Via Deliberations Anne Reed, who should have blogged this story rather than twitted it, an Ohio homicide conviction is reversed because the jury included a hearing impaired person. From the Beacon Journal :
An appeals court this week overturned the homicide conviction of the man accused of killing Barnett. Barnett drowned in Lake Erie after falling off — or being pushed from — a powerboat into choppy nighttime waters near Port Clinton.
The court concluded that boat owner Scott Speer of Fairlawn 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.
The line of discrimination is often fuzzy and confusing on its own, and was made far fuzzier when a bunch of judges got it into their head that reverse Batson, being on a jury is not merely a duty, but a right, was a fine idea. It’s absurd, and the family of the victim learned this upon hearing the decision.
What bone in their head compelled a judge to allow a hearing-disabled person to sit on a jury? Actually, I know the answer. It’s the same bone that allows blind people, non-English speaking, non-fluent-English speaking, incontinent, people with attention deficit with or without hyperactivity, and a variety of others to sit on a jury. It’s the bone that makes them believe that pigs may indeed be capable of flight and people should not be defined by their challenges in every situation.
I abhor discrimination against people who are disabled. But I similarly recognize that there is a reason why they are called disabilities. There are some things that they cannot do well. It’s not their fault, and they should not suffer for being disabled. But they similarly should not be placed in situations where their disabilities preclude their ability to perform a function adequately. I believe that sight and hearing and the ability to understand the words spoken and the ability to sit and pay attention do not belong on a jury.
But in our zeal to empower, we have failed to recognize reality. We want to live in a fantasy world where all people are equal, rather than created equal. All people are not, and some unfortunately lack the facility to serve as a juror.
This is discrimination, of course. But it is necessary discrimination. The right to a jury is a right given in the Constitution to a defendant, a detail ignored by the reverse Batson crowd. The right to a jury is a protection from the power of the state. This right is not a political football, to be subject to the silly, transitory whims of those who are deeply concerned about discrimination but reject the idea that there are some things that disabled people just cannot do adequately for the purpose of serving as a juror.
In the Southern District of New York, we had a judge by the name of Richard Conway Casey. Judge Casey, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1997, was blind. He walked to the bench with the help of his dog. His mind was sharp, as was his tongue when someone stepped on one of his jokes. He was a humorous judge, and made it clear that he would be the only one allowed to say anything funny in his courtroom. Did I mention he was blind?
Put aside the issues of Judge Casey’s reading papers and consider only evidentiary hearings before him, such as suppression hearings. Part of the determination of whether a witness is telling the truth comes from observation of a witness’ demeanor. We know this because judges so instruct juries, which makes it true. A blind person cannot observe demeanor.
Lawyers debated the propriety of Casey’s appointment at the time, as did the Senate. Who would stand up and speak the obvious?
“But Senator, the man can’t see. Isn’t the ability to see a necessary component of being a judge?”
Apparently not, the Senate decided. So in a courtroom, the blind can see and the deaf can hear, at least sufficiently to pretend that these things that had otherwise been held dear are now subject to pretending otherwise.
It’s unlikely that many people would go to hear symphonies played by the tone deaf, or ballets danced by the uncoordinated. We prefer NFL quarterbacks to be able to pass the ball and Major League Baseball sluggers to have the capacity to hit a ball thrown at great velocity.
The ability to serve on a jury is not an affront to the rights of the citizens to serve, but a debt owed by society to a defendant. The ability to determine the credibility of a witness requires the use of three out of five senses minimum, as well as the absence of numerous other deficits. This may be politically incorrect, but it beats living in a fantasyland.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ha ha, well said. It’s pretty funny, except for the fact that, of course, of course, it’s also pretty serious.
Nice post, thanks.
The ample, the deaf, the nasty: more exotic jurors.
Incontinent jurors are different than you and I, Ernestine. Lots weird jury lore out there this week. The facts range from socially uncomfortable to spectacularly unsavory. Where will it end? First, Milwaukee’s Anne Reed wrote about jurors who are Powerless…
Exotic jurors: the ample, the deaf, the nasty.
Incontinent jurors are different than you and me, Ernestine. Lots weird jury lore out there this week. The facts range from socially uncomfortable to spectacularly unsavory. Where will it end? First, Milwaukee’s Anne Reed wrote about jurors who are Powerless…
Exotic jurors: the ample, the deaf, the nasty.
Incontinent jurors are different than you and me, Ernestine. Lots of weird jury lore out there this week. The facts range from socially uncomfortable to spectacularly unsavory. Where will it end? First, Milwaukee’s Anne Reed wrote about jurors who are…
Exotic jurors: the ample, the deaf, the nasty.
Incontinent jurors are different than you and me, Ernestine. Lots of weird jury lore out there this week. The facts range from socially uncomfortable to spectacularly unsavory. Where will it end? First, Milwaukee’s Anne Reed wrote about jurors who are…
I don’t have a problem with a Judge being blind. His job isn’t to judge the defendant; it’s to referee between opposing consul and make sure the rule of law is followed. I do agree that blind, deaf, and many other disabled people not be allowed to server on a jury. We, by our very nature, communicate a lot by the sound of our voice and the movement of our bodies than we ever can convey with words alone. Not getting that entire communication is a great disservice to the defendant and disabled people should not allow themselves to be seated on a jury if they are called.
Judges have other functions besides refereeing trials. They conduct evidentiary hearings, where they are required to assess the credibility of witnesses and to rule based upon documentary evidence, including photographs for example. I realize that non-lawyers are largely unaware of this part of the function, but judges are the fact-finders at these hearings, and evidentiary hearings occur far more often than trials, making them a far larger part of the judge’s function than conducting a trial.
Interesting about Casy. A relative of mine, an artist, was involved in a copyright case over the rights to an illustrated work of art and accompanying storyline he had created. Imagine his surprise when Casey walked into the courtroom with his guide dog…he called me that night, in shock, and said “The judge is blind! It’s an artwork case, and the judge
is f—- blind!”
I say thank goodness for blind justices, for without that, we might not have Alice’s Restaurant:
We walked in, sat down, Obie came in with the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, sat down. Man came in said, “All rise.” We all stood up, and Obie stood up with the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures, and the judge walked in sat down with a seeing eye dog, and he sat down, we sat down. Obie looked at the seeing eye dog, and then at the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, and looked at the seeing eye dog. And then at twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and began to cry, ’cause Obie came to the realization that it was a typical case of American blind justice, and there wasn’t nothing he could do about it, and the judge wasn’t going to look at the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us. And we was fined $50 and had to pick up the garbage in the snow
Yeah, lack of sight could present a problem when dealing with illustrated works. The whole “justice is blind” thing is meant to be a little more figurative.
Save that comment for next Thanksgiving, when we’ll have a dinner that can’t be beat.
Fat Ones, Thin Ones, Ones Who Smell Really Bad
So enamored we’ve become of the “scientific” approach to jury selection that we are shocked and appalled by the dirty little secret that most lawyers in the trenches base their decisions on venal stereotypes.
Exotic jurors: the ample, the deaf, the nasty.
Incontinent jurors are different than you and me, Ernestine. Lots of weird jury lore out there this week. The facts range from socially uncomfortable to spectacularly unsavory. Where will it end? First, Milwaukee’s Anne Reed wrote about jurors who are…