A juror can be blind and still serve justice, the state’s highest court rules

A judge was right to let a blind man sit on the jury that convicted a Roxbury man for sucker-punching an acquaintance at an adult basketball league meeting, the state’s highest court ruled Thursday.

The fact that the blind man — known only as Juror Number 6 ― could not see two photographs depicting the facial damage suffered by the victim during the assault did not disqualify him from performing his civic duty. And, more importantly, it did not violate Lawrence L. Heywood’s constitutional right to a fair trial before an impartial jury, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled.

“As the injuries suffered by the victim were not visible at the time of trial, the ability to see the victim’s face during his testimony was not essential to reaching a verdict,” Justice Kimberly S. Budd wrote for the unanimous court. “The photographic evidence would not have materially assisted the jury in determining serious bodily injury, [so] seating juror no. 6 was well within the judge’s discretion.”

The court noted that state law already makes it clear that anyone with what the law defines as a disability is entitled to serve on a jury and may be deemed qualified to sit on a case-by-case basis. The court is required to provide accommodations but also can conclude it is not “feasible” for the person to sit on a particular trial.

Judges must first learn how the court can adjust the flow of evidence during a trial to match a juror’s unique needs, the court said — as did Roxbury Municipal Court Judge Debra A. DelVecchio, who let Juror Number 6 on the panel.

“Because a cross section of the community necessarily includes, among others, citizens with disabilities, the defendant’s right to a fair jury trial and the protection against discrimination in jury selection work in tandem,'' Budd wrote for the unanimous court. “This statutory protection against discrimination in jury selection dovetails well with a defendant’s right to a fair jury of his or her peers, an essential component of which is being able to select jurors from a fair and representative cross section of the community.”

The jury convicted Heywood of assault and battery causing serious injury for the assault, which took place in May 2015. According to the SJC, he punched a man at an adult basketball league meeting, fracturing the victim’s orbital bone and leaving him with permanent nerve damage that had him feeling like one side of his face had just gotten a shot of Novocaine.

DelVecchio ordered Heywood to serve 18 months in the Suffolk County House of Correction, according to court records.

The National Federation of the Blind, its Massachusetts chapter, and the Disability Law Center had filed a friend of the court brief urging the SJC to rule to make it clear to judges and court officials that blindness is not a barrier to fulfilling one’s civic duties and responsibilities.

For the blind, “jury service is more than civic duty. It is recognition as a responsible member of the community, worthy of being entrusted with questions of guilt and innocence, life and death,'' the groups argued. “Excluding blind individuals deprives both the defendant and the members of the jury of unique perspectives and life experiences that enhance deliberations and ensure a just verdict is reached.”