Jury Duty?

kokonut said:
I tried. Twice was called. I requested that they provide real time captioning (CART) from a person who is certified for court reporting. They excused me. WTF?
Click to expand...
At least you tried.
 
DeafLissa90 said:
Over here in England deaf people arent allowed to go on jury duty. I dont know if it is an actual law but my mum told me i would never been able to
Click to expand...

I thought that too as my parents told me so but I got a summons in the post which was a total surprise (a good few years ago). At the time I did not want to do it so I went to my local council and asked for jury exemptions summons form. Which they send to the courts. I was then exempted from it.

However, from speaking to a friend in the police that there's no law exempting deaf people from being called up for jury duty as they've had a jury of deaf peers in a case that involved a deaf person - am not aware of this case but it has happened in the past.

But I do now that the president of the BDA won a case against the court back in the early/mid 90's. As he was summoned and he took his interpreter along and the court threw the case out cos the number of jurors was exceeded and sought to exclude his interpreter from the courts. He won on the grounds of disability discrimination against the courts on the basis of equal access to communication, he's served twice so far that I can remember. He said the second time was much easier.
 
I think deaf people are capable of seriving on the jury with the right accodomations. I really dont like the idea of people using their deafness as a reason to excuse themselves from it. It gives out a bad image that deaf people are not as intelligent. Sure, I would hope not to serve on it for the same reasons Lucia posted but if I get called, I would hope my deafness wont become an issue and I will make sure of that. If I am going to get excused, I would rather it because of my views.
 
shel90 said:
I think deaf people are capable of seriving on the jury with the right accodomations. I really dont like the idea of people using their deafness as a reason to excuse themselves from it. It gives out a bad image that deaf people are not as intelligent. Sure, I would hope not to serve on it for the same reasons Lucia posted but if I get called, I would hope my deafness wont become an issue and I will make sure of that. If I am going to get excused, I would rather it because of my views.
Click to expand...

I wasn't using it an excuse but quoted it cos I couldn't do it at the time. Since then I've had a summons and was not selected. I believe in justice if it's done correctly and not abused unlike some of the cases I've read and leninent judges. I believe the judges would've liked to have imposed a stiffer sentence but could not do so by the current overcrowding situations in prisons or is restricted by the criteria of certain laws that dictates what length of imprisonment to certain crimes. Overcrowding doesn't help matters and neither does some of the laws that exist, some of them are downright barmy!
 
JClarke said:
Page not found?
Click to expand...


Yahoo BuzzFacebookDiggDEL.ICIO.USNewsvineReddit
ajc.com > Metro > North Fulton/Forsyth

Hearing no problem for deaf juror


'I should be able to be on a jury like everyone else,' he says



By DREW JUBERA


The Atlanta Journal-Constitution


Published on: 03/15/08

It looked like your basic drug-related murder.

One guy showed up at a corner at Atlantic Station last March allegedly looking to sell a kilo of cocaine. Another guy showed up allegedly looking to buy it. The guy who was supposed to have the drugs didn't have them. An argument ensued. One guy then shot and killed the other guy.

Renee' Hannans Henry/AJC(ENLARGE)
Keith Davis often treats his dogs Nani, a poodle, and Spike, a mixed breed, popcorn. Davis served on the jury of a murder trial for four days last week in Fulton County court. Two interpreters translated for him. 'I feel I'm an American citizen, and I should be able to be on a jury like everyone else,' Davis said.

Renee' Hannans Henry/AJC(ENLARGE)
The four-day murder trial last week in Fulton County court was the first time he'd ever been chosen as a juror and a rarity in any court. The lawyers said they liked his answers and a big part of that was his care for his dogs. They said it showed he is a caring person.

• Get AJC breaking news on your mobile device.
• More North Fulton news



Last week, in Fulton County Superior Court, a jury convicted Marland Moore, 30, of the murder of Rodney Cunningham, 28. Moore was sentenced to life in prison.

What stood out for many about the trial was one of the jurors. He was deaf. Though a deaf juror is not unprecedented, it is rare, according to jury experts and advocates for the hearing impaired, and it was a first for the veteran judge, the attorneys and the other jurors. Two interpreters translated the proceedings into sign language.

"I thought it was a special thing for the judicial system and for the community," said Senior Judge Stephanie Manis, who has served on the Superior Court bench since 1995.

It was particularly special for Keith Davis, 46, who had been summoned for jury duty twice before but never selected. While the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination in the courtroom against people with hearing loss, Davis believed his deafness contributed to his not being chosen as a juror in the past, including once in Minnesota.

"I feel I'm an American citizen and I should be able to be on a jury like everyone else," said Davis, who lives in Alpharetta and works two jobs, as a mail clerk and package handler. "I think fair is fair."


'I wanted to participate'

While serving justice, the four-day trial also served to erase what many inside the courtroom worried, at least privately, what the limits might be for someone with a disability like deafness. His involvement became one more step, Davis said, in dismantling faulty preconceptions.

"Before the end of the first day, everyone forgot he was deaf," said Toria Tolley, the jury forewoman and a former CNN anchor who is now a communications coach in Alpharetta. "You don't realize what a great communicator a deaf person can be. For a deaf person, he was one of the best talkers."

Davis was born in Massachusetts, the only one in his family of five kids who couldn't hear. He attended a school for the deaf that at the time did not teach sign language, but instead taught its students to lip read and use their voices. Davis didn't learn sign language until he was 19.

"He's probably more comfortable talking than signing," said longtime friend Michael Whaley. "And he talks a lot."

When Davis received his most recent jury summons, he notified the court in advance that he was deaf so that an interpreter would be present during the lawyers' questioning.

Seated among the other prospective jurors, Davis was stunned by the excuses people came up with to be dismissed.

"I wanted to participate," he said. "I wanted to see what it was really like. To see a real trial, not just watch one on TV."

Senior assistant district attorney Eleanor Ross said she and her co-counsel were impressed by Davis' warmth — he talked about his dogs and how he took them to the park —and his thoughtfulness.

"He made me think he would stop and think about what was being discussed instead of just going along with everybody else," Ross said. "The case was complicated. There were some issues."

The few adjustments made for the trial included moving some equipment so sightlines for Davis and the interpreters wouldn't be blocked. The interpreters were sworn in as officers of the court and alternated signing about every 20 minutes. They also looked over exhibits and witness lists before they were presented.

Tolley said the interpreters, rather than being a distraction, became a kind of enhancement for the other jurors.

"I found myself looking over at his interpreters," she said. "They kind of clarified things for us as well."

"I remember at first looking over at [Davis], thinking, 'Is he getting all this?' " Tolley added. "But not only was he getting all the verbal, he was obviously getting a lot from the witnesses that wasn't verbal. People that have full hearing, we sometimes rely on our ears when we need to rely on our sight. If the volume were turned down, what would you notice? He took in a lot."

Just how much Davis took in became clear during the jury's two-hour deliberations. Tolley said Davis asked more questions than any other juror. He made sure every aspect of the trial was thoroughly discussed before a verdict was reached.

"We knew when we left [the jury room] that our verdict was above and beyond any doubt whatsoever, and a lot of it had to do with Keith's questions," Tolley said.


Matter of ignorance

That observation comes as no surprise to people in the deaf community, but getting on a jury can still be difficult, especially in smaller, rural jurisdictions, advocates for the hearing impaired say.

A 2007 survey of 1,400 state courts by the Center for Jury Studies found 38 percent had sign language interpreters available and 31 percent were outfitted with assisted listening devices. In areas with more than half a million people, like Fulton County, the number that provided interpreters jumped to 88 percent.

But Thomas Galey, executive director of the Georgia Council for the Hearing Impaired, said ignorance of what deaf people can do — anything except hear — continues to hinder them being chosen for juries.

Davis said whatever ignorance people in the courtroom might have had before the trial was gone by the time it ended.

"People didn't treat me any differently. They didn't feel sorry for me or have sympathy for me," he said. "For many of them, I was the first deaf person they may have come in contact with. When everybody left, we felt like family.

"I'm glad I did it," Davis added. "I'm proud."
 
LuciaDisturbed said:
Fuck jury duty.

I don't care for court and I don't want to end up in a situation where the trial goes on and on and on and on like the OJ Simpson trial, fuck that. I have a life to live. Jury Duty wastes my time.
Click to expand...

Fuck that? Don't care about this? Waste your time?


Okay, understand that part.

Suppose a cop caught you and think you did murdered somebody and you have no clue to whats going on. Police thinks you did because one of his friend told him you did, and you ended up in court room. The judge said, "Well, no one is willing to do jury duty, and they all think it is waste of their time. So, in order to save their time and make this quick. I take this police word and you are guilty as charged, here is 50 years sentence without possiblity of parole ." BANG!

Police quickly took you to jail for next 50 years.

Is that what you really want to happen?


OR would you rather have 12 jurors present and listen to the case of yours and the chances are that one of these jurors would vote NOT guilty and rest assure, I would be one of them! I do not believe that police should take their friends witness as 100% evidence, I have doubt in witness testimony.

Jurors or no Jurors, its up to you to decide.
 
I find it incredibly hypocritical when Deaf say they want to be treated equally, want every opportunity availlable to the hearing, then rely on their deafness as an excuse to escape a responsibility. Serving on a jury is an privilege, a part of living in a country with a judicial system which, though not perfect, attempts to do the right thing. I agree with Reba, thank goodness for people who believe in the system and do their civic duty.
 
Heh, funny ass post. People need to lighten up.

Personally, I feel that the criminal justice system is so skewed at this point, that anyone who feels, as I do, that they cannot support it, should be excused from serving. I refuse to be a part of a system that is corrupt, sentences people to death, imprisons a disproportionate number of minorities, punishes marijuana use while alcohol and tobacco kills far more people, allows the wealthy and well-connected to obtain easy sentencing, etc. etc... the list goes on forever. Not to mention this is the same system that has violated my own civil rights on several occasions (and I'm not even a criminal!). So yes, I say "fuck jury duty" as well.

The county DA where I lived back in CA was notorious for prosecuting minor drug cases (like, a college kid with a joint) to the fullest extent of the law, yet he himself was involved in an affair with his daughter's 18 year old friend.

Give me a break. I refuse to support or serve a crooked system.


LuciaDisturbed said:
Fuck jury duty. The idea of sitting all day just to hear your name be called to determine whether you are a good candidate for Jury Duty is not pleasant and I refuse to do that. I've been excused from Jury Duty the last time I was summoned. :gives: I don't care for court and I don't want to end up in a situation where the trial goes on and on and on and on like the OJ Simpson trial, fuck that. I have a life to live. Jury Duty wastes my time.

Just tell your friend to get a doctor to write a letter saying that jury duty wouldn't be good for your friend's anxiety and that it could cause panic attacks. That could get her off of Jury Duty. :D
Click to expand...
 
TheWriteAlex said:
Heh, funny ass post. People need to lighten up.

Personally, I feel that the criminal justice system is so skewed at this point, that anyone who feels, as I do, that they cannot support it, should be excused from serving. I refuse to be a part of a system that is corrupt, sentences people to death, imprisons a disproportionate number of minorities, punishes marijuana use while alcohol and tobacco kills far more people, allows the wealthy and well-connected to obtain easy sentencing, etc. etc... the list goes on forever. Not to mention this is the same system that has violated my own civil rights on several occasions (and I'm not even a criminal!). So yes, I say "fuck jury duty" as well.

The county DA where I lived back in CA was notorious for prosecuting minor drug cases (like, a college kid with a joint) to the fullest extent of the law, yet he himself was involved in an affair with his daughter's 18 year old friend.

Give me a break. I refuse to support or serve a crooked system.
Click to expand...

:gpost::gpost: I couldn't agree more! The idea that our justice system is in anyway just is total bull. :roll:
 
DeafDoc1 said:
I find it incredibly hypocritical when Deaf say they want to be treated equally, want every opportunity availlable to the hearing, then rely on their deafness as an excuse to escape a responsibility. Serving on a jury is an privilege, a part of living in a country with a judicial system which, though not perfect, attempts to do the right thing. I agree with Reba, thank goodness for people who believe in the system and do their civic duty.
Click to expand...

Someone give this lady a beer.

She got it.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
Heh, funny ass post. People need to lighten up.

Personally, I feel that the criminal justice system is so skewed at this point, that anyone who feels, as I do, that they cannot support it, should be excused from serving. I refuse to be a part of a system that is corrupt, sentences people to death, imprisons a disproportionate number of minorities, punishes marijuana use while alcohol and tobacco kills far more people, allows the wealthy and well-connected to obtain easy sentencing, etc. etc... the list goes on forever. Not to mention this is the same system that has violated my own civil rights on several occasions (and I'm not even a criminal!). So yes, I say "fuck jury duty" as well.

The county DA where I lived back in CA was notorious for prosecuting minor drug cases (like, a college kid with a joint) to the fullest extent of the law, yet he himself was involved in an affair with his daughter's 18 year old friend.

Give me a break. I refuse to support or serve a crooked system.
Click to expand...
So what is the alternative? Don't prosecute criminals? No trials?
 
I do not believe Judical system is corrupted or skewed. It is the laws that is made by congress is so skewed and is the root cause of the problem.

The purpose of having Juror is to separate perspective from those law enforcement agencies, and the judges as well. Without Juror, These law enforcement can easily abuse, and so is Judges would abuse the system. So, because of having Juror, this prevents abuses from happening.

Of course the judical system is not 100% perfect, but I believe far better than any other countries judical system. There are countries out there that have the worst judical system.
 
someone once posted that he think only "professionals" should be doing jury duty... kinda like UK? and gave us a little history how the U.S. juror abuse the system. Ha, I told him back in the old days, women, minors, people of different race was probably selected out of jury duty. That only the "intelligent, white" men were selected... now that minors are allow to be selected, I think jury duty have gotten better instead of relying on certain class of people.

Fact are giving to these people. I truly think if the system can not communicate with people from different culture and communication, there will be a riot. I mean if a deaf man was put in jail, and no one knows why he was put in jail because they rely on "professionals" on jury duty and a bunch of jardon (sp?) to make decisions based on facts. I think people will get upset and think they have something against the deaf person without really knowing the real story.
 
That courthouse can be in trouble for not doing ADA. So leaving Deaf defedent knowing nothing is purely violating the law of the United States. The court is responsible for providing a suitable Interpreters. This includes Deaf Jurors as well.

There is NO excuse for Judge failing provide an Interpreter! This also applies to all foreign language translators as well.

Lighthouse77 said:
someone once posted that he think only "professionals" should be doing jury duty... kinda like UK? and gave us a little history how the U.S. juror abuse the system. Ha, I told him back in the old days, women, minors, people of different race was probably selected out of jury duty. That only the "intelligent, white" men were selected... now that minors are allow to be selected, I think jury duty have gotten better instead of relying on certain class of people.

Fact are giving to these people. I truly think if the system can not communicate with people from different culture and communication, there will be a riot. I mean if a deaf man was put in jail, and no one knows why he was put in jail because they rely on "professionals" on jury duty and a bunch of jardon (sp?) to make decisions based on facts. I think people will get upset and think they have something against the deaf person without really knowing the real story.
Click to expand...
 
Of course not. That's a silly rhetorical device you're using. I'm not offering an alternative, because there is none other than to fix the entire system, and that will never happen. I'm also not saying that I won't obey the system, because if I am ever arrested for something, god forbid, I will follow the rules accordingly.

All I am saying is that I will not support it in it's current state. There are enough people out there who do support it that finding jurors for trial will never be a problem. However, if we did get to the point where courthouses could not field a jury because everyone refused to support the system, then I imagine the system would have to start making some changes.


Reba said:
So what is the alternative? Don't prosecute criminals? No trials?
Click to expand...
 
Refusing Juror service = jail time.

Refuse to report to Juror summon = Jail time

Do you think everybody is gonna to ignore the juror duty?
 
Back
Top