[accessibleimage] follow-up and background information

Hi.
For those that are interested article from the Braille
Monitor July 1993 about preceding mail and jury duty.
Regards,
Lisa

         BLIND CITIZENS ONE STEP CLOSER TO JURY SERVICE 
                   IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

     For blind people in many parts of this country the
arrival of that little post card announcing that one is to
report for jury duty still brings with it a sinking feeling
which is very different from that familiar to most other
busy citizens.
For unless the state or municipality has passed legislation
protecting the right of blind people to serve on juries, we
know that it is all too likely that we will arrive at the
courthouse only to be told that our services are not needed. 
This has always been the case in the Superior Court in
Washington, D.C., which has been clear about its views:
blind people may not be admitted to a jury pool even though
deaf people, for example, are welcome. Early in 1991 Paul
Kay, a lawyer practicing in the District of Columbia and a
member of the
National Federation of the Blind, was called for jury duty.
When he reported to the court, he was of course told to
leave. On the whole he was not surprised because this same
court was already in the habit of restricting the cases
assigned to him as a court-appointed attorney. Because of
his blindness Superior Court judges have never given him
felony cases. He protested
vehemently when he was turned down as a juror but decided to
leave the matter as it was for the moment. 
     Several weeks later Don Galloway, now serving as
president of the D.C. affiliate of the National  Federation
of the Blind, was required to undergo the same humiliating
experience when
he was called to jury duty in the Superior Court. He decided
to file suit in the U.S. District Court, a suit which has
finally been decided in his favor. The federal judge found
that the Superior Court had broken three separate laws in
denying Galloway the right to serve on a jury.      Just
before that decision was  announced in mid-March, Paul Kay
was once again called for jury duty in the Superior Court.
This time, when he was turned down, he decided he had had
enough.
He went to the press hoping to exert pressure on the court
system
to reconsider its policy, and he went to City Council to ask
for
legal redress. Both the Washington Post and the Washington
Times
carried stories, and so did the Associated Press. In
addition,
National Public Radio did an interview with Mr. Kay. When
the
Federal Court decision in the Galloway case was announced in
the
midst of the public furor, the media incorporated that story
into
their coverage as well.  
     Meanwhile the City Council was prepared to begin
considering
legislation that would protect the rights of blind citizens
to
serve on juries. Here are several of the stories as they
appeared
in March. The first was carried by the  Washington Times on
March
10, 1993. The reporter was Catherine Toups. Here it is: 

                      Can Justice Be Blind?
              Sightless Lawyer Seeks Role as Juror

     Paul E. Kay is a good enough lawyer to earn a spot
before
the bar. But forget about putting him in the jury box.
     That's the official position of the D.C. Superior
Court,
which dismissed the District lawyer from jury duty on the
basis
of his blindness. It was the second time he had been turned
away.
     The fact that the court believes Mr. Kay can be a
lawyer but
not a juror sent him into activist mode. Ward 3 D.C. Council
member James Nathanson has joined the battle and said he
will
introduce legislation this summer that would make it illegal
to
automatically dismiss blind people from jury duty.
     Several states, including Virginia, Washington, Oregon,
and
California, have such laws. A pending federal lawsuit
against the
District filed in 1991 by Donald Galloway, a blind
government
worker, makes the same argument.
     "There may be some [court] cases in which blindness
might be
a disqualifying factor, but that's not the case across the
board," Mr. Nathanson said.
     Court Executive Ulysses B. Hammond said yesterday the
court's policy against seating blind people on juries is
"under
review." He said the policy, which was born long before
"today's
posture with respect to persons with disabilities," might be
outdated.
     Mr. Kay, fifty-six, a lawyer for seventeen years who
usually
is accompanied in court by his guide dog Smokey, calls the
policy
discrimination. He said he has encountered it before in the
six
years he has practiced criminal law after leaving the legal
staff
of the Department of Transportation.
     Like other court-appointed attorneys in the rotation
pool at
Superior Court, Mr. Kay has worked his way up the experience
ladder to handle increasingly complex cases.
     But he said that, despite never losing a jury trial in
D.C.
Superior Court, he is not on the appointment list for felony
jury
trials.
     "The point I'm making is that you can get around sight.
And,
if a lawyer just presents a diagram and doesn't describe it,
I
wouldn't want that lawyer representing me," he said.
     Mr. Kay said he has been told by at least four
high-ranking
judges that he will not be given complex felony jury cases
because he cannot see photographs or the demeanor of
witnesses.
     "I think I can listen to testimony and evaluate
evidence. I
have used diagrams in a motion's hearing, and I knew exactly
where everything was. If I don't, I ask," he said.
     Several rounds of letters and meetings with judges have
not
helped, he said.
     Judge Fred B. Weisberg, presiding judge of the criminal
court, could not be reached for comment.
     Mr. Kay said he is treated differently at the U.S.
District
Court across the street, where he is regularly appointed to
felony cases. "In federal court I'm a lawyer like any other
person, and they appoint me to cases. I do my job, and
nobody
cares that I'm blind."
                      ____________________
     That was the first story to appear after Paul Kay got
angry
and decided to do something about the D.C. Superior Court.
Nearly
a week later, on March 16, the following story, written by
Associated Press staff writer Matt Yancey, was picked up in
papers across the country. By this time the U.S. District
Court
had ruled in the Galloway case. Here is the story: 

     Excluding blind people from juries violates three
different
civil rights laws, including the 1992 Americans with
Disabilities
Act, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
     "Although a blind juror cannot rely on sight, the
individual
can certainly hear the witness testify, hear the quaver in a
voice...and then add these sensory impressions to the words
spoken and assess the witness's credibility," said U.S.
District
Judge Joyce Hens Green.
     She said the District of Columbia's policy excluding
the
blind from its Superior Court jury pools solely on the basis
of
their disability violates the 1871 Civil Rights Act and the
1973
Rehabilitation Act in addition to the 1992 law.
     Green issued the ruling in a suit brought against local
officials by Donald Galloway, a former director of the Peace
Corps' operations in Jamaica and now a manager in the city's
Department of Housing and Community Development.
     Blind jurors can still be excluded from panels in cases
involving significant physical or documentary evidence, she
said,
but blindness should not be an automatic disqualification
for
serving in any trial.
     At least nine states--Oklahoma, California, Virginia,
Oregon, Texas, South Carolina, Washington, Massachusetts,
and New
York--have enacted laws forbidding the exclusion of the
blind
from jury pools solely on the basis of their disability.
     Galloway, who has been blind since sixteen, reported as
instructed for jury duty in the city's Superior Court in
March,
1991. When court officials saw his guide dog, they told him
he
could not serve because of his blindness.
     Green noted that the same court at one time had a blind
judge and that Galloway's daughter had served on a jury in
the
court even though she is deaf.
     "No distinction can be drawn between a blind judge's
ability
to make factual findings and the abilities of a blind
juror,"
Green said.
     Allowing deaf jurors, she said, shows that the district
"looked behind archaic stereotypes" in dealing with people
with
impaired hearing, making it "difficult to fathom why policy
differs toward blind jurors."
                      ____________________
     There you have the AP story. On March 20 the National
Public
Radio program "Weekend Edition" broadcast an interview with
Paul
Kay, conducted by correspondent Lynn Neary. Here it is: 

     Ms. Neary: A federal judge ruled this week that the
District
of Columbia cannot exclude blind people from jury duty
solely
because they are blind. According to the ruling the practice
violates several civil rights laws, including the 1992
Americans
with Disabilities Act. A number of states have similar
policies. 
     On a line with us now to discuss this issue is Paul
Kay, an
attorney who has argued many cases in the D.C. Superior
Court.
He's blind, and because of that he's been dismissed twice
from
D.C. jury duty. Mr. Kay has tried to get legislation passed
that
would overturn the district's policy on blind jurors. 
     Mr. Kay, first of all, has this ruling effectively done
what
you were trying to do with your legislative proposal?
     Mr. Kay: Well it has and it hasn't. It has said that
the
categorical automatic exclusion of jurors on the basis of
blindness violates federal laws. We need law passed by the
City
Council, signed by the mayor, and acted into law that says
that
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia operates on
the
local law and that under local law, as well as under federal
law,
blind people cannot be excluded solely on the basis of their
blindness when they come to the jury office.
     Ms. Neary: You know I have a feeling a lot of people
listening to this might be thinking of the Rodney King case,
and
in that trial, of course, a video tape is very key. Now do
you
think a blind person could adequately serve on that trial? 
     Mr. Kay: Any lawyer who just shows a video tape but
doesn't
talk about it, doesn't describe it--I wouldn't want that
lawyer
representing me. I think any lawyer worth his or her salt
has to
describe a diagram, has to describe a video tape. It
probably has
some audio as well. You can pick up a lot of things by
listening. 
I can listen to testimony, evaluate testimony; I can make
judgments. What's happening is that the Superior Court of
the
District of Columbia has had this policy about excluding
blind
people because they say we can't see the evidence. Well
first of
all, not every case has physical evidence. Suppose there is
a gun
as physical evidence. I don't have to see that gun. I can
touch
it; I can feel it; I can probably know more about that gun
by
touching it than you can by looking at it from a distance. 
     Ms. Neary: Is there any way that you can think that
being
blind might be an advantage? 
     Mr. Kay: Oh yes I can. Suppose one of the most
beautiful
women in the world came onto the witness stand. Now if I
don't
know that, I'm going to listen to what she says. However,
the guy
next to me might be looking at her and be distracted. 
     Ms. Neary: So you're saying that a jury can be very
influenced by appearance. 
     Mr. Kay: There are all kinds of things that impress
jurors.
I can tell you another thing: deaf people are allowed on
juries
with interpreters. Interpreters are allowed to go into the
jury
room and interpret the deliberation, and once you are in the
jury
pool and you go into the court, lawyers ask questions. Every
lawyer has what we call preemptory challenges, which means
that
the lawyer does not have to give a reason for saying, "I
don't
want this juror." Jurors are struck by preemptory challenge
every
day of the week in many different courtrooms. If a lawyer
wants
to do that, fine. I have no problem with it. I'm not going
to go
away mad. I will have done my civic duty as a citizen. A
lawyer
might not want me on a jury because I am a lawyer.
     Ms. Neary: You just want to have your day in court, so
to
speak. Have you ever had trouble as an attorney because of
your
blindness?
     Mr. Kay: Not trouble trying the case. I've had trouble
getting cases appointed to me. I do a lot of court-appointed
work, and there are some judges in the Superior Court who do
not
want to appoint me to felony cases simply because I am
blind. In
federal court I don't have that problem.
     Ms. Neary: There is a difference in the way the two
courts
treat you?
     Mr. Kay: Federal court treats me like a human being.
They
appoint me to cases. I do my job. Nobody cares that I'm
blind. I
am just a lawyer. That's all. But in Superior Court, where
they
don't appoint me to felony cases because I'm blind, I think
they
can't imagine how blind people function. I will tell you
that I
have never lost a jury trial in the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia.
     Ms. Neary: Pretty good record.
     Mr. Kay: Well, I haven't had that many, and that's
because
they don't want to give me certain cases, but I have never
lost
one. 
     Ms. Neary: So do you think that you are going to be
called
to jury duty any time soon now?
     Mr. Kay: Oh I imagine it will take another two years. I
was
thinking of going down and saying, "Here I am; I'm ready to
serve. When do you want me?"
     Ms. Neary: Well thanks very much for talking with us,
Mr.
Kay.
                      ____________________
     That's how the press reported the actions of the D.C.
Superior Court and the Federal District Court. The City
Council
must still act on Council member Nathanson's legislation.
That
should happen within a few weeks. Then maybe this matter
will be
settled for good, in one city at least.

Other related posts: