[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  ELIGIBILITY OF BLIND INDIVIDUALS TO SERVE AS JURORS IN THE SUPERIOR 
                   COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on 
the District of Columbia be discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4205) to amend the title 11, D.C. Code, to clarify that 
blind individuals are eligible to serve as jurors in the Superior Court 
of the District of Columbia, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Montgomery). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  Mr. BLILEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, and I do not 
intend to object, but I at this time would like, under my reservation, 
to yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] for an 
explanation of the bill.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], for yielding to me and say to him 
that H.R. 4205 merely protects the right of every blind person to be a 
juror in cases before the Superior Court in the District of Columbia 
unless the blindness makes the individual incapable of rendering 
satisfactory jury service in that case. The Federal court decision 
overruled a local practice of excluding blind persons. H.R. 4205 
codifies that change in the D.C. Code, and I urge that my colleagues 
support this unanimous consent request.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1986 Congress amended the jury selection procedures 
in the D.C. Code to conform with the practice in Federal courts. D.C. 
Code section 11-1901 declares congressional policy in the same words as 
in 28 U.S.C. 1861: ``All litigants entitled to trial by jury shall have 
the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair 
cross section'' of the community.
  In testimony before our committee in 1985, a witness for the Council 
for Court Excellence expressed the view, with which we all agree, as 
follows:

       Just as voting is both a right and a civic responsibility 
     available to all citizens, so must all citizens be given both 
     the opportunity and the encouragement to serve as jurors in 
     the District of Columbia Superior Court.

  After Congress adopted this change, local DC trial courts interpreted 
the new language to permit excluding blind persons entirely from jury 
service. Fortunately, the 1993 Federal court case of Galloway versus 
Superior Court of the District of Columbia held that this practice 
violated three Federal laws which protect persons with disabilities 
from discrimination.
  Other language Congress added in 1986, which is in D.C. Code section 
11-1906, uses words similar to 28 U.S.C. 1865 in identifying a person 
not qualified to serve as a juror, namely, one who is ``incapable by 
reason of physical or mental infirmity of rendering satisfactory jury 
service.''
  The D.C. Superior Court has changed its policy to conform with the 
court decision. H.R. 4205 simply codified that court opinion in the 
D.C. Code.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Stark] for his explanation.
  Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, under my 
reservation I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
[Ms. Norton], the sponsor of the bill.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bliley] for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of importance 
to the District of Columbia, but of no importance to this body and is, 
perhaps, another indication of why the District ought to have complete 
home rule. Ten States already allow blind jurors to serve on juries. We 
have a judge who has been serving for 10 years as a judge of the 
Superior Court. I ask that the District of Columbia be given the right 
to allow jurors who are blind to serve equally with other jurors 
according to their qualifications.
  I am pleased to rise in support of the District of Columbia Right to 
Jury Service Amendment Act of 1994. The bill would ensure that blind 
citizens of the District of Columbia would not be automatically 
excluded from jury service.
  By statute, the District of Columbia jury system provides that all 
litigants who are entitled to a trial by jury have the right to grand 
and petit juries selected from a fair cross section of the citizens of 
the District.
  Under current law, a citizen of the District of Columbia may not be 
excluded or disqualified from service as a juror because of race, 
color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, economic status, 
marital status, age, mental infirmity, or, most important for the 
purpose of this bill, a physical handicap. However, until 1993, it was 
the practice of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to 
automatically disqualify prospective jurors who were blind but met all 
other qualifications.
  This policy, based on assumptions that blind persons could not fully 
appreciate the veracity or credibility of evidence or witnesses, or 
that ``visual observation is an essential function or attribute of a 
juror's duties,'' was rejected by U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green 
in Galloway v. Superior Court of the District of Columbia, 817 F. Supp. 
12, 16 (D.D.C. 1993). Judge Green held that categorically 
discriminating against blind persons violates three Federal laws, 
namely the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The 
Superior Court now excuses prospective blind jurors from service only 
in particular cases in which vision is a necessary qualification for 
service.
  However, the City Council, by resolution, has requested a statutory 
change to ensure that blind persons will not automatically be excluded 
from jury service.
  While this bill would prohibit courts from implementing any policies 
which would automatically disqualify blind citizens from jury service, 
the bill would not provide for the automatic inclusion of blind 
citizens for jury service. The decision of whether a prospective blind 
juror would be able to serve would be determined on a case-by-case 
basis by judges, attorneys, and the voir dire process.
  Judge David Norman, a legally blind person, presided over numerous 
trials in the District of Columbia Superior Court for 10 years--from 
1973 to 1983. His physical impairment did not interfere with his 
ability to make factual findings. Blind lawyers who have tried both 
civil and criminal cases in Superior Court evaluate the credibility of 
witnesses and the content of physical evidence. it follows that blind 
jurors can evaluate witnesses and evidence as well. Blind citizens may 
already serve as jurors in the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Columbia.
  In enacting this legislation, the Congress would enable the District 
of Columbia to join at least 10 other jurisdictions that have enacted 
similar legislation including California, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, New 
York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington and 
Wisconsin.
  Service on juries both preserves the democratic process and protects 
the rights of parties. Jury service is an honor and privilege that 
should available to all qualified citizens. Blindness should not in and 
of itself abrogate the privileges and rights accorded to all citizens 
of the United States.
  Earlier this year I met Mr. Paul McKay, a representative of the 
National Federation for the Blind and a lawyer who practices in D.C. 
Superior Court. He put to me a simple question that I what to share 
with all of you: If a blind lawyer can argue cases in D.C. Superior 
Court, then why shouldn't that same individual be allowed to serve as a 
juror in trial in that same court? This is what they call a no-brainer, 
my friends. Let's make this situation right by passing this bill.
  Mr. BLILEY. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I 
rise in support of H.R. 4205.
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, this worthwhile legislation will codify the 
holding in Galloway versus Superior Court of the District of Columbia, 
and clarify that blind persons cannot be categorically excluded from 
service on juries in the District and Superior Courts of the District 
of Columbia. In so doing, the District would join at least 10 
jurisdictions that have enacted similar legislation.
  Title 11 of the D.C. Code, which this legislation effects, may only 
be amended by Congress. It extends to blind persons the recognition 
that their disability does not render them automatically incapable of 
serving on a jury.
  This bill does not alter the process for removing persons from juries 
who are incapable of impartially evaluating evidence and rendering fair 
verdicts. Decisions of whether or not a certain individual will 
ultimately serve as a juror still remains within the province of the 
normal jury selection process. A case-by-case selection process and the 
longstanding ``challenge'' process remains the standard for selection 
of jurors.
  I fully support this legislation and know of no opposition to the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                               H.R. 4205

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY OF BLIND INDIVIDUALS 
                   TO SERVE AS JURORS IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

       Section 11-1906(b), D.C. Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph.
       ``(4) An individual who is blind may not be disqualified 
     from serving as a juror solely on the basis of blindness, but 
     may be disqualified from serving as a juror in a particular 
     case if the individual's blindness makes the individual 
     incapable of rendering satisfactory jury service in that 
     case.''.

  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________