North Carolina-Deaf jurors debated

[ccharles000]

A bill that would have provided a procedure for judges to deal with deaf jurors led to a debate in the House over whether those who cannot hear should sit on a jury.

The bill would gurantee an interpreter for hearing-impaired jurors.

But some House members questioned whether a such a juror could properly appreciate the nuance of testimony.

"This is one example of taking political correctness too far," said Rep. Ronnie Sutton, a Pembroke Democrat. "We can't have quadriplegics running track, nor do we need to have deaf persons serving on juries."

Rep. Rick Glazier, a Fayetteville Democrat, said hearing impaired jurors have already served in North Carolina trials. Several states have similar laws providing for interpreters in those cases, he said. The bill still allows lawyers or judges to reject a hearing impaired juror.

"A hearing impaired juror who has the capacity to particiapte fairly and impartially ought to be allowed," Glazier said.

Reps. Ruth Samuelson, a Charlotte Republican and Deborah Ross, a Raleigh Democrat, pointed out that deaf people may pick up on subtleties that others miss because they are using different senses. And Ross, said, just because a person can hear doesn't mean would they would be a good juror.

"There may be plenty of people who can hear but don't listen," Ross said.

Opponents to the bill sought to send it to its death in a committee. Glazier successfully avoided that by having the bill delayed until next week.

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/deaf_jurors_debated#comment

[alphafemale]

1. I can see both sides on this.

The signing interrupter would need to be in the Jury Room too. It is essentially the same as having a foreign language speaking member of the jury. How could you tell if the interrupter is unbiased? He or she would be a 13th member of the jury. That is really a sticky wicket.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

3. sticky wicket, indeed

i teach in a corporate setting quite a lot. from time to time there are deaf individuals in my classes and for a full 8 hour day we need two interpreters per participant...in one class we needed three.

I would think, though, that the technology exists so that the court reporters input into the transcript could be included like a closed caption for the jury...but even with that, deaf participants (to my understanding) would need more breaks for their eyes to rest...I was told the breaks I was required to give were not so much for the signers as it was for the eyes of the deaf person...

just my two cents.

sP

[alphafemale]

4. Yes. I think the problem would be not so much from the courtroom as to the jury room.

Anybody that has ever been in a jury room can understand how impeded the process would be if every word spoken had to be translated. And again you are talking about essentially a 13th or 14th jury member who needs to be trusted to interrupt exactly what was said when none of the members of the jury can be absolutely sure they are doing that.

[noamnety]

6. Qualified translators are professionals

I find the question somewhat offensive, though I realize it isn't intended to be so, and it probably comes from a lack of involvement in the Deaf community. Translators are certified professionals with a code of ethics - you may as well argue that court reporters shouldn't be there because they can't be trusted. Or that deaf people should never go on trial, because their interpreters might alter their testimony.

Deaf people have security clearances - and when they go through their background checks DSS allows the interpreters to be in the room during the interview if needed. They are trusted to relay questions and answers that the US government depends on for deciding whether to grant deaf employees access even to black programs.

[alphafemale]

7. Even court reporters aren't allowed in the jury room.

Would a translator willing to be sequestered if the jury were so ordered? If so do they get paid time and half for 24 hours a day that goes over 40 hrs a week? I see it as no different if the potential juror spoke only Mandarin. Every single word that was spoken would need to be filtered through one person. It would be a difficult thing to overcome.

That said, however, a Deaf or hearing impaired person who can communicate without an interrupter should not be excused from the obligations of jury duty.

[noamnety]

8. Under the ADA the court has to make accommodations.

Point taken about the court reporters, however, as I said, interpreters are trusted professionals, and having them in the room does not violate privacy of the jury room.

"If you need to go to court, you must call the court and ask for an interpreter who is certified. The cost of the interpreter cannot be added to any court costs. Family members and friends should not act as interpreter for you. They will not be paid by the court. You should also ask for a certified interpreter to work with you and your lawyer.

A deaf person should not be excused from jury duty just because they are deaf. The court will provide an interpreter or assistive listening device at no cost."

http://www.zak.co.il/d/deaf-info/old/ada_rights

personally I think you'd be far better off as a Deaf person with an interpreter than a HOH person who doesn't use an interpreter (like someone who became hearing impaired late in life), but "manages to communicate." In the first instance, all the information is available to you, in the second you'd be dropping/mishearing words, no? (Unless a hearing aid fixes it to the point where you fully hear and comprehend all speech, in which case it would be a nonissue.)

----------

side note: browsing a deaf forum on jury duty issues, I came across this:

a person posted reasons for exemptions from jury duty:

you have been convicted of a felony during the past seven years OR you are a defendant in a felony case now.
You are in jail or prison.
You are a State Senator or Representative and the legislature is in session.
You are a judge of the Superior Court, Appellate Court or Supreme Court, you are a judge of probate or you are a federal court judge.

and they added the comment Is it me or is it the sign of the times that all the above seem to be synonymous?

:rofl:

[alphafemale]

10. So would the interrupter be sequestered if the jury was?

I'm just curious as to how that would work. I have a friend who works as an interrupter as an advocate for the Migrant worker community but she doesn't have any jury room access so far as I know. But then in this part of the country, nearly all citizens would be able to speak English. Around larger population centers that might not necessarily be the case.

[noamnety]

11. When the juror needs their services, they need to be there.

"In the case of a deaf juror, the interpreter shall be available throughout the actual trial and may accompany and communicate with such juror throughout any period during which the jury is sequestered or engaged in its deliberations."

http://www.19thcircuitcourt.state.il.us/crtadmin/court_interpreters.htm

They don't themselves need to be sequestered because they have no influence on the outcome of the trial - that's why they aren't questioned like jurors and excluded if they've seen tv coverage of the case.

I'm not one to correct spelling normally (hardly ever), but gosh, the concept of the courts hiring an "interrupter" is just so funny. ;)

[alphafemale]

12. lol, I didn't even see that because my spellcheck didn't.

I was thinking of sequestering more in the case of highly inflammatory or public trials where the jury might be sequestered for privacy reasons or even their own protection. An interpreter would have knowledge of what was going on inside a jury room and could be seen as fair game by the media or organized crime. (As if there's a distinction between those two anymore.)

[ccharles000]

2. kick

[LLStarks]

5. Deafness does not imply muteness! Don't assume that always go together!

[aikoaiko]

9. Providing translators seems reasonable accomodation for something as important as jury service.

:shrug:

It may be imperfect, but then again justice system is imperfect in numerous ways.