Correa v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 444, the court decided two officers could testify at the defendant's preliminary hearing regarding extrajudical statements made by the victim and a witness through two interpreters. Applying the language-conduit test, the court determined "the evidence amply supports the conclusion that the translations were sufficiently unbiased and accurate to permit the statements fairly to be attributed to the declarants." (Correa, surpa, 27 Cal4th at p. 466.) It reasoned, "the translators were not 'supplied' by the police, but (apparently being unknown both to the declarants and the police officers, as well as to the defendant) just happened to be on the scene. Their neutrality is evident from the record, and there is no contrary suggestion of a motive to mislead or distort. The investigating officers observed the process of translation and did not report any apparent hesitation or difficulty in communicating, or any bias. In addition, evidence produced during the investigation tended to corroborate the substance of the translated statements. Moreover, the translators appeared and testified at the preliminary hearing with respect to the course of the translations, their neutrality, and their language skills, and ample evidence supports the conclusion that they were skilled in English and Spanish and were capable of providing accurate translations." (Ibid.) In Correa, the court reasoned, "A generally unbiased and adequately skilled translator simply serves as a 'language conduit,' so that the translated statement is considered to be the statement of the original declarant, and not that of the translator." (Correa, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 448.)