Interpreters for the deaf, like interpreters in any language, are licensed and sworn officers of the court.
:dubious: And a blind person wouldn’t be subject to the exact same risks of bias from their “interpreter”?
Yes he would. Just like any other person at the hands of any court official. That’s why language interpreters are interpreters, not “interpreters.”
I just came in to comment on testimony of the deaf.
As to jury duty, for them or for the blind, I remain moot.
I see several good reasons mentioned in this thread why a blind person might be removed during (non) voir dire, but I disagree with the assertion that a blind person would necessarily be disadvantaged by not seeing a witness’s gestures and facial expressions. I think this would be more than compensated for by most blind person’s abilities to discern subtle cues from voice manner alone – including credibility of testimony.
Perhaps mbrach could help to confirm or refute my assertion.
As others have pointed out, there are blind judges. I have been in front of one several times (incredibly smart guy). Judges also have to evaluate evidence and witness credibility during bench trials and other proceedings. If being blind is not considered an impediment to their doing so, I don’t know how you could justify the claim that it would prevent a juror from doing so.
No, and no.
The juror could also be biased. As could the judge. And the court-appointed experts. Or the parties’ own witnesses. Or an interpreter for a witness who doesn’t speak English. Court interpreters take an oath that they will accurately and impartially translate what occurs. We pretty much just assume they do.
In Illinois, a few years back, I was called to jury duty. I recall that the jury pool was asked to indicate whether they were hard of hearing or sight-impaired beyond correction. I don’t remember what happened to the few who raised their hands, other than they were queried further about their impairment.
So a blind suspect should have an all-blind jury?
Would that be a double-blind case? 
It seems pretty clear to me that blind or deaf people can serve on juries, as long as reasonable accommodation can be found for them. Like, you know, an interpreter. If such accommodation cannot be found due to the particular facts of the case or limitations of the court, then the juror would be dismissed.
As a note, finding interpreters is a routine feature of the court system, since many times people who are involved–as witnesses, victims, defendants, and so on–can’t communicate via spoken English. If a court can’t accommodate a deaf juror, then they can’t accommodate a deaf witness, or defendant, or victim, which would be a massive failure of justice.
So the ability to accommodate disabled jurors exists.
Ouch. It’s the firing squad for you, sir! :mad:
In a double-blind firing squad, are both the target and the firing squad members blind-folded?
I have served on juries twice. In these particular cases, I can’t think of any reason an intelligent blind person COULDN’T have made a good juror.
I suppose I could imagine scenarios in which a blind person might not make a good juror, but I’d trust the defense attorney and/or prosecutor to bring up any potential problems during voir dire and remove that person if there were any valid reasons to do so.
I had a etail with a blind person as a potential juror. He was bind as the result of a gunshot wound to the head. He was angry and “difficult,” perhaps due to the brain injury. The parties and the judge all agreed to excuse him, but more because of his other issues than because he was blind. When the judge told him, he made a big scene, claiming he had a right to serve despite being blind.
In Texas, a potential juror who is blind isn’t necessarily disqualified from service, but the judge in a given case is allowed to decide that the juror shouldn’t sit on that one in particular, presumably because it involves a lot of visual evidence. Same goes for deaf individuals. I’ve never actually had the issue come up, but we do ask it in voir dire.
Are you talking about the movie runaway jury?
I think it is: Runaway Jury (2003) - IMDb. I liked the book a lot; the movie, less so.
Likewise in Ohio. When I was a prosecutor I never had a blind (or deaf) person in any jury pool, but would have been very hesitant to permit one to sit on a jury. As noted above, assessing a witness’s demeanor and reviewing exhibits is a very important part of a juror’s work. An interpreter will inevitably inject his or her own views in assisting the blind or deaf person; that juror would perceive the case only through the lens of the interpreter’s feedback. Hard to say, but I would probably use a peremptory challenge to dismiss such a juror, if I couldn’t persuade the judge or magistrate to do so for cause.
Originally, the vast majority of states required that jurors be in the possession of their “natural faculties.”
This was generally read to exclude physical limitations such as blindness.
In the last thirty or forty years, however, that view has eroded. California amended their procedure code in 1977 to permit blind jurors. Other states have followed suit at various times; I’m not really interested in creating a fifty-state summary table, but as a somewhat general rule, I’d say that blind jurors are not per se excludable from the venire, although a specific set of facts in a specific case might give one party enough reason to challenge for cause.
Much easier to pick a state and research it specifically.
I have not read the case law on this, but this is Ohio;
2313.17 Causes for challenge of persons called as jurors.
(A) Any person called as a juror for the trial of any cause shall be examined under oath or upon affirmation as to the person’s qualifications. A person is qualified to serve as a juror if the person is eighteen years of age or older, is a resident of the county, and is an elector or would be an elector if the person were registered to vote, regardless of whether the person actually is registered to vote.
(B) The following are good causes for challenge to any person called as a juror:
(1) That the person has been convicted of a crime that by law renders the person disqualified to serve on a jury;
(2) That the person has an interest in the cause;
(3) That the person has an action pending between the person and either party;
(4) That the person formerly was a juror in the same cause;
(5) That the person is the employer, the employee, or the spouse, parent, son, or daughter of the employer or employee, counselor, agent, steward, or attorney of either party;
(6) That the person is subpoenaed in good faith as a witness in the cause;
(7) That the person is akin by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth degree to either party or to the attorney of either party;
(8) That the person or the person’s spouse, parent, son, or daughter is a party to another action then pending in any court in which an attorney in the cause then on trial is an attorney, either for or against any such party to another such action;
(9) That the person discloses by the person’s answers that the person cannot be a fair and impartial juror or will not follow the law as given to the person by the court.
(C) Each challenge listed in division (B) of this section shall be considered as a principal challenge, and its validity tried by the court.
(D) In addition to the causes listed in division (B) of this section, any petit juror may be challenged on suspicion of prejudice against or partiality for either party, or for want of a competent knowledge of the English language, or other cause that may render the juror at the time an unsuitable juror. The validity of the challenge shall be determined by the court and be sustained if the court has any doubt as to the juror’s being entirely unbiased.
Cite as R.C. § 2313.17
If we see D, a challenge can be made that a blind person is UNsuitable, as of course, they can not SEE evidence, SEE the demeanor of a witness when testifying as EH pointed out. How can they Judge the credibility of witness without watching them, by ear alone??
Any demonstrations put on in person to present evidence (reenactments) can not be seen.
You can get anything you want at Alice’s Restaurant [sub]'cept Alice[/sub]
Last time I was called to jury duty, the letter they sent explained how people were chosen. It’s property tax rolls, driver’s and auto licenses, and voter registration. So unless you walk, live under a rock and don’t vote you’re stuck. (Yes, I know people rent and don’t vote and use public transportation. It’s a joke.)