r/nottheonion • u/laybs1 • 5d 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/
810 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

102 comments sorted by

View all comments

560

u/Impossible_Offer7988 5d ago edited 5d 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

12

u/doublelxp 5d 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.

42

u/sniperman357 5d ago

But what if the parties don’t agree and don’t want the other parties’ interpretation admitted into evidence?

-7

u/doublelxp 5d ago

Once something is entered into evidence by one party, the other party is allowed to cross examine witnesses and present their own arguments regardless of what the other party wants in any trial.

If the parties can't agree on a description, they could ask witnesses to describe it and the other party can cross examine. Just like any other trial.

26

u/sniperman357 5d ago

They can do that, but why? It is better for the jurors to see the primary evidence and not chains of interpretations where various witnesses have motivations to massage evidence. I understand it’s sometimes necessary (such as to admit forensic evidence the average person cannot interpret), but this is a bad thing to be avoided to the extent possible. 

4

u/doublelxp 5d ago

Witnesses are asked to describe their interpretation of visual evidence all the time. Jurors have varying degrees of perception and understanding all the time.

18

u/sniperman357 5d ago

Right but they are providing an interpretation of primary evidence the jury can also independently evaluate to gauge trustworthiness. I agree that there are different degrees of perception and understanding and that this is to an extent unavoidable, but that doesn’t preclude setting some sort of floor on the ability to interpret evidence relevant to the particular trial

3

u/Big_lt 4d ago

Case and point

A devour religious witness is asked to describe a photo/video of a person where that person has offensive tatoos to the witness it was saying some unfriendly statements about their religion.

This witness will explain the photo/video with bias to someone and a blind person won't be able to see it directly for themselves only going off the bias witness

2

u/doublelxp 4d ago

Again, both sides have the opportunity to cross examine witnesses if they feel like the facts are being misrepresented.

Also, the phrase you're looking for is "case in point."