National Association of the Deaf

On March 3, 2010, much to the disappointment and dismay of the NAD, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld a ruling by an Ohio Court of Appeals that overturned the conviction of a criminal defendant solely based on the fact that one juror was hard of hearing.  Despite an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief filed by the NAD and other advocacy organizations, the Ohio Supreme Court decided that a hard of hearing juror was not able to analyze an audio tape of a 911 call made by the defendant by reading a transcript of the recording.

The ruling serves as an alarming blow to decades of work done by advocates to eliminate the practice of discriminating against jurors solely because they are deaf or hard of hearing.  Courts have long recognized that preventing people from serving on juries because they are deaf or hard of hearing was based on unmet assumptions and had no root in reality.  See People v. Guzman, 478 N.Y.S.2d 455 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1984); see also United States v. Dempsey, 830 F.2d 1084 (C.A. 10, 1987). 

The main point of the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision was that the defendant’s right to a fair trial was denied because there was a juror who could not hear the audio tape. The NAD disagrees. Permitting deaf and hard of hearing jurors to serve does not render a trial unfair, even if an audio tape is used as evidence.

Ultimately, a fair trial depends on the accumulation of varying perspectives and observations made by each member of a jury. The Ohio Supreme Court ruling refused to acknowledge that each juror brings his/her unique life experiences and skills to analyze evidence in the way she/he is best able to do. Deaf and hard of hearing individuals are no different.

Furthermore, the Court relied on the speculation that hearing jurors always depend on auditory clues and pay undivided attention to the presentation of evidence in supporting its argument that the defendant is entitled to a fair trial. Such an assumption is deeply flawed. Indeed, allowing a disinterested hearing juror to remain and removing an actively engaged deaf or hard of hearing juror may actually result in an unfair trial. 

The ruling also brushes aside the importance of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other federal and state disability rights statutes that ensure the deaf and hard of hearing person’s right to participation and integration into every aspect of society, including serving on juries.
 
The NAD will continue to work hard to ensure that this decision does not act as a negative precedent for other courts to similarly bar deaf and hard of hearing individuals from fulfilling their important civic duty of serving as a juror.