International Day of Sign Languages: What Does This Look Like in the Jury Box?

International Day of Sign Languages Is a Reminder That Jury Service Should Be Accessible

Every September 23, the International Day of Sign Languages recognizes the importance of sign languages in ensuring equal participation in society. While much of the conversation focuses on education, employment, and public services, one area that receives far less attention is jury service.

For most trial attorneys, encountering a prospective juror who is deaf or hard of hearing and primarily communicates through American Sign Language (ASL) is relatively uncommon. There is no national database tracking how often deaf individuals serve on juries, making it difficult to quantify. But uncommon does not mean unimportant. Courts across the United States have developed procedures that allow qualified jurors who are deaf or hard of hearing to fully participate in every stage of a trial, including voir dire and jury deliberations.

For jury researchers, the question isn't whether accommodations can be made. It's how those accommodations influence courtroom dynamics, juror communication, and ultimately trial strategy.

Jury Service Is Protected by Law

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires state and local courts to provide reasonable accommodations that allow qualified individuals with disabilities to participate in court proceedings. That obligation extends to jury service. The U.S. Department of Justice has repeatedly emphasized that courts cannot automatically exclude someone from jury service simply because they are deaf or hard of hearing.

One notable example involved Mississippi resident Joseph Carver, who was repeatedly excused from jury service solely because he was deaf. The Department of Justice investigated the matter and reached a settlement requiring the court to modify its policies, provide qualified interpreters when needed, and ensure future jurors were evaluated based on their qualifications rather than assumptions about disability.

What Accommodations Actually Look Like

Many attorneys assume that adding an ASL interpreter simply means placing one person beside a juror throughout the trial. In reality, courts often follow detailed procedures designed to preserve both fairness and confidentiality. The New Jersey Judiciary has one of the country's most comprehensive public guidelines for trials involving deaf jurors, and many courts use similar practices.

Depending on the court and circumstances, accommodations may include:

• Two qualified ASL interpreters who rotate approximately every 20 to 30 minutes to reduce interpreter fatigue.

• Interpreters who must follow strict professional ethics requiring complete accuracy, neutrality, and confidentiality.

• Judges instruct the jury that interpreters are not participants in deliberations and may not contribute opinions or explanations.

• Deliberation procedures encourage jurors to speak one at a time so interpretation remains accurate.

• Voir dire questions focused on whether the prospective juror can effectively perform the duties of a juror, not on assumptions about hearing ability.

These procedures are designed to ensure that communication access does not become an advantage or disadvantage for any party.

Does an Interpreter Change Jury Deliberations?

One of the most common questions attorneys ask is whether the presence of an interpreter alters jury deliberations. Court policies generally recognize this concern and address it directly. Qualified interpreters are bound by professional ethics requiring them to interpret everything that is said without adding, omitting, or altering meaning. They are also prohibited from participating in deliberations or influencing discussions in any way. Rather than treating the interpreter as a participant in the deliberative process, courts establish boundaries around the interpreter’s role: facilitating communication without contributing to the discussion. 

What This Means for Voir Dire

For trial teams, the strategic considerations begin well before opening statements. Voir dire should focus on the same factors that matter with any juror: attention to evidence, communication style, decision-making, prior experiences, and potential bias.

A juror's use of ASL is not, by itself, predictive of how they will evaluate evidence. However, attorneys should be prepared for practical differences during jury selection. Questions may require additional time for interpretation, attorneys should avoid speaking over one another, and judges may remind participants to maintain a pace that allows for accurate interpretation. These adjustments are procedural rather than strategic, but they require attorneys to remain mindful of courtroom communication.

Accessibility Shouldn't Change Trial Strategy But Preparation Should

From a jury research perspective, the presence of an accommodated juror rarely changes the substance of a case. Instead, it reinforces the importance of clear communication. Rapid-fire questioning, overlapping dialogue, attorneys interrupting witnesses, or speaking while facing away from the jury can create unnecessary challenges not only for interpreted communication but for juror comprehension generally.

The best trial presentations tend to benefit every juror: organized witness examinations, deliberate pacing, clear demonstratives, and straightforward explanations of complex evidence. Those practices become even more valuable when accommodations are part of the courtroom.

The Bigger Picture for Jury Research

International Day of Sign Languages offers an opportunity to recognize that accessibility in the courtroom isn't simply an administrative concern. It's part of ensuring that juries reflect the communities they serve. For jury researchers and trial consultants, that means understanding not only who may appear in the jury box, but also how modern courts accommodate qualified jurors with diverse communication needs.

Although relatively few attorneys will encounter a deaf ASL user during trial, those who do are likely to find that today's courts have well-established procedures in place. The more important question isn't whether accommodations can be made but it's whether trial teams are prepared to communicate effectively within them.