Daphne Wright found guilty of murder; death penalty decision yet to come

I recently wrote about Daphne Wright, the Deaf black lesbian charged with a brutal murder in South Dakota. This week the jury found her guilty after eight hours of deliberation. Story here.

On the penalty phase of the trial, coming this next week:

"The door is wide open for the defense putting on any kind of evidence that the defense believes might sway a juror to opt for life in prison rather than the death penalty," [South Dakota Attourney General Larry Long] said.

One possibility for the defense is to show how her deafness may have been an issue in the case.

At a pretrial hearing, a defense witness who is an expert on the deaf testified that it's borderline whether Wright could understand what's going on in the courtroom.

McCay Vernon of Florida said Wright reads at the third-grade level but either was deaf at birth or at 10 months of age, when she came down with rubella.

The rubella also may have caused some brain damage, though Wright has above-average intelligence, Vernon said.

She understands sign language well but may miss some things because it takes two to four times longer to say something through signing as normal speech, he said.

And Wright doesn't easily grasp the definition of some legal terms, such as Miranda rights, Vernon said.

"When you use the term 'rights,' they mean right like to the right hand or right like correct," he said at the time.

Commentary by Chuck Baldwin, the Argus Leader South Dakota journalist who live-blogged the event, includes further discussion about the possibility of fair trials for people not remotely demographically represented by the jury, specifically D/deaf individuals:

Deaf people feel out of place and discriminated against in the hearing world. American Sign Language, after all, is their first language. English is, at best, a second language. And they are Americans.

But how many of us try to learn their language? Who even thinks that communication might be our responsibility, too?

Add to that - Wright is black and a lesbian in mostly white, Bible-thumping South Dakota - and there was a real concern. Could she get a fair trial here?

Could she get a fair trial with no blacks, no lesbians, no deaf people on the jury?

Could she get a fair trial when Judge Brad Zell rejected a defense motion for consecutive translation, which is more accurate than the simultaneous translation used?

Could she get a fair trial when Zell rejected a defense motion to allow a certified deaf interpreter in the courtroom with her?

This isn't about guilt or innocence. It's about a fair trial. And many deaf people around the country have been absolutely certain South Dakota was trampling on Daphne's rights - guilty or not.

Headlines like this one illustrate why that is an important question.

Deaf blogger Ricky Taylor at RidorLIVE.com offers a racist, misogynist link (you can go to his site for it, I'm not linking here) further showing the kind of prejudices that exist out there and talks about the Wright case and verdict himself:

I do not care if it was Daphne or Jane Doe as long as she is Deaf. Why? Because it sets the precedence for others to follow in the future trials. What we see in Sioux Falls may set a tone for others to follow by saying, “Well, they did not use deaf peers on the jury, why should we?” in the future trials.

It is all about the right to be JUDGED by HER/HIS peers. It has nothing to do with accomodations (It is good that they are doing a good job on it!).

More on fair trial concerns here.