I’ve been called up for jury duty at the county court level. This is the second time in three years that this supposedly random process has chosen me, though my parents have never in their lives been called to serve. I was summoned twice in my 13 years in Arizona too.
Here’s how it generally works: A summons in the mail notifies the recipient that she must serve unless she qualifies for specific exemptions. There’s a questionnaire where she verifies she’s a U.S. citizen, has never been charged with or convicted of a felony, and doesn’t have a disability that would interfere with serving. To each she answers “yes” or “no.” “Yes” to the question about disability requires verification by a doctor, of course.
Every time (four times now), I’ve answered the disability question with a write-in of “maybe.” Is there reliable public transit to get a person with a wheelchair to the courthouse? Is the courthouse wheelchair accessible? Are the courtroom, the jury box, and the restrooms that the jurors use accessible too? Will my personal attendant or nurse remain available to me? Will I be treated respectfully if I need accommodations not immediately available? I figure I’m not the wildcard in this equation.
Marta Russell, author of Beyond Ramps: Disability at the End of the Social Contract, wrote about her summons to jury duty in 2002. After some adventures with parking, elevator access, and building security, it was time for a little ableist attitude from a jury administrator:
Those of us who have been using wheelchairs for some time know the routine. No matter where you choose to place yourself you will be told that you are in the way and asked to move. It took about ten minutes but an administrator was soon by my side telling me I was blocking traffic and suggested that I “move over there” pointing to a table against the opposite wall.
There were people using that table to fill out forms so I mentioned that I would be in the way there too. Why is it that some people do not like to be “upped” by a person using a wheelchair? She certainly did not like it and denied that there was anyone using the table even though three persons were in plain sight at the table at that very moment!
As I went towards the table she went over and grabbed the table, then dragged it off into another area. Plainly agitated she came back over to me and asked in a patronizing tone “Is that enough room?”
My wheelchair is about 26 inches wide, the table was about 5 feet long. Agitated myself, I retorted that if the room had been designed to accommodate a wheelchair and had integrated seating, she would not be having this problem now, would she?
Russell’s experience is hardly the most dramatic. George Lane, of the Supreme Court case Tennessee v. Lane, had once crawled out of his wheelchair and up a flight of stairs to reach a second-floor courtroom in Tennessee. When he refused to repeat the process on a different day, he was arrested for failure to appear. (Tennessee v. Lane, itself, is about whether or not a plaintiff can sue a state for damages under the ADA’s Title II.)
Lane was a defendant in a criminal case, but access issues remain the same. Well, in fact, it’s even more important that a defendant be able to attend his own trial, isn’t it?
As for me, my “maybe” means I made it through that initial screening and must wait for my notice of what day I phone the courthouse. At that point, my jury pool group may or may not be required to come to the courthouse that day. I’m on call for this process through the end of 2006.
I could have opted out easily, I believe. There’s the chance that writing “I use a ventilator” instead of “maybe,” or “state-paid nurse will accompany me” would have been enough to get me passed over, but I’m interested in the process, if a little jaded about how welcome I might be to participate.
Being accepted onto a jury would considerably complicate this life I’m starting to adjust to, but I’m following through. Why exactly? First, there’s nothing about my disability that interferes with my ability to make judgments in a courtroom even though there’s a presumption in the disability question that I will be a problem citizen. I come with hired staff to help me. I should be good enough if they look at me with an open mind, eh?
And second, since a doctor’s note to opt out (assuming I needed to) can cost an office visit and money to acquire, there’s an inequality to the initial screening that I object to. Receiving a summons in the mail does not cost most people anything (at the initial stage — salary loss is a whole other thing), they should be fully prepared to accommodate me when I show up. And fairly assess me like everyone else.
Crossposted at The Gimp Parade
Check there for more comments
Pingback: feminist blogs
Pingback: The Gimp Parade
Hi Blue,
I just wanted to let you know that you’ve become my favorite blogger around since you started posting here. Your posts are always so informative and insightful and well-written and just all-around awesome. Go Blue!
If felons or people who’ve been accused of felonies aren’t allowed to be on juries, then that eliminates a lot of people who might have good reasons to mistrust the justice system.
There’s a lot of them left, Nancy, but I understand your point. I’ve also covered numerous jury selection proceedings and you’d have trouble getting on if a relative or friend of a friend was accused of a felony. It’s interesting but many selected jurors are actually people who’ve been on at least one(often more) prior jury.
I used to be summoned a lot, then I got politically active and wasn’t called up for eight years, until I moved, received a summons for someone else, sent that one back in with “person moved” and after they validated that information, they found my information and sent me a summons within six weeks. Unfortunately, it was a murder case, probably the only case I couldn’t serve on, because I knew almost everyone on the witness list and had even given information to a detective on it. In addition, I knew the judge, prosecutor from other circumstances, so I had to go through a “for cause” challenge in chambers(which was awkward for everyone), before I even knew what the case was about and could have disqualifed myself at that time. I was ticked off because damn it, I actually want to be on a jury and do my civic duty.
But sitting through jury selection, there were people in the jury pool who were not deaf, but hard of hearing and there was a lot of resistance to including them in the pool from the participating attorneys and some of the judges. A lot of pressure to them to be absolutely sure that they would hear any word, even though there is equipment available to assist those who are hard of hearing so they can hear all the testimony. Not that these things aren’t absolutely important, but there’s accomodations available to assist in this process.
They usually wound up getting removed by stipulation(both attorneys agree) when after the judge laid out the facts of juror “obligations” which somehow were different from those given to the hearing jurors, I think many of the jurors on the receiving end of those talks just felt as if it wasn’t a process that included them. It’s this process which even at the beginning you realized they weren’t going to be seated even for voir dire but it took a while of hemming, hawing, questions, lectures for that actually to happen.
My city has a fairly large deaf population as well, because there is a state-sponsored school which is in the midst of the local Deaf community, so it’s not uncommon to see ASL interpreters(which are provided for them by the courts) when they are defendants. For members of this community, there are also language issues included in accomodation and the courts here state that interpreters are to be provided for non-english speakers on juries but the same tactics to dissuade hard of hearing(and maybe deaf) individuals from serving are often used against either ESLs or people who do not speak english as well.
The process is so messed up, racist, sexist, classist and as blue has stated, ableist. From who they summon, how they do it, “qualifications”, how the jury pools are created(in different regions, especially when they consolidate them) and through which employers pay, which don’t, voir dire process(including questionaire phases in death penalty cases). So you get these really skewed jury pools which support the dominant paradym of White, male(many women have childcare/eldercare issues), classist(and a high number of governmental employees b/c few employers pay jury service beyond five days if they do it at all), and so forth.
There probably needs to be a juror rights bill if there isn’t one already to address the issues which prevent it from being a fair process involving a “jury of my peers” in many areas of this country.
Thanks for all that info, Radfem. There are a surprising number of comments from disabled folks on my blog confirming all this too.
It seems to me that access to the court system is a crucial disability rights issue. Citizens have zillions of reasons to go to the courthouse, not only when accused of a crime or serving on a jury, but when getting a divorce or a restraining order, looking up publicly available documents, or suing as plaintiffs. And serving on a jury, even though everyone complains about it, is one of the most direct ways a citizen can have an effect on a decision of public importance.
I had an interesting experience as a criminal prosecutor when I was picking a jury. One woman answered the judge when her name was called that she would have no trouble sitting on the jury (which is a standard question the judge asked every juror). But on her jury questionnaire, she had written that she was mentally retarded. There was one question that asked whether she thought her disability would affect her ability to serve on the jury, and she had written: “YES!!!!!”
The judge was very conservative. But when I brought her questionnaire to his attention, he just about bit my head off. He was very angry at the notion that a person with mental retardation might not be considered a fit juror — although he lightened up when I pointed out that she had said she had some concern about her ability to serve.
He called her up on the bench. She said she thought she could serve and that she wanted to be on the jury. The jury questionnaire had been filled out by her friend and did not reflect her belief about her own capacity.
The judge seated her as a potential juror and told both the criminal defense attorney and me that he would be very disappointed on us if we used our peremptory challenges to knock her off the jury. She stayed on the jury, which convicted the defendant.
I’d bet money that judge is close to someone labelled as mentally retarded. You never know where your truest ally will come from with disability. Look at the Congress that passed the ADA. Great story.