[blindlaw] Being unable to see relevant evidence in a legal case

[amy a]

Hello, everyone,

I am new to this mailing list.  As a person exploring the field 
of law, I have a question about an obstacle blind people run 
into.

How can you be a fair judge, jury member, or similar professional 
when you cannot see relevant evidence?  By evidence, I mean 
visual indicators, such as a video of a robbery, but I am also 
referring to cues such as witnesses' facial expressions and body 
language.  I am mainly using examples relating to criminal law 
here, but only because I know that the best, and it is the first 
thing I can think of.  Feel free to refer to other types of law 
when answering if it is relevant.

I read the thread from September 2012, "Handling paper docs at 
hearings" written by someone named Paul.  (If I am misquoting, I 
am sorry.)  Anyway, the general consensus was that blind people 
who are doing hearings require visual readers for the documents.  
However, I am talking about the case of a judge or jury member.  
>From what I know about law, which is not much, I assume that one 
can correctly argue that if someone merely describes the evidence 
for you, and you do not see it for yourself, it is only hearsay, 
and the fact that you cannot directly see the evidence means that 
nothing was proven "beyond a reasonable doubt".  Are there people 
who go to law school to become readers and describers for blind 
judges and jurors, so that what they describe can count as 
legally admissible evidence?

When answering my question, please keep in mind that I have no 
official legal training whatsoever.  Therefore, please avoid too 
many technical terms that I might not be familiar with.  
Furthermore, if this topic has been discussed previously, and it 
probably has, I am sorry to repeat it, but I was honestly too 
lazy to figure out how to search the archive.

Thank you all so much in advance for your time, consideration, 
effort, and comments.

All the best,

Amy