Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ada Juror Accommodations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Mexico courts training stresses duty to accommodate jurors with disabilities under ADA Title II
Summary
At a recorded training for New Mexico court staff, ADA consultant Professor Bruce Adelson reviewed Title II obligations for courts, court decisions about juror access, DOJ guidance on effective communication, common physical barriers in courthouses, and practical Q&A on excusal and accommodations.
Professor Bruce Adelson, ADA consultant to the New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts and a former U.S. Department of Justice trial attorney, told attendees at a recorded New Mexico Courts training that courts must prioritize effective communication and make individualized accommodations so people with disabilities can serve as jurors.
Adelson opened by summarizing Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, saying it covers state and local public entities (including courts) and requires ‘‘effective communications’’ such as qualified sign-language interpreters or other auxiliary aids. He told participants that ‘‘if I have a communication disability . . . then you must give me an American sign language interpreter,’’ describing the Title II ‘‘primary consideration’’ rule as a crucial protection for prospective jurors.
The presenter illustrated how courts can run afoul of the ADA with recent cases. He discussed a Denver matter in which a prospective juror with a hearing disability was excused after a written agreement presented by both attorneys; Adelson characterized the decision to excuse the juror without a full interactive conversation as legally problematic and said the county’s argument that judges enjoy immunity was not a proper defense to ADA claims in that context. He also reviewed a New Jersey decision (the Perez matter) in which repeated failures to provide interpreters led courts to find violations and stressed that a court cannot require a person with a communication disability to bring their own interpreter.
Adelson reviewed Department of Justice guidance (2014) and recommendations from the National Center for State Courts on common auxiliary aids: qualified sign-language interpreters with courtroom vocabulary, qualified notetakers, large-print or electronic materials, audio descriptions, tactile interpreters, and screen‑reading tools. He recommended keeping frequently used accommodations on hand or available via video remote interpreting to avoid unnecessary delays or ‘‘turnaways’’ that could block access to court services.
Physical courthouse barriers were another focus. Adelson showed common problems—restrooms with obstructing fixtures, heavy or twist-handle doors, inaccessible jury boxes without space for wheelchairs, and emergency egress (metal staircases) that are not accessible—and urged courts to document evaluations and to consider practical fixes such as lighter doors, remote automatic openers, or altering jury-box barriers to create maneuvering space.
He cautioned staff that ADA litigation remains common and that a formal self-evaluation and a clear record of ‘‘interactive conversations’’ with prospective jurors reduce legal risk. On procedural questions during the session, Adelson advised that a doctor’s note alone should not be treated as dispositive when a juror requests excusal for disability reasons; rather, courts should interview the juror, document the conversation, and put the judge’s rationale on the record if excusal occurs. He also recommended prerecorded audio descriptions or qualified readers to allow blind jurors to access exhibits and said demanding impracticable accommodations—such as printing a 5,000‑page transcript in Braille—may be unreasonable but must be handled on a case‑by‑case basis with alternative proposals.
The training closed with resource information: attendees may request the slides by emailing the court ADA inbox (88@nmcourts.gov), and Adelson offered follow‑up contact information. Peggy Cadwell, statewide Title II ADA coordinator for the New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts, moderated the session and thanked the ASL interpreter and attendees.
The guidance emphasized three practical steps for court staff: conduct individualized interactive conversations about communication preferences; maintain a written self‑evaluation and record of accommodations offered; and keep commonly used auxiliary aids available or reachable quickly to avoid denying or delaying access to court programs.
