Blindly Serving:  The Tricky Question of Choosing Blind Jurors

    In Tennessee v. Lane, the Supreme Court unequivocally held "that states have a duty under Title II of the ADA to ensure that individuals with disabilities have access to the courts." The ADA requires that a court make all reasonable accommodations to ensure that any juror with a disability is able to serve on a jury. Since the Sixth Amendment provides for a jury of a person's peers, the inclusion of everyone with the capability to understand and judge evidence must be facilitated by all reasonable means.

  

  Still, there is a natural trepidation on the part of lawyers to have a jury member who can't view the evidence in the same ways. With blind jurors, they cannot view nervousness in the defendant, mannerisms from the witness, or facial expressions from the attorney themselves. At first blush, it would be easy to discount a blind juror on account of these concerns. But research and advocacy has determined that blind jurors may be more beneficial jury members.

   "Excluding blind individuals deprives both the defendant and the members of the jury of unique perspectives and life experiences that enhance deliberations and ensure a just verdict is reached." When it comes to the introduction of visual evidence, any attorney would immediately worry about it not having the effect wanted when having a blind juror. But, this would be short-sighted (pun unintended): almost every piece of evidence is introduced through a testifying witness. In a recent case, a blind juror served on a panel for an assault case. While unable to view two photographs depicting the gruesome injuries, the juror listened to descriptions of medical treatment and was provided with medical records, allowing a just conclusion.

    

    A court is required to use reasonable means to ensure a blind juror is able to thrive in a court environment and look at evidence objectively. One such option is to use a trained reader or describer who functions like an interpreter. A trained reader is treated as  "neutral figures and the court 'assume[s] that the jury can be trusted to follow...instructions' regarding the expected participation of such individuals." Even beyond jury service, Justice Richard Bernstein of the Michigan Supreme Court uses a professional reader for all arguments and decisions. 

    Further, what a blind person lacks in visual terms, they can make up for with other cues. Without visual stimuli, they are more able to focus on verbal testimony including stutters, swallowing, voice quavering, or inaudibility. The subtle differences of tone could very easily not perk an abled persons attention, but a blind juror would use it as another piece of evidence to file away.