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?
1 Like
Yeah. And how about handicap parking. How come weâre not eligible for that.
2 Likes
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
4 Likes
Or you could park closer to the store and take the long route once youâre safely in the store
Ask for a copy of your audiogram. If you supply that and tell them something like âI canât watch TV without the captions onâ Iâm sure they will excuse you. They donât want to take a chance on either incarcerating an innocent person or letting a guilty one go free simply because a juror misunderstood some words.
Most courtrooms in developed countries by now have microphones for all the âkey playersâ (judge, lawyers, witness, etc.) and a public address system. If those people arenât using their mics properly, which is often the case in many venues, they should be instructed to do so for everyoneâs benefit (and that of the proceeding).
Adding an FM system, loop, etc., would be a trivial expense compared with the âdigital courtroomâ equipment many are adding to better support electronic evidence. But thatâs another discussion.
I have never received a jury notice, but if I did, I donât 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 USâ ADA so all of this ought finally to be taken seriously despite all of the usual excuses. And that would probably get me excludedâŚ
3 Likes
You donât post your audiogram so who can say whether your being realistic or not. For a lot of us being on a jury wouldnât be fair to either the prosecution or the defense. Iâve sat in a courtroom with a PA system and couldnât understand anything being said. GUILTY!
First of all, my comments were about myself and not others. Thatâs why I said âIâ so many times.
But if the PA system were properly set up to deliver sound from the principalsâ 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 âifsâ, 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 donât think so. Thereâs 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 thereâs a deeper aspect to it. I think that due to hearing loss many of us may have a much stronger awareness that oneâs perceptions are often different from âobjective realityâ (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 ânormalâ 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.
4 Likes
If you canât hear everything that is going on in a courtroom then your not it doing anyone any favors. The op says he was notified to serve but was concerned about his ability to serve. No one here is trying to avoid responsibility. Just the opposite in fact. If you think youâll be able to serve based on your beliefs that the pa system will help you, great. But if I was a defendant I think I would insist that everyone on the jury could hear. Again, this is not an effort to get out of jury duty. This is an effort to do the right thing. But I respect your opinion
2 Likes
Iâm pretty sure in this jurisdiction thereâs an age beyond which they donât call you to serve. If that were universal it would eliminate a lot of us here. 
And just me, but I rarely can understand more than a word or two of anything that comes over a PA system. Iâm in the camp that believes it wouldnât be fair to anyone to have me on a jury regardless of the accommodation. I was called regularly in my county for years and always did what was asked, but Iâm not so keen to be on a jury that Iâd demand (or expect to get) anything special.
3 Likes
To be honest with you Iâd 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?
4 Likes
Yes, many times I have embarrassed myself by mis-hearing and then misunderstanding the conversation. I canât 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 donât match the speaker.
2 Likes
Courts should provide accommodations, but very often donât. 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 wouldnât 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.
2 Likes
If I were the defendent in a trial I would want the jury to be able to hear clearly what was being said so they could make an informed decision for a fair outcome for me. I have been a witness in court many times and it is embarrassing to have to ask a Judge or attorney to repeat the question and then hope you understand them.
Juror doesnât have the option of asking someone to repeat what was said.
Also many times we are not aware that we didnât hear something that was said or that we misunderstood what we did hear. Itâ not about the juryâs right to be present itâs about justice for the defendant. All cases deserve to have the best opportunity for a fair trial. IMO.
1 Like
This is ironic. I wanted to serve and was pleased that the jury questionnaire asked if I needed assitive listening devices. I checked Yes, but when I got there no one knew what they were. I explained and they said they were looking for them. I was sent to the courtroom and asked the clerk who ushered us in for an ALD. When the judge started to explain the case I got up and said I had a hearing loss and was still waiting for accommodations. Everyone had to sit there doing nothing for 15 minutes while they searched and finally found them. But I was dismissed even thoâ I didnât want to be. I checked with others in my HLAA chapter and found seven people who had wanted to serve but were excused. Iâve been fighting the courts on this issue ever since. This is Massachusetts, a supposedly enlightened state.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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 donât have anyway to be adjusted for my hearing loss which is basically a cookie bite.
2 Likes
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 Bryantâs state trial counsel was not ineffective in allowing the hearing-impaired juror to sit on the jury.
1 Like