Jury duty with severe to profound hearing loss

You are welcome @Zebras

I agree watching people is important. I think most people could primarily rely on a remote mic or FM system and the captions would just be a glance here and there to fill in the blanks.

As for the expense, it is minimal compared to ramps and we view those are necessary and worthwhile. Why not us?

Yeah. And how about handicap parking. How come we’re not eligible for that.

I maybe 74 but i still enjoy long walks and hiking in the forest around here, I park at the far end of the parking lots and walk to the stores. I need to exercise

Most courtrooms in developed countries by now have microphones for all the “key players” (judge, lawyers, witness, etc.) and a public address system. If those people aren’t using their mics properly, which is often the case in many venues, they should be instructed to do so for everyone’s benefit (and that of the proceeding).

Adding an FM system, loop, etc., would be a trivial expense compared with the “digital courtroom” equipment many are adding to better support electronic evidence. But that’s another discussion.

I have never received a jury notice, but if I did, I don’t think I would try to get out of it on account of my hearing as long as there was a PA system. I would perhaps ask if I could have a court technician patch my TV connector in so I could get the signal direct to my hearing aids (but suspect they would refuse). If the solution provided was unsatisfactory I might make a minor stink about it, as my jurisdiction has finally brought in legislation akin to the US’ ADA so all of this ought finally to be taken seriously despite all of the usual excuses. And that would probably get me excluded…

You don’t post your audiogram so who can say whether your being realistic or not. For a lot of us being on a jury wouldn’t be fair to either the prosecution or the defense. I’ve sat in a courtroom with a PA system and couldn’t understand anything being said. GUILTY!

First of all, my comments were about myself and not others. That’s why I said “I” so many times.

But if the PA system were properly set up to deliver sound from the principals’ microphones directly to my hearing aids (or, failing that, to headphones with robust volume), and if those people were actually using their microphones, I am confident I would be able to hear them effectively. Those are two big “ifs”, but they are also squarely the responsibility of the court.

A jury system is meant to provide a representative pool of citizens; if huge swathes of people with a certain set of experiences are excluded from juries simply because a court fails to accommodate them (not because they cannot in fact serve effectively) then justice is undermined.

This is, in my view, not an academic matter. In my jurisdiction there have been major controversies in the composition of juries based on systematic exclusion of people. For example, no one living on reserve was sent a jury notice for many years. The effect of this was such that verdicts were appealed on this basis when the bias was discovered.

By analogy, if the perspectives of everyone with even mild hearing loss (which is a LOT of people) are absent from all juries, then juries are inherently unrepresentative. Should everyone with glasses be excluded? I don’t think so. There’s a point beyond which impairment makes appreciation of evidence impractical, but I think the threshold should be set based on individual abilities and accommodations acceptable to the parties of the trial.

This may seem like a silly point, but I submit that there’s a deeper aspect to it. I think that due to hearing loss many of us may have a much stronger awareness that one’s perceptions are often different from “objective reality” (to the extent that such a thing exists) as compared to the average person. Just as memory can be fallible, so can the senses - even for people who (think they) have perfect hearing and vision. My view is that having only “normal” people on juries likely introduces a bias toward this and other assumptions about the world and human behaviour, to the detriment of the interests of justice.

Anyway, maybe by the time I actually get a jury duty notice my hearing will be worse and it will be a moot point.

To be honest with you I’d be stressed out the whole time worrying about what I might not be hearing. Ever been in a situation where what you thought you were hearing turned out to be completely wrong?

Yes, many times I have embarrassed myself by mis-hearing and then misunderstanding the conversation. I can’t wear headphones and stream from my TV because I have to turn the volume up so high to understand words that I become overwhelmed by the loud frequencies I can hear well. Subtitles help, by like many mention, it difficult to focus on a scene while reading text at the same time. My aids do have t-coil do if they had a loop system that may help, but at my church the loop system sounds awful to me and there seems to be a delay so words don’t match the speaker.

Courts should provide accommodations, but very often don’t. The accommodations to ask for include CART or automated captions, and/or an Assistive Listening System. The best ALS is A hearing loop. But 2 other types include FM systems or IR systems. Both involve headphones, unless you have telecoils in your hearing aids. With a neck loop that should be provided, you wouldn’t need the headphones or earbuds. Even without telecoils, some of us are able to keep our hearing aids on under headphones.

Just FYI for those who would like to serve on a jury, and where these accommodations are effective.

UK also, and never been called and was exempt until the late 90s. Now 78 and only eligible again in the last few years. If all else fails and you are in the jury box, just keep asking for repetition, especially when a speaker turns away from you.

Wishing you the best, Mr C.Smithster! Courts in UK are often old and echoey and have no hearing assistance. I said I was more than willing to serve but explained I would need an induction loop with a direct feed from the judge as well as a roving mic to capture contributions from lawyers and jurers, otherwise I would be well adrift on detail. I was excused serving.

The hearing assistances here locally is a joke for anyone that wears hearing aids. I would have to remove my aids to use them, and they don’t have anyway to be adjusted for my hearing loss which is basically a cookie bite.

Interesting appeal in a death penalty case from South Carolina:

The court concluded that the state postconviction court (1) unreasonably determined that a juror who was hearing impaired was competent to sit on the jury and unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in so concluding; and (2) unreasonably concluded that Bryant’s state trial counsel was not ineffective in allowing the hearing-impaired juror to sit on the jury.

204.P.pdf (uscourts.gov)8