Too Much Work: The Continuing Discrimination of Disabled Jurors

       According to the office of the Texas Governor, "A court may choose to disqualify a person with a visual or hearing impairment from jury service if the judge finds that the individual's disability makes him or her unqualified to serve as a juror in a particular case." 

    In a Maryland Court of Appeals case, Trotman v. State, "if a trial court reasons that a prospective juror who has a vision impairment, or is blind, 'disqualified simply because a few documents and a few photographs [are to be] presented, it would, in effect be concluding that there were almost no cases on which [jurors with vision impairment] or jurors [who are blind] could sit."

    In conjunction with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the support of the courts, one would think that the preclusion of blind or impaired jurors would simply not be an issue any longer. Yet, with the increase of visual aids and presentations in even the smallest of cases, these jurors are increasingly being excluded from participating in jury service. With only a 20% rate of the population even showing up for jury service, the arbitrary exclusion of an entire swath of persons is akin to choosy beggars.

    The arguments against including blind or impaired jurors present obvious challenges in their preclusion as members of the jury. These include:

• Not being able to view and assess the credibility of a witness.
• Not being able to appreciate the layout of scene/incident.
• Does not have the personal experience to apply certain standards (driving a car, operating machines).
• Unable to appreciate photo/video evidence.
• Unable to read documents, view physical evidence/sketches/graphs/charts.
• Must depend on other jurors during deliberations.

    While on the surface, these seem to be common sense limitations for this specific sect of the population, there are many accommodations  (even positives) that can be utilized to lessen their effects on jury service. The Braille Monitor provided a point-by-point refutation of these issues in an amicus brief filed in April 2021 for Winn-Dixie Stores v. Gil.

• Being unable to see prevents "inaccurate and unfair conclusions from the dress and deportment of a defendant or his associates."
• "Living without sight may sharpen their listening skills and produce a more nuanced sense of hearing."
• Tech programs that use vocalization to describe photos and videos
• In any case that involves video or photographic evidence, a witness must testify to the contents of the video, providing ample recognition of the purpose and effect of an exhibit.
• The use of professional readers and describers can supplement understanding.
• A newly retired blind judge has utilized this process to great effect.

    In conclusion, while there may be extra steps needed in order to include a blind juror in your own pool, the importance of adhering to the ADA and allowing all jurors the opportunity to serve is the right decision when picking a jury.