Challenging the Bias Against Jurors with Disabilities

Just a few weeks ago, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that it was not improper for a blind man to be seated on a jury. The jury in question convicted a defendant of assault and battery; the defendant appealed his conviction, alleging that he was not given a fair trial since the blind juror could not see photos of the victim’s injuries that had been admitted into evidence. During voir dire, the judge questioned the juror about whether his blindness might prevent him from serving on the jury and determined that, since the juror himself stated he was able to serve and that reasonable accommodations could be made for his disability, the juror should be seated.

More than 60 million Americans have a disability that is covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, which means that many millions of people who are covered by the Act will at some point in their lives have contact with the juror system. While many potential jurors will excuse themselves from service, there are many like the juror in the Massachusetts case who are willing to serve. As a result, courts must make reasonable accommodations, as the Massachusetts court did, to allow a disabled juror to serve. But what happens when the obstacles to service don’t come from within the courtroom, but instead from negative misconceptions outside of it?

It’s important for courts to send the message that jurors with disabilities are welcome to serve by not allowing their outright dismissal on that basis alone and by making accommodations like sign language interpreters widely available. But the challenge to the blind juror’s service in the Massachusetts case came from the defendant’s ingrained misconception that a blind juror couldn’t possibly understand the facts of the case to the extent that the non-blind jurors could. It’s clear that the courts alone sending a message is not enough. How can we reach a wider audience?

Many Americans shape their understanding about the justice system through portrayals of the system in the media. Shows like Law & Order and Dateline have no doubt played a significant role in the average American’s perception of the efficacy of the jury and the jurors that sit on it. Recently, the explosion in popularity of the true crime genre has exposed even more people to the workings of the justice system. Recent studies have shown how crime dramas and other television shows have shaped Americans' perceptions about things like whether the crime rate is increasing and who is more likely to be the victim or the perpetrator of a crime. Often, the perceptions drawn from these depictions are incorrect, and there is a growing movement calling for more accuracy in how popular media depicts both the crime rate and the racial makeup of crime victims and perpetrators. So what if we had a similar call to action for the portrayal of jurors with disabilities?

Today, there is a unique opportunity for the media to not only portray juries as diverse racially and socioeconomically, but also in terms of their disabilities. Portraying jurors with disabilities in popular media can potentially go a long way in helping a wider audience understand how these jurors are more than able to fulfill their civic duty with accommodations that, in today's technological society, are easier than ever to obtain.