Hearing no problem for deaf juror- the difference between 2 countries
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.
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."
This is not the same for England
Although this is going back a long time, in 1999,the case against a Deaf person wanting to be involved like anyone else still shows that we are behind and are not yet fully inclusive.
UK Deaf juror rules 'to be reviewed'
Prime Minister Tony Blair has indicated that the law could be changed to make it easier for deaf people to perform jury service.
The announcement follows the outcry over the failure of an appeal by a profoundly deaf man against a court's decision banning him from sitting as a juror.
Jeff McWhinney, chief executive of the British Deaf Association, was told on Tuesday that the current law did not allow a 13th person - in this case a sign language interpreter - to be present in a jury room during deliberations.
However, at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday Mr Blair, said this rule would be reviewed by Home Secretary Jack Straw. Responding after the issue was raised by Labour MP Tony Clarke, he said: "It should be possible for all people to take part in jury service.
"And of course it's a very great public service when people do take part in jury service and we should everything we can to encourage them."
The matter first rose in April 1999 when Mr McWhinney, from Blackheath, south east London, was summoned to jury service at Woolwich Crown Court. He was then contacted by court staff and informed that he was being automatically excused because of his disability.
That decision was upheld by Shirley Anwyl QC who ruled that a 13th person - a sign language interpreter - in the jury room would amount to an "incurable irregularity".
She said: "My understanding of the law is that there is no law which permits either me or any other judge of the Crown Court to authorise the attendance of a 13th person in the jury room."
The head of a charity for the deaf has said he will continue to fight a ruling stopping him from sitting on a UK jury, despite his failure to overturn it in court.
Judge Shirley Anwyl QC told London's Woolwich Crown Court the attendance of such an individual would amount to an "incurable irregularity".
She told 39-year-old Mr McWhinney, whom she praised as an "intelligent, hard-working, responsible man who has made a great contribution to life", that until Parliament changed the law there was nothing she or any other circuit judge could do.
Mr McWhinney told the BBC that although he had failed in his bid he believed the case amounted to a "big step forward". His solicitor Douglas Silas said: "Mr McWhinney and the British Deaf Association do not believe there will be grounds to challenge this decision in the higher court.
"But they intend to present this judgment to the Lord Chancellor at the earliest opportunity."
"They will pursue the matter as far as possible until there is specific guidance or legislation allowing deaf people and their interpreters into the jury room, and to be recognised as full and contributing members and citizens of society."
Judge Anwyl said that in her opinion, deaf people could follow "vocal nuances" of witnesses through an interpreter's mannerisms. There was certainly nothing in law that prevented the presence of a sign language interpreter in the courtroom, she said.
US courts have found the presence of deaf people on juries is "far from being a hindrance", she said, which tends to contradict arguments that their disability would prevent them from following and discussing evidence.
"It may be that deliberations will be longer with a pattern followed of only one person talking at a time ... but that might be no bad thing," she said.
'Same rights'
Judge Anwyl added she was "interested and indeed pleased" that the Lord Chancellor is actively considering changing the law so assistance can be given to any deaf juror.
Mr McWhinney was summoned to do jury service several months ago. On his summons form he was asked to detail if he was disabled and needed additional support.
He declared he was deaf. The bailiff then decided to discharge him on the grounds he would need a sign language interpreter in court and during the jury's deliberations. A BDA spokesman said: "Deaf people should have the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else.
"There have been blind jurors and magistrates and before it was argued that they should not serve. Women used not to be allowed to be jurors. Things change."
(www.ajc.com and www.news.bbc.co.uk)
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.
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."
This is not the same for England
Although this is going back a long time, in 1999,the case against a Deaf person wanting to be involved like anyone else still shows that we are behind and are not yet fully inclusive.
UK Deaf juror rules 'to be reviewed'
Prime Minister Tony Blair has indicated that the law could be changed to make it easier for deaf people to perform jury service.
The announcement follows the outcry over the failure of an appeal by a profoundly deaf man against a court's decision banning him from sitting as a juror.
Jeff McWhinney, chief executive of the British Deaf Association, was told on Tuesday that the current law did not allow a 13th person - in this case a sign language interpreter - to be present in a jury room during deliberations.
However, at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday Mr Blair, said this rule would be reviewed by Home Secretary Jack Straw. Responding after the issue was raised by Labour MP Tony Clarke, he said: "It should be possible for all people to take part in jury service.
"And of course it's a very great public service when people do take part in jury service and we should everything we can to encourage them."
The matter first rose in April 1999 when Mr McWhinney, from Blackheath, south east London, was summoned to jury service at Woolwich Crown Court. He was then contacted by court staff and informed that he was being automatically excused because of his disability.
That decision was upheld by Shirley Anwyl QC who ruled that a 13th person - a sign language interpreter - in the jury room would amount to an "incurable irregularity".
She said: "My understanding of the law is that there is no law which permits either me or any other judge of the Crown Court to authorise the attendance of a 13th person in the jury room."
The head of a charity for the deaf has said he will continue to fight a ruling stopping him from sitting on a UK jury, despite his failure to overturn it in court.
Judge Shirley Anwyl QC told London's Woolwich Crown Court the attendance of such an individual would amount to an "incurable irregularity".
She told 39-year-old Mr McWhinney, whom she praised as an "intelligent, hard-working, responsible man who has made a great contribution to life", that until Parliament changed the law there was nothing she or any other circuit judge could do.
Mr McWhinney told the BBC that although he had failed in his bid he believed the case amounted to a "big step forward". His solicitor Douglas Silas said: "Mr McWhinney and the British Deaf Association do not believe there will be grounds to challenge this decision in the higher court.
"But they intend to present this judgment to the Lord Chancellor at the earliest opportunity."
"They will pursue the matter as far as possible until there is specific guidance or legislation allowing deaf people and their interpreters into the jury room, and to be recognised as full and contributing members and citizens of society."
Judge Anwyl said that in her opinion, deaf people could follow "vocal nuances" of witnesses through an interpreter's mannerisms. There was certainly nothing in law that prevented the presence of a sign language interpreter in the courtroom, she said.
US courts have found the presence of deaf people on juries is "far from being a hindrance", she said, which tends to contradict arguments that their disability would prevent them from following and discussing evidence.
"It may be that deliberations will be longer with a pattern followed of only one person talking at a time ... but that might be no bad thing," she said.
'Same rights'
Judge Anwyl added she was "interested and indeed pleased" that the Lord Chancellor is actively considering changing the law so assistance can be given to any deaf juror.
Mr McWhinney was summoned to do jury service several months ago. On his summons form he was asked to detail if he was disabled and needed additional support.
He declared he was deaf. The bailiff then decided to discharge him on the grounds he would need a sign language interpreter in court and during the jury's deliberations. A BDA spokesman said: "Deaf people should have the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else.
"There have been blind jurors and magistrates and before it was argued that they should not serve. Women used not to be allowed to be jurors. Things change."
(www.ajc.com and www.news.bbc.co.uk)
posted by Sonia Hollis at
08:10
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home