Basic Legal Issues in Handling Cases of Defendants who are Deaf
McCay Vernon, Ph.D.
Jean Andrews, Ph.D.
Submitted to the Champion, October 2010
Contact Author: McCay Vernon
McCay Vernon, Ph. D. is a forensic psychologist and professor emeritus of McDaniel College, Westminster, MD 21157
Jean Andrews is a reading specialist and professor of Deaf Studies/Deaf Education at Lamar University, Beaumont, TX 77710
Ten guidelines are presented that are often crucial in criminal cases involving defendants who are deaf. Because such defendants are a small minority, most attorneys and judges rarely come across them in the course of their legal work and are unfamiliar with the unique legal issues they pose. As a result, many cases are lost unnecessarily which can result in jail or prison time for innocent deaf defendants. The guidelines provided in this paper are intended to help prevent this tragedy
Clients who are deaf represent a small minority of defendants in criminal cases. Consequently, judges, public defenders, and other attorneys rarely represent them and/or make legal decisions regarding them. Thus they often lack familiarity with the unique legal problems these deaf individuals pose when involved with the criminal justice system. Nor are they always familiar with the specific laws that were written to assure deaf defendants equal treatment in court and other legal settings. (Dubow, et al, 2000)
For these defendants, this often means that cases involving them that could have been won are lost. Thus they frequently go to jail and/or prison where they suffer other serious injustices. These include not obtaining the services and care hearing inmates are provided and to which deaf inmates are entitled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (Miller, 2001; Vernon, in press, 2010).
In addition, because deafness is invisible, it is usually not considered an important disability. This attitude is characterized by statements such as “The only problem deaf folks have is that they can’t hear music.” In truth, deafness has such severe impacts on language, communication, learning, and socialization that Helen Keller, who was both deaf and blind, considered deafness the more serious of her two disabilities (Keller, 1902).
This paper begins by presenting the guidelines for attorneys and judges working with deaf clients. This is followed by a discussion of the current situation regarding disability legislation. Next, a compelling true story is presented involving a deaf client who did not receive the rights to which he was entitled and who paid a tragic price. In describing the case, the legal, cognitive, educational and linguistic issues deafness involves are described and their forensic implications explained. Following this, crucial issues involving sign language interpreting and its implications for deaf individuals caught up in the justice system are addressed.
In closing, the unique problems the Miranda Waiver poses for deaf defendants and their attorneys are described and examples of specific other legal documents that cause legal difficulties for deaf defendants are analyzed and the legal issues they pose are documented.
Three informative tables are included, one related to cases where evidence was suppressed because the Miranda was not administered correctly. Table two contains analysis of five documents used to waive U.S. Constitutional Rights. Table 3 presents six legal documents protected by Due Process. We use the tools of reading and linguistics to show that these documents are written at very high reading levels and contain vocabulary and linguistic construction that most deaf defendants will be unable to read and comprehend.
For attorneys working with deaf defendants, these ten points are often basic to their case:
1. Get valid data on the educational and linguistic level of the client, especially the reading level. For young defendants, these data are usually available from the school system, but if not, a teacher, reading specialist, or educational psychologist can do the testing needed. These data alone can often demonstrate the linguistic incompetence of the defendant to be tried (Andrews, Vernon & Lavigne, 2007).
As indicated in the Table 1, there have been a number of cases when this has resulted in the deaf defendant in serious felony cases being released (see Table 1).
2. Get the IQ of the client. A low score can support the argument for linguistic incompetence to stand trial (Vernon & Raifman, 1996). In addition, it can point out the vulnerability of your client to being led astray, taken advantage of, and not being fully aware of the significance of the crime with which he is charged. The IQ and educational level can be used together in this type of defense.
3. Obtain full data on exactly how the Miranda Waiver was administered. As indicated earlier, often with deaf defendants the fifth amendment is administered inadequately (Vernon & Raifman, 1996). For example, no interpreter is present, a family member is used to interpret, or the deaf person is required to read the waiver when his reading level is far below that required to understand it. Based on the authors’ combined sixty-two years of forensic experience with deaf defendants, our estimate is that they are given the waiver correctly and fairly only about 30 percent of the time.The waiver should be administered to a deaf person using a certified interpreter. The entire process should be videotaped and recorded on audiotape. Videotape with a deaf person is the legal equivalent of audiotape with a hearing person. It is the only way to get an exact record when sign language is involved.
4. At trial, request that the interpreting be done consecutively, not simultaneously. This makes the interpreting far easier to do correctly.
5. During trials, interrogations, and other related legal matters involving a deaf person, a certified deaf interpreter should be present. With cases involving deaf defendants with very poor English language skills, a Certified Deaf Interpreter (CID) is needed.
6. During the trial, an interpreter should be made available to the defense lawyer in order that the deaf defendant and his/her lawyer can interact with one another.
7. Insist that the trial be videotaped as well as audiotaped. This is the only way to get a complete record of the trial. Otherwise, there is no accurate record of what was said in sign language during the trial. In addition, the videotape makes it possible to assess the competence of the interpreter and exactly what the interpreter signed.
8. Any interrogation of a deaf defendant should be videotaped and audiotaped. Videotaping is to a deaf person what audiotaping is to a hearing person.
9. For deaf defendants who prefer closed captioning rather than a sign language interpreter, this should be requested by the attorney. Usually deaf persons making this request have excellent reading skills. Many were adventitiously deafened.
10. If videotapes were made at the time of arrest and/or interrogations, copies of these should be obtained and examined by the attorney with the help of an interpreter. In addition, all legal documents that the deaf defendant was told to initialize should be collected and examined for reading level readability (see Table 2).
Failure by the police or attorneys to follow any of these guidelines can create the basis for an appeal.
The Current Situation
Fortunately, over the past sixty years there have been a series of federal laws passed which were written specifically to assure that disabled people were provided the rights intended by the Constitution and the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights (Dubow et all, 2000). In addition, the fields of reading and forensic linguistics have developed tools to analyze and describe specifically the legal language used in the courtroom that obstruct comprehension for the deaf defendant (Andrews, 2008; Gibbons, 2003, p. 223).
Despite these aids and despite the legislative acts that were passed, they have not always been actively enforced (Andrews, Vernon & LaVigne, 2007; Frumkin, 1998; Musumeci, 2006; Terhune, 2004-2005; Thomas & Gastin, 2006; Vernon, 2009; and Vernon 2010). In fact, they have often been blatantly ignored (Thomas & Gasten, 2006; and Vernon, 2009 and 2010)
A Unique Case Illustrating the Basic Forensic Issues
Involved in Criminal Cases of Deaf Defendants
Mr. X, a 40-year-old gay man is profoundly prelingually deaf, meaning he lost his hearing prior to three years of age. The ages birth through three years are considered to be critical early years for language acquisition (Blake, 2008). The hearing loss Mr. X suffers is so severe that he is unable to hear and understand speech regardless of how loud it is.
He was charged with first degree murder and mutilation with an axe of a man who he thought was having an affair with his gay lover who was also deaf. Both the accused murderer, Mr. X. and the victim came from stable, devoted families. Mr. X’s parents were educated professionals, employed, and living a middle-class life.
At the time of the alleged offense, Mr. X was taking a computer course and working with vocational rehabilitation to obtain a job. He had a history of employment in unskilled type occupations, but had no job at the time of the offense with which he was charged. Nor had he ever graduated from high school.
The overall picture of Mr. X’s family is that they are devoted to him and very close to each other. In discussing their son, his parents described him as others have, noting that he was not physically aggressive with people, could not stand the sight of blood, and would walk away from fights. This description of Mr. X was confirmed independently by his acquaintances and past co-workers. It does not yield the picture of a violent, hostile individual likely to commit a homicide.
Characteristics of Deaf Defendants that Pose Legal Hurdles in Hearings and Trials
More than the bizarre nature of the crime, its interest rests in the unique legal issues involved in the case. These issues and how they played out in court are fascinating, yet troubling in regard to how the American justice system handles defendants who are deaf. To understand the problem, it is necessary to know the linguistic implications of prelingual deafness.
Because children with this condition do not hear spoken English, they grow up with severe deficits in their vocabularies and their grasp of English syntax (Andrews, Leigh, and Weiner, 2004). To understand the magnitude of these deficits, one has to but look at the research. For example, around 18 months there is a vocabulary explosion of words understood by a hearing toddler (Blake, 2008) and by age six, the average hearing child has a vocabulary of 8,000 to 14,000 words and a mastery of the basic rules of English syntax necessary to put these words into sentences (Carey, 1977). By contrast, at age five, the average prelingually deaf child’s vocabulary consists of 161 words and so little familiarity with syntax that even two- or three-word sentences are difficult or impossible to form (Center for Assessment and Demographic Studies, 1996; Griswold & Cummings, 1974; and Lederberg, 2003). The deaf child who does not get a preschool education does not even achieve this level. Consequently, some start school at age five or six totally without any language whatsoever (Vernon & Andrews, 1990). They do not know the names of the foods they eat or the clothes they wear.
This huge linguistic disadvantage continues as the deaf child gets older. By age 17, the average hearing student is reading at a 10th grade level, whereas the average deaf child’s reading level is between third and fourth grade (Allen & Schoem, 1997). Relative to this comparison, it is important to note that many hearing children have far greater verbal facility orally than their reading vocabulary and syntax reflects. This is not true, however, of the prelingually deaf child whose reading level is an exact measure of his or her understanding of English vocabulary and syntax.
Stated somewhat differently, the average vocabulary of an 18-year-old deaf person is comparable to that of an 8-year-old hearing child (Rose, McAnally & Quigley, 2004). Furthermore, many mildly retarded hearing persons (IQ 55-70) such as some with Downs Syndrome can reach a fifth- to sixth-grade reading level (Ardizzxone & Scholl, 1985). Numerous additional researchers have provided documentation on the severe linguistic impact of prelingual deafness (Andrews, Leigh & Weinter, 2004; LaVigne & Vernon, 2003; Vernon & Raifman, 1997; and Vernon & Raifman, 1995).
One of the most common misconceptions about prelingually deafened people is that they must read a lot because they cannot hear the radio or television, nor can they listen to the conversation of others. One reason this is untrue is that while learning to read is relatively easy for hearing persons, this is not the case for those who are prelingually deafened. Hearing people can associate the printed work with its oral equivalent, which they already know. The hearing first grader who confronts the printed words “I see the dog,” has already heard those words spoken. Reading these printed symbols is much different for the deaf child who has never heard the words spoken aloud. The deaf child must not only learn the printed form of the word, they must also learn the meaning or concept the word represents. Only then can they know what the printed form means.
If the word has to do with a concrete object or action, the teacher can show the child a picture that demonstrates what the word represents. However, for words such as “love,” “patriotism,” legal rights,” idealism,” arraignment,” “justice,” etc., there are no pictures. Teaching these concepts to a person who has never heard them used in everyday speech is a difficult and challenging task because the deaf person lacks background and experiential knowledge about the meaning of these concepts as well as they lack the label or the word for the concept. .
What is the significance of all this in terms of Mr. X’s case as he faced first degree murder charges? Most people assume it is easy to address the case of the deaf defendant in court, that one can simply provide a sign language interpreter and the deaf individuals will then have equal access to all that is said in court, as is guaranteed to all citizens by due process of law. For a number of reasons, nothing could be farther from the truth.
For the overwhelming majority of prelingually deaf adults, American Sign Language (ASL) is their first and primary language. Interpreters for deaf people interpret from English into sign language and from the deaf person’s sign language into English. Sign language is a highly expressive and fascinating language, but it has some severe limitations. One such limitation is the vocabulary: The largest commercially available dictionary of ASL has only 5,600 signs (LaVigne & Vernon, 2003). By contrast, the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary has over half a million words (Brown, 2002).
As a result of the difference in the size of the vocabularies of sign language and English, a sign language interpreter must fingerspell letter-by-letter all words in English for which there is no sign, or else mime them, draw a picture of what they stand for, give examples, use gestures or other ways to try to convey all but the 5,600 of the available words in English that can come up in court procedures.
This process is known as “expansion” of the available words into English. For persons such as Mr. X who reads at grade level 3.3, fingerspelling has little value in court. This is because the reading level of discourse in court proceedings ranges from grade 5.7 in a typical jury trial to 9.2 in an average plea and sentencing hearing with other court proceedings falling in between (Andrews, Vernon & Lavigne, 2007). To understand a suppression hearing such as the one we discuss in this paper, the average reading level required is grade level 8.4 (Andrews, Vernon & LaVigne, 2007). This means that a significant percent of the words used in Mr. X’s hearing and in most other court procedures have no signs. It would have been useless for the interpreter to fingerspell most of them because Mr. X would not have understood them even then, due to his third grade reading level. Therefore the interpreter would have had to either explain them using the expansion methods described above, or else the prelingually deaf defendant will have little idea of what is going on in his/her trial, plea bargain, motion for suppression hearing, etc. As a consequence, deaf defendants are often being denied their rights of due process (Vernon & Miller, 2001).
Factor of Speed
A major factor involved in sign language interpreting is the speed at which a person normally speaks and the speed of sign language communication. Studies using deaf college students, deaf professionals, deaf people who had deaf parents, an other above-average deaf individuals have found that even with these highly select groups with whom interpreting is relatively easy, it takes two to four times longer to interpret something into sign language than it does to say it in English (Brauer, B., 1995; Steinberg, Lipto, Eckhart, Golodstein &Sullivan, 1998). For persons like Mr. X, the process is far harder than this due to the need for extensive expansion, mime, gesture, etc. in order to convey the meaning of the words for which there are no signs in ASL. For Mr. X and other deaf individuals severely limited in their understanding of English and who do not know the meaning of many legal terms, it is often necessary to spend months teaching them the basic concepts they need in order to be linguistically competent to stand trial. Many can never become linguistically competent (Holmes, Steven, Appellant v. State of Florida).
Because of the complexities involved in sign language interpreting, it is a well established fact that even bright deaf students in college do not get as much information from lectures interpreted into sign language as matched hearing college students get from the same lectures given orally in English (Jacobs, 1977; and Marschark et al, 2005). If this is true of bright college students who are deaf, it is true many times over for a person such as Mr. X who reads at third grade level. Incidentally, the majority of persons who are deaf and caught up in the criminal justice system read at third grade level or below (Miller, 2001). Juveniles who are deaf are vulnerable, too. For instance, in a study of 20 deaf juveniles who were charged with felonies, the majority had first to third grade reading levels, pointing to the fact tht few could read well enough to participate in their legal defense (Jernigan, 2010).
The data provided above on interpreting refers to what is called simultaneous interpreting. This is defined as the interpreter keeping up with the speaker, i.e., the same time the speaker uses a word or concept, the interpreter signs or interprets the word. It is also apparent from these data that a verbatim simultaneous interpreting is impossible due to the difference in how long it takes to sign something as contrasted to expressing the same material orally.
Consequently, when interpreting simultaneously in court, the interpreter has to eliminate some of what is said orally. When this kind of distortion of the discourse occurs in a court procedure, it inevitably results in a blatant denial of the deaf defendant’s due process right of equal access. Therefore, simultaneous interpreting should not be used in any but the simplest of cases, such as those involving misdemeanors. In cases involving deaf defendants, the court also has the legal obligation to make a competent interpreter available to the defendant’s lawyer prior to and during the court hearing in order that procedures and concepts can be explained and interpreted before, during and after trial and sentencing.
Due to the severe limitations of simultaneous interpreting, consecutive interpreting should be required in the overwhelming percent of trials in which the defendant is deaf. In this procedure, attorneys, judges and witnesses speak a sentence or several sentences and stop. Then the interpreter signs what was said, taking as long as necessary to assure the defendant understands the concepts just spoken. If they are not understood, the interpreter or defendant informs the court. It is a simple procedure to carry out, but can be a slow process. However it goes a long way toward insuring the deaf defendant’s due process rights..
In a small minority of cases, the deaf defendant has such a meager knowledge of English and ASL that even consecutive interpreting is inadequate to convey due process rights. Such cases represent linguistic incompetence to stand trial, just as mental retardation and legal insanity represent psychological incompetence (Holmes v Florida, 1985; and Vernon & Miller, 2001).
Owing to these kinds of considerations and the legal system’s lack of exposure to and understanding of deafness, the due process rights of deaf defendants are frequently not recognized, albeit unintentionally.
Relevance of the Interpreting Issue to the Case of Mr. X and Most Cases Involving Deaf Defendants
Prior to the suppression hearing and in testimony given during the hearing, an effort was made to inform the judge of the problems involved in sign language interpreting and the importance of using consecutive interpreting throughout the trial. Information regarding this was provided by the Public Defender, Ms Abner, and by a psychological forensic expert on deafness who addressed the issue in his report to the court and in his oral testimony at trial.
The judge ignored these data and testimony and declined to permit consecutive interpreting. Furthermore, no Certified Deaf Interpreter(CDI) was provided as was also suggested. Based on what has been proven about sign language interpreting, by research performed by reputable and well-known scientists, and by what has been determined on the linguistic and educational limitation of the deaf defendant, this constitutes a clear violation of the defendant’s due process rights in this case (Andrews, Vernon, & LaVigne, 2007; LaVigne & Vernon, 2003). However, the defense declined to appeal the verdict and the deaf defendant was sentenced to life in prison without parole.
Other Related Considerations
It was also suggested to the judge by the expert that if she wished to make certain the defendant was understanding what was transpiring in court, she should periodically ask open-ended questions of the defendant regarding the content of what was being interpreted. This was especially critical in view of the court’s decision to deny the defendant’s right to a Certified Deaf Interpreter. The judge declined to ask the defendant any questions.
CDIs are deaf individuals, often children of deaf parents, who have grown up with ASL and have been certified by the Registry of Interpreters of the Deaf as a result of courses they have taken and tests they have passed. These deaf interpreters are required to have special linguistic skills in ASL idioms and usages of them by deaf people who have very limited English and/or ASL competency. The CDIs’ skills allow them to transmit information from the hearing interpreter into language the deaf defendant can comprehend.
CDIs provide five critical benefits of great importance to a defendant such as Mr. X. First, they serve as a double checking system regarding the deaf defendant’s understanding of what is said in court. Second, they provide a grace period of time for processing information. Third, they act as a monitor for effect and neutrality. Fourth, they protect the right of the defendant to understand what is said in court. Fifth, they increase the comfort level of the deaf defendant. These should have been major considerations when Mr. X., a deaf man, faced the possibility of a death sentence. They were ignored!
Same Time Captioning
In the suppression hearing, with the best of intentions, the court provided Mr. X with a real time captioned version of what was said during the hearing. However, in view of the fact that the average suppression hearing requires an eighth grade third month reading level to understand it, and Mr. X read at a third grade third month level, the captioned version, if anything, would just have confused him more. In fact, research has shown that presenting a signed interpretation and a print version simultaneously leads to poorer comprehension than presenting just one version, either the print or the sign language (Marschark, et al, 2005; and Marschark et al, 2006).
Finally, the judge apparently misunderstood the expert’s testimony when tbe judge stated that Mr. X, due to his intelligence, could understand what was going on in court. The expert never said this, and, in fact, provided extensive data to the contrary. Despite this evidence, the judge pronounced Mr. X linguistically competent to stand trial and the motion for suppression was denied.
An Overview of the Growth of Human Rights in the United States
Before getting any deeper into the significance of these data for deaf suspects and defendants, it is helpful to consider briefly the history of enforcement of the Bill of Rights and the Miranda v Arizona Supreme Court decision.
Around the turn of the century, the Bill of Rights, including the Fifth Amendment, were half-heartedly enforced (Shaprow, 1999). This led to the conviction of many deaf and hearing suspects and defendants because they had no concept of their rights. In addition, police routinely violated these rights with impunity (Sheprow, 1999). In fact, suspects, including those who were deaf, were often forced to give confessions under threat of beatings or prolonged interrogations, including torture.
Finally, in the second half of this century in the classic case of Miranda v Arizona and the earlier Escobedo v Illinois case, the courts ruled that suspects had to be told of their right to an attorney. Furthermore, statements made under police questioning could not be used unless certain safeguards were followed, which precluded the use of torture and other abuses to force confessions (Sheprow, 1999).
These legal decisions resulted in protection for defendants that had either not existed before or had not been strictly enforced.
On June 2nd, 2010, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority crippled the once powerful Miranda Waiver, especially as it regards those who are deaf. This is because under the new law, once the rights have been read to the suspect or defendant, he/she must explicitly state their right to remain silent in order to force the police to stop the questioning. For example, in the case that precipitated this ruling, the defendant waived his right to remain silent when, after two hours and 45 minutes of questioning during which he said very little, the detective asked, “Did you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy.” The defendant answered, “Yes,” and looked away. As a result, he was convicted of murder (Savage, 2010).
The new law hurts most deaf defendants far more than hearing defendants because it requires them to state their desire to remain silent and their request for a lawyer. However, it also requires the arresting officer or the interrogator to inform the suspect or defendant of these two requirements. This will, in most cases with deaf people, require a competent sign language interpreter to be present to interpret the new ruling regarding the Miranda to the deaf suspect or defendant.
If done properly, this will be more expensive and time consuming. As a consequence, it is less likely to be done correctly, i.e., in terms the deaf person can understand.
Miranda Waiver and Deaf Defendants
In most cases involving defendants who are deaf, it is essential for the defense attorney to establish whether or not the Miranda Waiver was administered in a way that assures that the suspect was folly aware of his rights prior to interrogation (Sheprow, 1999). This means the defendant must be told of his/her rights under this new law.
Historically, due to linguistic, reading, and educational problems that are pervasive in the deaf population, the Miranda Waiver when given to deaf persons has rarely been presented in a manner that meets these standards (Andrews, Vernon & LaVigne, 2007). This is crucial because it means that in these cases where the Miranda is not administered properly, all the evidence gathered as a result of interrogation cannot be used against the defendant. In such cases, the defendant often goes free, not because he/she is innocent, but because the police interrogators fail to understand the legal linguistic issues posed by defendants who are deaf.
Legal Documents Which affect Constitutional Rights and Due Process
Deaf defendants are often required to sign their name on legal documents that they do not understand. These are legal documents that are written above their reading grade level and are filled with highly specialized vocabulary that is very complex linguistically. In Table 2 and Table 3, we describe each legal document, give the amendment that provides for legal rights, the reading level required to comprehend it, and a list of difficult vocabulary that the document contains that a fifth grader or below would have difficulty understanding. Table 2 deals with five legal documents protected under the fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments and Table 3 pertains to an additional six legal documents protected by Due Process. It is important to note that a hearing illiterate suspect is at a marked advantage compared to a deaf suspect. A hearing suspect can talk through the meaning of these difficult words using spoken English, while very few deaf suspects have the spoken English skills to do this. Furthermore, the deaf suspect may not have a sign language interpreter present. In addition, as described above, a sign language interpreter would not be able to effectively translate much of he abstract terminology contained in these legal documents. Indeed, these eleven legal documents containing words with multiple meanings, abstract vocabulary, and complex sentence structures would be impossible for Mr. X to comprehend with his third grade reading level as would be true of the majority of deaf adults caught up in the criminal justice system.
The case study of Mr. X presented here along with the cognitive, educational, linguistic and interpreting considerations outlined in this article highlight the challenges defendants who are deaf face in the legal system.
Allen , T.E. & Shoem, S.R. (1997). Educating Deaf and Hard-of-hearing Children: What Works Best. Gallaudet Research Institute, Washington, DC
Andrews, J.F.; Leigh, I.W. & Weiner, M.T. (2004) Deaf People: Evolving Perspectives from Psychology, Education and Sociology. Pearson Education, Inc. Boston, MA
Andrews, J.F.; Vernon, M. & LaVigne, M. (2007) The Bill of Rights, due process and the deaf suspect. Journal of Interpreting, 2007, pp. 9-38
Ardizzone, J. & Scholl, G.T. (1985) Mental retardation. In G. T. Scholl (Ed.) The School Psychologist and the Exceptional Child. Council on Exceptional Children, Reston, VA pp. 81-98
Brauer, B.A. (1995) Adequacy of a translation of the MMPI into American Sign Language for use with deaf individuals: Linguistic equivalency issues. Rehabilitation Psychology, 38, pp. 247-248
Carey, S. (1977) The child as a word learner. In M.Hale, L. Bresnau, G. Muller, (Eds). Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality . Cambridge, MA, MIT Press
Center for Assessment and Demographic Studies (1996) Score Summary for Stanford Achievement Tests, Hearing Impaired Version, 9th Edition. Washington, Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press
Frumkin, I.B. (1998) Competency to waive Miranda Rights, NLADA Indigent Defense, pp. 8-9
Griswold, E.E. & Cummings, I. (1974) The expressive vocabulary of deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 119, 16-28
Holmes, Steven, Appelant v the State of Florida, Appellee #83-1055, District Court of Appeals of Florida, Third District (August 12, 1986)
Jacobs, I.R. (1977) The efficiency of interpreting input for processing lecture information for deaf students. Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf, II, 10-14
Keller, H. (1902) The Story of My Life. New York: Doubleday & Co.
LaVigne, M. & Vernon, M. (2003) An interpreter isn’t enough: Deafness, language and due process. Wisconsin Law Review v. 2003, #5, pp. 844-936
Marschark, M.; Leigh, I.; Sapere, P.; Burnham, D.; Convertino, C.; Knoors, H.; Vervloed, P.J. & Noble, W. (2006). Benefits to sign language in interpreting and text alternatives for deaf students’ classroom learning. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, ll, #4, pp. 422-437
Marschark, M.; Pelz, J.B.; Convertino, C.; Sapere, P. Arndt, M.E.; & Seewagon, R. (2005) Classroom interpreting and visual information processing in mainstream education for deaf students. American Education Research Journal 42, pp. 727-762
Miller, K.R. (2001) Forensic issues of deaf offenders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Lamar University, TX
Musumeci, M.B. (2006) Confronting sentences that silence: The Americans with Disabilities Act: Effective communication mandate for prisoners and probationers who are deaf. Clearinghouse Review Journal of Poverty, Law and Policy. March-April, 2006, pp. 627-638
Rose, S.; McAnally, P. & Quigley, S. (2004) Language Learning Practices with Deaf Children Austin, TX: ProEd
Sheprow, Glenn, J (1999) Interpreting the Miranda Warnings. American Sign Language Resources, 10, December 1999
Steinberg, A.G.; Lipton, D.S.; Eckhardt, E.A.; Goldstein, M. & Sullivan, V.J. (1998) The diagnostic interview schedule for deaf patients on interactive video: A preliminary investigation. American Journal of Psychiatry, 155, #11, pp. 1603-1604
Terhune, K.L. (2004-2005) Deaf criminal defendants: Is the system just? National Association of the Deaf Magazine, 4, #5, pp. 20-21
Thomas, V.L. & Gastin, L.A. (2009) The Americans with Disabilities Act: Shattered aspirations and new hope. Journal of the American Medical Association, 301, #1
Vernon, M. (2001) ADA routinely violated by prisons in the case of deaf prisoners. Prison Legal News, 20, #7, pp. 14-15
Vernon, M. (In press 2010) The horror of being deaf and in prison. American Annals of the Deaf
Vernon, M. & Andrews, J.F. (1990) The Psychology of Deafness: Understanding Deaf and Hard-of-hearing People. White Plains, NY: Longman Press pp. 3-21
Vernon, M. & Miller, K.R. (2001) Linguistic incompetence to stand trial: A unique condition in some deaf defendants. Journal of Interpreting, Millenial Edition, pp. 99-120
Vernon, M. & Raifman, L.J. (1996) The Miranda Warnings and the deaf suspect. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 14(1) 121-135
Vernon, M. & Raifman, L.J. (1995) Forensic prelingually-trial police interviews and competence to stand trial assessments of deaf defendants. Videotape of Grand Rounds Presentation, Springfield Hospital Center, Sykesville, MD April 7, 1995
Vernon, M. & Raifman, L.J. (1997) Recognizing and handling problems of deaf defendants charged with serious offenses. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 20, #3, pp. 373-387.