Deaf Juror?

A convicted killer's convictions were overturned because of a deaf juror. According to the Akron Beacon Journal, a deaf juror was honest during the jury picking process, about her hearing loss. The defense asked that she be dismissed; the judge disagreed, and let her stay on the jury.
She did not use an interpreter (either sign language or oral) during the trial. All she did was read lips, and sat next to a court reporter who transcribed the audio of a 911 call. The jury convicted the defendant who received time in prison.

Then, a District Court of Appeals overturned the verdict simply based on the fact the juror had had a hearing loss. The appeals' court reasoning was that the deaf juror could not fully understand the 911 call because she could not hear the defendant's speech patterns on the 911 call.

Now the case is in the hands of the Ohio Supreme Court.

Click to expand...

Ohio.com - Ohio Supreme Court to hear deaf juror case

Why did judge dismiss deaf juror? Unfair!

They should be prepared with certified Sign Language interpreters ready to be called into court and put to work in a court proceeding.

If there was an UNFAIR advantage in this Ohio case, it clearly belonged to the defense lawyers who used it to their own benefit to get their client off the hook in the appeals court. Just about any lawyer knows the basics of the ADA law. If the judge and the prosecutor don't know the ADA laws? Then they shouldn't be in the state of Ohio court anymore!

1) You assumed that she was DENIED the right to have an interpreter. Who says that she knew sign?
2) Honestly, I think it's BS, because aren't court proceedings transcribed? She could just read the transcript.
3) The judge did not dismiss the juror. In fact, the judge let her stay on the jury. The defense is asking for the juror to be dismissed because she "didn't get all the information." so the court of appeals overturned the verdict.

The defense was just trying to find ANY way overturn the case.

Judge is wrong. They can anywhere who deaf jurors yes. You need talk to ADA Lawyer.

US Supreme Court permit to use deaf juror and use interpreter allow.

People are not entitled to be jurors. It is often just the discretion of the judge to dismiss a person from jury duty. Some courts summarily dismiss potential deaf jurors when the person notifies the clerk of court that he or she is deaf.

If the court accepts a deaf juror, and that person normally uses a sign language interpreter for communication access, then the court should provide a terp.

If the deaf juror normally uses CART or something similar, then that's what the court should provide. A regular court transcript is not adequate. The juror needs to see the words at the time they are spoken so he can observe the appearance and behavior of the person giving testimony at the same time. That way, the juror can evaluate the credibility of the person testifying. Reading the transcript later is a no-no for juries.

Because certified legal terps are hard to come by and expensive, courts usually prefer to dismiss deaf people as potential jurors.

Read again ........

Reason this is overturned is

that the deaf juror could not fully understand the 911 call because she could not hear the defendant's speech patterns on the 911 call.


Perhaps the defense lawyer felt if she were able to hear the voice pattern or maybe heard what his emotional state sounded like during the 911 call then she would have a different thought about convicting the defendant.

It wasn't her about being deaf .. it was about lawyers felt that one evdience require hearing to hear the sound of emotion that defendent that could had a different outcome from the jury decision

If 911 calls was only made by other people and not by the defendent then I am sure the conviction would had stand and not overturned even if all 12 jury were deaf


.

TechBill said:

Read again ........

Reason this is overturned is

that the deaf juror could not fully understand the 911 call because she could not hear the defendant's speech patterns on the 911 call.


Perhaps the defense lawyer felt if she were able to hear the voice pattern or maybe heard what his emotional state sounded like during the 911 call then she would have a different thought about convicting the defendant.

It wasn't her about being deaf .. it was about lawyers felt that one evdience require hearing to hear the sound of emotion that defendent that could had a different outcome from the jury decision

If 911 calls was only made by other people and not by the defendent then I am sure the conviction would had stand and not overturned even if all 12 jury were deaf .

Click to expand...

That's why a court transcript alone is not adequate for conveying the testimony.

Over here people get chosen to do jury duty and they have no choice, they HAVE to by law to do it. My mum told me that deaf people over here are NOT allowed to do it for some reason. I assume it's for confidentality because if you get an interpreter then they will have to be careful that the interpreter does not breach confidentality about the court cases etc.

DeafLissa90 said:

Over here people get chosen to do jury duty and they have no choice, they HAVE to by law to do it. My mum told me that deaf people over here are NOT allowed to do it for some reason. I assume it's for confidentality because if you get an interpreter then they will have to be careful that the interpreter does not breach confidentality about the court cases etc.

Click to expand...

The problem with breaching confidentality about a court case is that it undermines our trust in the jury. I do not think that "they" (such an abstract entiity ... I assume you mean the judge) refuse to hire a deaf juror just because of confidentality. I think it is because "they" do not completely understand that equality is important to society. Understanding is half the battle. Taking action is the other half of the battle. We are afraid to take action because we don't understand. So the apple pie has been eaten by the dog.