The same way they do in everyday life. As a matter of law, I agree that this is a potential ground on which to challenge for cause. However, I can’t imagine that any blind person would have more trouble assessing the sincerity and veracity of a witness than a sighted person.
A blind person will not see a witness fidget, or pull at his collar, or shift uncomfortably in his chair, or not make eye contact, or sweat profusely. I have seen witnesses do all of those things, and at least some of them, I’m sure, were lying.
I found this annotation online, Criminal rule 24;
I use this a lot EH.
http://www.opd.ohio.gov/RC_Casebook/jury_matters.htm
Challenges for cause
State v. Speer, 180 Ohio App. 3d 230, 2008-Ohio-6947 – Trial court abused its discretion in refusing to excuse a hearing impaired juror for cause. Juror could read lips, but did not know sign language. Peremptories were exhausted and the juror was seated. Defendant was convicted of aggravated vehicular homicide and involuntary manslaughter. The defendant‘s speech patterns, inflection, pauses and other audio clues during a 911 call were critical to the jury‘s assessment. Juror was “otherwise unsuitable” for service pursuant to Crim. R. 24(c)(14) and R.C. 2945.25(O). Affirmed: State v. Speer, 124 Ohio St. 3d 564, 2010-Ohio-649 – The defendant’s right to a fair trial outweighs the public’s interest in accommodating a juror with a disability to serve on a jury. Also see State v. Speer, 190 Ohio App. 389, 2010-Ohio-5648 – Double jeopardy bars reinstatement of related aggravated murder and murder counts on which the jury found the defendant not guilty.