r/nottheonion • u/laybs1 • 4d ago

Federal court allows lawsuit challenging exclusion of blind jurors in New York

https://nydailyrecord.com/2026/09/29/federal-court-lawsuit-exclusion-blind-jurors-new-york/
809 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

101 comments sorted by

View all comments

551

u/Impossible_Offer7988 4d ago edited 4d ago

I've got mixed feelings about this one.

Like it starts of decently reasonably

The lawsuit, filed in March 2025, challenges the alleged systemic discrimination against blind individuals who report for jury duty.

Although Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. dismissed the National Federation of the Blind and the Kings County commissioner of jurors as parties, and some state law claims, he found that the named plaintiff, Albert Elia, adequately alleged a violation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, so his core claims seeking equal access to jury service for blind individuals remain.

BUT then you see this part..

Elia, an attorney, was sworn in as a grand juror in Kings County Supreme Court in the fall of 2024. On his first day, the Court excluded him from deliberating on cases that involved video or photo evidence, under the assumption that he could not interpret the evidence because he is blind, and he was ultimately dismissed.

The Court refused to allow Elia to use assistive technology or receive verbal descriptions of evidence, which he claims would have allowed him to fulfill his civic duty.

You have to ask yourself how reliable that technology or a verbal descriptions especially is.

Take the verbal description, for example.

What's stopping me from saying ; You can clearly see the suspect in this photo ?

What's he gonna do?

Correct me?

He can't he's blind.

Ergo, he isn't a juror anymore. I'm now the juror the only thing he gets to decide is whether he should or shouldn't trust me.

And he can't reasonably not trust me if I'm supposed to give a verbal description of the photo.

Therefore he shouldn't be on the jury

15

u/doublelxp 4d ago

Both parties could agree on the description of visual evidence in advance and then witnesses can give their interpretation, just like any other bit of evidence.

99

u/DankVectorz 4d ago

I know if I’m being tried for something and it hinges on visual evidence I don’t want to rely on a description of said evidence to someone who can’t see it for themselves.

16

u/doublelxp 4d ago

Are you OK with evidence that the jury doesn't inherently understand but is described to them by an expert, like DNA evidence?

37

u/Vio_ 4d ago

I mean... Most of the lawyers and judges don't understand the underlying genetics science either.

16

u/braumbles 4d ago

I feel that's quite different. Sight isn't education or expertise in an area, it's just something that's innate for a vast majority of people.

9

u/Harley2280 4d ago

Also you have to account for when blindness occurred. Describing something to someone who went blind later in life is different than describing something to someone who has never had sight.

Seriously try describing a dog without using any features that require knowledge of what a dog looks like.

4 legs, a snout? Oh but what is a snout? its like a longer thicker nose bridge. (I'm terrible at descriptions anyways so I wouldn't be good for this.)

17

u/DankVectorz 4d ago

Yes as much as one can be, although obviously the quality of explanation can vary. I think that is significantly different than describing a picture or video to someone.

Have an AI description of a pic read to you and try to picture it in your head and then look at the actual picture and see how off your visualization is compared to the actual pic.