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

[Dittman, Robert]

Hi Amy,

I am a new Attorney, I've been practicing for about three months now and I was a student Attorney from May 2011 to December 2012.  I practice in the areas of criminal defense, family law, estate planning, and military legal assistance.

A case that comes to mind was a driving while intoxicated case where I represented a defendant and there was a DVD shot at the scene of the stop, and the Field sobriety test.  In case you have not had this test described, there are basically three main tests.  The "walk a straight line", the "stand on one leg", and the "horizontal stagmus" (I know I spelled that wrong.

The problem is she sounded pretty sober and in control based on her speech when listen to on the video.  if I had to make a judgement called as the judge based on this fact alone, then most likely she would have walked.  However, no one practices law in a vacuum, so, a jury, a judge, and an Attorney has others who they will call upon for assistance so that the Judge, juror, and in my case, the attorney, can get as much as the whole picture as is possible.

I called upon another attorney to describe for me the result of the field sobriety test so that I could make a complete presentation to my client and so that they could make a decision on whether they wish to proceed with going to trial or try to get a plea deal.  Remember that although I could not see the video, it would be up to me to present the case and all of the options to my client in order that they could make a full decision.  This is not something that a blind attorney does because they are blind but rather it is something that most attorneys do to practice better law.

Other cases include a family law domestic violence case where I needed to have a picture described to me. For that assistance, I called upon a friend who is a homicide detective at the local police department.  If you do become an attorney, it will be up to you to do is much networking is possible. The assistant is there, and believe me, it will be offered. That being said, you must be ready to provide your own talents to assist the others who assist you. Trust me, they will call upon you and you will be able to repay the assistance.  Again, in the legal profession, never close yourself off in a vacuum.  I have had Attorneys who have been practicing for 25 years ask my take on legal matters just to get a "fresh" look at the situation.  So, you are never alone unless you either choose to be alone or put yourself there.


I do hope this helps and welcome to the list.

Robert D. Dittman, ESQ.
Attorney and Counselor at Law

Law Office of Robert Dittman
Riverview towers
111 Soledad st. suite 362
San Antonio, TX 78205

(210) 299-7658 Office
(210) 299-7601 FAX
RDITTMAN at ME.COM
 

On Aug 24, 2013, at 7:35 AM, amy a <amynick100 at gmail.com>
 wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindlaw:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rdittman%40stmarytx.edu