Comments on: Jurors with disabilities

By: The Briefcase » What’s up in the 8th

The Briefcase » What’s up in the 8th — Tue, 25 May 2010 10:54:11 +0000

[...] during oral argument in State v. Speer, the case involving the hearing-impaired juror (discussed here). And the court reversed the conviction in Speer, despite the defense obviously not having used a [...]

By: Brian McGraw

Brian McGraw — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 04:39:33 +0000

For what it’s worth…I had a trial awhile back that included a juror who was completely deaf. The prosecutor and I discussed the situation during a break and both of us felt that the situation was untenable. The juror required a monitor for testimony…which the court was prepared to provide. That wasn’t the most significant problem in both or our opinions. We felt, however, that the jury deliberations would have to go through that one juror, giving him/her (can’t recall) way more influence than the other 11. We further agreed that the judge was not likely to strike the juror for cause so we came to an accommodation on our peremptories…can’t recall the exact deal (may have been a coin flip), but we went ahead and removed the juror. We both felt bad about it but both concluded that our obligation was to our respective clients.

By: EquiisSavant

EquiisSavant — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:59:44 +0000

For all those lawyers who are ignorant of Autism – people on the Autism spectrum don’t use limbic-social brain circuitry to perceive. This means, for an Autistic person to get a Fair Trial, we would be entitled to have a jury of our peers and judges who also do not use limbic circuits to perceive — otherwise they would be incapable of perceiving the evidence in the same manner as the Autistic person.

By: EquiisSavant

EquiisSavant — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:56:09 +0000

Of course, the slippery slope to this case is the following scenario in which the court’s rationale could be stood on its head:

IF a defendant in a civil or criminal trial, and plaintiff in civil trial, is a person on the Autism spectrum, then WE Autistic people with objectively different brain neurology have the right to:
(1.) a jury of our Autistic peers having our same neurology to perceive the way Autistic people do so they can understand the evidence as we saw it; and
(2.) a judge having our same Autistic neurology to perceive the way Autistic people do so he / she can understand the evidence as we saw it.

Just like a non-disabled person might need to exclude a disabled person, likewise a disabled person might necessitate a similarly neurological judge and/ or jury — for a Fair Trial.

Also, I do think all thse foo foo “body language” and “how the speech was spoken / sounded like” criteria would directly discirminate against people on the Autism spectrum because we cannot neurologically control our gestures and type of voice – we are lucky if we can communicate in a way to be understood by others at all, much less be able to control any parts of it — in people on the Autism spectrum, it can be as neurologically involuntary as epilepsy or Parkinson’s tremors.

Unfortunately, there are companies being hired by courts systems – such as to train Florida court mediators and sometimes judges, who train them to directly discriminate against these neurology medical pecularities of Autism by intentional mis-labeling of some type of non-verbal intent where the Autistic neurology does not allow that physical capability to express that type of non-verbal intent.

I’m just saying …

Wow – !!! Thx 6th Circuit for the Christmas present in mid-March ! I LOVE the legal construct !

By: Russ Bensing

Russ Bensing — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:15:12 +0000

The defense did use all of its peremptories. In oral argument, O’Donnell had suggested that the issue was waived because the defense didn’t exercise a peremptory on the particular juror in question. But that’s not the law; as long as you use all of your peremptories, even on other people, you preserve your claim that a juror should have been excused for cause.

By: Jim Trotter

Jim Trotter — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:54:25 +0000

how do you utlimatley get around ross v. ok when the defense did not use all of its preemptory challenges