Deaf juror should have been excluded in drowning trial, Ohio Supreme Court rules

Miss-Delectable

Miss-Delectable

New Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
17,158
Reaction score
7
Ohio.com - Deaf juror should have been excluded in drowning trial, Ohio Supreme Court rules

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled today that a judge should have excused a deaf juror in a murder case involving a Fairlawn man.

The court's decision means a new trial will be held for Scott Speer, who was accused of murdering his friend, James Barnett of Barberton.

Barnett, 39, drowned in Lake Erie after falling off —or, as prosecutors alleged, being pushed from — a boat into choppy nighttime waters near Port Clinton.

Speer, who was on the boat, was convicted in October 2007 of aggravated vehicular homicide and involuntary manslaughter related to the 2002 drowning death of Barnett. He was sentenced to four years in prison.

A jury acquitted Speer, 44, of aggravated murder and murder.

Speer appealed his conviction and sentence.

The 6th District Court of Appeals concluded he didn't receive a fair trial because a hearing-impaired woman was on the jury and she couldn't fully comprehend the vocal nuances in Speer's 911 call, a key piece of evidence in the case.

Prosecutors appealed that decision to the Ohio Supreme Court. Speer was released on bond following the decision.

Justice Terrence O'Donnell, writing for the 5-2 court majority, found that the female juror's hearing impairment ''directly affected her ability to perceive and evaluate that evidence because she only read the colloquy [of the 911 call] from a real-time transcription.''
 
If I read that report right, the court did not provide an interpreter for the deaf juror.
 
I think they did. I believe the woman may have had Cart and they probably felt she couldn't hear the emotional part to the 911 call. I think they are discriminating deaf this way by thinking she can't distingish the emotional part of the 911 call.

There are deaf people who can tell the emotions from people by their choice of wording and how they respond. Like on Instant messaging and such. They don't need to hear the pitches the caller sounded like.
 
Last edited:
Lighthouse77 said:
I think they did. I believe the woman may have had a Cart and they probably felt she couldn't hear the emotional part to the 911 call. I think they are discriminating the deaf this way by thinking she can't distingish the emotional part of the 911 call.

There are deaf people who can tell the emotions from people by their choice of wording and how they respond. Like on Instant messaging and such. They don't need to hear the pitches the caller sounded like.
Click to expand...

I am assuming the other 11 jurors based their opinion on the context of the call rather than the nuances in speech?

hmmmmmm :hmm:
 
I think if a person used to be an EMT, or military, or police, it is even harder to tell. For both hearing and deaf people. Because some people are trained not to get emotional.
 
Maybe all hearing jurors should be excluded when a deaf person is on the trial, just because the hearing people don't get the nuances of ASL.
 
Buffalo said:
Maybe all hearing jurors should be excluded when a deaf person is on the trial, just because the hearing people don't get the nuances of ASL.
Click to expand...

:gpost::gpost:...Wow....that's an option I haven't thought about....
 
Buffalo said:
Maybe all hearing jurors should be excluded when a deaf person is on the trial, just because the hearing people don't get the nuances of ASL.
Click to expand...

Well, now, that just might be a minefield to traverse! :lol:
 
Back
Top